Mind Reading

[Bob Hoey]

bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu,Internet writes:
>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.
>
BH> In the example above, Bower is suggesting that tournament directors
should be mind readers. If a player rolls on the left hand board, that is
an invalid roll. If the opponent allows the roll, then it stands.
Whether the player rolling on the wrong side, did it "on purpose" or not,
is irrelevant. All players should be attentive to what is happening on
the board. The "gamesmanship" that Bower writes about and finds to be
appropriate in money games, but not in tournaments, is part of the game.
If you snooze, you lose. That is part of the game and should not be ruled
out of tournaments. There are a lot of psyche games that a skilled player
can employ to take advantage of an opponents weaknesses. If those rules
fall within the rules of the game, then the players are fully entitled to
"go for it".
In a match, a long time ago, there was an experienced player, who was
playing a clearly inferior player. The inferior player rolled on the
wrong side of the board on a regular basis, but never asked for nor
received permission to do so. Eventually, the inferior player rolled a
killer roll and the experienced guy called foul. "That roll is invalid,
you rolled on the wrong side of the board". The tournament director was
called, a tournament committee was called and the roll was appropriately
rolled invalid. The stronger player was an asshole, but fully within his
rights to wait for a damaging roll to object to the misrolling.
As a tournament director, I regularly warn players not to roll on their
opponents side of the board, that they put themselves at risk by doing so.
In the end game, many players will ask permission to roll on their
opponents side, since all of the men are located in one board and the
other is empty. I strongly advise against that request and routinely deny
my opponents when they ask to roll on my side. When a player does ask for
permission to roll on the wrong side, that permission expires with the
game and does not continue to the next game, but often a player will get
used to rolling on the wrong side and simply continue into the next game,
again putting the player at risk for having any roll voided for rolling on
the wrong side.
Tournament directors should not and cannot be mind readers. The rules
must address what actually happens, not the motivation that led to the
occurence. Gamesmanship is and should be an integral part of the game.
Some players want to view backgammon as merely a mathematical exercise,
but it is more robust than that. Players bring strengths and weaknesses
to the game and it is appropriate that a player identify his opponents
strengths and weaknesses and within the rules, exploit those weaknesses.
Bob

[Chuck Bower]

In article <fc.003e9025009e29013b...@mlsonline.com>,
Bob Hoey <Bob_...@mlsonline.com> wrote:

>bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu,Internet writes:

>>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.
>>

>BH> In the example above, Bower is suggesting that tournament directors
>should be mind readers.

IYHO, right??

>If a player rolls on the left hand board, that is
>an invalid roll. If the opponent allows the roll, then it stands.
>Whether the player rolling on the wrong side, did it "on purpose" or not,
>is irrelevant. All players should be attentive to what is happening on
>the board. The "gamesmanship" that Bower writes about and finds to be
>appropriate in money games, but not in tournaments, is part of the game.
>If you snooze, you lose. That is part of the game and should not be ruled
>out of tournaments. There are a lot of psyche games that a skilled player
>can employ to take advantage of an opponents weaknesses. If those rules
>fall within the rules of the game, then the players are fully entitled to
>"go for it".

Certainly, but how do you define what "...fall(s) within the rules...?"

> In a match, a long time ago, there was an experienced player, who was
>playing a clearly inferior player. The inferior player rolled on the
>wrong side of the board on a regular basis, but never asked for nor
>received permission to do so. Eventually, the inferior player rolled a
>killer roll and the experienced guy called foul. "That roll is invalid,
>you rolled on the wrong side of the board". The tournament director was
>called, a tournament committee was called and the roll was appropriately
>rolled invalid. The stronger player was an asshole, but fully within his
>rights to wait for a damaging roll to object to the misrolling.
> As a tournament director, I regularly warn players not to roll on their
>opponents side of the board, that they put themselves at risk by doing so.
> In the end game, many players will ask permission to roll on their
>opponents side, since all of the men are located in one board and the
>other is empty. I strongly advise against that request and routinely deny
>my opponents when they ask to roll on my side. When a player does ask for
>permission to roll on the wrong side, that permission expires with the
>game and does not continue to the next game, but often a player will get
>used to rolling on the wrong side and simply continue into the next game,
>again putting the player at risk for having any roll voided for rolling on
>the wrong side.

Please state where this rule is recorded. I looked at Tom Keith's
rules page: ( http://www.bkgm.com/rules.html ) and on the US Tournament
Rules page: ( http://homepage.interaccess.com/~chipoint/usrules.html ).
I did not see anything about rolling on the left. Both pages say a player
must roll on the right. I recall that asking permission to roll on the
left was standard practice in the 1970's but has since fallen from favor.
I remember an instance where Butch Meese informed a player (who was still
playing 1970's customs) that rolling on the left was not allowed, and he
should not ask his opponent for permission to do so.

> Tournament directors should not and cannot be mind readers. The rules
>must address what actually happens, not the motivation that led to the
>occurence.

I don't think all of your fellow directors agree with this. Saying they
shouldn't be required to be "mind readers" makes sense. But at the same
time most are committed to the integrity of the game. The situation I
describe is ethically questionable (IMHO) and repeated occurences would
likely bring (at a minimum) a private 'conversation' between said player
and SOME tournament directors.

>Gamesmanship is and should be an integral part of the game.

I agree in principal. But it depends on what form of "gamesmanship"
you refer to.

>Some players want to view backgammon as merely a mathematical exercise,

(Anyone in particular you have in mind?)

>but it is more robust than that. Players bring strengths and weaknesses
>to the game and it is appropriate that a player identify his opponents
>strengths and weaknesses and within the rules, exploit those weaknesses.

Again I agree. What we seem to disagree on is what is "within
the rules". The very first sentence in the 1990 US BG Tournament rules
and procedures states:

1.1 INTERPRETATION. The Tournament Rules and Procedures cannot, and
should not, regulate all possible situations that may arise during a game.
No set of rules should deprive the Director of his freedom of judgment or
prevent him from finding the solution dictated by fairness and compatible
with the circumstances of a particular case.

I find a lot of wisdom in this preamble. It's what allows Bob to rule
as he does in his tournaments and others as they choose in theirs. It
implies a kind of "enlightened despotism" and trusts that directors will
do what is best for the game of BG in general. And it seems to work!

There is one thing I think is missing from the 1990 rules. And it
is alluded to in Bob's example. The quesion I have is "are players by
mutual agreement permitted to change the rules for their current match?"
Can they roll on the left side, play without dice cups, change the
goal score? If 'yes' on these, can they agree to play with only 14
checkers each? Can they set up 'Nackgammon' at the beginning of each
game? Can they ignore the Crawford Rule, institute the Holland Rule,
automatic doubles, Jacoby Rule, beavers,...?

The above questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I believe that
the rules should have a section which says whether rules can be changed
by the players in the match without permission of the director. Right
now I see nothing which touches upon this. Of course I may be overlooking
something (misreading?). It wouldn't be the first time.

Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS

[Julian]

In article <6i8boo$ev6$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Chuck Bower
<bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> writes

> There is one thing I think is missing from the 1990 rules. And it
>is alluded to in Bob's example. The quesion I have is "are players by
>mutual agreement permitted to change the rules for their current match?"
>Can they roll on the left side, play without dice cups, change the
>goal score? If 'yes' on these, can they agree to play with only 14
>checkers each? Can they set up 'Nackgammon' at the beginning of each
>game? Can they ignore the Crawford Rule, institute the Holland Rule,
>automatic doubles, Jacoby Rule, beavers,...?

If yes, there are serious problems for tournament formats in which
winning/losing is not the only concern. For example, Swiss tournaments
where runner-up and lower places are decided on points scored
for/against. Suppose the leading two players can guarantee first and
second place between them if and only if the margin of victory is a
single point. If they are allowed to alter the rules, what is to stop
them "settling" the match so that the loser of the two is still certain
to be in the money?

Admittedly there is a distinction here between rules that only affect
the players concerned and those which have repercussions for the others.

> The above questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I believe that
>the rules should have a section which says whether rules can be changed
>by the players in the match without permission of the director. Right
>now I see nothing which touches upon this.

It could be covered by the "enlightened dictator" clause, but I agree it
really ought to be stated explicitly.

--
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------