Double Aces Around Bid

[mickmackusa]

The CABS dictates that 59 is a Double Aces Around bid.

Why is it important to have an under60 communicative bid for Double Aces Around?

[richardpaulhall]

A potential bidder with a nice trump suit and no tricks can bid easily with the knowledge that his partner has 8 tricks; that those aces will bring in some counters from the potential bidder or cover losers. The trump suit will be brought in with few losers.

[ToreadorElder]

I don't think there's any compelling reason, since it is conventional anyway. One might posit that there's no great reason to risk bidding, let's say, 100, to show it...why go down *that* much in those really rare cases when you won't make. But that's gotta be something you might see once a decade, or less.

I suppose in meld-first bidding, 59 gives you all the room you could *conceivably* need...but with double aces you're safe to at least 125...100, plus 4 for a trump marriage, plus 20 to save. If you're playing without the 20 to make the board, 20 to save rules...you simply never go set in that approach. Anything under 100 is already safe. But that's pretty much just totally social play.

One can define 59 as "I have double aces, but save me with ANY marriage" and 100 as "I have double aces and a decent suit, so you can pass if you want." 50, of course, would be asking to play it with a stronger offensive hand, so 100 might be a 6 card run or 7 card non-run.

[mickmackusa]

(08-23-2013, 10:05 AM)richardpaulhall Wrote:  A potential bidder with a nice trump suit and no tricks can bid easily with the knowledge that his partner has 8 tricks; that those aces will bring in some counters from the potential bidder or cover losers. The trump suit will be brought in with few losers.

I definitely see the value of having a bid that conveys Double Aces, I am only splitting hairs on the best way to do it.

(08-23-2013, 12:31 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  One might posit that there's no great reason to risk bidding, let's say, 100, to show it...why go down *that* much in those really rare cases when you won't make. But that's gotta be something you might see once a decade, or less.

If Double Aces = 8 Aces = 8 tricks = 20 trick points, I say that those mega-rare instances where the bidding team goes set -- the bidders deserve to lose 100+ points from their score!

-----------------------------------------------------
I am discontented with some archaic aspects of the CABS.
Discontent is the first necessity of progress. --Thomas A. Edison
I don't know what rakbeater has brewing in bidding system book, but if there is a place to denounce unsound pinochle play -- a good starting place would be here in the forums. If all of our clever members can agree on ways to improve the game, it would only make sense to share it and grow it. Whether the ideas in this forum are confined to a very limited following or eventually spread world-wide -- I don't care. Progress is a worth-while endeavor. Words of fear/doubt about the ability of people to change and adapt are both common and valueless to motivated inventors.
If an idea is compelling enough, people will adopt it.

Look at it the other way, if people cannot change, what is the point of making hundreds of posts about playing better pinochle.

Until a time when all pinochle players play an exactly identical way, I don't see a problem with talking it out at the start of a new game.
Do you use Modern Bidding or Traditional Bidding? (whatever you wish to call them.)
Do you use J Leadbacks? Oh, you don't know what that means, I'll explain.
Do you give True Meld or Adjusted Meld?

It's just pregame prep.
No, it doesn't happen now in online games, but it could/should.
Have a little hope, a little faith, dream a little dream.

[ToreadorElder]

In what way is 59 to show double aces, unsound? Not optimal...perhaps. But not unsound, especially considering we're talking about something that comes up once per 1000 hands or so.

The difference between what you're asking here, and what most of the posts are about, is that we're not talking about changing something that already exists...except for advocating moving away from meld-first-always bidding. The only 'advice' one sees for bidding or play for double deck, is incredibly rudimentary at best. To be sure, I haven't seen the one book on double deck that's been pointed out...but who's going to drop, what was it, $75 for a book on PINOCHLE? That's absurd. So all we have is a few web pages. If we use the analogy of a fence, the MOST I'd be willing to say is, the content means all the post holes have been dug out, and about 1/3 of the fence posts placed. That's it. What we aim to do, is to actually build the whole fence.

I have something like 6000 games on Yahoo. I have never...not ONCE...had, or heard opponents having, that kind of pre-game discussion. With a new partner playing bridge, sure; 30-45 minutes to discuss convention cards was essential. But online? Not yet. People are there to just play. And online, without something like Skype which we can't assume? TYPING out all the points at issue, will take far too long; typing is an order of magnitude slower. And most people don't want to deal with it anyway. "I know how to play!" is what you're going to hear if you try to explain adjusted meld, and WHY to do it.

[mickmackusa]

(08-25-2013, 12:27 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  In what way is 59 to show double aces, unsound? Not optimal...perhaps. But not unsound, especially considering we're talking about something that comes up once per 1000 hands or so.

I can agree with you here. Optimal better describes what I am seeking. And the 1 in ~1000 hand occurrence supports my case that the 59 Double Aces bid is over-represented.

(08-25-2013, 12:27 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  The difference between what you're asking here, and what most of the posts are about, is that we're not talking about changing something that already exists...except for advocating moving away from meld-first-always bidding.

Because your anti-Meld-First-Always bidding stance is so logical, it should be adopted by all. In the meantime, I think it is great that you are pushing your case here on this site. "From little things, big things grow." (...Aussies feel free to sing in your head)
Until your style of bidding is adopted by the majority, it will be an alternative to conventional play. Survival of the fittest will see it eventually adopted. If my theoretical bidding system is fit enough, it will be adopted as well. If it is not fit enough, I want to see how to make it fitter.

(08-25-2013, 12:27 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  I have something like 6000 games on Yahoo. I have never...not ONCE...had, or heard opponents having, that kind of pre-game discussion. With a new partner playing bridge, sure; 30-45 minutes to discuss convention cards was essential. But online? Not yet. People are there to just play. And online, without something like Skype which we can't assume? TYPING out all the points at issue, will take far too long; typing is an order of magnitude slower. And most people don't want to deal with it anyway. "I know how to play!" is what you're going to hear if you try to explain adjusted meld, and WHY to do it.

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I have never played bridge, but from what you are saying, there are several acknowledged ways to play. Pinochle might be well served to follow in the footsteps of bridge on this subject.


As far as finding a quick and easy way to explain an alternative style of play-- it would be very easy to type a URL in the chat box which will lead the three other players of the table to an explanation. This doesn't have to take 30-40 minutes. What I am suggesting would only take a minute or two to scan through, and could be referenced as needed during play if the partner forgot something.

I have said in the past that I come from a family game that shares some rules with Yahoo Pinochle and some rules from prison Pinochle. My family games don't have a 59 Double Aces bid, so for me, this was a brand new thing to learn. It's not hard to remember, and change is easy. My point is, why learn something that 'seems' flawed. I don't really want to teach people to play a flawed style either. What happens if a future student asks me WHY? I will have to cower and respond with "Because that's how everyone does it." Seems sad.

Look, I am not saying this theoretical bidding system is refined and finished. In fact, I haven't even tested it yet. If it turns out that its "poor numerical economy" (see INFLATION in a previous post) really cripples it in real game application, then it can logically be thrown and I'll go back to the drawing board.

If you believe that players can escape from "Meld-First-Always" bidding, then it shouldn't be hard to believe that recognizing an alternative bidding system is possible too.

[richardpaulhall]

MicMakUSA schreib:
"I have never played bridge, but from what you are saying, there are several acknowledged ways to play."
In the US there are maybe a half dozen well known "styles" of bidding. But except for "Precision" where almost all bids are specifically pre-defined, you can assume every player has her/his own particular modifications to their general style. These modifications have to be discussed by the partnership, and a consensus agreed up on.

[rakbeater]

It is a strange conventional system we have. You can only show aces if no one else has bid, and 59 is rarely ever used, but because it means something, when the bidding gets to 56/57 showing meld becomes difficult because you can't use that magic 59 number. Yet showing aces is far more valuable and probable than the double aces 59 bid, but the double aces 59 bid is always available, and the 51 showing aces is not. It is a flaw.

[ToreadorElder]

In order to overturn a well-established, well-known convention, you need to present a compelling reason to do so. In other words, you need to show that you have something considerably better in mind.

rak: if the bidding gets to 56 or 57, the 59 bid is NOT double aces. It does show meld.

Quote:Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I have never played bridge, but from what you are saying, there are several acknowledged ways to play. Pinochle might be well served to follow in the footsteps of bridge on this subject.

Bridge has a long tradition of popularity, at a high level of visibility. It is, I believe, the ONLY trick-taking card game that has such a level of interest. Poker does, now; cribbage probably would come after that. Pinochle's a game, like hearts and spades, you pick up casually, and largely that you play casually. Worse, these days, we probably play far more online than we do live, at the table. The kind of discussion you're considering would either be 10-15 minutes, or practically impossible if your prospective partner isn't amenable. That won't work online.

Here is a fundamental truth: players do not play online to be instructed. They generally resent it, even if what they're doing is absolutely flawed, such as pass-50-51. The 51 bid CANNOT BE CLOSE to correct in any hand. The auction continues 53 by 4th seat, 60 rebid by 2nd seat...and 3rd seat bids 65 to go down by 3, or passes...either way, he blames the cards. It's not. It was his terrible bid that led to the bad result.

Another fundamental truth: credentials MATTER. Bridge books are often written by people with credentials...national titles, world titles. It's not just a collection of random ideas, it's a collection that's been shown to work. In this forum, I've got the time and space to give an argument, and you have the time to read and consider the argument. I can get by without credentials. But when we're talking about systems and trying to define a common standard of play, why should you believe me? Worse, I'm telling you that what you're doing right now, is wrong. Who am I...some nobody...to do that?

I think what you're doing, is focusing too much on an issue that is largely not in dispute, and that is too infrequent, when taken in isolation like this. SHOW ME that you have a system where the 59 bid is needed, with reasonably high frequency, for something else...and we can get somewhere.

[mickmackusa]

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  In order to overturn a well-established, well-known convention, you need to present a compelling reason to do so. In other words, you need to show that you have something considerably better in mind.

I am trying to present enough logic to do that very thing.

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  rak: if the bidding gets to 56 or 57, the 59 bid is NOT double aces. It does show meld.

That's news to me. I was under the impression that 58 = "Literal Meld Or More" (if the previous bid was 55, then 58 means 30 rounded-meld or more). Likewise, 59 = "Double Aces". What is the cut off? Where is this sub-rule written? or it something you have only experienced. This seems like a flaw/weakness in the CABS as well -- where below60 representation is impacted by the proximity of the previous bid. The 100 Double Aces bid fixes this problem in this case.

*Note: A mega-rare case where the 100 Double Aces bid is compromised by a previous bid would be when the previous bid was 80,85,90 or 95, and the 100 Double Aces bid is confused for a 100 Meld bid or a 100 Control bid. If the Double Aces occurrence is 1 in 1000ish, then this mega-rare situation's probability could be multiplied by 1000 again and can be overlooked as an argument against the new bidding system. Building a bidding system without weaknesses is going to be impossible, I reckon the endeavor is to get as close as possible.

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  Bridge has a long tradition of popularity, at a high level of visibility. It is, I believe, the ONLY trick-taking card game that has such a level of interest. Poker does, now; cribbage probably would come after that. Pinochle's a game, like hearts and spades, you pick up casually, and largely that you play casually. Worse, these days, we probably play far more online than we do live, at the table. The kind of discussion you're considering would either be 10-15 minutes, or practically impossible if your prospective partner isn't amenable. That won't work online.

My hard stance is: Popularity is not a criteria in making correct decisions.
This is a simple stance that parents find themselves preaching to their own children. "...if your friends jump off a bridge, yatta yatta..."
My tweaks to the CABS are not a 10-15 minute read/discussion. If someone wants to talk about why, then the discussion can go much longer than that. The "understanding" part will be much faster.

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  Another fundamental truth: credentials MATTER. Bridge books are often written by people with credentials...national titles, world titles. It's not just a collection of random ideas, it's a collection that's been shown to work. In this forum, I've got the time and space to give an argument, and you have the time to read and consider the argument. I can get by without credentials. But when we're talking about systems and trying to define a common standard of play, why should you believe me? Worse, I'm telling you that what you're doing right now, is wrong. Who am I...some nobody...to do that?

My fundamental belief: credentials DON'T MATTER. Great ideas and changes can come from fools and sages. Furthermore, how else does a fool become a sage other than to have great ideas? Only people with credentials will push that credentials are mandatory. If credentials were mandatory in the real world, we wouldn't hear of 16 year old computer nerds taking a multi-million dollar payday for some code they have written. Survival of the fittest doesn't care about how far you can urinate.

A collection of random ideas IS an acceptable place to found invention.

This site and these forums are wonderful platforms to compile random ideas, discuss ramifications, find players to test, and disseminate a new logical concept.

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  I think what you're doing, is focusing too much on an issue that is largely not in dispute, and that is too infrequent, when taken in isolation like this.

A minor/lesser issue is still an issue. Tackling a small problem like Graffiti In Urban Settings doesn't solve big problems like Global Food Shortages. But if I have a possible solution for Graffiti, why not offer it?

(08-26-2013, 02:14 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  SHOW ME that you have a system where the 59 bid is needed, with reasonably high frequency, for something else...and we can get somewhere.

Frequency of use is an important criteria in building a strong bidding system. I am prioritizing/focusing on improving the representation of the Aces Around bid because it is such a frequent occurrence. I am also trying to minimize any negative impact on bidding language. This is why my proposed system doesn't erase the Double Aces bid as much as it just shifts it from 59 to 100. I am not sure what frequency the 58 Unlimited Meld bid has, but I currently don't have a better place in the system for the bid than 59. If you have some suggestions on how to improve my theoretical bidding system, I'm all ears.