In our first video, Jon Barnes talks about how to make sure all your rolls are legal… and answers the question of just how vigorous is “vigorous”.
Jon refers to the comprehensive UKBGF Rules, which you can find here, and specifically section 4.1.
In matches played without a baffle box a valid roll consists of the dice being shaken vigorously in a cup and then rolled out of the cup onto the playing surface of the board. During this process the dice should not touch the player’s hand and the cup should not touch the board. The dice must roll freely and come to rest lying flat on the playing surface of the board to the roller’s right of the bar. If this is not the case, the roll is deemed invalid and must be retaken.
I don’t really see how legal rolling can be enforced effectively, though I like Sean’s suggestion.
It seems to me there’s a very strong case here for baffle box preference being adopted by UKBGF, with the preferer providing the baffle box.
Perhaps the mere thought that a player may be asked to play with a baffle box will result in an improvement in rolling technique.
Shake Rattle n Roll !
How about using this song title when showing someone how to roll dice.
1 ) Shake
2 ) Rattle, listen to the dice Rattle around
3 ) Roll
In fact, this is also quite good timing of the whole event when one says “Shake Rattle n Roll” to themselves during the whole process. It will also stick in the minds of new players due to how the memory works !
There is another problem though.
New players coming to a weekly club, as we hope more will now, as the game grows, would probably not have seen Jons video let alone know Backgammon etiquette. I’m guessing most would have only played online or just with family.
So my suggestion is when a new player attends a local Backgammon club. The TD just runs through the the etiquette such as rolling on the right side, crocked dice rules and above all the “Shake Rattle n Roll” rule !
As players. Showing them during the coarse of the game can be tricky. They can take it the wrong way and basically think you are being pernickety which can cause friction ! Not what you want ! But coming from the TD before the nights play commences it will come across with clarity and make the new player feel good in themselves. Rather than go from internet play straight into the unknown live match play.
Just a few thoughts. Sean C
Thanks for the comments guys.
Raj has drawn up the rules . mainly accepted ones from other boards rules – perhaps as there is a particular interest from long established players in this area he can post a reply including an amendment on here to what he thinks constitutes a legal throw of the dice.
if a rule requires a video to explain it, then perhaps that rule needs rewriting?
One of the specific dice rolling areas which is not covered within the rules and where there have been occasional disputes is when both dice do not leave the cup at the same time due to a throwing error. Perhaps the best solution here would be to include something along the following lines -:
A throw will be deemed legal when the two dice do not leave the cup simultaneously provided the first dice has not come to a standstill on the board after the second dice leaves the cup. ”
I feel this type of scenario needs to be included within the rules.
Danny has raised a very good point. The Danish rules, upon which the UKBGF rules are clearly based, are renowned for their thoroughness. However, one glaring omission is that, unlike many other rules sets, there is not even a mention of the need for dice to be cast simultaneously, let alone any attempt to define this; UKBGF have not addressed this in their modifications. Sadly, few organisations actually do try to define simultaneous rolling, though one association (I forget which, probably a US one) did define it along the lines of:
‘If one die hits the board before the other leaves the cup the roll is not valid.’
The Tournament Backgammon Rules and Standards Guide (Nov 2012) adopted such a definition.
I feel that Danny’s proposed definition is too loose, however. A die can be spinning around for several seconds; is it really ok if the second die is released in a fraction less than this? Further, a die could be wobbling, giving an indication of what number it is more likely to come to rest on. Whether consciously – or unconsciously – the player on roll may be able to decide what to do with the second die still in their cup. Do they roll it so that that die is more likely to be cocked, or indeed less likely. Do they roll it to hit the wobbling die, or make sure it avoids it?
Adopting the definition used in the aforementioned guide avoids these possible scenarios. Even if a player is not consciously or unconsciously gaining any advantage here, such scenarios can still cause doubt in the mind of their opponent.
I would also like to add that I feel that, rather than rely upon the vague term ‘vigorous’ – even supported by Jon’s helpful video – the rules should require that the dice are shaken, up and down at least twice. Three would be better, as in the admirable guide written by Simborg/Bower/Horton; the WBA specify 3-5 shakes. Even the term ‘several times’ would be better. This eliminates one shake, and renders two shakes as rather wet. It also discourages excessive shaking, the general definition of several being ‘more than two (or three) but not many’.
There are certainly players who feel that a single (albeit up and down) shake of the dice should suffice. The rules should disabuse them of this.
This does not mean that, if two players want to give the dice just a single shake, or shake merely from side to side, or fast roll etc that they should not be able to. In practice, they generally can choose to play this way if they are both happy with it.
Very good points raised by Danny and Colin(and impressive video by our media star Jon!!).
Playing recently one dice came out of my opponents cup, I had time to reach out my hand to try and block the second die but unfortunately my opponent managed to throw second die without hitting my outstretched hand.It was an important hitting number which I accepted but with the feeling that if they had missed they may have chosen to re throw.There was not even the slightest thought in my mind that this was deliberate.
I hope that Colin’s rule ‘if one die hits the board before the other leaves the cup the roll is not valid’ will be added to UKBGF rules.
I also think Colin’s rule is a good guide. The problem however comes with arbitration on this if there is disagreement. It is nonetheless a clearly defined statement. I would also welcome greater clarity with something like “at least up and down twice” – again easy to understand what that means. It is the side to side that most players dislike. Lastly what about travel? One think I hate is players rolling into a corner such that the dice hardly travel. It is probably not easy to define this though, unlike the other examples.
When playing on the clock, rolling the dice so they land tight in a corner, thus making it difficult for your opponent to pick them up, is a valuable technique.
Another great way to annoy your opponent, though best practised when not on the clock, is to roll the dice towards their checkers. That way you are virtually guaranteed repeated, cocked/on-checker di(c)e and, if you’re sufficiently vigorous, may manage to get at least one to leave the board entirely.
Beginners who, knowing no better, roll their dice toward the bar, forego such pleasures.