BGonline.org Forums

NOT a contentious clock question, but instead...

Posted By: Stein Kulseth
Date: Thursday, 12 February 2009, at 9:21 a.m.

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

If it is correct not to hit, please don't tell me about it. The equity I gain from getting this play right, will then be dwarfed by starting to make hugely wrong plays in other situations.

For the 4 I like 13/9 adding a point on my side, adding another builder for the big 5 point, and securing the builder that is already there. Also, compared to 22/18 there are fewer hits in the outfield (11,12,15,26,53=9 hits vs 11,12,14,15,16,22,24,26,53,54,56=20).

8/4 goes in past the 5 point which disqualifies it totally, and 9/5 while nice if it works does look too big.

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.