There
are various ways and schemes that can be used to inform your partner
what doubles you have.
,
or
Talking across the board, whether verbally or via concocted means of if "I play this domino it means I have this double" is a degeneration of 42. If you adopt Telling 42, you deprive your partner of figuring out for himself what to play---for you have just told him what you have. If 42 is not based on simply seeing what dominoes are in your hand and those been played, 42 has been cheapened. Telling 42 is about attaching a meaning to a domino that wouldn't be logically discerned without the attached meaning. Of course you can easily observe when someone is attaching a meaning and play accordingly, but you're still utilizing the talking across the board Telling 42 scheme.
Call it a rant or tirade or just a discourse on the degeneration of 42 that
talking across the board does by telling your partner what doubles you
have, you can read the musings below---and if you care to do so, you're
welcome to use your writing skills to improve it, remove the
redundancies and make it more concise and coherent.
Barebones without any variations does not restrict anyone from bidding any bid he wants or playing any domino he decides to play. It’s just that the 30 bid has no specific attached meaning to it---a player with three doubles is fully allowed to bid 30 any time he wants---it will soon become evident by the observant players at the table that the barebones player has not attached a meaning to his 30 bids---for they will see that sometimes he has several doubles when he bids 30, but sometimes when he bids 30, he won't have any doubles or just one or two. And because he hasn’t attached that meaning, his partner cannot actually know what may be in his partner’s hand. Likewise, no domino is being “outlawed” from being played by stripping the high-end telling variation from Barebones 42. If a person wants to play 5-1, or any other domino of his choice at first opportunity of missing suit, he is allowed to do so. It doesn't take long observing to determine whether a player has gone into high-end indicating or not participating in it---a pattern of playing emerges that reveals what you're doing in 42. Those who prefer playing as done by earlier generations can discern whether indicators/tellers are telling their partners what doubles they have in their hands and may want to play mostly with those who don't partake in that kind of 42. Similarly, an indicator/teller who has a non-teller as his partner can discern quickly that his partner is not responding to the telling and not participating in telling himself---and so the indicator/teller may wish to avoid partnering with that player. It's two different styles of 42. One sees nothing amiss or wrong in telling their partners what doubles they have. The other sees it as degrading 42 and as a loss of the innocence of the 42 played for decades by those who would have been disgusted that 42 would someday morph into telling one's partner the doubles he is holding.
An example of telling 42: You have drawn these dominoes: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 1-0, 2-1, 6-0. Your partner has first bid and bids 30. He has now told you he has three doubles. Because of this talking across the board, before a domino has been played, you know you can slam-dunk an 84 follow-me by leading your four doubles and then 6-0. Because of that bit of telling by his 30 bid, you know he has double-six, double-five and double-blank. Do you really think this is what 42 should be about? It's understandable why people enjoy telling their partner what they have---it does make it easier to make your bids---you don't have to be as vigilant at relying simply on logic and reasoning and deducing from what has been played and the dominoes in your hand. If you can rely on your partner to simply tell what doubles are in his hand, the bids can more easily be made. For instance, suppose you have drawn these dominoes: 00, 06, 05, 04, 11, 61, 53 and your partner bid 30 on first bid. You know what that means. He could have just as easily said out loud: “I have three doubles; I can help you.” So having that information, you bid 84 on your hand confident that your partner has either double-six or double-five and intends to tell you which as soon as he fails to follow suit to your trump. There is a high probability you will make your 84. Is this fair? Is it cheating? Yes, it is fair 42 playing and it is not cheating, as long as everyone at the table knows this type of playing is what is accepted at the table you're playing. But yet, it isn't good 42. It isn't the pure 42 played by our grandparents and earlier generations of 42 players. Again, it's the regressing of 42 from logic and reason and deducing to that of telling. In my opinion, it's a degeneration and corruption of 42.
Another example of telling: Bid according to the number of doubles you have in your hand. Pass if no doubles, 31 if one double, 32 if you have two doubles, 33 if you have three doubles and so forth.
If players have layered telling variations onto their playing, this information should be disclosed---for certainly if the opponents are doing this against their opponents and the opponents have no idea it’s being done, the winning of marks and games are definitely tilted toward the tellers. And if subsequently those disadvantaged by this variation learn what was done against them, it can be understood why their reaction could be: “That’s cheating!”
Because telling 42 is sometimes surreptitiously done, players not having a clue their opponents are telling what doubles are in their hands or revealing something about their hands the unsuspecting players are unaware of, it should be openly stated that telling is being allowed. If all the variations or schemes of telling have been fully disclosed, understood and accepted by all players at the table, then no cheating is taking place. People can play any game by any rules all playing agree to abide by---or at least tolerate. I've had the misfortune of playing 42 where the players would get rid of an unwanted domino from their hands by exchanging it with one from her partner. The ladies really enjoyed that practice. Were they playing unfairly or cheating? No, not as long as anyone remained at the table to play with them. If you know what's being done and accept it, then you can call it legitimate or legal 42. But is it good 42? I don't think so.
Obviously people can allow, sanction, declare as “legal” and legit any ways of 42 they choose to play. If exchanging an unwanted domino, or sevens or splash or nello played three ways in a game or plunge for 2 or four marks or if telling what doubles one has by whatever means chosen to do so becomes too grating, too irritating, the disgusted player put off by what he considers a degeneration of 42, he can exit the game or not play with those who delight in doing such.
What
is relevant is whether the information gleaned from domino
indicating
is a good variation in 42. The question to be asked is
this: is
talking across the board a good something to be allowed in
42?
Because the tellers/indicators love this easier way to get marks---the devised scheme to tell what doubles they have in their hands--- they don't want to admit it's a regression of 42, a polluting and contaminating the game. Because everyone at the table knows what is going on doesn’t necessarily make what is going on the proper way to play 42. For example, when playing in person, suppose you hear an opponent say out loud: “Partner, I have double-five! If you have a five-off, play it as soon as you can.” Yes, everyone at the table heard what the player said. This information wasn’t communicated covertly or secretly, wasn’t done by tapping or some special pointing or placing of the dominoes, not by hand or body signals. It was simply spoken out loud. So as 42 players do we approve verbal talking across the board? The fun of 42 is in the right deducing and inferring what best to play from the dominoes you see in your hand and those played by the other players. The issue is this: is it good 42 to allow ways of doing that subverts the logical reasoning and deducing that makes 42 such a great game? Is there impropriety in communicating what doubles you have by plainly and openly telling everyone at the table what doubles you have? You can do this when playing in person verbally or some other ways, and you could also do this when playing online through high-end indicating. At 42-online you would be admonished for typing “I have double-five.” But a way has been devised to say the same thing: high-end indicating. If this is your hand: 11, 16, 15, 14, 13, 50 and 20 and bid 35 on it and you see that on your first lead of double-ace an opponent played 12 and the other opponent played 10 and your partner played 52. The bidder (and his opponents) recognize immediately what information has been communicated. On second trick, having received and understood that his partner has double-five, the bidder leads his 50 knowing his partner will catch it with double-five. How did the bidder arrive at the conclusion his partner has double-five? Was it through logical deducing? With no prior experience of the wiles of 42 indicating would a player logically conclude that when a player plays his 52 that means he has double-five? No. It is in cahoots telling---just as effectively told as the person who says or types “I have double-five.” It's the attached meaning thing—“if I play this way, you will know I have that double.”
The high-end indicator seeks to justify this telling by saying one can just observe people playing this way and understand what is being done---and so feel free to do the same thing. Those of us who learned 42 in the 1950s remember when this wasn’t done, remember when talking across the board was deemed inappropriate however it was done. But now, generations of people learning 42 have never known of an earlier era of 42 where this would instantly be castigated as wrong and so have bought into thinking this is just the way everyone has always played 42. And they see nothing wrong with it. The determined teller's argument is that’s okay and that it isn’t any different than getting information from just watching trick by trick what is being played---for it’s just another packet of information. It is fundamentally different in that it is a devised way to tell your partner the specific double you have in your hand---information that in no way could be logically deduced or inferred otherwise. No different than if someone at the table says out loud what double he has. No different if playing online should he type: “I have double-five.” Yes the player is transmitting information---but should this information be transmitted? Wouldn’t it be better for the player not to blurt out what double he has in his hand or devise a scheme which effectively does the same as outright verbally proclaiming information about your doubles? Why is it that double indicators can’t see the subverting of 42 in what they’re doing? Maybe the argument becomes: “If everyone is doing it and knows it’s going on, it’s okay.” Then why isn’t also okay to let a player simply say out loud what double is in his hand or type it out, if playing online? There is a consistency problem here that double indicators can’t quite think through.
We old-timers remember when 42 wasn't played as the tellers play now. We have not all died out yet. Maybe we’re the last of the Mohicans, a voice crying out in the wilderness of 42: “This isn’t right! We see an impropriety of doing this that others are oblivious to. The issue is not that it is being openly done, and because it is openly done and sanctioned and declared “legal” by those who want to play the high-end talking across the board it’s okay. The issue isn’t that it can be comprehended what is being done by observing those who are using this method to tell what double they have in their hands. The issue is that it is a corruption of 42, an injecting of an impurity, a contaminant to 42 that generations before the 1960s did not do because they could see immediately the impropriety of playing, of signaling, that way.
A widely-known 42 player of my era wrote this:
“High end indicating is relatively new. It got started at 42-online.com because they couldn't Point, place, handle, tap, or otherwise show the double indication because the computer puts the dominoes out there the same way every time. I don't know who came up with this indicating style and I have always thought it was cheating, but they didn't ask me or you if it was ok to do it that way. They just started doing it and it caught on…” Unfortunately that player now plays that way and justifies this high-end indicating by asserting that it’s “legal.” I don't know if this double indicating was played from the beginning of 42-online or whether at some time later some partners decided to do this and it became obvious to many in order to be competitive one had to adapt and adopt this telling also. It would really be interesting to know who first had the idea to tell what doubles he had to his partner this way, just as it would be interesting to know who originated the other variations that change 42. 42-online and the tournaments where high-end indicating is allowed should not be criticized for sanctioning this practice—for what else could they they do but allow it? How would you police it? You can't. It would be like playing where you hear players say out loud what doubles they have and when they have three or more. If you're sitting at that table and everyone else is verbally telling and you aren't, you will likely get beat. You either have to go along with it or find players who don't do that.
Yes, declared legal by those who want to play this way. Much like saying that because Curtis Cameron has enabled his program to play sevens, nello three ways and plunge at his site, he has made it “legal” to play those variations. But even many high-end indicators balk at playing sevens and other ways, even though some people declare it legal or okay to do it. People are free to play 42 any way they want. But there are still some of us left who draw the line at high-end indicating and will state that it’s not a good way to do.
Some, in trying to justify their high-end telling may mention that throwing away a double you don’t need because you have the next highest suit, that that is indicating and the assertion goes that since that is “indicating” high-end indicating is okay too. The throwing away double-six to show your partner you have 65 is proper playing because there is reason and logic involved. Logically one would not throw away his double-six because he has an aversion to seeing doubles in his hand; you would not come to the conclusion the player has a phobia about doubles---but rather, that the double-six was tossed because the player still retains the next highest six---logic and deduction. It is unlike playing 52 (or some other small five) to tell your partner you have double-five. When you do that, you have gone beyond deducing to a non-verbal agreement of telling what double you have in your hand. It simply cannot be logically inferred or deduced that playing 52 means you have double-five and earlier generations of 42 players could plainly see the inappropriateness of that being done. Playing 52 to mean you have double-five seems to me to be is a corruption of forty-two that involves telling what you have in your hand, just as certainly as if you bellow out loud that you have a certain double.
The bottom line is: play 42 however you enjoy playing it---if you want to, layer it up to the gills in variations and tell what dominoes you have via whatever schemes you can get other players to go along with. If you don't like how it's played, don't play it that way and find players who like it played as you do.
You happen to notice that whenever
your partner pulls on his left ear lobe, he has
double-five in his hand. So having noticed that, you
naturally proceed to lead a five expecting your partner
to catch it with double-five---and sure enough, he does! Are you not
just acting on a bit of information you glean? And so it
becomes habitual that whenever you see your partner's
left ear lobe pulled, you lead out a small five and
every time he does in fact have double-five! And soon,
you begin to pull on your left ear lobe and would you
believe it?! Your partner leads out his small five and
you catch it with your double-five! Isn't this
indicating wonderful?! “How many more marks we can
easily make when my partner and I can tell each other
what doubles we have!” “Oh,” someone objects, “that
involves a physical gesture---of course that would be
inappropriate. What we do with indicating is
just involving dominoes, so how can you equate the two?”
It amounts to the same thing. High-end indicating, such
as playing 5 to show your partner you have double-five
or a four to reveal to your partner you have
double-four, is essentially and intrinsically the same
as the ear-lobe pulling. It is telling your partner
something that would not otherwise be discerned by
simply seeing the dominoes that have been played and
those dominoes in your hand. Ear-lobe pulling and
high-end indicating both are a telling what you have,
both are schemes by which you impart information to your
partner which he wouldn't otherwise know. Someone
sitting down at a table of ear-lobe pullers might
question them about it. This might be the response:
“Yes, we do that to tell our partners when we have 55,
tug on our right ear-lobe when we want our partner to
know we have double-six and stroke our chins when we
have double-four, but look, we aren't doing this in
secret. Everyone at the table knows this is what we do.
Our opponents are watching our gestures; they know what
it means. It's giving them information too. It's just
our way of telling the doubles we have.” In using this
information as prompts to your partner to lead to the
revealed double you're holding, your chance of making
the bid is certainly increased. This telling, whether
done by a high-end domino scheme or by gestures or some
other devised way, is a departure from 42 as it was done
by earlier generations of 42 players and it's simply not
good 42.
Why isn't it good 42? Because it
regresses 42 from that of a logical game consisting of
reasoning and logic and deducing to that of telling. Is
it unfair or wrong or cheating to tell verbally or some
contrived way what doubles you have in your hand?
Certainly not as practiced at 42-online---for they make
it clear what the acceptable ways and rules are there.
If you are going to play at 42-online you should play as
the others at the table. What would be unfair would be
if you fail to tell your partner what doubles you have
in your hand by means of the telling used there. If you
played 52 or a six where indicating (telling) is
expected and practiced, and you didn't have those
doubles, you would be doing a disservice to your
partner; you would be misleading him. If when you failed
to follow suit to your partner's trump, you played 40,
you would be misleading your partner if you didn't have
double-four in your hand. You should have played a lower
suit if you could have, preferably 10 or 20 or 21.
Suppose your partner bid on treys and led double-trey
first trick. You have no treys. You have 40 and 10 in
your hand. The proper way to play where high end
telling/indicating is being done is to play your smaller
domino to your partner's double-trey and then to his 36,
play 40. Your partner then knows you don't have
double-four. But by just sloughing 40 on his
double-trump when you have a smaller suit you could have
played, you have misled your partner---and that isn't
fair to him---for he's trying his best to win and you
unnecessarily have just given him a miscue. If you're
going to play any variation, bring yourself up to speed
as to what is expected of you in that variation---and if you're going to be an
ear lobe puller or chin stroker, be the best you can
be at that! When in Rome, play 42 as the Romans
do; if you have decided to play at 42-online or play in
a tournament in which the rules of play are fully stated and understood
and they allow the telling of your doubles to your
partner, you must play that way, you must do as they
do---it isn't the right or fair thing to play
differently when your partner is expecting you to be
playing by the specified rules of allowed play.
What differentiates
telling/indicating 42 from the non-indicating/telling is
the attached meaning that is understood. However this
understanding has come about, whether by openly
declaring it's the way allowed to be played or simply
noticing that when your partner doesn't follow suit to
your trump he always plays at first opportunity a suit
to which he has the double, the meaning is conveyed and
understood. The non-teller doesn’t attach a meaning in
that way. If his partner is bidding on treys and leads
double-trey first and the non-teller plays say a six or
a five or a four, it isn’t meaning he has double-six or
double-five or double-four---he may have the double, but
he hasn't attached that meaning to it. A six or a five
or a four played to his partner's double-trey first
trick cannot logically be deduced to mean his partner
has those doubles without the attached meaning having
been applied to it. This idea that non-indicating
somehow restricts what domino you play just isn't valid.
Play any domino you want to any time you want if you can
do so without reneging. But that being said, if you're
playing telling/indicating where it is allowed and
accepted, you are restricted to what you play if you're
going to play that variation well. As stated above,
don't mislead your indicator/teller partner by sending
confusing miscues. So if anyone is restricted in his
playing of his dominoes, it's the teller/indicator---to
do so wrongly, would be like your partner saying out
loud, “I have double-six” when he didn't really have
double-six.
At some private tables, as might be at some 42 gatherings,
or even on a 42 site such as Curtis Cameron's, doing the
high-end telling done at 42-online could be considered
getting an unfair advantage over your opponents if you
fail to let any player coming to the table know you and
your partner are doing this. Can you blame a player for
getting upset, who didn't find out until after the
games, that he was beaten because he was kept in the
dark as to what his opponents were doing? The victorious
players who won over the opponent and his partner or the
opponent and the bot he had as his partner, might
haughtily brand the complaining opponent “a sore loser;”
but from his point of view, it wasn't done
fairly---because he hadn't been informed of the table
rules. At Curtis' online 42 site, one can specify what
the table rules are and a player can see whether certain
variations are allowed before clicking on to play at
that table. But this specification is missing: whether
telling (indicating) is allowed by the host of the
table. It would be helpful if Curtis would let players
see before they enter a table there with perhaps either
a T or an I whether this is being done.
Below
are some writings I've done on the subject. As a 42
player, you can
play 42 any way you choose. This is the way I see it:
Barebones 42, as the name implies, is
playing 42 stripped of variations others have layered
onto 42 (such as sevens, plunge, nello three ways,
splash and so forth) and is 42 closest to that played by
the earliest 42 players). In addition to the variations
named, it should be recognized that one or two other
variations are often overlaid onto barebones 42 that
probably the late 19th century and early 20th
century 42 players did not do: 1) a 30 bid done with the
intention of informing one’s partner the bidder has a
good helping hand or at least three doubles, 2)
informing one’s partner of a specific double in your
hand by playing the high-end of a suit to which you have
the double.
Barebones without any variations does not restrict anyone from bidding any bid he wants or playing any domino he decides to play. It’s just that the 30 bid has no specific attached meaning to it---a player with three doubles is fully allowed to bid 30 any time he wants---it will soon become evident by the observant players at the table that the barebones player has not attached a meaning to his 30 bids---for they will see that sometimes he has several doubles when he bids 30, but sometimes when he bids 30, he won't have any doubles or just one or two. And because he hasn’t attached that meaning, his partner cannot actually know what may be in his partner’s hand. Likewise, no domino is being “outlawed” from being played by stripping the high-end telling variation from Barebones 42. If a person wants to play 5-1, or any other domino of his choice at first opportunity of missing suit, he is allowed to do so. It doesn't take long observing to determine whether a player has gone into high-end indicating or not participating in it---a pattern of playing emerges that reveals what you're doing in 42. Those who prefer playing as done by earlier generations can discern whether indicators/tellers are telling their partners what doubles they have in their hands and may want to play mostly with those who don't partake in that kind of 42. Similarly, an indicator/teller who has a non-teller as his partner can discern quickly that his partner is not responding to the telling and not participating in telling himself---and so the indicator/teller may wish to avoid partnering with that player. It's two different styles of 42. One sees nothing amiss or wrong in telling their partners what doubles they have. The other sees it as degrading 42 and as a loss of the innocence of the 42 played for decades by those who would have been disgusted that 42 would someday morph into telling one's partner the doubles he is holding.
An example of telling 42: You have drawn these dominoes: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 1-0, 2-1, 6-0. Your partner has first bid and bids 30. He has now told you he has three doubles. Because of this talking across the board, before a domino has been played, you know you can slam-dunk an 84 follow-me by leading your four doubles and then 6-0. Because of that bit of telling by his 30 bid, you know he has double-six, double-five and double-blank. Do you really think this is what 42 should be about? It's understandable why people enjoy telling their partner what they have---it does make it easier to make your bids---you don't have to be as vigilant at relying simply on logic and reasoning and deducing from what has been played and the dominoes in your hand. If you can rely on your partner to simply tell what doubles are in his hand, the bids can more easily be made. For instance, suppose you have drawn these dominoes: 00, 06, 05, 04, 11, 61, 53 and your partner bid 30 on first bid. You know what that means. He could have just as easily said out loud: “I have three doubles; I can help you.” So having that information, you bid 84 on your hand confident that your partner has either double-six or double-five and intends to tell you which as soon as he fails to follow suit to your trump. There is a high probability you will make your 84. Is this fair? Is it cheating? Yes, it is fair 42 playing and it is not cheating, as long as everyone at the table knows this type of playing is what is accepted at the table you're playing. But yet, it isn't good 42. It isn't the pure 42 played by our grandparents and earlier generations of 42 players. Again, it's the regressing of 42 from logic and reason and deducing to that of telling. In my opinion, it's a degeneration and corruption of 42.
Another example of telling: Bid according to the number of doubles you have in your hand. Pass if no doubles, 31 if one double, 32 if you have two doubles, 33 if you have three doubles and so forth.
If players have layered telling variations onto their playing, this information should be disclosed---for certainly if the opponents are doing this against their opponents and the opponents have no idea it’s being done, the winning of marks and games are definitely tilted toward the tellers. And if subsequently those disadvantaged by this variation learn what was done against them, it can be understood why their reaction could be: “That’s cheating!”
Because telling 42 is sometimes surreptitiously done, players not having a clue their opponents are telling what doubles are in their hands or revealing something about their hands the unsuspecting players are unaware of, it should be openly stated that telling is being allowed. If all the variations or schemes of telling have been fully disclosed, understood and accepted by all players at the table, then no cheating is taking place. People can play any game by any rules all playing agree to abide by---or at least tolerate. I've had the misfortune of playing 42 where the players would get rid of an unwanted domino from their hands by exchanging it with one from her partner. The ladies really enjoyed that practice. Were they playing unfairly or cheating? No, not as long as anyone remained at the table to play with them. If you know what's being done and accept it, then you can call it legitimate or legal 42. But is it good 42? I don't think so.
Obviously people can allow, sanction, declare as “legal” and legit any ways of 42 they choose to play. If exchanging an unwanted domino, or sevens or splash or nello played three ways in a game or plunge for 2 or four marks or if telling what doubles one has by whatever means chosen to do so becomes too grating, too irritating, the disgusted player put off by what he considers a degeneration of 42, he can exit the game or not play with those who delight in doing such.
In the vastness of Texas, there are
those still playing 42 in its pure form, having eschewed
the layering of variations onto 42 and are dismayed that
telling what doubles you have in your hand is thought to
be a good or smart practice. They have not jettisoned
and replaced the fun and joy of 42 in successfully
figuring out what you and the other players have, by
keen scrutiny of the dominoes you have in your hand and
those played trick by trick by the players, with a
scheme to tell what they have in their hands. When there
is a departure away from logical deduction and inferring
and deducing to that of telling what one has in his
hand, isn’t 42 diminished as a game? Most people would
see the impropriety in stating out loud: “I have
double-five” --- but can’t seem to realize that double
indicating is simply another way of doing that very
thing, imparting the same information to one’s
partner---not through logical deduction or inferring,
but telling.
Indicating/telling
bypasses what makes 42 the great game that it is---the
figuring out
what best to play by deducing and inferring from the
dominoes in your
own hand and those played by others at the table. “Oh” the
indicator might say, “but I logically infer and deduce
from having
seen how my partner played in the past, that when he plays
a domino
at first opportunity it means he has the double to that
suit. So
having logically inferred and deduced that, I naturally
come back
with my off of that suit and let my partner catch it.”
Such is the
sophistry of a determined teller, an attempt at justifying
telling
the doubles in his hand. Or he might say “every domino
you
play indicates something about your hand.” While that may
be true,
every domino you play doesn't specifically tell your
partner what
double you have, unless you have specially attached an
understanding
about that playing a certain domino at first opportunity
means you
have that double. To use the “every domino you play
indicates
something about your hand” as some kind of justifying
reason to
tell what doubles you have by a certain scheme is such a
stretch! But
tellers will grasp at any seeming excuse and reason they
can when
trying to rationalize the telling of their doubles.
I choose to play 42 in its more
pristine form. I have played the
indicating/telling 42 in the past, but I'd have to be
pretty
desperate for a 42 game to get again into a game where
telling
doubles is being done.
If
you play 42 with me, I may have three doubles when I bid
30---but
then, I may not. There is no attached meaning to my 30
bids. If I
play a six or a five or a four when not following suit to
my
partner's trump, I may have 6-6, or 5-5 or 4-4, but then
again, I may
not. I'm not signaling any special message
indicating/telling those
doubles---instead I'm playing my hand as I think best.
If you
think you can make 84 because you assume I have three
doubles when I
bid 30, you may be sadly disappointed. If you leap to the
conclusion that the small five I played means I have
double five and
you lead out your 5-0, you may discover that the opponent
is the one
with the double-five. And so you may prefer partners who
tell---so be
it---I prefer the way 42 used to be before the tellers
changed it.
At
the Curtis Cameron site, it sometimes happens that
indicators/tellers
play with a human opponent who has a bot for his partner.
These
players continue to indicate/tell to each other by means
of 30 bids
and high-end domino telling when the human opponent cannot
do
so---because his bot has not been programmed to do such
telling or
respond to it. Is this a fair practice? Is that ethical or
right?
Shouldn't the indicators/tellers cease from their
indicating until the
bot is replaced by a human who agrees to play telling 42?
Wouldn't
the fair thing to do when a human opponent has a bot for
his partner,
be for the tellers to say, “we will now cease our double
indicating
until your bot has been replaced with a human?" And when
that happens, say “Is it okay for us to resume
indicating/telling?---is everyone in agreement with this?”
Some
players won't know what this indicating is and if a player
doesn't
know what's being done, shouldn't it be explained to him?
And if you
really want to be fair, inform the people who don't know
about this
indicating that there are yet players who see this
practice as a
corruption of 42.
Because the tellers/indicators love this easier way to get marks---the devised scheme to tell what doubles they have in their hands--- they don't want to admit it's a regression of 42, a polluting and contaminating the game. Because everyone at the table knows what is going on doesn’t necessarily make what is going on the proper way to play 42. For example, when playing in person, suppose you hear an opponent say out loud: “Partner, I have double-five! If you have a five-off, play it as soon as you can.” Yes, everyone at the table heard what the player said. This information wasn’t communicated covertly or secretly, wasn’t done by tapping or some special pointing or placing of the dominoes, not by hand or body signals. It was simply spoken out loud. So as 42 players do we approve verbal talking across the board? The fun of 42 is in the right deducing and inferring what best to play from the dominoes you see in your hand and those played by the other players. The issue is this: is it good 42 to allow ways of doing that subverts the logical reasoning and deducing that makes 42 such a great game? Is there impropriety in communicating what doubles you have by plainly and openly telling everyone at the table what doubles you have? You can do this when playing in person verbally or some other ways, and you could also do this when playing online through high-end indicating. At 42-online you would be admonished for typing “I have double-five.” But a way has been devised to say the same thing: high-end indicating. If this is your hand: 11, 16, 15, 14, 13, 50 and 20 and bid 35 on it and you see that on your first lead of double-ace an opponent played 12 and the other opponent played 10 and your partner played 52. The bidder (and his opponents) recognize immediately what information has been communicated. On second trick, having received and understood that his partner has double-five, the bidder leads his 50 knowing his partner will catch it with double-five. How did the bidder arrive at the conclusion his partner has double-five? Was it through logical deducing? With no prior experience of the wiles of 42 indicating would a player logically conclude that when a player plays his 52 that means he has double-five? No. It is in cahoots telling---just as effectively told as the person who says or types “I have double-five.” It's the attached meaning thing—“if I play this way, you will know I have that double.”
The high-end indicator seeks to justify this telling by saying one can just observe people playing this way and understand what is being done---and so feel free to do the same thing. Those of us who learned 42 in the 1950s remember when this wasn’t done, remember when talking across the board was deemed inappropriate however it was done. But now, generations of people learning 42 have never known of an earlier era of 42 where this would instantly be castigated as wrong and so have bought into thinking this is just the way everyone has always played 42. And they see nothing wrong with it. The determined teller's argument is that’s okay and that it isn’t any different than getting information from just watching trick by trick what is being played---for it’s just another packet of information. It is fundamentally different in that it is a devised way to tell your partner the specific double you have in your hand---information that in no way could be logically deduced or inferred otherwise. No different than if someone at the table says out loud what double he has. No different if playing online should he type: “I have double-five.” Yes the player is transmitting information---but should this information be transmitted? Wouldn’t it be better for the player not to blurt out what double he has in his hand or devise a scheme which effectively does the same as outright verbally proclaiming information about your doubles? Why is it that double indicators can’t see the subverting of 42 in what they’re doing? Maybe the argument becomes: “If everyone is doing it and knows it’s going on, it’s okay.” Then why isn’t also okay to let a player simply say out loud what double is in his hand or type it out, if playing online? There is a consistency problem here that double indicators can’t quite think through.
We old-timers remember when 42 wasn't played as the tellers play now. We have not all died out yet. Maybe we’re the last of the Mohicans, a voice crying out in the wilderness of 42: “This isn’t right! We see an impropriety of doing this that others are oblivious to. The issue is not that it is being openly done, and because it is openly done and sanctioned and declared “legal” by those who want to play the high-end talking across the board it’s okay. The issue isn’t that it can be comprehended what is being done by observing those who are using this method to tell what double they have in their hands. The issue is that it is a corruption of 42, an injecting of an impurity, a contaminant to 42 that generations before the 1960s did not do because they could see immediately the impropriety of playing, of signaling, that way.
A widely-known 42 player of my era wrote this:
“High end indicating is relatively new. It got started at 42-online.com because they couldn't Point, place, handle, tap, or otherwise show the double indication because the computer puts the dominoes out there the same way every time. I don't know who came up with this indicating style and I have always thought it was cheating, but they didn't ask me or you if it was ok to do it that way. They just started doing it and it caught on…” Unfortunately that player now plays that way and justifies this high-end indicating by asserting that it’s “legal.” I don't know if this double indicating was played from the beginning of 42-online or whether at some time later some partners decided to do this and it became obvious to many in order to be competitive one had to adapt and adopt this telling also. It would really be interesting to know who first had the idea to tell what doubles he had to his partner this way, just as it would be interesting to know who originated the other variations that change 42. 42-online and the tournaments where high-end indicating is allowed should not be criticized for sanctioning this practice—for what else could they they do but allow it? How would you police it? You can't. It would be like playing where you hear players say out loud what doubles they have and when they have three or more. If you're sitting at that table and everyone else is verbally telling and you aren't, you will likely get beat. You either have to go along with it or find players who don't do that.
Yes, declared legal by those who want to play this way. Much like saying that because Curtis Cameron has enabled his program to play sevens, nello three ways and plunge at his site, he has made it “legal” to play those variations. But even many high-end indicators balk at playing sevens and other ways, even though some people declare it legal or okay to do it. People are free to play 42 any way they want. But there are still some of us left who draw the line at high-end indicating and will state that it’s not a good way to do.
Some, in trying to justify their high-end telling may mention that throwing away a double you don’t need because you have the next highest suit, that that is indicating and the assertion goes that since that is “indicating” high-end indicating is okay too. The throwing away double-six to show your partner you have 65 is proper playing because there is reason and logic involved. Logically one would not throw away his double-six because he has an aversion to seeing doubles in his hand; you would not come to the conclusion the player has a phobia about doubles---but rather, that the double-six was tossed because the player still retains the next highest six---logic and deduction. It is unlike playing 52 (or some other small five) to tell your partner you have double-five. When you do that, you have gone beyond deducing to a non-verbal agreement of telling what double you have in your hand. It simply cannot be logically inferred or deduced that playing 52 means you have double-five and earlier generations of 42 players could plainly see the inappropriateness of that being done. Playing 52 to mean you have double-five seems to me to be is a corruption of forty-two that involves telling what you have in your hand, just as certainly as if you bellow out loud that you have a certain double.
The bottom line is: play 42 however you enjoy playing it---if you want to, layer it up to the gills in variations and tell what dominoes you have via whatever schemes you can get other players to go along with. If you don't like how it's played, don't play it that way and find players who like it played as you do.
I
found this site on the internet:
I
encourage anyone interested in the subject to read it. The
writer
appears to be erecting a straw-man
argument suggesting that people
are contending that indicating in 42 is cheating. He then
proceeds to
knock the straw-man down with saying “According to those
who say
indicating is cheating, I have no legal dominoes to play
in this
hand.”
Oh
the twists and turns people make when they want to justify
what
they're doing!
First,
let's get rid of this cheating assertion. As I make clear
in my
writings, as long as everyone at the table has been made
aware that
high-end indicating/telling is sanctioned and allowed,
there is no
cheating going on. People can play 42 any way they want
to, can
devise and adopt any kind of telling scheme they want and
play that
way. It would only be cheating if partners were playing
that way and
their opponents didn't know what the indicating/tellers
were doing.
Why
does that writer want to imagine that someone wants to
restrict him
from playing any domino he wants? In his example, he is
concerned
that someone is trying to tell him he's not allowed to
play 40, for
if he does, he would be called a cheater. Let's get real
here. If it
has been fully disclosed what's going on, then anyone at
the table fussing about high-end
indicating/telling and calling it cheating
should be politely told “this is what we do here, if you
don't like
it, there are other places you can play.” You could even
tell the
person to seek me out and play with me---and you could
also add: “But
even Ed Hill isn't going to agree with you that what we're
doing is
cheating!”
So
let's bury this cheating straw-man. Let's don't muddy the
issue as
though this is about cheating or someone trying to
restrict someone
from playing any domino he wants. It's about is it good 42
or is it a
regression that subverts 42 from that of deducing,
inference and
logic to that of telling what doubles you have in your
hand. The
issues involves an attached meaning. In one of the
writer's examples,
he has his partner bidding on sixes, presumably leading
double-six to
which he, since he is missing suit, wants to play 40.
Nobody
is keeping him from playing four-blank. If you're at an
indicating/telling table where everyone knows that what
the bidder's
partner plays when missing suit to his partner's trumps is
nearly
always is meant to tell what double he has in his hand,
then why
would anyone be complaining about it? (Sometimes
the distribution of your
drawn hand might force the indicator/teller to mislead his
partner.
If the bidder's partner bid on sixes and his partner drew
54, 53, 52,
51, 50, 41, 40 then he'd have to play either a five or a
four to his
partner's first trick lead of double-six. Then his
partner, after the
trumps are cleared, would likely lead in accordance with
his
understanding of the attached meaning and that, in this
example,
might cause him to go set. But such miscues don't happen
too often.
Most of the time, the meaning will be understood
correctly, the
bidder will lead directly into his partner's indicated
double).
In
that writer's example, he says: “Since I have 44 55 32 54
40 11 10
I decide to play the 40.
This
tells my partner that I have the next highest 4 which in
this case is
the 44.” How is it that it told your partner you have
double-four?
He only knows it because of the attached meaning that at
some point
was conveyed, that at first opportunity of missing your
partner's
suit, you would tell him what double you have in your hand
by playing
a small suit to that double. It's the telling scheme. You
can argue
that it's fine 42 to tell your partner what doubles you have
via this
means, but I certainly don't agree with you.
To
buttress his argument that high-end indicating is good, he
gives the
example of playing double-deuce to indicate he has the
next highest
deuce, the 25, and says “The key to this is, I did not
have to tell
my partner prior to the game that if I play the 22 it
means I have
the next highest 2. I can learn whether a partner
indicates
his/her doubles just by watching their play over the
course of a
game. Because all hands are not played out fully on the
42-online site, this process can take longer. I see
nothing
wrong with asking a prospective partner if they indicate
prior to
game since that is something I can learn over time.”
Playing
double-deuce to show that you have the next highest deuce
isn't
indicating a double. Deuce-five is not a double. Maybe in some
hands,
you are wanting your partner to know you have the next
highest of
something, but in other hands you may be wanting to keep
the highest
of that suit while yet retaining something other than the
double you
have thrown away. To me, this is just good playing---I
have no
problem at all with it. (On some hands, you may toss away
double-deuce even when you don't have the next highest
deuce).
He
states: “I can learn whether a partner indicates his/her
doubles
just by watching their play over the course of a game.” Of
course
you can. But why does it matter when or how you realized
you were
playing with a fellow indicator/teller? The point is, you
recognize
that you're playing with an indicator/teller and so you
proceed to
respond and do likewise. Has your recognition of what your
partner is
doing somehow makes indicting/telling a good practice for
42? It
just goes back to a telling scheme has been instituted; it
has been
understood and so it is done. Lots of people happily play
the telling
variation of 42 and see nothing wrong with it. They have
their
opinion. I have mine.
The
issue involved here, distilled down to its essence, is
simply this:
Is
talking across the board, regardless of how you do it, a
good
practice in 42? Is the revealing of things about your hand
that
cannot be discerned apart from an agreed upon messaging
signal (such
as a 30 bid means you have three doubles or more) or an
attached
meaning (such as ear-lobe pulling, or you bid according to
the number
of doubles in your hand, or that a suit of a domino played
at first
opportunity on your partner's bid means you have the
double to that
suit) a beneficial and good departure from how 42 was
played by
generations? Is 42 improved by talking across the board
schemes? I
think the old-timers of yesteryear would have condemned
these
practices.
Suppose
these are the hands:
A:
45, 20, 41, 66, 65, 44, 51
B:
53, 60, 43, 42, 46, 10, 61
C:
13, 55, 00, 11, 62, 40, 12
D:
63, 33, 52, 30, 22, 32, 50
You
(A) are partnering with C. The score is 1 to three in your
favor. C has first bid and bids 31 and gets the bid. His
trumps are aces and it plays this way:
C:
12, D: 32, A: 51, B: 61
B:
53, C: 55, D: 52, A: 54
C:
11, D: 63, A: 14, B: 10
C:
00, D: 03, A: 20, B: 60
C:
13, D: 22, A has these dominoes: 65, 44, 66. There are
fours and sixes and 50 that haven't been played. Which of
those three dominoes will A play? The only sensible,
logical, reasonable play is for A to play is double-six,
for why would A unnecessarily give up a way that might
catch? His partner is now holding 40 and 62---C seeing
that A has played double-six will logically conclude that
has partner wouldn't have discarded that double unless
he's holding the next highest six, will decide to lead 62,
instead of 40. Good, logical 42. An indicater would
recognize that as good playing, declare it to be
“indicating” and use this as support for the
messaging/signaling that he does to tell his partner what
doubles are in his hand.
I
remember the old tv program, What's My Line. It
was a fun and enjoyable program. The panelists would
receive some
information about the guests, such as their names, where
they lived,
whether a product or service was involved and Bennett
Cerf, Arlene
Francis, Dorothy Kilgallen and another panelist
would try to discover, through their questions, the
person's
occupation. It would have been easier for the panelists
to arrive at the solution had John Daly (the moderator)
provided
additional information at the
beginning, but in making the panel's task of solving the
occupation
easier through more information, the program would have
been
diminished. On one program,
the guest was a goose caller for hunters---had it been
revealed, before questioning began, to
the panelists: “The guest's line tonight pertains to his
involvement with geese,” it would have
made it easier for the
panelists. The fact the
panelist's task wasn't made easier and they had to work
out the solution from questions and answers brought
about the fun and enjoyment for all involved in
the program, including the audience. And
so it is with 42---it really isn't necessary to the game
to reveal to
your partner the number of doubles you have or specify
to him what
your doubles are.
I wish it could be known what year this telling contaminant to 42 was introduced and who thought up this variation. Did someone one day say to his 42 buddy, “I've just figured out a way we can make our bids easier.” “How?” his friend asks. “By telling each other what doubles we have in our hands” “How would we do that?” “By using this system: at first opportunity on our partner's bid, we play the suit of highest double we have in our hand and if our partner doesn't respond by leading that suit, we play a suit to the next highest double we have in our hand. By doing this we will be able to make our bids so much easier!” “I see that would work. But how could we get the other players to go along with this?” “Don't worry about it. People will go along with anything.”
The joy in 42 is not in devising ways and schemes to reveal as much information about your hand that you can imagine to do. If it is, then why not go all the way with information about your hand? Have everyone keep their dominoes face up for all to see while playing? As the tv program would have lessened the enjoyment found in arriving at the right answer to the question "what's my line" by giving too much information to the panelists, so also 42 is lessened when going beyond the boundries of the game invented by the youngsters in west Texas so many years ago. Revealing what is in your hand via attached messages of "this is what I have" is going beyond relying completely on deducing and inferring to that of telling, and in the opinion of this player, is a degeneration and corruption of this fine game.
I wish it could be known what year this telling contaminant to 42 was introduced and who thought up this variation. Did someone one day say to his 42 buddy, “I've just figured out a way we can make our bids easier.” “How?” his friend asks. “By telling each other what doubles we have in our hands” “How would we do that?” “By using this system: at first opportunity on our partner's bid, we play the suit of highest double we have in our hand and if our partner doesn't respond by leading that suit, we play a suit to the next highest double we have in our hand. By doing this we will be able to make our bids so much easier!” “I see that would work. But how could we get the other players to go along with this?” “Don't worry about it. People will go along with anything.”
The joy in 42 is not in devising ways and schemes to reveal as much information about your hand that you can imagine to do. If it is, then why not go all the way with information about your hand? Have everyone keep their dominoes face up for all to see while playing? As the tv program would have lessened the enjoyment found in arriving at the right answer to the question "what's my line" by giving too much information to the panelists, so also 42 is lessened when going beyond the boundries of the game invented by the youngsters in west Texas so many years ago. Revealing what is in your hand via attached messages of "this is what I have" is going beyond relying completely on deducing and inferring to that of telling, and in the opinion of this player, is a degeneration and corruption of this fine game.
The
variation of “indicating” has many adherents. But then,
so do
other variations---sevens, nello three ways and so
forth. Will the
next 42 variation that people
will go along with, the next to
catch on and become widely played, be the exchanging a
domino from
the bidder's hand for a double his partner gives him? It
could be added by the programmers for online play. It
could be
sanctioned by tournaments as being legal---and
the game of 42 be even more degenerated, degraded,
regressed by the
continuing getting away from the game played and loved
by earlier
generations. At this site you can see how some people play:
http://www.austin42.org/winning-42/indicating/
One can only wonder how many more ways to tell your partner what you have will yet be added by current and future indicaters/tellers.
In summation, it should be emphasized that the charge of "cheating" should not be leveled against indicators, as long as everyone at the table knows what is going on and has agreed to play along with whatever telling scheme has been devised. If you know what's going on and are playing, then don't gripe about it---if it bothers you too much, get out of the game. When playing just friendly, social games, you can inform the host that you'd rather not play 42 Online or tournament type indicating and then if the host insists that it's "legal" to play that way, you may just have to leave his table. One might ask who declared such telling "legal." The answer of course: the indicaters. Thieves could say it's good and legal to steal---but it wouldn't make it right. Although telling what is in your hand may have found wide acceptance online and in tournament play, those who prefer to not play in that fashion should not make base their opposition to it with the charge of "cheating" (as long as everyone knows what's going on) but rather that it's a form of telling, a talking across the board---a substituting logical inference and deduction to that of a scheme whereby one tells what doubles he has in his hand. The ability to discern what it is your partner is doing to signal you the doubles in his hand doesn't make the telling a good practice.
http://www.austin42.org/winning-42/indicating/
One can only wonder how many more ways to tell your partner what you have will yet be added by current and future indicaters/tellers.
In summation, it should be emphasized that the charge of "cheating" should not be leveled against indicators, as long as everyone at the table knows what is going on and has agreed to play along with whatever telling scheme has been devised. If you know what's going on and are playing, then don't gripe about it---if it bothers you too much, get out of the game. When playing just friendly, social games, you can inform the host that you'd rather not play 42 Online or tournament type indicating and then if the host insists that it's "legal" to play that way, you may just have to leave his table. One might ask who declared such telling "legal." The answer of course: the indicaters. Thieves could say it's good and legal to steal---but it wouldn't make it right. Although telling what is in your hand may have found wide acceptance online and in tournament play, those who prefer to not play in that fashion should not make base their opposition to it with the charge of "cheating" (as long as everyone knows what's going on) but rather that it's a form of telling, a talking across the board---a substituting logical inference and deduction to that of a scheme whereby one tells what doubles he has in his hand. The ability to discern what it is your partner is doing to signal you the doubles in his hand doesn't make the telling a good practice.
If you've read this far and still unsure of my view of the
telling variation, I'll just add this: The revealings what's in
your hand through the various schemes is more about winning any
way you can get away with by declaring such practices "legal,"
rather than about simply enjoying the game by figuring out
yourself what to play ---(without your partner telling you what
he has) --- for if your partner's scheme has told you he has a
certain domino, then that denies you as his partner from trying
to figure out for yourself what is the best domino to play---and
much of the enjoyment of 42 is in the trying to determine what
is best to play and the satisfaction that comes when you see you
have done so. When one substitutes logical deductions for being
told by one's partner what he has, 42 has been perverted and
diminished in my opinion.
A site for 42 strategy discussion:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/yarby42/ For information on how to join this group contact Jerry Whitney
howdydoody1947@yahoo.com
A site for 42 strategy discussion:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/yarby42/ For information on how to join this group contact Jerry Whitney
howdydoody1947@yahoo.com
