[LSJ] Questions about the way to present a judge's decision concerning a deal

Since we're having a bit of a disagreement in our playgroup concerning the topic of deals and how to judge them, I will try to ask questions to settle our argument. In a game, two players, A and B, strike a deal. Another player C, is not sure that honoring this deal is playing to win for B, so he calls the judge to validate. 1. The judge looks at the table, B's hand, asks B a few questions in private, then makes a decision. Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: 1.a) if player B asks him to? 1.b) if player C asks him to? 1.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? 1.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? 2. Same initial setup, but somehow, the judge manages to make a decision without using any priviledged information like B's hand, etc. Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: 2.a) if player B asks him to? 2.b) if player C asks him to? 2.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? 2.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? Thanks in advance.

clechasseur...@catnip-software.com wrote: > Since we're having a bit of a disagreement in our playgroup concerning > the topic of deals and how to judge them, I will try to ask questions > to settle our argument. > > In a game, two players, A and B, strike a deal. Another player C, is > not sure that honoring this deal is playing to win for B, so he calls > the judge to validate. > > 1. The judge looks at the table, B's hand, asks B a few questions in > private, then makes a decision. > > Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: > 1.a) if player B asks him to? > 1.b) if player C asks him to? > 1.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? The judge shouldn't do any of the above if doing so would reveal hidden information. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5dd3480e046617f1 > 1.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? Yes. This would not reveal any hidden information. > 2. Same initial setup, but somehow, the judge manages to make a > decision without using any priviledged information like B's hand, etc. > > Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: > 2.a) if player B asks him to? > 2.b) if player C asks him to? > 2.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? > > 2.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? Same answers.

clechasseur...@catnip-software.com wrote: > Since we're having a bit of a disagreement in our playgroup concerning > the topic of deals and how to judge them, I will try to ask questions > to settle our argument. > > In a game, two players, A and B, strike a deal. Another player C, is > not sure that honoring this deal is playing to win for B, so he calls > the judge to validate. > > 1. The judge looks at the table, B's hand, asks B a few questions in > private, then makes a decision. > > Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: > 1.a) if player B asks him to? > 1.b) if player C asks him to? > 1.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? No. If the Judge's decision is reliant upon information the other players do not know about, he cannot tell them anything relating to it. If he did (c), I would recommend he be ejected from the play space. That's no different from the Judge looking at your hand and saying "Wow, that's a lot of Dominate!" > > 1.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? > If he is asked for a ruling, he has to tell player B if, to the best of player B's knowledge, player B was playing to win. > 2. Same initial setup, but somehow, the judge manages to make a > decision without using any priviledged information like B's hand, etc. > > Can the judge announce his or her decision to the entire table: > 2.a) if player B asks him to? > 2.b) if player C asks him to? > 2.c) if he feels like it, without anyone asking? > > 2.d) Can the judge announce the decision to player B only, in private? > Again, the Judge should give his ruling in private to each of the players involved in the deal. Legality of a deal is a matter of play *style* and not *game state*, the Judge should not be limiting player's play style by telling people how others should play. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

clechasseur...@catnip-software.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] As I judged many tournaments in my life, small and big ones(EC04), I always tell the players and other judges, that I dont anwser to any deals regarding "playing to win". The problem is that the other players cannot know if the player is holding true to his deal. So dealbreaking must always be considered, regarding judge decisions. But which judge wants to spoil that the dealmaking player said: "maybe I want to break the deal later". If the judge than tells to the other player, that the deal is legal, according to possible dealbreaking, the other dealmaking party than knows, that something is rotten in denmark. So if somebody is asking me, if the VP/GW deal on his table is legal, I just tell them, it is always legal, cause they will never know, if the player is not breking his deal.

eRol wrote: > So if somebody is asking me, if the VP/GW deal on his table is legal, I > just tell them, it is always legal, cause they will never know, if > the player is not breking his deal. But according to the rules, this isn't actually true. Some deals are clearly illegal from the outset (two players sit down at a table and immediately decide to table split 2/3 before any cards are played--this is not a legal deal for the guy accepting the 2 end of the deal). I realize that it is difficult to mandate who is or is not accepting an illegal deal, but you can't simply say "All deals are legal, as someone might be lying! Bwahahah!" -Peter

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Thats true, so if you see really obvious tablesplits abuses, than they should be reprimanded, with slaps in the neck. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] But the thing is, it's perfectly legal for them to _say_ let's do a 2/3 table split. Their actual play actions are illegal if they're not playing to win, but they can say whatever the heck they want. Of course, the actual deal would be legal anyway for the guy getting 3vps. But the other players should be aware of whether or not a given deal is likely to be legal, and thus play accordingly. Which is part of the play skill, being able to judge the other players' true positions, rather than just their stated ones. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)