| This article published with permission of Kit Woolsey's GammOnLine |
By Jake Jacobs
|
Paul rolled a 6-5, and it was only because killing one's partners was against the rules that we were saved from Gerhardt's wrath. Andreas and I had been betting with each other on moves and cubes for the last few weeks (with Andreas up quite a few bets on me, - it's no surprise that his name appeared on many of the European Giant 32 ballots), and we wanted to bet Gerhardt that hitting was correct. I'm glad we didn't, because, it turns out it was probably wrong, though I still haven't figured out how to decide which move was correct. Why am I dithering? Well, Paul could only lose "half a gammon."
I'd better explain. We were playing in a chouette tournament at the 19th Hole Super Pub, on South Pattaya's Golden Mile. A chouette tournament, for those who have never seen one, runs like this. Twelve of us entered and were given a stake of 35 points. We drew for boards, forming three tables of four. Each player had the right, if he lost his stake, of re-entering once. (I had the honour of being the first player to re-enter.) To insure that players would eventually lose their stakes, after 8 games the doubling cubes would start on 2, and after 16 games on 4, etc.
Local chouette rules would apply - Jacoby, beavers and raccoons, "autos" up to the Box, though the Captain could insist on his if the Box declined, no talking until one's cube was turned, "must beaver" a contact game if only one taker, and individual cubes but "equal action." There were also special rules that applied to the tournament, as we'll see in a minute.
When we had our 3-2 to play, Paul had 37 points in his account. The cubes were starting on 2, but Paul had "taken autos," and then had accepted our doubles to 8. If we gammoned him we could only win 37 points, which would be apportioned 13 to the Captain, and 12 to each of us. On the other hand, if Paul won, he was only entitled to win 37 points. He could not win more than he could lose.
One of the ambiguous points was whether the losses would be apportioned -12, -12, and -13 to Gerhardt, who was last in line, or -13, -12, -12, with Andreas being penalised in the same measure he would have benefitted. The ruling was that, as is done when the "Box takes a partner" in regular chouette play, the Captain would be both rewarded and penalised, whichever was appropriate.
Actually, it makes no difference which way the penalty is levied (there is a difference between always rewarding the Captain, and always rewarding the Box - the Captain/crew line-up is constantly shifting, while the Box/partner line-up is not), as long as it's consistent. Ruling on such matters was a bit of a nightmare.
We had an American, two Germans, and a Dutch player at my table, and the director was French. Though the official tournament language was English, we had the makings of a good comedy sketch, except that no one would get the jokes.
Anyway, getting back to our 3-2 (remember our 3-2?), JellyFish evaluation prefers 4/1 * 13/11, followed by 23/20, 13/11. A short rollout of only our plays, had Gerhardt's winning more games, with ours winning more gammons. At money the net difference was very small, which means that, if gammons counted only half (Paul could only lose 37 points, not 48) our play was wrong. However... There are other factors.
For instance, his gammons counted for less. Also, while he could "kill" gammons entirely by redoubling, consider our take-point. Passing would cost 8 points, but taking would risk only 4, while gaining 20 (from -8 to +12), 50 we could take with 17% and no fear of gammons.
The real question, and one I cannot answer, is: are all points created equal? In normal match play, winning or losing points translates into percentage chances of winning the match. Losing a gammon would knock Paul out, but what would his chances be if he retained 13 points? Needed is a chouette tournament equity table.
With his cushion, Paul survived long into the night, and was the only player at our table who didn't re-enter. The other two tables pruned themselves to two finalists within two hours, but it was 3:15 a.m. before Paul succumbed. Exhausted by wrangling, the late hour, and a considerable quantity of beer, the rest of us were tempted to resign in sympathy, but it turned out that one more game was all that was needed to finish it.
Page 3 - Landing the Bird
Page 1 - Shoot the Chouette
|
