Quite right. Snaresbrook is an oft-overlooked option when given this particular loop-coupling challenge.
Impressive, and a move I’ve never seen before; using the Ongar Loop maneuver to break the Ruislip Rotation. You style reminds me of Gonzalez-Galdeano in the 1972 East-West Challenge Cup.
Whch suggests an obvious rejoinder, using the Royal Wedding Rules mentioned in the OP to declare Flexitime and pick up double points with King’s Cross St. Pancras
It’s halftime…Bring on the cheerleaders 
Yay!
Surrey Quays
<grabs pom-pms, shouts whilst leaping>
Are-You-Quiescent?
Get-To-Mornington Crescent!
<splits and other painful appearing gyrations occur here>
MIND THE GAP!!!
<sashays off field>
I was **actually there ** and remember to this day the look on Peddlewick’s face. 
I fear we may have a new technicality to deal with. According to the usual authorities (Berne, Llanghorn, Exeter & Wallis etc.) the exceptional rules which invoke a Royal Wedding are all predicated on said wedding taking place within Westminster Abbey. We are therefore faced with the thorny question of whether or not RW rules may be said to be currently applicable.
I can find no commonly accepted authority supporting the contention that a wedding counts as ‘Royal’, for MC purposes, if it is to take place in a location other than the Abbey. The only cite I could come up with is from *The New MC Exegesis * by Halby & Gruner, 1973 revised ed., where the authors argue that reference to the Abbey is part of the spirit of the RW rules, but not part of the letter. However, nobody pays much attention to H&G any more, and I think it is generally agreed that their interpretations were often rather awry, and prone to cause more problems than they solved (pace their inane support for Montfort’s Strategem being allowed under Bassingtons, when even Montfort himself had never claimed this was practical, useful or desirable).
Sorry to get a little bogged down in technicalities but… well, you know, these things are important. I mean, if the rules don’t matter, then we may just as well make it up as we go along.
Any views?
By the way GorillaMan, excellent move there with Snaresbrook. Often overlooked, but darned effective if you ask me. Do you remember Wesker playing this against de Huis in the '90 Euro team semis, with time running out and the Dutch 4-3 down? Pure brilliance!
You raise interesting point, but one which I feel is moot for both technical and substantive reasons. Whereas RW rules were declared at the opening move, and no objection has been offered until now, I feel it is a case where the Laches Doctrine would foreclose a protest at this late stage.
Furthermore, on a more substantive objection, I understand the position of the authorities, but against that, there has to be weighed the general acceptance of Charles and Camilla’s upcoming nuptuals are being widely treated as a Royal Wedding. The alternate location is not far removed from Westminster, but more to the point, the Barksdale Protocol creates wide latitude for moving traditions forward in generally uncontroversial matters.
Of course, as an American, my view on what is uncontroversial in this matter may be widely different from yours.
The Royal Wedding rules actually have defined precedent here. Charles married that slapper with the big hooter in St Pauls (itself a possible move), and if the older ones of us here cast our minds back to that day (I realise that as we had the day off most of us were plastered), you may well remember in the Royal Tribute game between Bunty and Gascoigne, that it was specifically stated that just so long as the marriage took place in a church - the RW rules applied.
This is where it gets complicated. They are getting married in a Town Hall then getting blessed in a church. I have looked through my copy of Mornington Crescent for Dummies and it’s not really any clearer.
Any suggestions as to where we go from here?
I’m going to Turnham Green
Well, until the rules committee gives us a definitive answer regarding RW, I’ve going to play a conservative game.
Holland Park, for a double green, I believe.
Isn’t Holland Park on the Central Line, making it a red?
Turnham Green would be double green (on the District Line, and with a “Green” in its name).
Aldwych
Is it treasonable to refer to the deceased wife of the heir of the throne as ‘that slapper with the big hooters’?In that case,owl will be proceeding directly to Tower Hill.He will forfeit his go-under the 1987 Non-Competitors Ruling,death of a player annuls their right to continue.
Especially death by beheading
And speaking of hooters,I’m off to get a glimpse of eleanorigby’s.Save my seat
What an odd, almost random move. Your strategy seems to revolve around merely picking names from a hat, and I can’t understand it at all. Still, I must play what has been dealt, though for the life of me I can’t think why you’d put us on a deliberate move to MC in 5 moves or less. But seeing as how I earlier used an unopened station, who am I to complain about deploying a closed one?
Given that, I think a 3-zone shunt to Chiswick Park should put us back on track.
2 things:
-
Please don’t mention me or my body parts in the same post as a beheading. It’s very disconcerting, to say the least. :eek:
-
<sigh> guess hooters are all I’ve got, since I suck at thinking up cheers for such a dramatic and fast moving game as this…d’ya know how hard it was to rhyme Mornington Crescent? Couldn’t be something easy like Barbican or Russell Street or St. Pancras–nooooo–it has to be MC. :rolleyes:
Game query:
What happens when you get off at MC? Is there anything there worthy of notice?
Carry on…
With the Victoria Line as trumps, am I right in thinking I’m restricted by the 1880 Railways Act (Vermin Control)? If so, I’ll take Embankment
Which leads via the Depressed Shifney Opening to
Bank
Please don’t try to come up with cheers that rhyme it…
Er… sorry, but the previous play was Embankment, so ‘Bank’ contravenes the four letter repetition rule. Marble Arch rules are very clear on this. Not an issue under Exeter rules, obviously, or WMCF Consolidated Tournament Classic Rules, but we’re playing MA.
Don’t MA rules exempt titular escolophasical relationships?
Not after the 2001 Governor’s Meeting. The Governors voted 21-14 to remove the exemption, with teh majority fearing it led too easily to such fiascoes as the 2000 Devon semifinals. Which does, indeed, invalidate Bank.
A similar play to Oval, however, would be allowed, as a geometric variation.
Two things: Firstly I referred to the ditzy sloane as a “slapper with a big hooter” not hooters. She didn’t have big bristols but she did have a whopping conk. Iceland blue methinks you needa cold shower!
And following on geometrically:
Leicester Square
Continuing with the Midlands theme: Warwick Avenue