| |
BGonline.org Forums
I posed this ??? to some others via email...
Posted By: rory In Response To: illegally borne off checker rule (Bob Koca)
Date: Thursday, 20 August 2009, at 9:16 p.m.
I thought this was a very interesting question so I sent it in an email to Bill Davis, Carol, Howard, MFIC, and a few others...Bill forwarded it to Danny Kleinman as well. I have received responses from Bill, Howard, MFIC, and Danny. All of them aggree that this is not the intended purpose of the rule. It is only meant to apply to the starting position and instances where a checker is accidentally removed. The allowance of the checker to be born off does not make the play legal but does supersede the rule and save gammon.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.