| |
BGonline.org Forums
Exploiting LM rules?!
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Exploiting LM rules?! (Phil Simborg)
Date: Friday, 10 June 2016, at 4:56 p.m.
Exactly the same thought occurred to me, following Martin's example: that of one of the versions of the premature roll rule, along with two other scenarios.
Of the three alternatives that are possible, probably the least desirable is the one where such a roll never stands? I don't recall ever playing in such an event, but I do strongly recall a heads up session, many years ago, where it cropped up. I've always liked to get the ground rules sorted before any session, and my opponent elected that fast rolls should not stand. I noticed that he had some tendency to perform such rolls, particularly when bearing off, but I didn't say anything because I didn't want any unpleasantness or accusations of pedantry, so all the rolls were allowed. Then, in a close bear off, probably with at least a 4 cube, he rolled slightly early once again. It was a 21, and he immediately took the roll back! I don't recall whether I allowed him to get away with this, but I do recall to objecting to it and, that this was the first and last time we ever played.
By far the best version of this rule is where the opponent of the fast roller decides whether it stands. In a Chicago Point poll this was a fairly clear first choice.
Another situation is where a player does not roll the dice simultaneously. He created the situation, or at least the ambiguity, particularly if he had declined to use a baffle box where, because of the second or so that it takes for dice to pass through, it practically eliminates such occurrences. Why then should a player be allowed to question the validity of such a roll after he rolls an anti-joker? Surely, as with premature rolls, only the opponent should be able to annul the roll?
Finally, a player might produce an invalid roll because they failed to shake their dice sufficiently (or at all), or because they didn't release them from high enough, for example. Thankfully, I have never experienced a player who claimed such a roll of theirs should not stand, whether it was a bad one or not. But I don't know that nobody else hasn't, nor that it will never happen in the future.
I recently sent a number of Rules change proposals to the EUBGF and the UKBGF (who share the same rules set). I chose not to include such proposals, as I felt that setting the bar too high might increase the chance of having no changes accepted. Various rules do refer to such rolls as (always) being invalid, both with non-simultaneous ones or where the requirements of a random roll are not properly met. Surely though, once the fact has been established, only the innocent party should have any say on whether the roll stands?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.