| |
BGonline.org Forums
Re: Re: Mary, please...!
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: Re: Mary, please...! (Chase)
Date: Wednesday, 25 April 2007, at 10:12 p.m.
For one thing, we're starting different points (2-point vs. 4-point).
Starting the 4-point leaves two available builders (sometimes even if we get hit :). Next turn we can continue that theme. Presumably both your and my goal will be to cover the new blot. I believe my choice of play gives more options to do that. Further, after you cover the blot (with one die) you will have to play the remainder of the roll. I think that as well is easier with my play.
Of course this is along the lines of...
...The general principle behind TMP avoidance is simply flexibility. If one of your (seven) TMP points is easily sacrificed then the principle is watered down. Those are, in my experience, one class of exceptions. The second class of exceptions is to volunteer TMP when opp is also inflexible (particularly suffering from TMP him/herself).
There are a couple of loose parallels (with TMP avoidance) in other parts of backgammon. One is the oft-discussed Fram ("pay me now or pay me later") situations. Another is during contact bearoff when often leaving more immediate shots is preferable. [I had a good example the other day -- I should post it here.] Simply I'm talking about a long term goal which has conflicting short term consequences.
I think you're saying that we can avoid TMP this turn (with some risk of getting sent back) but then we'll likely be faced with the same decision next turn -- volunteering TMP. So why not do the flipside and maybe we'll never have the risk...? Good question. I need to think more about that.
I guess I should have collected a lot of TMP situations and written an article. I doubt anyone else is in position to do that. (I get the impression I'm one of the very few people who even consider it an issue.)
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.