Meta-system

[awm]

Doubles are probably the most important area for these sorts of meta-rules. For Elianna and me, otherwise undiscussed doubles are takeout at the two-level or below and penalty at the three-level and above. For Howard and me, otherwise undiscussed doubles are always takeout.

 

Note that we have explicitly discussed most of the common doubles, so these rules don't apply in simple auctions (for example 4♥-Dbl is takeout for Elianna and me, and 1♠-Dbl-Redbl-2♣-Dbl is penalty for Howard and me).

[aguahombre]

Here is another idea to take a shot at: A meta-rule is never system-dependent. By definition, it is a default guide for things not covered by system. We might create a toy so that we can follow a meta-rule, by not vice versa.

[fromageGB]

Here is another idea to take a shot at: A meta-rule is never system-dependent. By definition, it is a default guide for things not covered by system. We might create a toy so that we can follow a meta-rule, by not vice versa.

I'll shoot this down. Of course you have metarules that depend on system. You need one when playing kickback for example ; is a bid of 4y natural or ace asking? Maybe that's not what you meant.

[Cthulhu D]

I'll shoot this down. Of course you have metarules that depend on system. You need one when playing kickback for example ; is a bid of 4y natural or ace asking? Maybe that's not what you meant.

 

That's not a meta rule, that's an actual rule.

 

Meta rules are rules about your agreements, not actual agreements. Meta rules are what you do when you don't have a position.

[Zelandakh]

I think many meta rules are going to be system dependant. Even the original one from PK that started this thread - if you do not have any bidding sequences forcing to 3NT (but not 5m) then it is irrelevant. To me meta rules are general rules that apply to the system you and partner are playing but do not relate to specific sequences. Whether this is the correct definition or not is irrelevant but I would not expect system meta rules to be the same for a natural system as a relay-based method. That in itself should show that the abstract definition is flawed.

[gnasher]

To me meta rules are general rules that apply to the system you and partner are playing but do not relate to specific sequences. Whether this is the correct definition or not is irrelevant

Why is it irrelevant that you're using a word (or in this case a prefix) incorrectly? The purpose of language is to communicate. Misusing elements of the language makes this communication less effective.

[Zelandakh]

Andy, it is irrelevant because I read the OP - have you? It is clear that the meta rules udner discussion are dependant on system. So saying that the OP is wrong to use the term meta rules this way is just avoiding the question and effectively hijacking the thread. Do you have any evidence that this is misuse? Where system rules stop and meta rules start is a matter for the partnership. If you have discussed every sequence then meta rules are unnecessary even if the rules were originally based on meta rules. Similarly if you agree a basic system and add some meta rules to those they might be so general that 95% of serious partnerships would consider them system tules.

 

Essentially the idea is that we have a bunch of system rules and then we add meta rules to those to cover potentially unclear situations. I realise you are a serious player so your rules are more extensive than most...but try to remember back to when you were at a lower level. This is where the OP is coming from and is also the level that is of help to well over half of bridge players. So let's forget about the definition and try to help.

[Trick13]

Proposed meta rule:

 

Except where otherwise agreed (e.g. full splinter or RKCB response), when they double our artificial bid:

 

1. Pass is not to play, it is a strong action and demands a RDL unless partner has some semi-freak.

2. RDL is the weakest action, it means bid 1-step up and pass my next bid (if context allows).

3. Other bids are 'systems on' and suggest competing with a suitable hand (if context allows).

 

May never be optimal, but shouldn't be a disaster either, and would save a lot of memory work if you have a lot of artificial bids.

[gnasher]

Andy, it is irrelevant because I read the OP - have you? It is clear that the meta rules udner discussion are dependant on system. So saying that the OP is wrong to use the term meta rules this way is just avoiding the question and effectively hijacking the thread.

I was responding to your hijacking of the thread, where instead of answering the intended question you told us how *you* use the term "metarule".

 

Do you have any evidence that this is misuse?

Yes I do, but as you say that isn't what this thread is about.

 

So let's forget about the definition and try to help.

If you don't want to discuss the definition, why did you spend two paragraphs doing precisely that?

[lamford]

Andy, it is irrelevant because I read the OP - have you? It is clear that the meta rules udner discussion are dependant on system. So saying that the OP is wrong to use the term meta rules this way is just avoiding the question and effectively hijacking the thread.

I will risk hijacking the thread by asking whether the use of the word 'dependant' rather than 'dependent' is wrong, even though I think 'dependant' can only be used as a noun. And I believe "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is the same proverb in the US. (I nearly wrongly used metaphor, but that would have opened up a whole new can of worms.)

Edited September 14, 2014 by lamford

[lamford]

You probably want a rule for defending against various two-suited 2-level opening bids, especially if the opening is 2nt and especially if the suits are not known.

I use LOWER-LOWER; HIGHER-HIGHER when both opponent's suits are known. So, after a 2NT opener, minors, 3C is takeout with better hearts and 3D is takeout with better spades. Similarly after 1H-(2NT), 3C is a forcing heart raise, 3D is forcing with spades, and 3S is non-forcing. When one suit is unknown, the cue is the raise, and other bids are natural and forcing. If both are unknown, double is 16+ and bids are natural. May not be optimal, but easy to remember. Also I play all ABBA sequences as forcing. So 1C-1D-2D-3C is forcing as it would be with any major involved. May not be optimal again, but easy to remember. If those are rules rather than metarules, I apologise.

[Vampyr]

Yes I do, but as you say that isn't what this thread is about.

 

I think a lot of people would be interested to know, though.

[barmar]

Andy, it is irrelevant because I read the OP - have you? It is clear that the meta rules udner discussion are dependant on system.

What's system-dependent is whether or not a meta-rule needs to be used in a particular situation, i.e. whether the system covers it explicitly or you have to resort to a meta-rule.

[aguahombre]

What's system-dependent is whether or not a meta-rule needs to be used in a particular situation, i.e. whether the system covers it explicitly or you have to resort to a meta-rule.

Yes= the + I can't give to a Mod. You can even have a systemic agreement for one situation which is consistent with a meta-rule for that and other situations.

 

There are meta-rule dependent systemic methods; there are no system-dependent meta-rules.

[Cascade]

if 2N is in a competitive auction, it is probably artificial

 

One pair I played against went further. Their meta-rule was 2NT is a convention not a contract.

[Jinksy]

Here's a question I would like and don't have a meta-rule for:

 

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

[aguahombre]

Here's a question I would like and don't have a meta-rule for:

 

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

meta-whatever for me: if I have two suits I bid (show) the two suits in some fashion.

 

X-then bid=doubt with a fifth card in the suit, too much to overcall (18+)

X-then jump bid=huge one-suiter.

X-then cue=directionless biggie without stop in Opener's suit...Usually 3 only for advancer's suit by "meta" inference.

[Jinksy]

What if you're too high? Eg in the thread I gave where you hear 4♦ to your right, wank thought that X then pull to 4S should roughly show a black 2-suiter. Do you disagree? If not, where's the cut-off point between that and your normal X-then-bid meaning?

[Jinksy]

From Gnasher in another thread:

 

All doubles of the form (bid) overcall (cue) double should show a hand that wanted to raise

[the hog]

I believe Ron Klinger doesn't.

 

Anyway, this would be subject to the 'agreed exceptions' that I tried really hard to emphasise that there would often be...

 

Of course he does as I well know from experience.

[WellSpyder]

How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

PhilKing's meta-rule seems to be that it is always the latter. Flexible doubles rule OK.

[PhilKing]

PhilKing's meta-rule seems to be that it is always the latter. Flexible doubles rule OK.

 

"Always" might be a bit strong - if you double and remove a major to a major, it tends to show extra strength, unless we are already at the game level.

 

For example:

3♣-x-p-3♥-p-3♠ shows extras.

 

And it's easy to see why this has to be the case if you follow through how a flexi-no-extra treatment would fall down here.

 

but:

4♣-x-p-4♥-p-4♠ just brings diamonds into the frame - you are already committed to game and strain takes precedence over level..

 

And of course:

 

3♣-x-p-3♦-p-3♥ should not show extras - just 45M, and I have posted hands from top-level competition that illustrate the point.

[Jinksy]

What's your approach at the 1 level with very strong hands without self-supporting suits - say AKJxx AKxx Kx Qx when they open 1♣♦♥?

[PhilKing]

What's your approach at the 1 level with very strong hands without self-supporting suits - say AKJxx AKxx Kx Qx when they open 1♣♦♥?

 

Sorry, my meta rule is not complete. 54M is an exception because we can bid spades then hearts. On this I could double and bid spades showing significant extras (or maybe double again since the hand is so strong). Without extras, I would overcall a spade and then bid hearts (not double on the next, which would strongly suggest three hearts).

 

With 45M I would double even with a minimum, and then use ELC.With a very strong 45 I would have to double twice and try to survive.

 

I am in a minority on how to treat 45M, but the company is very strong.

[aguahombre]

With 45M I would double even with a minimum, and then use ELC.With a very strong 45 I would have to double twice and try to survive.

 

I am in a minority on how to treat 45M, but the company is very strong.

Does this very strong company have a way of knowing that a Double then ELC is minimum?

 

(1C) X (2C) 2D

(P) 2H....can't be something like AKX KQJxx QX AXX, so how would you handle it? You don't get to double twice, here.