Backgammon Chouettes

Chouettes

Order of succession

From:   Albert Steg
Address:   asteg@tiac.net
Date:   11 June 1995
Subject:   Re: Some chouette questions
Forum:   rec.games.backgammon
Google:   asteg-1106951812250001@asteg.tiac.net

Robert Johanson wrote: > I have a few questions about the order of succession in a > multi-cube chouette. > > Scenario A: > Suppose the captain doubles and the box drops, but the other > members of the team donÕt double wishing to play on for > gammon. I assume the next in line then completes the game as > captain (pro tem). But suppose the box manages to win. Does > the box stay the box (because he won)? Or does the original > captain become the box (because he also won)? And if so does > the box go to the end of the line (hardly seems fair since > everyone else lost), or does he become the new captain? Conventions vary with regard to this question. In Boston (at least in Harvard Square) we tend to make it a straight question of whether or not the box beats the Captain: the box must beat the Captain in order to keep the box. Elsewhere another convention holds that the box must *show a profit* from the current game in order to retain the box. There are arguments for both systems (and probably for othetr variants). What's important is for your chouette to adopt a clear practice and adhere to it. Part of the fun of chouettes is that any given set of rules gives rise to interesting cube play strategies: whether to double all or some; whether to take the captain or dump him to let weaker crew members to take over, etc. > Scenario B: > Suppose the box doubles and the captain drops but some others > take. I assume the highest ranking team member takes over as > captain. If the box then loses the game is he inserted > before or after the former captain at the end of the line? Huh! Is it possible that over the course of the last several thousand chouette games I've been in this has *never* come up? Since the captain is usually more, rather than less likely to take a cube in a "split decision" scenario (he want's to get the box), this event will rarely occur. One reasonable way of thinking is that the Captain lost first, so he would prcede the ex-box at the end of the line. > Scenario C: > If everyone on the team doubles and the box takes some cubes > and drops others (yes, I know this seems bizarre but the > rules donÕt prohibit it, do they?) and then goes on to win, > who goes where? Surely the box wouldnÕt stay there as that > would encourage a strategy of taking only the cube of the > weakest player hoping to pull out a win in bad positions. Good thinking. As you can see, the "beat the Captain" rule that I mention in Scenario A somewhat answers this question. In addition, we say that the box must take *at least half of the cubes* sent to him if the field doubles all at once. (So if 2 cubes come at him, he must take at least one ---if 3 cubes, he must take 2 ---if 4 cubes, still 2...etc.). This practice keeps more than half the players in the game (the box plus at least half the team), so that there's a minimum of "dead time" for dropped players waiting for an often long game to play out. "Split decisions" on the part of the box are not necessarily illogical, as has been discussed here before. It may be the right thing to do when you genuinely cannot decide whether a position is a proper take or not, and depending on your consulatation rules (another area for variation), it may be worth paying a small "non-consultation" equity fee to get a strong team member out of the game. > Is there some over-arching principal that is applied in these > and similar situations? > DrBob on FIBS. There are over-arching principles ---but some of these principles vary from state to state (or street to street). The main thing to consider when choosing your rules is: "What effect will this rule have on the way our chouette is played?" Some of the relevant considerations are: 1) Do our rules encourage time-wasting playing out of proper "drops", where a number of players sit idly on the sidelines? 2) Do our rules favor stronger players, and make it hard for less experienced players to learn the subtleties of the game? (consultation rules). A visiting New Yorker once (unfairly, I thought) referred to our Boston conventions as "soak the fish" rules. But then, we cannot all be as generous and selfless as I have heard New Yorkers to be in this regard. 3) Do our rules force players to play against their own best judgment? (The rule that says a Captain must *beaver* if he alone wishes to take a cube that his teammates have unanimously dropped is such a rule. He alone may have the right answer). 4) Are our rules simple enough to apply clearly, with a minimum of confusions and argument? Good luck with your chouette. Albert

Did you find the information in this article useful?

Do you have any comments you'd like to add?