All and particularly Steve C.

There is obviously room for fight left in the game and certainly plenty of room for diplomatic shocks so I'm not counting any chickens here. I would like to say something though and to offer Steve & Kevin an absolute guarantee that my decision was in no way determined by their actions. They are both top men who I think have demonstrated pretty clearly here that they, together with Garry, are stronger players than I am.

That said, my move was deliberate and premeditated so it would, I think, be disengenuous and more than a little patronising of me to offer an appology. I do however most certainly owe everyone an explanation.

We are dealing with a tournament here and the tournament dynamic demands that we do our best, that we at leat attempt, to compete for the top spot. If we did not then there would be a lot of agreed draws and very little point to competitive play. My biggest motivating factor was last year's experience that anything short of a two way leaves a player out of the running even after just round 1. It was always clear to me that, if an opportunity presented, I would try to take it.

The question then became one of who might be a partner for an attempt at a two way and here perhaps i do owe an appology. I played with Garry in round 1 last year and built a lot of respect for him as a player and a person. In that game 12 months ago I stbbed him at least once, probably twice and, he might tell you, perhaps even more often than that. It may be a flaw in my character or a flaw in the tournament structure (hard to see though what might be done about it) but I felt that I owed him and that come what may I would not work against him in this game.

This may suggest that this move was pre-planned from the start but all have my word it was not. Only in the last few days have we begun to discuss this. Prior to that I, at least, would have sailed on toward a three way.

Best,



Paul.


From: steve cooley <tmssteve(at)yahoo.com>
To: Kevin O <kodiplomacy(at)gmail.com>; Adam Martin-Schwarze <smegdwarf(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: Gary Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Blitz <blitz(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Thomas Fletcher <tfletch33(at)yahoo.com>; Paul Green <bridgejunky(at)ymail.com>; Rachael Jameson <verticallychallangedcutie(at)yahoo.com>; John Monson <mister.gatling(at)yahoo.com>; Orders <orders(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Trout <former.trout(at)gmail..com>; Steve Lytton <stevelytton(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 26 February, 2009 16:51:26
Subject: Re: DC 233: F1907 Adjudication

I'll translate it: everyone except Russia and Austria.


From: Kevin O <kodiplomacy(at)gmail.com>
To: Adam Martin-Schwarze <smegdwarf(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: Gary Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com>; Blitz <blitz(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Steve Cooley <tmssteve(at)yahoo.com>; Thomas Fletcher <tfletch33(at)yahoo.com>; Paul Green <bridgejunky(at)ymail.com>; Rachael Jameson <verticallychallangedcutie(at)yahoo.com>; John Monson <mister.gatling(at)yahoo.com>; Orders <orders(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; Trout <former.trout(at)gmail.com>; Steve Lytton <stevelytton(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:49:27 AM
Subject: Re: DC 233: F1907 Adjudication

And by not interpreting, you don't want to say who got hosed in the deal, correct?


On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Adam Martin-Schwarze <smegdwarf(at)yahoo.com ([email]smegdwarf(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:

Riddle: What happens when a very effective three-power eastern alliance has just about eradicated the opposition and now sits -- all three of 'em -- astride the stalemate line?

Answer:

Austria:
A Bohemia - Munich
A Budapest - Trieste (*Bounce*)
A Bulgaria - Constantinople
F Ionian Sea - Naples
A Munich - Ruhr
A Serbia - Rumania (*Bounce*)
A Tyrolia - Piedmont
A Vienna - Trieste (*Bounce*)

England:
F Norwegian Sea Hold

France:
A Gascony - Paris (*Fails*)
F Western Mediterranean - Tunis

Germany:
F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Edinburgh
A Picardy - Belgium
F Wales Supports A Edinburgh - Liverpool
A Yorkshire Supports A Norway - Edinburgh

Italy:
F Black Sea - Rumania (*Bounce*)
F Brest - Gascony (*Bounce*)
F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc)
A Marseilles Supports F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc)
F Naples - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Paris - Gascony (*Bounce*)
F Spain(sc) - Portugal
A Venice Hold

Russia:
A Berlin - Kiel
A Edinburgh - Liverpool
A Finland - Norway
A Kiel - Holland
A Moscow - Sevastopol
A Norway - Edinburgh
F Sevastopol - Armenia
A Silesia Hold
F Sweden - Denmark

The way this game has been going, I don't know how to interpret the above.. So, I won't try to interpret. Besides, it's not in my job description. I do know that there are no retreats. So, that just leaves adjustments tomorrow from Austria, France, Germany, and Russia (we'll spare England one more NBR and just delete the fleet). Both Austria and Russia have more builds than they can use, so they'll have to play a man short.

Ownership:

Austria: Budapest, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Greece, Munich,
Naples, Serbia, Smyrna, Trieste, Vienna.
France: Tunis.
Germany: Belgium, London.
Italy: Ankara, Brest, Marseilles, Paris, Portugal, Rome,
Spain, Venice.
Russia: Berlin, Denmark, Edinburgh, Holland, Kiel, Liverpool,
Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sevastopol, St Petersburg,
Sweden, Warsaw.

Adjustments:

Austria: Supp 10 Unit 8 Build 1
England: Supp 0 Unit 1 Remove 1
France: Supp 1 Unit 2 Remove 1
Germany: Supp 2 Unit 4 Remove 2
Italy: Supp 8 Unit 8 Build 0
Russia: Supp 13 Unit 9 Build 3
Turkey: Supp 0 Unit 0 Build 0