| |
BGonline.org Forums
Under-resigning and the PAF Backgammon London Open Online 2013
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Under-resigning and the PAF Backgammon London Open Online 2013 (Mike Clapsadle)
Date: Sunday, 12 May 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
The question of whether someone can offer to pay a single game when it is still possible to win a double game is A DIFFERENT QUESTION than what should be done after you have an established rule.
Personally, I do agree that if a player wants to concede a single game and the other player wants to accept, they should be allowed to do that. In fact, in actual tournaments I have done this, saying to my opponent, once there is no contact, that I will give him "no gammon" and he accepts and we start the next game. Of course I only do this when I believe it is mathematically impossible for me to win a gammon and mathematically impossible for him to win the game (in my opinion), but keep in mind that I am an open player with 56 years of experience, and my opponents are also open players with many years of experience. No spectator or tournament director who might be watching would ever care or object that we might technically be breaking the rules when we both make this agreement.
I am sure the rules were written to disallow this to protect novices, intermediates, and even open player who might simply be tired or careless, and also because some people think it is possible there might be some kind of match-throwing or collusion going on. Others might think this is not good for spectators, some of whom may not be knowledgeable enough to appreciate that a gammon or win is not possible if the game were completed.
But whether we "like" or dislike a current rule or practice, we have an obligation to live by the existing rules unless or until they are changed, and the TD has an obligation to enforce the rules and standards of the game.
As I wrote earlier, we have a very slippery slope if anyone runs a tournament, live or on line, without stating what rules will be applied, as some of us think some things are acceptable and some other may disagree. Even to state that "the standard rules" of backgammon will apply would be misleading, because in the case of tournament backgammon, there is no "standard" world-wide. However, most written rules that I know of do not allow for settlements or under-resigning, so it is logical to assume that if nothing is stated, that is what should be applied.
There are many current rules I don't like and think should either be changed or at least stated better and also include specific penalties to apply to infractions in the current, written rules, and Jeb and Chuck and I have already, painstakingly, after a year of collaboration with each other and many other experts, produced a document that I believe solves many of the issues many of us have had with the rules for years. But we still include the current rule, as overall, to protect all, we do think it is best. And the real reason I believe it is best to keep the current rule is this: it prevents the possibility of a misunderstanding or accident that could lead to conflict or unpleasantness. One play may say something other than "I'll give you no gammon" or other than "I concede 2 points" etc that the other player may have mistakenly thought was said (particularly if there are language differences or lots of noise in the room), and the other player may wipe the checkers. Now what happens with the first player says, "What the hell are you doing! I didn't say I concede, I said maybe I should concede!" Or maybe he said, jokingly, "Why don't you concede a gammon?"
And again, the current rule protects players who might not realize they could still win a gammon, or simply players who "forget" that a gammon pays double or that a gammon still matters at that particular score.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.