Update coming soon
Over the last eighteen months the UKBGF has taken up the project of drafting a comprehensive set of Rules for tournament backgammon. I studied various existing sets of rules from around the world and eventually decided to base our version on the Danish Backgammon Federation (DBgF) rules. Our current version of the Rules is available to view on the UKBGF website.
From the outset we decided to publish the Rules openly and advertise the fact globally in order to receive as much comprehensive review, comment, criticism and feedback as possible. Our current version of the Rules, Edition 1.2, took into account all of the feedback received following the publication of Edition 1.1.
However, the Rules are a living work always open to improvement over time, as backgammon itself evolves and ideas change. Since Edition 1.2 of the Rules was published in September 2014, we have received even more feedback and the Rules are going to be further updated in the near future.
We believed that this was the best way firstly to create an excellent set of Rules and secondly to ensure as wide an acceptance of them as possible. The general idea was to finalise our Rules and then to attempt to roll them out across Europe and the rest of the world so that in time a single, truly global, set of rules could be realised. Our Rules have already been accepted by many other backgammon federations and I have been invited to join the board of the European Backgammon Federation where the UKBGF Rules will be accepted as their official Rules, albeit titled differently. Discussions about our Rules have also been held with the relevant representative of the United States Backgammon Federation (USBGF).
This idea has become even more important now that there are plans on the international stage to apply for backgammon to be recognised at the World Mind Games which is an annual event in China. Clearly, a globally recognised set of rules would go a long way towards firstly making a credible case for the inclusion of backgammon in such an illustrious forum and for subsequently keeping it there. We ought to do as much as we can to take our game to another level on the world stage.
A new five-person Rules Sub-Committee of the UKBGF has now been established. This will provide an oversight function for the Rules and will formalise the process whereby anybody wishing to propose a rule change may make their proposal which the Rules Sub-Committee will then consider. More details on this will be announced shortly by way of a separate blog post.
Drafting the Rules
I often get asked about certain specific rules within the Rules as well as general comments about the way something has been drafted. I thought that this might be a good opportunity to set out some simplified drafting comments which might help players to understand the reasoning behind some of the drafting.
As with all rules (by which I also mean laws in general), one idea behind them is to draft them in language which is as simple and easy to follow as possible, rather than having it too precisely defined. Obviously, sometimes very great detail is required but generally speaking simplest is best. The reason for this is that a simply drafted rule is usually easy to interpret and deviations from it are relatively straightforward to ascertain, thereby reducing the number and scope of arguments about whether the rule has been followed or not.
When a rule is drafted more precisely, often and quite perversely, the opposite effect occurs and there is much more scope for argument as to what the additional precision means and/or how it is to be interpreted.
As an example, let me take a recent request to consider amending the existing Rules from requiring ‘vigorous shaking’ (of the dice) to requiring ‘shaking in an up and down motion’. If a concept of ‘up and down’ were to be introduced it could lead to arguments for example about whether shaking in a vigorous up and down motion but with the hand moving backwards and forwards or side to side as well is still true ‘up and down’ shaking. Should the shaking have to be precisely at 90 degrees to the horizontal? Clearly this is impossible so how far away from perpendicular should be allowed? Who should measure this and judge it?
As mentioned above, our current Rules are largely based on the existing DBgF rules which on this particular point simply said, “A valid throw consists of the dice being shaken in a cup…”.
I didn’t think that this was quite enough and therefore introduced the concept of ‘vigorous’. The reason being that I think it is fairly clear what vigorous means in plain English: if a player isn’t shaking the dice ‘vigorously’ then any TD should quite easily be able to spot this and request correction. I am not aware of there having been any great controversy around shaking which isn’t able to be resolved if the offending party simply begins to shake his dice vigorously.
For my own part, I am fairly sure that I don’t always, if ever, shake my dice in an up and down motion but more of a back and forth/side to side motion. But the important point is that I shake them vigorously and roll them across the board. This produces random dice as far as I am concerned and that’s the aim of the rule.
From my general observations of hundreds of other players, I would think that most of them don’t shake in a pure or even predominantly up and down motion. So even if we were to introduce a rule that required up and down shaking, most people would never adhere to it and their opponents wouldn’t even notice or care most of the time. So the rule couldn’t even be policed properly and this is another reason why it might sound like more of a good idea than it would be in practice.
As previously mentioned, the current UKBGF rules (Edition 1.2) will shortly be revised to take account of comments and suggestions from players. Please feel free to add your comments below or, if you prefer, to email them privately to raj@ukbgf.com
While playing online with Backgammon Ace I was thinking how much quicker it made decision making when you have the pip count on display all the time. Wondering how long before a board comes along that can also display the pip count and the trouble it would cause if you used it in a tournament. Then actually wondering why it is illegal to use a pen and paper to assist doing a pip count and jotting a figure down while you count the other sides pips also. Obviously it is an advantage if you can easily do this in your head but looking for the logical reason behind the rule I drew a blank. What great sin is it if you want to jot a couple of numbers down on a pad you have to have to record your match score anyhow. Surely anything that speeds up the game is a benefit especially when clocks are regulating how much time we have for the match. Wouldn’t that time be better served playing the game rather then trying to count your pips then remembering the number while you count your opponents pips and hoping you haven’t forgotten the first figure you came up with. Does any one know when and why this rule of not being able to use your pen and pad to assist counting pips actually came about. I know there are purists who will defend it to the end but I would be interested to hear the logical arguments behind the rule, thanks Peter.
Peter,
One pretty logical argument is this: if you allow written calculations, then why should they be restricted to pip counts? Could such a restriction be policed? If not, then you have to also allow any such calculations, including computing MET’s, doubling windows and so on. Maybe it’s fair? But then, you could get someone surreptitiously switching in a real table for a garbage one that they wrote up during the match. Not allowing any written calculations precludes such a possibility. I used to subscribe to this thinking.
However, I now actually tend to agree with you on. I think the above possibility is pretty slim and, anyone caught doing this should expect their bg tournament future to be very much in doubt.
Basically, there are three types of players:
1) Those that can (and do) correctly mentally compute MET’s, doubling windows, etc OTB, and within a reasonable time. Or who memorise them.
2) Those who can (and would) work out the above (within a reasonable time) using pen and paper.
3) Those who could do neither, some even if they had the help of a calculator (God bless ’em), or those that could, but can’t be arsed.
I believe that there are few players (5%?) in category 1, and (very) roughly EQUAL numbers in the other two. In which case, allowing written calculations – though making the first (rare) category redundant – would bring in whole new major divisions of skill that do not currently exist! Food for thought?
As for remembering pip counts, have you tried putting your fingers below points on the board? If the first count is 70, you have one finger below the bar point (7), and another below the bear off tray (0 point). I use this, but also associate the first count with things that interest me like ‘Mexico ’70’ – for the 1970 FIFA World Cup, ’92 is the Barcelona Olympics, or the 110(m) Hurdles and so on. Works for me. Of course, the quicker you get at doing them, the less time there is in which to forget the first count!
Colin
Yes Colin I can see if you had a extra notes written on your pad like doubling window equities it could open a new can of worms if amongst numerous other jottings. Not something I would be advocating but then if 2 players agreed to have such things to hand before they starting playing a friendly match it shouldn’t be a problem, an official match I imagine is some way off, if ever.
Re Baffle Boxes
Everyone on the UKBGF board knows that I’d like Baffle Boxes to be a preference rule, at every tournament.
My reason for this is that there are far too many people playing backgammon who do not move their dice – they merely move their cup slightly, in a pendulum-type motion.
Some of these people are friends, and, I know for a fact, that they don’t realise they’re doing it, so there is absolutely no suggestion on my part, that anyone is trying to cheat, however a baffle box solves this problem, very easily, so I don’t understand why it’s not already a preference rule at every tournament.
Occasionally, I have pointed out to my opponent that they have not shaken their dice and, this is not conducive to a good, fun game, which is, surely, what we all want.
I, too, prefer to shake and roll my dice out of a cup, but I would like to be able to use a baffle box when I’m playing people who don’t shake their dice.
If people thought they may be asked to use a baffle box, and they are averse to them, maybe it will improve their shaking; and then we won’t have to be even nerdier than we already are, and discuss the minutiae of what constitutes “vigorous” shaking.
Raj is concerned that the extra definition of an ‘up and down’ shaking requirement could lead to disputes. Let’s look at this.
With such a shake, must the cup itself actually move up and down, relative to the ground? Of course not! What is relevant in this respect is that THE DICE are moving up and down within the cup, ie along it’s vertical rather than horizontal axis. If the cup is held reasonably upright, then the dice will be moving in space, spinning, turning, hitting each other and, of course, impacting alternately with the bottom of the cup and the players hand. It is obvious that this is a much more time efficient way to approach randomness than having the dice merely skidding around on the bottom of the cup. If the cup is held at an approximate 45 degree angle this effect will still take place, the difference being that there will naturally be increased contact with the side of the cup. Even if the cup was held horizontally and shaken strictly in that plane, then it could be no worse than if the dice were instead sliding around on the bottom of the cup. In fact, as cups are nearly always taller than they are wider, the dice will have more room to move, and a ribbed cup will turn the dice as they move.
The main problem with lateral shaking, therefore, is that it takes more shaking, more time to get the same random effect. But, in some cups – smaller, round ones – there will be little or even NO change in the position of the dice, particularly with larger dice. The same will be true in oval cups if the dice are shaken across the narrow side. I recently sold some round cups where, even with the small 1/2″ dice, there was no change in the dice position at all when shaking from side to side, however hard I shook. Shaken this way, it is very hard for an opponent to know what randomising effect, if any, is occurring.
It does not matter if most players “don’t shake in a pure or even predominantly up and down motion”, as Raj has observed. What is relevant is that only a minority of players shake predominantly (or entirely) from side to side. It is clear that this type of shaking is NOT considered vigorous enough by a lot of players. Sure, we may not raise an objection – for fear of an unpleasant reaction – but it can still leave us with an unpleasant feeling.
The Tournament Backgammon Rules and Standards Guide, released November 2012, require that “Dice should be shaken vigorously at least three times, up and down, before rolling.” This is the set of rules that have been adopted for the last two and-a-half years at my local (St Albans) club, and I am not aware of them having created any issues around interpretation. I strongly suspect that they have helped to avoid problems. Of course, as I stated in my previous post on this subject, if both players are happy with shaking that is technically not legal then they can, in practice, play this way. For those of us who are not happy with purely side to side shaking, or indeed only one (or two) up and down shakes, such a rule provides a safeguard. Any roll is unlikely ever to be annulled without the TD or his staff witnessing it of course, whatever the shaking requirements are. I believe that merely having a requirement to shake ‘vigorously’ is potentially very nebulous, and could lead to dispute around interpretation. Conversely. a TD should easily be able to decide whether the dice were shaken up and down in the cup, or merely shuffled around side to side on the bottom.
The UKBGF Rules, particularly if they are to be gradually adopted around the world – as Raj has been told that they may – should take the best bits from each set of rules. Adopting an ‘up and down’ shaking rule, combined with a 2 or 3 shake minimum, is completely workable in practice, would set the bar higher, and raise the ethical plane of these rules.
I have to say that the shaking of the cup has never bothered me. If an opponent has put their dice in and moved the cup that’s sufficient top prove there’s no human intervention…for me at least.
What I personally don’t like is a big fat cube landing on the playing surface and not rolling. It’s the reason that I bought the long cups and small dice from Chris Turnel. They didn’t need shaking and provided a nice bouncy roll across the playing surface. Too bouncy on many occasions.
My2cs: I think it would be a good idea for the rules of international backgammon to work towards the use of baffle boards. Announce that in ?years they will be mandatory. Also a maximum size of die would be a good idea. And please, let’s not go down a path of whether the dice should be dropped into the baffle from a cup or fingers, it doesn’t matter.
My apologies to Chris for miss-spelling his name; Ternel.
Colin, thanks for your comments which are interesting.
The fundamental point of my post is that too much detail in a rule (or law) leaves the door open for someone to try to find a way around it.
Taking your example and amendment of the rule to require up and down motion shaking, an ingenious person might produce a shaker that was relatively short in the vertical plane (maybe just slightly greater than the side of a die) but wide in the horizontal plane. Hence no amount of up and down shaking would allow the dice to actually turn over. This would satisfy an up and down shaking requirement but be an unsatisfactory outcome and necessitate more detailed amendment of the rule.
Alternatively, and as mentioned in my post, who is to determine what shaking in an up and down motion actually is. This is surely a matter of personal judgement.
Accordingly, my personal view remains that simply requiring vigorous shaking and for the dice to be freely rolled across the board is sufficient to produce random rolls and to avoid arguments.
Further, I don’t believe that a requirement of a specific number of shakes is required because surely ‘vigorous’ implies sufficiency in the quality of shaking that is required.
If a person believes that any part of the roll (including that the shaking is consistently not vigorous enough) may be invalid, they have the option of asking the TD to observe and give their view. In relation to the shaking, all that the TD has to then do is opine on whether in his view it is vigorous or not. The other player has little argument as to vertical planes, horizontal planes or numbers of shakes.
Raj, Your hypothetical example of the ‘upside down’ cup, not to mention your concerns about grey areas with extra definitions, shows you are clearly trying to ‘think outside the box’. But practicality also has to be a consideration. No lipped cup that I’ve ever seen has been unsuitable for ‘up and down’ shaking, but some clearly are unsuitable for ‘side to side’. If someone were to make or obtain such cups, and take them to a tournament – with the intention of using them – then will they not attract attention sooner, rather than later? No rule would need redrafting, as the provisions of maybe every rule set ever written include introductory wording akin to:
UKBGF Rule 1.1
“…the Rules are not intended to cover every possible situation that might arise in the course of a Tournament and accordingly are no substitute for the Tournament Director’s judgement and discretion to determine the most appropriate resolution in any particular set of circumstances.”
In other words, ‘on ya bike!’ to the player with the ‘cheaters cup’. Surely, any TD worth their salt would rule that a player – wanting their match to actually proceed with such equipment – had their request denied? Except perhaps, I suppose, if their opponent allowed them? Of course, a director might decide that some players needed protecting from their own ignorance?
Anyone bringing such equipment to a tournament – with the intention of using it – would, at best, do their reputation no good; at worst, they’d be DQ’d. I suspect that the MFIC would have them out on their ear!
Regarding your question:
Who is to determine what shaking in an up and down motion actually is?
My answer is, firstly, the conscience of the player doing the shaking (assuming they have one), secondly, their opponent, and finally, if necessary, the TD. Let me make this clear: the latter role is NOT one that I envy (especially if they’re not being paid). But if, hypothetically, I was one, I would much prefer to have to decide whether a shake qualified as ‘up and down’, and whether there were at least x number of them, than whether the shake was simply ‘vigorous’. The term ‘simply’ here is a misnomer!
In your deliberations I fear that you are not weighing, indeed probably completely overlooking, two other factors. One is that, even if having an ‘up and down’ shaking requirement were to increase, rather than reduce ambiguity – and I strenuously assert again that it wouldn’t – to have it in the rules would raise the shaking standards of some players! Sometimes targets are ultimately not something to attain, but rather something to aim at:
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
C. S. Lewis
In other words, require a player to shake the dice up and down at least two or three times, and they may then do one or two; this, however, could be one or two more than they might otherwise have done! Require them to release the dice from at least 3 inches above the board, and they might drop them from half that. Better that, than if their cup almost (but not quite) touched the board when releasing (UKBGF legal). Finally, Heaven forbid, say the unsayable, and ask them to do what no rules set has yet dared to do – require them to NOT look in the cup before casting – and the odd dodgy player that exists may be less likely to try that particular nasty trick.
Of course, you will doubtless feel that adding either of the latter two requirements would be opening more ‘cans of worms’. But, in that respect, I will bring up the second factor that I feel you have overlooked. This is: who has created the ambiguity in the first place? Is it the rule writers, or the player? I think you have my answer. A major principle of the Tournament Backgammon Rules and Standards Guide, written by Messrs Simborg, Bower and Horton:
1.2. Responsibility of Players
1.2.1. As most matches are not officiated, players are expected to self-officiate,imposing the strictest standards upon themselves. When in doubt, a player should voluntarily rule against himself or penalize himself in questionable situations. A player who consistently behaves in this manner can then expect the same from his opponents.
Therefore, a conscientious player, if required to shake their dice ‘up and down at least 3 times’, will do so in an unambiguous manner, and do at least 4 or 5!
We shall await what the Rules Committee decide.
It’s reassuring for me to read other players unhappy with the way players ‘shake’ their cups. I especially enjoyed Colin’s comments, which are my thoughts exactly. I did raise the request to ask for ‘up and down’ to be introduced as opposed to ‘vigorous’. It seems to me that UKBGF board are not all on the same page about this rule. John Barnes gave a useful video lesson on how to shake your dice and clearly states at the end that the ‘rattling’ method is not allowed but I get the feeling that Raj feels that as long as the cup is rattled vigorously then it’s okay.
I don’t actually mind players rattling their cups if they are rattled hard and long enough, some players have been rattling their cups for longer than I’ve been playing so bit harsh to expect them to change. But what I’ve found is the players that rattle are almost always the ones who don’t shake at all sometimes, especially when they’re on the bar or bearing off, which can be the most frustrating time to receive a joker!
International tournaments require players to shake their cups up and down at least 2-3 times. I’ve not had many issues with opponents shaking their cups wrongly abroad but frequently come across unsatisfactory shaking at my local club, Bristol and other UK events. It’s so awkward having to confront opponents during a match. I like the way Ian Tarr tried to demonstrate a good shaking action at the recent UK club championships. Think it’s now up to local TD’s to address this at their clubs so that we can reach a good shaking standard at national level.
Raj, thanks to you and your colleagues for your work on the rules of backgammon. I was pleased to use them as a basis for mine. http://livebackgammonleague-sydney.org/rules/
John
Our pleasure John!
I’d like to thank Raj and all at UKBGF for the excellent work that has been done on this project. Regarding the implementation of the Rules, I think it would be helpful if TD’s always made a brief announcement at the start of tournaments to clarify what happens when there’s a premature action or an illegal move. I mention this because rules on these 2 important areas have changed in recent years, and may differ from one backgammon organisation to another, resulting in players being unsure of what to do in these commonly experienced situations.
I’m pleased to see that checker shuffling is addressed in the Rules – (4.2 vi). Again, I’d like to appeal to TD’s to refer to this rule in an announcement at the start of the tournament. Sloppy checker shuffling is my number one gripe when playing live backgammon. The recommendation given in the Rules to place checkers shy of intended points is helpful, but currently is rarely followed in practice. Not only does it reduce misplays and disputes, it is also a courtesy to the opponent whose job it isn’t to be mentally taxed with following backwards and forwards switching of plays. This occurs especially when the opponent has rolled a small set which often leads to a large number of plausible plays. The rule needs to be given a little more prominence if this practice is to be reduced, hence my appeal for a polite reminder to players at the start of tournaments.
Great job with the rules by Raj and team. I’d also agree 100% with Julian, regarding the ‘checker shuffling’ – it has to be the no.1 pain in the ar$e when playing in a live tourney – especially as the type of players who need to move every other checker on the board back and forth about 20 times after a 3-3 roll, are they same type of players who can’t remember where they started from in the first place….as Julian says, it shouldn’t be your job, to have to spend mental energy trying to concentrate on your opponents back and forward play. I’d be happy to play the rule that once you’ve touched the checkers and moved them – that’s it. Maybe as a compromise you should be allowed to move them a set number of times to try out a couple of plays and see how they look (and let you correct yourself if you spot you’ve just made a catastrophic blunder!) – that way if you only got 3 ‘tries’, you might concentrate a bit harder on whether you like the play or not, before moving the checkers back? Dunno – I just know that nobody really does that ‘checkers a few cm above the point’ thing…..
Julian, thanks for your thoughts. I think it could well be good practice for TD’s to make such announcements prior to an event beginning but hopefully in time players will learn the rule (especially if it becomes the universal norm as we are hoping for) and that there will be no more need for it. If ever you are at an event and were to ask the TD to make such an announcement, I would be very surprised if it was refused.
In reference to the below rule:
ERRORS IN THE STARTING POSITION – If an error in the starting position is noticed after the player starting the game has commenced his second turn by rolling the dice, the starting position is valid in spite of the error. Therefore a player starting with fewer than 15 checkers may still lose a gammon or backgammon. An error noticed before the player starting the game has commenced his second turn by rolling the dice must be corrected in accordance with the correct starting position, if possible.
Would it be worth mentioning incorrect positioning of checkers on the board as well as an incorrect number of checkers?
Philip, although I believe that it ought to be clear that this rule refers to any ‘error’ situation, the use of the word ‘Therefore’, may be incorrect and causing confusion so I am happy to rework this rule and clarify. Thanks for your input!
I invested in a baffle board. The dice gods seem to like it 🙂
Glad to hear it John, I am a fan of baffle boxes and hope to see more and more of them at tournaments. One issue with them that you might not be aware of is that in the UKBGF rules as they currently stand it is up to the particular TD beforehand to state whether his/her tournament will allow baffle boxes to be imposed on one player by another (baffle box preference). In practice this rarely happens. I can think of only one tournament this yearin the UK that had this – I believe it was the London Open SJ).
This is what you would find in many countries, Denmark for instance, whereas in the US it’s the other way round, the onus would be on the non baffle box liking player to give a good reason why they shouldn’t be used (and let’s face it there isn’t one!).
The three options that TDs have prior to the tournament with regard to Baffle Boxes (and Clocks for that matter) are…
Mandatory – for major events you nearly always get mandatory clocks now, but I have never seen mandatory baffle boxes (maybe one day?)
Optional – if both players are in agreement
Preference – a baffle box or clock can be imposed on one player against his/her wishes by the other player. I tend to do this with clocks because I hate slow play and would only do it with a baffle box if my opponent’s rolling action caused me concern (this is not implying that they are cheating by the way).
There could be a fourth option which might prove popular – let the dice decide! The “neutral” option would be that, if one player wants it, dice are rolled to determine whether baffle boxes (or clocks) are used.
I myself would prefer “preference” but baffle box lovers and haters might feel less aggrieved if their hand was forced by the dice gods rather than another person.
The rules subcommitee is looking forward to all suggestions for this topic and others.
Jon
Yes, I had one opponent during the London Open that refused to use it. That was fine by me. He found a cup.
Our new club is part of a Persian restaurant. A lot of our players are used to throwing their dice straight from the hand. The baffle board seems to be something they prefer rather than cups. A visual thing maybe, as mine is perspex.
We haven’t introduced clocks yet. They’ve got enough to contend with playing with a doubling cube!
Good points all on baffle boxes. This isn’t really a rules issue as such but more what people in general would like to see. If enough people feel strongly enough that baffle boxes should be the norm then in time it will become the norm. I suspect that this may not be for some time however. Personally speaking, I have never refused to play with a baffle box. Not because I am paranoid about the validity of rolls but purely because it is generally quicker. However, not everyone enjoys them with many preferring the action of rolling the dice across the board.
It was very encouraging that the recent UKBGF London Open employed Baffle Box Preference for 3 of the 5 main events (SJ, Pro’s, Hippodrome Cup). That is progressive thinking by someone. Though I strongly believe – as does Paul Lamford, for example – that there are no ethical reasons to decline, in events where newbies and intermediates will be very prevalent – and where the stakes are lower there may generally be less of a case for applying ‘Preference’. Nonetheless, there may still be a case for baffle boxes – and also clocks – to be given equal precedence. BTW, in my experience only 30% of players oppose the use of the box.
On that note, I have to correct your recollection of your consent to the use of baffle boxes – against me, anyway. On the few occasions that we have been drawn to play against each other, you have always declined my requests that we use a baffle box. The first one that I can definitely refer to (without recourse to my diary pages) was the big Betfair sponsored event in August 2004, when we played in an early round of the consolation. The reason that you gave then, as on other occasions, was that you were not used to them. You have also objected on the grounds that baffle boxes slow the game down. If used with the addition of cups and shaking, this is probably true – by about a second per move according to my tests – but, if used without either, the reverse effect occurs. It is good that you now acknowledge this.
In more recent years we have played probably 2 or 3 times in the Tollgate tournament, and you never consented to use the box then. When I showed there earlier this year however, a bit late and rather hungry, you stated then that you would use one. As I would have been a seventh rather than an eighth player, I opted for a meal there instead! But I was encouraged by your change of stance.
Colin, I’m afraid I don’t recall things quite the way you do but in any case I am happy to use a baffle box going forward and don’t recall refusing to use one in the recent past.