Obviously the bidders go down subtracting whatever the bid was from their score, but what happens to the defenders score? I remember on Yahoo, the defenders scored nothing, even if they had 100 meld.
How does everyone play this?
And what are the online rules for each of the different sites?
Is this a pretty standard rule?
Since trump is not able to be determined due to the lack of a marriage, it is only proper that melds would not be counted.
rakbeater Wrote:I remember on Yahoo, the defenders scored nothing, even if they had 100 meld.
I don't believe the meld was even shown on Yahoo. After the bid winner was determined, it would automatically forfeit the hand.
(10-14-2014, 01:11 PM)TigreLXIX Wrote: [ -> ]Since trump is not able to be determined due to the lack of a marriage, it is only proper that melds would not be counted.
rakbeater Wrote:I remember on Yahoo, the defenders scored nothing, even if they had 100 meld.
I don't believe the meld was even shown on Yahoo. After the bid winner was determined, it would automatically forfeit the hand.
No it wasn't, but I knew how much meld I had, when my opponents got stuck with the bid and no marriage!
I disagree with the 'it is only proper' language from Tigre. There are other, fairly obvious, ways to handle this. Fine, count meld at "notrump"...no runs, no royal marriages. It could have been done that way; for whatever historical reasons, it's not.
The rule in place, in fact, creates a situation I don't much like, that I saw on Yahoo kinda often. Some players went out of their way to bid when they had no marriage, any time the opponents had, say, 420 or better, and particularly if an opponent showed meld before they bid. Legal, yes, but not sportsmanlike. Some would do it any time an opponent showed big meld before their turn...even first hand. UGH.
But AFAIK this is the standard rule. Certainly, yahoo tossed the hand; the opponents got zero.
(10-14-2014, 04:48 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]The rule in place, in fact, creates a situation I don't much like, that I saw on Yahoo kinda often. Some players went out of their way to bid when they had no marriage, any time the opponents had, say, 420 or better, and particularly if an opponent showed meld before they bid. Legal, yes, but not sportsmanlike.
I don't think it's unsportsmanlike at all. Just like any rule, it's part of the game. It does factor into strategy sometimes, and if you don't bid to prevent your opponents from going out, then you're not trying to win...which is the object of the game. If you take the bid to go up, you lose the value of your bid. That makes it all the more difficult to go out, but I'd rather have say a 3% chance of winning the game by going up than a 0% chance of winning by letting my opponents take an easy bid with oodles of meld.
TE is from a different generation than us. I remember reading a story by Doyle Brunson telling about the days when a check raise in poker was considered unsportsmanlike and would start fights.
"Allowed" and "sportsmanlike" are quite different notions.
Baseball has a few examples. Late in a game, your team ahead by a bunch (10 runs, say)...stealing a base (by the team ahead) is frowned on. In basketball...20 point lead, 15 seconds left in the game...just dribble out the clock. Game's over, don't try to score.
rak and I have had this discussion. To a point, he's right, it's somewhat generational...but it's more about an attitude. If you're of the "ANYTHING legal to win" school, then you take Tigre's position.
I also think in terms of playing for the score...whether because I'm playing for money, or in a 'duplicate' situation where every table is playing the same hands , and your score's based on how YOUR score compares to all other pairs sitting your way. Here, throwing a hand away is going to cost you too much of the time.