BGonline.org Forums

Since you don't seem to mind points 6 apart...

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 3:15 p.m.

In Response To: 44 to play vs potential backgame (Adam Versaw)

...did you consider 13/9(2), 14/10, 6/2*?

Messages In This Thread

• 44 to play vs potential backgame
  Adam Versaw -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 12:52 a.m.
  • 44 to play vs potential backgame
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 1:21 a.m.
  • 44 to play vs potential backgame
    Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 1:28 a.m.
  • 44 to play vs potential backgame
    John O'Hagan -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 2:00 a.m.
  • 44 to play vs potential backgame
    Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 4:32 a.m.
  • 44 to play vs potential backgame
    Keene -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 4:43 a.m.
  • rollout, not that i agree
    Adam Versaw -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 2:08 p.m.
    • rollout, not that i agree
      Stick -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 2:16 p.m.
      • rollout, not that i agree
        Leonardo Jerkovic -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 2:29 p.m.
        • rollout, not that i agree
          Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 7:57 p.m.
    • rollout, not that i agree
      Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 6:20 p.m.
    • rollout, not that i agree
      neilkaz -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 6:45 p.m.
      • rollout, not that i agree
        Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 7:48 p.m.
  • Since you don't seem to mind points 6 apart...
    Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 3:15 p.m.
    • Directed at MCG, but all opinionators welcome *NM*
      Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 3:16 p.m.
    • Since you don't seem to mind points 6 apart...
      Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 20 December 2009, at 8:19 p.m.