(06-05-2016, 12:25 AM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:By my principles, that I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe it should be totally legitimate for a Stuck Dealer with under 20 team meld, to pull 50 counters and save.
Is this a totally ridiculous scenario? Absolutely, but I am talking about ensuring everything that is possible remains possible, and that the rules never dictate what number of pulled counters is "likely".
You create grossly unequal rules.
Is it the case that ANY time declarer doesn't have 20 meld, that you give him a chance to save? If not, then you create a completely unjustified special case. If so, then you give the bidder an edge. The defense never scores meld when they have less than 20, but you're allowing declarer a shot.
Or are you saying, well, OK, you'll let them try to pull 50, and ONLY 50? NO. I've seen it happen maybe 4 times? In several thousand games, so...gosh, I dunno, probably around 50,000 hands. If you're still saying...OK, you didn't have 20 meld, so you get 0 for that. You're allowed to try to pull 50...a 10,000 to 1 shot. STUPID rule. Plus...what if they bid 52, or a bit higher. (East opens 52, North bids 54 with 18 to take the bid, and South has 0.) Or again...is this JUST in the pass-pass-pass situation? NO. It's terrible rules construction to have these inconsistencies. Go back to the fairly recent discussion that we had...the inconsistency about the rules as written, between the cases where declarer has no marriage, and declarer has a marriage but declaring side lacks 20. The defense gets meld in one case, but not the other.
I like to think of my stance as demanding logical specificity where previously void.
This is born from an observation I made between my homegames' auctions beginning at 51 (where the Board Set rule works in mathematical harmony with all voluntarily won contracts *non-stuck-dealer) and online games beginning at 50.
I'll admit, what was inferred by existing rules is that the contract amount was to be met or exceeded with a minimum of 20 points in each scoring phase. This was true of both my homegames and online games, but I am choosing to scrutinize the logic.
I only mean to argue that the offense should be afforded the right to satisfy the contract in any way possible. Specifically any contract of 50 (Stuck Dealer or Lone Bidder) *can* mathematically be satisfied wholly in the Play phase.
My stance is easily wiped away if a rules document declares that a Board Set occurs every time the offense has less than 20 meld. This clause then supersedes the general conditions for contract satisfaction. I agree that the probability of pulling 50 is mega rare -- that's why I called it an absolutely ridiculous scenario.
For this reason, new rules documents should clearly state that the offense MUST make Board irrespective of the contract conditions. Then I don't have an argument.
...now back to the surrender topic...
(06-05-2016, 12:25 AM)ToreadorElder Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:I won't open a new thread for this next point because it is slightly affiliated with this thread's title, and I don't expect to dwell on it very long.
My family's homegame also permitted re-deals to be called during a player's first turn in the auction under special conditions.
If you were dealt 0 Aces or 13 Queens and Jacks, you could splay your hand out and demand a new deal.
I think this is a totally rubbish rule!
Absolutely agree. This is a crybaby rule.
Quote:Similarly, if you don't like your chances after the auction as offense? Tough cookies, play on. What is the hurry? Why must we seek to fast-track all Set situations? This is a part of the game.
Generally, yes...but that's why I'm suggesting that declarer's surrender means the defense scores its meld + 30, if it would be allowed at all. But this is NOT an argument for your other position: that once trump is called, the hand has to be played. That's not about fast-tracking anything.
I will agree that surrender scenarios do call for a greater punishment because more information is available to the declarer and the defense stands to lose more than other Set scenarios.
When the declarer realizes that there is an avalanche of pain coming, and chooses to bail, then the punishment needs to be severe enough to not be tempting in most cases.
So my current status on this debate is:
First, No, surrendering should not be permitted. The fact that such a rule requires very harsh consequences offers compelling reason to remove it as an tactical option.
Second, if surrendering must be permitted for the greater good of the game, then the punishment needs to be steep to disincentivize it.
Third, I just want to push TE's suggested 30 to 31. 31 is the minimum number of counters that denies the opposition their meld. Milestone points in terms of counters are:
- 20 = Save Meld
- 25 = Split-deck
- 31 = Deny Meld
- 50 = Maximum
The split-deck doesn't seem harsh enough, and placing a maximum penalty will effectively rule out the surrender tactic. This is the logic behind my suggestion of 31. This is quibbling, but it's logical.
...just before I click Post Reply, I am considering what effect "Surrender = Offense gets Set & Defense gets Meld + 31" puts on my decision making in a potential surrender scenario -- I'm probably going to play it out far more times than not. My partner surely isn't worthless, but if the defense earns more than 31, it's probably not much more than 31. For me, this seems adequately disincentivized; but I still don't want it at all!
