Bismarck Vindis

Ah, I thought Marten meant that the average contestant only gets 0 in cases of equal ratings :)

Regarding the final score - of course, you can take into account how small or large the difference was, although why don't we take this into account in, for example, Othello or some other game :). True, people will probably start leaving the tournament in a hopeless situation, so Dilbert's suggestion would curb this a bit.

You can also work with ratings in the simplest possible way. Give everyone a starting rating at the beginning and the new rating = rating at the beginning of the game game result. As a rule, game results fall between 30 and -30 anyway, which is a perfectly suitable range for rating calculations. Plus, you need to come up with some kind of scheme for interrupted games. (score standings at the moment the game was interrupted, etc.)

In this form, it is simple and understandable for everyone, and there is no more complicated mathematics for calculating expectations arising from the rating difference, etc. After all, it is still mostly a party game where card running also plays an important role, unlike so-called pure skill games a la checkers, chess, othello, etc.

Very good idea, that's what we'll do - at the beginning you can also give the same 1400 points. That way no one will immediately fall into the minus :). In addition, we solve the problem where the first two get the same number of points (e.g. 10) and the last one -20. In this case, there is no "first place" in the game, but the first ones get more rating, while the third one loses it. The penalty for leaving the game is -30, the first two 15. And if someone tries to make two usernames and earn points for the other username by leaving the game with one, we will act as usual - both usernames will be closed. I am still confused about the number of players and the size of the deck: Bismarck is a long game. If we use a 52-card deck, it will be even longer. However, with 36 cards, it is perhaps more boring to play with four people. So I would still suggest 3 players and a 36-card deck. Does anyone have a different opinion? Would eliminating the obligation to lead with trump reduce the proportion of randomness and allow for better results by playing more skillfully?

A 52 vs 36 game with 52 cards is longer on average by (52-36)/36 = ca 45% The question is whether to emphasize simplicity and entertainment (36) or the ability to read cards, calculate in advance, etc. The obligation to take trump cards - basically the same dilemma. So the portal's "marketing department" should decide these things. Would it be difficult to make 3 vs 4 players so that both options are available and those at the table can decide for themselves when starting the game? The length of the game should not depend much on the number of players, as it takes a certain amount of time to deal each card; it doesn't matter if it's 3 or 4 players. It may be harder to get 4 hands together in less time.

seems a bit harsh. 30 is a pretty good result, usually you still win around 20. In this context, penalties/bonuses of -20 and 10/ 10 seem a bit fairer, there can always be some internet problems or something. In addition, you could also add the current state of the game to it. Otherwise, you'll have a bit of a silly situation where you've made a good game, you're at 25 and someone runs away... or you've already accumulated -35 and you can actually win when you leave the game.

I think that eliminating the obligation to trump would be beneficial. Maybe I'd even try it :). However, for those who don't bother to count anything, the rules shouldn't be difficult either.

About the length of the Bismarck game: The minimum time to play one card is 5 seconds. The time to play 36 cards is therefore 180 seconds or 3 minutes. The duration of one game is therefore 3*3 = 9 minutes. In the original Bismarck, there are 8 games: 4 take/deal, 3 stacks and a free game (usually stacking). These 8 games would then be played for at least 72 minutes or 1 hour 12 minutes. It seems too long to me. I propose to eliminate one stack (from an ace down) and a free game. This way we would get the minimum game length to just under an hour. Maybe it is more reasonable. What to do if you leave the game? One option is to end the game immediately. Another alternative is that the game remains unfinished - a player is waited for to take the place of the player who left. The new player gets the points at the end of the game. Whether the game ends or a new player is waited for can be decided by the creator of the game board. In both cases, the player who left should be slightly penalized (with minus points).

It would be easier to end the game immediately if someone leaves and penalize them with a minus (some points). Otherwise, it will probably be very difficult.