Now that the Aldwych Station is open for tours to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Blitz, is it a legal play even though it isn’t a scheduled stop anymore? What line is it on, anyway?
Back when I travelled occasionally to Aldwych (nearly 50 years ago) it was on a branch of the Piccadilly Line. Trains could travel between the main Piccadilly line and the Aldwych branch line, but the regular service was a train which just travelled between Holborn and Aldwych – so to get to Aldwych, you had to change trains at Holborn.
70th?!? Has it been that long? Wow.
I think it’s certainly legal to play. I believe it’s on the B line and it will stop whether it’s scheduled or not. I guess you’ve just got to be at the right place at the right time to pick it up.
Yes, it’s a legal move (at least if you’re using Rushton), but it does leave you open to British Museum - and that way lies Madness.
There used to be a British Museum tube station, but there’s never been one called “Madness”, in spite of appearances during the rush hour.
Of course, it’s only valid in some sequences - and not always advisable even then. For example, I was playing a quick beer match last night in the Duck and Bucket, and blow me down if my oppo doesn’t chime in with a speculative “Aldwych” fresh out of the main line of the Swiss Cottage opening. Naturally it was MC in fourteen before the laughter even died down and a jug all round, but he was man enough to see the funny side (one suspects he’ll make it all back in the Autumn flitch next week). The advanced student can easily work out the main variations.
I pretty sure in fact that it IS NOT a legal play unless you are playing Derbyshire rules and only then when Up and Down has been declared. My cite would be Dec. 84 issue of “MC Monthly” in the official rules column written by rules dean Harold Lytton-Bulwer, creating a precedent that in my research has not been displaced.
There certainly was it was in the middle of our street, next to the house of fun.
Dame Margaret Chubb used Aldwych as her penultimate move in the '25 semi-final.
It was deemed legal then but there was that unpleasantness with the bear, the game was halted and we never did find out whether she was brilliant or merely overdoing the “jazz cigarettes” again.
Ah, it was simpler time then.
According to the Jones-Smyth ruling, it’s only legal before a German air offensive has been pulled into play. It’s possible to revisit later but only a fool leave themselves open to the British Museum assault.
This is what’s wrong with the revised 2007 South Ipswich rules. I’ve been saying it all along, but will they listen ? If Aldwych is in play at all (besides the classic Overdraw round, on any turn after the red line is crossed, and on second Thursdays of course), then what’s the point of ever going Black Friars ? Who in his right mind would call a double take through Hammersmith any more ? And don’t get me started on the Greek Gambit issue…
Oh sure, it leads to faster Mornington Crescents, more stunts, more flashy play. Casual players and amateurs love it. But mark my words : it guts the heart and soul of the game.
I agree - if you’re going to use the South Ipswich rules (which allow Aldwych, but only if it is played AFTER the first turn but BEFORE the last turn of the game), you must adopt Muggeridge’s Convention (B), which, by preventing Doubled Barnacles, makes Aldwych neither an immediate game-winning nor game-losing play in almost all variations. Sure, it can still happen, but not among anyone who saw the disastrous Lancashire County Championship semi-final in 2004, and frankly, who didn’t?
This thread also seems the appropriate place to mention a potentially ground-breaking event in Mornington Crescent. A couple of weeks ago some friends and I were on a night bus from central London to Finchley, having a light-hearted game of MC. Much to our surprise, the bus won the game about halfway through our journey by announcing the next stop. There was some debate about whether the bus had played out of turn, but course as it was at that stage after midnight, with Graham’s Loops in operation, it was in fact a stroke of genius. Of course, if I hadn’t played Elephant & Castle three moves before, the opportunity would never have occurred, but I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not foreseeing this brilliancy.
An excellent cite, and H L-B certainly knew his stuff. That having been said, when Kettridge-Figg walloped Daracz in the semis of the '93 Harrogate Invitational, it was shown afterwards that motion East over water involving the ‘Up & Down’ rule (and the ampersand is preferred, BTW) rendered Aldwych a nib play, and so technically could only be followed by a Central Line bunt. Team Daracz lodged a formal protest, but we all know that didn’t end very well. Poor Daracz. His tournament game play was never the same again.
Of course the Kettridge supporters were having none of it, leading to the 94 Revision of the Nib Rule (why oh why can’t they just leave the darned rules alone?!), but many of still feel that Daracz was robbed.
So, to answer the OP, yes, it’s legal enough, but the ‘new’ Nib rule (as I suppose we must call it) does mean that caution is required.
Ah yes, this old canard. I would’ve thought this “&” versus 'and" nonsense would have been done with when legendary Crescent player Elaine Hogswallow openly mocked MC Commentator Hugh McKnightly on the Beeb’s “Mornington Monday” back in '73.
However, I had missed the Harrogate Inventational. I think the whole Daracz affair kind of overshadowed everything else that year, but I do agree with your assessment. But I do have a question then: if the proposed changes to the Eversham Amendments are made to the Motorway Advance then doesn’t that completely change the interpretation of the Nib rule? And then wouldn’t that make Aldwych a far more ambiguous play?
You’re right. I didn’t mean to make a big deal out of it. However, if you consult your current ‘MC International Tournament Play’ (Bracewell edition) you’ll see the ampersand can actually be important in formal play. It’s to do with the rules on how turns are officially recorded. Svenger lost her 97 European Open quarter-final match against Tiddswell, from a seemingly unassailable position, because she was judged not to have recorded her move using standard nomenclature.
Interestingly, did you know Hogswallow only took up the game at the age of 37, and was entirely self-taught? It’s amazing what she achieved. I got her autograph once at a pro-celeb match in Hastings. Lovely woman but a bit ‘intense’, you might say.
Evason has a good article about this in the New England MC Quarterly, Spring '07. If I follow his argument correctly, it doesn’t so much affect the interpretation of the Nib rule as its application to certain situations, such as a Reverse Stirrups call (motion West exempting Circle) or a Flank Straddle involving alliteration. Aldwych, as you correctly point out, becomes so ambiguous as to more or less defy a legitimate ruling either way, especially if two or more Parks have featured in odd-numbered moves since water.
I think the point is that while we all accept the value of the Nib rule, in formal tournament play it is surely advisable if players agree from the outset whether Nib extension can apply to square moves with leading vowels or not. Without such an agreement, the game may as well not have any rules at all.
This was essentially the basis of Ffington-Crunk’s rather vociferous protests at the Henley Eliminator rounds two years ago. His Debden > Burnt Oak manoeuvre was sheer genius if you ask me, and despite all the protests he pointed out that it was perfectly legitimate because nothing had been agreed about Nib Extensions (two word names) at the outset.
Shame to see him dragged out of the arena like that, because to be honest I could see his point. Sure, he’s a crazy as a box of frogs, but give him his due, the old buffer does know the game inside out and was technically correct.
This irritates me no end. Burnt Oak was a perfectly legal play, period. Regardless of Nibs Extensions, if you’ll examine the first round you’ll see Bond Street played off hours. This makes Burnt Oak legal under the Carroll Convention even if Nibs were not declared, as long as he had a red token to drop, which he did.
The problem was that people reacted to HIM, and failed to analyze the move. The game should be better than that.
Of course, you’re failing to realise that in the South of the River ruleset, which is always in play when a taxi is involved (and by extension, a Night Bus after the great Leyton decision of 'ought five ruling where it was deemed legal to play the station even post-11pm with trains terminating at Mile End which featured the little-remembered side decision that a Night Bus was equivalent to a taxi), the bus can never play out of turn since it is always able to move legally regardless of the current player.
The last time I lost a casual game was due to this rule when the N8 declared that I had fallen asleep and woken up in Upney, and was thus obligated to play it allowing my opponent to sneak in with a cunning Waterloo - the dreaded Nelson manoeuvre.
Any details on the early Bronze Age dig near Cornwall that suggests an ancient form of MC was being played before the Roman occupation? It seems that the Ampersand Convention could actually predate the Burnt Oak Manoeuvre by several thousand years.
I agree that Burnt Oak was completely legitimate and the play ought to have stood. However, the Carroll Convention could not have been applied.
In move 27, as you may recall, Weissmann had come up with the astonishingly elegant Park Royal > North Ealing ruse, thereby managing to move vertically south towards a nominally ‘North’ station. After adjudication in camera, this was classed as ‘contrary motion’ and therefore a blunt was required within the next three moves not involving water or a previously played Park. Channock realised this but Djordevich did not, leading to his foul on move 29. Djordevich’s last legitimate move had also involved a split section of the Piccadilly line, which we know renders Carroll inapplicable because otherwise you can just play Uxbridge forever and it leads to a logical contradiction. Ergo, Carroll could not have been applied to the Burnt Oak decision.
Just saying.
(And on a purely personal note, may I say I wasn’t sad to see Djordevich exit that particular tournament. I don’t think he was ever a class player, and some of his antics seemed to me to lack respect for the game. He fluked one lucky win at the 2002 Dresden zonal eliminator, in a thin year for talent, and coasted on that for far too long before his rather meagre talent was shown up for what it was.)
Eversham is coming to Australia to lecture on the Amendments AND Nibs!!! I managed to get a ticket. They were sold out in 27 minutes. If he doesn’t cover Burnt Oak, I’ll ask in question time. I know this isn’t the sort of comment you should make in a serious MC discussion, but Eversham is drop dead gorgeous!