Re: Chouette rules?

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:10:40 GMT, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166pls@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2005 11:07:37 -0700, pauldepstein@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> I have a different hypothesis about the rules dispute.
>>>
>>> I think that someone had the opportunity to play moves corresponding
>>> to both dice; however, the person (illegally) wanted to move just
>>> one of the dice in such a way that the second dice was impossible to
>>> play.
>>
>> No, it was bearing off:
>>
>>
>> | | | X
>> | | | X
>> | | X | XX
>> | | X X | XX
>> | | X X X X | XX
>> ------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
>>
>> X had a 42 and (incredibly) played 5/3, 3/off. O wasn't
>> certain that was legal. (In a rare instance of backgammon
>> justice X lost, and would have won if he'd made the right
>> play. Trying to show off what clever guy he was, but
>> slightly missing the point...)
>>
>>> The rules of backgammon are not difficult.
>>>
>>> Nobody should play in a chouette if they don't know what checker
>>> plays are legal and what aren't.
>>
>> So you'd think. It's micro stakes, we get a lot of beginners.
>> _I_ always try to talk them out of actually playing even
>> for dimes until they actually know all the rules, but I
>> often get outvoted on that.
>>
>> But here O wasn't a beginner, he's been playing for
>> probably 20 years. He comes from Georgia (the country)
>> and says that the play above is not legal there. He
>> sometimes has a hard time keeping the "new" rules
>> straight, since he played by slightly different
>> rules for a long time.
>>
>
>This play is legal (though stupid) and should stand as played.

Thanks, but of course I knew that. My OP was whether it's
considered ok for an observer to make comments on the rules
if there's a dispute - didn't mean to mention what the
actual dispute was, someone asked.

> I don't
>know of any regional rule set that would make this kind of play illegal.

(Not that it matters, but have you played in Georgia (the country)?)

************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: X to play 65
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Anyway, I don't think _anyone's_ opinion here is of much value, ... certain to play 1. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Construct-a-position problem
    ... because then the play doesn't matter. ... David C. Ullrich ... However, at DMP, I ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
    ... of course that was a typo for "game theory". ... >value regardless of your opponent's play. ... >David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... I think you are stupid because you think that a term can play a role even though it plays no role. ... B is empty, or that x is an element of A and B can contain things ...
    (sci.logic)
  • OT: Our Great Legal System At Work
    ... 'Rock, paper, scissors' to decide dispute ... If lawyers can't decide where to play, ...
    (comp.sys.hp.mpe)