The Boss
Mood: |
| posted on 4/2/2006 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
CANADIAN RULE in online tournament?
I don't think the Canadian rule should be used in online tournament.
I understand that in a REGULAR game, the Canadian rule is there to try to avoid the leader to take a big lead and make the game more fun for the other
players, but is it the goal in a tournament?
The goal in a tournament should be that the player who plays the best wins, not the 2nd best player because the best couldn't bid what he/she
wanted.
For example, in the February 1st 2006 online tournament, in the Round #2, only the winners advanced to the Final Table. I don't say that it happened,
but this mean that the best player in a table could be eliminated because of the unfair Canadian rule and not reach the Final Table.
To me, the Canadian rule is the only rule that doesn't seem logical and fair to be used in online tournament.
Just my 2 cents! 
|
|
|
The Boss
Mood: |
| posted on 5/2/2006 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
I don't know about Queen of Spades, but in a Poker tournament, there's no rule made specially to hurt the chances of winning of ONE player. The rules
are the same for everybody. So the 2nd best can't win because of a rule that was good just for the leader. The leader can always bid what he/she
wants, just like all the other players.
Just my 2 cents again. (For a total of 4 cents so far.  )
|
|
|
fizzwiz1
Mood: |
| posted on 5/2/2006 at 11:47 PM |
|
|
canadian rule
I will play with or without. cr preferance is without leaning towards the boss's view,s
my personal view is that even bids dont always
come out even cause of jester's and wizard's in
the later rounds. having alot of middle cards with no jesters or wizards makes it hard to make your bid anyway. That being the case i feel it should
be disabled . how dumb is is that you have to make a bid knowing you most likely wont make it .
part of the stratagies should also incorparate defensive play ' so making it even when you are leader would be a smart play. the non leaders
should be the ones taking the risks to get back in the game
in all games there is no rule to help the rest of the field catch up. i am sure i have both lost and won cause of the rule.
In a game of hockey if a team is leading maybe they should play without a goalie for a period till other team catches up or takes over the lead. COME
ON NOW.!!!!
|
|
|
deanna
Mood: content |
| posted on 8/2/2006 at 01:39 AM |
|
|
Canadian Rule
I have to agree with Mr. Wizard on this one. I also prefer playing with CR. I believe it adds to the interest and challenge of the game. Of course,
I'm rarely affected by the rule, maybe that has something to do with it..lol. I've played a few games lately with a lot of even bids, everyone just
interested in making theirs, seemingly without consideration of trying to set the leader. At least with CR, there are a few hands that can't be made
even. We always play with CR in real life games..but each to their own. I do think if the host wants CR off, he/she should poll the players first,
before making the decision to play without it.
|
|
|
boxer
Mood: |
| posted on 8/2/2006 at 05:20 PM |
|
|
Well here's my 2 bob's worth, CR on/off i really don't care i do not think you should be able to call it even at all, ok early rounds it will effect
you ( so what ) part of the fun i think, at least someone goes pink in every round which gives the player in last place hope of catching up. I only
suggest this for the benefit of Mr Wizard who often has to play catch up. LOL
|
|
|
wizard
Mood: |
| posted on 10/2/2006 at 02:03 AM |
|
|
Well, I may as well jump into this discussion once again.
First of all there are lots of examples of games where the leader is put under special rules. For example in Bridge the leading team is termed
"Vulnerable" and if they are 'set' they suffer much more than their opponents would of they were set. The penalty points are quite punishing for the
vulnerable leaders.
( In Chess the attacking player is actually required to warn his opponent when his King is under attack.)
Now to the C.R. itself. You can never please everybody and the rule was instituted as a compromise. Many people feel that 'even' bids should never be
allowed so that someone "breaks" in every round. However that really results in having to make impossible bids. Now that the dealer can always bid
zero even if it does make it even I feel that there is never a case where a player is forced into making an impossible bid.
And the example provided by Mr. Wizard was a major cause for the C.R. being implemented. If the leader is last to bid in the final hand he makes it
even to maintain the lead.
Of course in reality players use all kinds of variations to the rules. (Whatever floats your boat.) There are lots of valid alternatives to the
current rules. For example why not have the dealer able to declare "No Trump" when a Wizard turns up? Why not receive a 10 point bonus for completing
a game with all perfect bids? However there has to be a standard set of rules set down for everyone.
|
|
|
NoWorries
Mood: |
| posted on 18/3/2006 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
I have been playing the store bought version of wizard for sometime now and just found this site and there is no mention of this rule you guys are
arguing about in the official rules, I'm guessing by some of the talk it's some rule to keep the bids from adding up to the number of tricks possible?
but whatever it is it's not in my rules and I've always played by the official ones, and I like to keep luck out of the game and as much skill in as
possible, hope to play with you all soon
|
|
|
