Legal play rule in Chouettes
Gregg Cattanach
our chouette last night. How do you handle this situation?
First, we do use the 'legal plays' rule in our chouette where any
player can call attention to an illegal play and have it corrected.
There isn't any problem if the next player hasn't rolled his dice.
However, in the play in question, the Captain rolled his dice and then
the team saw and brought attention to the fact that the Box had made
an illegal play.
I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
roll stands as thrown.<br>
2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
re-roll.<br>
3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
must stand as moved.<br>
Here's the position and you can see why it was quite a heated
argument. The Box and his Partner were holding an 8-cube and 3
4-cubes, and had already dropped a 2-cube.
-------------------------------------------------------
| Team (X) vs. Box (O) |
-------------------------------------------------------
Chouette. O Hold cubes totalling 20 .
O to play (5 5)
+-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
| O O O O O | | O O O |
| O O O O | | |
| O O O | | | S
| | | | n
| | | | o
| |BAR| | w
| | | | i
| | | | e
| X | | |
| X | | |
| X | | |
+24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
Pipcount X: 6 O: 69 X-O: 0-0/Money (1)
Men Off X: 12 O: 0
CubeValue: 20, O owns Cube
The box moved 11/5, 8/3, 7/2, 5/off (illegal), picked up his dice, and
the Captain apparently not really looking at the position just rolled
his dice and rolled 55 himself, bearing his last 3 men off. At that
point a team member called the illegal play the Box had made. The dice
as rolled and played legally would gammon the Box.
How would you handle this specific situation? And in general which of
the 3 choices above (or are there others?), should be used when the
next roll has already been thrown before an illegal play has been
corrected?
Gregg
Phill Skelton
> I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
> 1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
> roll stands as thrown.<br>
> 2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
> re-roll.<br>
> 3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
> must stand as moved.<br>
There's also a 4th reasonable option - player 1 must change his move to
a legal one, and player 2 has the option of re-rolling or not.
I like this one, since it means that 1 can't play knowing what the dice
will be (2 might re-roll once 1 has moved), but 2 has the option of
keeping a good roll and not being penalised by the illegal move (as
in your case). If this seems biased in favour of 2, then that's life;
1 should have made a legal move in the first place.
You might want to throw in a corollary to the effect that if 1's move
would be the same regardless of what 2 threw, then 2 doesn't have the
option to re-roll, but I imagine that that would lead to some very
subjective opinions and bad disagreements. So it's probably best
avoided.
Phill
Peter Backgren
In article <afbeae78.01081...@posting.google.com>,
gcatt...@sprich.com says...
> First, we do use the 'legal plays' rule in our chouette where any
> player can call attention to an illegal play and have it corrected.
> There isn't any problem if the next player hasn't rolled his dice.
> However, in the play in question, the Captain rolled his dice and then
> the team saw and brought attention to the fact that the Box had made
> an illegal play.
>
> I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
> 1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
> roll stands as thrown.<br>
> 2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
> re-roll.<br>
> 3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
> must stand as moved.<br>
>
> ...
>
> The box moved 11/5, 8/3, 7/2, 5/off (illegal), picked up his dice, and
> the Captain apparently not really looking at the position just rolled
> his dice and rolled 55 himself, bearing his last 3 men off. At that
> point a team member called the illegal play the Box had made. The dice
> as rolled and played legally would gammon the Box.
>
> How would you handle this specific situation? And in general which of
> the 3 choices above (or are there others?), should be used when the
> next roll has already been thrown before an illegal play has been
> corrected?
I guess you'd have to go with choice #3 here (you won anyway :-). The
guys I play most with use "legal play + one roll fixes" and would thus
have gone with option #1. There's one reason we allowe play fixes after
the dice have been thrown. No one would try it but it's better to be
paranoid...
Let's take the situation above a step further. Let's say the box moved
illegally and one of the players notified the Captain of it but not in
time to stop the dice from rolling. Among us we'd still use #1
because...
...now, in order to get really paranoid, let's assume one of the players
notifies the Captain of the error but the Captain thinks he is better
off not correcting the error and still rolls (see the split second
timing possibility between acknowledgement and stopping an outgoing
shake?). Is the Captain the supposed to pay the notifying member for
money lost? All members?
Eskimo
--
//------------------------------
//Remove absolutelynospam to mail directly.
//Ascended:WVPTKHSBCPWRoRaA
//In progress:Monk+
Mike McCubbin
4.8 Illegal Moves
Upon drawing attention to an illegal move the player
may condone it or
demand that it be played legally. An illegal move is
condoned by the
opponent rolling their own dice or turning the cube.
Mike
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One does not cease to play because one grows old.
One grows old because one ceases to play.
Karkanis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BGtallrock
think that a complete ruling would be have the illegal move corrected, followed
by a re-roll of the opponent's dice.
However, this might lead to a situation where somebody who habitually makes
illegal moves is taken advantage of byopponents who wait until they see what
their next roll is before deciding whether or not to call attention to the
illegal play.
Dan Frank
whether legal or not.
This general rule has a weak point:
you notice that your opponent has played incorrectly, and that this play is
convenient for you. By rolling quickly you can nail it, getting by obviously
unfair means an advantage (practically it is like cheating).
Option 1 should be out of discussion: it would mean to have the possibility
to play according to the opponent's next roll ...(under this circumstances I
would play for $1,000,000 the point ...)
Dan Frank
P.S. A good ruling is of course independent from the actual situation: it
shouldn't matter whether it's an one-limonade-game or a DMP in the final of
a tournament with a $100,000 1st prize.
Gregg Cattanach schrieb in Nachricht ...
Mike McCubbin
cheating it was the box who tried and successfully pulled of the 11/5,
5/off play. (It may have been an honest mistake) I think the illegal
rule as written is quite appropriate and people should be more careful
when they move checkers and opponents should watch more carefully. The
captain in this situation missed big time by not watching and getting a
little to excited.
Julian Hayward
Cattanach <gcatt...@sprich.com> writes
>
>I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
>1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
>roll stands as thrown.<br>
>2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
>re-roll.<br>
>3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
>must stand as moved.<br>
It has to be 3. In (1) the captain has the advantage of being able to
decide between playing on - by not calling attention to the illegal move
- or calling in the illegal move based on the knowledge of his next
roll, which is disproportionate to the original offence. In (2) the
captain has the even bigger advantage of being able to choose between
playing on and taking another roll. If the captain isn't watching then
that's tough.
And if the team want to call in the illegal move but the captain rolls,
that's tough again. By playing the game the team are implicitly
accepting the captain's (lack of) judgement - why should this be a
special case?
--
Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1480-210097 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>We had some disagreement about implementing the legal plays rule in
>our chouette last night. How do you handle this situation?
>
>First, we do use the 'legal plays' rule in our chouette where any
>player can call attention to an illegal play and have it corrected.
>There isn't any problem if the next player hasn't rolled his dice.
>However, in the play in question, the Captain rolled his dice and then
>the team saw and brought attention to the fact that the Box had made
>an illegal play.
>
>I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
>1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
>roll stands as thrown.<br>
>2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
>re-roll.<br>
>3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
>must stand as moved.<br>
Back when I used to play chouettes it woulda been (3). And
then the players start complaining to the captain about being
such an idiot - if it's bad enough he might offer to buy them out.
I don't see how the others could work - it certainly can't be (1).
I don't see any reason for an exception to the rule that rolling
the dice constitutes acceptance of the previous play. Any
time you're playing a chouette bad plays by the captain can
cost the team money; that's just the way it is (not noticing
that O's play was somewhat creative counts as a _very_ bad
play...)
>Gregg
David C. Ullrich
***********************
"Sometimes you can have access violations all the
time and the program still works." (Michael Caracena,
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc 5/1/01)
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>In general option 3 counts - the roll of the opponent condones one's play -
>whether legal or not.
>
>This general rule has a weak point:
>
>you notice that your opponent has played incorrectly, and that this play is
>convenient for you. By rolling quickly you can nail it, getting by obviously
>unfair means an advantage (practically it is like cheating).
What do you mean by rolling "quickly"? If you roll before the other
guy picks up his dice the roll doesn't count. If you roll immediately
after the guy picks up his dice you're not rolling "quickly", you're
rolling precisely when you're allowed to roll.
It's not your responsibility to try to protect the other guy from
his errors.
>Option 1 should be out of discussion: it would mean to have the possibility
>to play according to the opponent's next roll ...(under this circumstances I
>would play for $1,000,000 the point ...)
>
>Dan Frank
>
>http://www.danfrank.de
>
>P.S. A good ruling is of course independent from the actual situation: it
>shouldn't matter whether it's an one-limonade-game or a DMP in the final of
>a tournament with a $100,000 1st prize.
>
>
>Gregg Cattanach schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>We had some disagreement about implementing the legal plays rule in
>>our chouette last night. How do you handle this situation?
>>
>>First, we do use the 'legal plays' rule in our chouette where any
>>player can call attention to an illegal play and have it corrected.
>>There isn't any problem if the next player hasn't rolled his dice.
>>However, in the play in question, the Captain rolled his dice and then
>>the team saw and brought attention to the fact that the Box had made
>>an illegal play.
>>
>>I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
>>1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
>>roll stands as thrown.<br>
>>2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
>>re-roll.<br>
>>3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
>>must stand as moved.<br>
>
>
>
David C. Ullrich
Gregg Cattanach
been playing in Chouettes here for about forever. Here are his
comments about the basic procedure that has evolved in Atlanta:
Dave Cardwell said:
==========================
Gregg, I agree that the rule needs to be more clearly defined, but I
think there are more options than just those you listed in the
attachment.
The current rule (as it has evolved in Atlanta) is that the illegal
play must be corrected "if at all possible, regardless of timeliness".
Agreed, this is somewhat arbitrary, but it does serve the noble
purpose that you must play legally if possible. If the opponent has
rolled, typically one of two things occur:
1) if the position is non- roll-dependent, then the roll stands and
is played after the illegal play is corrected. Non- roll-dependent
positions are usually (but not always) non-contact positions, but also
include positions where the illegal move is a forced play, or when the
illegal play/replay has no bearing on the roll/outcome of the next
shake (for example, moving a spare check one pip instead of two in a
closed inner board).
2) if the position is roll-dependent, then the shake becomes an
issue. If the actual numbers rolled make no difference in the play
correction, then the illegal move is corrected and the roll is then
played. But if the actual roll generated makes a difference in the
way the illegal play is corrected, then the illegal play is first
corrected and the roller is then given the option to use the actual
roll or to roll again.
With minor adjustments, this is also true for when the illegal play is
noticed at the time the illegal player starts to make his NEXT move.
If it can be corrected without affecting the previous play(s), such as
in non-contact positions, then it should be corrected. Many times it
can also be corrected in complex positions without affecting previous
plays. Beyond this point, illegal plays are not likely to be caught
at all.
Personally, I think these are BY FAR the fairest ways to deal with the
issue. The roll always stands (unless it makes a difference to the
correction), and the illegal play is always corrected. The illegal
player never gains an advantage, and the roller is never penalized.
And the "normal" game/positional outcome (what would have occurred
without the illegal play) is almost always realized -- and that's the
goal. Perhaps the rules as used and stated above merely need to be
printed for reference...
===========================
I think the spirit and the legal play rule is contained in this
procedure, and I will make an attempt to distill it to a brief and
explicit paragraph that can become an applicable rule.
Gregg Cattanach
Dan Frank
that one may profit unfairly - but legally - from the "illegal" play of his
opponent.
It can't be cheating for the simple reason that you can easily eliminate
this possibility just by moving the checkers in a legal way.
Of course the illegal player may do so on intent, hoping that the opponent
rolls quicker than he notices the illegal play - this is a kind of cheating,
even a quite usual one, because it is easy and can't be proved as such.
DF
Mike McCubbin schrieb in Nachricht <3B794BC0...@ntl.sympatico.ca>...
Gregg Cattanach
today, and we've come up with a 'final' version of the Atlanta
Chouette rules. Very little is substatively changed from what's been
on my web site before, but we've changed the language in several
placed to be as explicit as possible, made them all gender neutral,
and have included the legal play rules as discussed here. We also
changed the rotation rule when both Box and Captain lose in the same
game, (Box now goes to the bottom of the rotation.)
Here is what we will be using for the legal plays rule:
Legal Plays
8.1) Any player including spectators and players not in the current
game can bring attention to any illegal play involving rolling,
checkers or the doubling cube. Once an illegal play has been
identified, it must be corrected if at all possible, regardless of
timeliness; the goal being the realization of the normal game position
in absence of the illegal play.
8.2) If possible, the illegal play should be identified and
corrected as it is being made or after the dice are lifted and before
the opponent rolls. If the illegal play is identified after the
opponent has rolled then either rule 8.3 or 8.4 is applied as
appropriate:
8.3) If the equity achieved by the choice of legal plays is
substantially the same regardless of the opponent's roll, the illegal
play is corrected and the opponent's roll stands.
8.4) If the equity achieved by the choice of legal plays would
change with prior knowledge of the opponent's roll, the illegal play
is corrected and the opponent has the option to re-roll or use the
number already rolled.
8.5) Illegal plays may also be corrected after the initial illegal
player starts to move after the next roll, but only if it can be
adjusted without affecting the previous plays or rolls.
You can read the rules in their entirety at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/gcattanach/chouette.html
or download the document at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/gcattanach/chouette.zip
Gregg
Jive Dadson
>
>
> I see three ways to solve this, all having some rationale:<br>
> 1) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2's
> roll stands as thrown.<br>
> 2) Player-1 must change his move to something legal and Player-2 must
> re-roll.<br>
> 3) Because Player-2 has already rolled his dice, the illegal play
> must stand as moved.<br>
>
Any time player-1 makes an illegal play, player-2 has the option of
pointing it out or not. Even if he is supposed to point it out if he
notices, there's no way to force him to. He can gain an advantage by
choosing to point it out or not. If you employ rule 1 or 2, that
advantage is increased, because player-2 has more information when he
makes the decision. If you want to limit the advantage player-2 can
gain when player-1 makes an illegal move, you must choose 3. Rules 1
and 2 will lead to a lot more arguments. Rule 3 is the obvious winner.
"Legal moves" variants beg for controversy. We have seen that player-2
can always gain an advantage if he notices that player-1 has made an
illegal play. If you have the unenforceable rule that "you really
should always point it out as soon as you notice," then you'll have lots
of arguments and accusations. The reasonable and equitable thing to do
is to augment rule 3, making the inevitable advantage that accrues to
player-1 explicit:
3a) Before player-1 has rolled, he may choose to accept the play as
made, or he may require that player-2 make a legal play.
Then you probably have to add some lawyerese to keep angle-shooters from
making ridiculous interpretations of the rule. The illegal play that is
allowed to stand must be plausible, and must result in a valid
position. It would not make sense to play on, for example, with
checkers of different colors on the same point (impossible position).
Nor would it be right to say that someone who slopped born-off checkers
into their outer board had actually brought them back into play to be
born in and off again (implausible).
Jive
Gregg Cattanach
overriding defect is that there is NO penalty for illegal plays that benefit
the illegal player. Chouettes and head-to-head are quite different, and I
believe (and our experience is) that the 'legal-plays' rule for chouettes as
we've drafted it works extremely well. Full text available at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/gcattanach/chouette.zip
Gregg
"Jive Dadson" <jda...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B7DCCBA...@ix.netcom.com...
neghe Onegu
Player A makes an illegal play. Suppose he is bearing in against an
anchor and leave an indirect shot. After he illegal moved his checker
1 pip to far the shot is hit. While player B picks up the blot player
A announces that the blot isnt really there as he had moved a three
instead of a two. What happens if annyone else points it out after B
rolled?