| |
BGonline.org Forums
ruling in the Nordic Open SJ
Posted By: Jason Pack In Response To: ruling in the Nordic Open SJ (Steen Grønbech)
Date: Thursday, 9 April 2015, at 10:27 a.m.
Hello All,
Firstly, thank you to Steen for very clearly correcting many of the false rumours surrounding this case that are presented on this thread. Secondly, I think some of you should be ashamed of yourselves for jumping to a million conclusions when you don't know the facts of what happened and a few people on this thread of either inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented them. I think one person in particular has willfully misrepresented what happened to make me look bad and that is a insult I take very seriously.
I operate on the principle that it is common human decency to not say something bad about someone behind their backs even if you don't like them for whatever reason and as I don't read these forums usually that is what this seems to be a smear campaign. And a pretty absurd one at that since anyone who knows me well in either the backgammon world or particularly in my professional life which as an academic and media commentator/personality is completely in the public eye will know the kind of reputation I have for integrity.
Before going into my thoughts about what gentlemanly behavior should/was in this episode, I see it as crucial to get the facts straight. These are all facts that my opponent would and can verify. It is only that the discussion on this thread is based kibbitzers who don't know what happened.
As one can piece together from this thread, I played Victor in the first round of the super jackpot. He was ahead 6-2 to 11. He recubed to 4 in a position where he can leave a shot and then give me a massive recube to 8. This was a blunder and I thought an attempt to bluff or intimidate. I took, he blotted, I recubed and hit the shot. The game continued for a long time and felt to both of us like the winner of this game would win the match. After I closed him out and he re-entered he resigned, saying "good match" offering his hand which I shook and then he very quickly left the table in frustration. it happened very quickly at the end and neither of us didn't believe the match wasn't over. We were not using hand score cards only my red spinning score sheet that neither of us looked at and I believe we both had thought that due to the big recube we were playing for the whole match. Hence, I reported the score to Julie. No one shushed any spectator. This seems to be a distorted rumour from the fact that one of the British players who I know only slightly from London wanted to comment on the recube after we shook hands and I asked him not to do so because it was very tense and it was best not to saying anything. After reporting the match I went up to my room and was about to study the recube to 4 and my recube to 8. Looking at my pictures on my phone of the position as I was about to key it into XG, I realized that after 8 points I only had 10 points and that Victor had resigned early. I still did not know if he done so in error or in frustration at his ill luck.
I then instantly went back downstairs to the tournament room and asked Julie to see Steen to make a ruling. The idea that Victor had to ask for the ruling or that I tried to conceal the episode is absurd. Steen is well aware that I asked for the ruling and I simply asked to know how the rules governed a situation I had never encountered before. Steen asked Victor and I to return to the table and give our version of events. Victor claimed he had only said "good game" and shaken hands and gone for a break. This is clearly not what happened and predisposed me to not wanting to let victor off the hook for his early resignation. If he had simply told me that he had made a mistake and asked for my forgiveness for his error I would have granted it immediately, but that is not what he did. He tried to manipulate the ruling by giving false evidence. Therefore, defenses on this thread that his reputation precludes his making an error of judgement are out of place. I may have made an error of judgement in thinking that the early resignation should stand, but I don't claim to know all the rules or the correct conduct in every BG situation. I do know that if you resign a gammon when you can still get off if you role a lot of doubles it is certainly something you are allowed to do and I don’t think you should be allowed to take that back. If you resign a gammon due to the error of not realizing that you can throw boxes twice and he can throw 21 twice, you have resigned the gammon and that would seem to be an irrevocable thing and not a big deal. Trying to take back such a resignation after the pieces are set up for the next game would be ungentlemanly. As a hobbyist with a real career, I can only guess/intuit what should be right in an analogous situation as this one and as a result I ask for lots of rulings and always want to know exactly how the rules govern a certain situation. After the episode I brought it up with Christian Monk on my own volition to inquire after what he thought the correct conduct was in such a situation as I know he is a man with serious experience of the game.
Now back to the ruling, I said honestly that I did not know what the rules are in such a situation in which both parties thought the match was over and in which one of them resigned early only to realize later that the resignation was early. I told Steen very clearly that I would happily follow whatever his explanation of the rules were on the situation. In the event, Steen said that it is not legal to resign in error and we should play from Crawford, 5-away. I instantly accepted and play resumed. Steen said that this was covered by the issue of 'misrepresenting the score'. I was surprized that this was the ruling, as I assumed that if a player resigns the match is then over and calling it over is not a misrepresentation as resigning ends the match. No if ands or buts.
Therefore malicious rumours about unethical conduct or whatever from my part are absurd and frankly evil. I wonder if the supposed incidents mentioned by Chuck Bower or Vadim happened at all the way they are purported. I recall being stiffed by a online player whose name I have forgotten when he refused to pay money that we had hedged on an online match simply because it wasn’t the round before the money round. No one ever said that the next round was the money round. I just offered a hedge because the next rounds involved a free plane ticket and prestigious live play. I frequently hedge in rounds long before the money and that is no reason to not honour a hedge.
Back to the main point, I believe in always asking for a ruling and always playing by the rules. I am a great advocate for restoring more honour to our game bringing it up to the ethos of games like Bridge which are gentlemanly games with clear codes of conduct and honour. I have mentioned this in my articles especially in the following http://www.libya-analysis.com/media/PrimeTimeBG_2014_0910_Vol05N5_Opinion-article.pdf Sadly, backgammon has lost that and I don't think we can attract the right kind of new players until we recover that and have a more clearly defined sense of honour in the game. I think in response to this episode I might ask to write an article about etiquette and gentlemanly play and how it should apply to backgammon. I would happily do some historical research on the question to find out what traditional understandings of the matter are.
As for what gentlemanly behaviour would constitute in this case, I think the matter is far more complicated that the writers of this thread indicate. Having studied and taught at both Oxford and Cambridge where the ethos of true gentlemanly conduct still governs many interactions, I can tell you that the first rule of a gentleman is to keep his word. In fact the essence of being a gentleman is being someone whose word is gold and can be trusted. In this case, Victor resigned (either out of frustration or in error due to misunderstanding the score, we shall never know for sure because he later pretended that he didn't resign), he then later asked to take that resignation back. This is rescinding or not honouring his word. A gentleman understands sanctity of contract and when you shake on a deal, you honour it even if you entered into that deal by mistaken judgement. Not doing so does not constitutes gentlemanly conduct, I however don't fault Victor for this and I think he is a good guy and a respected player for good reason. I do not want to tarnish his reputation or good name in anyway. He and I are not friends and have a personality clash of sorts, but I know he is a good player and a good guy.
In this instance, I think he suffered from an error of judgement due to frustration. We have all been there and I can accept that and I don't hold any grudge. However for those who say that I 'cheated' in this incident or in that weird colloquialism that I don't fully understand that "I took a shot" at my opponent, they simply don't know the facts of the case and are clearly slanders and malicious gossips. Explaining the facts as I have done and clearly laying them out here will put the kibosh to that talk and make people feel a little ashamed of themselves for conducting a reputational lynching on such flimsy evidence.
As for what I have learned from this episode: I think it would have been best for me to have gone to Victor rather than the TD when I uncovered the error we had both made and preemptively offered to resume the match if he felt he had resigned in error and now wanted to resume play. that is how I would handle such a situation in the future I didn’t know what were the rules governing the situation or even the right thing to do from a fair play/ethical perspective. I still belief the resignation of a gentleman which has been shaken upon should not be able to be rescinded even if given in error. Therefore, I don't however thinking asking the TD on what the ruling is in such a situation was such a bad move on my part and I don't see how it can be construed as acrimonious or filled with ill-intent. I do have much more to say, but this is already a long thread. I do think that those who have incorrectly tarnished my reputation should think about either apologizing or correcting their statements on this thread. We live in an honour based subculture and therefore tainting someone’s reputation or honour incorrectly is a serious infraction indeed.
Lastly, I think I will ask Victor to write a post to corroborate the true version of events and expose who has been spreading such malicious rumours.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.