| |
BGonline.org Forums
CA State Champion*/LA Calcutta {long, boring}
Posted By: Coolrey
Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2009, at 2:53 p.m.
It seems to me that I have wasted a lot of time here and I am pretty convinced that I should/could find something more constructive to do. Instead of doling out advice for free here I ought to be writing a book that I could sell, for instance.
There was a controversial ruling in my match with Joe Russel in LA. I gave this a lot of thought before I decided to post, but in the end it is just such foul BS I have to report it and let my peers decide. Some of it will dovetail with the LA Calcutta Boycott issue mentioned by Bill Riles.
What is the correct way to play an opening 43?
Looking at Stick's stats, two down and 24/21, 13/9 are the top two plays (tied). The THIRD best play is 24/20, 13/10. I always play 24/21, 13/9 myself unless I want a gammon, and then I would bring two down. If leading: split, if behind: two builders. No other plays considered.
Thats background for the following:
I was trailing 7-9/11 to Joe when I doubled him in a position he could not take and he passed and reached over to "center" the clock. I wrote down the score and adjusted the score chart. The clock and my score chart were on opposite ends of the board.
We rolled to start the next game and I got a 6, Joe got a 5. I moved my checker and went to hit my clock which was RUNNING. I pointed this out to Joe, (before hitting it to stop it), who had managed to start my time clock when he was supposed to pause or center it. Some of Pat Gibson's clocks were sensitive and at least one had had this same problem in previous matches, so I doubt it was intentional. However, I was not going to miss a chance to gain a psychological edge on Joe, so I said: "Anything to get an advantage, huh Joe"? He responded sarcastically and then he rolled his dice and got a 43. He played 24/20, 13/10, and hit his clock.
Now I picked up the dice and put them in my cup and began to shake and I made a decision to ask for a ruling. I reached over and paused my clock and called for Patrick. Some months back my friend Norm Wiggins had been remiss in doing this and he lost nearly 3 full minutes off of his clock (from 11 something to 8 and change) when he was playing Joe. As some of you will remember Norm's clock ran while he cleaned up a drink Joe spilled. In the end, Norm lost on time when there was only a 30 second adjustment made. So, because it was WRONG that my clock was running after a game that ended with Joe's clock running... I thought I ought to set the record straight.
Pat came over and asked what the problem was. I explained and Joe said put whatever he wants on it... and Pat said something like 30 seconds. I realized that with 13 seconds delay having to run off before my clock balance started declining I could not have lost very much... and I asked for 10, which was probably STILL too much. I merely did this for the principle of the thing... and to let Joe know I was paying attention.
Because I called for that ruling I had made sure that I had done everything right, down to the letter... I picked up the dice and had them in my cup, and then I paused my clock. The dice were still IN MY CUP, when Pat set the clock down and walked off. Joe sat there. The clock was "centered". I told Joe: Okay Joe, now you hit the clock and it is my roll... He hit the clock, without complaint, and I rolled.
Out popped 33, a particularly effective response to Joe's play of 24/20, 13/9. I pointed on him and made the three point and hit the clock. Joe looked at the position for a moment, and then said: "I think your rolled twice in a row"
ALERT: *** CHEAP SHOT ***
(What would have been said if I had rolled 52, I wonder?)
Then he started to ask kibitzers if they saw it, (I told them not to comment because it is not the correct protocol). Joe now asked for a ruling of his own.
Because I had asked for my time ruling there had been a now long delay between plays, and that created some confusion. Joe claimed that he rolled first and made his play... There was no denying where he PUT his checkers, which was on the 20 point and 10 point. But now he was saying that he would have played it differently in response to my opening 65. He said he would have played 13/9 and 24/21, one hundred times out of one hundred because of "more shots". That was kind of plausible, and in fact it is the right play according to Stick's second roll stats. But Joe was asserting that he had rolled FIRST... and his checkers were played 24/20, and 13/10. That is a fact that is not in dispute, where his checkers were on the board.
My question is this: If you can't make a play that is any better than 3rd place on the first turn, how can you claim to be an expert on the response to the opening roll?
If someone asked me about the correct response to an opening 65, and wanted to know which play got more shots... I would be tempted to say that 24/20 beats 24/21, because it covers the 11 point where the 65 roller might want to put a builder out of direct range of the 21 point. Anyway because of the QF, I might make a mistake in that case... because 24/21, and 13/9 still ranks ahead of 24/20, 13/10.
Now I don't claim to be an expert on those little nuances and that is why Stick and MCG can call me a fishcake. I just would have played 24/21, and 13/9 in both scenarios OTB, myself. So, I would have played better than Joe did... No matter who is right about who went first.
Joe contends he would have made the right play if I moved my 65 first, despite the fact that he would have to have moved his checkers into only the 3rd best configuration if we were to believe his side of the story.
Ok, so I explained to Pat that the dice were in my cup, as they had been when he came over to make the time ruling. A place they cannot legally reside unless Joe had made the last play and hit his clock. I said what Joe stated could be possible at the time because he even had me confused with his BS... But the dice were in my cup and that is all there is to it. It was my turn, as I claimed to be the case.
Now Pat quizzed the kibitzers as to what they saw. Bob Glass sat next to Joe, and he said: "I didn't see anything". Richard Armbruster said: "I don't want to say anything". Only Norm Wiggins claimed to have seen and remembered the sequence. Joe said he trusted Norm and I said "ask him", and Pat did ask him. Norm replied that my 65 came first, and Joe threw himself back in his chair like he got shot and made some exclamation of disbelief. Patrick upon seeing this stated: ROLL the DICE. That is how the dispute was settled. I lost and Joe got to roll twice in a row.
Despite the forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts being in MY favor, that was the ruling.
It should be noted here that Norm Wiggins is my friend. My 78 year old friend that I watch out for, and a brother firefighter. It should also be reported that Norm had a conflict of interest since we had traded 10% of eachother's action. A judge would have to recuse himself based on that.
It should also be noted that Bob Glass is a friend of Joe's, and one of the principal players in the unofficial LA Calcutta Boycott... Which has stretched over the last couple of tournaments now. Bob and Jona Alexander and Steve Sax and Joe don't participate. This timing roughly coincides with the LA tournament where I had another beef with Joe over a clock mistake he made, and me challenging his integrity over the Norm Wiggins incident.
It was comical to watch Jona Alexander come up and wish Joe good luck in our match... Funnier still to see them HUG when he won! Jona is the same guy that Joe beat up a long time ago over a money dispute in a chouette @ the old Cavendish West or the AR club, I can't remember which.
That is not really relevant information but since Joe claimed that I threaten people with physical violence to deflect criticism last time I challenged his integrity, I thought it might be pertinent to note that he has had at least one more ACT of physical violence on the backgammon scene than I ever had.
I know this much: I would not have been hugging anybody, (even Norm), if I had beaten Joe in the round of 4 of the undefeated bracket. Big deal! You still have to win another match to cash in the tournament.
Joe won the next match and the final vs. David Rubin. I lost to David or I would have had a chance for the ultimate revenge. That would have been sweet.
Too bad.
As for the boycott of the Calcutta... I told Patrick before the tournament that I noticed it before and he might want to get another auctioneer because these guys were probably not going to show. He likes having me do it and didn't really believe they would do that, I guess, but now he knows. Pat likes to believe in the good side of people, while I remain skeptical. Ironically enough it is difficult in this day and age to run a profitable backgammon tournament. It is even MORE difficult to make a profit TRAVELLING to another state for their tournament.
So, if Pat Gibson folds up shop because his calcutta makes only $3K instead of up to $7K... Then who have the boycotters punished? Now they won't have a tournament, or TWO, in LA. They will have to travel... and guess what? I might be the auctioneer there too! The boycott does not hurt me... I get none of the money, though Pat used to do that. I decided that I don't want my contribution to take anything away from the tournament's bottom line. So, I either do it for free... Like I did in NY Metropolitan last year, or as in this case... Patrick gets a few "room nights" for generating so much business and splits them among his staffers. I get one, and that costs him nothing... but it saves me some expenses. I like that arrangement, it's win/win.
I don't care if Bob Glass, Steve Sax, Jona Alexander and especially Joe Russel like me. I don't even care if Paul Weaver or David Startin like me, to be honest with you. I try to do what is right and what is good for the game of backgammon. I have a name for spades, I call them spades.
Nobody paid much attention last time I challenged former World Champion and new California State Champion: Mr. Joe Russell. If you didn't believe me then, maybe you believe me now. It's up to you to decide.
For reference you might ask Patrick Gibson, or Norm Wiggins, or Neil Garvey if you don't trust me.
Joe Russel will ask for a ruling even when he knows he is dead wrong. The worst that can happen to him is that he will be stuck in his current predicament. More often the director will leave the decision up to the dice. He can gain from that, but you can't. Furthermore, when questioned Joe can always blame the ruling on the director! I guess that leaves his conscience clear. (?)
Put Joe on your dream team or board of directors if you want, but I will not participate if you do. Boycotts can go both ways, gentlemen.
Give Jona and Bob Glass a hug for me, Mr. California State Champion*.
This is going to be my final post @ bgonline. It is a great place for people to blog about backgammon, but I want to relax in retirement and try to do something more constructive. It's time I start getting paid for lessons, I think.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.