|
Andrew Grant wrote:
> Why does the Crawford rule only apply for one game? As I understand it,
> the reason for the Crawford rule is to stop the trailing player doubling
> immediately in order to catch up quicker if he wins. But in that case why
> not forbid doubling for the whole of the remainder of the match?
If the Crawford rule remained in effect for the rest of the match, this
would make it too hard to catch up, which would give too large a reward for
a lucky early win. E.g. in a 5 point match, one player could double and win
a gammon to go up 4-0. With a permanent Crawford, the trailer would then
have to win 5 in a row, or perhaps 3 in a row with 2 of them gammons. This
is just much too difficult.
The real reason for the Crawford rule is not some abstract sense of
'fairness.' The rule is used because without it there would be some very
strange cube action near the end of the match. For example, consider the
score 2-3 in a 5 point match with no Crawford rule. If the trailing player
doubles, the leading player can take ANYTHING AT ALL if there is no gammon
threat. The worst that could happen is he loses, goes down 4-3, doubles
immediately next game, and is 50-50 except for the small 'free drop'
equity.
Of course the Crawford rule seems weird and unnatural, and it's just one
more thing that has to be explained to people who are new to match play. I
once proposed replacing it with the rule that you have to win by two points
(like in tennis, etc.) This rule would also eliminate a lot of the
'anomolous' cube action that comes up near the end. The problem was that
organizers objected that a match could go on 'forever' with the players
swapping one-point leads. I kind of like the idea anyway. But no one else
does ;-)
--Walter Trice
|
![[Long message]](pics/Long.gif)
![[Recommended reading]](pics/Star2.gif)
![[GammOnLine forum]](pics/GammOnLine.gif)
![[Recent addition]](pics/New.gif)
Recent addition