I’m sure I wasn’t alone in planning out other people’s possible moves in my head.
Although in my case incorrectly applying the rules in doing so.
It’s a fun game. Thanks @RogerBW
3 Likes
Yeah, I got excited and started quarterbacking (badly). Sorry
It’s sure is a different kettle of fish when you don’t know what other players are holding. (It doesn’t leave much opportunity for quarter-backing either ; )
Open-handed is a great way to get up to speed, though (and still fun); and I think the number of rules clarifications which occurred as a result of openly discussing plans for the next moves showed how easy it would otherwise have been for people to miss things.
3 Likes
The thought of playing this game with closed hands… I’m not even sure I can properly imagine how much harder it would be!
I guess yielding becomes a more interesting decision: if you don’t have exact damage do you pass and hope that someone else does? Clubs might become a bit more valuable too? I don’t remember us playing very many over the course of that game, diamonds and spades seemed to be the cards to try and play where possible.
Thanks for running this!
1 Like
I have a busy Friday coming up but will try to sort support for a closed-hand game over the weekend.
2 Likes
I’m happy to drop out this time. Anyone wants to take my spot?
1 Like
Same, it’s an excellent pbf game
Same here if others want to join in after the video review.
1 Like
I’d love to give it a go!
1 Like
Oh, nice! I hadn’t noticed that.
If it’s significantly simpler, a trust-based version would be to simply spoiler-tag the hands, and ask players to only look at their own hand.
1 Like
I think that would work. Similar to the Flamme Rouge PBFs.
1 Like
Yeah, but I have ~90% of the infrastructure already (@Robot_Maria can write PMs)…
Rewriting the game status display code will definitely be quicker, though.
I’ll gladly jump in for a closed-hand game – I know the rules, but my multi-player experience is minimal, so I’m sure I’ll learn by making mistakes in this format : )
2 Likes
OK, I’ll use Phil’s version with spoiler-tags so that the game can happen here rather than in the PMs. Example with “spoiler”:
Castle: J♣, + 11 more
Tavern: 23
B hand: 3♠ 5♦ 3♥ A♦ 5♣ 7♣
A hand: Jester 10♥ 6♠ 3♣ 8♦ 6♣
C hand: 8♠ 8♣ 4♣ 9♦ A♣ 9♥
Or should it be this, with “details”?
Castle: J♣, + 11 more
Tavern: 23
B hand
3♠ 5♦ 3♥ A♦ 5♣ 7♣
A hand
Jester 10♥ 6♠ 3♣ 8♦ 6♣
C hand
8♠ 8♣ 4♣ 9♦ A♣ 9♥
@COMaestro, @Phil, are you still in? Anyone else?
I am still in. On my phone, I can make out the suits of the blurred spoilers, so the hide details option would be better.
2 Likes
Also the jester hands are a lot more obvious due to length of the blur.
1 Like
Yup, I’ll do the “details” version. You should in theory know roughly how many cards people hold, but I can add a bit for that if it seems relevant.
As no one else has jumped in I’ll play again if that’s ok. I apologise in advance
OK, COMaestro and Captbnut, Phil maybe; one more spot available.