BGonline.org Forums

A play vs a potential 41 backgame

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Wednesday, 16 February 2011, at 7:46 p.m.

In Response To: A play vs a potential 41 backgame (neilkaz)

The pure 13/7 appears thematic (to me), but maybe it's just too big. I suppose the quieter 13/9, 10/8 could be the right move, but I don't want the 9-point so all I'm doing is getting builders in place for the 7-point. In that case, why not take the direct route?

Messages In This Thread

• A play vs a potential 41 backgame
  neilkaz -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 12:20 a.m.
  • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
    Lucas Bauer -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 12:30 a.m.
    • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
      Timothy Chow -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 1:13 a.m.
      • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
        Casper van der Tak -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 3:33 p.m.
  • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
    John O'Hagan -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 2:44 a.m.
  • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
    garyo -- Tuesday, 15 February 2011, at 7:21 a.m.
  • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
    Chuck Bower -- Wednesday, 16 February 2011, at 7:46 p.m.
  • A play vs a potential 41 backgame
    Marty Storer -- Thursday, 17 February 2011, at 10:07 p.m.
  • OTB and RO
    neilkaz -- Friday, 18 February 2011, at 2:35 a.m.