| |
BGonline.org Forums
Legal plays?? - Re:Kibitzers
Posted By: Robert Maier In Response To: Legal plays?? - Re:Kibitzers (mamabear)
Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2011, at 9:28 p.m.
mamabear roared :) "In "Mending Wall", Robert Frost's protagonist's neighbor tells him that "Good fences make good neighbors," and it applies well to this question IMO. Here are two possibilities, neither of which involves kibitzing Calcutta buyers:
Honest case scenario: You are playing along, playing along, and your opponent leaves a 4-shot. You win game and match if you hit. You hit it legally with a 64 and pick up your dice. Opponent doesn't see a problem, but a kib with no agenda whatever honestly thinks you rolled a 56 instead, and says so. Director sides with you since opponent saw nothing wrong (and there was nothing wrong; the kib is at a greater distance and simply misread the dice.) But still, a seed of doubt and mistrust has been sown. Hopefully this weed will die before it does any harm, but who knows?
Really bad, though probably not worst case scenario: Let's say you have an opponent you don't know, he's from someplace only Jeopardy champions can find on a map, and speaks a language that sounds like something the jelly blobs sing in Loco Roco. After awhile his friend comes to watch, and eventually he leaves a 4-shot. You win game and match if you hit. You hit it legally with a 64 and pick up your dice. Kib gesticulates wildly, saying "56! 56!" Opponent pauses a moment, looks questioningly at his friend, then suddenly smiles and agrees. Director called. You tell your side of the story, but they cannot (or will not) speak sufficient English to do more than repeat, "Bad play! 56!" Director cannot get any feel for whether they are lying or not, due to communication issues. He finally says you have to roll for it, since he has no other recourse. "
OK......but the impression I'm getting, correctly or not, from the posts written by LMR proponents is that honesty/active ethics really aren't a part of this argument. In the first case, we have a kibitzer who is going to be counseled to keep his mouth shut and get his glasses checked. No harm done. In the second case, we have someone who is willing to cheat, but somehow doesn't seem to recognize when an opportune time for it might be unless some friend gives him a nudge. I don't really see how that is a valid argument. That isn't a problem caused by allowing the kibitzer to speak up, it's a problem caused by someone who is willing to behave in an unethical manner. Whether or not kibitzers are specifically barred from pointing these things out, doesn't mean it will stop unethical player's unethical friend from yelling 56 bad play and having this scenario develop. Or do the rules specifically forbid a player from calling attention to an illegal play if some kibitzer points it out first, or coughs, or gasps, involuntarily or otherwise?
So, I'm still not convinced, but I'm still willing to read, carry on.
Rob
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.