| |
BGonline.org Forums
A Very Tough Ruling in the Cleveland Finals
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: A Very Tough Ruling in the Cleveland Finals (Stick)
Date: Friday, 1 April 2011, at 10:45 a.m.
>> No, no, and no. Keep the hell off my side of the board and when playing with a clock I don't want my opponent to be able to launch rolls that split the dice so I have to pick them up like some janitor after his turn wasting my time. Also as a spectator I hate trying to watch a match, look away for a second, and turn around and not having the slightest idea who is on roll because if the dice could land anywhere (or are in a tube for eg) then it could be either players turn. If it's LHS only you always know whose turn it is.
Really good arguments, and a well balanced response where you really show that you considered both the pros and the cons, or... wait..
1) What's with the "my side of the board" thing? It's like opposing to clock usage arguing "keep the hell away from my dice"! Makes no sense. There are no my side and your side, there are my turn and your turn, and it really shouldn't matter if your opponents dice are lying in the RHS or LHS when it's his turn.
2) Spreading the dice to "win" time? It's a valid concern, but I can't imagine this will be a big issue that comes up often. In order to "split" the dice on purpose, you'd either have to: a) toss them fiercely towards the bar or checkers on the point next to the bar, or b) straight down at the bar hoping one will go left, the other one right. In case a) I don't see this as an advantage at all the number of times you'd have to reroll because a die end up outside the playing surface, or on top of a checker, would be too high to make it worthwhile. You maybe "steal" two tenths of a second when succeeding (and with Bronstein ONLY if the opponent then takes 12 seconds on the following move), but you suffer several seconds yourself, when it goes wrong and you have to reroll. In case b) it's another story, and I agree that at least on rule should be worded to eliminate players trying on purpose to throw one die LHS and one RHS. You could state that a correct roll consists of the dice hitting the playing surface first not the bar or you could simply state that you should not try to split the dice on purpose. End of problem.
3) Writing the rules to accommodate spectators looking the other way, rather than trying to give both players as fair and smooth a game as possible, would be a big mistake IMHO. And is this a problem anyway? Most games with an audience are played with a clock anyway, and then you should not be looking at the dice to see who's turn it is, but at the clock. Otherwise you cannot see if player A is considering his move, or player B is contemplating a double? So what you write about "LHS only" (I suspect you mean RHS BTW) being the answer to your prayers is not true. And really, if you want to watch a match you can watch it - not look the other way for so long time that you can't figure out who's turn it is! Anyway, you wouldn't know if the player had moved any of the dice and are considering to lift them, of if he still needs to move the 3 non-forced deuces from his 22 roll or the dice has just come to rest!?
So much for your issues with xHS rolling, get on to the advantages - they are not bogus:
1. There will never be a dispute, if a player has approved LHS rolling or not (as allowed to in most non-US rules, such as DBgF).
2. There will never be a dispute when a player stops rolling LHS and resumes RHS after being given LHS approval earlier in the bearoff.
3. Left-handed players will not be at a disadvantage (not to mention the one-handed players or other players with disabilities, such as Jake brought up!)
4. The player having his home board / the inner boards at his RHS, will not be at a disadvantage when all the pieces are at that side (in the beginning of the beafoffs etc.). On some board/checker/dice combinations it can happen more often, that you'd be rolling at a board where your die could come to rest on top of a checker. It will be the same player taking the disadvantaged side throughout the entire match. In a clocked game that's simply not fair. Let both players roll on whichever side they choose to, then you have a level playing field - so to speak.
5. The number or re-rolls needed throughout a match will be greatly reduced.
6. Newcomers (and non-tournament players) would have easier to adopt to this rule than the current one (being it either the US or the DBgF version). It's closer to the practice of leisure players and family games.
---
Disadvantages are not easy to spot, if any at all! (apart from the rule being "new", bringing a change to the BAU).
I think especially #3 and #4 above are very true. Consider yourself in a clocked game where both players are in time trouble - would you think it was fair if you were to roll on the "crowded" side all the time and your opponent were not?
So easier to understand, more fair/equal to both players and less disputes!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.