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

BGonline.org Forums

An additional ambiguity

Posted By: Steve Mellen
Date: Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 12:38 a.m.

In Response To: The (potential) ambiguity (Chuck Bower)

If someone actually wrote (A), I would say it's quite clear that it applies to automatic doubles as well. But apparently no one did; you write that Magriel and Deyong "imply" A. I think I need to know what they actually wrote before I know if there's an ambiguity.

(B) appears equally unambiguous on its face, but in reality it could have been written by someone who wants to exclude automatic doubles or by someone who didn't think about the possibility of automatic doubles. In the case of (A), on the other hand, obviously the person who wrote "by any means" had in mind that there's more than one possible way for the cube value to increase.

Which of (A) or (B) should the rule be? I think most people would see (B) as the more natural answer. But if you actually think about the purpose behind the Jacoby Rule - which I might paraphrase as "let's not waste a lot of time playing on for a gammon with the cube on 1" - I think (A) is the more logical answer. If someone can suggest a different purpose for the Jacoby Rule that makes (B) the more logical response, I'm all ears.

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.