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

BGonline.org Forums

ruling in Madison

Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Thursday, 10 September 2009, at 4:21 a.m.

In Response To: ruling in Madison (Coolrey)

Jeb gave a very eloquent argument that agreeing to play legal moves is NOT violating any of the rules of the game. If someone makes an illegal move, you have the right to insist that it be made legal. That is what is in the rules. So if two players agree to do that every time, they are agreeing to an option that is stated in the rules. If the two players agree to an option that is not in the rules, THEN they are violating the rules.

Now, the problem is enforceability if the two players agree and one of them doesn't honor the agreement and changes his mind in the middle of the match. As Stick says, he might have difficulty moving the checkers with a knife in his throat. Another way to say this is that is the risk you take if you take someone at their word, but that person is not likely to get away with it more than once. I have my personal list of people I would not "trust" with any agreement...even hedging, unless there were witnesses or it was put in writing....we all do.

But to say that agreeing to legal moves is against the rule is not correct, in my opinion and that of Jeb and others who have carefully gone through the rules and the reasoning.

Now, that doesn't mean that some tournament directors will think differently. I believe in the saying: "Two tournament directors, three opinions."

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.