Howdy,
Hypothetical situation, in a sanctioned tournament:
A -> B -> C -> D -> E ->
A ousts B, and looks strong enough to possibly sweep. E offers a deal
to D: help me oust A and C and I will roll. D accepts and A and C
are successfully ousted.
Can E now concede?
I thought that the new tournament rules said, in effect, that all
deals were off when the table was reduced to two players, and that
each must play to win, but the discussion in the English Nationals
thread seems to indicate that the concession rules take precedence
(i.e. a player can concede at any point as long as everyone else
remaining at the table agrees).
Or is it the special circumstances in that case (finals table,
conceding player in a 'lost' position) that make keeping the deal in
that case kosher? (If the latter, then I suppose E just had to play
with no regards to defense while ousting A and C, so that she is in a
'lost' position when the endgame is reached.)
Wonderin',
Alex
wumpus wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Hypothetical situation, in a sanctioned tournament:
>
> A -> B -> C -> D -> E ->
>
> A ousts B, and looks strong enough to possibly sweep. E offers a deal
> to D: help me oust A and C and I will roll. D accepts and A and C
> are successfully ousted.
At this point:
A: 1VP
B: 0
C: 0
D: 0
E: 2 VP
> Can E now concede?
Not if it isn't PTW.
He can concede if he's in a truly lost position (unable to get any more VPs).
> I thought that the new tournament rules said, in effect, that all
> deals were off when the table was reduced to two players, and that
> each must play to win,
Correct.
On Oct 16, 2:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> wumpus wrote:
> > Howdy,
>
> > Hypothetical situation, in a sanctioned tournament:
>
> > A -> B -> C -> D -> E ->
>
> > A ousts B, and looks strong enough to possibly sweep. E offers a deal
> > to D: help me oust A and C and I will roll. D accepts and A and C
> > are successfully ousted.
>
> At this point:
> A: 1VP
> B: 0
> C: 0
> D: 0
> E: 2 VP
>
> > Can E now concede?
>
> Not if it isn't PTW.
>
> He can concede if he's in a truly lost position (unable to get any more VPs).
I would assume that in this context "unable to get any more VPs" must
include "unable to survive until time out thereby gaining a half VP
and a game win." I would assume it would not be permissible to adopt
the perspective of unlimited time, and thereby project one's own
ultimate defeat, and concede on that basis.
[ quoted text not captured ]> ultimate defeat, and concede on that basis.-
It does include that. The consideration is only: Can you do better
than you have? so in preliminary rounds, strive for GW, else maximize
VPs. This includes timeout half VP, though keep in mind stalling is
illegal, and in final rounds you have to strive to maximize your
standing.
Before the last two the rule is: It is legal to keep deals that were
play to win at the time you made them. As soon as you reach those last
two, that rule is off.
Cheers,
Bram
Don't mean to be too picky but they're the 'UK Nationals' not the
'English Nationals'.
And the circumstance of the concession was that the remaining player
would be unable to achieve anymore hence he was allowed to concede as
that was PTW (note only 2 players left).
>
> I thought that the new tournament rules said, in effect, that all
> deals were off when the table was reduced to two players, and that
> each must play to win, but the discussion in the English Nationals
> thread seems to indicate that the concession rules take precedence
> (i.e. a player can concede at any point as long as everyone else
> remaining at the table agrees).> Wonderin',
> Alex
Howdy Hugh,
> Don't mean to be too picky but they're the 'UK Nationals' not the
> 'English Nationals'.
Right. Apologies to all Scots, Welsh, and N. Irish for the error of
Anglicization. (And apologies in advance if I've now managed to miss
other denizens of the UK. I'm sure someone will correct me.) Of
course, I had originally typed 'English NAC', which would've been even
more erroneous...
> And the circumstance of the concession was that the remaining player
> would be unable to achieve anymore hence he was allowed to concede as
> that was PTW (note only 2 players left).
Yes, it was that clarification that I was looking for, and LSJ
provided it. I thought it might've been either a) erroneous, or b)
due to the special-ish characteristics of PTW in the final.
It still seems lame not to just play it out, but I suppose that a
judge's judgement that that is pointless must suffice. It'd be
different (in my mind) if the Game Win was already decided and it was
just dickering over the remaining VP - who really cares at that
point? But with the potential for the GW to change hands, it seems
unseemly not to find out for sure rather than calling it.
Alex
On Oct 16, 4:31 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It still seems lame not to just play it out, but I suppose that a
> judge's judgement that that is pointless must suffice. It'd be
> different (in my mind) if the Game Win was already decided and it was
> just dickering over the remaining VP - who really cares at that
> point? But with the potential for the GW to change hands, it seems
> unseemly not to find out for sure rather than calling it.
In some contexts, there can be such thing as a legal duty to "avoid
the appearance of impropriety" even when the suspected impropriety
cannot be proven or even can be disproven. This may be a similar
situation.
> In some contexts, there can be such thing as a legal duty to "avoid
> the appearance of impropriety" even when the suspected impropriety
> cannot be proven or even can be disproven. This may be a similar
> situation.
That is a very fair point and given the amount of time it would have
taken to p ay out (a turn each i think seemed likely with Antonion's
turn being untapping & hunting and maybe something excitig with his
stolen imbued) maybe it should have been but there seemed little point
when he was very happy to concede at that stage.
Alex,
not quite English NAC yet but it is so easy to misstype in so many
ways!
:)