[aguahombre]

Here are some others to pick apart:

1)If we are in a game force auction, and an 8-card major suit fit is guaranteed, 3NT is never to play.
(Exception: our gadget 1N, then 3NT showing balanced 3-card support but giving opener the choice.)

2)If a minor suit fit is established, 4NT is never RKC.

3)An unnecessary jump in a suit paints a picture, and will not have extra values beyond those implied.

4)An unnecessary jump in NoTrump shows extra strength above the previous bidding.

5)With a singleton or void in clubs, we never pass partner's 1NT opening.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-11, 12:23, said:

Here are some others to pick apart:

1)If we are in a game force auction, and an 8-card major suit fit is guaranteed, 3NT is never to play.
(Exception: our gadget 1N, then 3NT showing balanced 3-card support but giving opener the choice.)

2)If a minor suit fit is established, 4NT is never RKC.

3)An unnecessary jump in a suit paints a picture, and will not have extra values beyond those implied.

4)An unnecessary jump in NoTrump shows extra strength above the previous bidding.

5)With a singleton or void in clubs, we never pass partner's 1NT opening.

A number of these are system dependent.

1: I can imagine 5332 v 3334 or 4333 v 4333 where you can wish to play 3N AND can diagnose this.

2: fine IF you play minorwood or kickback, there has to be some way of asking aces.

3 and 4: again system dependent in many places, there are some auctions where jumping shows fewer points than the bid a level lower

5: I might pass a 3361 where I have enough values to expect to make 2N.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-11, 13:36, said:

5: I might pass a 3361 where I have enough values to expect to make 2N.

Meta's, for me, sometimes just serve to prevent me from overthinking. With 3-3-6-1, I either blast 3NT or sign off in 3D and reserve my limited analytical skills for different situations.

[mikestar13]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-11, 13:36, said:

A number of these are system dependent.

1: I can imagine 5332 v 3334 or 4333 v 4333 where you can wish to play 3N AND can diagnose this.

2: fine IF you play minorwood or kickback, there has to be some way of asking aces.

3 and 4: again system dependent in many places, there are some auctions where jumping shows fewer points than the bid a level lower

5: I might pass a 3361 where I have enough values to expect to make 2N.

I agree with the above comments with the exception of #2 at match points--then we need 4NT as a natural sign off even if it means we can't ask for aces. 5m will be a cold bottom if 4NT makes (unless 5m makes 7, but in that case why aren't you bidding at least 6?), so we only want to sign off in 5m if were pretty sure 4NT can't make.
100% agree with #2 at imps.

[barmar]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-11, 07:38, said:

This seems weird to me - it feels much more efficient to give both the same option, since part of takeouts is allowing penalty passes. Surely this forces you to undercompete when you have shortage (or strength) sitting over a bid?

Isn't the "takeout under, penalty over" rule usually just for a player who has bid a strong NT? His partner already knows what kind of hand he has, so knows whether to compete.

The issue then just becomes how useful your length the opponent's suit is.

[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]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-12, 12:27, said:

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]

fromageGB, on 2014-September-13, 04:34, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-13, 06:59, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-13, 16:02, said:

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".

Quote

Do you have any evidence that this is misuse?

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

Quote

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]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-13, 16:02, said:

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.)

This post has been edited by lamford: 2014-September-14, 05:49

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-11, 06:37, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2014-September-14, 01:23, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-13, 16:02, said:

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]

barmar, on 2014-September-14, 10:50, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2014-September-09, 10:25, said:

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.