Also, Helfers
helfer werde ich nicht. Helfer okay
.
Aber jetzt mal Scherz beiseite. Diese extreme Dealdiskussion auf der Newsgroup verunsichert mich schon. Was LSJ jetzt zum Thema "Losing Deal" postet ist äußerst strange. Von wegen der Losing Deal-Anbieter kann den Deal legal anbieten, wenn er vor hat, den Deal später zu brechen. Oder verstehe ich hier etwas falsch:
"Tobias op den Brouw" <
tobiasopdenbrouw@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:
2taboiF1tcq2iU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ok, one more hypothetical situation.
>
> 5 player tabel, A and B at the table.
>
> A offers B a 3-2 deal where B takes 3 VP.
>
> At the point the deal is offered, the judge examines the situation, and
> finds the deal illegal to honor (but not to make) - therefore, A must intend
> to break the deal later.
Actually A could honor the deal, so long as doing so when the time comes is
still "playing to win" (i.e., if he could do so without having made the
deal).
The only thing a "legally-made (to honor) deal" gets you is some relief
from
the "must play to win" rule when the time comes to honor the deal.
> The judge does not need to communicate this to his
> players, but must (?) do so if asked?
No. To the player making the (losing) deal, privately, sure.
But be forced to disclose non-public information on demand?
Of course not.
> (This would be a method of forcing the
> judge to provide extra information to B, since B will have an extra estimate
> of A's relative power).
>
> (Alternative: likewise, if the deal is legal, must the judge reveal this
> information if asked?)
Equivalent: no.
> Play progresses, and A and B are the last ones left. A has 1 VP, B has 2 VP.
>
> The judge now tells A he must break his deal, because it was illegal
No. At some point A attempts to do something that violates the "play to
win" deal and appeals to the previously-made "deal" as justification.
At this point, the judge steps in an points out that the play is, in
fact, illegal (a fact that the player already knew from the judge's
private ruling given earlier).
> So far, no problems, but:
>
> What if, at this point due to the developments of play, A's results are
> actually (likely) better if he withdraws? Must A still break the initially
> illegal-to-honor deal, or was the judge's assesment of that legality of the
> losing deal in error (thus the judge should not force a deal-break)? What if
> A, expecting to be allowed to keep the deal, had thrown away key cards (that
> in fact made the deal with B illegal to honor) that now make him effectively
> helpless against B?
If everything that A does is "playing to win" (in absence of the deal),
then
the presence or absence of the deal makes no difference.
"Throwing away key cards" is likely not an example of "playing to win".
--
LSJ (
vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Ich werde am Samstag streng nach meinem Spielgefühl judgen, so wie es der Bazillus immer macht. Diese Rulings sind extrem merkwürdig und praxisfern.
.