I made a quick and rather annoying exit out of the Masters. What made it annoying was that it was partially caused by a cube blunder from a player who should know better, but I was unable to capitalize on the error.

I was behind 14-11 in a 17-point match. I had sent over an aggressive cube, which is generally the proper idea at this score provided there are sufficient market-losers. The concept is that I am not really giving the cube to your opponent. In effect I am taking away his ability to use the cube, as there are many positions where he will be willing to double from 1 to 2 but be unwilling to redouble from 2 to 4 which would give me the opportunity to send it back to 8 for the match. I missed the key shot, and wound up with a decent bar point holding game. He was squeezed off my midpoint, but again I missed. This left:

68 87

Phil Laak 14 17 point match Kit Woolsey 11

White is on roll. Cube action?

First of all, let's estimate my winning chances. He doesn't get by with non-doubles totallying less than 7 pips. That includes 5-1, 4-1, 3-1, 2-1, 4-2, and 3-2. In addition, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, and 6-6 leave me a shot. That is 16 out of 36 rolls which don't get by. If he doesn't make it past me I will have somewhere from 11 shot numbers (if he rolls 3-2 or 4-1) to 17 shot numbers (if he rolls 6-6) -- probably averaging around 12 or 13 shot numbers. That means I will get a shot and hit it something like 1 time in 7. Of course hitting shot isn't necessrily gin, but it puts me in very good shape. In addition, I have some racing equity. Not much, but the race is not a claim -- imagine how close things will be if he rolls 2-1 and I roll boxes. The race should certainly add on at least 5% to my winning chances, probably more. Thus, my overall winning chances are somewhere in the 20% range.

How do things look from my point of view if I am doubled? I can pass and be behind 16-11 (6 away, 1 away, Crawford), or I can take and send it back for the match. From behind 6 away, 1 away I have roughly 10% winning chances. Thus, if I am doubled I have a trivial take.

How do things look from his point of view? That is a bit more complicated. If we assume that this is a last roll situation (which it definitely is not), he has:

White doesn't double and wins: Ahead 16-11 (6 away, 1 away, Crawford), 90% equity.
White doubles and wins: Wins match, 100% equity.
White doesn't double and loses: Ahead 14-13 (3 away, 4 away), about 59% equity.
White doubles and loses: Loses the match, 0% equity.

Thus, by doubling White would be risking 59% in order to gain 10%, so he would be giving almost 6 to 1 odds. If my 20% winning chance estimate is correct, he would be getting only 4 to 1 odds. Therefore, it is clearly a blunder for him to double.

To make matters worse, suppose he rolls something like 4-1, and I roll something like 6-4. Now it is a straight race, with him probably somewhere in the 90-95% winning chances range. He would then have an extremely efficient recube. I likely would have to pass, but it would be close. This is the sort of position he should be aiming for.

Note the difference if I hadn't doubled initially and the cube were in the center. Then from my point of view it would look like:

Blue passes: Behind 15-11, 2 away, 6 away, 19% equity
Blue takes and wins: Behind 14-13, 3 away, 4 away, 41% equity
Blue takes and loses: Behind 16-11, 6 away, 1 away, 10% equity

I would be risking 28% in order to gain 10%. It wouldn't be quite that bad since I would have big recube leverage, but in this sort of position the value of the recube isn't so much since it will probably be a one-shot deal if I win the game -- a hit wins, a miss loses. Thus, I would have to pass an initial double, while he isn't close to having a redouble. This is a good example of what I was talking about when I said that by doubling I was really taking the cube away from him rather than giving it to him.

My opponent did, in fact, double, and of course I took. He left a shot and I sent it back to 8, but I missed the shot and there were no racing miracles so I was gone.

My first match in the open was against Bob Glass, and there were plenty of fireworks. He was ahead 3-2 in a 15-point match, and had doubled to 2 which I had taken. Things were starting to turn around, and we reached the following position:

115 113

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I find this sort of position very difficult to evaluate. The thing is that a two by me is just HUGE -- it might even make my position too good to double. However, if I don't roll that two in a couple of rolls, my position may deteriorate. Meanwhile if Bob starts to enter I will pretty much be forced to attack, and if I get hit back that will be very bad. My diversification is excellent with threes and fours trained on the two point, and my outfield checker is far back, but time could run out fast. If there is any chance that Bob will pass then doubling would be automatic, but I didn't seriously consider that a possibility. Still, the market loss if I do roll that two is pretty large.

I chose to double. In retrospect, I don't this is correct. Yes, I can lose my market, but I can also become the underdog pretty quickly. Overall, I simply am not that much of a favorite. Also, cube possession is worth a ton in this sort of position.

I opened off with a 4-3, which I couldn't complain about. However it started going downhill from there, and we soon arrived at:

115 84

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

White on roll. Cube action?

His position hasn't changed any, but mine sure has -- and not for the better. Now what is going on?

It should be clear that he has a big redouble. If he enters and I am unable to spring a back checker, or if my board cracks any more, I am history.

What about the take? That is not so obvious. It could get ugly, but it could go very well on a good shake or two. Also, even if things go badly I could still sleaze out a win. He hasn't made his three point yet, and until he locks up that point funny things can happen. I do have a five-point board right now, and he does have two checkers on the bar. Also, that one point lead he has in the match is starting to be relevant with the cube approaching the stratosphere. That means that he doesn't get quite as much use from a 16-point win as I do, and that if the cube does head on back to 16 his take point will be a bit worse than it would be at an even score or if I were ahead in the match. I'm still not sure about this one, but at the table I chose to give it a try.

Things didn't go well for me at first, but then I caught a lucky roll or two and got to this position:

113 70

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

Blue on roll. Cube action?

This position has a lot of similarities to the ones we have seen so far. My board is a bit more crunched, but I have sprung one of the back checkers which is a huge improvement. What's going on?

When the cube gets into the stratosphere in a match and the trailer owns the cube, it is quite likely that the cube will reach the next level and put things at double match point. This is very similar to what happens at a poker tournament when the pot is large compared to the amount of chips a player has left. It is usually correct for him to shove the rest of his chips in and pray for a lucky draw, since he will be in such bad shape if he loses the hand anyway that he might as well go for broke. The same is true in a backgammon match. If I lose 8 points I will be behind 11-2 (not taking gammons into account), so I have good reason to play for it all on any decent excuse. Of course, the same is true for Bob to a large extent. He wouldn't like being behind 10-3, so he will be quick to take. Thus, if things go my way at all, that cube is likely to reach the 16-level.

What is going on? It would be hard to imagine him passing the double. He has a good blockade, and all he has to do is enter the men on the bar point before I extricate my back man and he will be the favorite. On the other hand, if I do roll that two I am suddenly in extremely good shape, particularly if he flunks. Due to the match score, I have more to gain when I am right than I have to lose when I am wrong if I double. Also, he will be sitting on a dead cube. That is very important for this sort of position. If things go his way he will likely reach a position where his men are in and all he has to do is contain my back checker. If he had cube access upon reaching such a position he would be able to weild a very nasty cube at the proper moment, but with the cube dead he will have to prove himself and complete his prime. A single back checker can be very slippery.

I doubled, and he took. As it turned out, things went very much his way. I was unable to escape the back checker, and not only did my board crunch some more but he picked up another checker. I managed to anchor on his three point. He went all out to squeeze me off, even breaking his bar point, but I resolutely rolled nothing higher than a three. When I was finally squeezed off he had only one checker in the outfield, and that checker was unable to hit my fleeing blot. He attacked inside, but I rolled a three back, and after he was unable to hit again I rolled boxes to put the match away.

I clawed my way through five more matches, including three more double match points (though not as exciting as the first one), to reach the finals. My opponent was Ray Fogerlund, an excellent player. Here are some highlights of the match:

In game 1, I found myself playing a 4-point holding game fairly close in the race. Ray waited patiently until he squeezed me off the anchor, and then:

74 70

Ray Fogerlund 0 17 point match Kit Woolsey 0

White on roll. Cube action?

I clearly have an easy take. I'm doing fine in the race -- about even on pips and while I have four checkers on my ace point Ray's structure in his inner board isn't anything to write home about. Crossovers are equal. I have a five-point board, so Ray will be cautious about hitting loose. Ray has only three builders aimed at me, and if he doesn't roll perfectly it will be almost an even game.

What about the double. It looks okay, since he does have a few good pointing numbers.

Ray doubled, I took. He didn't point on me, but he did roll 4-4 and went on to win the race by a roll.

In the next game I got the better of an early blot-hitting contest, and was on roll in the following position.

173 124

Ray Fogerlund 2 17 point match Kit Woolsey 0

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I'm a million pips ahead, but Ray's position looks quite solid. He has my five point, he may get another anchor in my board, and all I have achieved is to make my ace point. I figure to have a lot of difficulty coming in safely, and Ray should have no problems building up his board and waiting for his shot. Do I really have anything to get excited about?

In fact, I have a very strong double. What makes it so strong is that Ray's position is currently completely undeveloped. True he will be able to develop in the future, but we are talking about the present. I can afford to play very loose, since if I am hit he won't be able to contain the hit blot and I will still have a big racing lead. In particular, I will take advantage of my stronger inner board and attack his blots in my inner board if the dice cooperate. If Ray had the same position with his five point made, I wouldn't be close to a cube. Many players fail to recognize the importance of the status of the defending side's board. They only look at what is going on where the action is. The point is that Ray is going to have to hit a shot to win, and after he hits that shot he will need to contain the hit checker. Right now, he is not in position to do so.

I doubled, and Ray took. His take is fine, by the way. He does have all the good things about his position that I mentioned earlier. However, my position is much stronger than most players would think.

I rolled 3-1 and hit both his inner board blots. He rolled badly, I rolled well, and I soon had two of his checkers on the bar against my five-point board. I easily rolled on home for a gammon.

In the next game Ray took the early advantage. When he escaped his last back checker, the position was:

122 152

Ray Fogerlund 2 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

On the race alone I would have an easy pass, but I have more going for me than that. The four-point holding game gives me plenty of play, and my back checker is probably an asset right now with his three point open. Sixes figure to play awkwardly for him in the future. He might not even get his outfield blot to safety. My board needs some work, but I don't have any checkers out of play.

On the minus side for me, Ray has made his nine point, which is a good blocking point as well as an important landing place. My midpoint is stripped, so large numbers will be awkward immediately. My board is ragged, and unless I roll the necessary small numbers I may not be able to make my five point. My timing may seem okay, but the next few rolls are likely to play more comfortably for him than for me.

So, how does this compare to a typical four-point holding game which is usually a close take. It looked to me like the minuses outweighed the plusses. Ray has a clear double even though the position isn't very volatile, since I am close to having a pass and may well have a pass already. He did properly double. My judgment was to let it go. The position seemed just a bit too awkward to play. I'm sure it is a close call one way or the other.

In the next game I escaped both of my back checkers while Ray was not so fortunate. We arrived at this position:

139 132

Ray Fogerlund 3 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue on roll. Cube action?

There can be no doubt that I have a powerful double. I am ahead in every aspect of the game, and if I make my five point or my bar point (which I can probably do) and Ray doesn't escape immediately, I will have lost my market (if I haven't lost it already). It is the take which is the question.

The main arguments in favor of the take are that Ray isn't very far behind in the race and that I can't make both the bar point and the five point at the same time. This means that Ray will probably have one immediate shot for glory. After that things could get grim, although since I have only two inner board points and he has just one checker back the gammon danger isn't too great. Is this sufficient to justify taking? It looks like a close call. I probably would have passed. Ray did take, and I remember that I didn't mind that one bit.

I rolled 4-4 and went after him. In the ensuing battle he did hit a checker and was able to complete a five-prime. However, I closed his back man out, but I was unable to leap the prime. Eventually we arrived at:

109 55

Ray Fogerlund 3 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

It was suggested by some that Ray should put the pressure on and redouble. That is silly. There is no pressure. If I have cube access I will win whenever I escape before Ray enters. That will happen on the next exchange 16/36 X 11/36 or 176/1296 of the time -- almost 1/7 of the time. It could also happen down the road if we both fail at our first opportunities. Add in all my sleaze (he might enter with a non-hitter and I could roll an immediate six, or when he does hit loose I might hit back), and it is clear that my winning chances are way above 25%. Until he completes his full prime, I will always be one joker away from winning even if I am not at the edge of his blockade. I am in virtually no gammon danger, but he could get gammoned if things blow up in his face. He is the one who has to perform. It would be a serious error for him to release the cube, even though he has the advantage and has some market-losing sequences.

Ray properly hung onto the cube, and rolled one of his best numbers -- 5-3 -- which enters and hits loose. I responded with 1-1, illustrating how even if Ray rolls well he still is far from a claim. However, Ray now rolled a crushing 5-5, and when I was unable to find an equally good answer he had a claim with the recube to take a 5-4 lead in the match.

In the next game my attempts to escape my back checker failed, and I found myself on the bar facing:

133 141

Ray Fogerlund 5 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Clearly Ray has a powerful double. The question is whether or not I can muster up a take. This sort of position is much worse for me than it might appear. The big problem is that I am on the bar, so it will take me two rolls to get something going and I might not get those two rolls. If I were in, it would be an easy take, but the lost tempo from having to enter is very serious. I had no problems letting this one go, and I'm pretty sure I was correct.

In the next game I faced an interesting play problem:

155 129

Ray Fogerlund 6 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-3

This was an interesting choice. The reflex play is 16/10*, 13/10, which makes the ten point but leaves me with a somewhat stripped position. The ten point may be a nice landing place, but it will be a point which has to be cleared and my next play may be awkward if I am unable to clear the midpoint safely. Instead, I opted for 16/10*, 10/7, which gives me a nice spare on the bar point to work with and few immediate problems next roll.

So, which play is best? The surprising answer is: Neither of them! The best play is to avoid hitting and play 16/13, 13/7. I am far enough ahead in the race that I probably don't need to gain more racing ground. Hitting the blot on the ten point gives White the potential to make an very annoying anchor on my two point, or to enter on my ace point and leave me with no safe places to land in my inner board. My proper plan should be to go after Ray's back checker, force it to advance, and then I will have safe places to dump checkers behind Ray's anchor while waiting for a fortunate roll to clear the midpoint and claim. Quite frankly, avoiding the hit never crossed my mind, either while I was playing or when going over the match. It didn't occur to Snowie either -- Snowie had it ranked a distant third on its 3-ply evaluation. It was only when I rolled out the hitting plays that it occurred to me to roll this one out also for completeness. The result that it was by far the best play stunned me for a minute, but on reflection that result looks quite logical and I'm inclined to believe the rollout results. I have learned a new theme.

Ray did enter deep in my board, and I was forced to leave a shot which he hit. I then proceeded to flunk four times in a row on his three-point board while he brought the wood around. After my last flunk, things looked like:

127 129

Ray Fogerlund 6 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Clearly Ray has a powerful cube. I am on the bar, and if he covers the blot on his four point and I flunk again I will have a big pass. In addition, it is possible that I have a pass now, or that I will pass. Ray properly doubled.

Is it a take? It is scary, that's for sure. However, the race is about even, Ray still has two checkers back, and while he is a favorite to cover the blot on his four point that isn't a done deal yet. It may well be a take, and I knew that at the time. However, I chose to pass. Perhaps I was overly discouraged by flunking four times in a row. Perhaps I didn't like the thought of Ray being able to carry out the blitz and blow the match wide open with my having no say in the procedings. I doubted that it could be a big take in any event, so I decided that discretion was the better part of valor. Did I dog it? Perhaps, but I'm not unhappy with my decision even if rollouts show it to be a clear take.

The next game developed into a mutual holding game in which I made a series of related errors which led to my demise. It is instructional to see what I did wrong. The sequence started with:

141 149

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 3-1

I made the obvious safe move of 6/5, 6/3. This isn't the right idea. I should be avoiding going behind his anchor, and stripping my six point is weak. He has an inner board blot, only a two-point board, and I have an anchor in his board, so getting hit in the outfield isn't particularly costly. Better is the more flexible play of 13/10, 6/5. I really don't need the midpoint for anything. My main pressure is on his back checkers, and I need to keep as fluid a position as possible.

Ray rolled 3-3 making his five point heavy, and now I had a 2-1 to play with similar considerations:

129 145

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 2-1

No way I'm going to give up my midpoint and leave a shot, right? 7/6, 7/5 looked flexible enough. Again this was the wrong theme. My main strength lies in my broken five prime, and I should be holding that intact. 13/10 is fine. It isn't a disaster if Ray hits, and if Ray doesn't hit my next few rolls should play comfortable enough while we wait and see what is happening. Breaking the bar point gives Ray many more ways to escape. Worse, now look how my sixes play. Ugly.

A couple of rolls later I had to face the consequences of my previous choices:

112 135

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-5

Now it is more dangerous to leave a shot, since Ray has no inner board blot and has a four-point board. Despite this, I think I should play 13/8, 13/7 instead of the safe 8/3, 8/2 which I chose. I won't like being hit, but it isn't necessarily fatal. If Ray misses, my checkers are comfortably placed to handle the next couple of rolls. My safe play gives up an important blocking point and leaves two dangerous blots in my inner board. I am behind in the race, so Ray may be bolting for it shortly. I must be ready to attack if this happens.

Ray rolled a nice 4-3 to make his two point, and I rolled an ugly 6-3. Boy I wish I had my bar point back so I could play sixes sensibly. Now what?

105 124

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-3

I saw that this roll took a back checker to safety, so I grabbed one of them and played 22/13. What was I thinking? Didn't gammons count? My play left extreme gammon danger. Ray has a five-point board, and if he is able to hit loose on his four point I am in huge trouble. If I don't hit back he may close me out, and if I do hit back there is the matter of my two inner board blots. To make matters worse I am behind in the race, so even if I survive the attack I will be a long way from winning. If I am not hit, my back checker still has to find a home which won't be easy. I should have played 13/10, 13/7. This leaves only 11 shot numbers as opposed to the several more my play leaves. If Ray does hit at least I have an anchor to enter on, and if I enter reasonably soon I can probably scramble off the gammon and will always have winning chances from the three-point game. If Ray doesn't hit, my checkers are reasonably well-placed to fill in my inner board and attack as Ray tries to clear his back anchor, while I can sit on his three point and wait if plan A fails. This was probably the worst play I made the whole match.

The position now looked like:

105 115

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray has a very sound double. He has a clear advantage, my position is in disarray, and he has huge threats involving hitting my blot on his four point. Ray properly doubled.

Now what? With that fat cube staring me in the face, the realization of just how dangerous my position is and how weak my last move was began to sink in. Once again, I didn't relish the thought of making a marginal take, never rolling again, and having the match blown wide open. Even if it might be a theoretical take it couldn't be by much, and I didn't want any part of it. Note that had I played my 6-3 roll correctly Ray might not have even had a double, and if he had doubled I would have had an easy take with the possibility of hemming in his back checkers and the three-point game in reserve. A very poor effort on my part.

In the next game, Ray rolled a joker to escape his last back checker with a hit, leaving me with the following five-point holding game:

106 126

Ray Fogerlund 8 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray definitely has a strong double. He is ahead in the race, has escaped his back checkers. and he has plenty of juicy threats. It is the take which is the question. Ray properly doubled.

I have that anchor on his five point, which is nice, and he has all those stripped points in front of the anchor which he will have to clear. On the downside, I may never come up for air. Ray has a four-shot at my outfield blot, and he hits on his three point with aces, threes, fives, and sixes. Another big drawback to my position is my inefficient board structure. While I have four inner board points, I have a wasted checker on my three point, and it will be difficult for me to close up my four point. This is very important. My main winning chances involve hitting a shot, and I won't be able to contain a hit checker unless I am able to make my four point. Once again, maybe too often, I didn't want to risk getting blown out of the water in the match, so I let another close one slip away. This is not my usual style, but I really didn't think any of these potential takes were bargains.

In the next game things went my way with the help of a couple of double fours, and I had an advanced anchor while Ray was stuck on my ace point:

155 129

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I certainly have a very strong double, and I sent the cube over. Ray has a close decision. There isn't anything organically wrong with his position. He has an anchor, and my bar point is open so he isn't completely hemmed in. He has good outfield control, and I have three checkers back. His position is fluid and comfortable. His biggest liability is the blot on his ace point, but he can probably cover that soon enough and be ready to pounce when I leave his four point. On the other hand, I am leading in all phases of the game, and it will be difficult for him to really get something going. Ray chose to pass, and I can't say that he is wrong.

In the next game, Ray made a conceptual error which probably cost him the game.

138 151

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 5

White to play 5-2

In general, one should choose the move which looks better. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what looks pretty to one person may look ugly to another. Ray chose 21/16, 13/11, liking the prettiness of the checkers spread out in his outer board to help make the bar point. In my view, those checkers are ugly blots. Ray should be concentrating on extricating his back checker, and he doesn't want other things to worry about. The compact 21/16, 8/6, which leaves no outfield blots and has spares on the six point and the midpoint is my idea of the pretty play.

Ray was instantly punished, as I rolled 6-1, hitting, and he flunked. I might have cubed him immediately, but his take seemed too easy. He has that strong four-point board and the valuable 16 point, and while I have a good offense I don't have the ammunition in place to put him away. I chose to wait. After several more rolls, on many of which I was bordering on a cube, we got to:

167 125

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 5

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I obviously have much the better of things. Even though the position isn't very volatile, it has to be right to turn the cube. Maybe Ray has a pass, or maybe he will think he has a pass. If I am wrong about doubling, I can't be far wrong, and this gives Ray a chance to make a mistake in a relatively unfamiliar position.

Should Ray take? Offhand it may look like he has decent timing for a 4-2 back game, with the possibility of going frontwards if things go well since his offense is already in place. The problem is that his immediate plays may be awkward. He enters, and then what? He just doesn't have any checkers he can play. If he gives up his midpoint I can hit and divide his army into two pieces, and if he doesn't give up his midpoint something will have to go on one side of the board or the other. A spare on the midpoint would help his game tremendously. Also, the fact that he has lost his six point will make things difficult for him until he can reclaim that point. He really isn't far enough behind in the race to have timing for a back game, but it will be difficult for him to win frontwards. Ray chose to pass, and my guess is that he made a good decision.

The following game I made an unusual-looking move which had some very interesting consequences:

135 138

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 6

Blue to play 5-1

I didn't like the thought of entering on the 24 point. That would give Ray complete freedom to make whatever point his dice told him to make. Entering on the 20 point looks risky, but if Ray rolls the right number he will make his five point whether I am there or not. If Ray isn't able to point on me, he will have to either ignore the blot and risk my running away, or hit loose and risk getting into a blot-hitting contest.

Given that I am entering with the five, I could see no reason not to slot my own five point. It may look like I am violating every principle of backgammon -- coming under the gun of four builders, and slotting while I have a checker under fire on the other side of the board. A second look will show that my slotted checker is virtually immune for the next roll unless Ray rolls 1-1. 2-1, 3-1, and 5-1 he needs to make his own five point. He can hit the checker with 4-1 or 6-1, but this loses his anchor and gives me a chance to make my own anchor. My six point is heavy, and that fifth checker on the six point belongs on the five point. I like my play.

The position is now:

135 132

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 6

White on roll. Cube action?

My play paid an added bonus, as Ray shocked my by turning the cube. This is definitely premature. Sure he has some numbers which point on my head, but even if he rolls one of them I would have to roll very badly from the bar to not have a take. If Ray doesn't roll one of his good numbers, he is probably an underdog. The race is even, I have the stronger inner board, and I have one checker back to his two checkers. After Ray has given me cube ownership, it isn't even clear who is the favorite. Perhaps Ray got carried away by the fact that I had passed a bunch of possibly takable doubles, and he thought I might panic and drop this one, or perhaps he just plain overvalued his attacking potential. This was easily the worst cube blunder of the match.

It looked like Ray might have known something, as his first roll was 2-2 making the five and four points. However I responded with 6-1 from the bar, hitting on the 18 point, and Ray failed to hit back. I covered the blot on the five point and got my outfield blot safe, so Ray was left with a reasonable four-point holding game with me owning the cube. I wasn't very far ahead in the race and I still had outfield points to clear, so I wasn't able to send the cube back. However, I rolled 6-6 to clean up everything and get way ahead in the race, and I claimed with the recube at my next turn.

In the next game, I got a few checkers hemmed in on his three point.

124 155

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

White on roll. Cube action?

The take is very easy. My men are well-positioned, and the anchor guards against gammon danger. At worst I will have a three-point game which itself isn't far from a take, and at best I could have a lot better. White may have difficulty clearing his back anchor. My offense is in place, and winning this game frontwards isn't hard to imagine. In fact, several of his sixes produce immediate problems for him. The main drawbacks to my position are the third checker on his three point and the blot on my 11 point, but these aren't fatal and can be remedied if things go well.

What about his double? I guess this depends on how much he loses his market if he hits my blot and I don't hit back. If you think this produces a large market loss then his double is okay, but if we are only talking about a moderate or small market loss then it is probably better to hold off doubling. I will still have plenty of play even if he hits, so I'm inclined to believe he should wait, but doubling isn't terrible.

Ray did double, and I took. His first roll was a very effective 5-5, and there were no surprises after that. He coasted home without leaving a shot, and he had his two points back.

The next game found me in another precarious holding game.

130 172

Ray Fogerlund 11 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray clearly has a strong cube with his racing lead, three-point board, one of my checkers on the bar, and a direct shot at two other checkers. Do I have a take? My position is solid, and the anchor is some gammon protection, but not enough. I could wind up with a lot of men on the bar. His distribution is awkward, which is a plus for me, but he may have time to remedy that problem while I have two or even three checkers on the bar. Perhaps this is a take in theory, but I didn't relish the thought of the very real gammon danger which would put me behind 15-8. I let it go, and would do so again.

The next game presented me with what I thought was my most interesting checker play problem of the match:

142 157

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

Blue to play 3-3

So many good things to do, such as making his bar point, hitting his outfield blot, or making my five point and hitting loose on the three point. I finally decided on 24/12*. The big factor in my opinion was that I had cube access, so I didn't have to blow him out of the water. All I needed to do was to make sure that I retained a solid advantage, and I would be able to give him an effective double. If I didn't have cube access, I'm really not sure what I would have done.

Ray responded with 6-2, and stepped out to my bar point. That left us:

146 145

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

Blue on roll. Cube action?

This is the sort of position I was angling for with my previous play. I am poised to do a lot of damage with one good roll. My advantage may not be great now, but it could be enormous after the next exchange. I think this is a very clear double. Ray may not like it, but he pretty much has to take it. I have only two inner board points, and while I have several ways I can hit him I can't do everything at once. His offense is in fine shape, and I still have one checker back. I doubled, and he took.

At this point I had a lucky oversight. I rolled 3-2, not exactly what I had in mind. I was intent upon hitting something, and the only decent thing I could see was 12/7*, so that's what I did. I never even saw the more solid 12/9, 11/9, which is almost surely a superior play. However, my play worked very well when Ray danced! He succeed on anchoring on my three point, but in the meantime I escaped my back checker, made my five point, and brought the position home with no difficulty to close the gap to 12-10.

The next game was the pivotal one. An early 6-6 give me a solid advantage:

142 136

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 10

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I have a big advantage, no question about that. A good rule of thumb is that an early boxes combined with one more improvement is double and pass unless the other guy has made some serious headway of his own. I have the best improvement -- my made five point. Ray has escaped a back checker, but that's about all -- his board is completely undeveloped. He is a contender in the race and his back checker is poised to escape, but my attackers are closing in and he may never get a chance to escape. The really bad part about his position is that he has no defense against the blitz. He can't anchor, and his board is so weak that I won't be afraid to hit loose if need be. I think he has a clear pass, and I was ecstatic when he took the double. This is exactly the opportunity I am looking for to get back into the match.

My dice didn't fail me. 6-5, 6-2, and then a crushing 5-5 while he was unable to move his back checker. I soon completed the closeout and rolled the position on home for a gammon to take a 14-12 lead in the match.

The next game went my way also, when Ray picked a bad time to flunk against a two-point board:

151 135

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 14

Blue on roll. Cube action?

Doubling in contact positions when you are three away and your opponent is farther away is a very tricky proposition. Obviously you don't want to make any marginal doubles, since he will have huge cube leverage on his recube -- he will be able to redouble on any excuse at all and he will make sure that he doesn't lose his market. Equally, you don't want to be doubling if a good chunk of your advantage is a gammon threat. Either your opponent will take and send it back to 4 at an opportune moment since he has little to lose once he takes, or he will pass and you will lose your opportunity to win a gammon. Those sort of positions can be both too good and not good enough to double at the same time. The problem is that you can't use all 4 points, so there is serious overage involved.

All this does not mean that one should never turn the cube in a contact position when 3 away. If you have a solid advantage which isn't likely to go away quickly but not a huge gammon threat, it can well be correct to double. This position is a good example. I am ahead in the race, poised to escape my last back checker, Ray is on the bar, and my offense is well-balanced. On the other hand I have only a two-point board, so my gammon threat isn't huge. My strucure is positionally great. I simply will bring them around and win. This is a very solid double, and I did so.

What about the take? Obviously this would be a big pass for money, with low winning chances and some gammon danger. It will take quite a bit of luck for Ray to snap back into the game. At the match score of course he can be more liberal taking, since a gammon is somewhat of an overkill and he can redouble to 4 at the first sign of a turnaround since he has little to lose. Still, he needs to have a plan to win the game, and he doesn't really have one. Almost anything I roll will either hit the second blot, escape my back checker, or make a new inside point, and about all he can do is hopefully make some anchor in my board and pray. I don't think that is good enough, and I was pleased when he took the double even though the threat of the recube would be hanging over my head.

All went according to schedule. He anchored on my three point, but I was able to bring my men around comfortably and bear off without leaving a shot to get to the Crawford game, 16-12.

The final game was anti-climactic. I hit a couple of shots, escaped my back men, and successfully cleared my midpoint vs. his bar-point holding game.