Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theoretical Bidding System
#18
(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.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 08-23-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 08-27-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 08-28-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - FLACKprb - 08-29-2013, 08:07 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - mickmackusa - 09-02-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-02-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-03-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Theoretical Bidding System - rakbeater - 09-04-2013, 09:07 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)