Mornington Crescent - Ongoing ...

Posted by: Adam Meredith on 01 May 2008

Seems to have picked up nicely.
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Chillkram
Right. I'm a bit excited about this as I've been thinking this move over all weekend and can see no reason why I shouldn't play it. That being the case, I think it will give me a clear advantage in this game:

Croxley - mwa ha ha ha ha!
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Christopher_M
Ha indeed! it may be too early to lord it over the rest of us just yet, though clearly, we all see your way 'in'. Blackfriars, which as far as I know, is still consistent with Mortimer's Second.
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Chillkram
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_M:
Blackfriars


Blast! How did you see through my plan so quickly? I'd been thinking it over all weekend as well!

Have you been trained in the Peyton Stratagem?
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Christopher_M
No, I've gleaned it all from Rigby & Peller (2nd ed., 1987) Beyond method: Towards a New Paradigm in Social Transportation. Kind of you to mention Peyton all the same. I shall pass on you regards next time I see him at Jo Jo's. Queensway.
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Tam
Good grief, I turn my back for a day and there's a rush of play the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1987 Armitage Shanks charity bowl amateur semi-final (indeed, I get the feeling several of you must have also been following that one rather closely).

All this talk of Peyton and Rigby & Peller pretty well closes off all avenues save for the Lucan Gambit:

Bingham Place


(Fans of the Scottish variant, Morningside Crescent, should beware, for while the same move exists, the effect is normally radically different and often exposes the laterals.)
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Chris Kelly
No wonder the local libray is stripped bare of these titles. Tou erudite chaps have started something that it may be hard to stop. Meanwhile



Embankment
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Christopher_M
The '87 semi...Ah, legendary. Wasn't that the one where Doddsy had the unfortunate incident after the fish supper and Belhaven and had to walk at the end of day three?

Rotherhithe. Bold I know, after a Lucan but this is no time for faint hearts. Peyton and Dorothy send you all their best by the way. (She's still working in magazines, although in features now).

Hopefully I've done enough to protect my laterals...
Posted on: 12 May 2008 by Tam
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_M:
The '87 semi...Ah, legendary. Wasn't that the one where Doddsy had the unfortunate incident after the fish supper and Belhaven and had to walk at the end of day three?


Indeed it was.

Rotherhithe. There's no way I can follow that at this time of night, I shall have to sleep on it!
Posted on: 13 May 2008 by Jono 13
In the memory of Ian Dury....

Plaistow
Posted on: 14 May 2008 by Chillkram
quote:
Plaistow


Sticking with classic game play Kensington Olympia should logically follow that move in order to deal with that particularly sneaky manoevre. Do you think I was born yesterday?!!
Posted on: 14 May 2008 by Ian Hughes
Hmm. Without wanting to be in knip by playing the lateral or diagonals in accordance with Palfrey's second rule, then it'll have to be a sneaky....

Hounslow Cental
Posted on: 15 May 2008 by JamieL
St John Wood

Sneaky I know, but two MCCs for the price of one.
Posted on: 16 May 2008 by Jono 13
Arnos Grove, just to be northish

Jono
Posted on: 16 May 2008 by Christopher_M
Jono, I don't want to queer the pitch over this but Ian has already played Arnos Grove in this round, nothing wrong with that per se, but he was playing the diagonal.

Rigby & Peller, in their classic 1987 treatise on the game that I refered to earlier, stipulated that straight up and downs were preferable from St John's Wood. Anyway, I've never yet had cause to doubt them in these situations. But don't take my word for it, why not check their very helpful website?

I feel we need clarification here and perhaps others will agree that maybe Tam could adjudicate. Consequently I'm holding back from my next move. Unless you want to play Fowler's, although what Tam will say to that, well, put it this way, I'd rather you than me.
Posted on: 16 May 2008 by Chillkram
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_M:
I feel we need clarification here and perhaps others will agree that maybe Tam could adjudicate.


Not really.

quote:
Consequently I'm holding back from my next move.


More fool you!

You left yourself wide open and I'm taking the opportunity.....

Mornington Crescent

And I don't care if it's outside the spirit of the game, I'm playing to win!

Mark
Posted on: 16 May 2008 by Tam
I guess that kindof renders adjudication a moot point!
Posted on: 17 May 2008 by Christopher_M
Splutters!!!!.....Yes, but I didn't think Jono was playing the diagonal. But credit where it's due, Mark's move was audacious.
Posted on: 17 May 2008 by Jono 13
bugger.

Jono
Posted on: 21 May 2008 by Chris Kelly
So depressing. Totally outplayed again.
Posted on: 21 May 2008 by JonR
And I was just about to suggest Blake Hall!! Frown
Posted on: 24 May 2008 by Tam
Perhaps we should pay a round with handicaps to level the playing field and use the simplified Monte Cristo rules.

With my 3 under par, I'll advance Bethnal Green.


regards, Tam
Posted on: 24 May 2008 by Christopher_M
Tam, I salute you, Ravenscourt Park.
Posted on: 24 May 2008 by Chillkram
Well, if we are playing with handicaps then I shall have to suggest Totteridge and Whetstone to kick off my game.
Posted on: 25 May 2008 by Ian Hughes
I shall simultaneously play Oglethorpe's second Metropolitan gambit and my joker. I can do this having checked in Stovold's page 42 para 6(b).

Rickmansworth
Posted on: 27 May 2008 by Christopher_M
Classy Ian, but I play All Saints