Meta-system

[Jinksy]

I've just adopted this rule with my partner - would be interested in feedback on whether people think it's sensible (and if not, how they'd modify it):

 

Once a suit is agreed (typically meaning both partners know that both partners know of an 8+card fit, though there might be some edge cases, eg self-supporting suits insisted on), we cannot switch denomination from minor to minor, major to major, or major to minor below the level of slam.

[PhilKing]

I've just adopted this rule with my partner - would be interested in feedback on whether people think it's sensible (and if not, how they'd modify it):

 

Once a suit is agreed (typically meaning both partners know that both partners know of an 8+card fit, though there might be some edge cases, eg self-supporting suits insisted on), we cannot switch denomination from minor to minor, major to major, or major to minor below the level of slam.

 

1♠-2♠3♥-4♥ should be an exception as should 1♥-2♥-2♠-3♠. One might add 1♣-1♠-2♠-3♥-4♥, and a whole host of sequences where we overcall and make a fit jump or a single raise. Apart from that it seems fine.

[fromageGB]

Just "once a suit is agreed", with one exception of a start of 1♠ 2♠ 3♥. If partner opens a heart, we show spades in preference to showing 3 card heart support, so the reverse is not needed, and in many of the other possible scenarios it could be that the new suit is a cue. A second exception would be converting a game or slam to NT, but never to a different suit. While you may ace ask in partner's suit and then convert to your suit, that would not contravene the rule as you have not previously agreed his suit.

[Jinksy]

There's also the question of how high a bound the rule should have - is 6 of a suit partner's bid (and that you might conceivably have undisclosed support for) always to play? Or is it more useful sometimes/always to retain it as a grand slam try?

[helene_t]

This forum has helped popularize a number of nice meta-agreements:

 

Fred's rule: If a bid can be natural, it is

Han's rule: If a bid can only have one possible meaning, it has that meaning

gwnn's rule: doubles on retarded bids are for penalty

Gerben's rule: 4♣ is never Gerber

[PhilKing]

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.

 

It's not perfect and there are some sequences where I would make an underbid, but here I would guess to bid 3♣ then 3♥ over 3♦.

[aguahombre]

It's not perfect and there are some sequences where I would make an underbid, but here I would guess to bid 3♣ then 3♥ over 3♦.

O.K. I just realized my question was worded as argumentative, but you answered it as it was really intended. Thank you. I am hesitant to venture ELC with anything other than Diamonds over Clubs in my old age, but also see the drawbacks in just overcalling ♥ with some 4-5's. Your "Major" ELC does seem workable for that strong minority who have also discussed it beforehand.

[ochinko]

When partner opens any kind of tightly defined and limited hand (1, 2, 3NT; weak 2, 3, etc.), and opps intervene, a double is for penalties.

 

Wasn't there ever a point in time when that was standard? When I mention it people are usually surprised. Or was it meant only for weaker players that can't remember too many rules? :)

[mikestar13]

When partner opens any kind of tightly defined and limited hand (1, 2, 3NT; weak 2, 3, etc.), and opps intervene, a double is for penalties.

 

Wasn't there ever a point in time when that was standard? When I mention it people are usually surprised. Or was it meant only for weaker players that can't remember too many rules? :)

 

There was a time when this was standard as late as 1950's Goren, probably earlier. I rather like this as a meta-rule with one exception: 1NT-(2x)-X is more useful as takeout, because it collects more penalties. Advocated by Edgar Kaplan in the early 60's. I play this with everyone who will agree to it. Now that many players open 1NT on 5 card majors, it works even better than it did then--opener is more likely to have length in suit x than responder (and in the cases where responder has the length he can pass opener's balancing double, thus collecting whenever opener can double).

[Jinksy]

I like takeout X, but I'm not convinced you get to penalise more often. With X = penalties, after eg a nat 2♠ overcall, you might happily X with KQx xx Axxx xxxx, but you can't be confident your P will find a reopening X opposite that.

 

Generally the worse the position for them, the more chance of penalising you seem to gain from playing penalties. If opps bid 2♠ on eg QTxxx Axx KQxx x (perhaps showing ♠s and a minor, but we've all seen players who'd make a natural call on worse than that), and advancer is 'unlucky' enough to find a stiff x opposite, then responder, playing takeout X with AKJx in the suit will probably hear the hand passed out if he doesn't bid...

[mikestar13]

I like takeout X, but I'm not convinced you get to penalise more often. With X = penalties, after eg a nat 2♠ overcall, you might happily X with KQx xx Axxx xxxx, but you can't be confident your P will find a reopening X opposite that.

 

Generally the worse the position for them, the more chance of penalising you seem to gain from playing penalties. If opps bid 2♠ on eg QTxxx Axx KQxx x (perhaps showing ♠s and a minor, but we've all seen players who'd make a natural call on worse than that), and advancer is 'unlucky' enough to find a stiff x opposite, then responder, playing takeout X with AKJx in the suit will probably hear the hand passed out if he doesn't bid...

 

That was Edgar Kaplan's belief and he had forgotten more about bridge than I will ever know about the game by the time he died. My experience tends to confirm, you mileage may vary, but I am quite sure is doesn't lose badly on collecting penalties--and as you point out, it makes competitive bidding much easier. This is a case where you need to play opener's reopening double is virtually mandatory on a doubleton. (Might pass it out with poor defense and dead minimum/subminimum values.)