Randomly choose two patterns from the GofBook, for example Composite and Chain Of Responsibility.
Designate one pattern as the source, and one as the sink.
One player starts with the source and describes how that pattern can be used to solve a typical problem, in conjunction with another pattern.

''In our DistributedObjectSystem, our basic distributed object is called an entity. An entity can be a subclass of entity called a manager, which manages the lifecycle of other entities. The manager can be regarded as a Composite.
Some of the entities represent business objects which exist in third-party systems, e.g. our enterprise asset management system. The entity exposes methods which allow our system to access some of the functionality of the EAM system. Hence the entity is acting as an Adapter.''

In this move, the player relates Composite to Adapter.
The next player must relate Adapter with something.
The loser is the player who relates a pattern with the sink.
----
Huh? shouldn't that be: "the ''winner'' is the player who relates a pattern with the sink."

''For pattern fans who are trying to win, it's more interesting if you lose by reaching the sink. Not 100% sure of the MorningtonCrescent rules, but the objective of GofMorningtonCrescent should be to learn about patterns.''

No, no, the object of GofMorningtonCrescent is clearly to learn about the links that do not exist between the patterns which follow each other when playing by the given set of rules.  By the way, you only win Mornington Crescent when playing the reverse rules.  Otherwise you win by losing.

----
Standard RitterStube competition rules:
	* start from the CompositePattern (because you always start from CompositePattern. If I had three patterns, they'd all be Composite)
	* win by getting to the MementoPattern (MementoMori)

----
''St. John's Wood'', that frees all the diagonals
'''below'''
the line.

See MorningtonCrescent