[mikeh]

I am reforming an old partnership, and we want to try muiderberg 2-bids, which are very rare in NA, so neither of us has any experience playing the methods, and our friends don't either.

Can anyone refer me to a source for how leading experts use the method? I have been on The Bridgeguys, but their resources seemed, to me, to be a bit limited. Thanks to all who answer.

[helene_t]

Jansma-Verhees once made their system book available but I am not sure it can be found at the moment.

Rosalind Hengeveld - Mieneke Vliegenhart have described their agreements at a reasonably detailed level: http://rosalind.home...nl/bridge/romi/

But it is in Dutch. Note btw that they only play 2♠ as Muiderberg.

Rosalind is a very good bidding theorist so if you are able to parse the Dutch description it won't tell you anything silly.

[mikeh]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-25, 11:25, said:

Jansma-Verhees once made their system book available but I am not sure it can be found at the moment.

Rosalind Hengeveld - Mieneke Vliegenhart have described their agreements at a reasonably detailed level: http://rosalind.home...nl/bridge/romi/

But it is in Dutch. Note btw that they only play 2♠ as Muiderberg.

Rosalind is a very good bidding theorist so if you are able to parse the Dutch description it won't tell you anything silly.

I can't read Dutch but I have an associate in the office who is of Dutch origin, and fluent. She doesn't speak bridge at all However, I will give it a shot, thanks

[Mbodell]

There is about a 20 page chapter of "The Mysterious Multi: How to Play It, How to Play Against It" by Mark Horton and Jan Van Cleeff that is nothing by Muiderberg (amazon link). I'd think there would be a little there that might help.

[Free]

Standard is the following:
(2♠ = natural NF - only applicable after 2♥ opening)
2NT = strong relay
3♣ = pass/correct to play in openers minor
...pass = ♣
...3♦ = ♦
3♦ = INV with fit M
...3/4M = min/max
3M = preemptive (support)
3OM = natural and forcing
3NT = to play

There are various schemes after 2M-2NT:
(when 2NT is INV+)
3m = min, natural
3♥/♠ = max, ♣/♦
3NT = max, 5440
or
3m = min, natural
3♥/♠ = max, 5 card ♣/♦
3NT = max, minor unknown
or
(when 2NT is GF)
3m = 4m
3♥/♠ = 5 card ♣/♦
3NT = max, 5440

The 1st scheme focusses on min/max.
The 2nd scheme uses the philosophy that with a 4 card you'll usually play 3NT anyway, while with a 5 card minor you might be more interested in 5/6m.
The 3rd scheme I haven't seen in action because most use 2NT as INV+.

[dicklont]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-25, 11:25, said:

...
But it is in Dutch. Note btw that they only play 2♠ as Muiderberg.
...

We also play only 2♠ as Muiderberg, after a while you will notice that 2♥ Muiderberg is often a transfer for a ♠ contract by the opponents, who are pleased to know a lot about the distribution. We now play 2♥ as weak with both majors.

It is my impression that the multi 2♦ is hardly ever allowed in NA.
In that context and I would never trade the weak 2 for Muiderberg.

[Zelandakh]

I obviously do not fall into your target group but for the record I play Free's scheme 1 with the one change that 2♠ - 3♦ shows hearts with 2♠ - 3♥ being the good (INV+) raise.

To dick, Mike is experieinced enough to play in Midchart events so no worries about GCC-legality here.

[hrothgar]

Muiderberg is now GCC legal...

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2014-August-26, 07:41, said:

Muiderberg is now GCC legal...

But not a multi-coloured 2♦...

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-26, 07:22, said:

I obviously do not fall into your target group but for the record I play Free's scheme 1 with the one change that 2♠ - 3♦ shows hearts with 2♠ - 3♥ being the good (INV+) raise.

That sounds sensible