draw

Intentional.

You sound ridiculous.

As in, unsports-person like conduct.

Play, or get lost.

Suggestion: Go play Crazyhouse if you like draws and games more complex than standard chess.

You've answered your own observation and question.

If you can't realize the logic behind what you are suggesting, then, perhaps you should not be playing Bughouse. (At least, not online, until you how to play IRL, OTB.)

"When the answer is in the question that you speak, come what may." -- Your question has been asked and answered, not just answered by others, but, by your own admission.

There are too many reasons for draws in Bug.  See my post in another thread.

OR, too few. Link / Reference (to another thread), s'il vous plait?

I also like it.

For the sake of argument, here are the rules in chess (not bughouse) according to FIDE:

About agreeing to a draw:

"The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."

With this in mind can we really look at the rules of chess to determine if agreeing to a draw should be allowed in bughouse or not? 

About 3-fold repetition:

"The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)..."

"...Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if: at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant. a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved."

If we're going to apply this rule to bughouse, I fail to see any reason not to believe "the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same" to not include the pieces in hand. It is not just about the pieces being on the same squares on the board.

"Then draw in bughouse would be almost impossible."

Is that a bad thing?  Isn't the fact that there is nearly always a decisive result part of the appeal of bughouse?

yes...when it takes away the fun of the game.  FUN is the appeal.

Yes, but wouldn't allowing a draw by agreement solve most of those situations, and allowing a draw when one board repeats three times while the other either does not move or also repeats solve most of the rest?

If we for example take the following position:

Black is to move and white is threatening Q@h8# Game continues 1...N@h8 2.Bxh8. Then white is threatening Q@g7#. Game continues 2...p@g7 3.Bxg7 and we have reached the same position again. Would it be fair if after 3...R@h8 4.Bxh8 p@g7 5.Bxg7 that the game would end in a draw? I seriously do not think so. Black is loosing material when he puts pieces from his hand into the board and at some point he should run out of pieces.

White has a forced mate since black will run out of pieces. Black can escape the mate only if there is a draw by repetition rule that allow it to happen. Call white careless if you want, but there is no alternative mate.

That position doesn't look like a draw to me.  It's only a draw if black's partner can keep him supplied with pieces as fast as he loses them.  And that can't happen indefinitely, since white's partner will be getting lots of pieces while black's partner gets nothing.  It's not going to take long for black to run out of pieces.

The only way it's a draw is if you have the same situation on the other board.

ficslaggersuks - My objection to draws in positions like the one Martin posted has nothing to do with whether the positions are consecutive or not. I have in fact claimed non-consecutive repetition draws twice in the last year alone in (chess) tournament play, once to the great surprise of my opponent!

Instead, it comes down to whether or not we consider (A: available drop pieces), (B: time difference), and (C: other board's position) to be part of what we consider when we are deciding whether a repetition has occurred.

This is not a question with a correct or incorrect answer. It's up to us to decide what the answer should be to create the best possible game.

I answer "yes" to A & C, but "no" to B, whereas you answer "no" to all 3.  And that's OK.

I'd be fine with "yes" to A... even though it is a deviation from standard practice, it seems logical.  Answering "yes" to C doesn't make much sense to me, but wouldn't be the end of the world.  On the other hand, I'm a definite "no" on B... answering "yes" to that seems ridiculous based on my decades of experience playing bughouse and an analogy to the basic rules of chess.

Agreed - considering time difference (especially if not rounded to the nearest second) is tantamount to just not having draws by repetition at all

The "mate by both teams at the same time" draw is probably more common than the repetition draw. Maybe we should be focusing on that one more. In my OTB sessions we play around 50-100 games each session and have around 2-3 games/session end this way on average. It's not a massive number, but it's not trivial either.

On FICS the draw rate is pretty low because it's almost only repetition draws being counted (with the occasional agreement or "both players out of time" usually due to someone accidentally not using autoflag) - the "mate at the same time" games are all decided in one team's favor.

 My big "draw" memory is 2005 Berlin--I take a Q which mates for my partner but my opp (Levon Aronian) Queens a pawn mating me!!...We agreed 'Draw!!'  

I guessing that you are able to draw if you enter focus mode.