On Aug 5, 2015 Mohammed Hegazi wrote:
Hello John,
I am responding to
your request about WESPA rules. They are relevant to me because our rules
officers copy them.
(1) 3.10.5 Holds and
3.10.6 Courtesy Draws
When a player puts his
played tiles on the board, declares his score and operates his opponent’s
clock, he should have no exceptional rights, claims or privileges whatsoever.
The time ticking is his opponent’s. He should refrain from replenishing his rack
until his play is accepted. The time ticking is not his. Therefore, he should
have no claims during that time. His opponent has the right to continue to
contemplate challenging for any length of time. It is the opponent’s own time
being wasted. The opponent might even tile track before making a challenge. It
is his time being wasted. Tiles drawn prematurely should be treated as excess
overdrawn tiles, if the opponent mounts a successful challenge.
If people would like
to simplify rules, I believe WESPA rules 3.10.5 and 3.10.6 can be deleted
without any further ado.
Too many unnecessary
rules are not a good thing.
(2) Ending the game
I believe this part of
the rules is utter nonsense. Neutralising the clock on going out is wrong, since
the game is not finished because the player at the receiving end still has the
option of challenging the last play of the opponent. Therefore, it would
be more sensible if the player going out would operate his/her
opponent's clock, as usual, after declaring the score and the notion of going
out. The opponent would then neutralise the clock in his own time and either
challenge or declare the end of the game. If the challenge is successful, the
challenged player takes his/her tiles off the board and the game continues. This
last scenario emphasises the notion that GOING OUT IS NOT THE END OF THE
GAME. THUS THE CLOCK SHOULD NOT BE NEUTRALISED ON GOING OUT. The player at the
receiving end might be able to successfully challenge, then hook a bingo and
win the game! So, going out is not necessarily the end of the game as initially
thought by rules engineers. It is a virtue to admit being wrong and to correct
the initial rule error, instead of correcting a mistake with another mistake.
I hope I am not being
too critical.
Thank you John,
Mohammed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug 6, 2015 John Hamilton wrote:
Hi Mohammed,
Thanks for your input. I appreciate that
simplified rules are desirable but the primary function of the rules is to
create a set of guidelines that provide an even contest. It is important to do
this as simply as possible but I don't agree with the notion of "
Regarding the holding/drawing tiles rule;
The majority of the Scrabble playing committee
disagrees with your belief that "he should have no exceptional rights,
claims or privileges" and that "The
time ticking is his opponents." When my opponent is considering their
move, I have a right to be considering my (potential) options with a full rack.
My opponent has the same rights on my time. I know you fundamentally disagree
with this but this view is held by the vast majority of players and something
that is not going to change anytime soon.
The hold rule is there to allow someone a
little bit of leeway when they are considering whether or not they want to
challenge. This is especially true with 5 point challenge but also relevant for
single challenge e.g. my opponents phoney word may give me a place to play a
triple triple.
As for your second point, I'm on the fence. I
both agree and disagree. I've submitted your idea to the committee and will get
back to you after it's been discussed
JohnH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug 6, 2015 Mohammed Hegazi wrote:
Well John, bad rules are
either stillborn or awaiting their natural death in due course.
