TRAM:
Players on line have a maniacal desire for speed, which makes Pogo’s and Hardwood’s “TRAM” and the former Playsite’s automatic action
popular. The serious player’s objection to
both is that he usually cannot see all the cards played in a hand and thus cannot determine who
(including himself) played well and who screwed up.
That’s why Yahoo!
was a better site for the serious player (before it was fried).
“TRAM” even tips hands: If it does
not “swoosh” the cards at a certain point, you know that a trick-taking card
is still out. For example, we ordered up a
diamond holding both bowers and ace, and the king and nine of clubs outside.
We had the lead and took the first three tricks with trump, of course, leading all other players
out of trump. And there was no “swoosh.”
That told us that the ace of clubs was still out, and that it would be futile to try to sweep
the remaining two tricks with the king and nine of clubs.
So we led the nine in hope our partner had the ace and could lead a lower club back to our king,
or take the last trick with another high card. He
did and he did, and we scored two points. Thanks
for the tip, “TRAM”!
And the speed of “TRAM” and the automated action of the former Playsite is illusory anyway.
The major delays in play on line are not in waiting for tricks to play out in a hand in which
the outcome has been determined, but in internet congestion and in players’ leaving the
table to go for a beer, go to the bathroom and go to the door to let in the police or let out
the cat. And, have all these “speed”
demons forgotten that playing cards is a pastime?
There are other annoyances on Yahoo!:
In the lobby, tables with “open” chairs are not grouped in numerical sequence, but
float at the top, according to how many openings there are.
This not only makes it hard to find people you know, but it changes so fast you have to be
really quick to grab a seat. More than half the
time, you find yourself at a table other than the one you aimed for, or looking at some
player’s profile (because you wound up clicking on a “taken” chair).
And finding a table with players rated about the same as yourself is difficult and annoying:
The host must make the table “private” and invite, invite, invite (one player at a
time) until the seats are occupied, or make it “public” and boot, boot, boot (one
player at a time) as players of inappropriate ratings sit and leave (or don’t leave).
It’s easier on Pogo:
The host merely sets the admissible ratings level in the game’s options.
One big annoyance on Yahoo! is a player’s ability to
sit at more than one table at a time, and even to play more than one game at a time.
We encountered one idiot playing four games at once and going for a fifth.
That slows the game for others involved (much, much more than the lack of “TRAM”
on Pogo), and it is even ruder in the way it detracts from
your partner’s concentration if he or she is the one doing it.
You will find yourself disconnected from all the sites on occasion.
It’s not for nothing that being “Yahooed! ”
has found its way into internet lingo. At least
Yahoo! has a device that will give you an automated trip
back to your seat if you have been “fried.“
If you’re fried on Pogo, you may be sautéed.
Another fault of all the sites is that you cannot renege on line. Novices,
dummies and drunks are thus unduly protected and wind up with higher ratings than they deserve;
and reneging on purpose – a tactic that might work in dire straits – is pre-empted.
The ratings Speaking of the ratings, they are somewhat less than accurate.
We have played on line with players with astronomical ratings who don’t know enough
to lead trump when their partner has called it; and we have played with players rated
“intermediate” and even “beginner” who know a lot more about what they
are doing. We know how to massage and manipulate
the ratings without “cheating”; and if you don’t, we’re not going to
tell you – it’s bad enough as it is! We saw a
team on Yahoo! on which one player was rated 35,000-plus
(that’s thirty-five thousand, not hundred) and his partner was rated -12,000
something (that’s minus twelve thousand and change)!
It was a hoot. You can find a fuller description
of such a scam in the archives of Natty Bumppo’s
euchre columns on line, including a report on a player with a 49.2 per cent winning
percentage and a 20-game winning streak but a -192405 rating (that's minus one hundred
ninety-two thousand four hundred five)!
The ratings on all internet play sites are weighted according to the competition: That
is, the average of one partnership’s rating is weighed against that of the other’s;
and more or fewer rating points are awarded or deducted for each game depending on the rating
differential. For example, the players on a team
with an average rating of 1800 will gain more rating points beating a team with an average
rating of 2000 than they will beating a team with an average rating of 1600, and they will
lose more rating points by losing to a lower-rated team.
That seems fair, doesn’t it? That you gain more
rating points for beating a better team than for beating a lower team; that you lose more for
losing to “losers” than for losing to “winners”?
But, let’s think about it:
Regardless of what happened in the past, the New York Yankees and the St. Louis Browns
started even every April. And even in September,
when the Yankees were in first place and the Browns
in last place, if the Browns beat the Yanks they would not gain more than a game on them in the
standings, and the Yanks would not lose more than a
game. So, what’s with Yahoo! and Pogo?
They know better than the American League? Give us a
break! Why should you lose more rating points to a
good player who has recently changed his name and come back with a low rating?
Or to a good player who has a low rating only because he is new to the web site?
Or why should you gain more for beating some idiot who has trumped up his rating
by the good fortune of owning two computers on line at the same time?
Or manipulated his rating in some other fashion? Or
merely been lucky? Let’s redemocratize.
Stone idiots
One mistake you see again and again on line – by high rated players and low rated players
both – is the opening lead of trump (and, all too often, the right bower) on
defense. Usually it just helps the
maker get the trump out, and often it strips the leader’s partner of a trump he could
have used on another trick (not infrequently an unguarded left bower).
It’s a particularly bad lead against a loner, but you see it.
We call it the “internet lead” – because we almost never see it in real life!
Margo, rated 2130 on Yahoo!, and I had ’em down 9 to 8;
but Pattycakes, on Margo’s right, had the deal and turned the jack of hearts.
I held the ace of hearts, three diamonds to the ace, and a spade.
Pattycakes picked up that right bower, and Margo led — ?
The left bower. Which she held
unguarded. School was out.
Had Margoon led a black card, we’d have been still in the game, with the deal.
See other stone idiots encountered on line.
Playing euchre on line is a good way to learn regional differences in the game, but those
differences can generate frustrating questions and arguments.
Euchre on line is not nearly as satisfying as sitting around a table with people who know
– or should know – the rules you play by, yelling, slapping, swinging elbows, and
spilling beer on your opponents’ markers.
And, how do you stab or shoot a partner
who trumps your ace on line? All you can do is
“flame” him, and that’s not “netiquette.”
Speaking of “netiquette,” we were marching on the first hand of a game when our
partner mysteriously disappeared. Partner
came back less than half a minute later, and the hostess switched the table from “private”
to “public” to let him back in.
“You shouldn’t have done that,” said the hostess’ partner.
“We could have taken the forfeit.”
Real polite. Real bright.
(Hostess’ partner’s screen name was “Sisteract_99” – 1715 rating on
Yahoo!.) | 
