| |
BGonline.org Forums
Dice on a Checker
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Dice on a Checker (Bill Riles)
Date: Saturday, 10 December 2016, at 3:09 a.m.
"If you don't like the new rule, fine; just say it, but don't feed us a bunch of bullshit excuses.
I'm tired of players telling us how confusing and difficult the new rule is. It is not."
Bill Riles
Ya know, I was thinking exactly the same thing about another new rule (employed by UKBGF/EUBGF). It was succinctly described recently by Peter Bennet:
"When it is agreed (or obvious) that my opponent's dice are cocked I simply double punch the clock. This has cost him no time, and restores the situation exactly to how things were at the end of my turn, i.e his delay time has been started and he needs to pick up the dice."
I've played it for years in private games, and it's a piece of cake. Ask Paul Weaver, Eric McAlpine or Jon Barnes for example. Unlike the 'on chequer' rule it completely negates the advantage of one player rolling into the outer boards. Your rule reduces but, in no way, eliminates cocked dice; the other option (that you discard) renders the impact of cocked dice upon a players clock time obsolete. To quote Joe Russell:
"In most human endeavors it is considered an advancement when something is created that saves time and energy. We should be happy with such a creation!"
Of course, he was referring to the new rule that you champion, but he could just as easily have been referring to something else that I believe he's a big fan of. Such a creation is the baffle box. My experience is that it reduces cocked dice by 90% and, also, does not create a clock imbalance for one player over the other. But you reject it.
Years ago, at my opponents bidding, I played the 'on chequer' rule in a money session, and it wasn't long before it created an extremely ambiguous situation - one which could easily have been missed - which was made more unpleasant for me because my opponent thought he'd rolled a great one. Upon very close inspection he agreed that it was not valid, and readily agreed to immediately revert to the old rule. Random is not enough (and it's a word cheaply used in our game anyway); it also has to be unambiguous. When rules are ambiguous, then less scrupulous and also simply more forthright players can gain an advantage with a more honest and/or passive opponent when the occasion presents. Even if ambiguity only occurs occasionally it is still not a trivial matter, as one player has expressed that it is on this forum. Sorry, but without a baffle box I see ambiguous rolls quite frequently. The integrity of the rolling is a precious thing; it is purity.
The Tournament Backgammon Rules and Standards Guide provides a great way for players to try out your new rule: if both players agree then they can use it!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.