Heathrow

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 00:39:52 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> Heathrow

Ah, now that's an interesting opening move.  Bold.  If it's Terminal 5, 
it might even be considered courageous.

As the triangle is not yet opened, I'm going to try a variation of the 
classic Garden Gambit, and go for Aldwych.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 05:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 00:39:52 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> Heathrow
>
> Ah, now that's an interesting opening move.  Bold.  If it's Terminal 5,
> it might even be considered courageous.
>
> As the triangle is not yet opened, I'm going to try a variation of the
> classic Garden Gambit, and go for Aldwych.
>
> Jim
>
Nice counter-move. You didn't fall into the trap I'd set.

I think, therefore, that I'll try Parsons Green.

Johnh

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:12:04 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> Nice counter-move. You didn't fall into the trap I'd set.

Why, thank you - it's always good to know that one's study has paid 
off. :)

> I think, therefore, that I'll try Parsons Green.

Of course, the benefit of the Garden Gambit is that it avoids the trap 
you set by setting one of my own.  It was, however, probably not such a 
good idea to say that I was using that particular opening, because it 
made it easy to avoid the trap that is usually set so early on.

I did, however, anticipate that you'd see that (perhaps by announcing the 
opening I was using, I was laying a different sort of trap?) coming.

So my next move, then, is Angel.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 16:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:12:04 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> Nice counter-move. You didn't fall into the trap I'd set.
>
> Why, thank you - it's always good to know that one's study has paid
> off. :)
>
>> I think, therefore, that I'll try Parsons Green.
>
> Of course, the benefit of the Garden Gambit is that it avoids the trap
> you set by setting one of my own.  It was, however, probably not such a
> good idea to say that I was using that particular opening, because it
> made it easy to avoid the trap that is usually set so early on.
>
> I did, however, anticipate that you'd see that (perhaps by announcing the
> opening I was using, I was laying a different sort of trap?) coming.
>
> So my next move, then, is Angel.
>
> Jim
>
Damn, damn, damn.

Only one choice then. Off to the city branch of the Northern Line. This 
is allowed under the Samantha variation of position.

Bank (in rush hour)

John

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:20:21 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> Damn, damn, damn.

You know what happens when you suspect someone's new to the game, right?  
You heard the game John Finnemore was in a couple weeks ago, I expect? ;)

> Only one choice then. Off to the city branch of the Northern Line. This
> is allowed under the Samantha variation of position.
> 
> Bank (in rush hour)

Now that's just evil.  I didn't realize you were playing with the 
variations on Samantha's position.  That certainly makes the game more 
interesting, but it also increases the points.  It does also increase the 
risk of, um, point *reductions* whenever Samantha is in play.

Greenwich seems like a logical next move, so I won't do that.  Instead, 
I'll go to Waterloo.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 18:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:20:21 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> Damn, damn, damn.
>
> You know what happens when you suspect someone's new to the game, right?
> You heard the game John Finnemore was in a couple weeks ago, I expect? ;)
>
>> Only one choice then. Off to the city branch of the Northern Line. This
>> is allowed under the Samantha variation of position.
>>
>> Bank (in rush hour)
>
> Now that's just evil.  I didn't realize you were playing with the
> variations on Samantha's position.  That certainly makes the game more
> interesting, but it also increases the points.  It does also increase the
> risk of, um, point *reductions* whenever Samantha is in play.
>
> Greenwich seems like a logical next move, so I won't do that.  Instead,
> I'll go to Waterloo.
>
> Jim
>

I wonder where Stephen is. Rumour has it that he's playing with Sven.

Meanwhile, allowing for your diagonal, I'll go Cannon Street.

BTW this game has to last to Xmas - it might help the uninitiated to 
understand the rules

John

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:04:28 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> I wonder where Stephen is. Rumour has it that he's playing with Sven.

I'd heard that rumour as well, but I cannot confirm nor deny it. :)

> Meanwhile, allowing for your diagonal, I'll go Cannon Street.

Very gracious of you to allow the diagonal.  I assumed we were playing 
the London variation of the Bethlehem rules.

> BTW this game has to last to Xmas - it might help the uninitiated to
> understand the rules

Oh, yes, absolutely.  And you perhaps didn't see the game Stephen and I 
played about 18 months ago or so - I think we kept it going for about 4 
months, maybe longer.  It was a very interesting game, and I've been 
looking forward to another chance to play. :)

Since it is Bethlehem Rules, Kings Cross is the logical next choice.  But 
in a stunning double-bluff, I'm going to actually make that move. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 7:04 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> I wonder where Stephen is. Rumour has it that he's playing with Sven.

I didn't even get the curacy of a Buzz! Hesitation.

So I am sulking. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:08:54 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15/12/2013 7:04 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> I wonder where Stephen is. Rumour has it that he's playing with Sven.
> 
> I didn't even get the curacy of a Buzz! Hesitation.
> 
> So I am sulking. :-(

Buzz!  Hesitation!  (Enacted due to the sulk causing a delay of game)

Post a reply to this message