BGonline.org Forums

The (potential) ambiguity

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 9:59 p.m.

In Response To: What actually IS the Jacoby Rule? (Chuck Bower)

Jacoby Rule (my wording):

The multipliers (x2 for gammon, x3 for backgammon) shall be used if and only if:

A) the doubling cube has increased in value by any means, or

B) the doubling cube has been offered and accepted.

You must choose one of A) or B). Which one?

Books by Philip Martyn (1976), and Jim and Mary Zita Jacoby (1973) (son and wife of Ozzie) say B. Books by Paul Magriel (1976) and Lewis Deyong (1977) imply A. The tiebreaker (and trump card?) 1969 book by John Crawford and Oswald Jacoby (credited by all with the rule) says (in Chapter 16 ...Variations of Play):

Some people play the Jacoby rule as long as there has been no regular double (as opposed to automatic doubles); we prefer to play it only when the cube is at 1.

OTOH, maybe Jacoby's wishes can/should be overridden by convention/popularity.

Messages In This Thread

• Jacoby rule current usage
  leobueno -- Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 4:41 p.m.
  • What actually IS the Jacoby Rule?
    Chuck Bower -- Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 4:58 p.m.
    • What actually IS the Jacoby Rule?
      Casper van der Tak -- Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 5:03 p.m.
    • The (potential) ambiguity
      Chuck Bower -- Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 9:59 p.m.
      • The (potential) ambiguity
        Sam Pottle -- Tuesday, 8 March 2011, at 10:46 p.m.
      • An additional ambiguity
        Steve Mellen -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 12:38 a.m.
        • An additional ambiguity
          Chuck Bower -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 3:28 a.m.
          • An additional ambiguity
            Stick -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 3:38 a.m.
            • An additional ambiguity
              Jake Jacobs -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 3:55 a.m.
              • Apodictic?
                Casper van der Tak -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 5:27 a.m.
                • Apodictic?
                  Stick -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 5:38 a.m.
                  • Apodictic?
                    Casper van der Tak -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 5:50 a.m.
                    • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                      Joe Russell -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 6:41 a.m.
                      • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                        Casper van der Tak -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 7:10 a.m.
                        • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                          Timothy Chow -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 7:04 p.m.
                      • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                        Stein Kulseth -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 10:34 a.m.
                        • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                          misja -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 1:06 p.m.
                        • Jacoby Rule - a challenge
                          Ray Kershaw -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 4:53 p.m.
                      • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                        Phil Simborg -- Thursday, 10 March 2011, at 10:23 p.m.
                        • Reasons for the Jacoby Rule
                          Casper van der Tak -- Thursday, 10 March 2011, at 10:33 p.m.
                    • Apodictic?
                      Jake Jacobs -- Thursday, 10 March 2011, at 3:56 a.m.
                      • Apodictic?
                        Casper van der Tak -- Thursday, 10 March 2011, at 8:38 a.m.
  • purpose=stir up action
    lenny -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 2:57 a.m.
  • Jacoby rule current usage
    Sebastiaan kuijs -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 8:45 a.m.