Are there any legal restrictions on the movements of checkers
before players pick up the dice?
I've never heard of any such rules, but I would think that this part
of the process needs to be carefully controlled.
For example, suppose a player rolled 55. The player then
experiments with three moves of 5, and pauses to look for
the final 5. While pausing, she decides that she doesn't like
those three 5s. So she undoes two of the 3 moves of 5.
She continues in the same vein, never actually showing the
play of 4 moves of 5 until the end, but constantly reversing
fragments of the play.
This could get thoroughly confusing for the opposition, and make
it incredibly difficult to track that the position is being resurrected
clearly each time.
There oughtta be a law against it.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/3/2023 9:10 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

Are there any legal restrictions on the movements of checkers
before players pick up the dice?

Here's what the USBGF says.

While testing a play, a moved checker should be offset
above its intended destination. A hit checker should
either be covered by the hitting checker or moved to
the tip of the point it is on, rather than to the bar. A hit
checker so positioned when the turn is ended must be
placed on the bar. The original position should be
restored before testing another play.

https://usbgf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/rules.pdf

---
Tim Chow

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> writes:

Here's what the USBGF says.

Is anyone aware of rulings for creative motion of the checkers by some
"cool" (wannabee?) players in, e.g., the following situation:

Imagine the starting position and a roll of 42, played as a slot
13/7. The player takes a checker off his midpoint and pushes it against
the bottom-most checker on the 8-point such that the latter slides
through to the bar-point and the former now is the bottom-most checker
on the 8-point. While the end result is the same, these kind of plays
can be quite confusing. Would you argue that technically a 51 was
played, and thus this behaviour is illegal?

Best regards

Axel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

Are there any legal restrictions on the movements of checkers
before players pick up the dice?

Not that I know. I would insist on completely restoring the original
position anyway, for etiquette reasons. In a chouette sometimes new
members of the team (not the captain) "help" moving the checkers. This
will be stopped, and in my club we have a rule for this.

Best regards

Axel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> writes:

While testing a play, a moved checker should be offset
above its intended destination.

I do this as well and advise other to do so, too.

A hit checker should either be covered by the hitting checker or moved
to the tip of the point it is on, rather than to the bar.

That's a good idea, thanks for the pointer!

Best regards

Axel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 3, 2023 at 12:01:26 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

Imagine the starting position and a roll of 42,
player takes a checker off his midpoint and
pushes it against the bottom-most checker
on the 8-point ... the end result is the same,
these kind of plays can be quite confusing.

In coffee house style backgammon in Turkey,
such tricky moves were very common at least
in the past, aiming at breaking the monotony,
adding some fun to boring opening moves, etc.

One such move that I remember very clearly
is how my dad played opening 66's at times.
He would move two checkers from 24 to 7,
and two from 13 to 18 point. Such moves often
would perplex even experienced players for a
second and were not only considered perfectly
legal but also as a characteristic of the game.

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 7:30:48 PM UTC+1, MK wrote:

On May 3, 2023 at 12:01:26 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

Imagine the starting position and a roll of 42,
player takes a checker off his midpoint and
pushes it against the bottom-most checker
on the 8-point ... the end result is the same,
these kind of plays can be quite confusing.

In coffee house style backgammon in Turkey,
such tricky moves were very common at least
in the past, aiming at breaking the monotony,
adding some fun to boring opening moves, etc.

One such move that I remember very clearly
is how my dad played opening 66's at times.
He would move two checkers from 24 to 7,
and two from 13 to 18 point. Such moves often
would perplex even experienced players for a
second and were not only considered perfectly
legal but also as a characteristic of the game.

MK

Thanks, Murat.
This is a great post for (at least)
the following reasons.

1) Completely relevant to Axel's point.
2) Draws on remembered experience.
3) Interestingly described.
4) Clearly described.
5) Expresses a clear point of view.
6) Uses appropriate language.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:

Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> writes:

Here's what the USBGF says.

Is anyone aware of rulings for creative motion of the checkers by some "cool" (wannabee?) players in, e.g., the following situation:

Imagine the starting position and a roll of 42, played as a slot
13/7. The player takes a checker off his midpoint and pushes it against
the bottom-most checker on the 8-point such that the latter slides
through to the bar-point and the former now is the bottom-most checker
on the 8-point. While the end result is the same, these kind of plays
can be quite confusing. Would you argue that technically a 51 was
played, and thus this behaviour is illegal?

No, we can not make this argument.
We must not make this argument.
We will not make this argument.

Here is a proof by contradiction that this argument breaks down.
Suppose an event is being run to introduce beginners to the game.
Suppose a player rolls 42 in a situation where the slots on 12 to 7
are all empty. Suppose the player has weak visualisation and counting
skills and has to count out the play. So the player touches the 12 slot
with the midpoint checker, then touches the 11 slot with the same checker, then touches the 10 slot, then touches the 9 slot. Then the player pauses briefly (having
played the 4). The player then plays from 9 to 7 the same way, maintaining a grip
on the moved checker throughout the process.
Now, suppose the rule allowed an opponent to complain by differentiating between 51
and 42 even when both plays lead to the same result.
An expert complainer could then state that the pause was actually after landing on the 8
point, rather than after landing on the 9 point, and that 51 instead of 42 was therefore played.
Would a TD really get involved? Well, no. So a TD couldn't distinguish between 51 and 42
in your scenario either.
So no, no one should complain about the 42 played the way you stated.
It's this type of spurious complaint that led people to vote for Brexit, and that didn't
work out well.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 4, 2023 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks, Murat.
This is a great post for (at least)
the following reasons.

1) Completely relevant to Axel's point.
2) Draws on remembered experience.
3) Interestingly described.
4) Clearly described.
5) Expresses a clear point of view.
6) Uses appropriate language.

Oops. You caught me backstage,
taking a break between acts...

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)