touch double
Chuck Bower
There has been a proposal and some discussion on this newsgroup
concerning the implementation of "touch move" similar to chess rules.
I doubt if this change will occur in BG in the near future.
There is a related action which I don't think is covered specifically
in the rules: the touch double. Is a player allowed to touch the cube
(centered or on his/her side of the table) and then withdraw his/her
hand, not doubling? Do any players know of local or "house" rules which
cover this?
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Kit Woolsey
Chuck Bower (bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
: There has been a proposal and some discussion on this newsgroup
In some tournament rules, it is stated that any such gestures toward the
cube are to be considered as doubling. The logic is that you don't want
sharpies reaching for the cube in order to see their opponent's reaction
-- then doubling if the reaction is the one they are hoping for, but not
doubling if it appears the opponent will do what the sharpie doesn't want.
Kit
vasilios papakonstantinou
In the Las Vegas tournament in 1996 I did touch the doubling cube while
considering a double and quickly withdrew my hand. My opponent called the
director (John Brussel) who ruled that a double had been offered. The
explanation for his ruling was that such an action, if withdrawable, can be
used by one to judge one's opponent's reaction to the double without risk.
bill papa
Chuck Bower wrote:
> There has been a proposal and some discussion on this newsgroup
> concerning the implementation of "touch move" similar to chess rules.
> I doubt if this change will occur in BG in the near future.
>
> There is a related action which I don't think is covered specifically
> in the rules: the touch double. Is a player allowed to touch the cube
> (centered or on his/her side of the table) and then withdraw his/her
> hand, not doubling? Do any players know of local or "house" rules which
> cover this?
>
Hank Youngerman
On 20 Apr 1998 18:38:39 GMT, bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck
Bower) wrote:
> There has been a proposal and some discussion on this newsgroup
>concerning the implementation of "touch move" similar to chess rules.
>I doubt if this change will occur in BG in the near future.
>
> There is a related action which I don't think is covered specifically
>in the rules: the touch double. Is a player allowed to touch the cube
>(centered or on his/her side of the table) and then withdraw his/her
>hand, not doubling? Do any players know of local or "house" rules which
>cover this?
>
>
> Chuck
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
> c_ray on FIBS
The only tournament I have played in was a regular weekly tournament I
played in for about a year, but in that game it was a clear rule that
you touch the cube, you've offered the cube. For just the reason
expressed by other posters.
Martin Daniels
I have a similar question concerning touching the cube, and I accept
the reasoning behind the previous respondents.
I was playing a game in a tournament which was beginning to hot up. My
opponent with great gusto and considering he was in a good position,
placed the cube aggressively in the centre of the board, right in the
middle of the action. I felt it was a very close double and wanted to
study the implications awhile, so I picked up the cube and placed it
in the centre of the side compartment, where I felt it should have
been placed in the first instance. My opponent rolled the dice and out
popped 6-6 before I sheepishly said, "I haven't accepted the double
yet". Have I got a case?
Martin (Blackbart)
David Montgomery
In article <353fe05e....@news.m.tempest.com.au> mar...@tempest.com.au (Martin Daniels) writes:
>I was playing a game in a tournament which was beginning to hot up. My
>opponent with great gusto and considering he was in a good position,
>placed the cube aggressively in the centre of the board, right in the
>middle of the action. I felt it was a very close double and wanted to
>study the implications awhile, so I picked up the cube and placed it
>in the centre of the side compartment, where I felt it should have
>been placed in the first instance. My opponent rolled the dice and out
>popped 6-6 before I sheepishly said, "I haven't accepted the double
>yet". Have I got a case?
> Martin (Blackbart)
This is a bit confusing to me.
Among most groups, the accepted way to double is to take the cube
and place it on the playing surface, turning the next cube level
face up. Saying "I double" or words to that effect is optional.
Also, among most groups, if you pick up the cube and put it to the
side in the middle, it will be interpreted as a pass -- you are
resetting the cube. If you don't begin resetting the position, your
opponent might verify that you are passing.
To take, you pick up the cube and put it somewhere on your side of
the board. Most players place it off to the side, in the side compartment
or on the edge of the board if it big enough, but I have seen
people put it on the bar on their side, or take it off the board
altogether putting it on the table behind the board.
So I would say your opponent doubled properly. I would have interpreted
your placing the cube on the side, centered, as a pass, but your
opponent apparently sees things differently since he rolled.
If you want to move the cube aside to study a position, then accepted
practice among the groups I play with is to slide the cube to the left
or right edge of the playing surface the cube is on, without lifting
the cube. In other words, you treat the cube as you would the dice --
you may slide it/them out of the way to see the position clearly, but if
you lift it/them up, you are indicating the end of your turn. In both
cases it is helpful to say something like "I'm going to look at this"
before reaching for the cube/dice, especially if you and your
opponent are generally playing very quickly.
David Montgomery
mo...@cs.umd.edu
monty on FIBS
Chuck Bower
In article <353fe05e....@news.m.tempest.com.au>,
Martin Daniels <mar...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
>I was playing a game in a tournament which was beginning to hot up. My
>opponent with great gusto and considering he was in a good position,
>placed the cube aggressively in the centre of the board, right in the
>middle of the action. I felt it was a very close double and wanted to
>study the implications awhile, so I picked up the cube and placed it
>in the centre of the side compartment, where I felt it should have
>been placed in the first instance. My opponent rolled the dice and out
>popped 6-6 before I sheepishly said, "I haven't accepted the double
>yet". Have I got a case?
This looks a bit sticky, which is why they pay directors the bug
bucks! ;) According to the March 1990 "U.S. Backgammon Tournament
Rules & Procedures"
5.4 CUBE HANDLING.
Player may double when it is his turn only before
rolling the dice, but not after rolling cocked dice.
To double or redouble, player moves the cube toward
his opponent at the higher value while saying
"double" or words to that effect. To take, one draws
the cube toward himself while saying "take" or words
to that effect. To reject the double, one says "pass"
or words to that effect, enters the score and resets
the board. The cube should not be handled capriciously;
either verbal or physical acts may be interpreted as
cube actions.
You did not say if your opponent incremented (increased the
value) of the cube. If "no" then his action could be interpreted
as a simple repositioning of a centered cube. (Was it centered
before his roll?) Then your moving it to the side could also
be interpreted as a repositioning.
The rules of backgammon are written in such a way as to be
clear to experienced players, but not overly wordy or detailed.
There is a current movement to rework the US tournament rules,
and Butch Meese ( me...@worldnet.att.net ) has already asked
the newsgroup readers for opinions. (I think he is still taking
suggestions.)
Assuming your opp did increment the cube and did move it closer
to you, he probably would be ruled in conformity with the above rule,
even if he didn't say "Double." Your action is a bit murkier, but
the last part of the rule ("...physical acts may be interpreted as
cube actions") probably would cause most directors to rule in your
opp's favor (i.e. that you accepted).
Much can be written about the topic "gamesmanship" as it applies
to backgammon. One such tactic which I saw in Pittsburgh was an attempt
by a player to rile (and thus throw off the concentration of) his
opponent by taking advantage of the rules. (He lost the ruling but did
succeed in riling his opponent....) Ufortunately I don't recall the
details since I was involved in a match myself. I believe that the
tournament rules are written to discourage this type of gamesmanship.
My opinion is that players should attempt to make their actions
clear. Saying something like "I need to think about this" would have
helped your case. When you see your opp shaking and throwing, IMMEDIATELY
say "I haven't decided". Don't wait until the dice come down, for then
it might look like you were waiting to see if the roll was good or bad
before making your decision. Even if that wasn't your intent, the director
would likely give your opponent the "benefit of the doubt".
The rules of backgammon have been kept brief for good reason. The
game isn't meant to be about rulings; it's complicated and challenging
enough. All players are responsible for knowing the rules, including
local or 'house' rules. But a key point is to keep your actions and
intentions "above board". Don't try to fool anyone. Backgammon is
not poker (nor chess, nor bridge, nor Go, nor....)
Chuck Bower
In article <6hstt9$9un$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Chuck Bower <bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
> This looks a bit sticky, which is why they pay directors the bug
>bucks!
Hmmmm. Well, the 'i' is next to the 'u' on my keyboard....
Much later he chose to declare:
>Don't try to fool anyone.
Allow me to clarify by example. Suppose you are in a match and
your opp turns the cube. Not wanting to give away your thinking, you
make it appear you are considering your action when in reality you
made your decision prior to the cube turn and are in reality plotting
your dinner plans. This may be considered trying to 'fool' your opp,
but IMHO this is permissable.
But how about this: Your opponent pauses for a few seconds before
rolling. You think to yourself "is he REALLY thinking about doubling?
This position is almost a beaver! I sure hope he cubes me." Then, in
an attempt to further entice your opp to double, you pick up your pencil
and move it towards the scoresheet, trying to give him the impression
that you are passing (the yet to be turned cube). He then doubles and
you snatch it up.
At money play, this action could be considered "gamesmanship" and be
permissable. In open tournament play I believe it is poor sportsmanship.
It, though, is not a breach of the rules as far as I know.
Finally consider the following ploy: At the start of the game, each
player throws a single die and the 'winner' uses the two dice
as his/her opening roll. Each die is SUPPOSED to be tossed on the right
hand side of the board (where "right hand" refers to the player tossing
the dice). Suppose my die hops the bar and lands on my left hand board.
(Worse, suppose I intentionally throw it there.) If my opp wins the roll,
I say "Oh, my throw was a misroll because it landed on the wrong board.
I should reroll." On the other hand, if I win the roll, I go ahead and
make my play. If my opp points out the misroll, I pretend not to have
noticed (but go ahead and reroll, according to the rules).
Some might think "it is up to my opp to point out if I do something
against the rules. If s/he doesn't, then it's OK." I don't think there
is a director on this (US) continent (and hopefully not on any other
continent, for that matter) who would condone such an action.
Chuck Bower
I started this thread to get opinions about the not-so-well-defined
concept "gamesmanship" and its use in open tournament play. There have
been a few few instances discussed. Here I review one of these posts
with some updates (and more to come).
In article <6ht6nu$crl$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Chuck Bower <bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
CASE 1.
> Suppose you are in a match and
>your opp turns the cube. Not wanting to give away your thinking, you
>make it appear you are considering your action when in reality you
>made your decision prior to the cube turn and are in reality plotting
>your dinner plans. This may be considered trying to 'fool' your opp,
>but IMHO this is permissable.
I don't know of anyone who objects to this practice. Basically
a player is protecting his/her thought processes from intrusion by the
opponent.
CASE 2.
> But how about this: Your opponent pauses for a few seconds before
>rolling. You think to yourself "is he REALLY thinking about doubling?
>This position is almost a beaver! I sure hope he cubes me." Then, in
>an attempt to further entice your opp to double, you pick up your pencil
>and move it towards the scoresheet, trying to give him the impression
>that you are passing (the yet to be turned cube). He then doubles and
>you snatch it up.
>
> At money play, this action could be considered "gamesmanship" and be
>permissable. In open tournament play I believe it is poor sportsmanship.
>It, though, is not a breach of the rules as far as I know.
Sunday at a one day tourney in Indianapolis, I brought this up with
three nationally experienced directors: Mary Ann Meese, Butch Meese, and
Peter Kalba. Their 'decision' was unanimous. NO impropriety had been
committed (in tournament play).
I consider this action different that Case 1. Here a player is
attempting to entice his/her opponent into taking action. Case 1 was
defensive. Case 2 is OFFENSIVE. Still, the above sampling of directors
felt that it was completely within the rules. I abide by their judgement.
> Finally consider the following ploy: At the start of the game, each
>player throws a single die and the 'winner' uses the two dice
>as his/her opening roll. Each die is SUPPOSED to be tossed on the right
>hand side of the board (where "right hand" refers to the player tossing
>the dice). Suppose my die hops the bar and lands on my left hand board.
>(Worse, suppose I intentionally throw it there.) If my opp wins the roll,
>I say "Oh, my throw was a misroll because it landed on the wrong board.
>I should reroll." On the other hand, if I win the roll, I go ahead and
>make my play. If my opp points out the misroll, I pretend not to have
>noticed (but go ahead and reroll, according to the rules).
>
> Some might think "it is up to my opp to point out if I do something
>against the rules. If s/he doesn't, then it's OK." I don't think there
>is a director on this (US) continent (and hopefully not on any other
>continent, for that matter) who would condone such an action.
I thought this was clearcut, but apparently I erred here as well.
(Rochester NY is, after all, on the "(US) continent" (North American
continent might be more geographically correct wording, though).
I didn't bother bringing this up Sunday with the assembled directors.
I have since (by e-mail) asked some directors what they thought of this
and Bob Hoey's reply. I will report their responses here (with their
permission, of course).
Julian
> But how about this: Your opponent pauses for a few seconds before
>rolling. You think to yourself "is he REALLY thinking about doubling?
>This position is almost a beaver! I sure hope he cubes me." Then, in
>an attempt to further entice your opp to double, you pick up your pencil
>and move it towards the scoresheet, trying to give him the impression
>that you are passing (the yet to be turned cube). He then doubles and
>you snatch it up.
>
> At money play, this action could be considered "gamesmanship" and be
>permissable. In open tournament play I believe it is poor sportsmanship.
>It, though, is not a breach of the rules as far as I know.
Amongst good players it is also almost certainly suicidal. An
inattentive player might be fooled once - an observant one will be
making mental notes the first time you try it - and stories will no
doubt circulate. It doesn't quite rank as high a sin as, for example, in
bridge, deliberately pausing to give the impression you hold a critical
card and have a tough decision to make when you don't, as in backgammon
there is no hidden information, but it is enough to get you a bad name
and have every subsequent opponent watching you like a hawk...
--
Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A monk is expected to be awarded the contract for a 12.2 mile stretch
of the M4 motorway..." - Constructor's World
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Turner
Julian wrote:
>
> It doesn't quite rank as high a sin as, for example, in
> bridge, deliberately pausing to give the impression you hold a critical
> card and have a tough decision to make when you don't
Somebody who plays the game might correct me, but I believe that this is
actually illegal in tournament bridge. All moves must be played at roughly
the same pace. It's a messy rule though: they need lots of rulings to decide
whether this has been breached, and if so whether it could have affected the
score.
--
Stephen Turner sr...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, England
"The Bishop of Huntingdon and Postman Pat each opened new school extensions"
(Cambridge Weekly News, 28-May-97)
Claes Thornberg
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) writes:
>
> I started this thread to get opinions about the not-so-well-defined
> concept "gamesmanship" and its use in open tournament play. There have
> been a few few instances discussed. Here I review one of these posts
> with some updates (and more to come).
>
>
> In article <6ht6nu$crl$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> Chuck Bower <bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> CASE 1.
>
> > Suppose you are in a match and
> >your opp turns the cube. Not wanting to give away your thinking, you
> >make it appear you are considering your action when in reality you
> >made your decision prior to the cube turn and are in reality plotting
> >your dinner plans. This may be considered trying to 'fool' your opp,
> >but IMHO this is permissable.
>
>
> I don't know of anyone who objects to this practice. Basically
> a player is protecting his/her thought processes from intrusion by the
> opponent.
How could anyone possibly object to this? Someone might say that they
necer do this, but how would you go on to prove that a player has been
"plotting his dinner plans" instead of thinking about taking.
> CASE 2.
>
> > But how about this: Your opponent pauses for a few seconds before
> >rolling. You think to yourself "is he REALLY thinking about doubling?
> >This position is almost a beaver! I sure hope he cubes me." Then, in
> >an attempt to further entice your opp to double, you pick up your pencil
> >and move it towards the scoresheet, trying to give him the impression
> >that you are passing (the yet to be turned cube). He then doubles and
> >you snatch it up.
> >
> Sunday at a one day tourney in Indianapolis, I brought this up with
> three nationally experienced directors: Mary Ann Meese, Butch Meese, and
> Peter Kalba. Their 'decision' was unanimous. NO impropriety had been
> committed (in tournament play).
>
I agree with them, and I must say that I love this
reaching-for-the-pen trick. Last Sunday I saw it used in the final of
a tournament. The player using this "trick" is a very experienced
player and quite a good one too. His opponent is nowhere near as good
or experienced. At one stage, before rolling, the weaker player made a
longer than normal pause. He probably was contemplating a double. The
stronger player reached out towards the pencil with his RIGHT hand,
the weaker player promptly doubled, and the stronger player snatched
the cube with his LEFT hand ALMOST BEFORE the cube was put on the
table. Hadn't the stronger player used this "trick" I don't think he
would have been doubled.
I must admit that although I said I love this trick, I have never used
it myself. But there are other situations where you can use gestures
and such to either avoid getting doubled (because you want to get an
extra roll), getting doubled (because you want to drop), getting
doubled (because you want to take), etc. For instance, say that I have
reached a position and makes a move. I have been using a lot of time
to make this move, sighing, moving my men back and forth. The
resulting position might look scary to an unexperienced player, but
it's actually quite sound and the position is not a double, more like
a beaver. Now a weaker player might be induced to double just because
I have taken a long time to make the move.
> I consider this action different that Case 1. Here a player is
> attempting to entice his/her opponent into taking action. Case 1 was
> defensive. Case 2 is OFFENSIVE. Still, the above sampling of directors
> felt that it was completely within the rules. I abide by their judgement.
>
--
______________________________________________________________________
Claes Thornberg Internet: cla...@it.kth.se
Dept. of Teleinformatics URL: NO WAY!
KTH/Electrum 204 Voice: +46 8 752 1377
164 40 Kista Fax: +46 8 751 1793
Sweden
Donald Kahn
Julian <jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6ht6nu$crl$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Chuck Bower
><bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> writes
>
>> But how about this: Your opponent pauses for a few seconds before
>>rolling. You think to yourself "is he REALLY thinking about doubling?
>>This position is almost a beaver! I sure hope he cubes me." Then, in
>>an attempt to further entice your opp to double, you pick up your pencil
>>and move it towards the scoresheet, trying to give him the impression
>>that you are passing (the yet to be turned cube). He then doubles and
>>you snatch it up.
>>
>> At money play, this action could be considered "gamesmanship" and be
>>permissable. In open tournament play I believe it is poor sportsmanship.
>>It, though, is not a breach of the rules as far as I know.
>
>Amongst good players it is also almost certainly suicidal. An
>inattentive player might be fooled once - an observant one will be
>making mental notes the first time you try it - and stories will no
>doubt circulate. It doesn't quite rank as high a sin as, for example, in
>bridge, deliberately pausing to give the impression you hold a critical
>card and have a tough decision to make when you don't, as in backgammon
>there is no hidden information, but it is enough to get you a bad name
>and have every subsequent opponent watching you like a hawk...
In the top division of tournament play, (or a counterpart head-to-head
money game), such gestures (which when I played bridge were called
"coffee-house", for some reason) would be a cause for amusement.
A player at this level better have his own opinion of a position.
Otherwise he should look for easier competition.
deekay