[Dixonary] Apparent controversy about dealer points

[Dodi Schultz]

I came in late--really, really late, apparently--on this, but my reaction
is: Is there some reason why, when this game will be twenty years old next
year (some of us, forsooth, were likely in diapers when it all began), that
the rules need revamping?

It's a GAME, no? And as Dan Widdis (whose comment is the only one that
seemed clear to me) noted:

>> In fact, the only measure used in the rules are cumulative scores
>> either by recent rounds or total. In both cases, dealer points
>> contribute to a higher score. Which, as we all know, is all in fun
>> (and why I am not depressed at my long string of 0's and 1's.)
>>
>> ...DP do act in a sense as a penalty in a practical sense, in the
>> sense of tiebreakers....
>>
>> If your score is higher purely because of DP you were awarded, you
>> can be "penalized" by dealing when you otherwise would have been the
>> "real winner"....
>>
>> I have a simple proposed solution: if you feel DP will penalize you
>> in a particular round, then you should (a) sit out the round, and
>> (b) don't even tell the dealer that he/she lost your definition.

Why is a fix needed? Is something broke?

--Dodi

[JohnnyB]

Dodi

Nah, no need to revamp the rules, it was just that some of us older (and younger) codgers got bored with you away - and decided to
play! - we have needed you to keep us in order but as I said earlier some of us oddballs like chewing bricks and spitting out
prefabs

It is great to have you back

JohnnyB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> [mailto:Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Dodi Schultz
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:25 PM
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Subject: [Dixonary] Apparent controversy about dealer points
>
>
>
> I came in late--really, really late, apparently--on this, but
> my reaction
> is: Is there some reason why, when this game will be twenty
> years old next year (some of us, forsooth, were likely in
> diapers when it all began), that the rules need revamping?
>
> It's a GAME, no? And as Dan Widdis (whose comment is the only
> one that seemed clear to me) noted:
>
> >> In fact, the only measure used in the rules are cumulative scores
> >> either by recent rounds or total. In both cases, dealer points
> >> contribute to a higher score. Which, as we all know, is
> all in fun
> >> (and why I am not depressed at my long string of 0's and 1's.)
> >>
> >> ...DP do act in a sense as a penalty in a practical sense, in the
> >> sense of tiebreakers....
> >>
> >> If your score is higher purely because of DP you were
> awarded, you
> >> can be "penalized" by dealing when you otherwise would
> have been the
> >> "real winner"....
> >>
> >> I have a simple proposed solution: if you feel DP will
> penalize you
> >> in a particular round, then you should (a) sit out the round, and
> >> (b) don't even tell the dealer that he/she lost your definition.
>
> Why is a fix needed? Is something broke?
>
> --Dodi

[waynescottmd@earthlink.net]

May I join in the Dodi, Dan, Scott group and say "we've been doing this for
decades and getting along fine. Let's leave it alone and continue."

Wayne


>

[Christopher Carson]

I don't think changes are called for either but I did find Paul's article
very interesting in the academic sense. Since it's up to the dealer to
award points or not, I would assume that a dealer who felt strongly about it
would follow his inclinations with no need of a rule chang, especially given
that things are usually run on a pretty easy going basis as it is. As has
oft been said, 'it's only a game'.


----- Original Message -----
From: <waynescottmd (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Apparent controversy about dealer points


>
> May I join in the Dodi, Dan, Scott group and say "we've been doing this
> for
> decades and getting along fine. Let's leave it alone and continue."
>
> Wayne
>
>
>>
>
>
>

[Paul Keating]

All

I did not suggest _anywhere_ in my little paper that there should be a
change to the rules.

I did not suggest _anywhere_ that dealers should stop doing what they have
always done (even though what they do is _not_ sanctioned by the rules).

If you think I did, then maybe you should read it.

Dan Widdis, whom everyone appears to agree with, said:

"[I]f you feel DP will penalize you in a particular round, then you should
(a) sit out the round, and (b) don't even tell the dealer that he/she lost
your definition."

I don't believe that this is much different from the closing sentence of my
paper, which was:

"But if your average score in the round is higher than [2.2], you really
should think twice before claiming dealer points and voting."

Is this saying that something is broken? Is this calling for a fix? Is this
trying to stir up controversy?

Anyway, even if it is, neither the rules nor "the way we've always played"
are perfect. I think I'm entitled to point out gently that each has its
flaws, and each sometimes has unintended consequences, and each here and
there contradicts the other. Anyone that thinks that they are beyond
criticism, or even commentary, is taking them far more seriously than I do.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

[Christopher Carson]

Paul,

I think we have a Tempest in a Teapot going on here. As I said in another
post, I took your treatise to be a scholarly analysis of the mathematics of
dealer points - an interesting article and not really a call for change. As
you so succinctly stated, a player who feels that his score would be
adversely affected by dealer points can defer a claim. A dealer who feels
likewise can refrain from awarding them. Personally I would like to
compliment you on the analysis. I found it very interesting but then that
may just be an engineer thing. <LOL>

Chris



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Keating" <pjakeating (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:51 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Apparent controversy about dealer points


>
> All
>
> I did not suggest _anywhere_ in my little paper that there should be a
> change to the rules.
>
> I did not suggest _anywhere_ that dealers should stop doing what they have
> always done (even though what they do is _not_ sanctioned by the rules).
>
> If you think I did, then maybe you should read it.
>
> Dan Widdis, whom everyone appears to agree with, said:
>
> "[I]f you feel DP will penalize you in a particular round, then you should
> (a) sit out the round, and (b) don't even tell the dealer that he/she lost
> your definition."
>
> I don't believe that this is much different from the closing sentence of
> my
> paper, which was:
>
> "But if your average score in the round is higher than [2.2], you really
> should think twice before claiming dealer points and voting."
>
> Is this saying that something is broken? Is this calling for a fix? Is
> this
> trying to stir up controversy?
>
> Anyway, even if it is, neither the rules nor "the way we've always played"
> are perfect. I think I'm entitled to point out gently that each has its
> flaws, and each sometimes has unintended consequences, and each here and
> there contradicts the other. Anyone that thinks that they are beyond
> criticism, or even commentary, is taking them far more seriously than I
> do.
>
> --
> Paul Keating
> The Hague
>
>
>

[Jim Hart]

Dodi, I'll use this thread firstly as a vehicle for adding my welcome-
back voice to the choir. Trust that normal transmission will be
resumed as soon as you and your computer are ready.

On the DP debate, I'm even later into reading this than you. I rather
liked the comment that there are and always have been analytical
people who enjoy debating things like this. This seems to me to be
fairly harmless form of enjoyment so long as there is always at least
one adult in the room to bang their heads together occasionally if
they look like getting over-excited.

I'm told there is another game out there variously called Politics or
Democracy in which some people do nothing but argue about the rules
and totally forget to have fun. And because this game even predates
the Compuserve era there is a slightly different set of rules in each
country, which leads to even more fruitless debates by people called
Political Scientists (talk about an oxymoron!) as to which set of
rules is superior. I'm sure many of these arguments could be resolved
by introducing the concept of dealer points at a global level.

As with Dixonary, occasionally some teams lose sight of the original
purpose, viz to have fun. For example I don't recommend playing in
Zimbabwe where the outcome of each round seems to be determined
entirely by Dealer Points and nobody has much fun at all.

And now I see that in the grand tradition of Dixonary, I appear to
have gone off-off-topic. Where was I? Oh yes, welcome back.

Jim

[Bill Hirst]

Nobody has ever, as far as I know, refused dealer points. The only
reason I can think of is when 2 DPs, plus a correct vote, plus a high
rolling score earns someone the deal. On the other hand, people have
begged off the deal for various reasons and nobody seems to object. I
suggest we argue about bizarre scoring if/and/when when it happens.
Most likely, the highest runner-up will just step up and run the next
round. Personally, I wouldn't force the deal on anyone just because
_I_ made a mistake reading my e-mail.

It's our game, they're our rules. There's nothing carved in granite or
any ruling body to enforce them. We can afford to be flexible when
it's needed.

Now, if I pass Paul Keating in the cumulative scores do I win a new
Ferrari? A trophy? No? I didn't think so. The points really don't
matter except as a way of honoring the best players and selecting the
next dealer.

-Bill

p.s for those who remember 1200 baud dial-up modems, this comment is
all IMO and YMMV. TTFN B-)

[France International]

1200 baud?! I remember being thrilled to get a 300 baud dialup after using a
110 baud TTY. Of course, Wayne probably remembers using semaphores or smoke
signals to access the internet.

-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hirst" <billhirst (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: "Dixonary" <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Apparent controversy about dealer points


>
> Nobody has ever, as far as I know, refused dealer points. The only
> reason I can think of is when 2 DPs, plus a correct vote, plus a high
> rolling score earns someone the deal. On the other hand, people have
> begged off the deal for various reasons and nobody seems to object. I
> suggest we argue about bizarre scoring if/and/when when it happens.
> Most likely, the highest runner-up will just step up and run the next
> round. Personally, I wouldn't force the deal on anyone just because
> _I_ made a mistake reading my e-mail.
>
> It's our game, they're our rules. There's nothing carved in granite or
> any ruling body to enforce them. We can afford to be flexible when
> it's needed.
>
> Now, if I pass Paul Keating in the cumulative scores do I win a new
> Ferrari? A trophy? No? I didn't think so. The points really don't
> matter except as a way of honoring the best players and selecting the
> next dealer.
>
> -Bill
>
> p.s for those who remember 1200 baud dial-up modems, this comment is
> all IMO and YMMV. TTFN B-)
>

[JohnnyB]

Um

Watching the bits change on the operator's console of a 24 bit processor was fun too.. Each register (of three) had 24 cathode ray
tubes, one for each bit, and it took real time (maybe half a second) to reftresh a register from left to right. Programming the
monster was fun too, it was a 4k machine - a duplex sized house full of valves which had two inputs/outlets to the world, the
front-panel switches (61 combinations required on boot-up to give it enough info to use the tape-input to read the real boot
program) and of course the tape-punch/reader itself. When external memory is a tape-punch (ie dump intermediate results to feed back
later because there is no more space to keep them in memory) then console watching is a requirement. The tape-punch/reader was
faster than the memory!!! People who only know graphical interface screens are extremely fortunate. But there was also romance back
then and I sometimes miss it now everything is so easy.

JohnnyB
>
>
> 1200 baud?! I remember being thrilled to get a 300 baud
> dialup after using a 110 baud TTY. Of course, Wayne probably
> remembers using semaphores or smoke signals to access the internet.
>
> -Mike

[Dodi Schultz]

At this very moment, I'd be thrilled with a slice of spam.

CompuServe Mail went into a total collapse yesterday (Sunday) and is still lying there lifeless (that includes Mail2Web; no connection at all with mailboxes). "They" (various voices in, AFAIK, Calcutta or points east) say it'll be fixed. Perhaps within 24 hours. Perhaps 48. If THEY don't know...

Anyway, I've faxed a "def" to Dick Da Dealer and asked him to fax me the list--but never mind, Dick: I've just realized I can come and check out the mirror image here.

It's always something.

The twice-weekly Drawer of Blood just left. Did I mention that six weeks of rat poison is standard therapy after this surgery?

--Dodi

[waynescottmd@earthlink.net]

Good old Warfarin!


> [Original Message]
> From: Dodi Schultz <schultz (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
> Date: 4/21/2008 9:17:17 AM
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Apparent controversy about dealer points
>
>
>
> At this very moment, I'd be thrilled with a slice of spam.
>
> CompuServe Mail went into a total collapse yesterday (Sunday) and is
> still lying there lifeless (that includes Mail2Web; no connection at all
> with mailboxes). "They" (various voices in, AFAIK, Calcutta or points
> east) say it'll be fixed. Perhaps within 24 hours. Perhaps 48. If THEY
> don't know...
>
> Anyway, I've faxed a "def" to Dick Da Dealer and asked him to fax me
> the list--but never mind, Dick: I've just realized I can come and check
> out the mirror image here.
>
> It's always something.
>
> The twice-weekly Drawer of Blood just left. Did I mention that six
> weeks of rat poison is standard therapy after this surgery?
>
> --Dodi
>
>
> --
> Dodi Schultz

[Chuck]

Ah, the joys of paper tape. Such fond memories.

The changes in bandwidth from 110 baud through ADSL and Gigabit Ethernet
to eSATA are staggering, but I still find myself driving around town
with a (250 Gb) portable hard drive or mailing DVDs to move data.

- Chuck, who once wrote an assembler for the Intel 8008 chip.

[Dodi Schultz]

>> Good old Warfarin!

You got it, Wayne. ;-)

--Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

>> I'm told there is another game out there variously called Politics or
>> Democracy in which some people do nothing but argue about the rules
>> and totally forget to have fun. And because this game even predates
>> the Compuserve era there is a slightly different set of rules in each
>> country, which leads to even more fruitless debates by people called
>> Political Scientists (talk about an oxymoron!) as to which set of
>> rules is superior. I'm sure many of these arguments could be
>> resolved by introducing the concept of dealer points at a global
>> level.

Jim, I'm SO glad YOU're back in this game!

--Dodi