[Jinksy]

I find meta-bidding agreements some of the most valuable concepts in bridge bidding, but it occurs to me I've never put mine down as a discrete list, nor seen anyone else do so. I'd like to request BBOs post any they can think of in this thread and/or critique/refine some of the suggested ones. I'm interested in both basic/obvious and more advanced ones, so that I could use the thread for reference with beginner partners, as well as experienced ones:

(this was in part prompted by the following from PhilKing):

Quote

I have a meta rule that in any auction where partner bids 3m (first instance) and we exploring for 3NT, the ONLY forcing minor suit option is the direct raise. So cue bidding opponents suit or bidding a new suit before bidding four of partner's minor is non-forcing. The direct raise is a slam try.

Some more basic ones I have with various (not all) Ps. Assume that each of these is prefixed by 'if in doubt' (and suffixed with 'unless otherwise agreed'):

• A new suit bid one level above when it would have been a forcing bid is a splinter
  
• The bid above that is EKCB (would like to refine this, though)
  
• Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty
  
• Bidding the opps' suit is non-natural and forcing
  
• Bidding between 2N and 3N is patterning out
  
• If in doubt, it's forcing
  
• If undiscussed (and not implicit in other meta-agreements), it's the naturalest thing it could be
  
• If they reopen after we make a penalty pass, subsequent Xes are for penalties

I also remember another one from Phil King a while ago that I liked - something like 'at rubber bridge, 2N, 2M and comparable bids are never slam tries - they only mean you've forgotten you were already in game'.

I'm sure there are dozens more - what have I forgotten/not thought of but should play? Should I change any of the above?

(ETA) I apparently did not emphasise enough that these, being metarules, are always going to be overruleable by specific exceptions. I struggle to think of a meta-rule that doesn't have at least one exception, so while I welcome discussion of such exceptions, please can we keep it distinct from discussion of the rules to which they except?

[helene_t]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-09, 07:27, said:

[*]Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty

I suppose that by "competitively" you mean "after we have already entered the auction"? Because obviously
(1♥)-pass-(2♥)-pass
(pass)-dbl
is take-out. It is useful to have an agreement about to which level such delayed take-out doubles apply. Maybe through 3♦ or 3♠ or thereabouts? I haven't discussed this with any partner I think. Maybe there is a "standard"?

[ArtK78]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-09, 07:27, said:

I find meta-bidding agreements some of the most valuable concepts in bridge bidding, but it occurs to me I've never put mine down as a discrete list, nor seen anyone else do so. I'd like to request BBOs post any they can think of in this thread and/or critique/refine some of the suggested ones. I'm interested in both basic/obvious and more advanced ones, so that I could use the thread for reference with beginner partners, as well as experienced ones:

(this was in part prompted by the following from PhilKing):


Some more basic ones I have with various (not all) Ps. Assume that each of these is prefixed by 'if in doubt' (and suffixed with 'unless otherwise agreed'):

• A new suit bid one level above when it would have been a forcing bid is a splinter
• The bid above that is EKCB (would like to refine this, though)
• Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty
• Bidding the opps' suit is non-natural and forcing [EXCEPTION: 1x - (P) - 1y - (2x or 2y)]
• Bidding between 2N and 3N is patterning out
• If in doubt, it's forcing
• If undiscussed (and not implicit in other meta-agreements), it's the naturalist thing it could be (ASSUMING YOU MEANT MOST NATURAL, IT WOULD BE NATURALEST, IF THAT IS A WORD)
• If they reopen after we make a penalty pass, subsequent Xes are for penalties

I also remember another one from Phil King a while ago that I liked - something like 'at rubber bridge, 2N, 2M and comparable bids are never slam tries - they only mean you've forgotten you were already in game'.

I'm sure there are dozens more - what have I forgotten/not thought of but should play? Should I change any of the above?

Just picking a couple of nits (by the way - look up nitpicking - it is disgusting).

[Cyberyeti]

One I like is that "If we X 1N for penalties, we won't defend 2m undoubled" so there are lots of forcing passes.

Also:

1♣-1♥ is forcing
1♣-2♥ is not a splinter for me
We do play 1♣-3♥ as exlusion, but we intersperse 4♣ as the "my hand sucks in the light of your heart void" bid into the exclusion responses, if partner still wants to know, 4♦ is "re-exclusion"

Deciding what is opps suit when a 2 card club is about may be useful (we play pass then a bid of clubs as natural most of the time).

[mikeh]

'bidding the opponent's suit is non-natural and forcing' is a terrible meta-rule, and certainly not mainstream in NA expert circles. I suspect that you simply didn't think this one through when you wrote it out.

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♠

I don't know any good player who plays that as anything other than natural and non-forcing

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♦

a significant number of players (not including me) play this as natural and non-forcing. I don't mention this as a reason why your meta-rule is wrong, but only to point out that 'bidding the opponent's suit' can certainly be played as natural. The main reason I disagree with your meta-rule is the first point. Of course, you can chose to play it as artificial but that would, to my mind, be a very poor choice.

[mikeh]

here's one I actually kind of like:

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

This allows for 'grope', lebensohl, good/bad or bad/good 2N as well as 2N as various raises of a major.

Note I say 'probably'....there will be auctions in which logic makes it clear that it is probably natural

(1♠) 2♣ (P) 2N is natural.

And, given the fact that we have double as takeout, I would expect it to be natural if rho had competed to 2♠.

[Jinksy]

mikeh, on 2014-September-09, 10:21, said:

'bidding the opponent's suit is non-natural and forcing' is a terrible meta-rule, and certainly not mainstream in NA expert circles. I suspect that you simply didn't think this one through when you wrote it out.

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♠

I don't know any good player who plays that as anything other than natural and non-forcing

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...

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2014-September-09, 10:21, said:

'bidding the opponent's suit is non-natural and forcing' is a terrible meta-rule, and certainly not mainstream in NA expert circles. I suspect that you simply didn't think this one through when you wrote it out.

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♠

I don't know any good player who plays that as anything other than natural and non-forcing

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♦

a significant number of players (not including me) play this as natural and non-forcing. I don't mention this as a reason why your meta-rule is wrong, but only to point out that 'bidding the opponent's suit' can certainly be played as natural. The main reason I disagree with your meta-rule is the first point. Of course, you can chose to play it as artificial but that would, to my mind, be a very poor choice.

1♥-P-1♠-2♥/♠/N I've seen often enough played as different flavours of minor 2 suiters, being able to show 5/6♣ and 4♦ for example with 2♥ can have its uses if the next hand raises spades. I don't remember the last time I actually wanted to use the bid naturally.

A lot of people play 1♦-X-1♠-2♠ as showing 5+♠ with X showing 4.

[mycroft]

I've seen several play 1x-p-1y- cue as several flavours of two-suited hands; of course, they also play 1x-dbl-1y-dbl as takeout for the other two suits. Of course nobody around here psyches the 1y call...

[PhantomSac]

mycroft, on 2014-September-09, 12:52, said:

I've seen several play 1x-p-1y- cue as several flavours of two-suited hands; of course, they also play 1x-dbl-1y-dbl as takeout for the other two suits. Of course nobody around here psyches the 1y call...

They don't have to psyche for you to have a natural 1x p 1y 2y bid. You have double and 2N for 2 suited bids, and if you really want you can have 2x also as a 2 suited hand, some people even play 1N as a 2 suited hand, I cannot imagine that 2y being a 2 suited hand improves your bidding much and it comes up as natural not infrequently regardless of whether they psyche or not.

[PhantomSac]

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

here's one I actually kind of like:

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

This allows for 'grope', lebensohl, good/bad or bad/good 2N as well as 2N as various raises of a major.

Note I say 'probably'....there will be auctions in which logic makes it clear that it is probably natural

(1♠) 2♣ (P) 2N is natural.

And, given the fact that we have double as takeout, I would expect it to be natural if rho had competed to 2♠.

2N rules are obv very important, my first rule is that if RHO passes, 2N is always natural after an opening bid or overcall. E.g. 1C 1S p 2N=natural, 1C 1S X 2N= 4 card limit+. 1S 2H p 2N=nat, 1S 2H 2S 2N=limit raise. This goes well with your post I think.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2014-September-09, 12:52, said:

I've seen several play 1x-p-1y- cue as several flavours of two-suited hands; of course, they also play 1x-dbl-1y-dbl as takeout for the other two suits. Of course nobody around here psyches the 1y call...

There are differing schools of thought as to how good a hand one needs to make the natural bid. However, at favourable, consider 1m P 1S and you hold KJ109xx Axx xxx x. Wouldn't you want to bid 2♠?

This isn't about revealing a psyche. It is about jamming the bidding (2 of RHO's suit will usually pre-empt LHO to some degree), getting the lead from partner, and sometimes about reaching a good contract. It comes up relatively often.

[mikestar13]

"Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty" is a meta rule not to many will play these days (maybe no penalty doubles below 3NT is more in vogue in 2014), but I think it is a reasonable one. You will need an exeception for raised suits such as the (1♥)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X example given above. But after say (1♥)-P(1♠)-P-2♥, X is penalty in both direct and balancing seats.

Another meta rule that fits in this framework: The double of any natural NT bid is penalty, except for a 1NT opening or a 1NT response. Of course, you may agree to penalty doubles of a 1NT opening as part of your defense structure if you wish--but nobody leaves this defense to a meta rule: they agree on something. even if they play Mosher (all overcalls natural, penalty doubles). Over the normal 1NT response usually showing a weakish hand, bid as if you were bidding over the 1x opening bid (with somewhat sounder values, especially if a hand that could have overcalled the opener at the one level must now go to the two level).

[fromageGB]

One I like is that a double sitting underneath opponents's bid is takeout, double sitting on top of it is penalty. Obvious exceptions. I don't play with mikestar13.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2014-September-09, 10:21, said:

(1♦) P (1♠) 2♠

I don't know any good player who plays that as anything other than natural and non-forcing

There is at least one very good English that play (or at least played) this as showing 6-4 in the unbid suits, probably 4♥6♣ but I don't remember details. That does not detract from your main point of course.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Jinksy]

fromageGB, on 2014-September-10, 13:44, said:

One I like is that a double sitting underneath opponents's bid is takeout, double sitting on top of it is penalty. Obvious exceptions. I don't play with mikestar13.

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?

[fromageGB]

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?

I'm not talking about a takeout double, or a support double, but after a round or so.
1♥ pass 1NT pass
2♥ double = penalty, but
1♥ pass 1NT pass
2♥ pass pass double = takeout.
You can no doubt come up with obvious contrary sequences, but when in doubt, it's good to have a metarule.

I don't think it forces undercompetitivity (a suggested penalty can be taken out in the same way that a takeout may be left in). The two seats are not the same. If your gappy heart suit is sat on by LHO's bid heart suit, it will not take as many tricks as when the suit is on your right.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2014-September-10, 13:44, said:

One I like is that a double sitting underneath opponents's bid is takeout, double sitting on top of it is penalty. Obvious exceptions. I don't play with mikestar13.

Sitting over an opponent's unsupported rebid in the same suit should be a meta-penalty with no exceptions.

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-11, 12:04, said:

Sitting over an opponent's unsupported rebid in the same suit should be a meta-penalty with no exceptions.

(1♥) x (P) 1♠
(2♥) x

No way is that penalty....it is usually played as extra values, 3 card spade support. AQx xx AQJx Axxx would be typical, I think