[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Re: Re: Re: Mary, please...!

Posted By: Chase
Date: Thursday, 26 April 2007, at 12:38 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Re: Mary, please...! (Chuck Bower)

I get the concept. I'm just not seeing how the plays differ substantially in that regard.

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.

These are arguments for staying flexible, and your play may (assuming we're not hit) be more flexible. My judgment is that the risk of being hit outweighs the increase in flexibility. I just don't see what this has to do with TMP, other than, as you point out, the purpose of TMP-avoidance is also to stay flexible.

..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.

I agree, but I'm not seeing how this applies to the current position.

The second class of exceptions is to volunteer TMP when opp is also inflexible (particularly suffering from TMP him/herself).

Ditto.

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...?

Not quite. I'm saying that TMP doesn't seem to be on my radar here, as neither play "can avoid TMP this turn." It sounds like you regard 6/2 as so much more inflexible than 8/4 that our outfield situation is likely to be a lot worse because of it. I'm not seeing that.

I get the impression I'm one of the very few people who even consider it an issue.

I consider it an issue in some positions, but I think, like duplication, it's importance is often exaggerated. (Does that make me a TMP iconoclast?) It's just one of a lot of things to look at, and a lot of the time those other things are more important. In this position, I don't think it's hardly a factor--not because we aren't inflexible, but because the reasonable plays can't really be used to solve the problem.

I do hope you write the article. I almost always learn something from your insights.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.