(no subject)

I cycled out for a very pleasant afternoon of bridge, pizza and Balderdash[0] with a friend in Cherry Hinton. The evening itself was very nice. The trip was problematic.

The route was lovely -- slightly longer than normal, but long and straight and flat, a joy to cycle upon. I always think of Cherry Hinton as far, but it isn't really, and from here it's barely further than town.

I even made sure to pack a pump, screwdriver, book, and map, and cover them all with a plastic bag, anticipating breaking down on the wrong side of town from home. And to note ("take" would be an overstatement) down the destination's address, phone number, bus times, and directions. I thought it might rain, but cycled anyway.

The journey *out* was made entertaining by the sudden and complete rain, necessitating a constant stopping to shiver, and wipe mist of my glasses every few roundabouts.

And, as I only discovered later, the other two friends from the same part of town, who were driving, constantly overtaking me. I was cycling, but had forgot my notes, but remembered the way fine[1], but had to keep stopping. Their map had been curtailed, and they had to reconstruct the route by dead reckoning.

The way BACK was made entertaining when, after leaving the party, negotiating the slight delays, etc, noting the near absence of rain, looking forward to cycling in a direction with *down* hills, and *left* turns and *the bloody cycle bridge on the side of the road where you might be able to use it*, found an unrecoverable puncture. Joy, irony. I'd *brought* my pump and screwdriver, in expectation of some problems, but it was too dead to hold, and I don't try to patch anywhere but my own warm kitchen, if there. Fortunately, the "big taxi" plan was very kindly obviated by friend with car managing to squeeze the bike into the back seat.

[0] The game, not just normal conversation.

[1] I was pleasantly pleased by google maps. Where Fulbourn Old Drift crosses the main road, it is hedged off to prevent cut-throughs by cars, though this is hard to see on the map, and you mainly spot it when the route-finder sends you all along it, and back. However, when you zoom in, you can see that the cycle way *does* go round the hedge, you can even see the little give way triangle!

Balderdash

I assume it goes without saying that I'm not very good at Balderdash :) However, I was wondering about the rules.

The basic idea (varied slightly in different incarnations) is that one player picks a random word (or film title, or acronym[1]), either by drawing the next card in the pile from the published game, or by flopping a dictionary open in the freestyle version.

She announces it, and then each other player invents a definition, handed to her on a bit of paper. Then she reads them all out, and each player guesses which is correct. You get one point for guessing the correct definition, and one point for each person who guesses yours.

This has the implicit assumption that no-one will know the definition already. Typically, if you know the right definition beforehand, you get N points (where N is 1 or larger), but don't participate in the rest of the round. (One set of rules says the rest of the round is cancelled if several players do.)[2]

The question is, what's the fairest way of doing it? Should players be rewarded for knowing? It's actually barely related to the real point of the game. Giving them a bonus and moving on seems most sensible.

Another option would be that you don't get anything extra; you make up a definition anyway, and just get one extra point for voting for the right one.

Another would be that your definition is entered, and everyone who votes for an equivalent answer to the real one gets a point, but you get a point for anyone who votes for yours instead of the real one.

The things to avoid are: it being an advantage to *not* know the answer, which really seems unfair, and putting too much judgement on the caller. After all, if she doesn't know wha

[1] You know what I mean.

[2] Did someone in fact get it right?

Words are ok, you generally know or not.

Complete the silly law is ok for the opposite reason. They're all made up, so (unless by an immense stroke of luck, you actually really know the answer), you don't get any points for saying something else it's illegal to do on Tuesdays in Cardiff -- after all, there's lots of things -- you have to guess what's on the card.

But we had difficulty with people. Do you have to guess whatever's on the card, however weird? The correct answer for "John Dee" was "invented the crystal ball" and for "Christian Huygens" was "invented the pendulum clock"[3]. Do you get points for saying "British court magician/philosopher" and "Dutch physicist and astronomer"[4]?

Those are possibly less specific, but a whole lot more accurate. They (when we went over to the internet) basically the first sentences of the wikipedia entries.

But if so, how is the caller supposed to know if they're accurate or not? I guessed that John Dee supposedly invented the crystal ball, but I wouldn't done if I didn't know who he was.

[3] Leaving aside the inaccuracy of that.

[4] I wasn't *sure* of either. I knew the scientists I was thinking of existed and had similar names, but I could equally well have been confused with "Jack Dee" and "Hayden Christensen"