[mishovnbg]

Hi all!
last my thoughts are about suitable for any level of bidding overcall structure. This allow to have general agreements against any opening and define as exceptions our agreements about specific bids like multi, transfer one/multi bids ect. Often usage of same meta defensive structure allow partners to gather much more quickly experience in subsequent bids - most important for suscsess in bidding in my opinion. What do you think about, have you different ideas, do you agree...?

Meta:
dbl: enough hcp or minor suit to bid, deny stopper in opp
NT: nat or minor suit with stop
CL/DI: 4+CL/DI-4+high unbidded suit
Unbided major: nat
cue: 5+ unbidded major, str, rf
jump NT: 5+-4+ minors,str, rf
jumps: pre vs. nat(13+), iterm vs. weak(8-12), str vs. neg(0-7)

Several examples:

1SP natural opening:
dbl: overcall in minor or NT hand without stop
1NT: nat, can be with overcall in minor, promise stop
2CL: 4+CL-4+HE, NF
2DI: 4+DI-4+HE, NF
2HE: 5+HE, NF
2SP: 5+HE, unbal, str, RF
2NT: 5+-4+ minors,str, rf
3SP: ask for stop or strong 1 suited hand
3NT: to play with 1 suited hand

3SP natural pre:
dbl: overcall in minor or NT hand without stop.
3NT: nat, can be with overcall in minor, promise stop
4CL: 4+CL-4+HE, RF
4DI: 4+DI-4+HE, RF
4HE: 5+HE, NF
4SP: strong 1 suited hand
4NT: 5+-4+ minors,str, rf
jumps: To play

1NT
dbl: overcall in minor or 4+HE-4+SP or str
2CL: 4+CL-4+DI/HE/SP NF
2DI: 4+DI-4+HE/SP, NF
2HE/SP: nat, 5+,NF
2NT: 5+M, unbal, str, RF
3NT: 5+-4+ minors, str, rf

(1SP)-p(1NT)-?
dbl: overcall in minor or str
2CL: 4+CL-4+HE, NF
2DI: 4+DI-4+HE, NF
2HE: 5HE+,NF
2SP: 5+HE, unbal, str, RF
2NT: 5+-4+ minors, str, rf
3SP: ask for stop or strong 1 suited hand
3NT: to play with 1 suited hand

Misho

[uday]

I've always thought that an structure of 1-bid, 1-meaning is too restrictive; if a multi-meaning 2D opener works, why not a multi-meaning action everywhere?

That is, when it is your turn to bid, why aren't the bids assigned meanings based on cheapness of bids and message to be transmitted? Maybe altered a few basic ways to cover cases where your side is known to be strong or weak.

For instance, P opens, RHO bids something; we all seem to play

Pass = no values OR negative-double-shape or penalty or values-with-no-clear-action

Why not extend this further, so that
cheap steps (step1, step 2) are various things that need the most room ( new suits, no fit, etc.) while more expensive steps are used when direction is known (fit, big bal hand with stopper, or some big 1 or 2 suiter)?

It doesnt seem right that bids should be natural. This often wastes a lot of space; for instance, if P opens and RHO overcalls, one would think more room is needed when responder has a minor suit so the call that shows a minor suit should be cheaper; as a simple example, if P opens 1S and RHO bids 2D, why shouldnt 2H show clubs, and 3C show hearts ( not that simply reversing calls is what I think needs to be done)

To bring this back to your original message because you too seem to use multi-meaning bids; I cannot get a sense of the overall structure of the responses from the specific examples.

Warning: this is uday, not Fred so my bridge opinions are likely not that useful

[mishovnbg]

Hi Uday, brother programmer :!
"I've always thought that an structure of 1-bid, 1-meaning is too restrictive; if a multi-meaning 2D opener works, why not a multi-meaning action everywhere?"
You are right ofcourse, esp with limited bridge language. Main problem is by WBF system policy is forbidden to use overcalls in suit without showing at least 1 4+suit - you cant play alternative bids .
15 year ago I played at national team finals polish strong pass system "Lambda" based on alternative bids. We played also alternative cometitive structure: overcalled suit or another two. In 80% of cases you can easy guess, but in 20% you play 3-1 fit and miss superfit and game. Not acceptible at teams, but enough good for MP.

"That is, when it is your turn to bid, why aren't the bids assigned meanings based on cheapness of bids and message to be transmitted? Maybe altered a few basic ways to cover cases where your side is known to be strong or weak."
Using same structure you lose cheapest bids as NF. Hard question is what is acceptible to lose and how much and often you will win?
"Why not extend this further, so that
cheap steps (step1, step 2) are various things that need the most room ( new suits, no fit, etc.) while more expensive steps are used when direction is known (fit, big bal hand with stopper, or some big 1 or 2 suiter)? "
Stepping bids are complicate to use by humans, unlike by computers... You need much time: 1 - to decide - to bid or not; 2. Your possibilities in such case by system; 3. Count by which step you can send right message to your partner. Number of mistakes and exhaustion make bidding worse than natural... By the way, same words I listem from Rumen - top player of bulgaria - he use ultra modern science system 8). You can read what Rodwell think about at:
http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm
"To bring this back to your original message because you too seem to use multi-meaning bids; I cannot get a sense of the overall structure of the responses from the specific examples."
Sorry, but cant say it better than first 3 sentences in my post, but it is clear not alternative one :.
Misho

[inquiry]

I have begun experimenting with Misho's recommended META overcalls.

First, right off the bat, I like it, but it is not flushed out. Here is a hand that would be a problem....

(3S)-?

If your parnter has 4/5 hearts and some diamonds, he is suppose to bid 4D. But if he does so, you might well miss an excellent 3S-x'ed. I think you pick back up on these when the bidding goes (3S)-X, where the dbl is looking for a spade stopper for 3NT, perhpas. But let's raise the level of the bidding....

(4S)-? Do you really think you should play 5 of a minor as forcing and showing the minor and another suit?

With this in mind, I guess if I was going to adopt META overcalls full time, I would use them at the level of 3S or less (or maybe 2S or less), and revert back to normal bridge above that.

Next if you are going to play META overcalls, you also have some unexpect problems... For instance, if you hold...

S-AKTx
H-A8xx
D-Qxxxx
C-void

And the hand in front of you opens 1C, you are no longer able to double. Here you have to bid 1D (shudder) and hope all works out. At least your parnter knows you have a major in addition to your minor (lucky you, you have two majors).

Also the range on the 1NT overcall is undefined (indeed, you maynot even have a balanced hand, but rather a minor one suiter with a stopper or a balanced hand). This wide ranging 1NT bid not only in hcp but also shape seems to be a competitive disadvantage. Anyone else experimenting with this and want to share lessons learned?

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

-----------------------------------

Hi all!

Spoiler

---

When you decide to play someting unusual, you must have clear arguments, because even the new bids are better, lack of experience can lead to the worse results, especially at the beginning. I found them for meta overcalls:

• The major oriented bidding. Unlike normal take out double, where is not sure neither distrubution or even 4 cards in unbid major ( what you are suppose to bid with 14+hcp without stop or 4 cards in unbid major, say 3334?), the meta overcalls give you the clear picture for most often 4 or 5 cards in unbided major. Even better, you can send your decision to partner, when your 5+ major is not enough good for level of bidding, by showing 4+-4+ unbalanced type of hand.
  
• The NT oriented bidding. The next in priority of contracts after majors is NT. Using the normal minor overcalls you simple pass the level of your possible contract, because no stopper. It is great advantage at MP bridge to play NT instead of minor contract, especially 1NT because it come very often. At IMP 3NT contract is very important and meta is only solution. So over 3♥/♠ you just have no other choice, if you dont like to lose of course (some kind of masochism is part of people's nature ).
  
• The safety bidding/sacrificing. Using meta 2 suited bids you are more safety, because can play at same level in minor, like DONT and have double chance to sacrifice on superfit, because you show both your suits first time. It is just perfect, combined with michaels for the stronger/longer hands.
  
• The minor contracts/leads/sign offs. Theese are sacrificed partially to gain above advantages. But why people play 3(2,1,0) cards minor opening? Probably because same way of bidding is already accepted as winer .
  
• The penalty doubles. It is much more easy to pass over the meta double, because if you don't have stopper, possible game is only 5 of minor, unlike after take out double. With wild minor 1 suiter your partner must bid 5 of minor or 3+level cue bid. This is kind of gamble ofcourse, but 5 of minor contract is always gamble in the competition. With minor 2 suiter jump 2NT/4NT is available, instead of double.
  
• The partnership understanding. The meta is clear winer, because of very often usage. The most of the people think about system as first bids. The first bids are important, but most of the mistakes comes from the continuations. The Bridge is too complicate to have clear agreements in any sequence. The meta overcalls allow meta continuations - less to remeber, less agreements, so less mistakes. BUT! The experience and the inertia that follow it are the huge problem!!!

Spoiler

-------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

Misho, who esle is trying META overcalls with you besides me?

Next, let me give a testimonial to meta overcalls. After 1any-the direct 1NT and 1/2minor overcalls work well. This is no doubt. Even the double, which is either minor one suiter, minor two suiter (not suitable for unusual) or balanced works well. This is fun to use, and quite effective.

After a three level opening bid, this is equally effective. A double is best way to try to wiggle into 3NT, and follows the teaching of marty and ron. And the ability to bid a minor to show that minor and and unbid major is nice and helpful too.

Where the fuzzy zone is for me, and with misho's help, I will figure it out, is direct seat after a weak two and in balance seat auctions. So let's look at them...

Normally what I like on a auction like this..(2♠)-X-(p)-?, is good bad/lebehnshol 2NT bid. But playing Meta, 2NT and 3NT have to show ♠ stopper and value differences. Without a ♠ stopper, 3♣ becomes pass/correct weak bid (playing meta), and 3♦ and higher obviously show extra value. Over the 3♣ bid, if you have ♣ you are not much better off than over the (2♠)-3♣ all pass... and one thing for sure you have no ♠ stopper. So giving up lebehnsol/gb2NT here is not horrible, it is subsituted for by the 3♣ bid PLUS the extra info of lack of ♠ stopper.

But in balance seat, this becomes very fuzzy. Now after...
(2♠)-P-(P)-?

You are going to want to reopen with a double for "takeout" when short in ♠ in case partner trapped pass. But here, a double is looking for a ♠ stopper can be quite litterally any hand from balanced with a stopper (too good for 2NT), to a monster minor two suiter or a very long minor one suiter (3m and 4m being excluded as no ♥ suit). The minimum hand you are most likely to want to balance on might very well be the 1444 hand where you are comfortable with the concept that you probably have a fit, but this is not a good hand at all for a meta double. The trade off, is if you have a major, minor two suiter.. say 2-4-1-6, the meta 3♣ bid is perfect, got ♣ got ♥, but not enough for a jump to 4♣. Also with a nice one suited (or two suited) minor hand, you can double without fear partner will go leaping about in the other major. Playing meta, you will end up having to treat 1444 as balanced and double and maybe play in a 4-2 or 4-3 minor fit and miss a 44 major fit. The question also becomes how partner will play penatly passes on this auction... since there are some hands you don't want to allow him an opportunity to pass (I suspect with these hands you should cue-bid 3♠ then pull 3NT).

I will say this, meta overcalls are fun to play with, but clearly bidding misunderstands will crop up as you and your partner apply other experiences to the learning curve of bidding this way.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

----------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Spoiler

-------

I have no other partner for bidding experiments except you and Boian. With Boian I am experimenting new structure of transfer responses in precision on 1 suit openings with 1NT relay, also under construction . So no other source of expirience, sorry.

Spoiler

---

About balancing position. I have a lot of expirience playing 1NT raptor - similar to meta. I many time alter 1NT and double from the balancing position. Better is to continue to play raptor(meta) and lose possibility to penalize opps, because it is very rare sucsessful. You gain in exchange more constructive bids to solve some of reopening problems. And you can still penalize opps if you have no chance for 4 major or 3NT game.

Spoiler

---

Playing 2NT as leb is possible after meta double, can play only 3NT as nat. You will lose 2NT contract, but it is not real problem, because all other will do same. The jump shift from reopen position is intermediate, while cue bid 3 level solve problem with strong 1 suited minor hands. As usually I think first about 1 level of bidding. 2 level is very special, indeed. But I still think is better to continue meta/raptor style, at least not worse, but similar and no need additional agreements.

Spoiler

----

By the way still can't find patner to try NTC in battle ....

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[Cascade]

Have I got this right?

and some additional questions?

Over 1♥ ...

X no major no stopper
1♠ Natural - Can this ever be four-cards?
1NT no major stopper - what is the range for this? what are the continuations?
2♣ ♣+higher is it always ♠?
2♦ ♦+♠
2♥ 5+♠ strong is this always two-suited or can it be one-suited?
2♠ weak
2NT minors

Wayne

[inquiry]

Cascade, on Feb 24 2004, 02:49 PM, said:

Have I got this right? Over 1♥ ...

X no major no stopper
1♠ Natural - Can this ever be four-cards?
1NT no major stopper - what is the range for this? what are the continuations?
2♣ ♣+higher is it always ♠?
2♦ ♦+♠
2♥ 5+♠ strong is this always two-suited or can it be one-suited?
2♠ weak
2NT minors

Some of it is right... let's handle them in order...

1♥-?

Dbl = ask for a stopper (that is the rule is it denies a stopper). But sometimes the doubler has a big balanced and starts with double followed by 2NT/3NT. I think this is the way it has to be played (too good to pass, no major/minor two suiter, no long other major, too good for 1NT).

1NT = shows a stopper, but not necessarily balanced. Tends to be a minor one suit or two suiter, no interest in other major.

2♣ = clubs and spades, non-forcing (so a little different from dont).

2♦ = ♦ + ♠

cue-bid = 5+♠ one round force (no longer need "michaels, because you can show your two suiter with appropriate minor suit bid... see ? This also limits your 1♠ overcall

2♠ weak (good hands begin 2♥ cue-bid

Ben

[Free]

Question: how do you use meta-overcalls over a minor suit bid? or dont you use them in that situation?

examples:
1♣ - ?
1♣ - pass - 1♦ - ?
1♦ - ?
2♣ - ? (Precision 2♣)
3m - ?

[Cascade]

inquiry, on Feb 24 2004, 06:37 PM, said:

Some of it is right... let's handle them in order...

More clarification required please ...

Quote

1♥-?

Dbl = ask for a stopper (that is the rule is it denies a stopper). But sometimes the doubler has a big balanced and starts with double followed by 2NT/3NT. I think this is the way it has to be played (too good to pass, no major/minor two suiter, no long other major, too good for 1NT).

Can this include a 4-card major in strong and balanced? I guess it can if you had 19+ with four spades.

Quote

1NT = shows a stopper, but not necessarily balanced. Tends to be a minor one suit or two suiter, no interest in other major.

What is the range for this? I am guessing it is wide ranged - minor suit overcall 11-15 ish plus 15-18 balanced

Quote

cue-bid = 5+♠ one round force (no longer need "michaels, because you can show  your two suiter with appropriate minor suit bid... see ? This also limits your 1♠ overcall

This can be Michael's style too good for 2♣/♦ or a hand too good for 1♠. Is that correct?

TIA

Wayne

[mishovnbg]

Hi friends! I will try to determine the meta overcalls for you, despite I don't have enough expirience yet with them. So if you have better ideas or comments, please share it with me. Thanks again to Ben, my only hope in theoretical experiments.

Spoiler

---

In my opinion meta is natural, flexible and constructive. This mean the answer to question "Can I..." is normally "Yes", except you can't use non jump minor overcalls normally - they are 2 suiters.

Spoiler

---

Can you overcall with 4 cards in major? Yes, as exception, like in any natural overcall structure, because level of bidding.

Spoiler

---

Can you have 4 cards in major with 1NT? Yes. If you don't like to show it yet and prefer to play NT contract.

Spoiler

-------------------------------

Meta overcalls v 1.1
(Attention! Dangerous experimental version! )

(1♣)-?:
X:

• Normal overcal in ♦ suit. Can't be wild hand, because you can use jump cue bid 3♣ with such hand. Rebid/competition: Bid in ♦,GB2NT,Pass to p NT, raise p NT
  
• Balanced or semi balanced hand, 14+HCP without stopper or (18)19+HCP, same distribution, can have stopper. Rebid/competition: Pass, raise p NT, 2/3NT, X, free bid/raise of major after p negative bid
  
• 11+HCP, 4+♥-4+♠, balanced or semi balanced hand, defensive type. Can't be wild hand, because you have cue bid aka Michaels. Rebid/competition: Pass, free bid/raise of major, cue bid, X

Responses: similar to take out double, but: 1NT: 6-10HCP, stopper; cue bid: 10+hcp, inv+, aka good raise 2 of minor if minor overcall, GF if balanced, RF if 4-4 majors.
Example:
(1♣)-X-p-?:
1♦: 0-9,P/C; 1♥/♠: 0-9, 4+♥/♠; 1NT: 6-10, stop; 2♣: 10+; 2♦/♥/♠: 8-11, 5+; 2NT: 10-12, stop, inv for 3NT...
(1♣)-X-p-2♣, (p)-?:
2♦:8-13,5+♦, deny 4♥/♠; 2♥/♠: 11-13, 4+♥/♠; 2NT: 17+, bal, stopper, can have 4 major; 3♣: 14+, bal, deny stopper; 3♦: 14+, 5+♦, deny stopper and 4 major; 3♥/♠: 17+, 5+♥/♠, deny stopper; 3NT: 17-19, stopper, deny 4 major.

1♦: (8)10-15(17)HCP, 4+♦-4+major, offensive type(else X). Normal hand is with 5+♦-4 major. Responses/Rebid/Competition: like after Michaels.

1♥/♠: (8)10-15(17)HCP, (4)5+♥/♠, normal overcall. Can't be wild hand (3♣ if 1 suiter, 2♣ if 2 suiter). Responses/Rebid/Competition: like after normal overcall

1NT: (12)13-16(17)HCP, nat 1 NT overcall or minor overcall with stopper suitable for NT contract - can be short in side suit in such case. Responses/Rebid/Competition: like after natural NT, except natural rebid of minor at 3 level without fit.

2♣/2NT: (10)12+HCP, 5+-5+. You can play here simple michaels distribution (both majors, popular in USA) or ♠+unbid (popular in bulgaria, poland...) or ghestem (exactly show 2 suiter using artifical jump in unbid minor-popular in France, Italy...). If I play good opening hand 2 suiters I prefer ghestem. You never will bid one of your suits by ghestem, so 2 suiters can be unlimited. Losing 2♦/3♣ preempt is really not interesting in my opinion. Responses/Rebid/Competition: like after Michaels/Ghestem

3♣/3NT: Solid suit without/with stopper or wild 1 suited hand(cue bid 3 level only).

Pre-empt: Depend of your style. I prefer to show good, at least 6 cards suit for NT contract, if my p still not passed. Strength of pre-empt in my opinion is very relative to strength of opps opening and vul - weaker openings mean stronger pre-empts and v.v.

After other natural openings, meta overcalls are similar, but X can't be of course with both majors over major opening normally.

Spoiler

---

Thanks in advance for all comments/suggestions/ideas and lash .

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

Ron has pointed users to an Australian Bridge bidding quiz in another thread. Hand 2 raises an interesting META overcall question. I will not repeat the hand here, but consider these two auctions...

(4♥)-5♦

(4♥)-6♦

Playing meta, 5♦ is clearly ♦'s and ♠'s. Would 6♦ be a better hand and these two suits, or the desire to play 6♦s. Since Meta dbls are aimed at the theory of getting to 3NT with a stopper, when bidding starts at 4 level is this system best if stilled on?

[the hog]

You beat me to it, Ben. I was thinking what to bid on the hand when it occurred to me that a meta overcall would be ideal on the holding. What would 4S, X, 4N and 5C show over 4H if meta overcalls still applied?

[Cascade]

Today we had to contend with a 4♣ opening bid.

I was dealt an 18-count 5-5 in the spades and diamonds.

It occurred to me that this was ideal for a meta-overcall.

4minor is such a nothing bid you give up little with 4♦ being a two-suiter and gain often i would imagine.

Scoring: IMP

Nice symmetry in the long suit spots

---

Wayne

[Cascade]

These meta bids have many applications.

We have been playing meta-bids without this name for two or three years over our nebulous 1♦ in competition. Our one diamond is minor oriented guaranteeing at least one long minor. Precisely it is two or three suited unbalanced with no five-card major (some hands with six clubs and four diamonds are excluded). I am sure it can be adapted to other nebulous 1♦ and maybe even other systems.

1♦ (1♥/♠) Dbl = minor oriented negative double

1♦ (1♥) 2♣ = ♣+♠
1♦ (1♥) 2♦ = ♦+♠
1♦ (1♠) 2♣ = ♣+♥
1♦ (1♠) 2♦ = ♦+♥

All of these bids are non-forcing for us.

Wayne

[Rado]

Hi all friends,

I've followed very carefully the discussion upto now. The original idea of Meta seems very interesting but still no chance to try it at live. Also Wayne's addition after we open 1♦ might be very usefull, keeping the same agreements in many other situation. My proposal is to try to investigate this style when playing together at BBO

Regards
Rado

[inquiry]

Rado, on Feb 27 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

My proposal is to try to investigate this style when playing together at BBO

Hi Rado,

I have been using the META bids with misho for a while on BBO. I will say that they are fun and they can be a great help on a variety of situations. The problem is there is no framework to tell when they are still "on" and off. Take the jump to 6♦ over a 4♠ opening bid I mentioned earlier.

And what would 4NT be? Normally if the bidding goes 4♠ I would follow Robson/Segal bidding style. That is:
DBL=takeout, 4NT=two suiter, 5any=suit,
Playing Meta, 4NT as "two suit" is not needed (unless you play it as two minors), because 5♣ and 5♦ shows minor plus major. Dbl would in theory ask for NT with a stopper and show a minor suit oriented hand. So while the low level meta seems to work well, it still needs work at higher levels to decide when it is off (if ever), and particulariy doubles and NT bids if their bid starts above 3NT. You help figuring this out will surely be appreciated. :-)

Ben

[Rado]

Hi Ben,
Pointing out that I have just "theoretical" view on META upto now, I think that after 4 level opening the things are dramatically different.
One of the basis when inventing META was to right side the possible NT contract, together with developing more agressive (DONT-like) suit overcalls.
When Opps open at level 1,2,3 we are still trying to locate our possible 3NT game.
When Opps open at level 4 or higher the NT as game is nearly out of question (yes I agree that sometimes 4NT is the only makable game, but life's not perfect :-) so the overall idea must be changed from standart META.
Regards
Rado

[inquiry]

Rado, on Feb 27 2004, 10:01 AM, said:

Hi Ben,
Pointing out that I have just "theoretical" view on META upto now, I think that after 4 level opening the things are dramatically different.
One of the basis when inventing META was to right side the possible NT contract, together with developing more agressive (DONT-like) suit overcalls.
When Opss open at level 1,2,3 we are still trying to locate our possible 3NT game.
When Opps open at level 4 or higher the NT as game is nearly out of question (yes I agree that sometimes 4NT is the only makable game, but life's not perfect :-) so the overall idea must be changed from standart META.
Regards
Rado

Hi Rado,

You have reached the same conclusion that I have. Meta is designed for getting in at a low level and trying to right side a 3NT contract. The use of doubles, especially at the three level, seems to follow along with the teaching of Marty Bergen with his thrump (3NT) doubles and other ideas after opening 3 level preempts.

So like you, I wonder if the bidding starts at 4♣ or higher if META should not be turned off.

Ben