| |
BGonline.org Forums
Why the obsession with forcing early cube commitment?
Posted By: Albert Steg In Response To: Why the obsession with forcing early cube commitment? (Tom Keith)
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2018, at 2:46 p.m.
I agree with Tom on this -- the rules are making a much bigger issue of this than it needs to be. In addition to his points, is the informational value of a "head fake" non-cube here really all that valuable? As Phil points out, a serious backgammon player should be able to exercise at least this minimal amount of self control and composure, not to betray his inclinations -- and it's much more common for undisciplined players to give away this sort of information without an opponent's prompting, usually immediately after rolling a bad number themselves.
On top of that, is it even clearer that the best punishment is to force the transgressor to double? Wouldn't it be a more effective deterrent to say such a player *can't* double? After all, if he's trying to gauge his opponent's inclination to pass, it's probably more likely too be a Double than not. So even the "punishment" seems arbitrary and not necessarily in the interests of the "victim." To really punish the violator, you'd have to give his opponent the option to decide whether the cube is offered or not, and this would open the door to just horrible over-the-board altercations far out of proportion to the problem that this sort of rule is trying to solve.
This really seems to me an instance of over-regulating the game in response too what is really more of an anti-social behavior than a substantive manipulation that impacts match outcomes. Players who intentionally fake-cube to gauge reaction deserve the reputation they will earn through such actions.
Rich is a local Boston player who is just beginning to venture out into the ABT tournament milieu. I'm really thankful that the first time this issue came up for him it was across the board from a classy player like Roberto, who handled it appropriately, with a soft touch. That video sequence provides a nice example of how to handle a rule dispute over the board - even if it turns out Roberto may have been incorrect according to the letter of the law.
I also agree with Phil that rules need to be clear and I suppose the "touching the cube" standard is reasonable. After all, one can "reach" for a cube without putting one's hand out anyway -- you could orchestrate a shifting of shoulder and head, along with facial expression to imply you are cubing. Or you could play verbal games. Using the touch rule eliminates all these kinds of ambiguous actions as matters of concern.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.