BGonline.org Forums

Ruling Question

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:22 p.m.

In Response To: Ruling Question (Rich Munitz)

"However, if the play is condoned, then from the point of view of winning the game (ignoring gammons), there is no practical difference as to whether the checker was borne off or illegally removed from play. The equity of the resulting positions are the same. "

If you want to ignore that the player could get gammoned then I agree the equity is the same. In general I would rather not ignore the possiblity of a gammon.

Messages In This Thread

• Ruling Question
  Bill Calton -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 5:11 p.m.
  • Ruling Question
    rory -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 5:28 p.m.
    • Ruling Question
      Bob Koca -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 5:54 p.m.
      • Ruling Question
        Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 6:05 p.m.
        • Ruling Question
          Bob Koca -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 6:18 p.m.
          • Ruling Question
            Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 7:18 p.m.
            • Ruling Question
              Matt Cohn-Geier -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:10 p.m.
              • Ruling Question
                Chiva Tafazzoli -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:18 p.m.
                • Ruling Question
                  Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 10:30 p.m.
              • Ruling Question
                garyo -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 3:03 a.m.
              • Ruling Question
                Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 6:24 a.m.
                • Ruling Question
                  Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 12:17 p.m.
                  • Ruling Question
                    Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 8:57 p.m.
            • Ruling Question
              Bob Koca -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:22 p.m.
            • Ruling Question
              Steve Mellen -- Monday, 29 November 2010, at 2:37 p.m.
              • Ruling Question
                Rich Munitz -- Monday, 29 November 2010, at 4:25 p.m.
      • "illegal move" too broad of a rule here?
        Chuck Bower -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 10:04 p.m.
        • +1
          Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 7:00 a.m.
    • Ruling Question
      Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 5:55 p.m.
      • Ruling Question
        garyo -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 2:48 a.m.
    • Ruling Question
      Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 12:28 a.m.
  • Ruling Question
    Chiva Tafazzoli -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 5:49 p.m.
  • Ruling Question
    Stick -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:24 p.m.
    • +1 *NM*
      Chiva Tafazzoli -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 8:45 p.m.
    • Ruling Question
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 9:53 p.m.
      • Ruling Question
        Chiva Tafazzoli -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 10:03 p.m.
        • Ruling Question
          neilkaz -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 10:04 p.m.
          • Ruling Question
            Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 27 November 2010, at 10:22 p.m.
            • Ruling Question
              Stein Kulseth -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 4:50 p.m.
              • Ruling Question
                Casper van der Tak -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 11:06 p.m.
                • Calcutta field ethics
                  Chuck Bower -- Monday, 29 November 2010, at 4:53 p.m.
          • Patricia Geoffroy may not agree about the calcuttas ;-) *NM*
            Michael Petch -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 1:44 a.m.
  • Ruling Question
    Dmitriy Obukhov -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 5:48 a.m.
    • Ruling Question
      Sam Pottle -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 9:34 a.m.
    • Ruling Question
      Chiva Tafazzoli -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 11:28 a.m.
  • Ruling Question
    phil simborg -- Sunday, 28 November 2010, at 11:29 p.m.