|
BGonline.org Forums
xxP-61P-41
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: xxP-61P-41 (Ian Shaw)
Date: Wednesday, 28 December 2011, at 4:02 p.m.
Yes, thanks, the first 52 was a typo, I meant to type 54. Repeating my paragraph:
"Finally, note that Blue's opening 31P has blocked White's 54 (a move later), and his 53P has likewise blocked 52, and playing 41U takes full advantage of White's unsplittable 4 or 2. Playing 41U is not as efficient in conjunction with 64P and 42P, because White is happy to use her (blocked) 51 or 53 to hit on her 5pt."
By "playing 41U takes full advantage of White's unsplittable 4 or 2", am I right in understanding that White can't split with a four after 31P or a two after 53P, and these numbers won't hit loose on the White's five point, so all White is left with is stacking on her forward points or exposing a blot in the outfield. As you point out, after 64P and 42P the equivalent blocked splitting rolls would now successfully hit the chequer advanced by 41U.
Yes, but in case specificity might be glossed over, it is important to realize that it is 51, 52, 53 and 54 that are primarily compared (spotlighted in turn, respectively against their 64P, 53P, 42P and 31P counterparts), due to the fact that White's 5 is already blocked (i.e., 6pt+xpt is owned). The only other combination stymying the back checkers is 64P+61 (by virtue of owning 8pt+2pt), for which Blue's S (rather than U) exploits White's awkward ace. Looking at the 4 or 2 in isolation (i.e., without the 5) doesn't get to the heart of the matter because many of those rolls are playable against S (e.g., 43U, 62Z). Simply 5x (where x is the other blocked number) by itself carries plenty of weight when we're reconciling margin swings of this size (i.e., not large but still meaningful).
Nack
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.