[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Proposed rewording

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Thursday, 8 December 2011, at 5:05 p.m.

In Response To: to Stein or Stick (for Stick's opening theory) (Timothy Chow)

Thank you, Tim, for the illumination.

Rule #8: If on the second roll your opponent rolls double 4s or double 5s and uses the entire roll to make an offensive point do not touch your back checkers on the third roll.

As Stick's long after-paragraph (and other situations not covered) attest, exceptions are abundant, even when both sides play perfectly (e.g., 54S-44P-xx, 31P-44P-33 or -66, etc.), and more so when he doesn't (64P-44P-65, etc.). Moreover, I think the wording inadvertently limits scope. To satisfy what I believe to be Stick's intent (as I have independently created a similar rule), I propose this wording:

    If the opponent correctly makes his 5pt with 44 or his 3pt with 55 on the second roll for money, do not separate your back checkers on the third roll.

(If deemed necessary, one can insert "and you still have your 24pt" after "second roll," though without it one can arguably solve cases like 54S-44P-11 and 43S-44P-32.)

Or, shorter is

    After Opp's (correct) 44P or 55P for money, do not separate your back checkers on the third roll.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.