Ruling?
ste...@my-dejanews.com
situation:
Black has just won a game, where white has the cube on 2.
However both player's agree that during the game white first doubled to
2, black took, then later black redoubled.
White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and so
white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2 points
from her win.
Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to 4
until the end of the game.
Variant B
As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was placed
with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also cheated
by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself)
Variant C
Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side facing up.
White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if he is
allowed to take the cube at value 2
Thank you for your opinions.
--
Stein Kulseth
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Julian
writes
>As a tournament director/committe member, how would you rule in this
>situation:
>
> Black has just won a game, where white has the cube on 2.
> However both player's agree that during the game white first doubled to
> 2, black took, then later black redoubled.
> White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
> cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and so
> white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2 points
> from her win.
> Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
> but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
> and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
> Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to 4
> until the end of the game.
>
>Variant B
> As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was placed
> with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also cheated
> by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself)
>
>Variant C
> Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side facing up.
> White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if he is
> allowed to take the cube at value 2
>
>
>Thank you for your opinions.
I think in the absence of an explicit rule for this situation, the
nearest analogy is that White can condone an illegal checker play once
Black has picked up his dice. In all three situations, it would appear
Black has made an illegal play (double) by passing the cube back on 2
and certainly in A and B White condoned the play by taking the "double"
and the game continued. In situation C it seems a lot harsher to rule
against Black, but the equivalent of picking ones dice up has to be
releasing the cube from one's hand (there's no other sensible way of
defining the point at which a double is made, IMHO) and so it has to be
the same - White can either condone the illegal double by taking the
cube on 2 or reject it and insist that the cube be turned to the correct
position, i.e. 4.
--
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Youngerman
relevant. What EXACTLY do they say about the act of doubling?
The following is copied off the Chicago Point web site:
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
In this instance, it is clear that the act of placing the cube at the
higher value is integral to the act of doubling. Hence, there was no
double. It is the same as if Black took the cube and put it in his
pocket or threw it out the window. More realistically, it is as
though Black said "Would you mind holding the cube for a while, I
don't want it over on this side of the board." White cannot "condone"
the illegal double, because it never happened. Black still controls
the cube as 2. Now, if it happens that the table action caused Black
to not realize that he was still holding the cube at 2, that is, I
suppose, his bad luck.
As to variant C, it is clear (to me) that he cannot take the cube at
2. There is no provision in the rules to pass the cube. The rules on
illegal moves are clear, that they can be condoned. But there is no
rule that permits "condoning" an illegal double, or non-double as the
case may be.
Just my opinion.
On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:08:53 GMT, ste...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>As a tournament director/committe member, how would you rule in this
>situation:
>
> Black has just won a game, where white has the cube on 2.
> However both player's agree that during the game white first doubled to
> 2, black took, then later black redoubled.
> White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
> cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and so
> white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2 points
> from her win.
> Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
> but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
> and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
> Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to 4
> until the end of the game.
>
>Variant B
> As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was placed
> with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also cheated
> by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself)
>
>Variant C
> Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side facing up.
> White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if he is
> allowed to take the cube at value 2
>
>
>Thank you for your opinions.
Pickard, Steve
Backgammon Association),Michael Crane mailto:BI...@compuserve.com- these
are his comments
Steve (pix on FIBS)
------------------------------------------------]------------
Interesting, but I don't see much of a problem here. The answer lies in
the
text below marked **
** However both player's agree that during the game white first
doubled
to
2, black took, then later black redoubled.
White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and
so
white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2
points
from her win. **
Not just Black, but White also agrees that White first doubled and White
openly admits that when Black redoubled the cube wasn't turned to 4.
White
knowingly cheated in not pointing out this error, hoping to gain I know
not
what. It begs the question, had White won would they have claimed 4
points
or 2? Methinks White would have argued strongly for the 4 points, don't
you?
** Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to
4
until the end of the game. **
Again White admits they knew all along and failed to mention it.
Gamesmanship, not sportsmanship.
**Variant B
As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was
placed
with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also
cheated
by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself) **
It was a redouble (both players and spectators agree) and therefore
couldn't be on 2 anyway. Spectators, though not allowed to interfere in
a
game are allowed to bring such matters to the attention of the
Tournament
Director - who, when so informed can bring the mistake to the players
attention.
** Variant C
Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side
facing
up. White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if
he
is
allowed to take the cube at value 2. **
No! As both players admit it's a redouble, it's a redouble - no
argument.
Imagine if the mistake was made handing over the cube at 64! Would White
seriously expect to win/lose 64 points?
Cheerio,
Michael<
Chuck Bower
>As a tournament director/committe member, how would you rule in this
>situation:
>
> Black has just won a game, where white has the cube on 2.
> However both player's agree that during the game white first doubled to
> 2, black took, then later black redoubled.
> White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
> cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and so
> white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2 points
> from her win.
> Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
> but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
> and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
> Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to 4
> until the end of the game.
>
>Variant B
> As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was placed
> with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also cheated
> by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself)
>
>Variant C
> Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side facing up.
> White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if he is
> allowed to take the cube at value 2
I'm not a tournament director (but I play one on TV ;), but if I
were on a committee I couldn't imagine how another committee member
could convince me that the cube value should be 2. Both agree that a
double AND a redouble occurred. At backgammon that means the cube
is on 4. Pretty simple.
These kinds of shenanigans by white should be strongly discouraged
by the tournament director. I believe the directory should PRIVATELY
point out to white that this kind of action is an attempt at abusing
the rules and not in the spirit of the game. If white doesn't heed
this advice, stronger action should be taken. But, "a word to the wise..."
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Julian
<hankyou...@home.com> writes
>I don't know what the specific rules of backgammon are, and they are
>relevant. What EXACTLY do they say about the act of doubling?
>
>The following is copied off the Chicago Point web site:
>
>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
>
>In this instance, it is clear that the act of placing the cube at the
>higher value is integral to the act of doubling. Hence, there was no
>double. It is the same as if Black took the cube and put it in his
>pocket or threw it out the window. More realistically, it is as
>though Black said "Would you mind holding the cube for a while, I
>don't want it over on this side of the board." White cannot "condone"
>the illegal double, because it never happened. Black still controls
>the cube as 2. Now, if it happens that the table action caused Black
>to not realize that he was still holding the cube at 2, that is, I
>suppose, his bad luck.
It might be a good idea to add to this rule a clarification similar to
that for cocked dice; one thing that bugs me is when players perform an
initial double by turning the cube but leaving it midway between us and
in the piece-container at the side of the board. Another is when my
opponent sits fondling the cube while I try to see a move that will
stave off the cube for one more roll. I would like to see in the rules
that a double is "cocked" and *must* be rescinded unless:
* the cube is not touched by the doubler until the doublee has
finished the previous roll,
* the cube is turned to the correct value,
* it is placed by the doubler on the playing surface on the far
side of the board (right hand table?).
Having seen the rule as printed in Chicago Point I must admit I don't
feel so happy with my original interpretation...
BobSMan
>White
>knowingly cheated in not pointing out this error, hoping to gain I know
>not
>what. It begs the question, had White won would they have claimed 4
>points
>or 2? Methinks White would have argued strongly for the 4 points, don't
>you?
I would think it si quite obvious what White hoped to gain. When Black
redoubled, he presumably had the advantage. White would therefore prefer to
continue playing for 2 rather than 4 points. By not pointing out that the cube
had not been turned, he hoped to gain the advantage of having the cube on his
side for "free."
I think it is also clear that White would, upon winning, argue for four
points. However, if we wish to be fair, he can't be allowed to have it both
ways. If we treat this in the same manner as we would treat a misplay of the
dice, we must leave the cube at 2. If White did not insist on turning the cube
to 4 immediately, he cannot be allowed to claim 4 points later.
>Again White admits they knew all along and failed to mention it.
>Gamesmanship, not sportsmanship.
True, it was definitely unsporting, but this does not answer the question.
If Black had moved his men incorrectly, White would have the option of either
leaving the men where they are or else insisting on a legal move. He would
presumably choose whichever option was to his advantage. We might argue that
this also shows poor sportsmanship, but we still allow it.
>As both players admit it's a redouble, it's a redouble - no
>argument.
>Imagine if the mistake was made handing over the cube at 64! Would White
>seriously expect to win/lose 64 points?
I believe that the rules in this case are the same as those applied to an
illegal move of the pieces. As long as White chooses this course deliberately,
it seems perfectly legal, though I personally wouldn't play against this person
recreationally.
Bob Sisselman
Hank Youngerman
bothers me about backgammon.
I am both more experienced and talented at bridge, although I enjoy
both games. In bridge, behavior like White's would be strongly
discouraged. The Laws of Bridge do provide specific penalties for
irregularities, and say that it is fully acceptable to take best
advatage of them, but bridge is also played under a code of active
ethics, where players are encouraged to win by strict conformity to
the rules. For example, there is a specific penalty if you expose a
card to your partner. But I recall a tournament a few years back
where I was the dummy and I realized that my left-hand opponent (a
very ditzy old lady) was trying to play two cards at the same time - I
leaned over and covered both cards with my hands so that her partner
couldn't see them - since he had not seen them, she could play the one
she wanted, and put the other back in her hand, no damage done. Maybe
I don't know enough about high-level backgammon, but I think that
backgammon does not really operate under a similar code of ethics, and
that's particularly true since money is almost always involved.
Chuck Bower made the best point, I think, that regardless of what the
techincally correct ruling was, White was a sharpie. I guess that in
hindsight, I regret MY original answer.
On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:08:53 GMT, ste...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>As a tournament director/committe member, how would you rule in this
>situation:
>
> Black has just won a game, where white has the cube on 2.
> However both player's agree that during the game white first doubled to
> 2, black took, then later black redoubled.
> White states that when black redoubled she did not actually turn the
> cube to 4, but placed it on the board with the 2 side showing - and so
> white accepted the cube with value 2 and black should get just 2 points
> from her win.
> Black cannot recall whether she actually turned the cube to 2 or 4,
> but states that the intention of redoubling to 4 should be clear,
> and expect to be rewarded 4 points.
> Both agree that white did not mention that the cube was not turned to 4
> until the end of the game.
>
>Variant B
> As above, but spectators can confirm that the redoubled cube was placed
> with the 2 side up (eliminating the possibility that white also cheated
> by turning a 4 cube back to a 2 cube himself)
>
>Variant C
> Black redoubles, and puts the cube on the table with the 2 side facing up.
> White calls the tournament director immediately to find out if he is
> allowed to take the cube at value 2
>
>