From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:38:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165042.3596@ncar.ucar.edu>, kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney) writes...
>>  The most blatant example of this I can think of is a Monopoly
>>game I was involved in; Player A, facing four of Player B's hotels and about
>>a 70% chance of landing on one and going bankrupt to Player B, instead offered
>>to buy Water Works from Player C for all his cash on hand, then sell all his
>>properties back to Player C for $1.  (In other words, basically go bankrupt to
>>Player C, rather than taking the chance of going bankrupt to B.)  To his
>>credit, C told A exactly how much of a jerk he was being, and refused to deal
>>with him; A landed on B's hotel and went bankrupt, and C would up winning 
>>anyway.)
> 
>	You were lucky.  In my group this targeted-suicide tactic became
>so common I finally had to lay down the law.  As we sat down to one
>game, I stated "If anyone tries this business of selling all their
>property to player C for $1, I will immediately sell all of my own
>property to the same player C, and we can just call the game and start
>something else."  Apparently, no one ever felt it was worth calling my
>bluff, and our Monopoly games becames much more enjoyable thereafter. 


Jeez, a lot of players seem to have pretty thin skins!  It's just a game!

I haven't played Monopoly in at least a decade, but this seems like a perfectly
legitimate strategem for A *and* C:

In the case cited, player A is probably being stupid, not a jerk.  Why not
ask for something back from C in return for giving him a better chance to win
the game (as opposed to seeing one of his stronger opponents take all your
money)?  I.e, sell him most of your properties on the condition that he sells
them back to you for less if you miss the hotel.  A player C willing to conduct
this kind of transaction in good faith would find himself gaining from the
strengths of his opponents (B).  It is likely that if A is susceptible to going
bankrupt, then B and/or C is probably in a stronger position.  If B and C are
relatively even in strength, this could be a clever way for C to improve his
position.  If B is much better off than A or C, they could adopt a
"shared-risk" approach so that if one of them were wiped out, the other would
have an improved chance of victory.  Indeed, it seems to me that C, and not A,
should propose this kind of deal in the situation in question: "Hey there A ole
buddy - there's a pretty good chance that you're going to go bankrupt by hitting
those 4 hotels there on Boardwalk and Park Place.  Since I'd hate to see B
get all your money and properties, I'll tell ya what what I'm gonna do:  I'll
buy your properties for, say, 70% of their value, and if you miss the hotels,
I'll sell them back to you at face value.  I won't try to screw you since
there's a good chance this situation will come up again next time around, and
I already stand to benefit from the deal if you hit the hotels - we both stand
to gain here."

In general, I would try to do anything which is within the letter of the rules
to win, and I expect my opponents to do the same.  If a suicide or intimidation
tactic clearly ruins the game, I would suggest agreeing before starting the
game that the tactic will not be used.  This is akin to agreeing to a
mutually acceptable modus vivendi in the event there is an error or oversight
in the "official" rules to a game.  If a player finds a legal tactic, however
annoying to his opponent(s), which has even the slightest chance to help him
win the game, I would not call him clever, not a crybaby.  Indeed, most clever
tactics which help one win a game are annoying to the opponent.

I would strongly discourage anyone from taking a *legal* game manuever
personally (to the point of refusing to play with the opponent again).  If
anything, blame the designer.  Intentional cheating is another matter entirely.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board