Play: The 2 basic signals

[rakbeater]

It's not 80%, but the experienced and better players on Yahoo at the time, did use jack lead backs. And if you didn't notice it or if you led a jack without realizing what it meant you would get an earful. I was the victim of these mistakes many times when I had built my rating up high enough that I was allowed in the high rated games. I don't think it is the best way to play, but so many players use and look for jack lead backs, you have to at least be aware of the play if you wanted to play in those higher rated games. Now that Yahoo Pinochle doesn't exist and I rarely play online these days, I haven't heard anymore about it since TE. I did read a pinochle book by Anthony Collins that proved why you should throw Q's before J's on your opponents tricks, but I don't remember the details...I just know it made sense and I've been doing it ever since. So when you play that way, as the higher rated players did, a jack lead back was a notable play that was helpful in those situations where you knew it would be a way to get through your opponents.

[mickmackusa]

If anyone has that book handy, please find the passage and post it.
I can't switch my thinking just because a smart person said so.

[rakbeater]

I'm not sure it matters all that much. It might only happen a couple times a game, but the next time I have a chance I will check it out. It plays out a scenario, which will take time to rewrite.

[mickmackusa]

(04-18-2016, 09:36 AM)rakbeater Wrote:  It plays out a scenario, which will take time to rewrite.

If it is somewhat complicated, perhaps I can transfer it to Power Pinochle Notation for the Hand Animator.  I'll make that call after I see it in raw form.

[rdwrites]

That was some exchange of opinion. I am not sure what I would do in some cases. I could figure it out, but I think it would be situational.

First, I've only heard of A or J leadbacks, never a Q has been mentioned. However, mick's logic has me thinking it makes more sense. I have never played or interpreted J leadbacks for the reasons mick gives, but I also never interpreted a Q leadback. (always played A leadbacks). But I can see that a Q from partner on my led ace is end of the line, either empty or only Aces left. The only question is how many queens does partner have? And my hand and meld declared may provide an answer or certainly narrow it down.

I have never heard of it before, but the Q leadback looks superior to both A and J leadbacks when partner doesn't have a T. Or possibly doesn't have a Q but more Aces that expected to walk. Those kind of edge cases where A leadback would still be played.

Really interesting suggestion, mick.

[TigreLXIX]

Let me preface my response to the recent chatter by stating that I have not reread the previous posts in this thread.  I simply don't have the time to do so right now, but wanted to respond.

(04-18-2016, 08:51 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  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.)

It was not 80%.  But TE spent most of his time in the Advanced Lounges, and I'm sure anyone who didn't use the jack leadback in there simply wouldn't survive.  (See also my comments below, in response to rak's post.)

(04-18-2016, 08:51 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  Does anyone still use them?

I use them, but mostly because that was the 'norm' when I was playing on Yahoo!.  I much rather prefer the ace leadback as it is generally more accepted and more blatant, but jack [or queen, if you prefer] leadbacks do have a time.  That said, I don't criticize my partner if (s)he plays jacks before queens always (when out of pointers).

(04-18-2016, 08:51 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  Is anyone else teaching Jack Leadbacks?

I may have mentioned the jack leadback to Marya in one of the many e-mails I sent her with feedback on her bot performance.  (In fact, I'm pretty sure I did.)  Other than that, I don't really teach pinochle.

(04-18-2016, 08:51 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  Why would anyone want to make Pinochle more difficult than it already is?

Hmm...without rereading the previous posts, I'm not sure how difficult it is to remember that when your partner plays a jack on your ace it means that (s)he may have the remaining ace(s).  But I will reserve judgment until I have had a chance to review your previous posts.

(04-18-2016, 09:05 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  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             .  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   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.

See, unless it's absolutely necessary - like I have an ace that's in jeopardy (obviously in another suit) - I don't signal with an ace unless I have a 10 to back it up.  True, the odds are higher that the 4th trick will be trumped when you hold 6 to start - but without crunching numbers I don't think it's that drastic a difference than if you had 5 to start with. Also, I wouldn't necessarily play the fourth ace immediately.  I'd probably play both kings on my partner's aces (again, unless I'm desperate for the lead), then hang onto the last 2 aces until later in the hand.

(04-18-2016, 09:30 AM)rakbeater Wrote:  It's not 80%, but the experienced and better players on Yahoo at the time, did use jack lead backs.  And if you didn't notice it or if you led a jack without realizing what it meant you would get an earful.  I was the victim of these mistakes many times when I had built my rating up high enough that I was allowed in the high rated games.

Honestly, this was one of the main reasons I wound up at this site.  I continued to "get an earful" from partners because I thought it was better to play jacks vs. queens in case for some reason it came down to an opponent's jack vs. my last card.  So I religiously played jacks on my partners' aces and learned all sorts of nice names.    Of course, they wouldn't explain to me why they thought I was an incompetent idiot - which was the most frustrating part.  In retrospect, I'm kind of surprised I continued to play at all.  But I enjoyed playing (aside from the verbal assault) and, since I am competitive by nature, decided that I needed to improve my game. So I searched on Google and wound up here.

[rdwrites]

some nice info, Tigre. Thanks for taking the time.

[TigreLXIX]

(04-18-2016, 08:51 AM)mickmackusa Wrote:  Is anyone else teaching Jack Leadbacks?

I just can't see the logic in it.
...
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.

As I was playing a game today, a thought occurred to me regarding the use of jacks or queens as a leadback (possibly indicating the remaining aces in the suit when played on your partner's ace).  After giving it some thought, I think the jack is preferred, for the following reason.

Queens are more commonly melded than jacks.  Jacks are melded as part of jacks around (one or more in each suit), in pinochles (one or more only in diamonds), and/or in a run (most likely only one in trump - otherwise, what is your partner doing outbidding you and calling a suit in which you have a double run?).  Queens are melded more often - in marriages (one or more in any suit), in pinochles (one or more only in spades), as part of queens around (one or more in each suit), and/or in a run (most likely only one in trump).

The main purpose of a leadback or signal is to convey to your partner which suit (s)he should exit in, with a high probability of reaching you.  Therefore, it is important that the signal is obvious to your partner.  It needs to stand out, and be noticed by your partner.

If you have melded a queen, playing a queen on your partner's ace is probably less noticeable than playing a jack.  Let's look at an example.  You've melded a marriage in a suit, and your partner plays    .  On the first ace, you play your  .  Which is a more obvious signal to your partner - playing the  , or playing a   on the second ace?

In the case when you meld a run in trump, I don't think it makes a big difference.  If you play   followed by   or  , your partner is going to say "I know he had another point - the  .  Maybe he's trying to tell me something."  And it makes it even more obvious if you play either non-pointer on the first ace, since there's no good reason to not play the   (except, of course, to tell your partner something).

Ideally, I think it would be best to use a non-melded non-pointer as a leadback (especially when you have melded a pointer) - but that requires your partner to have perfect memory of which cards you melded.  So I think for simplicity, it should just be that jacks are used as leadbacks because they are less commonly melded than queens.

Any thoughts on this?

[mickmackusa]

I wish to reference a couple of items on my raw list of Play principles:  (Principles of Play)

(04-23-2016, 02:42 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote:  The main purpose of a leadback or signal is to convey to your partner which suit (s)he should exit in, with a high probability of reaching you.  Therefore, it is important that the signal is obvious to your partner.  It needs to stand out, and be noticed by your partner.

Yes, I'm all the way in agreement with your statement because of Principle #3 "Communicate Opportunities".
A player should always endeavor to do the very best with the cards that they are dealt; if your partner doesn't recognize your logical signals, then the onus is on the partner.
I suppose the other side of the coin is, if you think your partner won't understand the signal, then use a different signal or don't signal.  GameScore doesn't include how many times a single player is "right", only what "worked / didn't work" for the team.

(04-23-2016, 02:42 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote:  Queens are more commonly melded than jacks.  Jacks are melded as part of jacks around (one or more in each suit), in pinochles (one or more only in diamonds), and/or in a run (most likely only one in trump - otherwise, what is your partner doing outbidding you and calling a suit in which you have a double run?).  Queens are melded more often - in marriages (one or more in any suit), in pinochles (one or more only in spades), as part of queens around (one or more in each suit), and/or in a run (most likely only one in trump).

I do appreciate the thought you've put into probability of meld unit ranks; I've never thought about it that way.

(04-23-2016, 02:42 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote:  If you have melded a queen, playing a queen on your partner's ace is probably less noticeable than playing a jack.  Let's look at an example.  You've melded a marriage in a suit, and your partner plays       . On the first ace, you play your   .  Which is a more obvious signal to your partner - playing the   , or playing a   on the second ace?

I don't know if I put any weight into melded/non-melded cards in this instance.  
If I play a Jack (using Principle #1 "Conserve Strength") on the second Ace, then my partner knows that I'm not signalling because I have previously revealed my Q in the meld (my hand may still hold any number of Aces, Queens, and Jacks).
If I play a Queen (using Principle #1 "Conserve Strength") on the second Ace, then my partner can speculate with higher accuracy that my hand is reduced to only Aces and Queens in accord with basic hierarchial play (and quite possibly could be void or only Ace(s)).  This is what I have referred to earlier as a "Yellow Light" signal -- meaning if you don't have any other stronger indicators, this suit is your best chance as an exit.

(04-23-2016, 02:42 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote:  In the case when you meld a run in trump, I don't think it makes a big difference.  If you play   followed by   or     ,  your partner is going to say "I know he had another point - the    .  Maybe he's trying to tell me something."  And it makes it even more obvious if you play either non-pointer on the first ace

I don't have any problem with the logic behind the meld-related signalling.  This case is a much clearer "Green Light" signal, because of the stark contrast between pointing and not pointing the trick.

(04-23-2016, 02:42 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote:  Ideally, I think it would be best to use a non-melded non-pointer as a leadback (especially when you have melded a pointer) - but that requires your partner to have perfect memory of which cards you melded.  So I think for simplicity, it should just be that jacks are used as leadbacks because they are less commonly melded than queens.

I would prefer that the default tactic for non-Ace leadback signalling not leverage the memory of melded cards, not because of ill-logic, but because I fear it is less trustworthy.  It is very easy to mis-remember or forget the melded cards as the number of played hands increases.
The logic IS sound and certainly has its place, so I think I would like to position it as a superseding tactic.
A player is justified in abandoning the basic logic with meld-related logic when an appropriate case presents itself.

[mickmackusa]

Certainly at risk of being annoyingly repetitive, what I am trying to drive home is the natural communication that is a by-product of logical / fundamental hierarchial play.

The most immediate/logical principle of play on this topic, Appropriate Counters, dictates that I put Counters on my team's tricks and Non-counters on my opponents' tricks.*

• Obviously our tricks are given Aces, Tens, and Kings before Queens and Jacks
  
• And their tricks are given Queens and Jacks before Aces, Tens, and Kings. 
  

The second prioritized principle in this topic, Conserve Strength, dictates that less powerful card ranks be used whenever possible.*  This principle overrides the first listed principle in cases when "our trick" calls for a Counter, but the remaining options are Ace, Queen, and Jack.  So Jack is the default play because Aces expected Winners.

• So our tricks are given Kings, then Tens, then Jacks, then Queens, then Aces
  
• and their tricks are given Jacks, Queens, Kings, Tens, Aces.
  

* the necessary caveat is that any fundamental tactic may be broken if there is a tactic that more fortuitously serves one of the principles of play.


Now about the about the natural communication...
When there is a distinct order to playing ranks, then the other players at the table can make informed deductions about what you have in your hand.

If your Partner is winning a trick that looks like:

then what you play communicates what you potentially have left in your hand.
If trump is diamonds and you (legally) play:

•   or    then you have communicated to the table that you have no more red suits in your hand.
  
•   or    then you have no    or    or    .
  
•   then you have no  and an unknown quantity of    . 
  
•   then you have no    or    .
  
•   then you have no    and no             .
  
•   then you have no    or    but possibly still hold          .
  
•   then you have no          but possibly still hold       .
  
•   then you possibly hold ANYTHING.
  
•   then you have no   .
  
•   then you have no             OR you have "broken ranks" to signal that you have the remaining  s.
  

I won't bother writing out the other scenario where the opponents are expected to win the trick (I'll spare your eyes).
So, you see, every play gives information about what you do or do not have; some plays are more informative than others.
By abandoning this fundamental hierarchy of play, there is unnecessary risk of muddling the communication.
In-suit Aces are granted special privilege for "breaking ranks" because of their infrequency of miscommunication and their extreme value in the following principles: Communicate Opportunities and Undermine Opposition.

There may be a couple of cases when in-suit non-Ace leadbacks are used in conjunction with knowledge garnered from melded cards.  These could be warranted when the overall advantage is greater than the fundamental practice. In general, I will estimate that these opportunities are rare.

My trouble with the Jack Leadback tactic, is that if the Jack is used to signal, then the opposite must be true to for the Queen.
I mean, if the Jack flags the suit as favorable for exiting, then the Queen must mean the suit is not favorable.
But what happens if you don't any Queens, AND THIS WILL HAPPEN, and you throw a Jack, and your partner misunderstands?

When I don't have a clear Ace Leadback and I am making a decision about which suit to exit in, I consider the ranks of cards my partner threw and gauge which suit has the highest probability of being short.

I say if you need to signal with a non-Counter, use the Queen because I am already drawing favorable conclusions from those girls from a "shortness" perspective.

...sorry to beat a dead horse about this, I just feel very confident about it.