Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theoretical Bidding System 2.0
#1
I've been thinking a lot about what I've proposed in my theoretical bidding system. I've also been weighing the logical arguments that others have offered.

I stood in front of the proverbial drawing board and asked myself a very simple question. "What is absolutely necessary?" Here is how I responded:

1. The Hard 60 Control Bid - It is highly disruptive to an opposition with limited meld, it clearly conveys the bidder's hand quality and the bidder's intention of captaincy.

2. A SIMPLE Soft Meld Bid Formula - I want a calculation so simple to explain that my tween-aged step-son can learn in not more than 2 minutes. A structure with zero guess work on actual value. A structure that crosses the 60 threshold and is still numerically profitable. Finally, it must never force a bidder to PASS when he has a value to express.


Now, what about the other side of the coin? "What isn't absolutely necessary?"

1. A Double Aces Around Bid - a great percentage of the time, a bidder with nearly half a hand of Aces and a fifth of the game's score in meld is going to bid for captaincy. What about when the bidder doesn't have a marriage? Giving 100 meld is going to be more than enough support for your partner to pick his favorite suit and give it a try. As far as assumptions, if you give 100 meld and your partner only has a couple of Aces in his hand, that is ample evidence to assume the 100 meld is Double Aces.

2. An Unlimited Meld Bid - if the Soft Meld Bid formula is tight, there is no need to use this unclear bid. Removal of this bid, also removes the need for a follow-up meld bid to clarify the unlimited bid.


There is something I am not quite sure about. "Is a separate Aces Around Bid necessary?" Why isn't it "valuable enough" to use adjusted meld for a Single Aces Around Bid and just call it 20? I am including the bid in my system for now, but it may see the chopping block. However, I would like someone to convince me that the Single Aces Bid is worth the Bid Inflation.

Because all bids in this system are soft (with exception to 60), a player can change their Bid Category whenever they wish--unlimited freedom of language.

Have I considered all things? Does anyone value anything else or value it differently?
My current grid is attached.

.xlsx   MickmackusaTheoreticalBiddingSystemGrid.xlsx (Size: 10.98 KB / Downloads: 8)
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#2
The rigid position that "60 is always to play" creates too much distortion, albeit generally only in jammed auctions anyway, and in a few cases, redundancy (over 58, 59 and 60 are both control bids?) You're also not considering the state of the auction in any way. An auction that starts 53-56 is considerably different from one that starts 50-56.

Quote:There is something I am not quite sure about. "Is a separate Aces Around Bid necessary?" Why isn't it "valuable enough" to use adjusted meld for a Single Aces Around Bid and just call it 20? I am including the bid in my system for now, but it may see the chopping block. However, I would like someone to convince me that the Single Aces Bid is worth the Bid Inflation.

If I don't have 20 adjusted (or very close), and I can't make the 51 bid...I don't have a problem passing. Passing doesn't say "I have nothing." And remember my fundamental assumption: a passed partner will contribute about 15 total points. A 20 meld bid will usually contribute about 25 total. So, what's the least lie? With, say,

AHAHTHTHKHJHJHASKSKSKSQSJSJSADTDQDQDACJC

I'm passing. I'm concerned that at least 1, perhaps 2, of these aces isn't cashing. Call it 4 tricks, so that's 22 total, and 3 tricks seems more likely than 5. IMO that's not enough; I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Conversely, with

AHAHTHKHQHASASQSQSJSADTDTDQDQDQDACKCKCJC

This is still 12 meld, but I largely expect all 6 aces to cash. Even if it's only 5...I'm still at 24 total. This is worth giving 20.

I take serious issue with your 3-step jumps like 75 over 60, that show 20. That's WAY too much. Let's take an auction:

West 52
North 54
East 60

South has 20 meld. He bids 75? With only 40 meld total, and no guarantee of trick sources? Even giving North a run, that'd be 55 meld for an 80 bid? That's too rich.

West 52
North 53
East 60

OK, North's got a 35-7-6. If you bid 75, he's forced to 80 again...and your side's got something around 60.

Note that the step for the aces makes the problem worse...but even without it, the problem is still there. Take it out, and you're suggesting bidding 70 on only 20. Your side's still only got about 60 total points, so you're still going down unless partner's got FAR more than usual.

This is why trying to be too simple, just doesn't work.
Reply
#3
Above 60, I don't think it is feasible to show aces around anymore. The bidding is too high. Above sixty, I think the system should work to show meld and control bidding only. There is barely room enough to do those two things in most cases.
Reply
#4
Problems:
The Aces Bid causes some serious inflation.
Intel sometimes becomes too expensive when crossing the 60 threshold.

Possible Solutions:
Remove the Aces Bid and merge it with the 20 Meld Bid when adjusted meld allows it.
Disallow some 20 Meld Bids that go too far beyond 60.


If I got rid of the Aces Bid, and return the Soft Bids calculation back to the CABS style and I want to give a 20 Meld Bid...
Last Bid = 56, Your Bid = 58 (20 meld costs 2 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 57, Your Bid = 59 (20 meld costs 2 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 58, Your Bid = 65 (20 meld costs 7 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 35%
Last Bid = 59, Your Bid = 65 (20 meld costs 6 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 30%
Last Bid = 60, Your Bid = 70 (20 meld costs 10 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 50%
Last Bid = 65, Your Bid = 75 (20 meld costs 10 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 50%
or a 30 Meld Bid...
Last Bid = 56, Your Bid = 59 (30 meld costs 3 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 57, Your Bid = 65 (30 meld costs 8 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 27%
Last Bid = 58, Your Bid = 65 (30 meld costs 7 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 23%
Last Bid = 59, Your Bid = 70 (30 meld costs 11 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 37%
Last Bid = 60, Your Bid = 75 (30 meld costs 15 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 50%
Last Bid = 65, Your Bid = 80 (30 meld costs 15 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 50%


Compare to the CABS which doesn't have a Hard 60 bid:
Last Bid = 56, Your Bid = 58 (20 meld costs 2 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 57, Your Bid = 59 (20 meld costs 2 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 58, Your Bid = 60 (20 meld costs 2 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 59, Your Bid = 65 (20 meld costs 6 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 30%
Last Bid = 60, Your Bid = 70 (20 meld bid disabled)
Last Bid = 65, Your Bid = 75 (20 meld bid disabled)
or a 30 Meld Bid...
Last Bid = 56, Your Bid = 59 (30 meld costs 3 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 57, Your Bid = 60 (30 meld costs 3 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 10%
Last Bid = 58, Your Bid = 65 (30 meld costs 7 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 23%
Last Bid = 59, Your Bid = 70 (30 meld costs 11 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 37%*
*this row may not be correctly assumed, and has the worst price of the group.
Last Bid = 60, Your Bid = 70 (30 meld costs 10 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 33%
Last Bid = 65, Your Bid = 75 (30 meld costs 10 bid points) Language Price Percentage: 33%


What is an acceptable language price percentage? This should help to determine the cost off for when 20 Meld is still okay to show.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#5
Who the bloody heck CARES about 'language price'? That measures nothing, it means nothing.

The REASON CABS says a jump from 60 to 70 shows 30, is in *bidding logic.* You seem insistent on making a Universal Meld Bidding Approach...and it DOES NOT WORK.
Reply
#6
It is an interesting idea that mick has shown. I will delete posts like the previous one that don't show courtesy or tolerance to others ideas and thoughts.
Reply
#7
And we wonder why people are afraid to spend time posting and sharing ideas?
Reply
#8
(09-05-2013, 05:10 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  Who the bloody heck CARES about 'language price'? That measures nothing, it means nothing.

The REASON CABS says a jump from 60 to 70 shows 30, is in *bidding logic.* You seem insistent on making a Universal Meld Bidding Approach...and it DOES NOT WORK.

I spent most of my teens and 20's playing a sport that American culture dictates as a girls-only game. In high school, I copped my fair share of heckling and harassment. While obviously unpleasant at the times, it strengthened me. I don't auto-align myself with convention and I won't be bullied into it. I don't feel anything from being attacked, I skip that step and go right to "Why is the heckler heckling?"

This is not the first change-fearing post from you in one of my recent thread.
This does less to damage my intention, than it shows your close-mindedness and lack of daring.
I can understand why you don't want to change. After 3000 online games and self-assured mastery of the CABS; why risk learning something new that may only be marginally better? You don't think it is broken, and thus there is no need for you to fix it.

While other members may be intimidated and lose confidence in posting, I am immune. I appreciate that rakbeater is scrutinizing posts for content that may have a negative impact. However, your post did not use any foul language and made no personal attacks, so there is no call for moderation. It was merely a waste of time.

I will continue to build a new system. I will respond to all posts that challenge or question it. I have nothing to debate, if you simply claim that you don't LIKE my terminology. I am looking at the CABS with fresh eyes from every possible angle that I can imagine. Some of my perspectives may be useless, but maybe I'll uncover something that no one ever tried to see.

My intention for Language Price / Percentage is to be a numerical way of proportionately expressing Bidding Logic across multiple bidding systems.
Yesterday, I penciled a Language Price / Percentage Grid for a new system that doesn't offer a Single Aces Bid and instead of Meld Bids that were rounded to 10, I rounded to the nearest 15,25,35,etc. This system's Language Price was very steep, and that clearly, mathematically displayed why it is less usable than CABS or MTBS.

I am eventually going to be tasked with writing a Bid Calculator, Bid Training, and Bid Test program on this site.
This is going to be a nightmare to program while there are grey, debatable areas in the system.
Teaching the CABS is going to be difficult, in person or online, because it is not simple at times and some bids can have multiple meanings.

Thomas A. Edison - "Discontent is the first necessity of progress."
Where we are divided is our content / discontent for the CABS.
I AM insistent on creating a new system with clear Meld Bidding and clear Control/Captaincy Bidding. As I said before, you can be part of the solution, or be ignored. Your only risk with these negative posts is damaging your online persona.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#9
(09-05-2013, 05:10 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  The REASON CABS says a jump from 60 to 70 shows 30, is in *bidding logic.*

I don't disagree with that jump bid being logical.
I want to see an expression as to why it is.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a way to judge a bidding systems.
I want debate to be scientific and not based on 'feel'.
The cost is 2 steps and adds to the Captain's Bid Limit.
Assuming the Captain's Bid Limit was 60, the 30 Meld Bid increases the Bid Limit.
It doesn't increase the Bid Limit to 90, because the Captain was already assuming the partner to have a default amount of meld/support (whether that was 8 or 10 or whatever).
The Cost = 10 bidding points (2 steps)
The Benefit = Partner's Actual Meld minus Partner's Assumed Meld
The new Bid Limit would be 80. (if Partner's Assumed Meld was 10.)

I am seeking a value for Bidding System CBA, so I can use it as a criteria to judge any bidding system.

The bidding system with the strongest scientific debate should be the primary bidding system. If MTBS is not scientifically superior, it should be developed or ignored; likewise for the CABS.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#10
The reason why a jump bid of +10 over 60 has to be considered 30 (or 26-34) is because if you make a bid of 60+ you are saying that you want the bid, you have enough meld and trick takers (along with your partners assumed contribution) to make that particular 60+ bid. I think most people assume their partner will have 10 meld and a couple tricks, or an adjusted meld of around 15. So when you bid 60+ you are already taking into account your partner's meld and trick contribution towards making the bid.

So, if your partner sends you a meld bid of 20 by using the +10 jump bid, you then have to bid +5, so the bid is now 15 higher than what you thought you could make, and the 20 meld bid only tells you have 10 more meld than you thought, but the bid has increased by 15. Without some luck, you will be set.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)