thousand

Why do I get fewer points for winning at the table than the second place winner?

Consequently, your rating was significantly higher than the 2nd place holder. For example: if you have a rating of 2400, the others have 1400, you win the game, then the rating points are distributed: 1) 0 2) 21 3) -21

If someone offers a split in a thousand tournaments, then others lose the idea of playing. It doesn't matter whether you get 0 or 200, the other table is the same position as the player, still 70. Something should be done here if possible.

It's not quite the case that the idea disappears. I'll explain the nuance. Your position, yes, does not matter, in this particular round and also in others who get 70 tournament(!) points. But at other tables, the game may be played completely differently (your position did not bid, for example) and now the number of trick points someone at your table got also counts, because they are taken into account when getting tournament points for the round. But if you don't play, then everyone at that table gets 0 trick points; while playing, your competitor in the same position at another table could have gotten fewer tournament points, not to mention comparing other positions. Throwing away cards is not always right, but there are also pig-suckers who see that when someone at their table starts to fill their bid too well, they throw down their hand, either before the penultimate or last trick. I've been angry at them all the time and also said bad things. I won't name names right now, but I think a Shame Mail should be created for such users; especially for those who systematically stretch deliberately, deliberately throw their arms down, etc.

The idea was this, (four tables, everyone offers splits, everyone plays to the end, but for example, the players in the first position have 0 and the others 100, 200, whatever, but everyone gets 70. Besides, if you know that the bidder's splits no longer matter where to play. So that it could also be somehow distinguished that at the tables where splits were offered, the other positions were close to each other, taking into account how they played. It's a confusing story, but in principle, I think you understand what I meant.

First of all, it happens very rarely at 4 tables that everyone bids splits in the same position, let alone at 5,6, etc. Second, at the beginning there was a system where every eye was taken into account. We quickly realized that this system doesn't work like that in tournaments... You should probably look a little and investigate how these new rules were formed... and they weren't really made out of thin air: unfortunately, there is no I bothered to check if this process is still going on here on the forum, but the discussions and suggestions were heated. Today, "thousand" has become almost the most popular tournament game on this site in general, and it's thanks to the changes in the rules. Ok, there are still some shortcomings, especially in certain exceptional situations, which can be understood by users who have played at least 50-100 tournaments in the current, new rules era. Referring to your original post, on the contrary, it doesn't matter what trick points the provider was able to "break"; what matters is the proportion of tournament points. My position in the light of the current rules is of course a little different, because, indeed, the brother who got busted gets 0 points and the others at the same table 70, which is quite accurate... However, the trick points of these 70 brothers are still taken into account when the tournament points are given in comparison with the same positions at other tables, and it can be especially disturbing when different positions won the bid at the tables. In the current system, it is especially noticeable when someone, realizing that they are not playing their bid in full, simply gives up; compared to a similar situation at another table, where the "hand" is played to the end. My proposal for changes to the rules in this regard would be that those who manage to "bust" the bidder in one round still get 70 tournament points, but their "collected" trick points would not be taken into account in the comparison of positions, because they already got theirs anyway, and this is probably due to good defense!! The question is, could someone get more than 70 Tournament Points from a so-called defensive position at other tables in this case!? Personally, I think that with some algorithm, if someone really managed to be even more effective at another table compared to the already "cracked" table(s) In the Tournament system, it really doesn't matter whether "200" or "100" were cracked, what counts is the so-called balance sheet, which works well when the same positions are offered at different tables... Exceptions still arise when offers are won from special positions at different tables! :) Even more confusing, but haven't these tournaments been played too... Anyway, congratulations that we have such a popular and good card game; maybe we should start looking into the Guinness World Records, and specifically in the "1000" part of the card game :)

it doesn't work. everyone -60 and I get less points. Brainless

Consequently, they gave more than others in the 60s.

consequently, no one reached 60. What does it matter how much is missing in a thousand?

And another thing, if I'm not allowed to bid when I'm the last hand and it's not possible to bid myself for anything, then why does the one who bids more earn more?