BGonline.org Forums

History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 12:35 p.m.

In Response To: History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule (neilkaz)

Before campaigning to abolish the Jacoby rule, one should think carefully about whether it achieves its intended purpose of reducing downtime.

It seems fair to assume that at least when it was first established, the Jacoby rule was successful in reducing downtime. Otherwise, why would it have gained such wide acceptance? And if it continues to this day to reduce downtime—ore even if it is merely perceived to reduce downtime—then attempts to abolish it are likely to be futile. There is just too much pressure in gambling games to reduce downtime.

It is possible, however, that the general level of backgammon playing has increased enough over the past few decades that the Jacoby rule no longer serves to reduce downtime. For example, perhaps in the past, lots of people would attempt to win undoubled gammons from an opening 55 blitz or other positions that are not really TG. But nowadays, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can fire up a bot and quickly learn that their attempt to win an undoubled gammon instead of cashing was against their own best financial interests. So perhaps nowadays there would be relatively few cases of people incorrectly playing on for the gammon. I don't know the answer. Anyway, my point is that when one is deciding whether or not to try to get rid of the Jacoby rule, the downtime reduction (or lack thereof) is a crucial issue to consider. This point seems not to have been emphasized in the discussions I have seen on the subject (e.g., in the archived discussions on Backgammon Galore).

Messages In This Thread

• History of Jacoby rule
  Timothy Chow -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 12:22 a.m.
  • History of Jacoby rule
    Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 1:15 a.m.
    • History of Jacoby rule
      Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 1:16 a.m.
  • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
    neilkaz -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 2:11 p.m.
    • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
      Phil Simborg -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 3:00 p.m.
      • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
        Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 1:27 a.m.
        • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
          Steve Mellen -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 1:43 a.m.
          • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
            Phil Simborg -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 2:13 a.m.
            • Extras= YES... must Beaver means I don't play in that chou *NM*
              neilkaz -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 4:27 a.m.
            • Beaver vs. Extras
              mamabear -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 11:40 a.m.
              • Beaver vs. Extras
                mamabear -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 6:35 p.m.
              • Beaver vs. Extras
                Seth -- Tuesday, 3 November 2009, at 2:24 p.m.
                • Beaver vs. Extras
                  Gregg Cattanach -- Tuesday, 3 November 2009, at 4:02 p.m.
                  • Thanks, Gregg for explanation of extras.*NM* *NM*
                    Seth -- Sunday, 8 November 2009, at 3:43 a.m.
    • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
      Steve Mellen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 11:23 p.m.
    • History of Abolishing the Jacoby rule
      Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 12:35 p.m.
  • History of Jacoby rule
    Tom Keith -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 2:18 p.m.
    • Thanks, Tom! *NM*
      Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 3:43 p.m.
    • History of Jacoby rule
      garyo -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 7:23 p.m.
    • History of Jacoby rule
      Chuck Bower -- Monday, 2 November 2009, at 1:03 a.m.