|
BGonline.org Forums
Rules Breakthrough in LA
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: Rules Breakthrough in LA (Phil Simborg)
Date: Monday, 3 June 2013, at 12:07 a.m.
I much prefer to play 'legal moves'. I typically play in accord with 'legal moves' regardless of whether the topic has been addressed by mutual agreement, or by rule, prior to the match.
Recently, in Chicago, I never gave a second thought to allowing one opponent to roll and play after he had inadvertently hit the clock, without rolling, immediately after I had danced and hit the clock -- though I was a favorite to enter and he had a blot in his home board. We had not addressed 'legal moves'. He is a gentleman, an honorable person, and a very good player. I cannot imagine having done otherwise, I wouldn't wish to win in such a manner.
However, I have always considered 'legal moves' an unenforceable rule. There is no way to discern between when someone fails to notice an illegal play or chooses not to see an illegal play that is advantageous. There is no way to discern between when someone makes an accidental illegal play and when someone attempts to gain advantage by making an illegal play -- and then fails to notice the illegal play. Oftentimes, the dice do not remain on the table. The roll may be contested. Yet, in 'legal moves' play, the honorable and principled player is always expected, and bound, to act appropriately; the less than honorable and less than principled player (there are some, fortunately they are very few) is free to advantageously disregard the rule without repercussion.
I will gladly play 'legal moves' with anyone; however, if I discover, or strongly suspect, my opponent is not reciprocating (and is taking advantage of the situation) I want the freedom to not be bound by a provision placing me at a disadvantage.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.