Rose: According to fencer it is not

Rose: Yes this play is not correct. So my suggestion is when a bid is way lower than the lowest bid in the last round (say 200 pts), if this is not almost all they have (say, max 2000 pts left), this bid doesn't count as the lowest (while falling in), the next player with the lowest bid falls also in, and so on till a player ''succeeds'' for these criteria.
This way stops that advantagous playing Viking told about, for me that is called CHEATING.

joshi tm: under your criterea, AlanP's bid in this pond http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=21&g=2875 would be considered cheating when in fact it was a good and gutsy bid,there was a logic to the bid that only he followed, yet you would have him punnished by falling in? these bids happen in many games

Vikings: No, because FANTAS had the lowest bid of 53 (after bidding everything he has), and in that round he has the lowest inside the criteria. so 200 under the last bid of FANTAS would be -147, and is all fair again.

Vikings: Sorry for confusing you, but I meant the lowest bid of round 21 (enderme's 441). Backoff's lowest bid was 595, that's above the criterium of 200.

joshi tm: I see what you mean, there are people that bid higher in the first round and then lower in later rounds., and there are people who will bid smaller toward the end but not nessecarrily with less than 2000 points left, pawns cause some of this bidding also. I guess that I don't see being observant the same as cheating.