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

BGonline.org Forums

Ruling Question

Posted By: Rich Munitz
Date: Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 6:05 p.m.

In Response To: Ruling Question (Bob Koca)

I think it can be argued that the fact that the play was condoned means that the piece was actually legally borne off.

Anything can be argued, but the rule clearly says that it was not borne off in the actual situation and by implication, only the player owning the checker with all checkers currently in the home board can actually bear off a checker. All other removals are by the rule as written - illegally removed from play and NOT borne off. So the only possible argument here would be for the player to lie or be so confused as to claim far after the fact that the checker was actually borne off by the player owning the checker after all checkers of that color (including the one removed from play) were already in the home board. If we can go that far, what if the player losing the game claims that he was actually the first player to take off all his checkers?

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.