MONOPOLY...and questions
Christopher Roberson
? (jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: Hey.. I'd like to get a big Monopoly thread going, hopefully there
: are some addicts like me here. I have a circle of friends who we bet
: with all the time, and we argue a lot about the correct rules and stuff.
: Since we like to play as close to the rules as possible, making no
: "house" rules, so arguments come up a lot...
: 1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to go
: in there at the beginning. We normally put any Taxes in there, like
: income, poor, school, and luxury. I know all purchases go to the bank,
: but what about bail money, doctors fees, and other stuff
A lot of people adopt the "house rule" that puts bail money into Free
Parking, but as far as the official rules go: nothing goes into Free
Parking. It's just a spot at which nothing happens.
: 2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
: places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
: utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
: you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
: the go to jail one either)
If advancing around the board takes you past GO, you collect $200 unless
the card specifically tells you not to do so.
: 3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
: giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
: put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
: trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
: property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
: hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
: thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
: mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
: properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they hit
: with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else wants
: to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
: allowed to bid.
The rules do not forbid sales of property.
: 4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
: "redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
I always said "Redding."
--
Christopher Roberson
...who with the loving support of his family has overcome traumatic
personal setbacks in his quest for Olympic gold.
?
Hey.. I'd like to get a big Monopoly thread going, hopefully there
are some addicts like me here. I have a circle of friends who we bet
with all the time, and we argue a lot about the correct rules and stuff.
Since we like to play as close to the rules as possible, making no
"house" rules, so arguments come up a lot...
1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to go
in there at the beginning. We normally put any Taxes in there, like
income, poor, school, and luxury. I know all purchases go to the bank,
but what about bail money, doctors fees, and other stuff
2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
the go to jail one either)
3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they hit
with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else wants
to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
allowed to bid.
4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
"redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange is
the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red, purple,
lt. blue, green, dark purple.
Well anyways, I guess thats all I have for now. Also, I know its
85% luck, but if anyone has any tips or strategies, plz post them
(besides making clever trades) Well, hopefully I get some addicts to
reply, til then happy gaming. Bye..
-Joel
Harry Butler
>4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
>"redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
Since the railroad in the game is named after the real railroad, which was
named after the city in Pennsylvania, it is actually pronounced "redding."
>5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange is
>the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
>people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red, purple,
>lt. blue, green, dark purple.
Most of the games I've won I've won by getting a monopoly in light blue
--it's not a huge cash cow, but with a reasonable chance of catching an
opponent who has already hit Income Tax, you can wear the others down
eventually. I also am fond of red; despite its less than ideal location,
very often people seem to bounce past yellow in our games and round the
horn into it (the "Advance to Illinois Ave." card is a plus, too). I have
known someone to win with just Baltic and Mediterranean, but only because
they were able to prevent *any* other monopoly -- that was a *long* game.
Harry
hg...@troi.cc.rochester.edu
Michael Urban
In article <4udicu$r...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
>? (jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
>
>: 1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to go
>: income, poor, school, and luxury. I know all purchases go to the bank,
>: but what about bail money, doctors fees, and other stuff
>
>Parking, but as far as the official rules go: nothing goes into Free
>Parking. It's just a spot at which nothing happens.
Furthermore, the "Free Parking" house rule (which I think many have
agreed was based on a folk memory of the Stock Market variant kit
that Parker once marketed) is largely responsible for people thinking
that Monopoly is a long and tedious game, as it puts more cash into
players' hands, rescues losers from their inevitable demise, etc.
>the card specifically tells you not to do so.
>
>: 3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
>: giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
>: put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
>: trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
>: property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
>: hectic, so we decided it was against the rules.
Different groups feel differently about this. The rules are explicit
that you must ask for rent, so it seems to me that dealing for
an "understanding" that rent will not be required is technically legal.
Others disagree, and I have seen it specifically forbidden in convention
tournaments.
Steve MacGregor
? <jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu> wrote in article
<4udfkj$r...@nic.umass.edu>...
> 1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to
go
> in there at the beginning. We normally put any Taxes in there, like
> income, poor, school, and luxury. I know all purchases go to the bank,
> but what about bail money, doctors fees, and other stuff
Nothing goes in Free Parking. It's an empty place to land on. If you
don't play by the rules, though, it's up to you what you do.
This should be a standard rule for all games everywhere:
Before you begin playing, agree upon any "funny rules" like what goes
in Free Parking. If no such agreement is made, you're playing by the
printed rules.
> 2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
> places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
> utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that
mean
> you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
> the go to jail one either)
The card says "advance", i.e., go forward, possibly passing GO and
collecting $200. "Go to Jail" is an exception, so it says not to
collect. It doesn't have to, logically, since you're =going=, not
=advancing= there, but logic escapes most people.
> 3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I
know
> giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
> put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
> trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit
your
> property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was
too
> hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
> thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
> mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
> properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they
hit
> with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else
wants
> to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
> allowed to bid.
A reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the rules here is that the
debtor may do anything he wants in the way of selling houses back to the
bank and mortgaging property, or selling properties to other players for
whatever price is agreeable, so long as he can pay off the entire debt by
doing so.
Otherwise, the creditor may make some kind of deal, some property or
properties in lieu of the full amount, or allow the debtor to transact
with third parties.
In short: to pay off the debt, anything otherwise legal. If unable,
anything legal that the creditor allows.
> 4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
> "redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
The name of the "Reading Railroad" in Monopoly is pronounced exactly
like the name of the Reading Railroad, and like Reading, PA.
> 5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange
is
> the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
> people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red,
purple,
> lt. blue, green, dark purple.
I don't know off-hand. Some people have studied the likelyhood of
landing on certaing groups (Orange is popular, because of the situation
you mentioned), and the rent-to-cost ratios.
--
==----= Steve MacGregor
([.] [.]) Phoenix, AZ
--------------------------oOOo--(_)--oOOo--------------------------------
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
> 1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to go
As the rules are written, Free Parking does _nothing_. The point is that if
you land there late in the game, when most of the board is covered with hotels
belonging to the other players, it's a big relief.
If you put _any_ money there at all, ever, you're using a house rule.
> 2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you [advance] to certain
> places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
> utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
> you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
> the go to jail one either)
ALL movement in the game goes forward (clockwise), and you always collect if
you pass GO, with only two exceptions:
a) if you go to Jail for _any_ reason, you jump directly there.
b) the Chance card "Go back 3 spaces."
> 3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
> giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
> put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
> trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
> property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
> hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
> thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
> mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
> properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they hit
> with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else wants
> to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
> allowed to bid.
The rules say, or at least clearly imply, that:
a) It is okay to trade any property for property and/or money, including
multi-way trades, as long as there are no buildings on the property or in the
same color group.
b) When someone lands on your property, you can agree to forgive all or part
of the rent as part of a trade you make then.
c) When you land on someone else's property, you may trade _only_ if you will
wind up with enough cash to pay the entire amount owed (or if the owner agrees
to forgive the rent as part of the trade). If you can't get the full amount,
or don't want to, then the owner gets everything you own, exactly as it was
when you landed on his property. The same holds true when you owe a debt to
the bank, except that the bank will not make trades or deals.
d) You can never borrow money or property from another player.
The rules do not cover whether things not covered above, such as "free
passes," can be traded. In Parker Brothers sanctioned tournaments the answer
is NO; but most groups I've played with (including the tournaments at west
coast gaming cons) do allow free passes. More complicated deals, such as
partnerships, are a bad idea; even if they don't lead to arguments, they can
cause things to be divided so evenly that the game drags on forever.
> 4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
> "redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
It is "redding," but I go along with the crowd. Most young players will
understand you better if you say "reeding."
> 5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange is
> the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
> people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red, purple,
> lt. blue, green, dark purple.
The books differ on this, but in general red and orange are favored, followed
by green. A rule of thumb: The more expensive a group you go for, the later
you want trading to happen. (The idea is this: Before people trade and form
monopolies, the bank is steadily adding cash to the game. You want to trade
when you have enough to develop your group, but those whose houses cost more
than yours don't have enough to develop theirs.) In general, the group you
go for is determined by what you land on, but be flexible.
John David Galt
Ken Koury
jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu (?) wrote:
> Hey.. I'd like to get a big Monopoly thread going, hopefully there
>are some addicts like me here. I have a circle of friends who we bet
>with all the time, and we argue a lot about the correct rules and stuff.
>Since we like to play as close to the rules as possible, making no
>"house" rules, so arguments come up a lot...
As far as the official rules go, you can find a copy on my web page
at: http://www.primenet.com/~koury/monopoly.htm
I have been involved in 2 world championships and several national
tournaments so I can answer your questions based on what happens at
official tournaments.
>1... What exactly goes in free parking - I know nothing is supposed to go
>in there at the beginning. We normally put any Taxes in there, like
>income, poor, school, and luxury. I know all purchases go to the bank,
>but what about bail money, doctors fees, and other stuff
Nothing ever goes into free parking under the rules. Doing so in
violation of the rules will lenthen the game and remove most of the
skill factors.
>2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
>places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
>utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
>you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
>the go to jail one either)
You collect $200 anytime you pass GO.
>3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
>giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
>put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
>trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
>property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
>hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
>thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
>mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
>properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they hit
>with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else wants
>to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
>allowed to bid.
Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
and/or a get out of jail free card only.
When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
Property is never turned in or sold back to the bank. If you go
bankrupt to the bank THEN the bank auctions off your property but you
may not sell property to the bank or otherwise transfer it to the
bank.
>4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
>"redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
I have no inside information to help you here, sorry.
>5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange is
>the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
>people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red, purple,
>lt. blue, green, dark purple.
The oranges are in a class by themselves because they are landed on
more often than any other group by a wide margin. Getting the oranges
will almost always result in an automatic win if you time your
building right. Dark Blue and Dark Purple are the worst properties to
own. Everything else in between is a little subjective. The real key
to winning with the properties in the middle is to construct your
trades so that you are the first one to be able to build to what we
call "The Critical Level" which is 3 houses on each property.
> Well anyways, I guess thats all I have for now. Also, I know its
>85% luck, but if anyone has any tips or strategies, plz post them
>(besides making clever trades) Well, hopefully I get some addicts to
>reply, til then happy gaming. Bye..
If you play by the rules and know what you are doing it is about
15-20% luck. If you put money into free parking its about 95% luck.
>-Joel
Joe Schlimgen
On 13 Aug 1996 07:50:04 -0700, ko...@primenet.com (Ken Koury) wrote:
>As far as the official rules go, you can find a copy on my web page
>at: http://www.primenet.com/~koury/monopoly.htm
>
>I have been involved in 2 world championships and several national
>tournaments so I can answer your questions based on what happens at
>official tournaments.
Are there "official" tournament rules available anywhere? Or does each
tournament have their own rules?
>Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>and/or a get out of jail free card only.
Allowed or *enforceable*? Although not applicable to Monopoly, a lot of other
games allow future rights in agreements, but don't enforce the players to keep
them. Only their good faith in future games does that. I can understand not
making them allowed to simply avoid all the arguments they may cause (it's easy
to get way to serious in some games <g>).
>You are
>allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
Although I entirely agree with this, I could never find an official rule that
supported it. I suppose a (very) loose interpretation of the "Bankruptcy" clause
could support it, but that seems to be a stretch to me. Is there such a beast?
Or is it a "clarification" that PB added later?
--
Then the horns kicked in,
and my shoes started to squeak.
Don Woods
ko...@primenet.com (Ken Koury) writes:
> Property is never turned in or sold back to the bank. If you go
> bankrupt to the bank THEN the bank auctions off your property but you
> may not sell property to the bank or otherwise transfer it to the
> bank.
Hm, is there a rule regarding what order the properties (and Get Out of
Jail Free cards) are auctioned in? Or are all of the bankrupt player's
holdings auctioned as a block?
Also, if the player's properties have buildings, do the buildings get
torn down first? If the properties are sold individually the buildings
obviously have to be removed since the properties might not all go to the
same player. But if the holdings are sold as a block I could imagine
having the buildings go with the properties, in which case this would be
a rare case of one player obtaining developed property from another.
-- Don.
?
Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
: jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu (?) wrote:
:
:
: > Hey.. I'd like to get a big Monopoly thread going, hopefully there
: >are some addicts like me here. I have a circle of friends who we bet
: >with all the time, and we argue a lot about the correct rules and stuff.
: >Since we like to play as close to the rules as possible, making no
: >"house" rules, so arguments come up a lot...
:
:
: As far as the official rules go, you can find a copy on my web page
: at: http://www.primenet.com/~koury/monopoly.htm
:
: I have been involved in 2 world championships and several national
: tournaments so I can answer your questions based on what happens at
: official tournaments.
Ok, question... In official tournaments, what are the rules as far as
constructing buildings go. The official rules say you may build at any
time during the game. In tournaments does play automatically halt when
someone decides they are going to build? This problem has come up
sometimes because one may want to build right after their turn, but
before the next player can pick up and throw the dice...
Steve MacGregor
Don Woods <d...@genmagic.genmagic.com> wrote in article
<DON.96Au...@genmagic.genmagic.com>...
> Hm, is there a rule regarding what order the properties (and Get Out
of
> Jail Free cards) are auctioned in? Or are all of the bankrupt
player's
> holdings auctioned as a block?
GOoJF cards, in my opinion, should be auctioned off first. Then the
houses and hotels are removed from the property. If there were none in
the supply before that, and two or more players have been waiting to
buy them, they are auctioned off. (This is a good time for the owner
of Park Place and Boardwalk to pick up a good deal.) Then the
properties are shuffled, and auctioned off in random order.
> Also, if the player's properties have buildings, do the buildings get
> torn down first?
Most definitely.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Help stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!
--------------------------------------------------
Craig Bertolucci
How much $ are all 4 railroads worth to you towards the end game.
Would you trade any monoply for it and if so which ones. I mean, all 4
railroads is surely better than the Mediterranian and Baltic Ave. but is
it better than the light blues (with hotels)? Factor in their location on
each side of the board and the cards that advance people to them, plus
their immunity to Street Repairs.
==============================================================================
Craig Bertolucci University of South Florida
Graduate Student Representative Department of Chemistry
tel: (813) 974-2220 Inorganic Division
fax: (813) 974-1733 Tampa, Florida 33620
==============================================================================
?
Craig Bertolucci (bert...@chuma.cas.usf.edu) wrote:
:
:
: How much $ are all 4 railroads worth to you towards the end game.
: Would you trade any monoply for it and if so which ones. I mean, all 4
: railroads is surely better than the Mediterranian and Baltic Ave. but is
: it better than the light blues (with hotels)? Factor in their location on
: each side of the board and the cards that advance people to them, plus
: their immunity to Street Repairs.
The railroads have much greater value toward the beginning
obiouvsly, because there is less money in circulation and they can help
furnish you to build... As far as being a monopoly goes, I think the
dark purples is the only thing they win. Light blue has three
spots at about 500 bucks each = 1550, railroads have 4 spots at 200 =
800, although railroads have a better chance of sequential hits around
the board. Street repairs are a small factor.. the cards are good - I
would say its really close but hotels on lt blue wins.
-joel
RICHARD IRVING
Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
: >2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
: >utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
: >you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
: >the go to jail one either)
: You collect $200 anytime you pass GO.
Not true. You do not collect $200 when you pass GO if you landed on it
on the prior turn or at the start of the game.
: >3... Are players allowed to make absolutely any deals they want? I know
: >giving away money shouldn't be legal, or teaming up on someone else to
: >put them out of the game. Also, we used to give "free passes" in
: >trades... basically a let-them-off pass for the future, if they hit your
: >property. Eventually, there was too much of this going on and it was too
: >hectic, so we decided it was against the rules. Following this line of
: >thought.... if someone hits a big property and goes bankrupt, must they
: >mortgage everything and give the owner all their money, giving their
: >properties to the bank for auction, or can they "pay" the person they hit
: >with a couple properties? I think it's legal, but if someone else wants
: >to pay more than the rent price for those properties, they should be
: >allowed to bid.
: Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
: never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
: and/or a get out of jail free card only.
Incorrect. Read "1001 Ways to Win Monopoly Games". At the time the
books was written, free lands are described and shown how they can be
strategically used. So they obviously were legal in tournament play.
Second point is the rules specifically say you can only sell an item for
cash. Your limitation listed above though are easily inferred: I'll
sell you Illinois Ave for $1 and I'll buy New York from you for $1 back.
But technically, if both players involved in the trade have no cash,
they cannot make the trade.
But the important point is that the rules do not prohibit "future
consideration" deals such as buying options on property or immunity
agreements. You can make any private deals you want between the
players, but you cannot enforce them under the rules. For example, I
can tell a player I'll pay him $300 now if he'll buy Boardwalk from the
bank (if he is the first player to land on it) and give the property to
me. (I am simply buying a property for cash which is legal.) But if
he reneges on the deal, I have no recourse under the rules. But if you
want to continue playing Monopoly games (not to mention living), you'd
do well to keep any sort of agreement of this sort that you make.
You should always read rules exclusively: Anything not specifically
prohibited is allowed. And Monopoly's rules simply do not say that you
cannot trade for future consideration. I challenge you to find it.
: >4... How is Reading actually pronounced.. If you say Reading, PA - it's
: >"redding" but people seem to say its "reeding" so i go along with it.
: I have no inside information to help you here, sorry.
Red-ding
: >5... What are the best properties, according to value? I think Orange is
: >the best, because its not too expensive, and its a perfect setup for
: >people coming out of jail. I'd rate yellow next, then blue, red, purple,
: >lt. blue, green, dark purple.
It depends on the situation. Each property has value but for different
reasons:
Bankrupting Power (Dark Blues & Greens are top here)
Income power (High landing properties are good like the Oranges & Reds)
House Soaking power (The ability to tie up houses so your opponents
can't purchase them, light Blues & Dark Purples are the best here)
Glamour Power (What other value each property, this can vary depending
on what other players opinions are.)
But the MOST important thing, is that a property that cannot be
developed is effectively worthless. If you have $600, the Greens are a
terrible property to buy because you'll only be able to get 1 house per
property. The best in this situation is probably the Light Blues. In
house shortage, any undeveloped group is worth nothing until the houses
become available either due to purcahse of a hotel or selling houses
back to the bank.
The key to the game: Get at least 3 houses on each property. That is
the point where rents explode in value.
--
Richard Irving rr...@pge.com
I don't like disclaimers, but I have to put them in. The opinions here
are my own and not necessarily PG&E's.
(As if it had any opinions about this stuff!)
Made with recycled electrons.
Nat Brooks
In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
Koury) wrote:
>
> Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
> never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
> and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>
> When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
> player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
> allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
> are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>
I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
to you for, say, $10?
I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
--
Nat Brooks
nbr...@bbn.com
Dave Menconi
Nat Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
> Koury) wrote:
>
> >
> > never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
> > and/or a get out of jail free card only.
> >
> > When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
> > player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
> > allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
> > are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
> >
>
> strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
> the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
> the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
>
> Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
> prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
> promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
> to you for, say, $10?
>
> I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
> --
> Nat Brooks
interesting in that they seem to imply that one would try to make a deal that would not further one's own ends.
For example, if you owe me lots of rent and you can't pay, I get everything you own. What would cause me to forgive
the rent for some piece of property you have? I obviously will get the property anyway! (At least in the tournament
rules described).
Likewise in your second question: if you owe me rent, why would I want to let you off the hook by accepting a piece of
property and then selling it back to you for less than it's value? Aren't I trying to win!?
My comments are solely in the context of the rules presented and the questions you asked about them; as I say, I don't
play Monopoly. But I should mention that I have heard others with what seemed to be similar attitudes -- "How do I get
out of squeezing my opponent for everything I can?" Generally speaking, in other games the questions involve "How can
I squeeze my opponent for a little more?" :)
Thanks
Dave
Ken Koury
mac...@xmission.com (Joe Schlimgen) wrote:
>On 13 Aug 1996 07:50:04 -0700, ko...@primenet.com (Ken Koury) wrote:
>>As far as the official rules go, you can find a copy on my web page
>>at: http://www.primenet.com/~koury/monopoly.htm
>>
>>I have been involved in 2 world championships and several national
>>tournaments so I can answer your questions based on what happens at
>>official tournaments.
>Are there "official" tournament rules available anywhere? Or does each
>tournament have their own rules?
They are the same rules that come in the box when you buy the game off
the shelf.
>>Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>>never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>>and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>Allowed or *enforceable*? Although not applicable to Monopoly, a lot of other
>games allow future rights in agreements, but don't enforce the players to keep
>them. Only their good faith in future games does that. I can understand not
>making them allowed to simply avoid all the arguments they may cause (it's easy
>to get way to serious in some games <g>).
>>You are
>>allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>>are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>Although I entirely agree with this, I could never find an official rule that
>supported it. I suppose a (very) loose interpretation of the "Bankruptcy" clause
>could support it, but that seems to be a stretch to me. Is there such a beast?
>Or is it a "clarification" that PB added later?
It is an official "clarification".
Ken Koury
d...@genmagic.genmagic.com (Don Woods) wrote:
>ko...@primenet.com (Ken Koury) writes:
>> Property is never turned in or sold back to the bank. If you go
>> bankrupt to the bank THEN the bank auctions off your property but you
>> may not sell property to the bank or otherwise transfer it to the
>> bank.
>Hm, is there a rule regarding what order the properties (and Get Out of
>Jail Free cards) are auctioned in? Or are all of the bankrupt player's
>holdings auctioned as a block?
It has always been one deed at a time, in no particular order.
>Also, if the player's properties have buildings, do the buildings get
>torn down first? If the properties are sold individually the buildings
>obviously have to be removed since the properties might not all go to the
>same player. But if the holdings are sold as a block I could imagine
>having the buildings go with the properties, in which case this would be
>a rare case of one player obtaining developed property from another.
Property is never transfered with buildings. The buildings are removed
before they are sold.
> -- Don.
Ken Koury
rr...@pge.com (RICHARD IRVING) wrote:
>Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: >2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
>: >places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
>: >utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
>: >you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
>: >the go to jail one either)
>: You collect $200 anytime you pass GO.
>Not true. You do not collect $200 when you pass GO if you landed on it
>on the prior turn or at the start of the game.
If you landed on GO the pror turn then you are not passing GO, you are
already there.
>: Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>: never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>: and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>Incorrect. Read "1001 Ways to Win Monopoly Games". At the time the
>books was written, free lands are described and shown how they can be
>strategically used. So they obviously were legal in tournament play.
Sorry Richard but you have not done your homework. The authors book
book you mention tried to use their rules regarding future rights at
the nationals in the 1970s. Not only were they not allowed to use
their future rights plays but they were banned from all future
tournaments by parker brothers. A guy that I happen to coach as well
as play with at times is Lee Bayrd, who some of you may know was the
very first World Monopoly Champion. Lee was a player in the game in
question. I have also discussed the subject with Ranny Barton,
President of Parker Brothers, at a couple of different national
tournaments and have been informed that future rights have never been
allowed in official play and are unlikely to be allowed anytime in the
future. Your information is simply incorrect.
>Second point is the rules specifically say you can only sell an item for
>cash. Your limitation listed above though are easily inferred: I'll
>sell you Illinois Ave for $1 and I'll buy New York from you for $1 back.
>But technically, if both players involved in the trade have no cash,
>they cannot make the trade.
Trades involving something other than cash, such as a get out of jail
card or other deeds have always been allowed in tournaments.
>But the important point is that the rules do not prohibit "future
>consideration" deals such as buying options on property or immunity
>agreements. You can make any private deals you want between the
>players, but you cannot enforce them under the rules. For example, I
>can tell a player I'll pay him $300 now if he'll buy Boardwalk from the
>bank (if he is the first player to land on it) and give the property to
>me. (I am simply buying a property for cash which is legal.) But if
>he reneges on the deal, I have no recourse under the rules. But if you
>want to continue playing Monopoly games (not to mention living), you'd
>do well to keep any sort of agreement of this sort that you make.
I dont know what the reaction would be if two people tried to make
unenforcable deals at a tournament. I have never seen it done, perhaps
because the stakes are too high at the regional or national level that
no one would want to trust some stranger to that degree. I would never
try it, not with so many other, legal ways to get an edge.
>You should always read rules exclusively: Anything not specifically
>prohibited is allowed. And Monopoly's rules simply do not say that you
>cannot trade for future consideration. I challenge you to find it.
Try reading the part in the rules that forbids the loaning of money.
That is the provision that Parker Brothers officials point to when
discussing this point. Their official position is that future rights
is a form of loaning money and they do not allow it. Of course, when
they hear that YOU think they are wrong, I'm sure they will change
their tune. But, until then, I guess I'm still stuck with other
trading stratigies.
Ken Koury
nbr...@bbn.com (Nat Brooks) wrote:
>In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
>Koury) wrote:
>>
>> Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>> never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>> and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>>
>> When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
>> player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
>> allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>> are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>>
>I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
>strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
>the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
>the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
>Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
>prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
>promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
>to you for, say, $10?
>I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
As I said in a prior reply to my friend Richard, I have never seen
players in a tournament try to make unenforcable deals, I think the
stakes are just too high to trust someone like that at a regional or
national level. The closest I've ever seen to an unenforcable deal
being made and kept was at the U.S. Championship in 1978 (I think it
was the '78 one, I'm getting too old to be sure). There was one player
who was univerally disliked (Player Tip: In a game where you almost
always need to negotiate two or more trades to win, its not a good
idea to be known as "the asshole" in the game.) so the other 4 players
in the final game met privately the night before the final game and we
agreed that each of us would do our best to win, every man for
himself, but as soon as one of us saw that he was about to go down,
the unlucky chap would negotiate a trade that would insure that the
asshole would not have a chance of winning. To put it another way, "do
what you can to win, but if you're going to lose, throw the game to
one of us who can. That deal was kept.
I know most of the top players around and play with a lot of them
socially. I dont know any that play with future rights, even at home,
and I dont know anyone that would try to make unenforcable deals
(there are too many other ways to win and future deals only really
give an advantage to weaker players) so the situation doesnt really
come up. Another reason it doesnt come up is that if I go to a
tournament and see a good player I know we will go out of our way to
avoid playing at the same table because doing so means that only one
of us can advance to the next round. If we meet in the final round we
still wouldnt make unenforcable deals but we do have understandings
that each of us would throw the game to the other once it became clear
that the one taking the fall could not win.
I must confess that before many of us got into tournaments we did play
with future rights all the time but when it became clear that we would
never be allowed to use them in tournament play a couple of use just
spent about 2 years developing trading stratigies that conformed to
the way its played officially and stopped using future rights in
private play because it was counter productive to our training for
tournaments. At the time I didnt like having to do that because I
thought future rights made the game more fun and gave an advantage to
creative deal makers, but now almost 20 years later it has become very
clear that future rights is really just a crutch that allows weaker
players to make deals in a game that they would otherwise lose.
>--
>Nat Brooks
>nbr...@bbn.com
Ken Koury
jfr...@titan.oit.umass.edu (?) wrote:
>Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: jfr...@wilde.oit.umass.edu (?) wrote:
>:
>:
>: > Hey.. I'd like to get a big Monopoly thread going, hopefully there
>: >are some addicts like me here. I have a circle of friends who we bet
>: >with all the time, and we argue a lot about the correct rules and stuff.
>: >Since we like to play as close to the rules as possible, making no
>: >"house" rules, so arguments come up a lot...
>:
>:
>: As far as the official rules go, you can find a copy on my web page
>: at: http://www.primenet.com/~koury/monopoly.htm
>:
>: I have been involved in 2 world championships and several national
>: tournaments so I can answer your questions based on what happens at
>: official tournaments.
> Ok, question... In official tournaments, what are the rules as far as
>constructing buildings go. The official rules say you may build at any
>time during the game. In tournaments does play automatically halt when
>someone decides they are going to build? This problem has come up
>sometimes because one may want to build right after their turn, but
>before the next player can pick up and throw the dice...
The game stops when a player says he wants to build and he can build
at any time with one exception. You cannot stop the game BETWEEN the
time a player rolls the dice and moves in order to build on the
property he is about to land on. You have to stop the game before he
drops the dice.
Ken Koury
nbr...@bbn.com (Nat Brooks) wrote:
>In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
>Koury) wrote:
>>
>> Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>> never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>> and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>>
>> When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
>> player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
>> allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>> are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>>
>I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
>strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
>the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
>the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
I forgot to respond to this point in my last reply to you. There are
situations in which you would not want to collect rent. Property may
allways be given for all or part of the rent as long as both parties
agree. There are a variety of situations in which it is a good idea to
do this. I have also waived rent by refusing to ask for it at
tournaments and have always been allowed to do so. It was never part
of some future rights deal though. It would be part of a particular
stratigy or situation that came up during a game and would often be
quite a surprise to the guy that owed me the rent.
>--
>Nat Brooks
>nbr...@bbn.com
Ken Koury
Dave Menconi <da...@menconi.com> wrote:
>Nat Brooks wrote:
>>
>> In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
>> Koury) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>> > never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>> > and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>> >
>> > When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
>> > player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
>> > allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>> > are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>> >
>>
>> I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
>> strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
>> the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
>> the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
>>
>> Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
>> prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
>> promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
>> to you for, say, $10?
>>
>> I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
>> --
>> Nat Brooks
>> nbr...@bbn.comI'm not a Monopoly player (of course, I HAVE played it but don't do it often). However, I find your questions
>interesting in that they seem to imply that one would try to make a deal that would not further one's own ends.
>For example, if you owe me lots of rent and you can't pay, I get everything you own. What would cause me to forgive
>the rent for some piece of property you have? I obviously will get the property anyway! (At least in the tournament
>rules described).
>Likewise in your second question: if you owe me rent, why would I want to let you off the hook by accepting a piece of
>property and then selling it back to you for less than it's value? Aren't I trying to win!?
>My comments are solely in the context of the rules presented and the questions you asked about them; as I say, I don't
>play Monopoly. But I should mention that I have heard others with what seemed to be similar attitudes -- "How do I get
>out of squeezing my opponent for everything I can?" Generally speaking, in other games the questions involve "How can
>I squeeze my opponent for a little more?" :)
>Thanks
>Dave
As strange as it may sound, there are limited situations (VERY
limited) in which you would not want to collect rent or squeeze
someone. In those cases you can accept property for all or part of the
rent or even waive rent all together.
Joe Schlimgen
On 18 Aug 1996 19:20:07 -0700, ko...@primenet.com (Ken Koury) wrote:
Joe Schlimgen (that's me) said:
>>Are there "official" tournament rules available anywhere? Or does each
>>tournament have their own rules?
Key Koury said:
>They are the same rules that come in the box when you buy the game off
>the shelf.
However, the rules are very vague in places. Although I've never been involved
(or seen) a Monopoly tournament, I have been in other tournament games. If there
is any possible way to interpret a rule, someone's going to do it. In general,
this starts a very big argument and if you happen to be in *that* game, it's no
fun.
I think there are (in general) two kinds of players (in any game): (1) those
that play that anything not explicitly disallowed is allowed; and (2) those that
play that anything not explicitly allowed is disallowed. It's when you have a
mixture of these two types of players that problems arise.
KK>Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
KK>never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
KK>and/or a get out of jail free card only.
This is a case in point. It is not explicit in the rules either way. Parker
Brothers, however, may have made an official clarification.
KK>You are
KK>allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
KK>are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
JS>Although I entirely agree with this, I could never find an official rule that
JS>supported it. I suppose a (very) loose interpretation of the "Bankruptcy"
clause
JS>could support it, but that seems to be a stretch to me. Is there such a
beast?
JS>Or is it a "clarification" that PB added later?
KK>It is an official "clarification".
Okay, so where can one find the official clarifications? :)
Ken Koury
mac...@xmission.com (Joe Schlimgen) wrote:
>Key Koury said:
They are not published in one spot but perhaps they should be. There
is an FAQ sheet they pass out at the start of tournaments that has the
most common ones listed. You can also write directly to PB and they
will provide you with clarifications on individual questions. My
advice for social games is either come to an agreement before you
start or write in for a rulng on an issue that you know often comes up
and then flash it to the other players during the game.
Blackout
Dave Menconi (da...@menconi.com) wrote:
: Nat Brooks wrote:
: >
: > In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
: > Koury) wrote:
: > >
: > > Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
: > > never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
: > > and/or a get out of jail free card only.
: > >
: > > When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
: > > player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
: > > allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
: > > are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
: >
: > I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
: > strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
: > the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
: > the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
: >
: > Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
: > prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
: > promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
: > to you for, say, $10?
: >
: > I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
: > --
This is one of my questions two. By doing the above, two or three
players who were in kahootz with eachother could kind of gang up on one
player they didn't like. How are things like this stopped in tournaments?
Michael Biggins
Blackout's Box
Blackout
: >>
: >> Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
: >> prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
: >> promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
: >> to you for, say, $10?
: >>
: >> I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
: >> --
: As strange as it may sound, there are limited situations (VERY
: limited) in which you would not want to collect rent or squeeze
: someone. In those cases you can accept property for all or part of the
: rent or even waive rent all together.
But you can not 'waive' rent because that would be considered 'loaning'
another player money and that is strictly against the rules.
If people are allowed to do that, then people can too easily team up with
eachother and cheat. That has always been where I feel the Parker
Brothers rules have lacked, they really just touch on trading and don't
set down rules for all the nasty sticky questionable situations that can
develope. Such as the, ok, you owe me $2000 for landing on my boardwalk
but I'll let you go if you give me Baltic for $10 and then I'll sell it ba
ck to you for a dollar.
Blackout
Ok, here's a question for the books:
In the introduction of how Monopoly came to be, Parker brothers stated
that they told Darrow that the game had 52 fundamental errors and that
they would not accept it. Of course, after it became popular on it's own
with him and a printer making it, they decided to buy it.
What were those 52 findamental errors and did Parker bothers just accept
them and sell the game as it is and as we know it today, or are we playing
a version that had the 52 fundamental errors fixed?
I bet I know what the errors revolved around - all the vague rules such as
trading with other players.
How about this - the game always says that a hotel costs the cost of one
house plus 4 previous houses right. But there are properties and times
when you have enough money and just want to pop a hotel up right away.
Are you allowed to do this? I think so, right?
BUT...
What if say... you own Baltic, and Medit., and you want to just put 500 in
the bank and get two hotels, but eher are already 32 houses on the board.
Are you allowed to put the hotels up (there are hotels available from the
bank) or not.. because according to the rules you must buy houses first..
and if there are no houses for sale by the bank can you jump straight to
hotels? Or are the sale of hotels closed off to those who don't already
have 4 houses up?
Just some more nitty gritty monopoly questions.
Nicholas Sauer
In article: <4vbtq0$r...@news.igc.net> blac...@igc.net (Blackout) writes:
>
>Ok, here's a question for the books:
>
>In the introduction of how Monopoly came to be, Parker brothers stated
>that they told Darrow that the game had 52 fundamental errors and that
>they would not accept it. Of course, after it became popular on it's own
>with him and a printer making it, they decided to buy it.
>
>What were those 52 findamental errors and did Parker bothers just accept
>them and sell the game as it is and as we know it today, or are we playing
>a version that had the 52 fundamental errors fixed?
Nope, PB didn't alter the game. We have it as Darrow first tried to pitch
it to them. How PB ended up publishing it is a rather cute story in itself.
Apparently, after the game was rejected, Mr. Darrow decided to make copies
of the game himself to sell to friends (it was the great depression and he
was out of any other kind of work, at the time). Ultimately, the game sold
so well that a local Woolworths ordered a bunch for their store (boy, talk
about things being different back then). In any case, Mr. Parker's
daughter (or was it neice?) bought one of these games and brought it up to
her father (or uncle) to show him this hot new game everyone was playing.
PB apparently approached Darrow afterwards to buy the game to publish it as
is. There were apparently about 300 of these original versions of the game
made. They come in a little red/maroon box with Monopoly stamped in gold on
the box lid (a friend of mine actually owns one).
>I bet I know what the errors revolved around - all the vague rules such as
>trading with other players.
Probably. The two specific ones I remember being mentioned in books somewhere
were that the game had no specific set of victory conditions (i.e. the
concept of bankrupting all the other players out of the game was new). Also,
PB didn't like the continuous race track style board. Apparently, prior to
Monopoly, all of their games with a track of any sort had a clearly marked
beginning and end of the race track. You weren't supposed to build a track
that allowed players to loop around the board forever.
Nick Sauer
RICHARD IRVING
Dave Menconi (da...@menconi.com) wrote:
: I'm not a Monopoly player (of course, I HAVE played it but don't do it often).
: However, I find your questions interesting in they seem to imply one
: would try to make a deal that would not further one's own ends.
: For example, if you owe me lots of rent and you can't pay, I get everything
: you own. What would cause me to forgive the rent for some piece of
: property you have? I obviously will get the property anyway! (At least in
: the tournament rules described).
: Likewise in your second question: if you owe me rent, why would I want to let
: you off the hook by accepting a piece of property and then selling it
: back to you for less than it's value? Aren't I trying to win!?
: My comments are solely in the context of the rules presented and the
: questions you asked about them; as I say, I don't play Monopoly. But
: I should mention that I have heard others with what seemed to be similar
: attitudes -- "How do I get out of squeezing my opponent for everything
: I can?" Generally speaking, in other games the questions involve "How can
: I squeeze my opponent for a little more?" :)
: Thanks
There are several situations:
A) Your demand for rent may be enough to weaken your opponent without
backrupting him. And if he lands on another opponent, that opponent
will get all of his property--not you. It may be better to ask for a
key property in lieu the rent.
B) The opponent has tied up houses, that you don't want released to the
bank because another opponent can buy them up and place them on more
expensive (and damaging to you) color groups. So you ask for the
property, so your debtor won't have to release his cheap houses.
C) Another player has offered to pay the debtors debt for him, and you
don't want the benefactor to get the key piece of property.
But of course, if you CAN bankrupt an opponent by demanding full
payment, you should go ahead and do it.
Blackout
Ok, what about when you are playing with several people, and one or two
people see that they are losing and get pissed, but still their property
is important to the players still in the game. Sometimes these players
get pissy and just GIVE their property to opponents because they want to
see the player who is doing well lose. Is that allowed? When a player
wants to quit a game can they just give their property away, or must they
give it to the bank to be auctioned off.
Then again, I suppose they could just sell all of their property to
someone for 1 dollar and they wouldn't be breaking the rules, but it still
can turn a good game unfairly sour when things like that happen.
Michael Biggins
Actor/Fool/Game Player
Ken Koury
Ken Koury
blac...@igc.net (Blackout) wrote:
>Ok, here's a question for the books:
>What if say... you own Baltic, and Medit., and you want to just put 500 in
>the bank and get two hotels, but eher are already 32 houses on the board.
>Are you allowed to put the hotels up (there are hotels available from the
>bank) or not.. because according to the rules you must buy houses first..
>and if there are no houses for sale by the bank can you jump straight to
>hotels? Or are the sale of hotels closed off to those who don't already
>have 4 houses up?
You may not buy hotels without the 4 houses so you are out of luck
here.
Ken Koury
blac...@igc.net (Blackout) wrote:
>Dave Menconi (da...@menconi.com) wrote:
>: Nat Brooks wrote:
>: >
>: > In article <4uq4ms$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, ko...@primenet.com (Ken
>: > Koury) wrote:
>: >
>: > >
>: > > Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
>: > > never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
>: > > and/or a get out of jail free card only.
>: > >
>: > > When you owe more rent than you can pay you are bankrupt and the
>: > > player you landed on gets everything you own at that moment. You are
>: > > allowed to try and raise the rent money by making deals but the deals
>: > > are void unless you can raise enough to pay the entire rent.
>: > >
>: >
>: > I understand that you are talking tourney rules, and therefore use a
>: > strict interpretation. However, I must ask: Are you required to raise
>: > the CASH for rent? Or is it permissible for the landlord to "forgive" you
>: > the rent, perhaps in exchange for a property?
>: >
>: > Also: How is the prohibition on other types of deals enforced? What
>: > prevents me from promising a free land on a property - or rather,
>: > promising to accept one property in lieu of rent, and then to sell it back
>: > to you for, say, $10?
>: >
>: > I understand that such a deal cannot be enforced. But can it be made?
>: > --
>This is one of my questions two. By doing the above, two or three
>players who were in kahootz with eachother could kind of gang up on one
>player they didn't like. How are things like this stopped in tournaments?
It never happens in tournaments (I have have not seen it happen in 20+
years). If it happens in social play I would say you are playing some
people who show poor sportsmanship and I just would not play then
again.
John David Galt
mac...@xmission.com (Joe Schlimgen) wrote:
>> Are there "official" tournament rules available anywhere? Or does each
>> tournament have their own rules?
Ken Koury <ko...@primenet.com> wrote:
> They are the same rules that come in the box when you buy the game off
> the shelf.
Not really. The original rules do not really settle most of the questions
argued in this thread. The Parker Brothers tournament rules are in the back
of the recent book "The Monopoly Companion," which covers some history but
does not tell you much about how to win.
The best book I've seen on the game is "Winning Monopoly" by Daz Karszinskis,
which also deals with most of the myths about the game (though it perpetuates
one of its own, by wrongly saying that if you roll doubles and are then sent
to jail by a card or space, you can roll to get out _immediately_). I agree
with that book that trading 'free lands' is legal, except in PB sanctioned
tournament play. I did it in last year's Pacificon tournament.
A trivia question for those who think they know all about the game: What is
the one rule that is different now than it was when PB first published the
game? (I'm not talking about changed rents, card text, or the composition of
the initial $1500 each player gets, although those have all changed too.)
When I get back from Worldcon, I'll post that original rule set (which I can
because it was not copyrighted!)
John David Galt
Blackout
Blackout (blac...@igc.net) wrote:
: Ok, what about when you are playing with several people, and one or two
Graham Zaretsky
jdg...@shell.portal.com (John David Galt) wrote:
>The best book I've seen on the game is "Winning Monopoly" by Daz Karszinskis,
>which also deals with most of the myths about the game (though it perpetuates
>one of its own, by wrongly saying that if you roll doubles and are then sent
>to jail by a card or space, you can roll to get out _immediately_). I agree
>with that book that trading 'free lands' is legal, except in PB sanctioned
>tournament play. I did it in last year's Pacificon tournament.
I read this book also (I lost it at some time, darn it, and haven't
been able to find it again anywhere). Anyway, technically, free lands
are legal ONLY because you never are required to ask for rent. The
problem is that you can't make a long-term binding deal. So I can,
for example, SAY that I'll trade free lands with you, but If I ask for
rent, you are still required to pay me, and vice versa. It works only
if everyone agrees to be 'honorable'.
What you CAN'T do is buy a free land for cash or property. In any
legal deal, both parties must receive something of substance (ie.
cash, property, or a Get-Out of Jail Free card.
I was in one tournament at a con a few years back where I asked a
judge about the legality of buying 'options' on property (eg. I pay
you $50 for an option on Boardwalk. If you land on Boardwalk, you
must buy it and sell it to me at cost). We could get around the
problem of my giving money to the other player buy adding it onto the
tail end of another transaction or by my buying his get out of jail
free card. What we couldn't do is come up with a legal way to give
him the incentive for selling the property back to me at cost, instead
of renegging on the deal.
>A trivia question for those who think they know all about the game: What is
>the one rule that is different now than it was when PB first published the
>game? (I'm not talking about changed rents, card text, or the composition of
>the initial $1500 each player gets, although those have all changed too.)
I'm not exactly sure about this, but I THINK it's the rule which says
that nothing else EXCEPT what is specifically listed in the rules can
be a part of a deal.
-Graham
RICHARD IRVING
Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
: rr...@pge.com (RICHARD IRVING) wrote:
: >Ken Koury (ko...@primenet.com) wrote:
: >: >2... There are lots of Chance cards that make you advence to certain
: >: >places on the board, but the Advance to illinois Ave, and advance to
: >: >utilities ones don't mention "If you pass GO, collect 200" does that mean
: >: >you're not supposed to collect? (It doesn't say *not* to collect, like
: >: >the go to jail one either)
: >: You collect $200 anytime you pass GO.
: >Not true. You do not collect $200 when you pass GO if you landed on it
: >on the prior turn or at the start of the game.
: If you landed on GO the pror turn then you are not passing GO, you are
: already there.
But if you "already landed" on Go then you have not "passed" it. QED.
The clear point is that you receive the $200 on the turn you land on it
or land on a space after go when you start on a space before it. If you
land on GO, you do not get $200 when you land and another $200 when you
pass.
: >: Deals involving future rights of any kind, such as free lands, have
: >: never been allowed. Deeds may be sold or traded for cash, other deeds
: >: and/or a get out of jail free card only.
: >Incorrect. Read "1001 Ways to Win Monopoly Games". At the time the
: >books was written, free lands are described and shown how they can be
: >strategically used. So they obviously were legal in tournament play.
: Sorry Richard but you have not done your homework. The authors book
: book you mention tried to use their rules regarding future rights at
: the nationals in the 1970s. Not only were they not allowed to use
: their future rights plays but they were banned from all future
: tournaments by parker brothers.
Sounds pretty harsh, disagree with OUR interpretation of the rules and
your banned for life. But "future promises" of immunity were published
in several Monopoly books (including the Monopoly Book which at the very
least was published with PB permission and used official artwork).
Immunity by definition is a "future promise not to charge rent when you
land on my property."
: >Second point is the rules specifically say you can only sell an item for
: >cash. Your limitation listed above though are easily inferred: I'll
: >sell you Illinois Ave for $1 and I'll buy New York from you for $1 back.
: >But technically, if both players involved in the trade have no cash,
: >they cannot make the trade.
: Trades involving something other than cash, such as a get out of jail
: card or other deeds have always been allowed in tournaments.
But the rules say NOTHING about trades except to say that you can sell
any property (without houses or hotels on it) or the get out of jail
free card. The point is that a trade can easily be negotiated around
this restriction by the above. That is my point: What Parker Brothers
is doing is selectively reading rules. Banning things it doesn't like
accepting things deemed OK or within the spirit of the rules--what ever
that means.
: >But the important point is that the rules do not prohibit "future
: >consideration" deals such as buying options on property or immunity
: >agreements. You can make any private deals you want between the
: >players, but you cannot enforce them under the rules. For example, I
: >can tell a player I'll pay him $300 now if he'll buy Boardwalk from the
: >bank (if he is the first player to land on it) and give the property to
: >me. (I am simply buying a property for cash which is legal.) But if
: >he reneges on the deal, I have no recourse under the rules. But if you
: >want to continue playing Monopoly games (not to mention living), you'd
: >do well to keep any sort of agreement of this sort that you make.
: I dont know what the reaction would be if two people tried to make
: unenforcable deals at a tournament. I have never seen it done, perhaps
: because the stakes are too high at the regional or national level that
: no one would want to trust some stranger to that degree. I would never
: try it, not with so many other, legal ways to get an edge.
: >You should always read rules exclusively: Anything not specifically
: >prohibited is allowed. And Monopoly's rules simply do not say that you
: >cannot trade for future consideration. I challenge you to find it.
: Try reading the part in the rules that forbids the loaning of money.
: That is the provision that Parker Brothers officials point to when
: discussing this point. Their official position is that future rights
: is a form of loaning money and they do not allow it. Of course, when
: they hear that YOU think they are wrong, I'm sure they will change
: their tune. But, until then, I guess I'm still stuck with other
: trading stratigies.
But, future consideration is NOT loaning of money. In the deal I
describe above, I give another player $300 to buy Boardwalk (if and when
he receives it.) I am BUYING a property from him, not loaning him
money. I don't expect to be paid back, and if he doesn't land on the
property, he owes me nothing. See the difference.
If loaning is illegal, then the time honored practice of buying a
player the Get out of jail free card for $501 and selling it back for $1,
would be equally illegal. It is much closer to a loan, than the deal I
am describing above. And PERFECTLY LEGAL because selling property in
specifically in the rules.
Another point, if Parker Bros. makes an official opinion why don't they
change the appropriate section in their rules and clarify these points
in some manner. Either in the next edition or printing or by adding
errata sheets or whatever. It's not as if they made one printing of the
game and haven't had a chance.
Joseph A. Wetherell
Hi All,
I was wondering if anyone could post a list of Monopoly Books and
comment on the books.
Regards,
Joe
Blackout
YES, but ARE you allowed to MAKE such an offer to another player?
: : >You should always read rules exclusively: Anything not specifically
: : >prohibited is allowed. And Monopoly's rules simply do not say that you
: : >cannot trade for future consideration. I challenge you to find it.
: : Try reading the part in the rules that forbids the loaning of money.
: : That is the provision that Parker Brothers officials point to when
: : discussing this point. Their official position is that future rights
: : is a form of loaning money and they do not allow it. Of course, when
: : they hear that YOU think they are wrong, I'm sure they will change
: : their tune. But, until then, I guess I'm still stuck with other
: : trading stratigies.
: But, future consideration is NOT loaning of money. In the deal I
: describe above, I give another player $300 to buy Boardwalk (if and when
: he receives it.) I am BUYING a property from him, not loaning him
: money. I don't expect to be paid back, and if he doesn't land on the
: property, he owes me nothing. See the difference.
Yes, but you are NOT getting properety at the time you give him the $300,
therefore on that turn you are just GIVING him $300, and you are not
allowed to GIVE another player money or LOAN.
What you describe below is one of the things that bugs me about monopoly,
there are so many little loopholes to make illegal things seem leagal.
This is why I was hoping there might be some "Monopoly Tounament Rules"
book that described in DETAIL the things that are alloud and not alloud,
specifically in the trading area where so many little loopholes exist.
:
If loaning is illegal, then the time honored practice of buying a
: player the Get out of jail free card for $501 and selling it back for $1,
: would be equally illegal. It is much closer to a loan, than the deal I
: am describing above. And PERFECTLY LEGAL because selling property in
: specifically in the rules.
See my above paragraph.
: Another point, if Parker Bros. makes an official opinion why don't they
: change the appropriate section in their rules and clarify these points
: in some manner. Either in the next edition or printing or by adding
: errata sheets or whatever. It's not as if they made one printing of the
: game and haven't had a chance.
Exactly. Parker brothers, what do you have to say?
Michael Biggins
RICHARD IRVING
Blackout (blac...@igc.net) wrote:
: : But the rules say NOTHING about trades except to say that you can sell
Incorrect, I am not proposing such a deal to give an opponent money for
nothing. I expect to get a property in return--when (and if) the other
player lands on it.
In the quick sale & return of the Get Out of Jail Free card,
I am giving away money for nothing. That is my SOLE intention in such a
deal. (What if I don't have the Card, a utility or Mediterranean works
just as well (if unmortgaged.) The point is simply giving the
power to sell property at any price makes such a manuever legal.
: What you describe below is one of the things that bugs me about monopoly,
: there are so many little loopholes to make illegal things seem leagal.
: This is why I was hoping there might be some "Monopoly Tounament Rules"
: book that described in DETAIL the things that are alloud and not alloud,
: specifically in the trading area where so many little loopholes exist.
The point is that if you allow sale of property for any amount--you
automatically allow a lot of other types of deals. Trades (which are
specifically NOT mentioned in the rules), shifting of money through
selling property back & forth. If you allow forgiveness of rent due--
you automatically allow "immunity" deals. Etc.
Short of writing a treatise on Monopoly contract law.
: : Another point, if Parker Bros. makes an official opinion why don't they
: : change the appropriate section in their rules and clarify these points
: : in some manner. Either in the next edition or printing or by adding
: : errata sheets or whatever. It's not as if they made one printing of the
: : game and haven't had a chance.
: Exactly. Parker brothers, what do you have to say?
Here! Here!