[Free]

 the hog, on 2013-August-21, 00:51, said:

How many times do you need to be told,5/5s are not Muiderberg. You persist in using the same name for another bid entirely. Call them Polish 2s if you want, but Muiderberg they are not!

I give up and suggest you do the same. Even a wall is more open to reason than the numeric one...

[32519]

 manudude03, on 2013-August-21, 00:09, said:

The rule-of-18 and rule-of-19 apply to normal 1 level openers, it doesn't apply to muiderberg and other preeempts. That much should be obvious.

I am fully aware that the Rule-of-18 and the Rule-of-19 apply to 1 level openers, which is exactly my point.
1. Why open a hand on the 2-level which can be opened on the 1-level?
2. With 1 in place, why would then then open a crappy 5M4m hand on the 2-level at the risk of going for a number.

(Not entirely) off topic, but at our local club last night, RHO opened a natural weak 2 in ♦. I held 12 HCP but my only 4-card suit was the ♦K1093. So I pass. Partner doubled for take-out. What do I do, a) bid 2NT, or b) pass? I passed and RHO went down 3 for -500, which was the top score for us.
Now apply the same scenario to opening a crappy 5M4m hand. Firstly you have 1-card less in the major suit (if you choose to sit the double), and secondly, escaping to level-3 with junk you are in jeopardy of going for an even bigger number.

Bet you a BBO dollar that most who have played Muiderberg in the past have modified the definition (for themselves) to what Hrothgar posted higher up in this thread.

[the hog]

 Free, on 2013-August-21, 02:29, said:

I give up and suggest you do the same. Even a wall is more open to reason than the numeric one...

Yes, I agree. It is a waste of time talking to a lump of iron.

[Zelandakh]

I could not find a post where hrothgar redefined Muiderberg, only ones where he pointed out that 5-4 was correct. As to the subject of not opening every 5-4 hand in range, here is a thread from 2011 that touched on that subject. It contains some support from several posters for adopting a 5-5 (non-Muiderberg) style. And there are certainly benefits to that approach, especially at the highest level. However, I firmly believe that Muiderberg is a significant winner at intermediate/advanced level with half-decent judgement. That statistics from its use by my former partner and me on BBO back that up strongly too. And that was while playing an opening style significantly lighter than is common for 2/1 systems.

[Trinidad]

 the hog, on 2013-August-21, 04:18, said:

Yes, I agree. It is a waste of time talking to a lump of iron.

No, no...

The numbers commonly associated to lumps of iron are 304 and 316, not 32519.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2013-August-21, 03:18, said:

I am fully aware that the Rule-of-18 and the Rule-of-19 apply to 1 level openers, which is exactly my point.
1. Why open a hand on the 2-level which can be opened on the 1-level?
2. With 1 in place, why would then then open a crappy 5M4m hand on the 2-level at the risk of going for a number.

The existence of rules of 18, 19, whatever does not carry the implication that players should, or do, open all hands which qualify.