Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Types of Bids
#1
I would like to open up discussion on what all the different kinds of bids are.
I hope this will grow with additional support from our members.

Meld Bids Group:
1. Limited Meld Bid (50 -> 54 or 53 -> 55)
2. Unlimited Meld Bid (50 -> 59 or 52 -> 59)
3. Jump Bid *partner has not passed (60 -> 70 or 65 -> 90)

Hand-Specifying Bids Group:
1. Aces Around Bid (51 or PASS -> 51)
2. Double Aces Around Bid (59? or 100?)

Take Bids Group:
1. Save Bid *as 2nd seat (PASS -> 50)
2. Minimum Bid (50 -> 51 or 59 -> 60)
3. Lockout Bid (PASS -> 65 or 50 -> 60)

Everyone is free to split hairs on terminology, examples, which bids belong in certain groups, and if additional groups are necessary.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#2
Meld-showing: most bids that are more than the minimum. BTW, 59 is NOT unlimited meld for most, it's double aces, unless the auction is already at about 55 or 56, where it's needed to show meld. 58 is the usual unlimited-meld bid.

Also, I'd categorize the aces around and double aces bids, as meld-showing.

Shutout bids: jumping the bid to 60+, when partner has not yet bid, passed, or has given meld. The purposes and requirements vary. These are shutout bids:

60 (IMO, this shows a monster playing hand, and demands meld from partner...but many players just do this to try to steal the hand)
pass-50-60 (often this is trying to steal the hand, or force a guess from the opponents)
52-53-65 (bidder knows his side's limit; why let opponents bid? partner, who gave meld, MUST pass)

As a sidebar: the 52-53-65 auction, which is pretty darn common, is a HUGE reason why I hate meld-first-always bidding...the meld giver feels compelled to bid 70 "to show his hand" which is no better than the 65 bidders...or bid 75 when 4th seat bids 70. It throws everything into a high-level guessing game.

Meld-asking: Making the cheapest available bid in a non-save, non-checkback situation. These bids say "partner, I've got a pretty good trump suit and I want to play it...please give meld." Note that when the bidding starts 50-51-52-53...ALL 4 BIDS are meld-asks.

Save bid: making the cheapest available bid in a save situation.

Checkback bid: "just making sure."

Save situation: if you pass, partner is on the hook to play the hand, AND, he hasn't shown a desire to do so.

Checkback situations most commonly occur when both partners give meld. West passes, North bids 52, East passes, South bids 54. North bids 55. This is largely a save bid, but does show a decent trump suit. If South bids 56, this is a checkback...it usually shows a decent 7 card suit, but it's also inviting North, if he does have a pretty good 7 card, or almost any 8 card, trump suit to bid again...that's the "check back" nature. "I've got an OK trump suit, do you have just something basic, or do you have something better?" Another checkback situation is 52-pass-53-54 (by opponent)-55. Partner's 53 was just a save, so the meld bidder's 55 is suggesting a 6 card run with some tricks, or something similar. He's willing to compete at least a bit.

Note that these groups all start from a very basic position: was it a minimum, cheapest-available bid, or was it higher? Cheapest bids are saves, meld-asks, or the occasional checkback. Bids over the minimum are meld-showing or shutout.
Reply
#3
What word can I use to describe TE's post? I don't know. It's late, and I'm tired, but I keep wanting to say this is a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good post. There I said it. Now with that said, I'm going to follow up with a negative post. Ok, it isn't really that negative, but more of a wish.

I wish that instead of having to say "a decent trump suit", "pretty good 7 card, or almost any 8 card trump suit to bid again...", or "6 card run with some tricks", we could directly refer to a hand by it's trick taking ability (range). I have many reasons for wishing this. I'm going to make a list and instead of typing "I believe that", please know that these are all just my opinions.

1. Learning how to count tricks is an important part of analyzing a hand pre-bid.

2. Judging hands by their trick count range allows for easier classification of hands (especially for beginners)

3. Using a number (trick count) rather than a description of the texture of a hand is easier for the brain to follow in a forum discussion.

4. The length and strength of a trump suit is important in determining a hand's potential for tricks, but the trick count is the important determining factor in the end.


Finally, I am going to start a post with questions where I want opinions to be answered only by a trick count range. I'm very interested to see what our opinions are on this subject.
Reply
#4
ToreadorElder said:
"Also, I'd categorize the aces around and double aces bids, as meld-showing."

Double Aces is indeed a very meld oriented bid. But not Aces.

51 does not show just the value of the meld. It also shows 4 tricks. It also shows a route to the Ace bidder's hand. This third aspect seems to have a much higher value in Pinochle than I expected. I thought showing tricks would be the thing. I was confused that my holding any number of aces was not biddable, only Aces Around.

The bids showing Aces and Double Aces is sufficiently different from any other meld bid to be inits own category.

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

60 (IMO, this shows a monster playing hand, and demands meld from partner...but many players just do this to try to steal the hand)

How monster? More than the local standard 35-7-6?

-----------


"As a sidebar: the 52-53-65 auction, which is pretty darn common, is a HUGE reason why I hate meld-first-always bidding...the meld giver feels compelled to bid 70 "to show his hand" which is no better than the 65 bidders...or bid 75 when 4th seat bids 70. It throws everything into a high-level guessing game. "

What is the alternative? The first bidder does not have an opening bid, too much to pass. He might have Aces. What else is there?

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

Save bid: making the cheapest available bid in a save situation.
Save situation: if you pass, partner is on the hook to play the hand, AND, he hasn't shown a desire to do so.
P-*
51-P-*
52-P-*
59-P-*
Any others?
Rick Hall
Reply
#5
Quote:4. The length and strength of a trump suit is important in determining a hand's potential for tricks, but the trick count is the important determining factor in the end.

No, it's not...or at least, it depends on the question you're asking. And just counting tricks focuses on the wrong thing. Given

AHTHKHKHQHJHJHASASKSQSJSADADKDQDACTCKCJC

you have tricks, but so what? You'll have most of them if partner plays the hand. This should be considered when you choose your bidding approach.

richard: both aces and double aces bids, give 2 pieces of information: meld, and strength. That's one reason they're so valuable; there's no other ways to convey both with one bid. But I didn't use 'meld bid.' I said meld-showing. That doesn't deny other aspects. And, there's a critical implication: every meld-showing bid invites partner to take captaincy, and limits the offensive orientation of the bidder's hand (but NOT necessarily the trick strength).

By my lights: opening 60 shows a massive offensive hand. These might be typical:

AHAHAHTHTHKHKHQHJHJHASXSADXDXDXCXCXCXCXC

or

AHAHTHKHKHQHQHJHASASASTSTSXSXSXDXDXDXCXC

The playing strength of the first hand is obvious; the second hand can reasonably anticipate 6 heart tricks and 5-6 spade tricks.

Quote:"As a sidebar: the 52-53-65 auction, which is pretty darn common, is a HUGE reason why I hate meld-first-always bidding...the meld giver feels compelled to bid 70 "to show his hand" which is no better than the 65 bidders...or bid 75 when 4th seat bids 70. It throws everything into a high-level guessing game. "

What is the alternative? The first bidder does not have an opening bid, too much to pass. He might have Aces. What else is there?

In meld first bidding, the 52 bid doesn't deny an 8 card double-ace run. THAT'S how the problem arises. He gave 20 but thinks he's got to bid again because he thinks he's got the better hand. He might be right, but as I said, it's now a high-level guessing game, and he's bidding with no information.

Quote:Save bid: making the cheapest available bid in a save situation.
Save situation: if you pass, partner is on the hook to play the hand, AND, he hasn't shown a desire to do so.
P-*
51-P-*
52-P-*
59-P-*
Any others?

2nd seat after 1st seat bids:
50-52-p-?
52-54-p-? and so on

Perhaps more important, this is NOT a save situation:
50-52-54-?

Partner gave 20, but he is NOT on the hook.
Reply
#6
(05-23-2013, 11:24 AM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  
Quote:4. The length and strength of a trump suit is important in determining a hand's potential for tricks, but the trick count is the important determining factor in the end.

No, it's not...or at least, it depends on the question you're asking. And just counting tricks focuses on the wrong thing. Given

AHTHKHKHQHJHJHASASKSQSJSADADKDQDACTCKCJC

you have tricks, but so what? You'll have most of them if partner plays the hand. This should be considered when you choose your bidding approach.

We are not disagreeing here. My point was based on the people who jump to 60 or who feel justified bidding aggressively because they see a "pretty" trump suit, without realizing they aren't going to take many tricks. I agree with your point as well. With the hand above, if your partner has a biddable hand, the partnership should take more tricks if your partner takes the bid instead of you. That is a good example why I was throwing the idea out there of adding aces in the number system because of cases like this where trick count doesn't always tell the whole story.
Reply
#7
Oh, that hand will take tricks. It's a 9 trick hand in hearts. BUT, it's also about 6 tricks...the heart ace might get ruffed, but with aces around this is less likely. (If partner plays the hand, RHO can get in, but not LHO, barring a ruff. Thus, it's not as likely that 2-3 rounds of hearts will get played before you're in.) So this hand is not much better as declarer than it is as dummy. THAT is the concept to drive home.
Reply
#8
(05-21-2013, 09:15 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  I would like to open up discussion on what all the different kinds of bids are.
I hope this will grow with additional support from our members.

Meld Bids Group:
1. Limited Meld Bid (50 -> 54 or 53 -> 55)
2. Unlimited Meld Bid (50 -> 59 or 52 -> 59)
3. Jump Bid *partner has not passed (60 -> 70 or 65 -> 90)

Hand-Specifying Bids Group:
1. Aces Around Bid (51 or PASS -> 51)
2. Double Aces Around Bid (59? or 100?)

Take Bids Group:
1. Save Bid *as 2nd seat (PASS -> 50)
2. Minimum Bid (50 -> 51 or 59 -> 60)
3. Lockout Bid (PASS -> 65 or 50 -> 60)

Everyone is free to split hairs on terminology, examples, which bids belong in certain groups, and if additional groups are necessary.

I would like to partially re-open this question.  I am looking at my to-do list for the website, and I want to get the terminology locked down before I create several new pages.
Specifically my bidding group term "Take Bid."
I don't think anyone else uses this term, and I don't think it sounds very classy/professional.
Is there another term that is common? or a term from another card game we could adopt?
If I am referencing a bid that is aiming to win the contract, what kind of word would couple well with with contract?  Acquire? -> an Acquisition Bid? ...sounds classy, but does it roll off the tongue.
Winning Bid might be confusing when the contract is yet to be won.
"Contract Bid" directly speaks of the target of the bid, but this could be potentially confusing.  Like Winning Bid, multiple players may be Contract Bidding (not Meld Bidding) at the same time before the contract is eventually won.

Acquisition Bid sounds the most professional to me.
Take Bid is short and clear (to me).

What does everyone think?  I am hoping to have a term that is "[single word] Bid."  All thoughts welcome.

Vote in the poll: Which is the best term for the category of bids that seeks declarership?
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#9
New to the site. I'm just getting into reading the threads. I'm pleasantly pleased at the level of discussion so far. Common terminology is all important. It would be nice to have links to the glossary where terms are defined, or better yet pop ups defining the term without leaving the page.

For replacement of your "Take" bid, what about "Want" or better "Want it" bid (I like the second one, it conveys the idea best and rolls off the tongue ... two words but the second word is a small one
Ta!
--FLACKprb
Reply
#10
Well, it's two words, but I like the term 'meld-ask' or 'meld-asking'...because it describes the bid, with the implicit assertion that you're interested in taking the bid and playing the hand.

Another term might be a 'request' bid. You're asking for meld and captaincy to play the hand. This gives better delineation with the lockout kind of bid, where it's largely NOT a 'request' but a demand.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)