Earlier this year the World Backgammon Federation (WBGF) published a revised set of rules, which has already seen use at the World Team Championships and other WBGF-sanctioned events, and adoption by a number of other federations. the UKBGF Board has decided to adopt them with effect from January 1st, 2024, in time for the 2024 UK Tour. You can download them here as a PDF.
We’ve had a long, quiet period on the rules front as the WBGF has composed a set of rules which will, hopefully, be accepted world-wide. This has been a significant effort to bring together a lot of disparate practices, and the value of having a single set of rules applicable everywhere is a significant step forward.
How did we get here?
The original UKBGF ruleset was originally drafted by Raj Jansari and Peter Bennet. This was then distributed around both the UK backgammon community and wider afield, and comments were invited. Various amendments were incorporated into what is now the current UKBGF Rules, and a Rules Subcommittee was formed to consider further updates.
Raj was then invited to join the EUBGF rules and ethics panel, and adapted the UKBGF rules to fit the EUBGF, and all member federations adopted them. The EUBGF then expanded to become the WBGF, and it became a goal to have a single unified ruleset – at least in part in order to be taken more seriously by global bodies such as the IOC. The USBGF and the tournament circuit represented by Arda Findikoglu could not accept the rules as they stood, leading to a significant disparity in practice. Over successive years detailed negotiations have been taking place to create a ruleset that all could agree on. This was largely achieved by allowing options in two key areas so that tournament directors could have the freedom to select options that reflect local practice while remaining within the scope of the unified ruleset. The intent is not for nations to pick and choose rules; rather it’s for local organisers to select what is appropriate for them. We would encourage TDs and club organisers to experiment and feed back their experiences.
New options
There are two significant new options available to TDs:
- Legal Moves / Responsible Moves. In Legal Moves both players have an obligation to point out any illegal move before the next turn, and for it to be corrected. In Responsible Moves both players still have the obligation to point out an illegal move, but the opponent has the choice of condoning the move or requiring its correction on each occasion. (Note that condoning one illegal move does not commit the opponent to condoning all future ones, and vice versa – a separate decision is made each time.) Forms of infraction not related to checker moves, for example, picking up the cube and not doubling, doubling in the Crawford game, or mistakes in scoring, must be corrected as before and cannot be condoned in either option.
- Dice Not On Checkers / Dice On Checkers: In Dice On Checkers, a roll where either or both dice come to rest flat on the top surface of a checker is valid. In Dice Not On Checkers, the current UK practice, either die landing on a checker results in a cocked roll.
While we don’t intend to impose either option, to avoid any doubt if it is not explicitly stated which option is being used in either case, then it will be assumed to be that which maintains the status quo: Legal Moves and Dice Not On Checkers.
Other significant changes
While most of the other changes are catching up with current practice, for example recording and streaming matches (which was rather less common in 2015!), and clarifying the rules further, there are a few new points to note:
- Gesturing towards the cube: What constitutes a double? It used to be the case that gesturing towards the cube was assumed to indicate an intent to double, but that rule was somewhat vague (and on one occasion I’ve had an unrelated hand-wave interpreted as a double when it certainly wasn’t intended to be!). This has been clarified so that only unambiguous actions such as saying “double”, picking up the cube, or pointing at the cube, are deemed to commit you to doubling.
- Premature rolls: It is currently the case that if a player rolls prematurely, his roll is deemed to stand and his opponent is able to complete the current move with the knowledge of the next roll. This has now been changed so that the opponent can choose between either making a move knowing the next roll, or asking for the dice to be picked up and rolled at the appropriate time, provided that that the premature roll is called out consistently each time. So, you can ask for a mixture of either option if the opponent repeatedly offends, but you can’t effectively condone premature rolling by remaining silent up to the point where the premature roll is a joker, and only then ask for a re-roll. The intention is to correct the undesirable behaviour, not to provide a means to game it for advantage. Using a single pair of dice even when not using a clock is helpful in reducing the incidence of premature rolls.
- Checker-shuffling: The new rules forbid uncontrollable checker-shuffling – that is, any movement of checkers to try out positions (regardless of how long it goes on for, or the mechanics of how it is done) which is done in a manner likely to lead to the original position being lost. Players are advised to leave moved checkers clearly offset from the rest on the points where they are being moved to, so that it is clear what the move being considered is and how it should be reverted.
- Incorrect starting position: This may now be corrected later in the game, by mutual consent.
So is this the end of the story?
Not at all – the WBGF is keen to hear feedback from players and tournament directors, especially those who may not have experienced some of the options before. A couple of minor edits have already been submitted for the WBGF’s consideration. The UKBGF has revitalised its Rules Subcommittee, which is now composed of Raj, Martin Barkwill, Julia Hayward and Peter Snape, and we are also keen to hear from you with observations and suggestions. Furthermore, if disputes occur at events, we welcome reports so that we can make sure that we are learning lessons that may lead to better practice in the future.
[Editor’s note: the part about premature rolling was updated on 7/1/24 – see the comments]
I’m not sure I much like the change to the rule on premature rolls. The roll standing, as in the old rule, is clear and unequivocal, and not in any way open to abuse. I understand the desire to change behaviour in order to encourage players NOT to roll prematurely, but I think this swings the pendulum much more in the favour of the other player, and monitoring how consistent that player is in calling out a premature roll will be difficult if not impossible. In my view, this is more open to abuse than the previous rule.
As far as checker shuffling is concerned, I would like to see it banned altogether, so once you’ve moved a checker to a legal position , it must stand, rather as in chess. Again, monitoring how well players are making it clear what the original position was is going to be problematic. I consider it a part of the game to be able to envisage the final position of any option when making a move.
I’m also not sure how you rectify an incorrect starting position later in the game. If, for example, you start with 14 checkers on the board and only realise during the bear off, where would you place the checker? This rule needs clarification.
Simon, Rolling early can pressure a player into picking up their dice when they may have overlooked a much better play. The same applies to picking up the dice before the clock button is pressed. Had their opponent not done this, – pressurising meeker players into ending their turn – that player might have had second thoughts. The new rule has been the USBGF rule for several years and is the best of the three alternatives IMHO. With the old rule it is possible that a player might be doing a calculation for example and not paying attention to their opponent – perhaps even with their eyes closed – only to find their opponents perfecta sitting there ready to be played next turn. When deep in thought one cannot follow whether an opponent has shaken and rolled properly, and – with the scenario mentioned – whether the dice were even rolled at all.
As for your view on banning shuffling: hallelujah, we are in total agrrement there!
I believe that the UKBGF should further promote compliance with the rules by circulating short videos on good versus bad practise. On checker shuffling for example, there is a plethora of material out there to cherry pick from. We may see even some well known faces from both sides of the fence!
I can advise/assist if necessary.
“4.2 (v) CHECKER SHUFFLING – Players should not, in an uncontrolled manner,
shuffle their checkers back and forth across the board in order to test new
positions. Players should slightly offset checkers being moved to test a
position. Repeated transgressions by a player in breach of this provision
may result firstly in a warning, and subsequently in penalty points.”
This is a huge improvement to UKBGF rules but falls short of the USBGF rule which adds:
“The original position should be restored before making another play.”
This addition would, at no cost, further improve the rules. It would also penalise on time serial shufflers.
Some clarification please. I thought if an opp makes an illegal move, and i wish them to correct it, it should be done once their move time (12 secs) has elapsed. Is that still the case?
Interesting query Jon. I wonder if there is an illegal move at all until the opp presses their clock and ends their turn as technically it is still their turn until then. I suppose in practice if say an opponent made what would potentially be an illegal move and it was still their turn most players would point it out at the time (which would be while their clock was still running). If they had ended their turn then you’d perhaps pause the clock, point out the illegality and ask them to correct it once you’d restarted their time.
So that is a change from previous rule. The opp has made an illegal play, presses his clock. I pause the clock, ask him to play legally, he gets the 12 sec delay again. So an unscrupulous opp who is v short of time and doesn’t know the correct move can keep deliberately making an illegal play to gain time to work out what to do.
I agree, this is an important omission. When the clock is re-started the offender should be required to wait for the ‘delay time’ to elapse before correcting her move. Even then, the offender gets some unfair thinking time advantage…
I once experienced an opponent who was down to the last 3 seconds on the clock and went on to repeatedly make obvious illegal moves and gain 12 seconds delay time on each occasion. Of course they went on to win the match! My suggestion above at least gives some compensation to the ‘victim’.
Just an edit to the blog post regarding premature rolls: in fact, the ‘innocent’ party is free to decide on each occasion of a premature roll, whether to condone or require a re-roll. But the obligation on that player is to point out a premature roll on each occasion it occurs. This then makes the ‘guilty’ party aware of what they are doing wrong and to hopefully correct their behaviour with the penalty of not doing so being that their opponent has the option to decide whether to condone or require a re-roll. It is when the player repeatedly fails to even point out the premature roll that they run the risk of not being able to exercise the subsequent option as this could be seen to simply be gaming the situation unfairly.
This is a very important distinction – and seems a good improvement to me on the original wording. Is it possible to get this original blog post updated accordingly rather than just having the clarification down here within a comment?
Thanks James, I also agree with you on that. I have mentioned it to Julia who is going to make that change.