I did elaborate on the
funny “hold” rule (National Rule 10.2) and how it should be eliminated without
much ado. I also discussed handling the tile bag (National Rule 5.1) and how
the height of its rim should be related to the eyes of the player, rather than
to the table top, since tables are not all born with equal heights. The silly
wording of this rule is creating problems and needless acrimony between
players. I have been repeating myself in vain for almost a decade. ASPA’s so
called “rules officers” have done nothing about it.
WESPA’s equivalent rule (3.9.1) is much
better. The resulting festering problem is the tendency of some players to
disobey the vague rule by exposing the tiles inside the bag to their eyes. It
is naive to assume that such players are not seeking an undeserved advantage.
It is not enough for a player to flatly deny wrong doing when lowering the bag,
they should also obey rules in order to prove their claimed honesty beyond
doubt.
There are ways to
address this problem. Ideally, the bag should be held vertically such that the
rim is always above eye level. If a player is physically unable to lift the bag
up in such specified position, they should get the approval of their opponent
to lay the bag on the table such that the opening of the bag would be facing away
from them, in such a manner that does not expose the tiles inside the bag.
Looking away from the bag is not sufficient, let alone being difficult to
enforce.
I have also touched on the stillborn
five-second rule (rule 10. 2. a). I wonder how many players are aware of its
very existence, let alone apply it.
Now, I am going to explain why counting the
score should be done outside play time. Some might argue about the suggested
extra push of a button that might presumably lengthen the total time
of a game. My reply is: Put the suggested method to a trial test and compare. I
believe many players would be more inclined to see the merit of a method that
ensures scoring accuracy. An added important benefit is the relaxed atmosphere
created by eliminating the need to count the score in a hurry.
Under the current rule (rule 6.1), a player
would count the score of his play in his own time. He* would calculate the score, declare it and
operate his opponent’s clock. The poor opponent, baffled by the addition of the
score of four or five newly created words, might quickly accept the declared
score in order to save time, or if he had doubts about the accuracy of the
declared figure, would go over the counting again in a hurry, in his own time.
I am suggesting modifying this rule for the sake of accuracy and fairness.
Under the present rules, many addition errors could pass undetected. The
suggested change to the rules is simple:
To end his turn, a player would push the stop
button (“neutralise” the clock), without wasting any time on hasty calculation.
The two players would then both calculate the score and agree on an undisputed
final figure to be entered simultaneously on their score sheets, together with
the agreed cumulative score . Having finished with this, the player would start
his opponent’s clock. Both players would then proceed with the game in a
markedly relaxed manner. Challenges would be settled during this out-of-play time.
This method would result in accurate scoring.
It would eliminate any scoring disputes, especially those latent claimed errors that
crop up after many moves. This suggested method would also eliminate the need
to recalculate the scores of very close games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Even though I am not a misogynist, as
once informed by the lady from the Volga, I really don’t like the phrase
“he/she”. Use of the masculine gender to mean both genders has always been
accepted until the onset of feminist linguistic mania.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.:
The suggested clock usage
method has been successfully trialled at the Greensborough Club, Victoria.
One seasoned club player (DH) was particularly satisfied with the new method. She
only used clocks in six tournaments between 2007 and 2015. Therefore, the
comparison is worthwhile, since she is not “conditioned” to the old method.
I will continue trialling
the new method with more tournament players until many more opinion results are
obtained. Ideally, the suggested method should be trialled in some tournaments
on a national level, followed by a questionnaire, in order to obtain statistically
significant opinion results. That is of course if “rules officers” would take
their job seriously.
