| |
BGonline.org Forums
Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee (adambulldog)
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2009, at 5:15 a.m.
Let's say that I have 4 checkers left and you have two checkers in the outfield and you are racing to get off the gammon. You roll a 5-4 and you are not sure how to play it. One way you give yourself every possible roll but 4-4 to get off the gammon if I don't roll doubles, and another way you can give yourself 4-4, but now you don't get off if you roll a 1.
You get your best of the two because you don't move the 5-4. I then roll, and if I roll doubles and bear off all my checkers, you are gammoned, as you would have been no matter what you rolled. If I don't roll doubles, now you roll. Let's say you roll a 6-1. First you play your 5-4 in a manner that the 6-1 takes off a checker and you don't get gammoned. Or let's say you rolled a 4-4. Then you would first play your 5-4 in a way that takes a checker off with 4-4.
The reason for the rule is this:
1) It saves a lot of time in a situation that doesn't matter most of the time...instead of your figuring out all the odds on what gets you off, the game moves quickly. If I roll doubles, it didn't matter how you moved your checkers. 2) Once in a while it does matter...getting to see the next roll will save you a gammon. I would say it helps maybe 1 out of 10 times, tops. But that's fine, because we are keeping someone from getting hurt too badly and in the long run, it evens out.
"Purists" like Jake and Matt and others don't like the rule....but the majority rules and our majority simply doesn't like to sit there and watch someone spend 5 minutes counting all the ways to get off the gammon on the next roll when it probably isn't going to matter any way and when his decision is often just a guess anyway.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.