Forum Archive :
Rulings
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.
--
Stein Kulseth
|
|
Julian Hayward writes:
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 julian@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
|
|
Hank Youngerman 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.
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.
|
|
Steve Pickard writes:
I posed this one to the tournament director of BIBA (British Isles
Backgammon Association),Michael Crane mailto:BIBA@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.
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 writes:
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
bower@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
|
|
Bob Sisselman writes:
Michael Crane said:
> 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 is 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.
|
|
|
|
Rulings
- Checker knocked off bar (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2003)
- Clock rules and gin positions (Chris Yep+, Dec 2007)
- Clock rules end of turn (Jason Lee+, Dec 2007)
- Cocked dice (Rodney Lighton+, July 2012)
- Cocked dice (Ed Rosenblum+, Dec 2009)
- Cocked dice (Chuck Bower+, July 2003)
- Cocked die on first roll (Cloyd Laporte+, Nov 2006)
- Crawford game double (Øystein Johansen+, June 2004)
- Crawford game double (Joe+, May 2004)
- Crawford game double (Raccoon+, Sept 2003)
- Crawford game double (Claes Thornberg+, Apr 1998)
- Dice sliding (Chris Yep+, Dec 2007)
- Disagreement on final cube (Chuck Bower+, May 2004)
- Disagreement over cocked dice (DeaconBlue+, May 2005)
- Disputed roll (Roland Scheicher+, Mar 2004)
- Disputed roll (Chuck Bower+, Mar 2000)
- Doubling to wrong value (Stein Kulseth+, Nov 1998)
- Equipment changes (Jason Lee+, Feb 2004)
- Error in setup (Stick+, Dec 2007)
- Incorrect setup (Ken+, Mar 2004)
- Kibitzing (Ilia Guzei+, Feb 2006)
- Misplaced cube (Ned Cross+, Mar 2004)
- Misplacing a checker off the board (Sam Pottle+, Apr 2006)
- Misplacing a checker on the bar (Jeb Horton, Dec 2002)
- Moving checkers before you roll (Gregg Cattanach+, Mar 2006)
- Moving with two hands (Jason Lee+, Jan 2011)
- Opening roll loser picks up his die (Chuck Bower+, Oct 2007)
- Playing to wrong match length (Klaus Evers+, Jan 2006)
- Playing to wrong match length (Marty Storer+, Mar 2005)
- Playing to wrong match length (Steve Mellen, Feb 1998)
- Playing wrong opponent (Hank Youngerman+, Oct 2005)
- Premature actions (Raccoon+, Feb 2008)
- Premature roll (Chris Yep+, Dec 2007)
- Repositioning dice without notice (Chuck Bower+, Oct 2007)
- Rerolling cocked dice too quickly (Raccoon+, Nov 2006)
- Rolling 2 dice instead of 1 to start (Bob Koca+, Oct 2007)
- Rolling when opponent is closed out (Raccoon+, Nov 2006)
- Rolling wrong dice (TarHeelFan+, Sept 2005)
- Taking photos of positions (Stick+, Dec 2007)
- Touching the doubling cube (Ken Bame+, Nov 2006)
- Touching the doubling cube (Chuck Bower+, Apr 1998)
- Two cubes on the board (Jason Lee+, July 2005)
- Video dispute resolution (Jason Lee+, Feb 2006)
- When are the dice "up"? (Ilia Guzei+, Feb 2006)
- Writing down positions (Klaus Evers+, Jan 2006)
From GammOnLine
Long message
Recommended reading
Recent addition
|
| |
|