Question on rulings when Doubling in the Crawford-game.
Claes Thornberg
While revising a set of backgammon tournament rules I was asked how I
would rule if the leader was doubled in the Crawford-game, leading
12-9, taking and then losing a gammon and thereby the match. If before
reporting the result, the leader notices it was the crawford game,
should the result stand or should the trailer be awarded just 2pts. My
first reaction was, award the trailer 2pts. But after looking at
other Crawford-doubling situations I changed my mind and said that the
easiest way out is to let the result stand. Now I'd like to here your
opinion on this.
Regards,
Claes Thornberg
In all situations below, it's the Crawford game. Matches to 13pt.
1. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He takes and loses a
gammon. Before shaking hands with his opponent, acknowledging his
defeat, he remembers that the game was the Crawford-game. He
therefor insists on playing on from the score 12-11. His opponent
refuses and says that the cube action stands, and therefor he has
won the match. How do you rule?
2. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He takes but after a few
rolls he remembers that it's the Crawford-game. He calls for a
ruling. Does the game continue with the cube on 2, or is the cube
action not valid and the game played to conclusion without the cube in
play?
3. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He drops, but while
playing the next game he remembers that the last game was the
Crawford-game. He therefor calls for a ruling. How do you rule? Does
the match continue as if the leader lost 1 pt in the Crawford-game,
i.e. the double/drop cube action stands, or do they start all over
from the score 12-9 (Crawford)
4. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He drops, but before any of
the player has reset the checkers, the leader remembers that it's the
Crawford-game. He wants to continue the game, his opponent refuses and
insists on having won the game. A ruling is called for. How do you
rule?
5. Leading 12-1, the leader is doubled, he takes and loses a
gammon. The match continues and when the score reaches 12-12, he
stares at the scorecard, and sees that he lost 4pts in what should
have been the Crawford-game. He calls for a ruling? How do you rule?
--
______________________________________________________________________
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
Julian
In article <yvkzphz...@cuchulain.it.kth.se>, Claes Thornberg
<cla...@cuchulain.it.kth.se> writes
Well, I haven't come across any rulings on this particular scenario, but
I guess I would follow the same principle as applies to illegal moves -
the opponent has the right to either request that the move be taken back
or be left to stand, until such time as he condones the illegal move by
rolling the dice (or doubling). In which case, I think the illegal
double should be taken back in (4), but allowed to stand in the other
cases. Personally, at the start of Crawford games I like to remove the
cube from the board altogether, just so this doesn't arise.
--
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claes Thornberg
Julian <jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> In article <yvkzphz...@cuchulain.it.kth.se>, Claes Thornberg
> <cla...@cuchulain.it.kth.se> writes
>
> >4. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He drops, but before any of
> >the player has reset the checkers, the leader remembers that it's the
> >Crawford-game. He wants to continue the game, his opponent refuses and
> >insists on having won the game. A ruling is called for. How do you
> >rule?
> >
> Well, I haven't come across any rulings on this particular scenario, but
> I guess I would follow the same principle as applies to illegal moves -
> the opponent has the right to either request that the move be taken back
> or be left to stand, until such time as he condones the illegal move by
> rolling the dice (or doubling). In which case, I think the illegal
> double should be taken back in (4), but allowed to stand in the other
> cases. Personally, at the start of Crawford games I like to remove the
> cube from the board altogether, just so this doesn't arise.
>
> --
> Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
> +44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
Interesting opinion Julian, I would however, as you might have guessed
from my introduction, ruled that since the leader dropped he has
accepted the use of the the cube and therefor his action stands,
i.e. the opponent wins the game. Reading through our rules (Swedish
Bg Federation), I can see this as the only possible ruling. I would,
however, appeal to the players sportmanship to agree to continue the
game.
While discussing the Crawford-game with some friends, the following
suggestion came up: Add to the description of the Crawford rule (and
Crawford-game) that
In the Crawford-game, a single win scores 1 pt, a gammon 2 pts, and a
backgammon 3 pts, no matter what the cube shows or its position.
This however, does not cover the scenario above, where the leader
dropped the double.
More comments, anyone?
Tapio Palmroth
>
> While discussing the Crawford-game with some friends, the following
> suggestion came up: Add to the description of the Crawford rule (and
> Crawford-game) that
>
> In the Crawford-game, a single win scores 1 pt, a gammon 2 pts, and a
> backgammon 3 pts, no matter what the cube shows or its position.
>
> This however, does not cover the scenario above, where the leader
> dropped the double.
>
> More comments, anyone?
as the cube is not in use in grawford game , but was used ,
both players made a mistake , but which of the players made
the worse mistake ?
i think the one who made the first mistake , as it did lead to
another mistake.
so can the player who made worse mistake benefit of it ?
i guess not.
so maybe the solution should be that the game starts from the
previous standings.
tapio
ps.it happened in one big turny two years ago , that a well-known
player ( x ) was behind 2 - 8 to 9 agains weaker player ( O ),
grawford game . then o doubled to 2 , x took and said to the crowd :
as o used to cube , then it is useable for me too , and recubed
to 4 . x could have won gammon and the match , but failed and lost .
nobody asked for ruling .
Tom Keith
Claes Thornberg wrote:
>
> While revising a set of backgammon tournament rules I was asked how I
> would rule if the leader was doubled in the Crawford-game, leading
> 12-9, taking and then losing a gammon and thereby the match. If before
> reporting the result, the leader notices it was the crawford game,
> should the result stand or should the trailer be awarded just 2pts. My
> first reaction was, award the trailer 2pts. But after looking at
> other Crawford-doubling situations I changed my mind and said that the
> easiest way out is to let the result stand. Now I'd like to here your
> opinion on this.
Hi Claes.
After looking at your various scenarios, I think you're right.
The score (including the illegal double) should stand. Here's
a possible wording for a rule concerning Crawford game doubles:
During the Crawford game, if either player notices that
the doubling cube has been turned, he has the obligation
of pointing out the mistake and returning the cube to 1.
However, once the game is finished, any uncorrected cube
turns stand and the full value of the cube is used in
calculating the number of points awarded.
(A game is finished when: a player has borne off all his
checkers, a player resigns, or one player offers a double
and the other player drops.)
This allows an opporunity to correct an illegal double if it
is noticed during the game, while not perpetuating a possible
change in the score to future games of the match.
Tom
> In all situations below, it's the Crawford game. Matches to 13pt.
>
> 1. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He takes and loses a
> gammon. Before shaking hands with his opponent, acknowledging his
> defeat, he remembers that the game was the Crawford-game. He
> therefor insists on playing on from the score 12-11. His opponent
> refuses and says that the cube action stands, and therefor he has
> won the match. How do you rule?
>
> 2. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He takes but after a few
> rolls he remembers that it's the Crawford-game. He calls for a
> ruling. Does the game continue with the cube on 2, or is the cube
> action not valid and the game played to conclusion without the cube in
> play?
>
> 3. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He drops, but while
> playing the next game he remembers that the last game was the
> Crawford-game. He therefor calls for a ruling. How do you rule? Does
> the match continue as if the leader lost 1 pt in the Crawford-game,
> i.e. the double/drop cube action stands, or do they start all over
> from the score 12-9 (Crawford)
>
> 4. Leading 12-9, the leader is doubled. He drops, but before any of
> the player has reset the checkers, the leader remembers that it's the
> Crawford-game. He wants to continue the game, his opponent refuses and
> insists on having won the game. A ruling is called for. How do you
> rule?
>
> 5. Leading 12-1, the leader is doubled, he takes and loses a
> gammon. The match continues and when the score reaches 12-12, he
> stares at the scorecard, and sees that he lost 4pts in what should
> have been the Crawford-game. He calls for a ruling? How do you rule?
.
David Montgomery
>>Claes Thornberg wrote:
>> While revising a set of backgammon tournament rules I was asked how I
In article <352A38...@bkgm.com> Tom Keith <t...@bkgm.com> writes:
>Here's a possible wording for a rule concerning Crawford game doubles:
>
> During the Crawford game, if either player notices that
> the doubling cube has been turned, he has the obligation
> of pointing out the mistake and returning the cube to 1.
> However, once the game is finished, any uncorrected cube
> turns stand and the full value of the cube is used in
> calculating the number of points awarded.
Danny Kleinmain has advocated that penalties for illegal actions
should be as great or greater than the possible benefits of making
the illegal play. I agree with Kleinman, and hope that eventually
backgammon has rules of this sort.
The problem with Tom's proposal, and other rulings I have seen,
is that the trailer gets a free shot. That the trailer has an
obligation to point out the incorrect double here is not meaningful.
The trailer had an obligation not to double in the first place.
From a strategic point of view, with these sorts of rulings, you
should always double as the trailer in the Crawford game. You should
wait to pick the optimum moment of confusion when your opponent
might forget that you can't double, and then whip the cube. If
your ruse succeeds, you may double your chances of winning the
match. If not, no problem -- you are as well off as you would
have been if you hadn't doubled.
Clearly this is undesirable, and although the vast majority of
players never try to take advantage of this, I believe that rather
than rely on players' good intentions, the rules should deter
those who try to cheat. The basic idea is to have harsh penalties
for illegal actions, so that it is in a player's best interest
to play legally.
A possible rule would be as follows:
A match trailer who doubles in the Crawford game, will be penalized
in the following way. The opposing player calls "odd" or "even" and
makes a separate roll of the dice (not a part of the game). If the
player calls the number correctly, he wins a point (and the match).
The opposing player must announce that he is invoking the rule prior
to calling odd or even. This rule may be invoked any time after
a Crawford double has been offered, including in subsequent games,
up until the final result of the match has been made official by
the tournament director.
This way it is extremely difficult for the match trailer to
obtain any advantage by doubling, and most attempts to do so
with unethical intentions will instead be punished.
Some might protest that a player making an innocent mistake would
also be punished, presumably thinking this is unfair. I disagree.
The are two main points. First, we should not require tournament
director's to read people's minds to know their intentions. We
cannot know people's intentions, and so our rules should not require
us to. Second, we cannot protect people from their own mistakes.
If this rule were in use, and a person inadvertently doubled in
Crawford game, the person would (probably) be punished. Likewise if
they failed to see that they had rolled a crucial hitting number, or
if they left a game-losing shot that was unforced, but which,
unfortunately, they thought was forced. I have seen people make
these mistakes, and I have made them myself. I don't think
there is any difference with the proposed rule.
One problem comes from allowing someone to enforce this penalty
even after the game is over. If the trailer doubles and wins
a plain game, this is indistinguishable from the trailer winning
a gammon, and so there could be a dispute as to whether there was
a double. But for any other game result, it will be clear whether
or not the trailer doubled. Perhaps the rule should be ammended...
The match leader may invoke this penalty anytime during the Crawford
game, or at any subsequent time if the trailer wins four or more
points in the Crawford game.
I would like to see a similar rule for illegal checker plays. I'm
not sure I've seen one that seems both elegant and effective.
Here's a proposal:
When a player makes an illegal move, the opposing player
has the option of forcing the illegal mover to move again,
legally, or to condone the illegal move *and* receive
points equal to 1/2 the current cube level. In match play half
points are scored by allowing the offended player to call
odd or even on a separate dice roll, scoring the half point as
1 point if the call is correct, and 0 otherwise.
Certainly half a point is a severe penalty, but all that is
required to avoid it is that you carefully move legally. I
would be happy to play under these rules.
One additional problem with harsh penalties is that there can
be some dispute over whether a play was illegal. This arises
even now, but no doubt would arise more often if there were
stiff penalties. Often kibitzers' may be independent witnesses
of what really happened -- but just as often they may not really
be independent. We don't want to rely on *their* intentions either.
I don't see any way around this except recording the game.
David Montgomery
mo...@cs.umd.edu
monty on FIBS