Power Pinochle Forums

(08-29-2013, 08:07 PM)FLACKprb Wrote: [ -> ]4) Mick, I applaud your thought of unilaterally moving Double Aces to a 100 bid, but there is always the danger of your partner not having a marriage to save you or only has a marriage in a very weak suit. (The same holds for your hand.) I've gone set with Double Aces several times. Since I haven't yet played on Yahoo, I don't know their convention for bidding past 100 but in my Pinochle education bidding progresses by 10s after 100. If this holds, then taking the bid back into your hand, after your partner saves you (okay one can argue why give the Double Aces bid in the first place if one wants to name Trumps ... it's an evaluation of your hand and giving your partner an opportunity to maybe play a better Trumps suit, why one would take it back is solely dependent on your hand), gets the team to 120 (or more if the other team is still bidding). If you and your partner have little meld other than the Double Aces, then that 20 points (or more) can be very difficult to overcome in trick taking. I've always played with the philosophy of winning the bid as cheaply as one can, therefore, I'd rule out unilaterally making Double Aces an automatic 100 bid (sorry Mick!).

My current thinking is that giving the 100 Double Aces bid is a Save-Asking bid.
As you mentioned, why give the 100 if you intend to take the bid.
This is where ToreadorElder's Strength-First strategy is best employed, by limiting confusion.
I've never heard of >100 bids being incremented by 10, but even if it was as you said, 20 points is the minimum to save the hand, so 120 is not a concern.
Mega-crazy occurrences like a player is dealt Double Aces and neither partner has a marriage = is nothing more than torturous misfortune brought down by the Gods of Pinochle. Posts are welcome @ Pinochle Venting.
I feel no bidding system needs to accommodate for such amazingly rare things. In poker, 72offsuit cracks pocket Aces some percentage of the time, but that doesn't mean you should go trapping/attacking with your pocket rockets. Play your best with the information you have.
Bidding frugally is a solid philosophy. I don't really want to argue against it, but in this one case I want to deprioritize it to my other targeted benefits (more room for under60 language, stops opponents from communicating, gives clear information to partner).

(08-29-2013, 08:07 PM)FLACKprb Wrote: [ -> ]6) Mick where can I read more about this "Prison Pinochle"? Is this just an Aussie thing Mate or is it more widespread than just downunder?

The term Prison Pinochle was used by someone else in the forums, I am just borrowing it. It's not an Aussie thing, in fact, I don't know if Aussies play this game. I googled for a Pinochle Club in Brisbane, but didn't find any.

Quote:To my knowledge, in Pinochle, there is no rule, custom, or convention that requires the opponents must know and understand any bidding system a team may employ. Conversely, whatever the bidding system opponents use does not have to be understood by your team.

"Legal" and "ethical" are entirely different things. There probably is no such rule because the game is so casual that it can't justify such a rule. Rules formalization takes place when something real is at stake.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. There doesn't NEED to be an explicit rule; it's a fundamental principle of sportsmanship and fair play. Not picking on rak, but he made a comment that "winning is the only thing" some time back, in a similar discussion. I cannot disagree with this more. I remember when, about 25 years ago, I used to play hearts or spades quite a bit, with some college students (I wasn't far out of college at the time, and worked on campus). In spades, we had a rule about overtricks...take 10 overtricks (over and above your bid), and you LOST 100 points. One girl *always* underbid, and went out of her way to throw tricks to everyone else to force them to take the hit. I wouldn't play with her, because IMO it grossly violated the spirit of the game.

And it most *definitely* is not right to develop one's bidding approach with the express intent to deceive the opponents.

Quote:As Mick put it, the system can be cryptic to opponents and allows conveyance of Single Aces nicely after the first bid!

It does. And it's not a *radical* departure from current bidding, and can be handled (more or less) at the table...even online. (At least after it happens.) My problems are that playing online, no one else is going to know about it, and IMO it's much more likely to lead to mistakes in giving meld or reading the meld given. This is an inherent trade-off in system design: the technically more accurate approach isn't automatically the best approach, if it's prone to misuse.

Quote:My current thinking is that giving the 100 Double Aces bid is a Save-Asking bid.

It'd be the same as 59. It doesn't *ask*...it absolutely DEMANDS a save on ANY marriage whatsoever, if the next player passes.

Quote:Bidding frugally is a solid philosophy. I don't really want to argue against it, but in this one case I want to deprioritize it to my other targeted benefits (more room for under60 language, stops opponents from communicating, gives clear information to partner).

Depends on what you mean by frugal. If you mean that you should pass in an auction that starts pass-50-pass to you, when you have 30 meld and several aces, and a plausible trump suit...I can't disagree more. If you mean you creep in a competitive auction...generally, no.

My big problem is, your benefits are not significant. 1 more bid under 60...show me an auction where it matters. Stops opponents from communicating...so does 59. Gives clear information to partner...so does 59.

The ONE situation is when there are 2 or 3 meld bids before you...say, 53-56. (Or VERY rarely, 1 big meld-showing bid.) 59 would NOT be double aces...so, yes, it would be nice to have a bid showing the double aces, and an agreement about when the bid means double aces, and when it's pure meld. That doesn't mean I'd want to ALWAYS use that bid to show double aces.

Quote:In poker, 72 offsuit cracks pocket Aces some percentage of the time, but that doesn't mean you should go trapping/attacking with your pocket rockets.

If you're heads up, you DO trap with the pocket aces much of the time. You don't want to be in a 3-way or 4-way hand with them because it's too likely, in that situation, that someone will connect with the flop (flush draw, straight draw, smaller pocket pair hitting a set). BTW, heads up, 72o is at worst an 8-1 underdog pre-flop...so it's not *that* rare.

---

My major concern about the ethics, was spurred by this:

Quote:I have privately heard offerings from our membership that suggest Cryptology could be an important criteria.
The logical benefit on Cryptology being that if only the Partnership understand the bidding language, then the Opposition's ability to out-auction (calculate the Partnership's upper bidding limit and be first to that number) the Partnership will be hindered if not completely eliminated. My general argument against the proposal was Inflation, again. However, the cost of inflation might need to be weighed against the potential benefits.

THIS is intentionally being deceptive, and that's where I have the problem. It's NOT a desirable goal...but it also doesn't matter. If I ask for meld, and my partner gives me something that sounds like a meld bid, the opposition isn't hindered at all because they have no idea what my limit actually is.

Quote:In poker, 72 offsuit cracks pocket Aces some percentage of the time, but that doesn't mean you should go trapping/attacking with your pocket rockets.

Whoops. There was a typo in my HU situation: I meant to use the double negative:
"...but that doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T go trapping/attacking with your pocket rockets."

Regarding the Cryptological Bidding System, I don't really know how I feel.
I am not convinced that it is actually cheating nor am I convinced that the benefit outweighs the inflation. I think I would have to see a complete representation of the system before I could test and analyze it -- three very important steps before disregarding a theory.

My bidding system is not based on cryptology. I don't have anything to hide with its workings. In fact, the more people that use it (or even credit its logic), the more successful I'll feel. Only time will tell if this thing is worth spreading around.

(08-31-2013, 06:06 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]It'd be the same as 59. It doesn't *ask*...it absolutely DEMANDS a save on ANY marriage whatsoever, if the next player passes.

My big problem is, your benefits are not significant. 1 more bid under 60...show me an auction where it matters. Stops opponents from communicating...so does 59. Gives clear information to partner...so does 59.

The ONE situation is when there are 2 or 3 meld bids before you...say, 53-56. (Or VERY rarely, 1 big meld-showing bid.) 59 would NOT be double aces...so, yes, it would be nice to have a bid showing the double aces, and an agreement about when the bid means double aces, and when it's pure meld. That doesn't mean I'd want to ALWAYS use that bid to show double aces.

One short argument before I move on to the bulk of this message...
A 59 Bid doesn't stop the opponents communicating, rather it forces them to communicate (if they can) in increments of 5 using over60 bidding techniques.
A 100 Bid will likely force the opponents to PASS or communicate with unsafe bids unless they are amazingly fortunate to have enough meld to compete in 3-digit bids.


Regardless, yours are some really good pieces of feedback. Some of which I used in my Conditional Statements post.
I'm not sure if it's possible to win you over with a new bidding system, TE. However, I intend to target your biggest concerns and make changes where I can.

I'd like to create new terminology to explain some of bidding system strengths/weaknesses.

1. "Hard Bid" - a bid that requires no mathematical calculation from the previous bid.
   
2. "Semi-Hard" - a bid that requires little or partial mathematical calculation from the previous bid.
   
3. "Soft Bid" - a bid that is mathematically calculated from the previous bid.
   

Hard and Semi-Hard Bids are convenient when they clearly convey the message, but they become a hindrance when they give a muddled message, take up a space that could have been otherwise used by a Soft Bid, or become unusable because of a previous bid.

In the CABS, consider the following bids:

• 51 Single Aces Around Bid - is a Hard Bid.
  
  • Strength: Clear Language
    
  • Weakness: Unusable by any player after any bid
    
  • Weakness: Removes an under60 bid away from a Soft Bid
    
  
  
• 58 Unlimited Meld Bid - is a Semi-Hard Bid
  
  • Strength: Allows a player to give a Meld Bid (instead of being forced to PASS) even if numerically limited
    
  • Weakness: If the previous bid is 57, may be misinterpretted as a Control Bid
    
  
  
• 59 Double Aces Around Bid - is a Hard Bid.
  
  • Strength: Clear Language
    
  • Strength: Locks out under60 communicative bidding
    
  • Weakness: When the previous bid is 56/57/58, may be misinterpretted as a Meld Bid or even a Control Bid because Double Aces is so rare
    
  • Weakness: Removes an under60 bid away from a Soft Bid
    

In my Theoretical BS, (yes, the humor in the name is not missed by me.) consider the following bids:

• Single Aces Around Bid - is a Soft Bid, calculation is Previous Bid + 2.
  
  • Strength: Clear Language
    
  • Strength: Accessibility - usable from no previous bid through to a previous bid of 58
    
  • Note: when no previous bid, Bid is 51 just like the CABS
    
  
  
• Meld Bid - is a Soft Bid, calculation is Previous Bid + (Rounded Meld / 10) + 1.
  
  • Weakness: Inflation - all Meld Bids in system cost 1 more than in the CABS
    
  
  
• 59 Unlimited Support Bid - is a Semi-Hard Bid
  
  • Strength: Allows a player to give a Meld Bid (instead of being forced to PASS) even if numerically limited
    
  • Strength: Allows a player to give a [Any Multiple] Aces Around Bid (instead of being forced to PASS) even if numerically limited
    
  • Strength: Provides first of 2 ways to communicate Double(&Triple&Quadruple) Aces Around without using the Hard 58 space
    
  • Strength: Locks out under60 communicative bidding
    
  • Weakness: When the previous bid is 57 or 58, the Bid Type is not clear: Meld Bid? Single Aces Bid? Double Aces Bid?
    
  • Note: When used for Double Aces Around Bid, only the meld value can be assumed by partner; this is solved by bidding 100
    
  
  
• 100 Double Aces Around Bid - is a Hard Bid
  
  • Strength: Provides second of 2 ways to communicate Double Aces, which is not vulnerable to typical Shutout Bids
    
  • Strength: Provides Clear Language for both meld and trick value
    
  • Strength: Greatly inhibits the opponent's ability to make any more safe bids
    
  • Note: I am not going to call it a weakness, but not saving a >100 Contract stings more than not saving a ~60 Contract
    

Alright team, let's talk about it.
I reckon this system is nearing its testing phase!

Quote:One short argument before I move on to the bulk of this message...
A 59 Bid doesn't stop the opponents communicating, rather it forces them to communicate (if they can) in increments of 5 using over60 bidding techniques.
A 100 Bid will likely force the opponents to PASS or communicate with unsafe bids unless they are amazingly fortunate to have enough meld to compete in 3-digit bids.

WHAT over-60 bidding techniques? Say I'm bidding 2nd. 1st seat opens 59. I have 40 meld. What do I bid...and more importantly, will partner understand it? CAN partner bid *safely*?

Second point: so what if the opponents bid? Don't you think the side with the double aces is almost always going to have the massive meld advantage, AND know they've got 20 largely in the bag? This is going to be a "two bites" situation: if I bid over RHO's 59, I give the opponents two ways to beat me, by outbidding me, or by *passing* either because they've got no trump suit, or as a form of trapping. I let LHO clarify he'd really LIKE to play the hand by bidding, because it's now a voluntary bid.

I just can't see any value to the Hard, Semi-Hard, and Soft 'classifications.' What does it add? To me, it just increases the confusion factor.

Also, generally speaking, 58 and 59 are *not* rigidly defined in all auctions in CABS, as you believe. If the prior bid is 56, 58 shows 20, and 59 shows 30. It might be unlimited, but it definitely shows 30.

Quote:Note: when no previous bid, Bid is 51 just like the CABS

This is where I have problems with the system you propose. Compare these 2 auctions:

53
50 - 53

In the first, you're showing 30 because 51 was there to bid the aces, so 52 would be 20 and 53 would be 30. In the second, you're showing 20, without aces around. To me, this is just incredibly mistake-prone, even when the partnership agrees to use your approach.

The other problem I have is that the complexity induced only allows bidding the aces around, on a very small range of hands. LHO bids 50; I can't show the aces, but I *can*, much of the time, show 20. The aces is 10, plus at least 4, for an adjusted meld of at least 14. I need very little more to be able to give the 20. Most of the time, I'll have it. So the theoretical improvement is there, but in practice it won't occur very often.

Where I can see value is this: at what point does 59 STOP being a double aces bid, and becomes a pure meld bid? This isn't at all well-defined. Consider these sequences:

50 - 58 - 59: isn't this asking for meld from opener?
50 - 57 - 59: needed to show 20
50 - 56 - 59: needed to show 30, which is still fairly common
50 - 55 - 59: probably the MOST ambiguous
50 - 54 - 59: should be double aces in CABS; 58 would show 40, which gets most of the message across even with, say, 60

Also, when the auction does get into these ambiguous ranges, is when using 100 for double aces, and therefore freeing up 59 to expand the range of meld-showing auctions *when that space has been greatly limited.*

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't see any value to the Hard, Semi-Hard, and Soft 'classifications.' What does it add? To me, it just increases the confusion factor.

I suppose what I failed to mention about these terms, is that I prefer to have fewer Hard Bids, and more Soft Bids. This prioritizes usability over exact bid representation. I can't have my cake and eat it too, so I am just going to give this idea a good run.

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]Also, generally speaking, 58 and 59 are *not* rigidly defined in all auctions in CABS, as you believe. If the prior bid is 56, 58 shows 20, and 59 shows 30. It might be unlimited, but it definitely shows 30.

I am trying to give the CABS the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to sound like I am poo-pooing everything that it stands for. Truthfully, I don't like the CABS lack of rigid language which leads to misinterpretation.

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Note: when no previous bid, Bid is 51 just like the CABS

This is where I have problems with the system you propose. Compare these 2 auctions:

53
50 - 53

In the first, you're showing 30 because 51 was there to bid the aces, so 52 would be 20 and 53 would be 30. In the second, you're showing 20, without aces around. To me, this is just incredibly mistake-prone, even when the partnership agrees to use your approach.

Really? I didn't think it was THAT tricky. I am only moving the bid incrementally based on the lowest bid available.

If no bids:
50 = "lowest available bid" => Control Bid
51 = "lowest available bid +1 => Single Aces Bid
52 = "lowest available bid +2 => 20 Meld Bid
53 = "lowest available bid +3 => 30 Meld
...etc.

if last bid was 50:
51 = "lowest available bid" => Control Bid
52 = "lowest available bid +1 => Single Aces Bid
53 = "lowest available bid +2 => 20 Meld Bid
54 = "lowest available bid +3 => 30 Meld
...etc.

You are free to call it confusing, but I don't share your thinking.

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]The other problem I have is that the complexity induced only allows bidding the aces around, on a very small range of hands. LHO bids 50; I can't show the aces, but I *can*, much of the time, show 20. The aces is 10, plus at least 4, for an adjusted meld of at least 14. I need very little more to be able to give the 20. Most of the time, I'll have it. So the theoretical improvement is there, but in practice it won't occur very often.

What I hear from this, is that I am not going to sell YOU this system because you do not value the increased flexibility for the Single Aces Around Bid. I am definitely hearing your logic, and maybe you are dead right. I was under the impression that knowing where the Aces are at the table was a great benefit to the Declarer. It sounds to me, that you use your Adjusted Meld to deal with the CABS limitation, and you could be just fine without a Single Aces Around Bid all together.

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]Where I can see value is this: at what point does 59 STOP being a double aces bid, and becomes a pure meld bid? This isn't at all well-defined.

I think 59 as a Hard & Unlimited Support Bid can never be assumed to represent the Aces aspect of any Aces Around Bid. I don't think I delineated that before. I suppose I can rename it from Unlimited Support Bid back to Unlimited Meld Bid. If a player wants to solidly convey the Double Aces Around Bid as Meld AND Aces, the clearest way is the Hard 100 Double Aces Around Bid.

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]50 - 58 - 59: isn't this asking for meld from opener?

This Hard / Unlimited Meld Bid CAN be an Aces Around Bid (single aces around minimum) or a Meld Bid (20 meld minimum).

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]50 - 57 - 59: needed to show 20

This Hard / Unlimited Meld Bid CAN be an Aces Around Bid (single aces around minimum) or a Meld Bid (20 meld minimum).

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]50 - 56 - 59: needed to show 30, which is still fairly common

This Hard / Unlimited Meld Bid CAN be an Aces Around Bid (double aces around minimum) or a Meld Bid (20 meld minimum).

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]50 - 55 - 59: probably the MOST ambiguous

This Hard / Unlimited Meld Bid CAN be an Aces Around Bid (double aces around minimum) or a Meld Bid (30 meld minimum).

(09-01-2013, 10:32 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]50 - 54 - 59: should be double aces in CABS; 58 would show 40, which gets most of the message across even with, say, 60

This Hard / Unlimited Meld Bid CAN be an Aces Around Bid (double aces around minimum) or a Meld Bid (40 meld minimum).

Bids that are too close to 59 and don't satisfy the bidder's desired representation:
Option 1: If a Meld Bid, bid 59. The player is still Active in the bidding process and if they feel inclined, they can give an over60 Jump Meld Bid on their next turn to better represent.
Option 2: If a Meld Bid, do not bid 59, rather make a Jump Meld Bid over the 60 threshold. (if the partnership is equipped with the knowledge to do so.)
Option 3: If Double Aces, use the second Hard Bid -> 100.

If I have not answered any questions, let me know. I am not trying to dodge any of these good questions/challenges.

I don't even know where to continue.

I don't see the point of 59 meaning anything. Why worry about it at all. If 50 or +1 (under 65) is always going to mean aces, then let it always mean aces...if that is the crux of the whole system. Since it seems to me that is a major change, then build around that if it is a new system. If this is just a slight CABS adjustment, that almost makes it more difficult because there is so much confusion of what the CABS system actually is.

[quote]You are free to call it confusing, but I don't share your thinking./quote]

You don't understand. If this is messed up 1 time in 10, it's too much.

It LOOKS simple, but the *easiest* way to generate a mistake is to have 2 bids that look so similar, but have different meanings, and in very common auctions. It's a very, very bad system design, particularly when the bids are both common and so innocuous-looking. Don't ever underestimate the potential for a brain fart. It happens. And THIS approach makes that much more likely.

And I look through your responses...and I never, ever want to play with anyone trying this system, but would LOVE!!! to play for high stakes against them.