opinions sought on tournament ruling
Brendan Burgess
The facts are somewhat disputed, but I would have given the same decision
anyway.
Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
side.
My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
same side of the board together.
Brendan Burgess
Kit Woolsey
: Could I have your opinions on a decision I gave recently in a tournament.
: Brendan Burgess
The rules specifically state that a roll is a legal roll only if both
dice land uncocked on the right hand side of the board of the player on
roll. If there is any question, this is the simple rule to follow.
Players should stick to the rules -- they should not request rolling on
the left hand side of the board nor should they give their opponent
permission. Doing so leads to potential disputes, such as the ones you
are talking about.
As always, a good director should take into account the players
involved. If one of the players is believed to be sleazy, the director
should rule against that player if he believes the player was attempting
to take a double shot.
Kit
John Greenwood
>Brendan Burgess (wild...@indigo.ie) wrote:
>: Could I have your opinions on a decision I gave recently in a tournament.
>: The facts are somewhat disputed, but I would have given the same decision
>: anyway.
>: Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
>: the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
>: right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
>:
>: Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
>: rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
>: side.
>: My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
>: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
>: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
>: same side of the board together.
>: Brendan Burgess
>The rules specifically state that a roll is a legal roll only if both
>dice land uncocked on the right hand side of the board of the player on
>roll. If there is any question, this is the simple rule to follow.
>Players should stick to the rules
Is there a rule in BG that states a game played other than to the
rules is deemed not to be a BG game? (Golf has, so an agreed
variation of the official rules means the players are no longer
playing "golf", but there own game).
-- they should not request rolling on
>the left hand side of the board nor should they give their opponent
>permission. Doing so leads to potential disputes, such as the ones you
>are talking about.
>As always, a good director should take into account the players
>involved.
I've never played a tournament BG game but surely this cannot be
correct? I've never heard of any game, never mind a game
professionals play, in which enforcement of the rules varies
according to a player's past conduct or reputation.
>If one of the players is believed to be sleazy, the director
>should rule against that player if he believes the player was attempting
>to take a double shot.
Maybe BG has a general rule (as croquet which I know about in detail)
that has a law stating if the laws don't cover a point natural justice
should prevail. Here, however, you say there is a definite rule but I
understand you to be saying the rule should be broken if the Director
considers there is gamesmanship going on.
Allowing the Director to sanction rule being broken or not dependent
on his/her view of a player's reputation seems a recipe for disaster.
It doesn't mean that this is not what happens or is expected to
happen. I'm just suprised by it.
---
John Greenwood
Chuck Bower
John Greenwood <Jo...@johng.ftech.co.uk> wrote:
>kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit Woolsey) wrote:
>
>>Brendan Burgess (wild...@indigo.ie) wrote:
>>: Could I have your opinions on a decision I gave recently in a tournament.
>
>>: The facts are somewhat disputed, but I would have given the same decision
>>: anyway.
>
>>: Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
>>: the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
>>: right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
>>:
>>: Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
>>: rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
>>: side.
>
>>: My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
>>: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
>>: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
>>: same side of the board together.
>
>>: Brendan Burgess
>
(Kit begins:)
>>The rules specifically state that a roll is a legal roll only if both
>>dice land uncocked on the right hand side of the board of the player on
>>roll. If there is any question, this is the simple rule to follow.
>>Players should stick to the rules
What Kit is referring to, I believe, are the "U.S. Backgammon Tournament
Rules & Procedures, March 1990" which are used in virtually all US
tournaments. (I don't know what rules are used in Europe...) Here,
rule 4.2 states:
Both dice must come to rest flat (not cocked) on the playing surface to
the right of the bar; otherwise they must be rerolled."
There is no option in the rules for allowing your opp to roll on the left
hand side. Back in the 70's this was a common practice, but it is now
frowned upon because of the above kinds of disputes.
(John begins:)
>
>Is there a rule in BG that states a game played other than to the
>rules is deemed not to be a BG game? (Golf has, so an agreed
>variation of the official rules means the players are no longer
>playing "golf", but there own game).
There is nothing in the above US rules about this. If players agree
(mutually) not to follow the rules, they are still playing BG. If the
director finds out, s/he will (make that SHOULD) command that the players
return to playing by the rules.
(snip)
(Kit continued)
>>As always, a good director should take into account the players involved.
>>If one of the players is believed to be sleazy, the director
>>should rule against that player if he believes the player was attempting
>>to take a double shot.
(John Greenwood queried:)
>
>I've never played a tournament BG game but surely this cannot be
>correct? I've never heard of any game, never mind a game
>professionals play, in which enforcement of the rules varies
>according to a player's past conduct or reputation.
The director MUST make a ruling. In a "tiebreaking" situation,
past actions (of questionable integrity) by the players involved
can enter into the decision. I think that is what Kit is saying.
If the rules clearly state how to resolve a situation, then that
is what is done. In borderline rulings (which most are among
experienced players) sometimes 'intent' is taken into consideration.
(John concludes:)
>Maybe BG has a general rule (as croquet which I know about in detail)
>that has a law stating if the laws don't cover a point natural justice
>should prevail. Here, however, you say there is a definite rule but I
>understand you to be saying the rule should be broken if the Director
>considers there is gamesmanship going on.
>Allowing the Director to sanction rule being broken or not dependent
>on his/her view of a player's reputation seems a recipe for disaster.
>It doesn't mean that this is not what happens or is expected to
>happen. I'm just suprised by it.
There IS a rule in the above mentioned US Rules, number 1.1, which
states:
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 judgement or prevent him
from finding the solution dictated by fairness and compatible with the
circumstances of a particular case.
Clearly a rule was broken, but it was broken by BOTH sides. The director
must get the players back on track AND mediate the immediate problem. The
first part (getting them back on track) is easy--tell them to follow the rule.
But the question still remains: what should happen with the disputed roll?
Does it stand or must it be rerolled? This is where "freedom of judgement"
and "fairness" of rule 1.1 enters. Brendan made his ruling consistent
with what he felt was good sportsmanship. I applaud his action. (But if,
in his judgement, the FAIR thing to do would have been to require a reroll,
then I would have agreed with that as well. It's a fuzzy situation and this
is where a director's discetion takes over.)
There are a FEW players who think that USING the rules to gain an
advantage is perfectly legal. For example my opp rolls on the WRONG
side, but it's a bad roll for him/her--in that case I allow it. But if
it's a good roll, then I call attention to the rule and require a reroll.
Personnally, I find this SLEAZY. When a pattern of such rule bending is
established, a good director will become wise to it and rule AGAINST such
shenanigans when they arrise in borderline decisions. At least that is
the way I see it.
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
OSMAN
all, the roll was legal. I would also caution both players about the
rule on rolling the dice on the right board and that they should proceed
within the given rule from there on.
I have directed many chess touraments and officated soccer matches and
you will be amazed how many times one will need to make a judgement call
or arbitration in a single game. Numerous situations arise that are not
covered directly by the rule-book and will need interpretation. As a
referee or director, you make the call based on all the information
available to you (including the historical attitudes of the players
involved).
As a referee or director, you have the responsibility of enforcing the
laws of the game. But you also try to get the match or tournament move
on as smoothly as possible. Hence, in your situation, should you cancel
the match because both players broke the rule by allowing one party to
roll the dice on the left board? I think not; in the spirit of the
game I would have them continue the game but to stick to the rules from
there on.
Brendan gets my vote on both rulings.
John Greenwood wrote:
>
> kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit Woolsey) wrote:
>
> >Brendan Burgess (wild...@indigo.ie) wrote:
> >: Could I have your opinions on a decision I gave recently in a tournament.
>
> >: The facts are somewhat disputed, but I would have given the same decision
> >: anyway.
>
> >: Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
> >: the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
> >: right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
> >:
> >: Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
> >: rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
> >: side.
>
> >: My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
> >: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
> >: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
> >: same side of the board together.
>
> >: Brendan Burgess
>
[snip]
--
Osman F. Guner
os...@prodigy.net
http://pages.prodigy.net/osman
Jim Peplow
>: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
>: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on
the
>: same side of the board together.
>
>: Brendan Burgess
>
>dice land uncocked on the right hand side of the board of the player on
>roll. If there is any question, this is the simple rule to follow.
>the left hand side of the board nor should they give their opponent
>permission. Doing so leads to potential disputes, such as the ones you
>are talking about.
This raises a question that has always bugged me. Granted, that during the
normal course of play, both player roll on their right side of the board,
but once all the checkers are in the home board, it only makes sense to
allow bearing off rolls on the checker free side of the board. Less chance
of dice landing on checkers or cocked rolls.
Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean it's a good rule. Unless
there is a specific reason why the player can't roll on the opposite side
during bearing off, the "rules committee" should consider changing that
rule. The basic reason - no advantage is gained by allowing this, and it
can even save time having to reroll cocked dice.
Jim - Truth on GG
jpe...@bcag.org
Chuck Bower
Jim Peplow <jpe...@bcag.org> wrote:
(snip)
>This raises a question that has always bugged me. Granted, that during the
>normal course of play, both player roll on their right side of the board,
>but once all the checkers are in the home board, it only makes sense to
>allow bearing off rolls on the checker free side of the board. Less chance
>of dice landing on checkers or cocked rolls.
>
>Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean it's a good rule. Unless
>there is a specific reason why the player can't roll on the opposite side
>during bearing off, the "rules committee" should consider changing that
>rule. The basic reason - no advantage is gained by allowing this, and it
>can even save time having to reroll cocked dice.
I must be missing something. Why should it matter whether or not
both sides are bearing off? So the above question becomes: why require
a player to roll on the RH side, anyway? Why require BOTH dice to land
on the SAME side (how about one on either side--what is wrong with that)?
I don't really know the answers, but I can think of some reasons why
RH side is in the rules:
A) For the first roll (in Western BG) each player tosses one die.
By requiring a RH toss, you can't try and shoot at your opp's good die!
B) Even though you are 'required' to wait for your opp to pick up his/her
dice before rolling, you avoid the situation where a fresh
roll (in midair) strikes the hand of the opp picking up his/her dice.
C) Always requiring RH rolls is simple and easily understandable. One
sentence covers all situations (well, almost all...). That may be
the real reason that this rule exists.
Once you have instituted RH rolling, though, then allowing LH throws
brings up MANY questions, like:
1) Can you now throw on BOTH sides (either/or)?
2) If you revert to rolling on RH side, is that roll invalid?
3) (If answer to #2 is no, ) If you return to rolling on the RH side,
does that mean you have rescinded your right to roll on the LH side?
4) By default, once the game ends does rolling automatically revert
to the RH side, or does 'permission' extend to the next game as well?
5) If BOTH dice jump the bar after bouncing on one side, is that roll
valid?
By requiring RH rolls, most of these issues are irrelevant.
Actually, situation #5 could come up even when the 'ALL RH tosses'
rule is in effect. I'm pretty sure the 'ruling' there would be that as
long as the dice never touched any object outside of the board--where
board includes walls, checkers, cubes, or anything within the maximal
outer boundaries of the playing set--and they land on the RH side,
then the roll is valid. (BTW, if a player's hand happens to resting
on the board and a die hits that hand inadvertently, the roll remains
valid. A hand touching a board is part of the board, I believe. However,
opp (or director) should request that the hand be removed from the board.)
Something that is NOT allowed is a "tennis serve" roll, where
you toss the dice (even from a cup) into the air and then swat them with
your hand onto the playing surface. However, I've never seen anyone
try this! More likely would be a die which flies off the table, strikes
a drinking glass, then reflects back onto the surface--this would be
an invalid toss.
BTW, if a player ATTEMPTED to roll by bouncing the dice off the LH side
and onto the RH side, I think the director would rule that this is invalid,
but if such an action occurred inadvertently, then it would be allowed.
Obviously if such an occurence repeated itself, then the director would
have grounds to suspect intent, or at least should request the person
rolling to modify his/her rolling technique.
If all this seems complicated, then you understand why the rules are
written to be as simple as possible, and why the director is given so
much power when making rulings. Goodness knows we have enough lawyers
running around without having to hire them to mediate BG disputes! ;)
John Doe
Actually its irrelevant. There must be a clearly defined set of rules
and no deviation therefrom EVEN IF BOTH PLAYERS AGREE.
EdmondT
>But what if both players are left handed?
>
>Actually its irrelevant. There must be a clearly defined set of rules
>and no deviation therefrom EVEN IF BOTH PLAYERS AGREE.
>
>
What is this, a game or a government beurocracy for crying out loud. Who cares
about the rules if everyone agrees?
John Doe
And besides, doesnt Democracy screw the Majority by alway giving the
Minority their way ???
Marina Smith
>What is this, a game or a government beurocracy for crying out loud. Who cares
>about the rules if everyone agrees?
>
Games for fun often differ from tournaments. Throwing the dice on the
'wrong' side (with permission), keeping one dice in the cup with a
finger for the initial throw, moving another player's piece for them
if they can't reach (yes, all right, I've got short arms), all these
things, while often normal practice in games among friends, should not
be used or permitted in tournaments, in my opinion. In a tournament,
everything should be crystal clear and unambiguous.
Marina / mas on fibs
--
Marina Smith - Reading, UK. To email me, remove XX from my address.
Chris Ternel
>Could I have your opinions on a decision I gave recently in a tournament.
>
>The facts are somewhat disputed, but I would have given the same decision
>anyway.
>
>Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
>the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
>right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
>
>Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
>rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
>side.
>
>My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
>giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
>irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
>same side of the board together.
>
>Brendan Burgess
I suggested the following for the revised US tournament rules which I
sent to Butch Meese in December 1997. I do not know if they have been
implemented.
PLAYERS MAY ROLL ON THE LEFT OF THE BOARD
1). ALWAYS AFTER FIRST HAVING RECEIVED THE OPPONENTS OR DIRECTORS
PERMISSION (e.g. LEFT HANDED ROLLERS)
2). WHEN ROLLING (MAINLY APPLIES TO BEAR-OFFS), PERMISSION SHOULD BE
ASKED OF THE OPPONENT, AND ALWAYS GIVEN BY THE OPPONENT (THIS IS A
GENTLEMAN'S GAME), ONCE ONLY BEFORE CHANGING FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AND
WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL THE PLAYER ROLLS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE
AGAIN, OR THE GAME ENDS.
The "very limited" rules of backgammon are there to help directors
make fair rulings, so unless we want volumes of rules directors should
be able to interpret and adapt the rules to fit the situation:
Chris E. Ternel
D.B.F.ApS - BgShop
Gersonsvej 25
DK-2900 Hellerup
www.bgshop.com - for all your backgammon needs!
tel. +45 39 40 17 85
fax. +45 39 40 01 44
Jim JOHNSON
"can I roll on the other side of the board," he paused and thought for
a few seconds and replied "yes, but if you want to return to rolling
on the other side, of the board again, you must ask permission".
The period of time in which he thought was to weigh up the gain / loss
from such a request, the gain was less cocked dice and therefore a
faster game, the loss was a possible dispute like Rick and Paul.
So it seems to me that the transaction is very one sided, and in
future I, if asked will refuse the request to 'roll on the WRONG
side'.
Jim Johnson (figgis)
Julian
>This raises a question that has always bugged me. Granted, that during the
>normal course of play, both player roll on their right side of the board,
>but once all the checkers are in the home board, it only makes sense to
>allow bearing off rolls on the checker free side of the board. Less chance
>of dice landing on checkers or cocked rolls.
Cocked rolls are irritating, but at the same time, the RH-only rule
means that the two players and their dice should not come into contact.
If you allow LH rolls in the bearoff, a player can roll prematurely to
dislodge a large number before his opponent plays (or even dislodge one
die before the other comes to rest) - he can pick up his dice slowly and
use his withdrawing hand to move the opponents next roll if he rolls
hastily - he can roll prematurely and pick up the wrong dice (possibly
passing his opponent a tampered die in the process) - and bluff his way
out if challenged. Granted a player could try these cheats anyway, but a
deliberate LH roll when not allowed would be a clear indication of
cheating.
--
Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over two-thirds of 11-year-olds failed the standard reading assessments
this year. The Government has pledged to increase this to three-quarters
by the year 2001..." - Classic FM News
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EdmondT
I've never played a game of BG where anyone even cared what side you rolled on.
JC Dill
(someone wrote)
> >>: Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side of
> >>: the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll into the
> >>: right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was invalid.
> >>:
> >>: Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side, Paul
> >>: rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the right hand
> >>: side.
> >
> >>: My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
> >>: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
> >>: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on the
> >>: same side of the board together.
> Clearly a rule was broken, but it was broken by BOTH sides. The director
> must get the players back on track AND mediate the immediate problem. The
> first part (getting them back on track) is easy--tell them to follow the rule.
> But the question still remains: what should happen with the disputed roll?
> Does it stand or must it be rerolled? This is where "freedom of judgement"
> and "fairness" of rule 1.1 enters. Brendan made his ruling consistent
> with what he felt was good sportsmanship. I applaud his action. (But if,
> in his judgement, the FAIR thing to do would have been to require a reroll,
> then I would have agreed with that as well. It's a fuzzy situation and this
> is where a director's discetion takes over.)
>
> There are a FEW players who think that USING the rules to gain an
> advantage is perfectly legal. For example my opp rolls on the WRONG
> side, but it's a bad roll for him/her--in that case I allow it. But if
> it's a good roll, then I call attention to the rule and require a reroll.
> Personnally, I find this SLEAZY.
I find the above 2 paragraphs contradictory. First you say
require a reroll, later you indicate that some sleazy people
may setup the situation so that they can make a complaint,
call for a ruling and require that the director rule that
there must be a reroll (favoring the sleazy person and their
tactics).
For this reason, I think one needs MORE compelling reasons to
require a reroll than to let the roll stand. I feel that the first
roll should be played unless there is a clear reason it *must*
be rerolled. This helps elimitate the sleazy tactic mentioned
in the second paragraph.
jc
Chuck Bower
JC Dill <jcd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Chuck Bower wrote:
>
>(someone wrote)
>> >>: Case A. In a bearoff Paul asked Rick could he roll on the left hand side
>> >>: of the board. Rick gave his consent. Paul then rolled his next roll
>> >>: into the right hand side of the board. Rick claimed the roll was
>> >>: invalid.
>> >>: Case B. After Rick gave Paul permission to roll on the left hand side,
>> >>: Paul rolled 4 or 5 rolls on the left hand side and then rolled on the
>> >>: right hand side.
>> >
>> >>: My ruling was that granting permission to roll on the left hand side is
>> >>: giving the player an option to roll on either side and therefore
>> >>: irrespective of the facts, the roll stands as long as both dice land on
>> >>: the same side of the board together.
>
I passed judgement:
>> Clearly a rule was broken, but it was broken by BOTH sides. The director
>> must get the players back on track AND mediate the immediate problem. The
>> first part (getting them back on track) is easy--tell them to follow the
>> rule.
>> But the question still remains: what should happen with the disputed roll?
>> Does it stand or must it be rerolled? This is where "freedom of judgement"
>> and "fairness" of rule 1.1 enters. Brendan made his ruling consistent
>> with what he felt was good sportsmanship. I applaud his action. (But if,
>> in his judgement, the FAIR thing to do would have been to require a reroll,
>> then I would have agreed with that as well. It's a fuzzy situation and this
>> is where a director's discetion takes over.)
^^^^^^^^^
discretion (Freudian slip??)
>>
>> There are a FEW players who think that USING the rules to gain an
>> advantage is perfectly legal. For example my opp rolls on the WRONG
>> side, but it's a bad roll for him/her--in that case I allow it. But if
>> it's a good roll, then I call attention to the rule and require a reroll.
>> Personnally, I find this SLEAZY.
>
JC opined:
>I find the above 2 paragraphs contradictory. First you say
>require a reroll,
Did I really say that?
>later you indicate that some sleazy people
>may setup the situation so that they can make a complaint,
>call for a ruling and require that the director rule that
>there must be a reroll (favoring the sleazy person and their
>tactics).
>
>For this reason, I think one needs MORE compelling reasons to
>require a reroll than to let the roll stand. I feel that the first
>roll should be played unless there is a clear reason it *must*
>be rerolled. This helps elimitate the sleazy tactic mentioned
>in the second paragraph.
This may be true. But all this confusion (well, at least I
am getting confused) further adds fuel to the KISS argument:
Requiring RH rolls in all situations is the best solution.
I don't think the rules can be written to cover EVERY POSSIBLE situation.
But if they could, the rulebook would be the size of Webster's Unabridged.
In the wisdom of the 1990 US BG Tournament Rules and Procedures, requiring
RH rolls 'Kept It Simple, Stupid' (KISS). That combined with the catch-all
"fairness" rule should cover most situations. (Please, no one take offense.
KISS is a common acronym. I am not referring to JC as stupid, nor anyone
else, for that matter. However, I still reserve the right to call someone
stupid in a future post is I feel the situation calls for such. ;)