Re: [Rails-devel] Bug reports

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...] 
> Sent: Thursday 19 November 2009 19:31
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Bug reports
> 
> Erik Vos wrote:
> > #2898839 - 1830:  dropouts remain, in privates-auction.
> > - "When a private has 3-or-more bidders, the auction will continue,
> > even after one bidder passes and drops out.
> > However, rails also continues to allow that player(s) to bid again."
> > - Confirmed and fixed.
> 
> I believe these players are supposed to be allowed to bid again.

Hmm, you may be right on this one. The rules don't say anything explicitly
about passing players dropping out of the auction. The rules book quote
give by Jim in the bug report ('There's a specific example of this 
in the 1830 rulebook, in italics on page 5, rhs: "Player #2 must 
raise the bid.. or drop out".') is not conclusive, as in the case
described only two players are bidding; thenm if one passes, 
bidding ends regardless whether the pass-then-drop-out rule
applies or not.

Perhaps I have to revert this fix.
Any other opinions?
 
> > #2898830 - priority incorrectly affected by privates auctions.
> > - "Rails doesn't handle priority correctly across a typical 
> 1830-style
> > privates auction. Note that the auction itself, does not count as a 
> > player action- for the bidders, winner, etc. In rails, it 
> appears to."
> > - Confirmed and fixed. The fix is generic: auctioning will 
> now never 
> > change the PD after bidding in any game. Not sure of this rule holds
> > for all games, but I'm currently not aware of any exceptions.
> 
> I believe this purchase, like any other, does determine the Priority
> Deal if it is followed by everyone passing (even though it does not
> change who is next in the stock round that was interrupted by the
> auction).  I would handle this by making the auction its own "round"
> (which implies that one "round" can interrupt another - a capability
> that would also apply to the minor-exchange rounds in 1835/37/2038,
> CGR formation in 1856, and mergers and the IRSFF split in 1841).
 
I don't think so.
On what written 1830 rule would you base your statement: 'I believe 
this purchase, like any other, does determine the Priority Deal 
if it is followed by everyone passing'?

The round-within-a-round approach is indeed what Rails does (or will do
when the time comes) in the other cases that you mention. 
But not (yet) in the 1830-style auction-within-the-initial-round.
Thinking about it, that might indeed have simplified the code.

Regards,
Erik.