User talk:Phil Bordelon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bouré 2 Archived Chit-Chat 3 Nikoli puzzles 4 Described vs. Known 5 Fill-It-In

[edit] Bouré

Seems like you're more or less the internet's only expert on Bouré—and for that I'm already deep in your debt. I was wondering, though: what's the rationale for the rule that if you don't have the led suit, and you can't beat current trump, you need to play trump anyway? That seems to me just a good avenue for frustration and an area where the player is beaten down by the rules—but I don't know the game as well as you. Let me know what you think. —Z. D. Smith

Well, you're asking for the "rationale" of rules to a game primarily played by drunk Cajuns, so the following statements will be hypothetical, I'm afraid. That said, from my own play I find that it's mainly a way to make play more interesting by making the chance of a bouré that much more likely, thereby increasing the stakes and therefore the "danger" of play. It also helps to keep people from hoarding trumps quite so much--firstly because they're gonna have to lose them to higher trumps anyway, and secondly because they know that they're gonna have to lose them, and therefore play them earlier ... making play more interesting, again. That said, I'm a firm believer in the power of tinkering, so if you play a night without forced trumps, I'd love to hear how it goes. (Pretty much everyone I've ever asked about the rules of Bouré plays with forced trumps, though.) Phil Bordelon

Thanks for the quick reply; I will indeed let you know how it goes. Unfortunately, bigger than the problem (for a Yankee such as myself) of whether or not to play with forced trumps is simply getting folks to play Bouré at all. Always seems to go, you've got some folks together for cards, and naturally it falls to Hold 'Em. Maybe I get the chance to teach a couple of them how to play Bouré, but only talk of playing it is maybe for the next time, which of course always falls on poker night. Seems to me that what this internet really needs is an increased Bouré presence. —Z. D. Smith

I've always been interested in writing a 'net client for Bouré, but I've never had the time. That said, if someone like PokerStars would implement Bouré I'd be there like ... something that moves really fast. One of the problems would be dealing with all of the variations, though. Any arbitrary ruleset they pick would piss some people off. Bouré doesn't have a standards body (unless you want to count, uh, me. -grin-) Phil Bordelon 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice article Phil. I wrote the other Bourré article, not realizing that you had written this one. I suggest we merge these things. RPellessier | Talk 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of that 'no-low' variant. Interesting. I'm up for a merge, but I haven't had much time to work on W'p recently, I'm afraid. :/ Phil Bordelon 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You found the one paragraph I didn't write! They don't play that way in Lafayette, or Breaux Bridge, or Cankton. I will test that version contributed by someone else when I go back to Lafayette for the holidays, or see if I can look up Preston Guidry. RPellessier | Talk 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I say if we merge it just don't worry about the No-Lo bit, perhaps adding it as a variant at the bottom. There's no substantiation of its existence, but then again, do WE have substantiation? You have that book, and I have years of play, but other than conversations with family members it's not something I can point to for people to read. Hoyle's still doesn't have it ... Phil Bordelon 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All true. No-Lo is unverifiable, unless it came from some other documented game, like hearts. We'll leave it out unless we can verify it. I'll say as much on the talk page for the version I wrote. RPellessier | Talk 04:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the adds I made to the Talk:Bourré page, it is a transcription of the Rules in the Scott Bar, circa 1980. I think your Grandmother's 4 of diamonds rule is in rule 6. RPellessier | Talk 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Chit-Chat

Archive 1 (Ancient Mists of Time - June 2004)

[edit] Nikoli puzzles

Good job with the list of Nikoli's works! It gives me a goal to shoot for. - ZM Zotmeister 16:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to provide. I've actually been in a bit of dialog with the folks over there; my goal is to make pretty much all of their non-Japanese-language puzzles doable without having to bug 'em. Phil Bordelon 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I suppose I'm in a financial dialogue with them: I've bought around twenty books from them and am about to order roughly ten more. I like to give them away as prizes for solving my own puzzles (on my LiveJournal). - ZM Zotmeister 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I don't want to count how many of their books I bought over the last couple of months. I'd be willing to guess ~60. They take up ~3ft of shelf space under my computer. Thankfully I've bought pretty much everything I want ... for now, at least. :) Phil Bordelon 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filomino is one of my favorites. It was a pleasure adding to the article. I'm presently running a contest out of my LJ to see who can make the most efficient puzzle (fewest givens) for a 6×6 grid without any matching polyomino sizes in the solution (specifically, there must be one 1-omino, one 2-omino, and so on up to 8-omino). Time to look at the Hashiwokakero article now, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be there... - ZM Zotmeister 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

[edit] Described vs. Known

When a new species of something is found, a scientist will usually take specimens, and do rigorous test to figure out where, taxonomically, it fits. For example, disection, colouration etc. Once they have done this, they write a paper, and "describe" the species. Once it is peer reviewed, and generally accepted, it is added to taxonmic resources, which list all species of a certain group. There is however, a problem with this in some organisms. For example, there are species of plant, which cannot be described because they do not mature for twenty years (and therefore do not flower), and cannot be properly described. These species of plant are "known", but not described, and are therefore not part of the taxonomic resources. When someone counts the plant species of the world from one of these resources, it does not include it, and therefore they say there is *a number* of "described species". There is a slightly larger number of "known species". This does not apply as much for frogs as it does plants, however there were 20 new species of frog recently found in New Guinea, and I don't think they have been described yet. I hope that makes sense.--liquidGhoul 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fill-It-In

Thanks! I'm sorry I didn't check for other articles that meant the same thing before I started writing. Thanks for doing that for me.Sidious1701 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)