Posted 22 April 2016 - 07:12 AM
Sorry to take the other side of this one again, The Prof. But if you're a teacher on the playground and two boys are fighting, the first question usually asked is, "Who started it?"
The import of the question is, of course, that the person who threw the first punch is more guilty than the person who merely followed suit. If there were truly a "right" thing to do, rule-wise, it would be to stop the kid who threw the first punch. In this case that's Jens.
Moreover, in the case of this rather typical counter-trap chase the fault of the argument lies in the premise that red has blue trapped and there is some kind of right granted in Article 10 for this label of "trap". There isn't. The word "trap" isn't even mentioned in the ISF's Article 10, as you know. So without specific backing in the rules for ANY KIND OF TRAP, why are the rules here being pleaded to for the ill-desired goal of honoring the trap in the counter-trap above all else, and equalizing the counter-trap chasing result there with two squares traps as they are found elsewhere? The Prof, where do we stop? If a player has his opponent 2s trapped, and then his opponent has an escape route behind him, are we to consider putting in the rules that the person may not utilize his escape route?
Red only has blue "trapped" if he's willing to pay the price. Blue is, and should be, perfectly allowed to counter chase, leading to a stalemated situation. Now I disagree with the Dieter statement that the rules shouldn't try to stop every stalemated situation--I think they ought to stop the kid who starts it all. Jens starts a 2s trap he can never win painlessly by the programming here and so if there is any "right" thing to do, it would be to have the programming stop Jens as he's the one who starts the never ending situation, not his opponent.
And another thing, the Two Squares Rule isn't actually about chasing, per se, but rather it's technically only about shuffling more than three times between two squares. This coincidentally allows for the most common of devices we call a two squares trap, but that is not a main intent; it is purely a side effect. It is not an express right under Article 10. And, as I said above--and as you know--the word trap is not in Article 10 at all.