The team is 3 against 1. (Three non-low players against Lowman)
Yes the team object is to work together to hit the Lowman.
Lowman's job is to stay low. The team strives in all ways possible to hit low.
If played right team players will always change, but the team object will not; keeping in mind that the
Object of the whole game is still to win, while giving everyone a chance at that winning spot.
This teamwork inspires the second principle: Trust (I believe the most important)
Trust means the queen is saved to hit low; NOT the person trying to set up low.
It means not leading spades into low so they get rid of trouble cards such as ace or king of spades
It means not leading low's void.
And it means the person on low's right or across taking the lead and searching for a way to set up low.
This can be done because either of those players can trust the queen holder to not drop on them when
they are doing this. If you follow this train of thought you will realize that the queen holder is in one of two
positions either directly to the left of Lowman or across from Lowman. Thus passing comes into play.
Pass the q and hopefully backers to either of those positions, while those two players pass set up cards.
Without trust there is no Lowman game and people will play defensively to only protect their own
scores and positions in relation to Lowman.
The last principle: Protection
Mostly it's a protection to keep high from going out and it is everyone's job including Lowmanís if they
take the queen or enough points where they will not be low after the hand is over.
With all of this in mind I would like to see the differential to change from first and second's score to second
and thirds score. This I believe will promote a more Lowman game involving protection and trust. It will
promote second place players to become more involved in getting low instead of just dumping on 3rd or 4th.
I believe this will not just protect the third place player but fourth also simply because fourth place can
and often does determine who will win the game. If second decides to hit fourth instead of Lowman they
have violated trust and taken away fourth placed player's reason to go for low, and it will give
fourth place player a reason to target second or third which would hurt the second place player's chances of a wild
Also with this in mind, I do not believe the point system should be changed. In a Lowman game or
any game really save partners there is only a single winner and three losers.
Second is no better than fourth so they should not be rewarded as being better.
Due to the number of players per night we need the wild cards. Second is already given a
better chance of advancing and that should be enough. Given anything more and they have reason to
not protect anyone in the game; improving nothing in game play. Promoting hitting third or fourth;
since points are awarded for doing so.
: There was a discussion in the lobby last night
: about several possible format changes. Each
: one can be judged on its own merit, but in
: some cases the need for each varies
: depending on decisions made on the others,
: which is why I am putting these all up on
: the table.
: 1) Wilds: currently, selection of wilds has
: always been based on the score differential
: from 1st (or from 2nd if top 2 advance as
: was previously the case). This was designed
: to encourage players to target low, though
: has a flaw that low might allow 2nd to take
: the lead if they know they will still
: advance as wild. The proposal is to make it
: so wilds are determined by lowest score
: differential between 2nd and 3rd, which
: causes some interesting game decisions
: encouraging 2nd to take points instead of
: hitting low or high, and complete
: discourages high or 2nd from hitting 3rd.
: Drunkie(55) got 1st, Wax_0n_Wax_0ff(57) got
: 2nd, CYNDEERI(89) got 3rd, and brian921(113)
: got 4th.
: Wax_0n_Wax_0ff's wild score is 89-57=32
: (instead of 57-55=2).
: takeahart(43) got 1st, papa2(78) got 2nd, A1
: SKYRAIDER(81) got 3rd, and Frank of
: Hearts(101) got 4th.
: papa2's wild score is 81-78=3 (instead of
: 2) 100 point first round games. We tried
: this for about a month a few years back, and
: people didn't like it, so we went back to
: 200 pts so people could enjoy playing
: longer. Some people have commented though
: that regular hearts games to 200 pts can be
: frustrating if you take a lot of points
: early and the players don't seem to be
: trying for low as the game is over long
: before it ends. It seems a balance is
: needed between allowing people to enjoy
: playing long enough while minimizing the
: pain of the example cited. Proposal 2a)
: would be that the 1st round should be 2 100
: pt games instead of one 200 pt game which is
: a pain for hosts but seems to strike that
: balance (this was done long ago).
: 3) 10-7-4-1 scoring vs 5-2-2-2 scoring. The
: scoring was change to 5 for 1st, 2 for
: everyone else to remove any benefit to
: playing for 2nd or 3rd. It worked to a
: degree, and there hasn't been any opinion
: expressed that we should bring back the old
: scoring method, but I wanted to throw this
: out there.
: 4) Four semi-final tables instead of two.
: This was changed at the same time as the
: scoring change to also eliminate the benefit
: of playing for 2nd or 3rd since top 2 always
: advanced and wilds were taken from 3rd.
: From time to time this has been raised in
: the lobby as most players are now out after
: round 1. If we go to just a single 100
: point game for the 1st round, this might be
: more important, but if we keep the 200 point
: game or go to two 100 point games, this
: probably should remain as is since it's
: redundant since we have 6-7 first round
: tables usually. It would also impact the
: proposal on wilds as it would mean we would
: select based on the score differential
: between 3rd and 4th instead of between 2nd
: and 3rd.
: 5) EOM/EOY finals to 100 points. Currently
: the four rounds of EOM/EOY are to 100 points
: and finals are to 200 points. The benefit
: to making finals 100 points also is that the
: tourney usually runs nearly 3 hours and
: would shorten this by 30 minutes.
: I think that covers everything that has been
: suggested. Please comment on what you think
: about these here in this forum.
« Back to index