+- Power Pinochle Forums (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Power Pinochle Community (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Pinochle Bidding (http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+--- Thread: Theoretical Bidding System (/showthread.php?tid=562)
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 09-02-2013
(09-02-2013, 02:35 PM)rakbeater Wrote: 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.
The point of my 59: My Theoretical BS 59 Bid is similar to the CABS 58 Bid in that it gives a bidder a chance to Meld Bid before the 60 threshold where the original bid calculation would be beyond the 60 threshold. Without the 59, a bidder would need to PASS or use a to-be-created Meld Bid that crosses the 60 threshold.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013
Then why does it have an unlimited meld meaning option? Or am I just reading that wrong?
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 09-03-2013
(09-03-2013, 08:37 AM)rakbeater Wrote: Then why does it have an unlimited meld meaning option? Or am I just reading that wrong?
I don't really know how to respond. My post just before yours only states why you need it. The 60 threshold.
My system adopted the CABS's 60 Bid as the under60 Jump Control Bid.
My system gives a bidder the language to meld bid when the previous bid is under59 and 60-or-more.
Admittedly, I don't have a way for a bidder to communicate meld if the previous bid is 59. If anyone has thoughts on creating a cross-threshold meld scheme, I'm all ears. I've hinted at a scheme in a previous post, but I haven't started cooking that idea.
I think the 60 Jump Control Bid is important to retain as it gives clear information on the bidder's intent and it hinders the oppositions ability to meld bid. In both the CABS and MTBS, only meld bids of 30 or more are communicable over60. This concept was developed/explained by others in another post.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013
so you are saying that 59 never means double aces or unlimited meld? That is where I am confused. And is this a new bidding system or just an alteration of the CABS.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - ToreadorElder - 09-03-2013
Quote: In both the CABS and MTBS, only meld bids of 30 or more are communicable over60. This concept was developed/explained by others in another post.
Not quite true; depends on the number of steps. In a heavy meld-showing auction, say 53-56-59, IMO 60 is the ONLY bid to play, and 65 shows meld. Here, it's just +2 over the last bid, so it shows 20. A 70 bid would be 3 steps, thus showing 30.
However, that's not addressed anywhere, to my knowledge, so I'm definitely not asserting it's part of 'common' bidding. Probably quite the opposite.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013
When I have questioned people here and at the table online, most people are not sure or confident in what meld bids over 60 mean other than +10 = 30 + meld. I am certainly not meld bidding over 60 any differently than that unless I'm sure my partner knows what I mean, which is usually never.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 09-04-2013
(09-03-2013, 09:51 PM)rakbeater Wrote: so you are saying that 59 never means double aces or unlimited meld? That is where I am confused. And is this a new bidding system or just an alteration of the CABS.
I don't really think I have the right to build my thoughts into the CABS and call them part of the CABS. This is the reason for me to create a new system.
My system states that 60 is never an expression of Double Aces Around or Unlimited Meld, rather it is always a Control Bid.
Also, 59 is never a Control Bid, rather it is always a Support Bid in the form of an Unlimited Meld Bid -- whether it is Single Aces Around, Double Aces Around, or 20+ Meld.
My system aims to be very clear with its calculated bids.
When the situation doesn't allow the calculated bid to be clear, at least the Bid Category will be clear.
In the event that the Bid Category (Control or Support) is not suited to a Hard 59 Bid or a Hard 60 Bid, the Bid is adjusted (+1 or -1) to express the correct Bid Category.
- If the previous bid is 58 and you want to give a Control Bid you say 60, because 59 is NEVER a Control Bid. Simple and firm.
- If the previous bid is 58 and you want to give a Single Aces Bid you say 59, because 60 is NEVER a Support Bid. Simple and firm.
- If the previous bid is 57 and you want to give a 40 Meld Bid you say 59 (because I currently do not have a 60 threshold-crossing Jump Meld Bid concept in place). Hard 59 allows a bidder to express support to his partner instead of PASS. Support is clear, but how much support is unclear.
In this case:
59 says you have at least Single Aces Around that you want to tell your partner.
Assuming the opposition bids 60 (Control Bid).
Then your partner bids 65 (Control Bid).
You could bid 80 (Support Bid) to better express the amount of support. *if you only had Single Aces Around or 20 Meld, you would PASS because there is no way to clarify those support amounts above the 60 threshold.
Ask me to clarify if there is anything you are still unclear about.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-04-2013
Well if this is a totally new system, then we need to know what the bids mean above 60. Maybe it's because I don't have enough time or brainpower, but after reading all these posts, I'm unaware of what bids over 60 will mean in this system. Once that is done, I would like to see a total layout of the system to see if there are any flaws.
I think this is a flaw:
Also, 59 is never a Control Bid, rather it is always a Support Bid in the form of an Unlimited Meld Bid -- whether it is Single Aces Around, Double Aces Around, or 20+ Meld.
This is too confusing with too many options in game...do we need an unlimited meld bid? why not create a logical simple way of showing meld above 60 and then 59 can become an easy to understand bid? regardless, before a bidding system can be considered complete there needs to be a structure in place for over 60 bids. this is always the most difficult part of creating a new bidding system.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 09-04-2013
(09-04-2013, 09:07 AM)rakbeater Wrote: I think this is a flaw:
Also, 59 is never a Control Bid, rather it is always a Support Bid in the form of an Unlimited Meld Bid -- whether it is Single Aces Around, Double Aces Around, or 20+ Meld.
This is too confusing with too many options in game...do we need an unlimited meld bid? why not create a logical simple way of showing meld above 60 and then 59 can become an easy to understand bid? regardless, before a bidding system can be considered complete there needs to be a structure in place for over 60 bids. this is always the most difficult part of creating a new bidding system.
I think the 59 Unlimited Bid is a flaw too. I am just about to post my revised bidding system. I am going to attach an excel file that will show how to circumstantially bid. I'm 90% finished typing the post, stay tuned.
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - ToreadorElder - 09-04-2013
Quote:When I have questioned people here and at the table online, most people are not sure or confident in what meld bids over 60 mean other than +10 = 30 + meld. I am certainly not meld bidding over 60 any differently than that unless I'm sure my partner knows what I mean, which is usually never.
This is true, because this is the *one* jump bid that anyone ever sees listed. But it's obviously completely inadequate.