| |
BGonline.org Forums
redoubling when 2-away?
Posted By: Michael Petch In Response To: redoubling when 2-away? (mtuhtan)
Date: Friday, 14 September 2012, at 12:26 a.m.
What if you modify the situation and it was 5away-2away. Leader holds a 2 cube, cubes (allowed by this rule), trailer takes (4 cube now). Trailer on next turn turns the cube back to 8 for match, and the leader DROPS. I would hate to be the TD that would have to rule in favor of the person that was to drop for match when they were favored to win. The US completion rule (which covers games and match) says: "4.9 COMPLETION. Each game must be rolled to completion, unless ended by passing a double or redouble, or conceding a no-contact position as a single game, gammon or backgammon loss. Players are responsible for playing to the posted match length. The first player to reach the posted match length is the winner." .
As a TD, if I did use US tournament rules (without mods) then I would be likely be approached to review blatant stupidity that caused the person winning to choose a 0% equity position and end of match. By the rules this situation is allowed, and now I have to potentially rule under "1.1 INTERPRETATION. The Tournament Rules and Procedures cannot and should not regulate all possible situations that may arise during a match. No set of rules should deprive the Director of his freedom of judgment or prevent him from finding the solution dictated by fairness and compatible with the circumstances of a particular case."
So as a TD, it may seem upon inspection that this could be considered an area of maintaining the integrity of the tournament. I could rule "it was an obvious accident, and it would be unfair to allow something so obvious to stand" (Imagine if this was the finals and there were side betting, the people who would lose potential winnings would be outraged). Even then, I would rule that the drop for match should stand. What position would I take? That the rules already allow what should have been a dead cube to be turned initially. Clearly this is an equity losing proposition but is allowed under the rules. So why should we turn a blind eye to the original stupidity, but not apply that same logic to stupidity that can end the match?
I'd allows the player to appeal and take it to committee, and I would argue that the rule as written already allows people to lose equity by making a stupid cube play, so why shouldn't it apply to making a stupid error resulting in 0% equity?
In reality, If I were a TD this would be a non issue. To maintain the integrity of my event, and promote a level of fairness I would inform people that I would use the US backgammon rules with well defined changes to avoid this situation. Specifically I would change rule 5.6 to conform to a more sane interpretation of "dead cube".
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.