UzzyLady (et al): If you could be convinced that there was no collusion, the progression of the sophistication on the bidding would make an interesting PhD study into the dynamics of human adaption in a (semi-)closed environment.

Vikings: 5 out of 18 players all bidding 66 is also a bit suss to me ...

Vikings: You have missed the point!

We both know that 59 is a dangerous bid first up but is usually successful (as it was in this game). Bernice's point is that she would not have bid (or left her bid at) 59 on the second round except that BK was down when she tried to get on. There were a few others who also did not bid, I expect for the same reason.

I think, especially for ponds, there should be a mechanism to either discount or ignore results of ponds which are effected by BK going down. When game time is suspended (or BK goes down) then pond time should also be suspended.

Even my bank is not as heartless as your comments Vikings!

Foxy Lady: Move 17 was the one which seemed a bit odd to me (there was another too) ... but my reference was to a particular person who, so far as I am concerned, cheats because they "don't play cricket", and have openly admitted so.

Walter Montego: Points all well made and essentially I agree. But like you, I will play the individual game no more.

But with regard to team tournaments where "anything goes", after some contemplation today I have to report that I struggle to condone a game which encourages traitorship ... trust is something which is hard to earn and I would certainly never encourage anyone to break it, or participate in an activity which might lead to such. It probably has to do with my funny fundamental immutable moral values. I see this attitude (only displayed by I a few I admit) as a microcosm of why of we have some of the problems we do in our society.

Walter Montego: No, I have played ponds from the beginning ... my first and probably only win was the very first pond ... before all the funny business started. I had seen some of the discussion previously, in particular Basplund's open admittal that he conspired with others to rort the result ... as the cricket comment implies, being legal does not make it right. The debate in the pond kicked off because he scored a bonus in "unusual" circumstances.

I like the idea of team ponds and would consider playing in one, but tehr wsould be a few players that cause me to withdraw from even a team pond, who know what sort of deviousness they might be able to think up to stuff those too.

Vikings: Thanks for your vote of confidence. I could proabably come up with a couple of names myself, but I will not be playing this game again ... except maybe in a fellowhip where I don't give a toss about winning or losing, just enjoy the comraderie.

I am essentially competative (my wife would say essentially is an understatement LOL) by nature. I do not enjoy playing in games which rely mainly on chance or where some competitors are at a disadvantage because of unshared knowledge.

The point is that, IMHO, all ponds should be played this way.

Perhaps ponds should be for us ordinary folk and septic tanks who those who wish be caniving (sp?) and devious. It is not us ordinary folk who have stuffed a fun game, but the cat is out of the bag now, the idea would never work as how would you ever know if someone was not playing cricket no matter how much they protest.

Vikings: Cricket is a sophisticated, and perhaps today antiquated, bat and ball game where there are a limited set of rules. Each player plays by those rules and only those rules. If an action is not covered by the rules then they do not do it, rather than doing it until someone says, "hey you can't do that" and changes the rules accordingly.

In cricket playing societies the phrase "It is not cricket" or the like are used to refer to people or actions which try to gain an advantage, not by breaking the rules but going outside the intent of the rules.

The game is enjoyable because it is played so that excellence may triumph, not deviousness.

In my opinion, and I think others, the actions descibed below and in this pond are "just not cricket".

it is obvious that none of you play cricket.

grenv: Ah, but you did not specify that it needed to be an honourable win :) ... as you might hav guessed, all I was trying to do was test the extent of the envelope

grenv: Although that might be the case there are times when the lower player might win ... carrying over a low and now losing bid from the previous round by not entering a new bid for example.

rabbitoid: LOL

Pedro Martínez (and BBW): Thanks ... I wonder if my next win will take as long? ... WQ

Could be an option (tick this box style) when you set up the game to AUTOMOVE (there's that word) when everyone has entered a bid like CC said in his lst post, just like setting time limits and number of players and ratings etc. Last person doesn't get a chance to change their bid ... part of teh penalty for being the slowest.

You could also (for a fast game) make it the last person to bid also leaves the game, more like maybe a bird gets them for being the slowest. That would speed some people up, the automove would then kick in after the second lst made their move.

Been thinking about the end scenario posted earlier where the leading person has say 510 points left and everyone else is under 500, then they can bid 500 points, win the bonus and go nowhere ... hereare 3 options which solve this dilemma:

- the bonus is 500 points or 25% of the person with the most points left at the beginning or the round, whichever is the less amount; or

- the bonus is dicontinued when when all players have less than 1000 points left; or

- no player may win the bonus 2 times in a row. If this would be the case then the bonus is not awarded.

There will be some, but will you be one of them ... need guts for that (said the chicken to the egg :)

Oh why didn't I read the db first ... not the first and won't be the last to overcommit this round!