Power Pinochle Forums

Full Version: Theoretical Bidding System
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I am somewhat dissatisfied with the CABS.

Specifically, I don't like the bids assigned to 51 and 59.
  • 51: This bid states that you have Aces Around (a common occurrence); its weakness is that it is easily stopped by any previous bid.
  • 59: This bid states that you have Double Aces Around (a very rare occurrence); its weakness is that it unnecessarily takes an under60 bid away from what another player may use to communicate.

What if the following changes where made:
  • 59 is replaced by 100.
  • 51 becomes +2. What was previously considered a 20 Meld bid is now an Aces Around bid.
  • +1 to all Meld bids. Shift these bids up 1 point to accommodate for the new Aces Around bid.
  • 58 becomes 59: Since the 59 bid is now available, the Unlimited Meld (58) bid moves up and into the highest under60 bid spot.

Benefits:
  • 59 is replaced by 100: This frees up more room to bid under 60, REALLY stymies the opposition's ability to communicate, and is an unmistakable representation.
  • 51 becomes +2: No longer shall the Aces Around bid live in trepidation of other bids. "Free at last, Free at last, thank God almighty Aces Around bids are free at last." - mickmackusa
  • 58 becomes 59: Now there is more room to make under60 Meld bids.

Side Effects:
  • INFLATION: with all Meld bids being one step higher, the ceiling of 60 will be reached sooner.

Have I missed anything?
What do you think about the viability of my theoretical bidding system?
Would you change anything?
Using 100 for double aces, only frees up 1 space. Not really compelling.

I would have 2 major fears about the treatment of aces as +2:

1. It's never going to be understood by anyone else. We're a tiny little corner of the Internet; we'll never have the clout to define such a system. This actually poses a risk: in tournament bridge, this would be a seriously non-standard treatment, and as such, would call for an Alert by the bidder's partner. The point is to say, the bid my partner made, doesn't mean what you think it means, and gives the next opponent an opportunity to ask for clarification. Yeah, well...online? That ain't gonna work well.

2. I think it's much more error-prone...that the meld-giver will give the wrong amount, or that his partner will misread the amount conveyed. I'm not saying it'd happen a lot...just more often.
This thread's subject seems to be the catching more dialogue over at the Double Aces Around Bid Thread. For anyone who might want to chime in on this topic, please read that thread before potentially duplicating dialogue here.

I have targeted the CABS's 51, 58, and 59 bids because they differ from my family's bidding system.
The changes that I have suggested do not migrate CABS toward my family's bidding system; they move in a new, more logical direction.
I would like to open up this Theoretical Bidding System to additional change.
I am currently acknowledging Flexibility and Probability as criteria for changing the language of bidding.

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.

If there is anything that CABS has going for it, it definitely has Inflation kept pretty low.

Does anyone else have any random ideas to correct what could be considered a flaw in the CABS?
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.

As far as I'm concerned, that would be outright cheating. The opponents have the right to know what your bids mean, when your partnership has explicit agreements that depart from the norm. In tournament bridge, this is an explicit rule.

Now, the most important idea you've presented, opening up the ability to give aces more often, would be a departure, but I wouldn't really call it cryptic, or unfair in itself. You're not fundamentally altering the notions; a bid 2 or more over the prior bid, gives information about meld.
You may consider it outright cheating, but why? Because it isn't the system you know or use? We have established that there is no "official" system, so really, as long as you follow the rules of bidding numerically, there is nothing wrong with it. There is certainly no rule that states that your opponents must know what bidding system you are using.
No. It's cheating to use a private system and not inform the opponents. The point that you make, that there's no official system, is largely true, and it's not like the kind of 'coded' bidding you get when cards are going to be passed, where a bid suggests the cards to be passed.

In bridge, there IS such a rule. Card games are games of skill. This isn't poker...altho it can have a bluffing aspect to it. If we have an agreement about a bid, it is only fair that the opponents know about it.
Take the Auction 50-Pass-52.
The opponents think partner is showing 20 meld where he is actually showing Aces.
The fourth bidder should know what the bids mean.
Another point of note...actually, there *is* a fundamental system, at least in terms of online play, now that I think about it a bit more. +2 = 20 meld, +3 = 30 meld, etc., regardless of circumstance. The difference between strength first and meld first is in inferences. A strength-first 50 doesn't deny meld; a strength-first 52 doesn't deny a decent trump suit. So there's no certainty there. The difference between using adjusted meld or not, is in how you evaluate. These aren't system variations, they're judgement calls.
There is no where in any pinochle rules that I have ever seen that says you have to follow a set of bidding rules and if you do not it is cheating. If you have two different teams coming together to play in a tournament, each with their own set of bidding rules, and each team doesn't know any better, then you are saying that each team is cheating?

If there is a real rule in pinochle, then that is the rule. Pulling rules from other card games and applying them to pinochle doesn't seem quite right to me. If there is no actual complete bidding system that is official, how can we say that not adhering to that non-existent official bidding system is cheating? There isn't even a place online that spells out an unofficial bidding system.

But for argument's sake, if you decided you wanted to use a different bidding system, how are the opponents going to know what it is unless you spend 15 minutes explaining it to them. And will they remember it after a quick explanation? Some food for thought.

Also keep in mind this is a thread in "theory". None of this is actually going anywhere but in discussion and thought.
Wow!


One goes away on vacation and misses all the fun!

So many points to ponder, so little space ...

1) Double Aces occurs on average 1 in 467 hands. That's once on average every 116.75 deals. If a game lasts on average 10 deals (a statistic I'd like to collect data on and verify) that's once in every 11 to 12 games Double Aces should be seen at the Table.

2) As long as one gives a two digit bid (or three digit bid at 100 and above) or pass bid ... It is NOT cheating! ... 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.

3) A 58 Unlimited Meld bid or 59 Double Aces bid are only that because it has been agreed upon by the team. Like an initial bid of 51 meaning Single Aces Around, 58/59 bids can be and are overcome by previous bidding. They are not always in and of themselves Unlimited Meld or Double Aces. To my knowledge and experience, one has to consider the state of the bidding sequence to interpret a 58/59 bid; I do not know of a specific cutoff point where these bids are overtaken by events, but they become situationally obsolete as Unlimited Meld/Double Aces at some point.

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!).

5) I personally like the bidding system Mick described for conveying Single Aces Around after the first bid. As Mick put it, the system can be cryptic to opponents and allows conveyance of Single Aces nicely after the first bid!

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?
Pages: 1 2 3