"Super-Backgammon" and 4 Points would be logical, wouldn't it?

[MAffi]

Hi,

one can win / lose single, gammon or backgammon.
I think it would be straightforward logical if there was a "Super-Backgammon" with 4 points involved in case the game finishes while one player has still checkers left on the Bar.

Anybody secönds that?

[dorbel]

I doubt it. Firstly it is incredibly rare, you could play every day for a year and not see one. Second, it is only ever won by astounding luck, the losing player doesn't play badly, he just dances forever. There's enough luck in bg as it is thanks!
My favourite rule change would be to ban the use of the cube for all games following the Crawford game as well. If you are playing an 11pt match and lose the Crawford game to go 10-2, the trailing player is effectively handed four points on a plate and only his gammons will count. Where's the fairness in that?

[ah_clem]

The "no cube after Crawford" rule makes some sense if you got to that score by grinding out a bunch of single point wins.  But if you used the cube along the way, possibly a recube or a doubled gammon it's  most certainly not fair to make the trailing player grind out nine consecutive single point wins.

Think about a five pointer where a player loses a doubled gammon on the first game.  Do you really think the trailer should have to win five in a row (1/32 chance) instead of the current  three in a row (1/8)?  For one thing we'd have to learn a new MET and we'd be dropping a lot more cubes.

My preferred rule change would be to ditch Jacoby. 

[NIHILIST]

Ditch Jacoby by never playing for money. Problem solved.

Bob

[dorbel]

Having to learn a new MET is not an argument against changing.
It may not be "fair" to force the trailer to win the match without the cube but my point is that it isn't fair to hand him one or points with which to make up the deficit either. The trailer can still win gammons of course, so he doesn't have to win all singles.
Jacoby isn't part of the rules of bg, it is just a convention for money play. You don't ever have to play it, but you might find it difficult to find opponents.

[ah_clem]

I guess it just seems fair to me that if the leader had the chance to win doubled gammons  pre Crawford, the trailer should have a chance to do the same post-Crawford.  Note that neither side has to face a recube to four, which may have been the way the leader built up her lead in the first place.

As for Jacoby, I already follow Bob's advice and almost never play using it. And I have no problem finding opponents, at least on-line.  I rarely play in person. 

My issue with Jacoby is that almost all the reference positions are money/Jacoby and while Jacoby usually makes no difference it's a wrinkle that makes the result less applicable to general play.  (ie match play or money play once the cube has turned.)  Lately, some commenters have been posting positions as Unlimited without jacoby (e.g. Tim Chow) as the better 'plain vanilla' scenario.  I hope this trend continues and  Jacoby rule goes the way of the Holland rule.