Chuck Bower: 18/16(2), 9/7(2).I'd really like to get the checkers off the inefficient 8-pointbut I don't like the positions this kind of play leaves -- maybenext roll. As usual, holding the 18-point with a big race leadis not an asset. Here's a great chance to change that. 18/16(2)is a good start. That takes enough pressure off the backcheckers that the blocking move of 9/7(2) looks like the followup.If White hits, his board is bad enough that we can probablyweather that storm. If he fails to hit we have 1's and 5'sto cover the 3-point next turn.
George Klitsas: 9/3, 4/2.
9/5(2) makes the better point, but 9/3 4/2 (better than 9/3 8/6) avoids an inner board blot - and a direct shot for White. I slightly prefer 9/3 4/2.
Laila Leonhardt: 18/14(2).
White's timing on the midpoint, is going to make it hard for Blue to clear that 18 point without landing on the bar, and with a 4 point board though the 1 point is made, is still going to pose a threat, most likely ending in a 5 point prime vs. 5 point board and checker on the bar scenario
Snowie: 9/5(2).
It isn't clear what is going to happen. But when all is said and done,the one point I know I will need is my five point in every variation.Getting hit is far from fatal here, and if I am not hit I have a goodchance to make the three point and complete my five-prime. Playing safeis way too ugly, and other plays leave a shot without the benefit of themade five point.
Marty Storer: 9/5(2).
This position is primarily tactical, despite Blue's big leadin the race. Blue has shot equity on White's side of theboard, plus a chance to make a five-point board in a trice.If Blue makes the 5 point and White hits, Blue is stilldoing well, with a big board and a fine holding position.
Bob Stringer: 9/5(2).
Good heavens. I'm torn between 9/5(2) and 18/14(2). I think. Thelatter play appeals for the obvious reasons -- it starts to bring'em home, puts pressure on both of White's blots, and leaves mewith 3 ways to cover the 3 point. But -- and it's a big but -- onceWhite safeties his blots, there's no pressure on his position(except his need to escape his last two men, of course), while Istill have a mighty awkward home board. As long as my 5 point isopen I'm going to have problems, and it's not going to be easy tomake. I'll make it now, while I can.
Casper van der Tak: 9/3, 4/2.
Interesting. Blue can move his back anchor to resolve the long-term problem of how to clear it, at the cost of leaving a direct shot now. Or Blue can play safe now, but remain with the long-term problem of how to clear the back anchor. Or Blue can build his home board, so that all tactical variations will play better for Blue.
I don't believe in the approaches that move the back anchor at the cost of leaving a shot. The reason is that White has an advantage in home board points, so that White has the edge in tactical variations. Also, moving the back anchor reduces the long-term problems, but does not eliminate it completely. I think 18/14(2) is the weakest approach; 18/16(2) has the advantage of providing a better link for any Blue checker that would be hit, directly attacking two White blots, and maintaining a block for security.
A different approach is 9/5 (2). That solves the long-term problem of making the 5 point, and aims to build a very strong home board before bolting from the 18-anchor. If White hits, White remains very vulnerable with lost of blots floating around. Blue would retain his racing advantage, and the 18-point anchor provides a good link for the hit checker. If missed, Blue has 22 rolls that make a 5-point board, and may also have some double shots (indirects, possibly directs). In my eyes, this approach is stronger than moving the back anchor. The difficulty is that the play overruns the position a bit, and thinks may get difficult if Blue fails to cover or hit next turn.
The two safes approaches are 9/3 4/2 and 9/3 8/6. 9/3 8/6 leaves 4 more shots in return for some more number that make the 5, but the risk reward ratio does not seem attractive. Between the two, I'd prefer 9/3 4/2.
Between 9/3 4/2 and 9/5(2), I prefer 9/3 4/2. That gives Blue some time to roll a double or to hit a shot. Meanwhile, White will need to play, and that may not be easy. Blue's board should be respected, so White cannot play too loosely, yet if White plays safely the number of hits when Blue is eventually forces to move from the back anchor will be limited. The main reason for preferring 9/3 4/2 is that it avoids the parlays in which Blue is forced to run from the back anchor while the three-point is still blotted. (It is hard to quantify how often this occurs, also because Blue has the option with some rolls to shift points).
Kit Woolsey: 9/3, 4/2.
I guess I'll make the safe play and let White worry about his blots.This may lead to awkwardness later, but I will still have checkersto play with for a while. Other plays such as 18/14(2), 18/16(2), 9/7(2),and making the 5 point all leave a better structure, but I don't believethis compensates for the immediate direct shot.
Chris Yep: 9/5(2).
As is often the case, it's worth leaving a direct shot to make the 5 point. This is especially true in this position since Blue will have a difficult time making the 5 point later if he doesn't make it this turn. Also, Blue has a slight preference to cover the 3-point blot with a checker from his 4 point as opposed to a checker from his 9 point. If Blue makes the 5 point, White will be in considerable trouble unless he rolls a 2 next turn. Furthermore, even if White does roll a 2, he's still not out of the woods -- he will still have several loose blots (including the back men) and will be without an anchor; meanwhile he'll have a weak 4-point board to contain the hit checker. Overall, 9/5(2) creates a strong 4.5-point board, at acceptable cost. It puts White under a lot of pressure and leads to many gammons if White doesn't roll an immediate 2.
Summary: Again the five point is the five point. Is it worth leavingthe direct shot as well as leaving the back checkers on the bar pointin order to make this important point? It isn't obvious to me that it is,although I can believe it might be.
