And here is the position. White to play 5-3, score 0-0 to 13. White can make his 3pt or he can hit loose. Which is right?

Yesterday's position looks as if there isn't much happening, but it does illustrate an important theme. It's important for White to get he blot on his 24pt into play, so that he can hit from there (if he gets the chance) without breaking his anchor. So 24/20 is the important bit and then you can choose a three. I selected the second best play, 11/8, but it doesn't apply much pressure and 6/3* is correct. My play is right at gammonsave, which implies that I am not playing aggressively enough. "When in doubt, hit" remains one of bg's enduring guidelines.

Later in the game, we got to this next position, where White has to think about cubing. It's a monster pass of course, but is it too good? We'll see tomorrow.

White has a far better board and easy out so I would go with a cube.

So, White to play 3-2. The temptation is to split at the back, working towards securing a high anchor, but 13/10, 13/11 is best by a very small margin. Because Red has made her 2pt, it's going to be very hard for her to make a containing blockade. The 2pt and the 8pt can't be part of the same prime, so no hurry for White to split. Splitting actually plays into Red's hands, as it gives her targets to attack and blitz, where her 2pt will be useful.
I played 24/21, 13/11, but that isn't even the best split, as it moves to a point that Red would prefer as a target. 24/22, 13/10 is the best split. The match play is a small mistake, -0.028ppg.
The rest of game 2 proceeded along uninteresting lines and I eventually cashed to lead 2-0 to 13.
In game 3 we arrived at the position below, White on roll and contemplating a cube. What's the correct cube action for both sides here?

the thread or your post Nihole?

they are interesting positions and thoughtful commentaries

why not contribute some of your own instead of vacuous criticism

Stog writes 

they are interesting positions and thoughtful commentaries

why not contribute some of your own instead of vacuous criticism

They may be interesting positions, but I don't see much in the way of commentary except that of the author. I only can hope he doesn't get bruised patting himself on the back.

I have contributed what I consider to be thoughtful commentaries on many occasions which have often been greeted by vacuous criticism, some of it your own. I don't recall you ever inserting yourself to chastise any of my critics.

No harm, no foul, or, in the words of a former client, NEVER EXPLAIN, NEVER COMPLAIN.

BTW, if I had referred to dorbel as DIMBELL or DORKBEL, no doubt you would have censored that. I guess you feel that only you can use derogatory names without fear of censorship. It's a cheap shot which in my opinion demonstrates your own brand of hypocrisy and is unworthy of anyone claiming to be an impartial moderator of debate and discussion.

Bob

Nihole writes

I guess you feel that only you can use derogatory names without fear of censorship. It's a cheap shot which in my opinion demonstrates your own brand of hypocrisy and is unworthy of anyone claiming to be an impartial moderator of debate and discussion.

1/ I am not a Moderator I run this site and 2/ I am not impartial

and for someone who dishes out sh** you seem to be extremely thin skinned when some of it splashes on you and 3/ you are banned reason -- Negativity and trying my time/patience.