How many levels of expertise does Heat have?
I’m thinking its fewer than I’d hoped. But I tacked my discussion onto a (fifteen year old!) geeklist on the subject.
Some quick thoughts on Solo Stationfall
TL;DR — A clever idea; if I had three adding a bot as a fourth might work, but as a solitaire experience I didn’t care for it. More details on BGG Solitaire Games on Your Table geeklist for this month. (Direct link to my comments).
Apiary
Is it really worker placement if none of the spaces block? If you go on an occupied space the opponent can re-use (and level up) the worker, so there’s not cost but giving a benefit. (A bit like Hansa Teutonica but that’s not worker placement either).
Apiary is a point salad trying to sit with the cool kids. Get points for filling in a section of the ship, or via the favor track, or via big VP style buildings, or area control for the honey comb. Five types of resources (pollen, water, silk, wax, honey) plus cards.
I suppose the hype is because “It’s a new game!”
Admittedly, “Space Bees” is a novel theme.
Rating — Indifferent
Too many levels of expertise, redux
It has happened again, and I am again at a loss. When this new (to me) player played Stationfall, I tried to explain action efficiency (switching between 2+ characters to get two actions a turn). It didn’t click. Tonight the same player bid $50 for a picture at Modern Art that could range in value from $0-$40.
“The maximum that picture can be is $40 at the end of this round,” I said, expecting that this was just rules confusion.
“Yes, but I already own one by the same artist.”
“Your bid guarantees you will take a loss.” (I perhaps should have let it drop prior to saying this, but a) I was confused as to what the prior statement meant and b) I was the recipient of said largess and didn’t want to beat my other opponent because of random swings by the new player).
At this point I got a testy “I know what I’m doing” type of response (not the first time I’ve heard that) so I mentally decided that this is player I will not try to help and proceeded to treat the game as a gedankenexperiment on exploiting people who cannot deal with “expected value.”
(The results were as gruesome as you might expect).
After playing another game with said new player, I’m just going to try and avoid him; a mild shame, because he’s nice (as long as nobody tries to correct his play) but for the most part I have no interest in Punishing the Weak (except at Bridge where it’s a valuable skill to get matchpoints).
Minor Thoughts after Recent Gaming
Had a small “<Person>-con” where a local just opens up his home for a long weekend of gaming (these are my favorite types of cons — even if you don’t know everybody already it is small enough that you’ll know people by the end of it). I got to try a few new things, and revisit some older games, so a few thoughts. Games with no rating are rated Suggest.
1860 (Isle of Wight) — In the ’62 family (IMO), with its “Sure, dump 100% into the bank pool or own 100%” rules (and same market mechanisms) but with just a few companies (and no train types) and some weird insolvency/bankruptcy/receivership rules (apart from the normal chrome of private companies). Clearclaw’s favorite 18xx (according to his rating/comment), and I can see the appeal. My second game hinged fights for insolvent companies (because they’d build up capital via train leasing). I’d like to get a copy … if nothing else this is a decent 2p game that the TaoLing and I can play.
Shikoku 1889 — I think I’m kind of done with the 1830 flavor of 18xx. This is shorter and faster, but its just all about being the first to buy in private companies and then rescue your now ailing first company. Fortunately there are plenty of 18xx’s still to try. Indifferent (I’d play this, but lobby for a different 18xx).
Eclipse (2nd Edition) — Very nice form factor, having trays and better boards to mark resources (with built in spots to keep cubes from shifting), and a few rules tweaks/balances. It was nice to play Eclipse again, and I did spot one new rare technology tile in our game (the “Pico Manipulator?” which gives +2 Upgrades — huge, maybe too good). Still, I own first edition and so I see no need to upgrade. Also, like the idea of the ship upgrades, but even in a small game there’s too much (“what type is that”).
Merchant of Venus — The host has a very nice Print and Play (nicer than any other edition, to be sure), which enhances this game. I understand why its a staple, although for me its an “once every year or two” seems fine.
Tichu — Yes, in response to Bacon. Again, many more people play Tichu daily/weekly/whatever, but I had been ignoring it for too many years, so now it’s back in the bag for an “every once in a while” rotation.
Marrakesh — As a Feld-hater, I expected an overblown point salad nightmare. Which Marrakesh is, but it rises above the the rest (an admittedly low bar) with the weird action system and resource management. I mean, I’m still Indifferent. But it’s JASE, not something I really hate. In particular, Marrakesh suffers from big VP goals drawn during the game and they might match with your strategy and score big, or whiff. That’s a Pet Peeve I haven’t quite figured out a name for yet. (There is some mechanism where you can draw up to six and only score three), but the winner got 54 points from goals and second and third got 30 (and the difference between them was ~5).
Exploding Kittens — Played at a different house con with a crowd into lighter games. Random but fast, so therefore acceptably Indifferent.
Older games played in the last month, but no new thoughts on — Quacks of Quedlinburg, Seven Wonders, Caylus Magna Carta, Innovation, Pastiche (Birth of a Masterpiece), Ticket to Ride.
BoardGame Geek is becoming unusable
Which is somewhat sad, but I guess I’ll get over it. I’ve had other “daily visits” die, what’s one more? I typically visit BGG to see if there is anything of note a) by my geekbuddies or b) on games I’m interested in. I have quick links set up for these, and geekbuddy is an automatic link (that anyone has, so it’s not a custom search).
When I clicked “Geekbuddy posts” BGG just thought for five seconds before serving up a page. That’s insane. My “Recent of interest” page is a little better.
Of course in recent years the front page has lost meaning (and slowed down), the sales mechanisms have become so clunky that after my last BGG auction, I’d now rather just throw my games away rather than auction them there. BGG is quickly moving towards “Encyclopedia” status. If I have a question I’ll look there, but I’m not going to just browse it.
This doesn’t feel like the deliberate enshittification, because I can’t see what value they are getting out of it. Maybe it’s the accumulated cruft of two decades. (And honestly, it seems that nowadays windows laptops have a two year life before random crap kills them unless they are locked up to unreasonable standards and never touch the internet. Mine is on borrowed time, despite having good anti-virus software.
Another part is undoubtedly scale and the public nature of BGG. The better conversations are happening on discords or other smaller (and possibly private) forums, where you don’t have to wade through all the news. Reddit’s Boardgame forum (which I browse) is mostly the same things repeated every month (“The September that Never Ended” writ large), but there’s an occasional spark.
So, I’ll still use BGG. It’s not quite dead yet. But …. its allure is becoming more selective, as they say.
Safety Plays
Playing in a Swiss with a pickup pair (that was also bounced from the NAOPs, but they were playing in Flight B) we are having a reasonable game. In an earlier round, a married couple goes down in a cold 3NT when the wife does not finesse into the safe hand but instead plays for the drop and we can run four spades (declarer having Qxx opposite xx). Her husband risks the couch by pointing this out, but the wife says “It doesn’t matter, because they can start them from either side.”
The husband has noticed that I held AKTx behind the Queen, so I could not have run off four spades if she took the safety play into my hand. But he’s been married long enough to not push his luck, so he nods.
Later on, in a new match, I pick up S: AKQJ8 H:A8xx D:x C:Qxx and I open 1 Spade. Partner bids 2 Spades and I have a hand good enough to try for game, so I bid 3 Clubs. We play this is help-suit/natural-ish. I have three (or more) cards in the suit and want my partner’s points to be in clubs. Partner bids 4 Spades, so that ends the auction.
LHO leads a diamond and dummy is not what I’d hoped.
S: Txx H: Qx D:AKxxxx C:xx
Partner has a maximum, and is probably hoping that I can run the diamonds (and her doubleton club will keep me from losing three fast clubs). Not a bad thought, and I’d have probably bid it the same way, but this is a decidedly touchy contract. I need to ruff a club and hope for the heart king onside. I win the diamond in dummy and lead a club.
RHO plays the king and returns a spade to stop dummy’s ruffing power.
This is a decidedly good turn. It looks like the AK of clubs are onside (unless the king was stiff, which would be a pretty horrible development). I play my spade 8 and LHO thinks and plays the nine. I win the ten and lead another club. RHO wins the ace and plays a spade.
I win (perforce) and miss an obscure safety play. I’m planning on cashing the club to pitch a heart and then heart ace, ruff a heart, pitch a heart on diamonds, and then claim all the rest but one (losing my fourth heart).
But when I play the heart ace, LHO plays the (obviously stiff) heart king. Aiiee! I now realize the play I just missed. It had a much … much less likely chance of mattering — (hearts 6-1 with a stiff king!) — but if that happened I could pull trumps and not need the 5-3 club break.
But — since clubs did break, I’m oddly enough still OK. I was planning on losing a heart at the end, so losing a heart to a ruff is still OK. When I lead a small heart LHO can ruff higher than dummy, but he’s out of trumps. If he leads a diamond I can pitch my third heart, ruff a diamond and ruff my fourth heart (instead of my second), and if he leads a club I ruff my third heart and pitch my fourth on the diamond.
The odds of this safety play mattering are incredibly small. It only would have mattered if the 3rd round of clubs was ruffed on my right (after I pitched a heart) in addition to the 6-1 heart break with the stiff king. But thankfully in my case it was only a sharp shock and a reminder to always look for rare card combinations to sneak an extra trick.
After further review, I decide not to exile myself to the couch.
In Bridge, you don’t always know what to do
When I first met Jeff Goldsmith (RIP), I commented “It must be nice to know what to bid all the time.” And he said something like “You never get to that point.”
Playing in a warm-up game for the North American Open Pairs, I pick up a nice hand:
S: Axx H: AQxxx D: AKJx C:x
I’m dealer and there’s merit to upgrading this hand and opening a forcing two clubs. It’s a touch light on points, to be sure, but all are excellent. But the hand will be awkwardly placed later on — particularly if partner is broke and bids 2H, our negative bid — so I open 1 Heart. Now if partner bids one spade or one No Trump, I can jump shift and bid my hand out.
(In fact, I did something similar in an earlier session to find the better slam).
My LHO overcalls 2 Diamonds and it goes pass – pass back to me.
This is ludicrous. I’m at the two level in the second round of bidding and …. I have no idea what to do. Jeff’s right, as usual.
Pass seems craven. Double could like work out great (particularly since we play Flannery — if I had a minimum hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts I would have opened 2 Diamonds conventionally, and if I had a big hand with four spades I could just bid two spades, so I probably only have three spades for a double). That being said, partner will most likely bid 3 Clubs. Then I still have no idea what to do, just one level higher.
2 No trump seems reasonable … it gets across the values and the diamond stopper, but that stiff club is awkward again. Maybe my best bet is to go for penalty, but double is takeout. I decide to follow my maximum “An extra ace can replace a missing a trump” and bid 2 Hearts. If anyone bids I can come alive, and if I buy it, perhaps its right.
I buy it.
LHO is a local player who has more master points than me but is not nearly as good and leads the club ace. I am (yet again) in the wrong place.
Dummy has S: J9xxx H:T8 D: — C: KTxxxx
If I had doubled, we’d likely be in two spades (maybe three if I raise). That would be much better. But no matter, I am in two hearts. I have an easy first trick and duck in both hands. LHO continues with the club jack. (He led Ace from AJ? See above note) and I win the king, pitching a spade.
I’d like to get back to my hand to ruff two diamonds. I could come back to the spade ace, but then I can’t get back for my second ruff, so I’d need to lead a club. So …. I might as well lead it now. Perhaps if LHO is bad enough to lead ace from AJ, he’s bad enough to lead A from AJx(x). I lead a small club, ruff and LHO over-ruffs.
I pick on my LHO, but at least he now recognizes the fact that I will be ruffing diamonds. Better late than never. He leads a heart. This goes 8-9 Queen.
I have one more arrow in my quiver (thanks to Peter Fredin, whose book I reviewed).
I lead the diamond jack. LHO hitches for a long time and … plays low. I call for a spade, ruff the diamond eight, ruff a club (no over-ruff this time), cash the heart ace (LHO shows out), try to cash the diamond ace, which holds (RHO had a reasonable raise, downgraded his KJ98 of hearts, I guess) and continue with the diamond king. This will get ruffed, but I score three hearts in hand, one ruff in dummy, two diamonds (including the jack!) and the club king and spade ace for 8 tricks.
I’m reasonably tickled. LHO had QTxxxx of diamonds, so covering the jack was basically free, but I’ll take it(*). Looking at the hand records later, the field is all over the place. A few people are playing in one heart (sometimes making two, but often not because they didn’t have the information I did).
The rest of the field is in 4 spades (which can make in theory, but rarely in practice) or some other too high contract.
Did I make a mistake by bidding at all? As a practical matter … yup. I would have probably scored +150 on defense without all these histrionics, but +110 for making two hearts feels more satisfying. (The big winners were those whose partner made a very weak negative double with 5-6 and then converted the double for penalty, but that option wasn’t open to me).
Anyway, later on in the NAOP we didn’t qualify, but got to chat with many a good player, including the Sam of Bridge Without Sam.
Hm. Sam is a friend of Jeff’s. Perhaps I should ask him what Jeff would have bid.
(* If LHO covered the Diamond Jack I still make by one diamond ruff, two diamonds, a club, a spade and three hearts in hand, but this feels so much better despite scoring the same).
The Tao of Gaming 