Power Pinochle Forums
Play: The 2 basic signals - Printable Version

+- Power Pinochle Forums (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Power Pinochle Community (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Pinochle Game Play - Offense (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Play: The 2 basic signals (/showthread.php?tid=70)

Pages: 1 2

Play: The 2 basic signals - ToreadorElder - 09-14-2012

On many hands, a major goal is to get both partners' aces cashed before both opponents have been able to cash theirs. Dummy (declarer's partner) is particularly desirous of this; declarer presumably has long trump, which will usually control the latter stages of the hand, and often has short suits. But, it's also valuable that if one defender gets in before dummy, to get his partner in to cash before dummy.

A fundamental notion in signaling is, it has to be something that Stands Out. If it looks like ordinary card play, it's probably NOT going to be seen as a signal. Why should it? Thus, we can define a principle: a signal has to be either a 'dramatic' card, or a significant departure from 'normal' play. This post will deal with the 2 cases of 'dramatic' cards.

To keep things simple, we'll deal with dummy giving signals to declarer, while declarer is cashing his aces initially. You're dummy. Declarer plays a side-suit ace; what cards would stand out? Well, it can't be a K or T; you're just giving partner a point. An ace is VERY dramatic. Between the Q and J, IMO the J is the more unusual and unexpected...ergo more dramatic.

Thus, there are 2 signals, A or J on an ace of his, that suggest to your partner, "Hey, I've got the remaining aces in the suit, so you may be able to reach me in that suit." Of these two, A on A is a *promise*. You HAVE the missing ace(s), or potentially, you'll ruff his lead. There are 2 exceptions:

a) You started with exactly AA in that suit. On the first ace, you don't have any choice. This is rare, but does happen occasionally.

b) Your RHO, who'll play before you do, has melded aces, AND your ace would get dropped by his. For example, you start with AKJ; on partner's first ace, you play the K. On his 2nd ace, play your ace; save the point.

THIS ONLY APPLIES when RHO has melded aces. Yes, I've seen players who simply do this "to save the point"...but that is grossly misguided. The point *won't* automatically be lost. If partner doesn't have it, it's 50-50 as to which opponent does. And, it's possible partner still has it, perhaps in a holding that has no T. Say partner started with AAAKJJ. The first 2 rounds in that suit go

A,J,K,Q
A,Q,A,Q

What does he pick for the 3rd round? Probably, reasonably, the K...force a T, you ruff to win the trick and cash yours, and hey, he's still got the last A for the endgame.

Oh. You didn't ruff.

Now he's lost a trick he should not have lost, and the opponents are in, not you. The total loss can easily be 2-3 tricks, or 5-7 points. Here's a straightforward example:

You: Sp TKQJ He AKJ Di TTKKQJJ Cl AAKQQJ
Prd: Sp AATTKKQJ He AAAKQJ Di AKQ Cl KQJ

The first 3 tricks are Di A, He A, He A. If your heart plays are K,J, the next 2 tricks will be He A, He K which you ruff. Then you cash your 2 club aces. Your side has the first 7 tricks. He loses 2 diamonds and 1 club, but he can play those to either let you ruff more, or make the opponents ruff. That's fine, too.

If your heart plays are K,A, his trick 4 play is He K, losing to a T. Now opponents cash 2 club tricks before you do. That's one trick gone for sure. Partner still has the 4th heart ace...but a smart opponent may well read the situation and lead a heart *through* his hand, forcing you to ruff his winner.

Now, playing A on A is potentially throwing away a trick. That's often a bad idea; a trick is 2.5 points. So, in most cases, you have at least one T, to be the 'extra' winner. What if you don't? That's where the J signal comes into play: you have the remaining aces, but you can't afford to give an A as a signal. Play a J if you can.

Between the 2 signals, the A signal is MUCH stronger. I play it's as close to an ironclad promise (barring the case that aces around is blocking access to you) as there is. The J may well be forced. The key is to note that with a holding like AKQJ, you play the K on partner's first A, but the Q on partner's second A. The J would suggest both missing aces; the Q suggests you *don't* have them.

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - ToreadorElder - 09-14-2012

A short follow-on: Why do this?

There are 2 very complementary reasons.

1. When a signal is given, it gives partner guidance.

2. What isn't as obvious is, the LACK of signals is also guidance. It says, look elsewhere. With no signal from partner, your exit is largely a guess, but the fact that you have suits you can eliminate, means you'll guess right more often.

Pinochle is a game of fairly limited information, so any time you can do anything to reduce the uncertainty, that's a good thing.

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - mickmackusa - 09-15-2012

I don't play the J signal, and I can't really see myself changing to it if the justification is merely 'IMO'. I don't think the J is enough of a dramatic signal to merit a 'always throw Q's before J's, unless communicating A's on a winning trick' type of style. Real dramatic signaling is throwing your lead back A at your partner's shirt instead of the table!

It seems logical to play the lowest counter when I think my team is going to win the trick, and the lowest non-counter when I think my team is going to lose the trick (or when I am out of counters to play on a winning trick). Ergo, when I am not throwing an A for communicative purposes (or by force), I play K's, T's, J's, then Q's on a winner. This always reserves my T's and Q's in the hope of an edge-out victory over respective K's and J's. These occurrences may be rare, but I've heard chance favors the prepared.

Within this kind of play/thinking, if my partner observes me throw a Q on our trick, then he can assume that I am close to the end of my suit and potentially able to trump the next trick, or I have the remaining A's in that suit, or the worst case scenario - I have another Q.

If my partner doesn't have any better communications to base his action on, he can at least justify playing my thin suit when he wants to get out of the lead. This style carries the same risk of miscommunication as the J lead back style. However, I think it is normal logical play; no interruption to the card power hierarchy.

I'm not saying I'm dead-set in my ways on this one, but I will require logic stronger than mine, for me to change. Otherwise it is just IMO against IMO.

I look forward to your response, T.

p.s. What is the probability of having the ability to choose your non-counter? a J and a Q in a suit, I mean. Versus having only a J or only a Q in a given suit?

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - ToreadorElder - 09-17-2012

Quote:I don't play the J signal, and I can't really see myself changing to it if the justification is merely 'IMO'. I don't think the J is enough of a dramatic signal to merit a 'always throw Q's before J's, unless communicating A's on a winning trick' type of style. Real dramatic signaling is throwing your lead back A at your partner's shirt instead of the table!

But you can't always afford A on A, especially on defense. And the point is to give information. Say your LHO opens 50, gets meld from partner, and takes the bid, naming spades. He cashes out some club and diamond aces, then exits with a trump to partner's A. Partner cashes 2 heart aces, and you started with AAKQJ of hearts. Fine, on the first, the K is obvious. What about the 2nd? Which card do you play? If instead you started with AAKKJ, what do you play on the 2nd ace, and what is the basis for the decision?

Quote:It seems logical to play the lowest counter when I think my team is going to win the trick, and the lowest non-counter when I think my team is going to lose the trick (or when I am out of counters to play on a winning trick). Ergo, when I am not throwing an A for communicative purposes (or by force), I play K's, T's, J's, then Q's on a winner. This always reserves my T's and Q's in the hope of an edge-out victory over respective K's and J's. These occurrences may be rare, but I've heard chance favors the prepared.

Q to beat a J is too infrequent, and also rather useless as there's no points at stake. The opportunity to signal is much more frequent.

Quote:Within this kind of play/thinking, if my partner observes me throw a Q on our trick, then he can assume that I am close to the end of my suit and potentially able to trump the next trick, or I have the remaining A's in that suit, or the worst case scenario - I have another Q.

Q and J both say that; why not include additional information when you can, to differentiate between the two?

Quote:If my partner doesn't have any better communications to base his action on, he can at least justify playing my thin suit when he wants to get out of the lead. This style carries the same risk of miscommunication as the J lead back style. However, I think it is normal logical play; no interruption to the card power hierarchy.

And I do that regularly, especially as declarer. Say I am, with spades trumps, and I cash 2 club aces:
A,J,T,Q
A,J,Q,Q

Hmm. NO other K's or T's, and there's only 3 non-points left. Could well be short. But if the second trick is A,J,J,Q, it says the same thing. The point is to incorporate MORE information than that. Do you have

AATQJ
ATQQJ
TQJ

There are, of course, other holdings, but these are the 3 that fit the conditions, and where the interpretation matters.

Quote:I'm not saying I'm dead-set in my ways on this one, but I will require logic stronger than mine, for me to change. Otherwise it is just IMO against IMO.

There is some argument for the T vs. K point, but *generally* the only player whose T's have much value (outside the trump suit) is declarer...UNLESS you use A on A when you lack a T, in which case the 4th round of that suit may well be won by a T. But the potential-trick issue is just not a factor in the Q vs. J debate; even the usual value of a Q (forcing an opponent to play a point) is downgraded after a couple rounds of that suit.

p.s. What is the probability of having the ability to choose your non-counter? a J and a Q in a suit, I mean. Versus having only a J or only a Q in a given suit? [/quote]

ROUGH estimate? Given that you have a J, what's the probability you won't have a Q in that suit? There are 79 other cards, and 75 are not Q's. Next card, 74/78; 73/77; etc. A decent estimate is to say it's 66/70 ^ 19, or about 1/3...so about 2/3 of the time, you WILL.

And, note that this is by NO means a certainty. The goal is to increase your chances of making good plays.


RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - mickmackusa - 09-18-2012

    • MickMackUSA Wrote:It seems logical to play the lowest counter when I think my team is going to win the trick, and the lowest non-counter when I think my team is going to lose the trick (or when I am out of counters to play on a winning trick). Ergo, when I am not throwing an A for communicative purposes (or by force), I play K's, T's, J's, then Q's on a winner. This always reserves my T's and Q's in the hope of an edge-out victory over respective K's and J's. These occurrences may be rare, but I've heard chance favors the prepared.
      • ToreadorElder Wrote:Q to beat a J is too infrequent, and also rather useless as there's no points at stake. The opportunity to signal is much more frequent.
        • MickMackUSA Wrote:I prefer infrequent over impossible. There could be a maximum of two points at stake, if my in-suit Q beats an in-suit J and the off-suit cards are both counters. Furthermore as you mentioned, the Q's power to force counters is something I value as well.
    • MickMackUSA Wrote:Within this kind of play/thinking, if my partner observes me throw a Q on our trick, then he can assume that I am close to the end of my suit and potentially able to trump the next trick, or I have the remaining A's in that suit, or the worst case scenario - I have another Q.
      • ToreadorElder Wrote:Q and J both say that; why not include additional information when you can, to differentiate between the two?
        • MickMackUSA Wrote:In your leadback style, the following cards communicate in these ways (by all means correct me if I am misunderstanding):
          K = not a lead back / saving the point
          T = not a lead back / saving the point
          J = lead back -> I have the remaining A's
          Q = lead back -> I may be trumping next trick
          A = lead back -> I have the remaining A's

          I fear there are too few ways to NOT communicate.
          I need a play that says "I'm not saving a point and not signalling any kind of strength; try another suit."

          In my approach, the cards communicate this way:
          K = not a lead back / saving the point
          T = not a lead back / saving the point
          J = not a lead back / no more counters
          Q = lead back -> I might have the remaining A's / I might be trumping next trick
          A = lead back -> I have the remaining Aces

          If the shoe was on the other foot and I was trying to get out of the lead, the following are the ways I would act with respect to the lead backs I received:
          I received an A lead back while cashing my A's, I would throw a K in that suit.
          I received a Q lead back while cashing my A's, I would throw a Q in that suit.
          (if I received a J while cashing my A's, I would probably throw another suit.)
    • MickMackUSA Wrote:If my partner doesn't have any better communications to base his action on, he can at least justify playing my thin suit when he wants to get out of the lead. This style carries the same risk of miscommunication as the J lead back style. However, I think it is normal logical play; no interruption to the card power hierarchy.
      • ToreadorElder Wrote:And I do that regularly, especially as declarer. Say I am, with spades trumps, and I cash 2 club aces:
        A,J,T,Q
        A,J,Q,Q

        Hmm. NO other K's or T's, and there's only 3 non-points left. Could well be short. But if the second trick is A,J,J,Q, it says the same thing. The point is to incorporate MORE information than that. Do you have

        AATQJ
        ATQQJ
        TQJ

        There are, of course, other holdings, but these are the 3 that fit the conditions, and where the interpretation matters.
        • MickMackUSA Wrote:Here are my preferences:

          AATQJ = I would throw my A to give rock solid communication and save the point *I'm not the gambling type*. This allows my partner to throw away a K when he is done cashing A's. In a bad split, maybe this suit only goes through 3 times and trumped on the fourth, in which case all of my counters are saved. <-not really a justification, just saying that it is nice in that occurrence.

          ATQQJ = I would throw the J to indicate that I might not have the remaining A's and I might not be trumping this suit soon.

          TQJ = I throw the J, again to to convey non-strength.
    • MickMackUSA Wrote:I'm not saying I'm dead-set in my ways on this one, but I will require logic stronger than mine, for me to change. Otherwise it is just IMO against IMO.
      • ToreadorElder Wrote:There is some argument for the T vs. K point, but *generally* the only player whose T's have much value (outside the trump suit) is declarer...UNLESS you use A on A when you lack a T, in which case the 4th round of that suit may well be won by a T. But the potential-trick issue is just not a factor in the Q vs. J debate; even the usual value of a Q (forcing an opponent to play a point) is downgraded after a couple rounds of that suit.
        • MickMackUSA Wrote:I prefer infrequent over impossible - slight advantage over no advantage - some value over no value. Does this kind of logic not make for an air-tight playing style?
    • MickMackUSA Wrote:p.s. What is the probability of having the ability to choose your non-counter? a J and a Q in a suit, I mean. Versus having only a J or only a Q in a given suit?
      • ToreadorElder Wrote:ROUGH estimate? Given that you have a J, what's the probability you won't have a Q in that suit? There are 79 other cards, and 75 are not Q's. Next card, 74/78; 73/77; etc. A decent estimate is to say it's 66/70 ^ 19, or about 1/3...so about 2/3 of the time, you WILL.

        And, note that this is by NO means a certainty. The goal is to increase your chances of making good plays.
        • MickMackUSA Wrote:Wow, that's way more frequent that I would have guessed. I completely agree on the goal. However, I'm still thinking I need my style which can signal and not signal.


RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - ToreadorElder - 09-18-2012

MickMackUSA Wrote:I prefer infrequent over impossible. There could be a maximum of two points at stake, if my in-suit Q beats an in-suit J and the off-suit cards are both counters. Furthermore as you mentioned, the Q's power to force counters is something I value as well.

If you prefer to reverse the signals, then that's also fine. I find the J to be more clear-cut, and it's the more common interpretation among relatively newer players.

In order for Q to beat J AND take the trick, AND take 2 points...come on. This means every point in the suit's been played, and 2 people cannot be ruffing. The value in the signal is also not just 1 trick/2 points; it can be several tricks. It's massively more frequent too.

Quote:In your leadback style, the following cards communicate in these ways (by all means correct me if I am misunderstanding):
K = not a lead back / saving the point
T = not a lead back / saving the point
J = lead back -> I have the remaining A's
Q = lead back -> I may be trumping next trick
A = lead back -> I have the remaining A's

Not quite.
a) J suggests the remaining aces. It is not a promise.
b) Q suggests don't have the remaining aces, clearly says don't have a non-ace point to give. The statement about suit length is an inference with the Q, and a secondary possibility with the J.

Quote:I fear there are too few ways to NOT communicate.
I need a play that says "I'm not saving a point and not signalling any kind of strength; try another suit."

Q says that.

Quote:In my approach, the cards communicate this way:
K = not a lead back / saving the point
T = not a lead back / saving the point
J = not a lead back / no more counters
Q = lead back -> I might have the remaining A's / I might be trumping next trick
A = lead back -> I have the remaining Aces

Essentially you're flipping the Q and J, relative to me.

< 2 rounds of aces get played>
Quote:Here are my preferences:

AATQJ = I would throw my A to give rock solid communication and save the point *I'm not the gambling type*. This allows my partner to throw away a K when he is done cashing A's. In a bad split, maybe this suit only goes through 3 times and trumped on the fourth, in which case all of my counters are saved. <-not really a justification, just saying that it is nice in that occurrence.

This is badly, horribly, terribly wrong, especially on defense. This costs about 2/3 to 3/4 of a trick because you're giving the opponents the 4th round of the suit...and when you have 5, it's more likely the 4th round won't get ruffed. Worse, on defense: you will at times blow the ENTIRE suit WIDE open, handing declarer 2-3 tricks in the endgame.

If you had 7 or more cards in the suit, the argument that the 4th round isn't all that likely to live, is much stronger. It's also true on defense that declarer is much less likely to have TTTxxx, so the endgame risk is lower. Signaling well is NOT an automatic, almost robotic action. Situational thinking is required.

Quote:ATQQJ = I would throw the J to indicate that I might not have the remaining A's and I might not be trumping this suit soon.

TQJ = I throw the J, again to to convey non-strength.

Note that these points are both consistent...with playing the Q in the AATQJ scenario.

MickMackUSA Wrote:I prefer infrequent over impossible - slight advantage over no advantage - some value over no value. Does this kind of logic not make for an air-tight playing style?

My signals really say this:
Q discourages, J encourages (the issue about potential shortness is the same with both)

Your plays are really just reversed. I prefer what I believe to be the more clear-cut signal, because improving the chance that the signals will be read, is massively more valuable than the negligible benefit you mention.

BUT, if you're playing within steady partnerships, the best advice is *pick one* and go with it.

MickMackUSA Wrote:Wow, that's way more frequent that I would have guessed. I completely agree on the goal. However, I'm still thinking I need my style which can signal and not signal.

There is no such thing. Really, seriously...EVERY card that isn't forced (LHO shows aces, RHO leads a trump K through you because he's got a triple ace run...the T's compelled) tells something. Maybe not much, but something. Or at least CAN say something. We've only talked about 1-card signals; 2-card signals are another whole discussion, where it's not the rank of the particular card on a trick, it's the combination over 2 tricks that sends the message.

Remember: "I have nothing much to say" IS!!! a signal. DENYING a signal IS!!! a signal. This is the mental adjustment required.



RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - mickmackusa - 09-18-2012

Okay, I'll need to get these semantics right.
Communicating is conveying is signalling is suggesting.
These verbs contribute to the thinking of the card leader.
The card leader is also responsible for making deductions and inferences based on what he sees.

I'm not convinced that your clear-cut J lead back is a more common interpretation among relatively newer players.
I'll consider myself a relatively newer players; even though I've played this game the majority of life, I've spent next to no time developing my game.
I've never heard of a J lead back in my home games or on Yahoo.
As far as I know, it could simply be your preference. (which doesn't make it wrong)

Regarding clear-cut communication, I would rather have 3 types of messages:

A suggests [GREEN LIGHT] - 'you should come over with a K in this suit, or you'll have some explaining to do after the hand'
Q suggests [YELLOW LIGHT] - 'you can try this suit when you are done, for 1 of 2 reasons, potential A & potential trump'
J suggests [RED LIGHT] - 'you should try another suit when you are done'

instead of 2 types of messages:

If I am playing as your partner (sorry to give you the shivers) and leading A's, I would think the following when you lay:
A suggests [GREEN LIGHT] - 'you better come over with a K in this suit, or you'll have some explaining to do after the hand'
J suggests [YELLOW LIGHT] - 'you can try this suit when you are done, because I might have the remaining A's'
Q suggests [YELLOW LIGHT] - 'I don't have the remaining A's, but by inference, I might be trumping this next time'

What could you play to tell me to go in another suit? Is this covered in your 2-card signalling?
Your communication gives increased information regarding A's, but decreased information regarding suit length.
Because there are two ways for a partner to win the lead (A's & trump), I am happy to receive information regarding either as a group -- as opposed to individually expressed.

----
I will concede that my A lead back in the previously described scenario is not the best choice in an even split. I knew I was walking into that one. Not going to futily try to salvage any dignity by discussing sandbagging the last A. I will change my play to Q and give the [YELLOW LIGHT].
----

If I am not going to argue about the inference of potential suit shortness nor the hierarchical power advantage, then I completely agree that we just play the reverse to each other.
And I believe both styles have an equal chance of being noticed by the card leader.
Your clear-cut claim is more about being able to communicate the reason for your strength.
My clear-cut claim is more about being able to communicate strength versus weakness.
When I am finished leading cards, I don't need to know the reason for the [LIGHT] as much as I need to know the [COLOR].
I just want my partner in the lead.

I really don't want this to be about IMO against IMO though; I want this to be the best logical tactic.
So maybe you can describe a scenario where it is more important to know the reason for strength.
Using your lead back framework, in what cases do I change my throw away card based on the type of lead back you gave?
Because in my framework, I throw away a K when I've received an A lead back, and a Q when I've received a Q lead back.
Do you ever throw away a non-Q when you've received a non-A lead back?

My goal with all of this, is not to try to find a faults in your tactics, I don't even need my way to be right.
I just want a play for every reason and a reason for every play.
All of your decisions are based on a series of hard-thought conditional statements (if/elseif/else) considering many variables.
I know you don't like robotic action, so perhaps I can upgrade to a more complex, situational-thinking, robotic action.
The master set of principles/strategies/styles that you and Rick are sharing with the pinochle community needs to be streamlined so that it can be absorbed by all players without regret or second-guessing.
Better pinochle for everyone, that is the goal.

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - ToreadorElder - 09-19-2012

Quote:Okay, I'll need to get these semantics right.
Communicating is conveying is signalling is suggesting.
These verbs contribute to the thinking of the card leader.
The card leader is also responsible for making deductions and inferences based on what he sees.

Emphatically, yes.

Quote:I'm not convinced that your clear-cut J lead back is a more common interpretation among relatively newer players.
I'll consider myself a relatively newer players; even though I've played this game the majority of life, I've spent next to no time developing my game.
I've never heard of a J lead back in my home games or on Yahoo.
As far as I know, it could simply be your preference. (which doesn't make it wrong)

It's probably 80% on Yahoo...in the advanced lounge. Can't speak to the lower-level ones, as the only time I play in Intermediate is when we're forced to move there because the booter is essentially shutting down everything else. And even then, it's with/against players commonly in AL 1.

Quote:If I am playing as your partner (sorry to give you the shivers) and leading A's, I would think the following when you lay:
A suggests [GREEN LIGHT] - 'you better come over with a K in this suit, or you'll have some explaining to do after the hand'
J suggests [YELLOW LIGHT] - 'you can try this suit when you are done, because I might have the remaining A's'
Q suggests [YELLOW LIGHT] - 'I don't have the remaining A's, but by inference, I might be trumping this next time'

Part of this is terminology, but I disagree with the 'might' WRT the J. It suggests that it's vague. It's not certain, but it's not vague. J says *either* I have the remaining aces, *or* I have no choice/anything else is a worse lie.

And really, the primary inference of the Q is, I *don't* have the remaining aces. The inference about suit length is NOT automatic. Compare:

A,J,K,J
A,J,Q,Q

and

A,K,K,J
A,K,Q,Q

There are still *5* Q's and J's outstanding; the one opponent clearly does not have any of them. Say I'm leading the aces, and my suit started as AAKQJ. The suit could easily have started something like

AAKQJ -- ATTKK -- AKQQJ -- TTTQJ

or any number of variations. There's no implication of shortness. Now, go back to the first pair. If I've started with AAKKQQ, I see 7 of the 8 non-point cards, and only 3 of the 8 non-ace points. Partner has no more K's, no more T's, and at most 1 J. Conversely, if I have AAKKK, there are still 3 non-points out, and only 4 non-ace points missing. OK, he doesn't have a T; from AATKQ, he'd play K,A. He can still have KQQQJ, KQQQ, or KQQJ...no ace, no shortness. MY hand says the Q is a NEUTRAL card; it doesn't help you, *except* that the only way he can have both missing aces is AAKQ or AAKQQ.

Quote:What could you play to tell me to go in another suit? Is this covered in your 2-card signalling?
Your communication gives increased information regarding A's, but decreased information regarding suit length.
Because there are two ways for a partner to win the lead (A's & trump), I am happy to receive information regarding either as a group -- as opposed to individually expressed.

There aren't enough card ranks to support suit preference; meanings would start conflicting. I've got two 2-card signals; one is count, the other is almost always on defense only. That doesn't mean some suit preference signals might be feasible, in certain situations; the prime one might well be when aces are in between the partners. But that's well, well beyond the scope of anything basic.

Quote:Your clear-cut claim is more about being able to communicate the reason for your strength.
My clear-cut claim is more about being able to communicate strength versus weakness.

No, it's not. It's based more on bridge thinking, and particularly upside-down signals...where the 2 is the STRONGEST way to say "I LIKE THIS!". The J is the most extreme low card, so it carries the exactly opposite message: strength. That's when you can't afford the clearer A.

Quote:When I am finished leading cards, I don't need to know the reason for the [LIGHT] as much as I need to know the [COLOR].
I just want my partner in the lead.

A and J are the ONLY real 'lights.' And they're both green. ANY other card is neutral, in and of itself, until you look at the context of what you have in the suit, and what the opponents have played. What they all deny, MOST of the time, is the remaining 2 aces. The rest of the interpretation is up to you, taking in ALL available information. I didn't mention melds, but they can be informative too. Try this: you name spades. I meld a double marriage in clubs. I cash 2 club aces. You play K, then Q. OHHHHH...you HAD a point that has no trick-taking value, but didn't give it. That BETTER mean you have both missing aces, the fact that you didn't play a J notwithstanding.

Quote:I really don't want this to be about IMO against IMO though; I want this to be the best logical tactic.
So maybe you can describe a scenario where it is more important to know the reason for strength.

You're asking for too much certainty. No such thing; the game just doesn't allow it. I strive for an edge; to be doing the right thing maybe 25% more often. Hey, if it means, once every other game, that we pull 20 to save 30 meld (on defense), or pull 31 to shut them out, or better yet SET them...it's meaningful. I said to rak, IMO pinochle is a game that is luck-dominated...but these are the little areas where doing things right can be very valuable.

Quote:Using your lead back framework, in what cases do I change my throw away card based on the type of lead back you gave?
Because in my framework, I throw away a K when I've received an A lead back, and a Q when I've received a Q lead back.
Do you ever throw away a non-Q when you've received a non-A lead back?

Ace signal pretty much screams "lead K if possible." J signal is strong enough (again, barring reasons to think otherwise) that it says lead K. But heck, I'll lead K with NO signal, when the hand is right. Here's your hand:

Sp AATKQQJJ He Axx Di AAKKJJ Cl Axx

You cash rounded aces first (SHORT suit aces before LONG suit aces...another article for later). Now the diamond aces, on which partner plays K,K.

First, consider your exits. There are only 2 suits possible, spades or diamonds. Every beginner is taught to lead a spade, probably the Q. However, I suggest a *diamond*. There are actually 3 reasons for this:

1. You have 4 low diamonds. Most likely, they're all losers. But, what if partner only has 3? He can ruff; your loser becomes a trick for your side.

2. Conversely, if partner has 6 or 7 diamonds, you may be able to force both opponents to ruff. When this appears plausible, you can hammer out the low trump by playing both trump aces. Now they're ruffing your little baby non-point diamonds, hopefully with trump tricks that they had coming anyway, or maybe watch their trump aces crash on each other. OR, you'll be able to strip trump and cash those low diamonds as tricks.

3. While partner could have both missing trump aces, and probably doesn't have both missing diamond aces, it's actually about equally likely that both a trump and a diamond will reach him...essentially, that partner and RHO have the 2 missing aces. Not a great chance, essentially only about 11% for diamonds (slightly better for spades because partner can have both)...but you have longer-term reasons for trying diamonds anyway.

So, ok, you elect to exit with a diamond. Which, J or K? Note that if you play K and LHO wins with an ace, oh well. You still have another K for the 4th ace, if partner has it. It's not really costing you anything, either now or later. What the heck, why not take the chance. Note that if you had AAKQJJ, you can't do this; the point's too likely to be lost. And finally, if you actually started with AATKQQ...this is a good candidate for sandbagging, as you have a reasonable chance of 2 extra tricks.

Quote:My goal with all of this, is not to try to find a faults in your tactics, I don't even need my way to be right.
I just want a play for every reason and a reason for every play.
All of your decisions are based on a series of hard-thought conditional statements (if/elseif/else) considering many variables.
I know you don't like robotic action, so perhaps I can upgrade to a more complex, situational-thinking, robotic action.
The master set of principles/strategies/styles that you and Rick are sharing with the pinochle community needs to be streamlined so that it can be absorbed by all players without regret or second-guessing.
Better pinochle for everyone, that is the goal.

It's really not as hard as it might sound. It is a mindset, based on looking at what's going on. Work on that, and most of these decisions aren't that hard.

And when it gets down to cases, misjudging or flat-out mis-guessing in ambiguous situations is going to happen. There are several more obvious, simplistic errors that can *easily* be trained away.

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - mickmackusa - 04-18-2016

Gosh, as I re-read this thread from years ago, I found myself increasingly irritated by TE's beat-around-the-bush & terminology-tweaking defense.

Who were these 80% of Yahoo Pinochle players that use Jack Leadbacks? (I wasn't one of them, and I never heard anyone speak of the tactic.)
Does anyone still use them?
Is anyone else teaching Jack Leadbacks?

I just can't see the logic in it.
Why would anyone want to make Pinochle more difficult than it already is?
Does this tactic come from another game?
Is this purely a Bridge spawned maneuver? 

Can someone else try to convince me that Jack Leadbacks are superior to Queen Leadbacks?
I must ask this question because it is vital for teaching beginners and for the development of Pinochle bots.

My signalling and non-signalling system (as it seems to me) is the best, simplest, and clearest.
I just can't see any flaws.

Help me if you dare!

RE: Play: The 2 basic signals - mickmackusa - 04-18-2016

p.s.

(09-19-2012, 01:42 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  Try this:  you name spades.  I meld a double marriage in clubs.  I cash 2 club aces.  You play K, then Q.  OHHHHH...you HAD a point that has no trick-taking value, but didn't give it.  That BETTER mean you have both missing aces, the fact that you didn't play a J notwithstanding.  

In this example, TE is giving the signaler a *minimum* of  AC  AC  KC  KC  QC  QC .  With 6 clubs (possibly more) in my hand, there is a higher chance that the 4th club lead will be trumped, so I am throwing the  AC on it to give a solid signal and score a point, and as a result leaving myself 2 Counters and 2 Non-counters to fire into trumped tricks.