| |
BGonline.org Forums
Why so hard to change a frigging rule in this frigging game?
Posted By: phil simborg In Response To: Cleveland ABT Official Invitation--about clocks and baffle boxes (roadkillbooks)
Date: Tuesday, 23 February 2016, at 8:00 a.m.
No question that backgammon should be played with one set of dice, and I agree that a clock is the best way to signify the end of a turn, rather than tapping, which can be ambiguous.
One set of dice and hitting the clock (even if you only use it to signify the end of the turn and not as a clock at all) eliminates many problems including:
a player picking up his dice and then a dispute about what was rolled;
eliminates fast rolling;
eliminates those silly, ambiguous rules about if you reach for your dice, or put your hand above the dice, or adjust them slightly, you might have signified the end of your turn--the turn ends when the clock is punched;
reduces the risk of someone switching dice or having a set of defective dice that works to his advantage;
reduces the annoyance of your opponent shaking or playing with his dice while it is still your turn;
You now have to buy fewer dice!
With all of these advantages of using a single set of dice, why isn't that the rule? Can someone provide a good reason, or any reasons that using two sets of dice is better? Can someone make a reasonable argument that the above reasons are not good for the game?
Is there any reason to keep it the "old way" except that is what people are used to and people just don't like change, and anyone who recommends a change "must not love the game."
Why is it so damn hard to get reasonable rule changes accepted when the rules are clearly better for the game?
By the way, when I first made the suggestion of using one set of dice over 25 years ago I was almost banned from playing at my club. And I don't have to tell you the reaction when I recommended a few other changes....most of which we now have in the current rules today!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.