You’re behindhand, Mangetout. Redman and Gardner was indeed ratified when you said it was, but only eighteen months later, after the high-profile “Martinique Incident”, everyone realized what the problem was with the transverse-corner fold and, while it is still legal, actually playing it tends to lead to much pointing and laughing.
For instance, Muir’s Regression is playable now:
South Acton, and it’s MC in 127 (sic) if all players can remember the analysis.
Oh yes. See Norrington and Partridge, 3rd edition, chapter 5 subsection iii(a): Multi-Line Stations without links to British Rail. You’ll find everything’s quite in order. The question is typically posed in end-of-Christmas-term exams, with extra credit given for particularly amusing answers. Amusingly, “a herring” is short, to the point and (as written) technically correct!
Just a small nitpick here: it’s Shepherd’s Bush, though an actual shepherd has not been seen in the area since the late 17th century (unless the offspring of Autralian and New Zealand sheep farmers count).
And with the play of Chancery Lane, can I (as another novice) play under the 1961 rules (which bought a copy of as a teenager) and offer Aldwych? I believe the station still exists, though trains no longer run to it.
The fact that we have players in at least three different time zones spanning at least 23 hours (US / Europe / Australia) is making it difficult to keep up with the various disputes and so forth. However, this doesn’t seem to be a problem, and I must say that play is developing rather splendidly.
Brynda I am sorry that I wasn’t around earlier to arbitrate on your quesiton concerning the Dollis Hill Loop. This is, of course, a notoriously problematic aspect of MC, and one that has taken up lots of time in various official tournaments. Frankly I sometimes feel that it’s one area where we badly need a simplification of the rules. However, I’ll offer what I can, and maybe other experienced MC aficionados, such as my old sparring partner Martini Enfield, can chime in as appropriate.
First things first, Brynda. You are absolutely correct concerning the Circumlocution Rule and months containing (not ‘ending in’) a letter ‘e’. However, it has been argued most persuasively that the Circumlocution Rule itself leads to contradictions, and therefore cannot be relied on. I refer you to Knut’s devastating analysis in the Annotations to the Prague '04 Open, although to be fair other analysts, the seemingly ubiquitous Godrich-Mynn among them, claim to have found flaws in Knut’s reasoning (albeit we are still awaiting publication of but these ‘flaws’). My own 2 cents… I was initially sceptical about ‘nutty’ Knut’s arguments, but I have reluctantly come round to his way of thinking. Consider the implications of a game where Dollis Hill has already been played once, Bassingtons declared, and the same player subsequently tries non-consecutive moves involving Neasden, Wembley Park, Dollis Hill and then Brondesbury Park?! To say this gives rise to theoretical complications is quite the under-statement! Where does leave the Parks Rule? Is it, or is it not, transverse motion declining repetition? Do we have odd-alternation of repeated suffixes or not? I for one certainly wouldn’t like to try and sort out that little mess during an official tournament!
For now, Brynda, and for the sake of continuity of the game across time zones, I would suggest a ruling as follows: the Dollis Hill Loop rule was open to question but did not necessarily apply in the specific instance under discussion, although you may well have secured a verdict in your favour had the matter gone to arbitration at the time. However, since play has developed with no significant disadvantage to you as an active player, and since all participants have de facto consented to continuation, I shall rule that Skiffington’s Convention applies and play must continue as if the requirements of the Loop rule had been satisfied.
Slight nitpick, Mangetout my friend. A perfectly excellent move, and you can certainly declare blocking options on Barking (very wise). But you can’t declare alternate blocking options! Barking is a BR station as well, so ‘alternate blocking’ would lead to a contradiction. I wouldn’t normally point this out, but we do have some newcomers who are using this game for learning purposes, so I felt it best to offer the correction.
Not an objection or a ruling, just a little background info for our newcomers. This is an excellent play by Malacandra, and well worth further study. The lucus a non lucendo principle first gained popularity in the 1950s, and the legendary Styff did much to popularise its use - although it was not formally ratified until Hobson’s 5th edition. The principle itself is delightfully simple, but its many consequences and ramifications can take years to unravel. In essence, consider a situation where a player has previously crossed water in lateral motion, and therefore has no legal straddle move on river side (Northern Line excepted, for obvious reasons). If facing a blocking action in descent, involving motion towards the end of a line, the player may invoke lucus a non lucendo and submit a move equivalent to as many stations as would have been needed to reach the end of the line, but in the opposite direction, or in the same direction on a* parallel* line (provided this would not contradict a previously declared Stirrups, or in itself constitute an illegal play). Note that the lucus a non lucendo principle does not add anything new to the rules as such, it merely distils several related aspects of what are legal manouevres anyway, and simplifies them into a single, easy to understand principle.
Various lucus a non lucendo moves have proved crucial in major tournaments over the years, and it has gained a reputation as something of a ‘giant killer’ move (where the seemingly weaker player has defeated a stronger player). The best example I can think of off the top of my head would be Aznan .v. Crunk, 5th round Latin American Eliminator on the '97 World Matchplay Tour. The much-fancied Aznan was expected to win with ease, and everything was going his way until the 27th move. He had manoeuvred the seemingly ineffectual Crunk into what looked like an unwinnable position (using his own variation on the Fairlop Stranglehold), and most commentators at the time felt that Aznan could not be more than 3 or 4 moves away from MC. However, Crunk deployed lucus a non lucendo, escaped the traps that had been so carefully laid for him, and reached MC in three! Quite an upset at the time! The full game has been featured in many compilations, but the IMCS Quaterly, Spring 98, contains an admirably witty analysis by Szpitz.
ianzin, good to have you back. I bow, of course, to your superior knowledge of the Dorris Hill Loop. I hope that you will see that my move above vis a vis Barking, while bold, is certainly within the play established at the Timbuktu tournament, and because it is before 8AM where I am playing, allowable since I have not eaten breakfast, nor had coffee.
My, we’re garrulous today, aren’t we? Oyster-card left-hand undershot platform exception for Vauxhall, which takes care of the entire Victoria line and the Charing Cross branch of the Northern.
I think you’ll find your only real options are Rotherhithe or Great Portland Street.
Ah yes, Crunk. What made that particularly sweet for me was that I had half a crown on the outcome with Pilling - you remember him? Lovely chap, ran an unofficial betting ring under the counter at his sweetshop on Mile End Road - and he’d given me seven to two. It was fishcakes and chips for all comers round at the Malacandra household that night, let me tell you!
Unfortunately old Pilling had to have the counter lowered by nine inches when his knees started to play up, and as he couldn’t find himself a dwarf to run the betting ring (and no normal-sized person would fit under the counter), it had to go. He’s not been the same man since. I still see him in the Goose & Bucket now and again, though.
I’ll exercise the Forcing Pass option for now. You know what that means.
Normally you’d be right, but evidently you’ve misplaced your copy of Chadwick’s Concise Annotated Mornington Crescent Compendia (1898-2005 inclusive). Seeing as we’re in the week following Queen’s Birthday in at least one of the former dominions of the British Empire, the Picaddily Line is therefore available for play, with the exception of Earl’s Court and Heathrow Terminals 1-4 inclusive.
Now, the obvious choice would be Knightsbridge- but since King’s Cross Station has already been played, the trans-line interchange rule must be invoked, which brings us rather neatly to Elephant & Castle.
Long-time fans of the game (which will include my esteemed associate ianzin, amongst other distinguished players in present company) will recall that Hollis played a very similar move at the Cape Town match of '53. Of course, that was before the coronation of Elizabeth II, but the basic tactic remains valid and, I’m sure, will no doubt expand in usefulness once the Jubilee Line extensions are completed.
Semantically, you’re correct, but I feel the need to point out that the practical and logistic difference between alternate and standard blocking - when clockwise skipping is in play (as it has been for most of this game) - is nil, therefore the distinction is moot and although purists consider it sloppy to refer to standard blocking as alternate within these circumstances, the tide of usage is turning heavily against them. Still, it’s an interesting point, so I thank you for bringing it up.
Anyway, I’m now taking Paddington and declaring Fenniston’s Wager.
I’ll have a tanner’s worth of that. As there’s been a full day’s play lost to rain in the Test Match, there are refunds on the turnstiles and so I can exercise a Flip over to Euston.
Wait. I must have missed something here. How can Mangetout possibly both play to Paddington and declare Fenniston’s Wager in the same move? Paddington is technically a Western station, is it not?
The only way I can see for him to declare Fenniston’s Wager in that move is to play to Snaresbrook, which is obvious suicide.
Please try to keep up, Priceguy - It’s been a game largely of clockwise skipping and the rain-stopped-play rule persists for six rounds of Flips - longer if renewed under Gaulthwaite’s defence. Fenniston’s Wager is perfectly valid for Western stations here.
Sorry. You’ve played out of turn. Arbuthnot Penalties apply. You forfeit one token of your choice and the next player can nominate one station of yours as being in Knidd. If this was under competition rules you’d be docked five minutes as well.
