| |
BGonline.org Forums
illegally borne off checker rule
Posted By: Rich Munitz In Response To: illegally borne off checker rule (Chuck Bower)
Date: Saturday, 22 August 2009, at 10:37 p.m.
"BTW, I'm curious. If this happened in a match you were playing, and assuming the perpetrator (who bore off the checker) was neither a friend nor an enemy of yours, would you accept the legal play and then (if he never bore off any of the remaining 14) accept the gammon? "
What if my opponent simply placed his checker on the bar instead of off the board? Would I let the play stand? No. Would I be entitled to under the rules? Yes. Could he be gammoned as a result of such an obvious screw-up? Yes. So what's the difference, except that my opponent would be happier having the checker removed from play and still not off the gammon than on the bar if given the choice? I see no problem with the rule as written. The solution? Don't be a moron and illegally remove the checker from play here. Answer to your question? I see no more of a moral conflict in accepting a gammon from the illegal move than from accepting the illegal move in the first place.
As I stated, I think the provision in the rules for allowing an illegal play to stand should be removed and it should be required to be corrected. I'd be perfectly happy if the rule under debate were clarified to state that a checker removed illegally from play with all the checkers in the homeboard is borne off. I'd be equally happy if the rule were clarified to state that the checker were not borne off. Even if a rule is not logically ambiguous, if it raises questions of interpretation from intelligent people, it should be clarified - somewhere. I'm 100% with Phil. The idea that there should be a standard living, breathing guide to these kinds of situations is a good one.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.