| |
BGonline.org Forums
"Hit/Most/6" rule spelled out
Posted By: Taper_Mike In Response To: "Hit/Most/6" rule spelled out (Nack Ballard)
Date: Wednesday, 9 November 2011, at 11:14 p.m.
In the prior post, Nack wrote: Challenge: In a new post, answer all the questions in your post...
OK, I'll do my best. Of course, most of you have already seen my best, so please, no laughing!
Hit Convention
1. Is hitting a qualitative or quantitative issue? Does a play that hits twice, for instance, rank higher in a Nactation family than a play that hits only once?
Hitting is a quantitative issue: the more, the merrier. Two hits are better than one. The only exceptions, of course, are in the H (Hit) and X (Hit and split) families, where the family definitions preclude a second hit. Perhaps, a second hit could occur incidentally in the X (Hit and split) family, but it would be odd not to nactate such a play with K (Kill).
2. The H (Hit) family includes in its definition a preference to hit on the highest point possible. Does the Hit Convention include a similar preference?
Yes, the Hit Convention does include this preference.
3. If the answer to question 2 is, "Yes," does that mean that the preference to hit on the highest point possible has been removed from the definition of H (Hit)?
Yes, it has been removed. As the Hit/Most/Six Rule is applied to all plays in the H (Hit) family, it would be redundant to include the "highest-point-possible" requirement in both.
4. While we're on the subject, does the K (Kill) family also include in its definition a preference to hit on the highest point possible? After the first hit in a K (Kill) play has already been selected, should the second hit in a K (Kill) play then hit on the highest point still remaining given the fact of the first hit? Obviously, this is pretty abstruse stuff. Your opponent will have to leave a bunch of blots around before any of it kicks in.
Whatever may have been the case in the past, the K (Kill) family definition no longer includes a preference to hit on the highest points possible. As with the H (Hit) family, such a requirement would be redundant. Unlike H (Hit) and X (Hit and split), however, the Hit Convention does impose a requirement upon K (Kill) plays to hit a third and fourth time, if at all possible, in order to earn the capital "K."
Most Points Convention
1. For purposes of the Most Points Convention, does the location of an owned point matter? By the Most Points Convention, for instance, does owning the 5pt outrank owning the 24pt? Let me make clear that I understand that the 6pt Convention does include a provision for ranking plays according to the location of an owned point. I am not asking about that.
Quantity, rather than location, is the only thing that matters. Location is handled by the 6pt Convention.
6pt Convention
1. Does the following describe the proper procedure when comparing two plays under the Owned Points Convention? Begin at the 6pt, and search outwards in both directions one point at a time until you find a point that is made in one position and not in the other. The position in which the point is made outranks the other.
Basically, yes. A more complete procedural definition is:
Begin at the 6pt, and search outwards in both directions one point at a time until you find a point that is made in one position and not in the other. The position in which the point is made outranks the other. In the event that the positions have points made at equal distances from the 6pt, but the point is located in the inner board in one and the outer board in the other, then the position with the inner board point outranks the other.
2. What about ties which pit ownership of an inner-board point against ownership of an outer-board point? Does owning the 5pt, for instance, rank higher than owning the 7pt?
In the event of a tie, the inner board point is the winner. See above.
Mike
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.