[Free]

My best example to illustrate the difference is transfer preempts.

A set of meta-agreements is for example:
- Dbl shows the suit bid
- bidding their suit is takeout
- other bids like a normal preempt
- passing first followed by Dbl is penalty

Now you come across some pair playing 2♣ as either weak with ♦ or strong. You just use the same set of agreements as usual. You can fill in the calls (here 2♦ is takeout - while after a 3♥ transfer preempt 3♠ would be takeout) using your meta agreements.

A specific agreement for example would be if opps open 2NT as a transfer preempt ♣. Now Dbl can't be "the suit bid", because NT is not a suit. In this case you'll give it a specific meaning.

[gwnn]

hanp, on Jan 26 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

If we forget a single agreement three times, we drop it.

so does our Ghestem fiasco count as 1 or 2 times?

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jan 27 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

hanp, on Jan 26 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

If we forget a single agreement three times, we drop it.

so does our Ghestem fiasco count as 1 or 2 times?

I suggest you round it up to 3.

[RichMor]

gnasher, on Jan 26 2010, 05:03 PM, said:

karlson, on Jan 26 2010, 09:20 PM, said:

Seems like it should mean an agreement about other agreements.

Yes, that's what I think.

Quote

That seems to cover the way I generally use it, which is just an agreement that covers a wide variety of auctions.

But that's not an agreement about agreements. It's an agreement whose scope is general rather than specific.

None of the examples given so far in this thread are agreements about agreements. These are examples of what I would consider a meta-agreement:
- "If it's not written down, we don't play it."
- "Agreements are freely transferrable from one auction to another related one."
- "If two agreements conflict, the more natural applies."
- "If it's not clear what an opponent's bid means, for the purpose of determining what our methods are, we assume that they play the same as we do."

I suspect that I'm not going to get very far with this argument. There just aren't enough pedants around.

Andy,

I think your definition of 'meta-agreements' and the examples make sense. Maybe we want 2 terms; meta agreements and default agreements.

Default agreements are things like:
'An undiscussed bid is assumed to be natural',
'In a constructive auction, it is forcing',
'In a competetive auction, it is non forcing'
(These are paraphrases of Jeff Rubens comments in the Bridge World.)

Meta agreements follow your examples. Here are some additional possibles:
'Conventions and treatments remain in force regardless of vulnerability or table position',
'Conventions and treatments generally remain in force after pass'

RichM

[helene_t]

"Meta agreements" should be agreements about the agreement-making process:

"We revise our agreements primarily during the summer break"

[Fluffy]

"when a bid can be taken with 2 different meanings you must stand the both of them to make it"

This has proven useful sometimes.

[hanp]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

hanp, on Jan 26 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

If we forget a single agreement three times, we drop it.

If I had had that meta agreement with a friend with whom I played for a while several years ago (she quit playing duplicate because there were too many jerks in the game) we would have dropped Stayman after our second session.

If that happens we drop a partner.

[FrancesHinden]

I sort of agree with Andy.

I have general agreements, or sometimes generic agreements (e.g. 3NT is natural if it possibly could be, a 2minor response to 1M is game forcing, 4NT is only Blackwood if there is nothing more useful for it to mean).

What I tend to mean when I talk about meta-agreements are general principles on which we build our agreements such as:

- Competitive auctions look for the right strain before worrying about slam
- Bids or calls are not forcing unless we have agreed otherwise
- If we have a general agreement that clearly applies to this sequence, it is still assumed to apply even if you now think that makes no sense for this specific sequence (usually for when a double is penalties)

When trying to work out what partner's bid means, in order I consider
- Do we have a specific agreement for this sequence?
- Do we have a general agreements that covers this sequence?
- Do any of our meta-agreements define what the agreement ought to be for this sequence?
- If the answer is "no" to all of these, then it's natural and not forcing (the meta-default-agreement)

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on Jan 27 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

"when a bid can be taken with 2 different meanings you must stand the both of them to make it"

This has proven useful sometimes.

yes but it is not really an agreement, I mean can you use the information that "oh partner will think I'm not sure if this cuebid promises a fit or not so he meant both at the same time" ? hardly. it's just a little principle of avoiding disasters but it's something that you decide yourself and your partner need not know about it.