|
> A widely used tournament rule in the 80's was what I remember
> as the "Holland Rule" after a master Tim Holland I believe. The
> rule requires two complete moves to have been played before the
> cube can be turned after the Crawford game. This gives the
> player in the lead at least some chance to access his start
> before accepting or rejecting the cube. Without this rule you
> might as well divide whatever lead in games that he has fought
> to achieve in "HALF"! Several times I have faced a cube
> turning after my first roll and before my opponent has rolled!
> FIBS permits these early cubes to my dismay! Let's get some
> discussion on implementing this change.
It is true that the Holland rule was popular in the 80's, but today I
don't think it is use at any major tournaments. There are several
reasons why the rule has been discarded:
1) It creates a lot of confusion. You can imagine the problems
tournament directors may have explaining the rule to contestants, or
settling disputes involving the rule. Granted this wouldn't be so bad on
FIBS where the computer coldly settles all disputes correctly (although
without much compassion), but it still could lead to some confusion
particularly for newer players.
2) It is true that in a sense your lead is cut in half after the Crawford
game. One solution which has been suggested is to not allow use of the
cube when a player is one point away from winning (or, in more general
terms, not allow a player to turn the cube to a higher level than his
opponent has points to go to win the match). This leads to longer,
duller, matches when one side is way ahead. On the other side one could
eliminate the Crawford rule entirely, but this cuts down on the advantage
to the leader and also involves some rather strange cube tactics. The
Crawford rule is a very intelligent compromise to solve this problem, and
is universally accepted.
3) The ability to assess you position after a couple of moves really
isn't as important as it seems. The problem is that unless your opponent
has an even number of points to go, it won't help you at all since you
should take *any* double. For example, suppose you are ahead 4-2 in a
5-point match (post Crawford), and your opponent doubles. If you take,
he has to win both this game and the next game (barring gammons) in order
to win the match. If you pass, then he only has to win one more game
(since he will turn the cube at his earliest opportunity next game
also). Consequently, by passing you are essentially increasing
your opponent's match winning chances from 25% to 50%, so virtually any
double should be taken at that score.
If your opponent has an even number of points to go, then it is true that
you may drop an inferior position. This is called the "free drop". The
idea is that one extra point doesn't really help your opponent much,
since every game will be played with the cube on 2 anyway. For example,
suppose you are ahead 4-1 (post-Crawford) in a 5-point match. If you
take the double, then your opponent has to win this game and the next one
to win the match (and there would be only one more game after this, since
if the score got to 4-3 he would immediately turn the cube the next game
also and that would be for the match). If you pass then you are ahead
4-2, which as we have just seen also requires your opponent to win the
next two games. Thus, when your opponent has an even number of points to
go you should pass if you are the underdog; if he has an odd number of
points to go you should never pass.
If the Holland rule is in effect, this just leads to more complications.
For example, suppose I am behind 4-3 in a 5-point match (post-Crawford).
I know that if I double my opponent will pass if he is the underdog. So,
if I have enough of an advantage maybe it is right to play on for the
gammon. This probably won't happen with no Holland rule; after one
exchange of dice rolls I don't figure to have that much of an advantage
so I will just double immediately. However after two dice rolls this
could happen, so I might play on. In this way the Holland rule may tend
to lengthen (rather than shorten) matches, and create some more
complications.
I hope I have explained why the Holland rule really doesn't accomplish
what it was designed to do, and why it has been discarded from the
tournament scene. We should do the same on FIBS, as has been done. As
the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Kit
|
![[Long message]](pics/Long.gif)
![[Recommended reading]](pics/Star2.gif)
![[GammOnLine forum]](pics/GammOnLine.gif)
![[Recent addition]](pics/New.gif)
Recent addition