BGonline.org Forums

NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...

Posted By: mamabear
Date: Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 3:59 a.m.

In Response To: NOT a contentious clock question, but instead... (garyo)

I agree your three plays are the contenders, since the slot looks too big even to me LOL

I don't like 13/9 because it gives up the midpoint for what looks like not that much of a gain. The 9 point is 6 away from the 3, so can't become part of the same prime, and the one checker on the 9 was already a builder for the 5 point anyway. Between the other two it seems close, maybe we should play 8/4 against Ray F because it avoids being hit by 26 from the bar? I'd also let a doubles partner decide this one.

BTW 26 from the bar used to be a lot of other people's roll, but I claim at least part ownership now. That's because I stole it by writing several articles and quizzes where all the problems were 26's from the bar >>

But back to the problem...I don't see how we can get it right without knowing how much time each player has left >>

Messages In This Thread

• NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
  Chuck Bower -- Wednesday, 11 February 2009, at 9:08 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    Bill Riles -- Wednesday, 11 February 2009, at 9:31 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    John O'Hagan -- Wednesday, 11 February 2009, at 10:32 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    garyo -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 1:48 a.m.
    • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
      mamabear -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 3:59 a.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    Stein Kulseth -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 9:21 a.m.
  • Still time to voice your opinion...
    Chuck Bower -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 2:14 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    Stick -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 2:33 p.m.
    • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
      Bill Riles -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 2:45 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    Coolrey -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 3:18 p.m.
    • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
      Stick -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 3:20 p.m.
    • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
      Chuck Bower -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 4:32 p.m.
    • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
      neilkaz -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 6:41 p.m.
  • NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...
    neilkaz -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 3:46 p.m.
  • RO
    Chuck Bower -- Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 6:06 p.m.
    • RO
      John O'Hagan -- Friday, 13 February 2009, at 2:56 p.m.