Rob Adams: 23/18, 6/5*.I would prefer the 23pt to the 24pt, but fighting for the 5pt is usually right... even with the weaker inner board. So if I'm going to hit 6/5*, I like 23/18 with the 5. I won't like it if White can double hit, but on the up side, I might make the 18pt and/or my 5pt.
Nigel Alsop: 23/18, 6/5*.
Bloody hell! Just got to hit the blot on the 5pt,as for the 5? Tempting to hit on the 1pt giving a better chance of making 2pts in Whites home board and going into a backgame, don't fancy this especially after putting one man on the guff. I think I would go forward and move out to the 18pt.
John Bakovic: 23/18, 6/5*.
Behind in the race, cube on my side time for an aggressive play of hitting the 5 and advancing my back checker to his bar point. If things go well I will get right back in this game. May end up getting gammon but will not go down without a fight. Everything else is to passive of a play.
Chuck Bower: 24/23, 8/3.
There are a couple of reasonable 1's, but the 5 is tough. The ultrapure23/18, 6/5* gives White 28 return shots putting Blue in serious gammondanger. Any hit on the 5-point looks overly optimistic. 24/23 shiftsto a less gammonish anchor. Now for the 5. 6/1* takes away half ofWhite's roll, but that's not particularly threatening. Short of the 4/36fans, White can play rather comfortably. Meanwhile White is damaged ifhit and left with an awkward blot if missed. Putting a spare on the3-point is not normally a wise play, but here would you rather have one spare on the 3-, two on the 6-, and one on the 8-point or a blot on the 1-, only one spare on the 6-, and two spares on the 8-point? If 24/23 is the best ace, I think 8/3 is the best remaining 5.
Steve Clark: 23/18, 6/5*.
I will play 23-18, 6-5. It is not that this leaves us will such awonderful position, but I think the play is relatively clear. The mostattractive alternative is 6-5, 6-1. I started to give this play seriousconsideration until I noticed that I would no longer have any spares on the6 point. Hitting and splitting is always worth while. We do not have awonderful game here, but if White hits us on his bar point from the 8 orthe 13, he will have to leave a lot of blots around the board. This wouldbe a tougher problem if we had one more checker on our 6 point.
George Klitsas: 8/3, 6/5*.
The pure play is 23/18 6/5* - when it works (for example, by Blue making White's bar point or his own five point, or both!) it's fine. But White has many good rolls after that play and between them a number of double-hits. So I will compromise with the more conservative 8/3 6/5*, trying to make my five point at a much lower risk. I don't like my checker on the three point, but I might be able to recirculate it in the future.
Rob Maier: 24/23, 8/3.
Let's not be in too much of a hurry to get ourselves gammoned. Making the "advanced" anchor may be a cowardly improvement, but it IS an improvement. As for the five, the boring 8/3 keeps all of the options open and the spares in the right places. Just have a sip of Hennesey and see what happens.
Snowie: 23/18, 6/5*.
Easy play. Fight for the five point, and play the natural-looking five outto the enemy bar point. Nothing else is at all attractive.
Marty Storer: 23/18, 6/5*.
Blue owns the cube, so making the 23 point is a possibility.I hate the rest of the proposition; neither 6/1* nor 8/3 looks promisingenough. Making the 23 point seems like an attempt to lose in genteel fashion.Even owning the cube, I'd rather play to win. Blue has the Iron Point tofall back on in case of mayhem, and 23/18 6/5* gives a reasonable chanceto make the 18 or the 5 point. It's extremely risky, but I'd take mychances with it.
Bob Stringer: 23/18, 6/5*.
I think this may be a big mistake, since a double hit by White is soawful, but nothing looks attractive here. 8/3 wastes a man, at a timewhen my board has more holes than White's. 6/5*, 6/1* is the kind ofplay I'd make only if it was going to preserve some mighty strongassets elsewhere, or gain valuable time - niether of which do I seehere. I'd consider 24/23, 6/1* more worthy of consideration if Whitehad a bigger threat to make his bar point, but here I'd get verylittle in return for dumping a man deep into my board. So, my bottomline is that 23/18, 6/5* is risky, but it tries to do something. Nowwatch everyone else dump on it for taking risks on both sides of theboard at once.
Casper van der Tak: 23/18, 6/5*.
Aims for the best anchor and the 5 point, duplicates 4s in the process. I suppose 24/23 8/3 is second choice and the two plays might be close, but 23/18 6/5 is the natural, fluent play, whereas 24/23 8/3 feels a bit cramped, and seems more oriented towards damage control than to winning. 23/18 6/5 is certainly looser, but Blue still has an anchor to limit the downside if the play backfires.
Kit Woolsey: 23/18, 6/5*.
Even though White has a stronger board, it is necessary to fight for myfive point. 23/18 isn't great, but it does make an effort to grab anadvanced anchor and avoids taking other checkers in too deep in my innerboard. If I get lucky on the next exchange I will emerge with somethingof value, otherwise it's back to the ace point game, so I want to keep my positionas well-timed as possible.
Chris Yep: 23/18, 6/5*.
With the 3 point already made, it becomes more desirable for Blue to fight for his 5 point in order to fill the gap. At the same time, if White wins the fight for Blue's 5 point, Blue will be at a serious disadvantage if he doesn't have an advanced anchor himself. Furthermore Blue has more men back and at least has an anchor (White's ace point) to fall back on if things go poorly. Putting it all together, it looks both thematic and convenient (Blue still retains spares on his 6 and 8 points) to play 23/18 6/5*.
Summary: The panel made short work of this problem, illustrating thatthey are not afraid to hit loose and fight for a key point even if theyare outgunned in inner board strength. I couldn't agree more.
