NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
Your post doesn't refute anything. The blind wish premise is, as stated, if there's a bomb, it's twice as likely to be with the opponents. If there's not, that knowledge itself has value—which you overlook—just like the other types of info we recall, infer, and track while playing.
The only value I am seeing, is that you see 1 card out of 52 (56) be played. Which rules out only a quad bomb of that face value. There might be a 1 in a 1000 games when this info alone is all you need to call. Great, do it. But generally speaking, any wish for a card you don't have yourself will give you the same information. Is the value of that information adequate to risking accidentally hitting your partner, while doing no damage to the opponents? I am just not convinced.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
Foreclosing the chance of being bombed can allow callers to play differently and not hold Dragon for last, perhaps even setting up easier double victories by ending on a combo the partner can win. Whether successful or not, knowing a given bomb isn't possible reduces overall randomness and butt clinching when you play Dragon before Dog.
Simple observation of what numbers players skip when playing on low singles can tell you a better story of what they might be holding. If a 3 could have been played several times, but instead was skipped, then your suspicion alert should go off. If you had blindly wished for the 3, then you would have ruled out a 3 bomb, but then you would perhaps have had no intel on 2s. (the card you actually have wished instead). The uncertainty of what will transpire in any hand will always be there, even if you are tracking every card and every suit to eliminate flush bombs as well. Therefore, a blind wish does not provide any added value compared to a wish for the passed card. It only bears extra risk of "swing and a miss". Make no mistake, only wishing always for the passed card isn't the right play either. Evaluate the outcome of the trade, and make informed decisions. With your eyes open, not blind.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
This isn't to say that blind wishing is always the best or should be the main approach. However, it may be reasonable if not the most rational on any given hand.
How can something be reasonable, if not outright the most rational approach on any given hand, and at the same time not be the best or recommended? When will you want to go with anything else other than the most rational option?
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
The blind wish itself and the chosen value are not random, as in having no "specific pattern, purpose, or objective" (though the outcome is). The objective is usually to draw/rule out a hypothetical bomb, typically low quads. It's motivated by the intuition that not having 2/3/4s will often mean someone has four.
You not having a certain card, means that the probability of someone else having all four of them is only 3/15 (20%), of which only 2/15 (13%) are opponent's hands. (15 being the number of possible variations of distributions of that card among 3 players)
If 13% of the time is, as you say, "often", i will leave up to the readers to decide.
If your wish serves a specific purpose or objective, then it is not a blind wish. Seeing a card only to rule out 1 quad bomb out of 13 possible, is not a specific purpose, because any wished card you don't have gives you the same value. And yet, you don't often see J or Q or K wishes.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
In fact, this tactic frustrates you because your partners have successfully identified this likelihood, wished accordingly, and hit you. If they're doing it as frequently as you imply, the results will regress to the mean over time and reflect the 67:33 ratio.
My partners were until recently from 99% random players of very broad ranges of ratings. Some of them i would not vouch for having successfully identified anything about the game. But if you're a blind wisher, if that's your thing, however i disagree with you, fine, be it and stand by it. Don't write sorry, only to do it again at the next opportunity.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
This is a straw man. Typically, someone makes a blind wish because they know what they passed next couldn't have made a bomb and that it's likely a junk single which they'd prefer the opponent be stuck with by forcing a higher card or bomb play.
I wonder how you arrived at your conclusion, that your passed low card must be trash for your opponent.
Example: You pass a 2, don't receive it back, and so you wish 3 or higher, because you want the next player to be stuck with a useless 2? Having got it back or not, isn't wishing for a 2 helping your partner shed a loose low, e.g. a 3? Maybe your opponent only needs to get rid of the 2 to call. Maybe all your partner needs is to shed that loose 3. The chances of either are pretty even, so they cancel each other out. So wishing a 2 can be just as bad as it can be good. Wishing a 3, the next player not having it and playing 2, may upset your partner having to play 3 which he needed.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
It seems frustration is leading you to reverse engineer an argument that blind wishing is always the wrong option, outcome notwithstanding.
I don't see how it is ever a good option.
NeanderthalMan wrote: ↑04 August 2024, 04:29
Having your bomb pulled out by your partner is annoying, but so is getting busted when you called T/GT. You wouldn't argue against calling Tichu with favorable odds simply because some outcomes were bad. Likewise, the blind wish shouldn't be precluded simply because the partner gets hit a minority of the time. Wishing for what you passed next or targeting hypothetical over-combo or suspected quads are all valid and rationally justifiable tactics, context dependent.
Unless you can see other player's cards, sniffing out a bomb is 100% luck. If my partner wished for a passed card (that also could have been a bomb), or wished for the lowest single (to allow me to shed my lowest single) but missed a bomb, and that unwished bomb ruins my call, then so be it. We have played the right way and only lost to elements of the game that are beyond our control. (I almost wrote bad luck, but then you'd argue, that accidentally hitting your own constitutes bad luck too. And so I rephrased it, as unlike failing to detect a bomb on your first move, your mahjong wish is very much in your control, and so a blind bad wish is entirely your fault, not a bad luck.) If you consider wishing blind viable just to see a mystery card be played and thus cease being a bomb threat, then we just have to agree to disagree.