|
BGonline.org Forums
Legal moves and first-order/second-order rules
Posted By: Dorn Bishop In Response To: Legal moves and first-order/second-order rules (Timothy Chow)
Date: Thursday, 9 June 2016, at 3:43 a.m.
Assuming I understand your definitions correctly, if a "first order rule is broken, an irregularity has occurred requiring some remedy. Determining the appropriate remedy is governed by whatever "second-order" rule is in place, right?
Sounds simple in theory, but conundrums arise in backgammon (and in real life) whenever the first-order rule and/or the second-order rule are either not in place, or not expressly stated, or when one or the other is not clear and applicable to the fact pattern at hand. When one or more of those circumstances arise, the TD either has to find the existence and application of an unspecified, implied rule, or he has to make up and apply a new rule and/or remedy based on analogous principles.
So take the Chicago tournament example you cite. Was it a "first-order" violation or a "second-order" violation? I would say that it was definitely a first-order violation because it involved a failure by Steve to complete a valid TURN which, in the case of game clock use, does not end until Steve's plunger is hit. It had nothing to do with the "legal moves" rule. However, Rory's posted rules failed to define what constitutes the completion of a valid turn when clocks are in use. So what to do?
Ultimately, Rory first found the existence of an implied, "first-order" rule: "a valid turn when clocks are in use is not over until the player's plunger is hit." I don't think Rory considered that to be a new, made-up rule.
Now, I can see how the idea of a TD gleaning implied rules out of thin air may sound troubling to some, but the idea of implied rules themselves should not be surprising: consider that there were literally thousands of other unstated, implied, and generally-accepted first-order rules in effect in Chicago -- such as getting to play four 6's when a player rolls boxcars. I'm speculating, but maybe what troubles some people about Rory's ruling is that clocks are still relatively new and players do not yet comfortably consider clock activation to be an integral, final component of a player's turn.
In any case, that was Rory's "first-order" decision, whether you agree with it or not. And based on that decision, Rory then decided that the position and clock reserve time should be "rewound" to the point when Steve coulda shoulda hit the plunger in the first place. Again, that result made logical sense whether viewed as simply a restoration of the status quo ante or as a remedy for a rules "violation" that had occurred.
But which was it? Call it a "remedy" and it sounds like a second-order rule. Call it a "restoration" and it sounds like no second-order rule was even implicated. I don't know and I don't think it matters. In the end, whatever first-order/second-order distinction one may attempt to draw based on the Chicago example strikes me as arbitrary and meaningless.
But back to you: why do you think it matters?
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.