see a match for the professional championship. The obvious reason, of
course, is that there is at the present time one player so far superior
to all the rest that it would be useless to challenge him without the
slightest chance of success. At the same time, there would be a great
deal of interest aroused if a second prize was instituted, as it is in
several amateur competitions in different branches of sport; and with
such brilliant players as Diggle, Dawson, Mitchell, Peall, and Richards,
excitement would run very high as to their respective chances. Up to the
year 1849 Jonathan Kentfield was universally allowed to be the greatest
exponent of the game, and it was not till the following year that the
North-countryman from Manchester, John Roberts, father of the present
champion, gradually made his way to the front. He never met Kentfield in
a match, the latter declining the contest, but they did in that year
play a few friendly games together at Kentfield’s rooms at Brighton.
From that date, 1850, till 1869 John Roberts was admittedly the
champion, and during this period he was able to, and did, give
habitually 300 in 1,000 to the next best players, who were Bowles,
Richards (elder brother of the present D. Richards), and C. Hughes.
During 1869 a young aspirant, Wm. Cook, a pupil of the champion, was
being much talked of, and it was said that his admirers thought he had a
great chance of defeating John Roberts if a match could be arranged,
especially as he had developed wonderful skill at what is now
universally known as the spot stroke (of which the champion himself was
the introducer, and up to the present the chief exponent), and would be
able to make so many consecutive hazards that Roberts’ supposed
superiority all round would be more than counterbalanced. In fact, so
strongly did this idea prevail that at a meeting of the leading
professional players, convened to draw up rules for the proposed
championship match, it was agreed that the pockets should not exceed
three inches, and that the spot should be placed half an inch nearer the
top cushion, thus making it twelve and a half inches distant instead of
thirteen. The history of the match, played on February 11, 1870, at St.
James’s Hall, has often been related, and, as all the billiard world
knows, the younger player succeeded in, winning the proud position of
champion. From that date up to the year 1885 there have only been three
players who have won the title. The number of matches played in these
fifteen years amounts to sixteen (a list of which with dates and results
is given on p. 373), and from the last match[18] up to the present time,
a period of ten years, John Roberts, junior, son of the John Roberts
whom Cook defeated, has been in undisputed possession of the title of
champion. I say undisputed, because no one has challenged him to play
under the rules governing the championship matches, which were drawn up
for the express purpose of deciding the title, under which all the
sixteen matches have been played, and which have never been abrogated or
altered. It has been urged by many that the table is too difficult,
inasmuch as experts at the spot stroke are precluded from making any
large number of their favourite hazards; but it is evident that the
intention of the framers of the rules was to render the pockets more
difficult, and not only make the spot stroke, but every hazard, whether
winning or losing, require the greatest care; and no further proof of
their discretion is required when we see that all ordinary matches
between the leading players are always now, and have been for some time,
played with the spot stroke barred, the fact being that the public soon
got wearied of the monotony of the stroke, and would not pay to see it.
Now to bar a legitimate stroke is an absurdity, except in the case of
the balls getting ‘froze’ (as our American cousins say) in the jaws of
the pocket, as happened at the Aquarium on April 24, 1891, when T.
Taylor made 729 consecutive cannons (and more recently at Knightsbridge,
on June 2, 1893, when Frank Ives made 1,267 somewhat similar[19]
strokes); but this position is so rare and so difficult to attain, that
the case could be met by merely declaring that, should such a
contingency arise, the balls should be broken in the same way as they
are when touching. To return to the question of the spot stroke, it is
_not_ barred on the championship table any more than a difficult losing
hazard, such as a short jenny; it is merely rendered more difficult, and
the greatest accuracy is required for its successful manipulation; but
there can be little doubt that Peall, with his extraordinary power of
perseverance and unfailing accuracy, would, with practice, in a very
short time make fifty consecutive hazards, and probably more. It must
not be thought for one moment that the three-inch pocket table is
advocated for general use in exhibition matches; for, though caviare to
those who have really made a study of the game, the scoring is not rapid
enough to satisfy the palate of the majority of the public, whose great
idea is to witness something big in the way of figures, and who would
prefer to see a break of several hundreds amassed by the repetition of
one particular stroke to an all-round break of various strokes from
different positions, however masterly the execution, which might not
even reach three figures. Still, in spite of this hankering after
sensational scoring, if we compare the number of spectators at the
fifteen matches for the championship played from 1870 to 1885 inclusive
with the attendances at the ordinary spot-barred exhibitions of to-day,
and at the same time take into consideration the enormous extent to
which the game of billiards has developed during the last decade (I
speak only from personal observation), the balance would probably be in
favour of the former period.
It must not, however, be forgotten, on the other hand, that there is a
great difference in interest to the spectators between a _bona-fide_
match for a stake and an ordinary exhibition game, where there is no
other incentive than the glory of winning. Who does not remember with
delight the wonderful strengths and neat execution of W. Cook, and the
losing hazard striking of Joseph Bennett, and the keen rivalry which
prevailed between these players and the present champion in their
contests? Roberts declares that he attributes the height of excellence
he has reached to be mainly owing to those years of play on the
championship table; and though not himself an advocate for it as far as
ordinary exhibition matches are concerned, yet, if called upon to defend
his title, he considers that the table which has always been used
according to the championship rules should still be adhered to, an
opinion in which he is supported by other well-known players of the past
and present.
We have some reason to hope that before very long we may perhaps see a
challenge issued to the champion, so great are the strides that the
younger generation are making at the game; and though to those who watch
John Roberts play it seems almost impossible that they will ever see his
equal, it must not be forgotten that in one remarkable week when giving
Diggle more than one-third of the game, viz., 9,000 out of 24,000, the
latter absolutely scored more points in the first six days’ play than
the champion. There can be no doubt that, within reasonable limits, in
all games the greater the difficulties presented the greater is the
satisfaction in overcoming them, and the higher is the standard of
excellence attained; and it is much to be hoped that we may again see
such interesting and scientific matches between our leading players as
we used to have from 1870 to 1885.
One word more: is it not high time that the push stroke should be
abolished once and for all? It is not allowed by any other
billiard-playing nation, and is equally unfair with the so-called quill
or feather stroke, which was tabooed years and years ago.
R. D. W.
Regarding play on a championship table, little need be said; the
practice prescribed for an ordinary one for the most part holds good,
and diagrams of strokes, such as accompany Chapters IV., V., VII, and
the figures of nursery cannons in Chapter X., are applicable with but
little alteration. As regards cannons generally, it is of course evident
that the stroke is the same on both tables, and as to hazards the only
real difference is that with easier pockets there is a larger margin for
error. Hence a few words of caution as to the execution of strokes and
the policy of play are alone required. For making easy losing hazards,
certainty is most readily assured by striking ball 1 a gentle strength
rather under the centre; this has the effect of slightly diminishing the
natural development of rotation and of decreasing the rebound due to
elasticity after impact. A ball thus struck seems to travel on straight
rather than on curved lines, and the stroke is specially useful for
short jennies. Similarly for long losing hazards drag with strength
rather under No. 2 will be found very useful: but hazards should be
subordinated to cannon play; they should be chiefly used as a means of
getting cannon breaks. When, however, they have to be played and are not
certainties, it is better to strike with freedom than to attempt to
secure success by extreme gentleness and caution; for accuracy is more
probable when the stroke is played with customary strength than when
great softness necessitates placing the ball at a strange angle. In case
of failure also the freer stroke is less likely to leave an easy opening
for the adversary, whilst at the same time it may be usefully kept in
mind that if somewhat more caution in attempting a hazard is necessary,
less apprehension need be felt as to leaving balls near pockets. It is a
matter of common knowledge that on an ordinary table the better the
stroke for a hazard, that is, the nearer it is to success (so long as
that is not obtained), the greater is the penalty for failure. Realising
this, many persons play with more strength than is necessary, in the
hope of bringing the ball away from the pocket in case of a miss, which
often results in consequence of the precaution. When pockets are
difficult this consideration may to a great extent be neglected, and
attention may be concentrated on making the hazard. Another point which
should be noticed is that amateurs are more nearly equalised on a
championship than on an ordinary table. A man who on the latter could
give his adversary thirty points in a hundred, would probably find that
on the former he could not give more than twenty points. The usual fault
is that persons accustomed to the 3⅝ inch pockets are afraid of the
smaller ones, and try a great deal too much for absolute accuracy, a
procedure which is simply fatal to success. Hence strength approaching
to that generally used by each person will be found best. Should the
stroke be missed the balls will come reasonably away, whereas if it
should be made, the player has presumably some idea of the position to
be left, and a fair chance of continuing the break. By following that
policy and by determinedly playing for cannon breaks, specially
nurseries, success may reasonably be expected. Do not break your heart
over difficult hazards, leave that to the adversary; but hold
tenaciously to every chance of cannons. Play, in fact, as Ives did with
Roberts. The latter could very possibly give the former half the game in
one of the usual spot-barred exhibitions, but when the pockets were
reduced in size and larger balls were brought into play, the American
had the best of the deal and won accordingly.
From the preceding remarks it will be gathered that whilst for practice
the manual prescribed for an ordinary table may be followed, in a game
the player must pursue a different policy. Hazards which require
strength greater than No. 2 should be avoided, and the ordinary idea of
bringing the object ball back to the middle of the table after a
middle-pocket hazard, half-ball or finer, should be superseded by
playing with reduced strength, and, when the object ball is the red,
being contented with leaving it in play, that is, between the lines PM,
QN, laid down on many of the diagrams. When ball 2 happens to be the
opponent’s ball endeavour should be made to leave it in the
neighbourhood of the spot. With these qualifications the advanced player
(and we think no other should use three-inch pockets) will find the
directions for making breaks in Chapter X. useful, specially those which
refer to play at the top of the table and at cushion nurseries; practice
will soon result in a very considerable modification of the ordinary
game, but the changes will vary with the personal qualities of the
player, who will soon adopt those which suit him best. As scoring on a
tight-pocket table is decidedly slower than on an ordinary one, it
follows that safety and cautious play have more effect in the former
game. Hence potting the opponent’s ball and leaving a double baulk, and
similar tactics, are more likely to be rewarded with ultimate success
than when that style of game is followed on a table with 3⅝-inch
pockets. Whether that is or is not an advantage is a question for the
reader to decide for himself; one good result with which it may be
credited is to encourage the practice of strokes for the purpose of
scoring from, or at any rate of disturbing, a double baulk.
It is, we think, unnecessary to say more at present respecting play on a
championship table; in time, perhaps, improvement in amateur form may be
so great and so universal as to make the more difficult supersede the
easier game; but that day is distant, and speculation as to its
requirements is under existing circumstances unprofitable.
_Billiard Championship Matches_
┌──────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────┐
│Points│ Date │ Players │Won by│
├──────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼──────┤
│1,200 │ Feb. 11, 1870 │Cook b. Roberts, senr. │ 170│
│1,000 │ April 14, 1870 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 478│
│1,000 │ May 30, 1870 │Roberts, jun., b. Bowles │ 246│
│1,000 │ Nov. 28, 1870 │Jos. Bennett b. Roberts, jun. │ 95│
│1,000 │ Jan. 30, 1871 │Roberts, jun., b. Bennett │ 363│
│1,000 │ May 25, 1871 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 15│
│1,000 │ Nov. 21, 1871 │Cook b. Jos. Bennett │ 58│
│1,000 │ Mar. 4, 1872 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 201│
│1,000 │ Feb. 4, 1874 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 216│
│1,000 │ May 24, 1875 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 163│
│1,000 │ Dec. 20, 1875 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 135│
│1,000 │ May 28, 1877 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 223│
│1,000 │ Nov. 8, 1880 │Jos. Bennett b. Cook │ 51│
│1,000 │ Jan. 12 13, 1881 │Jos. Bennett b. Taylor │ 90│
│3,000 │ Mar. 30 and 31, and │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 92│
│ │ April 1, 1885 │ │ │
│3,000 │ June 1, 2, 3, 4, 1885 │Roberts, jun., b. Jos. Bennett│ 1,640│
└──────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┴──────┘
CHAPTER XII
THE RULES OF THE GAME OF BILLIARDS
In a game so scientific and at the same time so popular as billiards,
played, as it is occasionally, for important stakes, the rules evidently
should be clear, precise, and sufficient. That those in force in 1895
fulfil these conditions will not be affirmed by any person of
experience; indeed, more versions than one exist and are current, whilst
the opinions of experts even do not coincide as to the provisions which
should be included. Hence, it is evident that the problem cannot be
satisfactorily solved until the various matters have been fully
considered by a carefully selected body of men, in which the
professional element is sufficiently but not predominantly represented,
and which should contain persons capable, from habit and training, of
recording the decisions arrived at lucidly and in good English. The work
to be done is in many respects similar to that of drafting an Act, and
similar qualifications are required for doing it well.
In this book, however, in dealing with rules, the main question is, What
version at present existent has the best title to the obedience of
players? This, we think, can only be answered in one way if we deal with
things as they are, not necessarily as they should be, and that is by
accepting as valid the rules prepared by the Billiard Association of
Great Britain and Ireland. They were compiled by the chief professional
players of the day, who do not appear to have had the advantages of
educated amateur criticism or of the services of an expert to draw them
up in a satisfactory manner. Under them, however, the principal games of
recent years, both exhibition and those for genuine money, have been
played, and therefore they have perhaps the best title to be considered
as the laws of the game. Sold, too, by the Association at half a crown a
copy, they form, it is believed, its main source of income. But both
title and income are held on a precarious tenure, for there is little
doubt, the present code being so imperfect, that if a committee of
suitable persons were formed an improved set of rules might easily be
framed which would supersede existing ones, and might be sold at a price
more nearly approaching to their cost of production.
In an article written for the first number of the ‘Billiard Review,’ at
the champion’s request the present writer thus summarised the needs or
wants of the Association rules:—
Considered generally, the code requires rearrangement on a system. It
should begin by defining the game and implements, by prescribing the
positions of the spots, the baulk-line, the =Ｄ=, and so on, keeping
such preliminary matters at the commencement, and not scattering them
broadcast.... Then the code should proceed step by step, one leading
to another; explanation or definition should precede, and not succeed,
reference to terms.... Again, some of the rules seem superfluous or
capable of being embodied in other rules, thus reducing the number and
tending to their simplification.
In commenting on this, John Roberts remarked that it was high time that
the rules were recast, and he has kindly offered to give any assistance
in his power.
As a general guide to the preparation of a code it was stated in the
article already quoted that the rules should be as few, as simple, and
as clear as possible; of a nature general rather than particular; and
that for one offence one penalty, ample, but never vindictive, should
suffice. Inquiry was suggested how far accidental may be distinguished
from intentional offence. Further, the principle that the struggle for
victory ought to be strictly confined to the players, no one under any
pretence soever being permitted to assist or advise either, must be
recognised;
and provision should be made for offences, recollecting that very
often the offenders are spectators, and that in dealing with them it
may be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce a penalty. Again, ...
knowing, as all do, how the custom of different rooms varies, and how
habitually in certain places great laxity prevails, how far is it wise
to make laws with the full knowledge that they will be broken with
impunity and by common consent?
All will agree that unless such rules are plainly required in the
interests of the game they should be cancelled; but when they are
beneficial and necessary they must be supported or provided, and it
would seem best that the option of enforcing them should be left to the
non-striker. Each rule should have a brief marginal reference to its
subject, and when explanation is difficult or doubtful it should be
illustrated by examples. As these considerations may help the framers of
the next set of rules, it seems right to include them in this chapter,
in which, however, it is not proposed to discuss minor matters in
detail, for that can be better done when the amendment of the code is
undertaken; but there are certain questions connected with the rules so
important to the game that their examination here is appropriate. These
are:
1. The desirability or otherwise of attempting to discriminate between
the act of aiming and the act of striking.
2. The necessity for a special penalty for playing a miss otherwise than
with the point of the cue.
3. Playing with the wrong ball.
4. Foul strokes.
5. Procedure when player’s ball touches another ball.
6. Offences committed by persons other than the players.
7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker.
8. How far the marker may assist either player; and, finally,
9. The push stroke.
In offering remarks and suggestions on these matters there is no desire
to arrogate any superiority of judgment or any right to decide. It is
fully understood that opinions will differ, and that those brought
forward here may not commend themselves to the majority of experts; but
they are the result of study and of consultation with persons well
qualified to be heard on such matters, and, therefore, they are put
forward as of sufficient importance to warrant their receiving due
weight when action is taken in respect to the rules.
Dealing with the questions in their numerical order, let us examine:
1. The results of trying to discriminate between the act of aiming and
the act of striking. Now, these two together constitute a stroke, the
first being the preliminary, the second the final part; and it is not
always easy to say where the one ends and the other begins. Here,
therefore, there is an element of uncertainty which if possible should
be eliminated, the more so because argument as to a fact of which no one
but the striker can be really cognisant is avoided. The matter can be
satisfactorily settled by simply ruling that if a player touches his
ball his doing so shall be considered a stroke. In addition to removing
a somewhat thorny subject of discussion, which in itself is sufficient
recommendation, such a provision is very much sounder than any attempt
to divide a stroke into its component parts and to treat each
differently. Why should carelessness during the first part of a stroke
be pardoned whilst during the last it is punished? It is not unusual for
a striker who inadvertently touches his ball to remark that he was not
in the act of striking, and to proceed to give a safe miss. This often
happens when a difficult stroke is attempted and the safe miss is
unquestionably his best game and the worst for his adversary, who,
realising the fact and perceiving the opening for profitable generosity,
begs the striker not to mind the little accident, but to replace his
ball and play the stroke again. With a young player this
disinterestedness is usually rewarded, but an older one will decline to
take advantage of such good-nature and will adhere to the safety miss.
Now, if the touch was held under the rules to be, as it is actually, a
stroke, there would be no inducement for this little by-play, and the
offender would not have the option of embarrassing his opponent and
escaping from the effects of his blunder by playing for safety. A stroke
is a stroke whether played hard or soft, whether intentional or
accidental, and the rules should uphold this fact. If they did (and this
is a further recommendation), several rules or provisions in the code of
the Association might be expunged, and it would thereby gain in
clearness and simplicity.
2. Playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue. The general
rule is that all strokes must be played with the point of the cue, and
that they are foul if otherwise made. This perhaps meets all cases
sufficiently save that of giving a miss for safety. Some players, from
carelessness or in order to assume a _dégagé_ style which they consider
to be attractive and indicating that they do not need to stand on much
ceremony with their opponent, give the miss with the side of the cue,
and if they have made the ball travel too fast they have no hesitation
in stopping it. As matters stand, all that can be done in such a case is
to insist on the person playing the stroke properly; but this is
insufficient, and it is not absolutely clear whether he can be forced to
do so. Distinct provision for this should be made and a sufficient
penalty provided, so that this practice, which is discourteous to the
adversary, and which, if the ball is stopped, involves two offences, may
be prevented. It is a bad practice, too, for the man who indulges in it,
for he may do it on some occasions when unpleasantness would result,
and, moreover, indulgence in the habit is likely to lead to loss of
power to give a miss in the proper way.
3. Playing with the wrong ball. Under the Association rules, if the
striker plays with the wrong ball the opponent has the choice of three
penalties and the option of claiming them. He cannot, however, enforce
any unless the error be discovered and claimed before the next stroke.
This rule seems objectionable in more ways than one. Unless there are
very cogent reasons for ruling otherwise, one offence should have but
one penalty, and the adversary, who is an interested party, should not
be permitted to decide what measure and form of punishment are
appropriate. Surely an adequate penalty could be devised the infliction
of which would have no suspicion of vindictiveness. The limitation, too,
is not very fortunate, and usually leads to discussion, for the offender
often avers that he played with the ball which the non-striker did not
use; this of course is really no argument, but it is often successful,
for men generally prefer to avoid dispute.
4. Foul strokes. The Association Rule 30 is incomplete and badly worded.
Presumably, all strokes which are not fair are foul, and if a list is
given it should be as complete as possible. Were this attended to, and
were the recommendations under 1 accepted, the result would be to
decrease the number of rules and to simplify the code.
5. When player’s ball touches another ball. In old days, if under these
circumstances a score was made, the stroke was held to be foul and the
opponent broke the balls. This was apparently thought to bear too
severely on delicate play, specially as the touch was often the result
of imperfection in the balls or table; and the present rule was
introduced, which provides that the red be placed on the spot, the
non-striker’s ball on the centre spot, whilst the striker may play from
baulk. This change enormously improves the value of close positions for
cannon play, and one of its results is the fearless cultivation of
nurseries; but whether that is a benefit to the game of billiards is
another matter. The question how to deal with the case of balls which
touch is really surrounded with difficulty. It has always appeared hard
that if at the end of a stroke fairly made the striker’s ball should
touch another ball, his next stroke should be foul. He has not offended,
and why should he be punished for playing with exact strength? The only
apparent reason for ruling the next stroke foul is that it is a
certainty; the striker, if he can play into any pocket or on the third
ball, must score, and he cannot give a miss. What is the objection to
this? Is not the object of all work at billiards and the measure of
success thereat to be able to leave a certainty to follow each stroke?
In the case of close cannons the stroke is practically no more certain
if the balls touch than if they are the conventional small distance
apart. Other unknown considerations may affect the question and make the
present or former ruling fair and advantageous for the game, but in
their absence no sufficient case is made out against abolishing the
rules respecting balls touching and permitting the striker to play on.
Possibly the objections to this in nursery cannon play are so great as
to make the arrangement undesirable, but it is open to question how far
it would materially affect the length of the series. At any rate, whilst
expressing no strong opinion, it is clear that the proposal merits
consideration. A collateral advantage would be doing away with the need
for a reference to the umpire or marker on a point often most difficult
to decide, and one concerning which mistake is frequent.
6. Offences committed by persons other than the players. These are not
easily dealt with, chiefly because of the difficulty of enforcing a
penalty; and many of them, moreover, are rather the result of bad
manners, want of observation of the etiquette of the room, and
ignorance, than of intention to offend.
Perhaps the commonest and one of the most offensive errors a spectator
can be guilty of is offering advice to a player. This is of course
promptly resented if there is money on the game. That, however, is not
enough; the mischief may be done, and no amount of penitence can then
compensate. But the practice is equally reprehensible if there is no
money at stake; the competitors should have a fair field and no favour.
Another offence is obstructing a player, and this expression covers
accidentally coming against him, or being in his way when striking a
ball, or doing any other act which interferes with his stroke—moving in
his line of sight, scratching a match, or extinguishing it by waving it
up and down in front of him, entering or leaving the room on the stroke,
speaking to a player or conversing in a loud tone sufficient to distract
his attention. Want of the certainty that these matters will receive
consideration, and of all power to enforce them except at the risk of
being considered unreasonable, is one of the reasons why really good
amateurs abstain so largely from playing in clubs. It is worthy of
consideration whether a spectator who sees the game wrongly marked
should be allowed to state the fact. We think that he should not have
this permission, on the principle that the struggle should be strictly
confined to the players, and that they, and they only, should be allowed
to question the score. The spectator is almost as likely to be wrong as
right, and an interruption is caused which had better have been avoided.
Lastly, it has been usual to provide that in case the marker or referee
could not decide a point, the majority of spectators might be appealed
to. As a rule, the majority of spectators know so little about such
matters, and, not being so well placed as the marker or referee to judge
of questions of fact, it would seem in every way preferable in case of
doubt to produce a coin and leave the matter to the arbitrament of
chance.
7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker. The intention of the
rules whereby deliberate obstruction or wilful interference with the run
of the balls shall be punished by the loss of the game is excellent, as
also is the provision that the non-player shall leave the table and
avoid the player’s line of sight; but the rules are not very definite.
In the first place, what is deliberate obstruction? Clouds of tobacco
smoke blown across the table interfere with sight, and pieces of tobacco
and ashes obstruct the run of the balls; a remark which distracts the
player’s attention is an obstruction as much and as deliberate as if the
opponent laid his cue on the table, but it is less tangible and more
difficult to deal with. What is desired is complete liberty and freedom
for each player when in possession of the table; it matters
comparatively little whether the offence is accidental or intentional,
for the penalty should be sufficient to meet the graver case. If a seat
is available for the non-striker, it is surely not much to ask that he
should occupy it and remove himself to a fair distance from the table.
8. How far the marker may assist either player. Regarding this an
opinion has already been plainly expressed that the struggle should be
strictly confined to the players, neither of them being allowed to
receive extraneous advice. It is no argument, or but a very poor one, to
contend that the same advice is open to both players; and no such
sophistry can make it right that the judgment and eyesight of the marker
should be at the disposal of an adversary who is either too lazy or too
blind to see for himself how far the cue-tip is from the ball. When two
men are playing billiards, he who helps the one injures the other, and
the more careless and lazy the performer, the more help will he receive,
a result clearly injurious to the best interests of the game and unfair
to the attentive man. The latter will seldom err as to which ball he
should play with, whilst the former after almost every break will
commence by inquiring which is his ball or play with the wrong one.
Again, strokes with the half or long-butt are fruitful causes of
failure. Is it right that a player should be permitted to ask the marker
whether the cue-tip is within proper distance of the ball? Certainly
not. If one of the players’ sight is better than the other’s, he should
profit thereby, just as he may lawfully profit by any other advantage he
is fortunate enough to possess. Believing, as we do, that it is most
important to let the struggle lie absolutely between the two combatants
and to preserve the strictest neutrality, and that advice or assistance
of the nature indicated should, if asked for, be refused, it follows
that the custom some markers have of offering the rest or the half-butt
is at least equally objectionable. It is often done in perfect
innocence, but it may have a most undesirable effect on the game, and
the impulse to take the initiative should be restrained.
9. The push stroke. The vexed question whether this stroke is to be
permitted or to be prohibited will, we think, have to be arbitrarily
decided—decided, that is, not on its real merits, but on the
consideration of expediency. It is always rather a pity when this is so,
and with the view of laying before those interested matters concerning
the stroke which might escape notice, we shall endeavour to collect them
and to assign to each its due importance.
To begin with, those who assert roundly that all push strokes are foul
because there are several impacts between cue-tip and ball are
practically wrong. In very close pushes, such as those employed in
nursery cannons, or in any stroke when balls 1 and 2 are nearly
touching, if played by a person who has mastered the art, the vast
majority are fair strokes—that is, they are made with the point of the
cue, and ball 1 is not twice struck. In other words, it is possible to
push a ball for some distance with the point of the cue without losing
touch. It is dangerous to drive any argument to extremes, and for
practical purposes it is well to bear in mind that _de minimis non curat
lex_. Against the opinion just expressed that it is possible to push a
ball for a short distance fairly, those who contend that such is not the
case base their view on the fact that as soon as the ball begins to
travel it also begins to rotate, and that when rotation is established
continued impact is impossible. They contend that though it may appear
to be continuous it really is not so, and that the stroke consists of a
number of little blows, which might be represented by a dotted line,
instead of absolutely steady impact, which would be represented by a
line. It seems unprofitable to attempt to go into such minutiæ. If the
touches are sufficiently close together the result is continued impact;
in other words, if the dots are close enough together they cease to be
dots and form the line. A man who allows these minute matters to obscure
his judgment might equally well argue that a ball rotating quickly in
the direction of its path was not in constant contact with the cloth. No
doubt it is not, and but a small irregularity, an atom of dust, chalk,
or tobacco, will if passed over cause the ball to jump perceptibly;
contact with the cloth is visibly interrupted and again assumed, and the
ball for an instant is off the table, yet no one would dream of
inquiring whether the stroke was in consequence vitiated, or of raising
the question as to whether the ball was knocked off the table. So much
for those who base their opposition to the push stroke on the assumption
that it is always foul and, following timid or incapable referees, rule
it so invariably on appeal. Another so-called proof that the stroke is
generally foul is arrived at by either chalking a cue heavily and
pushing the red ball, when, it is argued, if contact is continuous, the
ball will show a line of chalk on its surface, but if impact has been
interrupted the line will be broken; or by pushing with a cue whose tip
has been removed, when the fact of repeated impacts is conveyed to the
player by the sense of feeling—in other words, he feels the friction
between the ball and cue. Neither of these tests is conclusive; in the
first it is manifest that sooner or later the expenditure of chalk on
the tip must result in none being applied to the ball, or a slight
variation in pressure or some other accident might account for the chalk
not adhering to it; in the second, all that need be said is, when it is
desired to play a fair push stroke do not select a cue without a tip.
Were the tip made of cotton or wool or a similar fabric, it is evident
that there would be no difficulty in keeping some part or other of it in
contact with the ball even over a long course. But the fact is these
far-fetched objections should carry no weight, and, as far as we can
judge, a practical and impartial person who desires to consider the
matter is justified in starting with the assumption that the push is not
necessarily foul.
If, however, on theoretical grounds it were so ruled, it follows at once
that many other strokes hitherto unsuspected or uncomplained of would
for the same reason have to be prohibited. Of these the half-push (see
p. 230) is an example, and indeed it is not too much to say that in
every stroke in which balls 1 and 2 are close, and which has to be
played at all hard, whether a follow or a close screw, in both of which
the cue-tip follows up ball 1, the probability is great that there have
been at least two distinct impacts. Before going further it is
reasonable to inquire why a ball should not be struck twice. There does
not seem to be any special rule in the Association code prohibiting the
practice, the only one under which it can be brought being Rule 30,
wherein impeding or accelerating the progress of a ball is declared to
make the stroke foul; and this is an excellent example of how badly
those rules are drafted; for in every stroke played with follow the
progress of the ball is accelerated, whilst in every drag stroke it is
impeded, and yet both are fair strokes. However, as there is no other
rule on the subject, this must be accepted, it being conceded, for the
sake of argument, that subsequent impacts of the cue make the ball
travel faster. Now, it seems on consideration that the reason for
prohibiting a second impact is that a player is entitled to one stroke
only at a time; he must not, once he has set ball 1 in motion, take a
second stroke to correct deficiencies. These deficiencies are likely to
be of two kinds—either ball 1 is struck too gently, in which case there
is temptation to help it with a second blow; or it is sent in a wrong
direction, when there is inducement to correct the error by an
application of the cue. To condemn the push stroke as contravening this
rule seems somewhat far-fetched.
But, granting all this, there are most serious objections to the stroke,
of which perhaps the strongest is the great difficulty of discriminating
between a fair and a foul push. In many instances it requires a man who
has mastered the stroke to judge, and in others markers and referees are
apt most unwarrantably to make up their minds that, if the push is
allowed, any stroke so made, however palpably foul, must be passed;
whilst others take precisely the opposite view, and on appeal rule every
push to be foul. The difficulty of judging is their only excuse, but to
rule any stroke as foul unless they distinctly saw and can name the act
which made it so is to prove themselves unfitted for the post of
referee. A vast proportion of amateurs cannot make the stroke, which
requires much determination and steadiness, as well as a good deal of
practice; they are most suspicious of those who can do it, and resent a
ruling that their clumsy endeavour is foul, whilst another smoothly made
by an expert is fair. Being ignorant of the difference, they feel
injured, and express their feelings more or less eloquently to the
marker, who to avoid such scenes rules all push strokes to be foul.
Another important objection to the push is that it induces a slovenly
style of cannon play, and that, so far as we know, it is not permitted
by any other billiard-playing nation. This is a drawback when our
players compete with foreigners, not merely because the difficulties of
arranging the game are enhanced, but because our representatives are
wanting in the skill which is required to surmount obstacles usually
overcome by the push.
The case for and against the push stroke was thus condensed in the
‘Times’ of December 17, 1894:—
Opinions will vary, for there are many arguments on both sides. Those
opposed to it maintain, in the first place, that it is always foul,
because cue-tip and ball come in contact more than once; that it is a
slovenly mode of evading difficulties which should be conquered by
fair means; and that, therefore, its use is detrimental to the game,
players not being encouraged to acquire the skill possessed by foreign
exponents. On the other hand, those in favour of it will deny the
separate contacts or affirm contact to be so nearly continuous that
the difference between a push and an ordinary stroke is merely one of
duration; they will truly say that it is a stroke requiring much
skill, and greatly extending the possibilities of the English game, in
which _massé_ can never play the part it does in the French game; and,
lastly, that to abolish it would lengthen play, which is undesirable.
We do not know that much more remains to be said; as far as can be
judged, the balance of opinion, professional and amateur, is in 1895
perhaps in favour of its retention, and Roberts’s remark that he does
not think the time has arrived when it should be prohibited is doubtless
sound from the point of view of gate-money, which naturally influences
professional opinion, and is, moreover, a test of popularity which
deserves some consideration; but it is by no means conclusive as to what
is best in the interests of the game. And signs are not wanting that the
days of the push stroke are numbered.
[Illustration:
ARE THEY TOUCHING?
]
CHAPTER XIII
PYRAMIDS, POOL, AND COUNTRY-HOUSE GAMES
BY W. J. FORD
When and under what circumstances winning hazard games were invented,
billiard history does not record. Every player, however, must have met
men with little aptitude for the more scientific game of billiards, who,
being blessed with good sight and sound nerve, play well at pyramids and
pool. For their benefit these games were doubtless produced, demanding
as they do considerable skill and knowledge, and lending themselves
especially to being played for money. It is an established fact that
persons will play billiards for nothing who would never dream of playing
pyramids, &c. for love; and also that many who would think twice before
risking a shilling or half a crown on a hundred game at billiards would
lightly and cheerfully take part in a game of pyramids or pool for
stakes at which a far greater sum can readily be lost or won.
One thing the beginner must remember—that he will have to pay for his
experience. He may be a fair hazard striker, with a moderate power of
cue and sound ideas about strength and position, but until he has played
a good many games of pool and pyramids, with the money up, and has
overcome the nervousness incidental to playing in public for a stake, he
will never master the game. All must go through the fiery ordeal of the
public room, where every shot is fired in earnest and there are no blank
cartridges. The price to be paid must depend on the beginner’s nerve and
his aptitude for such games, but he will find that practice and
observation work wonders, and that when he has watched fine players and
played with them, his losses will begin to dwindle, and gradually
transform themselves into winnings.
A few general hints may not be out of place before discussing the
different games in detail. It is really important to use the same cue as
far as possible; it is as essential as one’s own gun, bat, or racquet,
and as jointed cues can now be procured, which are easily carried in the
hand or packed in a portmanteau, it is prudent to get one. Some players
fancy a heavy cue, with a broad top, for winning hazards; but this is a
matter of taste, and it is generally wise always to use the same weapon.
It should be remembered, in playing pool or pyramids after billiards,
that the balls are usually smaller, lighter, and less true. Another
essential point is a strict adherence to rules. It is an unfortunate
thing for billiards that this principle is not observed with rigid
strictness, that fouls are often not claimed, that players are allowed
to get on the table, and so forth; but the curious thing is that, lax as
many men are on these points over a game of billiards played for
nothing, they are very strict when they are playing for money; so as
long as billiards is played, it is perhaps well that there should be a
small stake on the game, if only to induce _every one_ to make Sarah
Battle’s whist the model of what his billiards should be. Her celebrated
wish was ‘the rigour of the game. She took and gave no concessions. She
hated favours. She never made a revoke, nor ever passed it over in her
adversary without exacting the utmost forfeiture;’ and where she
emphatically asserted that cards were cards, I repeat that billiards is
billiards. Again, the etiquette of the room should be most carefully
observed, though it is frequently neglected. It is the duty of the man
who has played his stroke to retire ‘to a reasonable distance and keep
out of the line of sight’—the rules require this; but there are many
people, unfortunately, who think this a good time to light a pipe, talk
in a loud tone of voice to a bystander, give stentorian orders to the
waiter, and so forth, forgetting that a game is in progress which is
making every demand on the striker’s nerve and self-possession. Such
offenders are numerous, they are public nuisances in the room, and it is
small consolation to the persons disturbed to be assured that their
delinquencies were unintentional. Any game that is worth playing at all
is worth playing seriously and strenuously, and the cultivation of
habits of silence, decorum, and self-restraint is a duty we owe to our
friend the enemy and have a right to expect from him in return.
PYRAMIDS
This game is played with one white and fifteen red balls, the latter
being set up in the form of a triangle or pyramid, with the apex-ball
nearest to the baulk-line and on the pyramid spot. As a rule, only two
players take part in a game, and the order of playing is decided by lot.
The first stroke is played from the =Ｄ=, as are all subsequent strokes
if the white ball has gone into a pocket or has been forced off the
table. The object of the game is to hole the red balls with the white,
each ball so holed counting as one; but, should the striker make a
losing hazard (notwithstanding that he holes a red ball with the same
stroke), or force a red ball or his own off the table, or miss
altogether, he loses a ball—_i.e._ one is deducted from his score and a
ball put up on the table. Any ball or balls he may have taken by such a
stroke are put up as well. If the striker’s score is love, and he incurs
this penalty, he is said to owe one (or more, as the case may be), and
no ball can be put up till he has made a winning hazard; if he owes more
than one, a ball is restored for each hazard he makes, until he has paid
off his debts. After a miss the next player plays from where the white
ball stops; but if the latter is pocketed or forced off the table he
plays from the =Ｄ= at any ball he chooses, whether in baulk or not. When
only two balls—the white and one red—are left on the table, the game
becomes single pool; after white has played on red, red plays on white,
and so on till one of the two is holed.
These are the salient points of the game; other details may be gleaned
from the printed rules which should be in every billiard-room. Points
are scored (see Rules 4 and 5)[20] by giving balls or owing balls, or
both. When a player gives one or more balls, they are scored to his
opponent before the game begins, and are removed from the table. If he
owes one or more, the first time a winning hazard is made the ball is
put up on the table, and nothing is added to the striker’s score till
all the balls he owes have been put up. When the odds are combined, each
ball given is removed, and no hazard counts till all debts are paid;
_e.g._ if he gives one and owes two, one ball is removed (see Rule 4),
his opponent scores one, and the giver of odds cannot score till he has
holed two balls, each of which has to be put back on the table (see Rule
18).
The rules for foul strokes are the same as at billiards, but if a player
_wilfully_ touch a moving ball, he loses the game;[21] to do so
accidentally makes that stroke foul (see also Rule 23).
I once saw a pretty commentary on Rule 18, which directs that a ball
which has to be put up be placed on the pyramid spot. The player, who
owed four, made a hazard and got exact position behind the pyramid spot
in a line with the corner pocket, and, screwing back each time, holed
each ball as it was put up.
Balls forced off the table are put up again, but the striker’s break is
at an end unless he also holes a ball (see Rules 18 and 19).
Nothing can be said on the question of handicapping players. Of course
their relative skill at billiards affords no criterion of their relative
powers at pyramids. A few games will best decide the question; but it
may be remarked that to give a ball is a far higher handicap than to owe
a ball, as the adversary starts with a point to the good, and there are
only fourteen coloured balls on the table; whereas the player who owes a
ball only forfeits the first hazard he makes.
Before the game commences the first step is to set up the balls
properly. In theory each ball should touch its immediate neighbours, but
in practice this is of course impossible. They should, however, be
collected in the triangle, and then rolled smartly up and down parallel
to the sides of the table, the apex-ball never going beyond the pyramid
spot. After this has been done two or three times the motion should be
sharply stopped when the apex-ball is on the spot, and the pyramid will
then be fairly correct. There are three ways of playing the first
stroke, two of them unsound. The first wrong way is to smash the pyramid
by a vicious hit from baulk, for which Captain Crawley, in ‘The Billiard
Book,’ recommends a mysterious ‘under-handed stroke;’ but in whatever
way the stroke is played it is unsound, as there are only two pockets
behind the pyramid into which to drive a ball. The second wrong method
is to play slowly up the table with a little side, missing the pyramid
on the upward journey, and just dropping on to it from the top cushion.
Old-fashioned players are fond of this opening, but it is not sound, as
the adversary can easily get safe, or, if he likes, he can smash with
four pockets open to him. Whether he be wise to do so is another
question; with a weak adversary, to whom he is giving odds, it may be
advisable. I have seen no less than five balls disappear after such a
stroke; but if a winning hazard is not made, the break of course goes to
the other side: it is a matter of speculation, the chances being
naturally in favour of the stronger player. At no time should a smash be
tried except when four pockets are open—_i.e._ from the top of the
table; a stab or screw back should be used, so as to avoid as far as
possible the mob of flying balls, which may kiss the white into a
pocket. The third and orthodox opening is to play at the end ball of the
row next the base of the pyramid with strength sufficient to leave the
white ball as near to the bottom cushion as possible. If the pyramid is
properly set up, the opponent has no easy stroke left, though
occasionally a ball is malignant enough to detach itself and come down
the table. This is generally the result of either careless setting up or
of striking too hard, but if this opening stroke is properly played, the
second player will have nothing better to play for than a more or less
difficult stroke for safety, and so the game will proceed till the
pyramid is gradually shaken and finally broken up; but in playing for
safety it is sometimes advisable to disturb the pyramid, if possible, it
being difficult for one’s opponent to steer a safe course when there are
rocks ahead in the shape of balls.
It is often safe to leave the white ball near the pyramid, provided that
it has not been greatly disturbed; for, if the players are equal,
neither should risk a smash, for it is, after all, even betting which
player profits. The best safety of all is to leave the adversary far
away from a ball and as near to a cushion as possible; but if he can
retaliate in kind, not much good will have been done. Watch the score,
and play to the score. The leader should play a cautious rather than a
dashing game, as a losing hazard not only diminishes his score by a
point, but also gives his adversary the advantage of playing from baulk
with an extra ball on the table. ‘When in doubt play for safety,’ is a
golden rule, but a doubtful hazard may often be tried when one can get
safety as well. Beginners should be cautioned to watch carefully for
foul strokes, especially when the rest or spider is being used. A
knowledge of the spot stroke and its variations is invaluable,
involving, as this stroke does, every form of screw, stab, and following
stroke; while the stop stroke is also most useful—_i.e._ a sort of stab
that leaves the white ball on the place just vacated by the red.
When a player is familiar with ordinary winning hazards, and can make
them with some facility, he should devote himself to the making of
breaks—_i.e._ a series of hazards. Diagrams I. and II. may serve as
examples, showing how position should be got so that one hazard may lead
on to another.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
Nor should the famous _dictum_ about the spot stroke be forgotten—viz.
that the first and most important point is to make sure of putting in
the red. Supposing, then, that the balls are left as in Diagram I., the
problem is to take them all in a break, which may be done as follows,
the figures representing the successive positions of the white
ball:—From position 1 there is an easy hazard, and position 2 may be
easily gained. The same remarks apply to the next stroke, but from 3 a
‘run through’ with right-hand side is required so as to get to 4. Here
there is the option of dropping ball X quietly into the middle pocket,
leaving an easy shot on Y, or of stabbing Y and getting position 5. If
the latter stroke is successfully played, the rule of ‘never play for a
middle pocket at single pool’ should decide the striker to drive X
gently down to the left-hand bottom pocket, leaving his ball safe under
the side cushion.
The break shown in Diagram II. is by no means so easy. It may be played
as follows:—From position 1 a gentle stab, screwing back a little,
should be played; from 2 is required a semi-follow with left-hand side.
For the third stroke strong right-hand side is used, the top cushion
being utilised or not according to fancy; and the fourth also requires
some right-hand side, but the proper play is to try to get such position
as will leave a shot for a corner and not a middle pocket. It may also
be noted that by playing on ball Y first there will be but a poor chance
of getting ball X in the course of the break, as ball Z will clearly be
the next one to play at. These two breaks are only suggested for useful
practice, and to show the beginner some of the devices necessary for
success.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
I will now discuss certain strokes of frequent occurrence, for which
special hints are necessary, plants and doubles being among the most
important. They have been to some extent dealt with already,[22] but are
more common at winning-hazard games than at billiards, and consequently
not only do they demand careful attention, but also verification by
practice, the relative positions of the balls being frequently altered,
and the varieties in the results noted and studied. Another very
important class of strokes occurs when the object ball is under the
cushion, a common situation in all games of pool. Diagram III. shows two
examples, though stroke B is really only a modification of stroke A;
still, it deserves separate consideration, as the hazard is very
difficult, and the position of the striker’s ball after the stroke has
been played is most important. Example A may be considered typical; the
player’s ball is on the centre of the =Ｄ= and the object ball half way
up cushion 2. Play slowly, about No. 1 strength, so as to hit ball and
cushion simultaneously. Ball 2 will drop into the pocket, and ball 1
will travel towards the spot. If position is desired to the right of the
spot, a little left-hand side should be used, and it even seems to make
the hazard easier; a sharper stroke with right-hand side will bring ball
1 towards the middle of the table. This stroke should be practised with
ball 2 at such positions as P, Q, R, and S, and the resting place of
ball 1 should be carefully observed. It is clearly not a good stroke for
single pool, as the balls are left too close together. Stroke B is not
at all easy, but it is worth playing for, as it cannot leave much. Ball
2 must be cut very finely—in fact, play just not to miss it. If it _is_
missed on the upward journey, left-hand side, which is almost essential
to the stroke, will cause ball 2 to be hit from the cushion, X and Y
show the direction of ball 1 according as no side or left-hand side is
used.
There are no strokes more common and none which require more care than
those in which the object ball is close to a cushion, nearly at right
angles to the path of ball 1 and a long distance from it. The paths of
both seem, from the mere proximity of the cushion, to be regulated by an
entirely new code of dynamic laws, the fact being that the whole
conditions of the case are not correctly realised. It is here that the
inestimable qualities of side, as an agent productive of pace, are
called in to assist; for by playing with direct side and cutting ball 2
very fine, its course will be restricted, and the side will cause ball 1
to travel freely down the table; but here, as in all things, an ounce of
practice is worth a ton of theory, and more can be learned by an hour’s
practice than a week’s reading.
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
]
To the serious student the ‘R.-W. Billiard Diagram Notebook’[23] is
recommended, in order that the results of practice and observation may
be recorded, for, as Captain Cuttle might have said, ‘These things, when
found, should be made a note of.’
Diagram IV. shows a useful double in stroke A, ball 2 being some
distance below the middle pocket, and two or three inches from the
cushion. Ball 1 should be placed approximately as shown in the diagram;
but practice and experience can alone show the exact place, depending as
it does on the position of ball 2. To make the double, play full on ball
2. Ball 1 can be made to reach the top of the table, if desired, by the
use of strong left-hand side and follow. For single pool a stab is of
course the right stroke. If the top pocket is blocked, or if for any
other reason (_e.g._ for the sake of position) this stroke is
undesirable, there is a good chance of a double as shown in stroke B,
ball 2 being struck half-ball, and ball 1 following approximately the
lines terminating in X. For the sake of practice the position of ball 2
should be shifted towards the pocket, and also further down the table.
The further it lies from baulk, the finer must be the cut, and the
harder the stroke. The position of ball 1 should be carefully noted each
time, and also the point at which the object ball having been gradually
moved _down_ the table, a kiss occurs and prevents the double into the
middle pocket.
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
]
The stroke shown in Diagram V. is of common occurrence in single pool,
and may appropriately be here explained, as every game of pyramids
eventually becomes one of single pool. The type of stroke is so
important that it should be practised from various positions—first
without side, and then with side both right and left, the ultimate
position of the striker’s ball being the main feature of the stroke. The
direct hazard is of course on, but only special circumstances would
justify any but a first-rate hazard striker in trying for it. In the
diagram P Z shows the course of ball 1 when no side is used, Q Y when
played with strong left-hand side, and R X when strong right-hand side
is employed. Strength is most important, and observation alone will show
when a kiss occurs as the balls cross each other’s track; but the
chances of this are much diminished when reverse side (in this case
_left_ side) is used. If ball 2 is near the cushion, a sharp stroke is
necessary, but the double shown in stroke A, Diagram VI., is the better
game. All the doubles shown in this diagram are useful, especially for
single pool. Stroke A is played with a stab, stroke B with follow, so as
to leave ball 1 under the top cushion. Stroke C also requires a stab,
strength being judged so as to leave ball 2 close to the pocket, if it
is not holed. In both B and C ball 2 might possibly be cut in, but the
double is, for pool at least, the safer stroke.
The question of plants has been already alluded to in Chapter VII.,
which should be carefully studied, as such shots are infinitely more
common with the fifteen-pyramid balls than at billiards. In the plant,
pure and simple, the balls are touching or practically touching; but if
what may be called the second object ball is fairly near to the pocket,
a plant is often worth trying, though some caution is necessary, as a
leave is very likely to result if the stroke fails. The principle may be
described as playing a ball on to a certain point in a third ball, this
point being on the line leading to the centre of the pocket. Thus, by
means of ball 2, ball 3 may be holed, though, with a view to a possible
leave for the adversary, the stroke is too risky to be recommended for
general use.
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
It should be noticed that a pocket is considerably enlarged so to speak,
when there is a ball in the position shown by fig. 2, as from almost
anywhere to the right of the diagonal drawn through that pocket a ball
may be holed off ball 3, either directly or off cushion 2, or it may be
put in without touching ball 3, which will then be left for the next
stroke.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
Fig. 3 shows a neat stroke. Balls 2 and 3 are touching. The line passing
through their centres is at right angles to the line drawn from ball 2
to the centre of the pocket. Then from any point below P Q, and even
from some distance above it, a winning hazard on ball 2 is with ordinary
care a certainty.
In fig. 4 a useful but rare stroke is shown. The two balls are touching
or nearly touching, but are not aligned on the pocket. By playing a push
shot, quite quietly, the point of the cue, never quitting ball 1,
gradually directs ball 2 towards the pocket. The cue should be directed
as much _above_ P as the pocket is _below_ it. A _stroke_ with left-hand
side will have the same effect, but to enter into reasons would be to
open up the whole question of push strokes.
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
In Diagram VII. stroke A suggests a method of making a winning hazard
which, though in itself easy, may be dangerous when the player is in a
cramped position. Ball 2 is close to the pocket, and ball 1 is in a
straight line with it, but so hampered by the cushion that a stab shot
is out of the question. The hazard may easily be made by playing off
cushion 6, as shown, and ball 1 may be left in the direction of the
spot. This type of stroke, by the way, is capable of much development
and should be studied. The strokes marked B_{1}, B_{2}, and B_{3}
suggest three methods of play in case ball 1 should be angled, ball 2
being in the jaws of the middle pocket. Fortunately such an occurrence
is rare; but I once saw it happen at pool, and the player—a very good
one—played the stroke marked B_{2} and brought it off. Experiment gives
the best results with B_{1} and the worst with B_{3}; but which of the
three should be essayed depends on the exact position of ball 2 and the
chances of making a loser. The point Q is about six inches below the
baulk-line, but a few trials will show the exact place. B_{2} is of the
nature of a _massé_, and even if ball 1 strikes the cushion above the
middle pocket, there is still a chance of success. Should ball 1 be
angled for ball 2, the latter being in a corner pocket, the _massé_
stroke is the only chance; in fact, there is a very old trick stroke,
made when balls 1 and 3 are in the jaws of the corner pockets and ball 2
in the jaws of the middle, all on the same side; by a similar species of
_massé_ ball 1 curves round and outside ball 2 and holes ball 3.
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
]
_A propos_ of stroke A, there is a useful method of getting position at
the top of the table, if ball 1 can be struck freely. If plenty of
follow is used, and ball 2 is struck nearly full, the striker’s ball
will rebound towards the middle of the table and then spring forward
towards the top cushion again. The stroke requires much freedom, and the
explanation of it is to be found in Chapter VI., On Rotation.
Stroke C may be found useful at some time or another. The object ball is
resting against the upper jaw of the middle pocket, in such a way that
it is impossible to cut it in from baulk; but with a kiss the stroke is
absurdly easy. By playing from the end of the =Ｄ= with No. 1 strength,
and hitting the red about three-quarters right, the kiss will send it
into the pocket and leave ball 1 in the middle of the table.
The question of occasionally giving a miss may deserve a word, but, as a
matter of fact, the opportunities of playing such a stroke with profit
are very rare. To begin with, the penalty is a very heavy one, and can
only be afforded by a player who has a most commanding lead and whose
adversary cannot dare to follow suit. With a score of, say, nine to one,
when the leading player has the game in hand, he may, if he please,
sacrifice a ball in the hopes of getting a break afterwards; but when
the scores are nearly equal, it is clear that if it is worth A.’s while
to give a miss, B. can hardly do better than follow his example.
The highest possible break at pyramids (unless the striker owes one or
more balls) is, of course, fifteen; this number has frequently been
taken by fine players, but the chances of finding a full complement of
balls on the table and of being in a position to take advantage of the
opening are very small, always presupposing that the ability to clear
the table exists. In the quickest game I ever played, my adversary
managed to take a ball after the opening stroke, and, gradually breaking
up the pyramid, secured ten, and the last five fell to me in the next
turn, so that we had but three innings between us, one of them being the
break. A capital performance was once done at Cambridge by an
undergraduate whose adversary broke and apparently left everything safe;
however, eight balls disappeared, nearly all very difficult strokes, in
which the player had to consider safety as well as the hazard. In his
next turn he cleared the table by a series of similar shots, all, or
nearly all, so difficult that once more safety was his main object. This
was a very great feat; but the reader need hardly be reminded that at
pyramids, as at billiards, the art to be cultivated is the art of
leaving a series of easy strokes. I once saw a man who had just made a
break of 30 or 40 at billiards turn round and say, ‘What a good break!
There wasn’t a single easy stroke in it!’ The real billiard-player would
have described it as a series of well-made strokes, but as a _break_,
never.
SHELL-OUT
This game is practically the same as pyramids, but more than two take
part in it. A stake, so much a ball, is agreed upon. The balls are set
up as at pyramids, but under no circumstances is a ball ever put up
after a miss, or when a ball has been forced off the table, or when the
white has run in. If any of these things has happened, a point is added
to every one’s score except the offender’s, who thus pays the stake to
the other players. The score is most conveniently kept on the slate,
each ball counting one, except the last, which is generally reckoned as
two; all penalties incurred off it are also double, but with the
exaction of the penalty the game is at an end. There is no single pool,
white always playing upon red. If a player plays out of turn, he has to
pay all round; he can gain nothing if he takes a ball, but the ball is
not put up. If he makes a foul when only one red ball is left and takes
that ball, he cannot score, but the game is at an end. The rules for
foul strokes are the same as at pyramids. At the end of the game each
player pays or receives the differences. Thus, if the scores stand A. 9,
B. 3, C. 4, A. receives 6 from B. and 5 from C., while C. receives 1
from B.
Everything that has been said about pyramids applies equally to
shell-out; but as it is a game of all against all, safety is not so much
an object as hazard striking, it being clearly useless for A. to leave
B. safe so that C. may profit by it. It may also be remembered that if,
say, four are playing, the individual has practically a bet of three to
one about each stroke. The game, in fact, is more for amusement than for
scientific play, though naturally the scientific player will in the long
run get more pleasure and profit out of it.
POOL
Pool, the good old-fashioned following pool, is getting out of date. The
more racy games of black pool and snooker have jostled it from its place
in men’s affections, so once more Cronos has been deposed, and Zeus
reigns in his stead. As, however, no article on winning hazard games
would be complete without a detailed reference to it, if only because of
its antiquity, I will treat it as still instinct with life and energy;
and, indeed, as the parent of the more modern games, it deserves our
respect. The principles of the game are quite simple.
Each player receives a ball by lot—any number up to twelve can play—and
starts with three lives. The order of play is decided by the sequence of
the colours on the marking-board, which correspond with the balls. White
is placed on the billiard spot and red plays the first stroke from the
=Ｄ=; yellow plays on red, green on yellow and so on, the same order
being kept throughout the game, unless an intermediate ball is dead
(_i.e._ has lost all its lives), when the ball that precedes it becomes
the object ball; _e.g._ if red is dead, yellow plays on white, or if
both red and yellow are dead, _green_ plays on white. If a player clears
the table—_i.e._ takes all the balls on it—his ball is spotted.
The most important part of the game is to hole the object ball. When
this is done, its owner loses a life, and the striker continues his
break by playing at the nearest ball, and thus the game proceeds till
only one player or two are left. In the first event the survivor takes
the whole pool, which is called a maiden pool if he has his three lives
intact; in the second the two players play on till one kills the other,
or till each has an equal number of lives, in which case the pool is
divided. If, however, there are three balls on the table, say red with
two lives, yellow with one life, and green with two lives, then if green
holes yellow, he has a shot at red, though the number of their lives is
equal. This is obviously fair, as he is in the middle of his break.
Green, then, has this stroke called stroke or division; if he holes red,
the pool is played out to an end—_i.e._ till both are one-lifers or till
green kills red; but if green’s stroke fails, the pool is divided at
once. Each player pays the amount of his pool to the marker, this being
generally three times the value of a life, though, if lives are only
sixpence, the pool should be two shillings. The table-money, generally
threepence a ball, and the same for each star, is taken out of the pool
before it is given to the winner. A player who is unfortunate or
unskilful enough to lose his three lives early can come into the game
again by paying the amount of the pool a second time over. This is
called starring, as a star is put against his colour on the
marking-board, but he only receives the lowest number of lives shown on
the board.
As the striker is compelled to play at a particular ball, he is allowed
to have any ball or balls taken up (to be replaced after the balls have
ceased rolling) which are nearer than the object ball and prevent him
hitting either side of it, or which in any way interfere with his stroke
(see Rules 20 and 21).[24] No star is allowed when only two players are
left in, but when more than eight are playing a second star is
permitted. Sometimes the game is played with an unlimited number of
stars, each costing the amount of the pool over and above the price of
the last star—_e.g._ at three-shilling pool the first star costs three,
the second six, and the third nine shillings, and so on (see Rules 8 and
9). The striker loses a life (Rule 13) if he holes his own ball, whether
he takes the object ball or not; forces it off the table; misses; runs a
coup; plays out of turn; hits a wrong ball first; or plays with the
wrong ball, except when he is in hand, in which case there is no
penalty. All penalties are paid to the owner of the proper object ball,
however incurred. If a player wishes to have a ball up, he should not
lift it himself, as such an act would be technically a foul stroke.
Should a player be angled, and wish to play off the cushion, he may have
any ball or balls taken up which interfere with his aim; but the old
rules allowed him to move his ball just far enough to get his stroke,
though he could not take a life by it.
Rule 28 says: ‘Should a player be misinformed by the marker, he may play
the stroke over again, but cannot take a life.’ This seems hard, and is
perhaps an instance of _summum ius, summa injuria_; but the moral for
the player is that he must keep his attention fixed on the game and the
marking-board. To attempt to replace the balls, and to allow the stroke
to be played over again might give rise to much unpleasantness. By Rule
30, ‘Should the striker miss the ball played at, no one is allowed to
stop the ball, the striker having no option.’ The striker’s ball after
missing the object ball may still hit others, and materially affect the
subsequent progress of the game; hence a hard-and-fast law on the
subject is necessary.
As it is to the survivor or survivors that the pool eventually comes, it
is of paramount importance to cling to life. Many things combine to
decide the striker whether to try for safety or for a hazard, or for
both together—his own temperament and skill, the state of the score, and
the position and skill of the next player and his other opponents. All
hands are against every man, so that general rules are impossible, but
‘When in doubt play safety’ is a capital rule. Another useful maxim is,
‘Play for safety with safety-players, play for hazards with hazard
strikers,’ as the latter, if they play out boldly, are sure to sell the
safety-player sooner or later—_i.e._ will leave his ball in a position
of great danger. But if the next player is close to the cushion, one is
justified in playing for a hazard when, under other conditions, safety
would be the right game. Again, a bolder style is right in a big pool
of, say, eight or ten players, as the chances of being sold are greater.
More boldness, too, in playing out for hazards may be shown by a player
who is left in with, say, three lives, while the others have only one;
but even then it is better to be cautious.
It is generally good policy to star two; many things may happen before
it is star’s turn to play again, and he has the great advantage of
playing from the =Ｄ=. A glance should also be taken at the position of
the other balls, as the next player may have an easy stroke to play, and
every life taken is in star’s favour with a view to the pool. A
deliberate miss or coup, so as to be enabled to star well, is not
chivalrous, perhaps not fair, but there is nothing unsportsmanlike in
playing a more open game with a view to starring. With an unlimited star
the question is reduced to one of capital and temperament; but in any
case starring is an expensive luxury, and the player who is not
judicious may find in himself a parallel to F. C. Burnand’s heroine of
suicidal tendencies, of whom he wittily writes the epitaph, ‘In memory
of Itti Duffa, the ill-starred maid, who lost her one life in this
pool.’
One must play for one’s own hand, regardless of the other players, and
undeterred by chaff or sneer from trying for a plant or cannon; but it
is generally dangerous to play for a cannon unless very easy, as there
is always a chance of the player’s ball following the other into a
pocket; but it is no more bad form to try for such a stroke than to pot
the white at billiards; whether it is expedient or not, is another
question, which only the exigencies of the moment can decide.
The marker is the proper person to measure distances when necessary, but
the beginner should learn the right way to do so. One player puts his
finger firmly on the striker’s ball, while another gently slides the
butt of his cue up to it, holding the other end between forefinger and
thumb, thumb uppermost. The point of the cue is then lowered till the
cue rests lightly on the top of the other ball, the forefinger being
slid up till it just touches the ball. A similar process is gone through
with the third ball, the striker’s being held steady the while, and the
question of which is the nearer is solved at once. Again, it is the
marker’s duty to tell the striker on which ball he has to play, and
which ball plays next, the formula being, _e.g._ ‘Green on yellow,
player brown,’ or, if brown is in hand, ‘Green on yellow, player brown
in hand,’ and if the striker has to play on his player, the marker must
inform him of the fact; as, however, the striker is the scapegoat even
if he acts on wrong information, he should keep his attention fixed on
the game.
The opening of a pool is more or less stereotyped, all the players
endeavouring to lay themselves under the top cushion out of harm’s way,
the player being always in hand till white’s turn comes round; thus the
last player—brown, let us say, in a five-pool—has to steer himself round
the other balls that are clustered at the head of the table, and find
his way down to baulk, as white is nearly sure to be high up; in a big
pool the last player may have some difficulty, and it is well to
remember that, as he can have any ball or balls up that lie between him
and the object ball, he can, by selecting a good spot from baulk, have
one or two such obstacles removed. The orthodox opening shot for red, by
the way, is to play full on to white from a corner of the =Ｄ=, just hard
enough to find the cushion himself. Plenty of drag should be used and no
side. Side and screw are of no value except for position, or for playing
a slow stroke which is wanted to travel quickly off the cushion.
The late William Cook once made a pool record. ‘Playing in a twelve
following pool at his own rooms’ (I quote the words of a fine amateur
player who took part in the game), ‘in 1881, he actually cleared the
table, playing always of course on the nearest ball. He had taken 20 to
1 five or six times from spectators, and the excitement was intense when
he performed this really phenomenal feat.’ As pool is limited to 12,
Cook, like Alexander, had no more worlds to conquer; but his hazard
striking and position must have been marvellous.
Doubles are of the utmost importance, and the strokes shown in the
preceding diagrams should be noted. One may fairly play a middle-pocket
double with extra strength if by so doing there is a chance of the
double-double, though it is not strictly sound, and shows a certain
diffidence as to one’s accuracy. Plants are rare.
_A propos_ of doubles, the following occurrence is probably without
precedent, but the story is absolutely vouched for. Three amateurs were
playing three-pool. Red opened by doubling white into the right-hand
bottom pocket. Yellow avenged white by doing exactly the same to red,
and white made matters even by treating yellow to a precisely identical
shot. Strange to say, red with his second shot holed white just as
before—four consecutive doubles into the same pocket—and, though yellow
spoiled the average by only doubling red into the right-hand _middle_
pocket, white made things all square and yellow disappeared into the
original pocket. Thus six consecutive doubles were made, five of them
into one pocket! What are the odds against such a performance?
As even in these enlightened days the confidence trick flourishes, it
may be worth while to warn beginners against innocent strangers. If
these win by sheer skill, there is nothing to be said against them, and
the best thing is to put down one’s cue; if they are sharps as well,
they will probably hunt in couples, on the chance of one playing next to
the other, when the first player, curiously enough, never quite gets
safety and always leaves a ball over the pocket. I remember just such a
pair, a good player and a duffer, turning up at some rooms I used to
frequent, and, though none of us were innocents, they played so cleverly
into each other’s hands, the apparent duffer making several slight
mistakes at critical moments, that the good player had a pretty good
time. Talking the matter over, we saw that we had been had, and, as we
were rather a snug little _coterie_, arranged with the marker what was
to be done if they reappeared. The pair had posed as absolute strangers
and had come in separately, so we told the marker that if the duffer
came in first he was to have a ball and we would try to warm him up, but
on the good player’s appearance he was to be refused a ball, while we, a
fairly sturdy lot, would see the marker through any trouble. All came
off splendidly. The duffer appeared first and lost two or three pools,
and when the crack walked in he was at once confronted by the marker
with ‘I am very sorry, sir, but I can’t give you a ball to-day.’ We
expected a row, but he took it like a lamb and decamped, and the duffer,
after losing another pool or two, decamped also. One of our party saw
them the same evening, hobnobbing together at the Criterion, so there
can be no doubt that it was a put-up job. The following occurred to a
friend of mine, a good billiard-player, a particularly good
pyramid-player, and well able to look after himself. After a couple of
games of billiards, on both of which he won a small bet, his opponent, a
stranger and apparently a Jew, suggested ‘just one game of pyramids.’
‘What shall we play for?’ said my friend. ‘Three and one,’ said the
Semitic one, which means, as usually interpreted, a shilling a ball and
three shillings on the game. My friend won by thirteen balls, but his
opponent, after putting up his cue, offered him just four shillings and
threepence, being at the rate of three _pence_ a ball and one _shilling_
a game! There was nothing to be done, but I wonder what the Jew would
have claimed had he won by thirteen balls.
THREE-POOL
When four players only are left, and one of them is finally killed, the
marker should be careful to call ‘Three-pool.’ Why this is so may not be
apparent to the novice, and perhaps it will be cheaper for him to learn
from a book than to pay for the information over the table. When four or
more players are left in, the striker plays for a hazard, and, whether
successful or not, he has no further anxieties beyond the safety of his
own ball; but in three-pool a new element is introduced: he must
consider where the object ball will finally stop if his hazard fails,
and the middle of the table is the very worst position for it. A
moment’s thought will show the reason. A., B., and C. are three players:
B. plays on A., lays himself safe from C., and leaves A. in the middle
of the table. C. having to play on B., is now, in most cases, in a great
dilemma; he has no chance of taking B., and with A. in the middle of the
table may find it very difficult to get safety after he has played. If
he has a long shot from under the cushion, he will probably leave A. a
fairly easy stroke, in which case B. may suffer also, so that B.’s own
carelessness, or his indifference as to where A. was left, may
deservedly recoil on his own head. The amount of consolation meted out
to him for having been sold will be the cold comfort of ‘You ought to
have played three-pool;’ in other words, ‘You ought, while leaving your
ball safe, to have also left A.’s ball in such a position as to make
safety fairly possible for C.’ Again, it is only self-defence to leave
the object ball near a pocket, in case of a failure to put it in;
especially is this advisable when it is very hard for the striker to get
safety, for it is clearly to every player’s advantage to have, if
possible, a comrade in misfortune.
The general principle of three-pool may be more easily understood from
Diagram VIII., which shows two cases in which the obvious stroke for
ordinary pool would be quite wrong in three-pool. In each case red has
to play on white, yellow being his player. In No. 1 red has a hazard in
the middle pocket, but it is not particularly easy, and must be played
slowly, so that if it fails white will very likely be thrown by the
lower jaw of the pocket to about A, while red drops slowly down to B.
Yellow has the poorest chance of escaping white next time, and, being
extremely indifferent to what becomes of red, will probably sell him, as
he deserves. If red plays the game he will dribble white down towards
the left-hand bottom pocket, and be himself safe at C, when yellow will
not be forced to run any risks. In stroke 2 it is tempting to play for
the double into the middle pocket with strong right-hand side and screw,
so as to get near the spot off three cushions; but as this would
probably leave white in the middle of the table, and yellow would be in
hopeless trouble, the right stroke is an attempted double into the
_bottom_ pocket, when left-hand side and screw will leave the striker
safe, and yellow will have no difficulty in getting safe also, while,
further, the striker will have the best chance in the subsequent
finessing.
SINGLE POOL
Many of the more ordinary strokes required at this game have already
been discussed; but, as single pool is a most scientific and interesting
game _per se_, it deserves a few lines to itself. As the striker is
always playing on his player, the problem of safety is quite different.
Two general maxims should be writ large in the striker’s mind: (1) Leave
the balls as far apart as possible; (2) Never play for a middle pocket
unless it is a certainty. The first of these requires no comment: a
moment’s thought will show the importance of the second, which applies
equally to doubles and to direct shots, as a stroke for the middle is
sure, if it fails, to leave the adversary’s ball in the middle of the
table, when he will either have a good chance of a hazard or no
difficulty in getting safe.
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
]
Reverting to Diagram VIII., stroke 1, at ordinary pool red may,
_caeteris paribus_, try to hole white in the middle pocket. The danger
of this stroke for three-pool has already been shown; at single pool it
is even more risky, as from A white would have an almost certain hazard
with red at B. The same remarks apply to stroke 2.
For the opening stroke, again, it would be suicidal for red to drag
slowly up to white: an endeavour should be made to double the white into
one of the bottom pockets by a stab, for which object the white should
be driven against the top cushion, about four inches to the right or
left of the centre of it behind the spot, leaving the striker’s ball as
near the cushion as possible; but some players like to use a little
direct side while playing for the same double, leaving their own ball
under a side cushion.
Two strokes are shown in Diagram IX. illustrating the difference of play
demanded by single pool. In stroke 1, at ordinary pool the striker would
try to hole white in the top corner pocket; at single pool he should
play a smart stab, being careful not to follow on, driving the object
ball all round the table towards the bottom cushion. Stroke 2, known as
the Z shot, separates the balls well and should be played with some
right side, white being cut very fine, so as to leave it high up the
table. It would be an equally sound stroke to play for a double in the
right-hand bottom pocket; but the reader is again warned that these and
all other sample strokes should be tried over coolly in private, and not
be essayed for the first time in the heat of actual conflict.
BLACK POOL
Considering the popularity of this game, it is really surprising that no
regular and recognised code of laws exists. Some rules have been
published, it is true, but there are so many deviations from them,
almost every room having its own bye-laws, that the present state of
things is quite chaotic. Thus it is impossible to do more here than give
directions for the game as it is generally played; any one who is
playing in a strange room should inquire what the customs of the room
are.
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
]
The special feature of the game is the introduction of the black ball,
which may be described as public property, for every player who takes it
is paid by all the others the amount of the stake agreed upon, and all
penalties incurred when playing at it are also paid all round. It is
spotted on the centre spot; if that is occupied, on the pyramid spot; if
that is occupied, on the billiard spot; and if _all_ are occupied, it is
held up till one is vacated. Each player has an infinite number of
lives, and cannot be killed, however often he is put down. Each life
lost is paid for by a stake agreed upon. There is no subscribed pool.
Each game lasts half an hour; when time is up, directly after white has
played the marker announces the last round, white having always the last
stroke. Any number can play for whom balls can be found, but five
players make the most interesting game. At the end of a round a new
player can enter. His ball is spotted on the billiard spot, and he has
to stand fire till his turn to play comes. Similarly, any one can retire
by giving notice of his intention directly after he has played, but his
ball remains on the table till his turn comes again. In fact, the
spotting of the new-comer’s ball and the removal of a player’s ball may
be considered their first and last stroke respectively. Foul strokes are
regulated by the rules of ordinary pool, but after a miss the striker’s
ball is left where it stops and is not removed from the table. A life is
lost by playing with or at the wrong ball, or out of turn; if any one
plays at the black out of turn, he has to pay all round. The black ball
is never taken up, and no coloured ball can be taken up (except during
the first round) if it interferes with the striker. Baulk, as in all
winning hazard games, affords no protection. If the black ball is holed,
it must be spotted at once; if the striker play before it is spotted,
the stroke is foul.
The first round is played exactly as at ordinary pool, the balls being
given out in the same way—white set on the billiard spot, and black on
the centre spot. After white has played—that is, after the conclusion of
the first round—red can play on any other player’s ball.
By some rules he has to play on the nearest ball, by others the pool
order is observed.
If he takes a life, he receives a single stake from the owner of the
ball and must then play on the black.
By some rules he may take as many coloured lives as he likes before
playing on the black. This cuts both ways, as the striker may have a
better chance of getting position on black by taking several coloured
balls first, but, on the contrary, he is spoiling his chance of a
large break.
If the coloured ball is holed and the black also (_e.g._ by a cannon or
plant), the black does not count, but is spotted at once and is the next
ball to be played on.
Sometimes the black is allowed to count under these circumstances, and
can be played on again, after it has been spotted, the theory being
that, though black cannot be _played on_ twice running, it may, under
certain circumstances, be _taken_ twice running.
If black is holed, the striker must play on a coloured ball, the rules
of the room deciding which one, but in most rooms he is allowed his
choice.
If he takes this life too, he must again play on black, taking coloured
balls and blacks alternately till he breaks down, when the next player
proceeds.
If the striker plays on black, and holes both black and a coloured ball,
both are counted; but if a coloured ball goes down and black does not,
the coloured ball does not count, and the break is at an end. If the
striker holes the black and no other ball is left on the table, his ball
is spotted.
In a game of this kind, where all are playing against all, to play for
safety is mere waste of time; but when the next player has an easy
stroke waiting for him, with perhaps a good chance of black to follow,
the striker should sacrifice his own game (unless he has a reasonable
chance of scoring) to spoil the next player’s; _e.g._ if red has a
difficult stroke, and yellow, who follows him, has a good chance of
taking (say) brown, then red should knock brown away, as, if yellow
makes his first hazard and then gets black, red will have to pay with
the others. But as a general rule the striker must play for himself
alone, and play not merely for the first hazard but for the black
afterwards. At no time is caution so necessary as when the next striker
is in hand and there is a ball behind the baulk-line which is likely to
be holed. If the black is safe, no danger is to be feared; but if it is
anywhere in the middle of the table, some self-sacrifice may be
necessary, so that it behoves every player as his turn comes round to
think what kind of a stroke the next man is likely to have.
Again, it is clearly useless to cower under a cushion; no one is likely
to play at a ball so placed, and its owner will have left his ball in a
cramped position. Hence an open game should be played, with the black
always in view, and the reflection that he whose ball is holed will have
the advantage of playing from baulk. To push the matter further, a coup
is often judicious, if such a course does not seem likely to sell the
table; a coup is often better play than a haphazard shot, which may cost
one or more blacks in the end. As a new-comer’s ball is spotted before
white plays, it is no good entering if white has a promising break; the
last arrival may indeed help him to get one, and in this case it is
prudent to defer one’s entry for another round. The player who leaves
before the pool is over has to stand fire for a round and is responsible
for any blacks that may be taken in the course of it.
No hazards are so valuable at black pool as those into the middle
pockets, because of the position of the black. Practice consequently at
this class of strokes is sure to be profitable.
BLACK AND PINK POOL
For science, changing vicissitudes, and general amusement, black pool is
greatly improved by the addition of the pink ball. It is always spotted
on the pyramid spot; if that is occupied, on the billiard spot; and
failing that one, it goes to the centre spot, if unoccupied. If all are
occupied, it is held up till one of the spots is free. The rules of
black pool apply both to the black and pink balls. In some rooms,
however, pink can be played on originally (after the first round), but
under all rules blacks and pinks can be taken alternately, without the
intervention of a hazard off a coloured ball. A double stake is
generally payable on black and a single stake on pink, this being levied
on all the players. The game is opened as at black pool; neither black
nor pink can ever be taken up if they interfere with the striker, nor
any coloured ball, except in the first round. When a coloured ball has
been taken, the striker must play on either pink or black.
In some rooms this is optional, and he may play on a coloured ball if
he chooses.
If the striker holes a pink or a black, he cannot play on that ball till
he has taken another life, but not necessarily a coloured ball, as he
can go from black to pink and from pink to black as often as he makes a
hazard. If he plays the first stroke of a break on a coloured ball and
holes either black or pink by cannon or plant, the rule of black pool
which provides for such a case is generally observed.
In some rooms, if _pink_ goes down under these conditions, it is
allowed to count even if the coloured ball is not holed. If both are
holed, both count.
It is usually conceded that black cannot be _played upon_ twice running,
nor pink, but every room should have a hard-and-fast law to settle
whether either or both can be _taken_ twice running; otherwise the
following is a _crux_. No balls are left on the table except pink,
black, and the striker’s ball. Pink is over the pocket; the striker
plays on black and ‘plants’ pink. If pink may not be taken again, the
break is at an end, and the coloured ball must be spotted; otherwise he
may play on pink and black alternately as long as he can make a hazard.
The best break I ever heard of at this game was one coloured ball,
followed by ten pinks and ten blacks, a pretty series of twenty-one
hazards. A good way of collecting the stakes is to mark off with chalk
on the top of the cushion a compartment for each player; he can then lay
down his lives, on the _wooden_ surface opposite his compartment, and
the striker can readily collect the money when his break is over. This
saves a great deal of trouble in collection. No special hints are needed
for this game, as it is only a modification of black pool, but care is
necessary to avoid leaving an easy hazard for the next player if black
or pink is over a pocket. Especially is this necessary if the rule is
that pink may be played on originally.
Another useful bye-law is that the striker may be required, before he
plays, to declare on which ball he is playing; if he declares to play on
black, misses it, and hits pink, then, though legally entitled to hit
pink, he must pay the full penalty for missing black. Such a law as this
may save many disputes.
SNOOKER
Snooker—or, to give it its full title, Snooker’s Pool—is a hybrid game,
half pool and half pyramids. Any reasonable number of players, say five
or six, may take part; but it is best to play a single-handed game, or
for two to play against two. As is the case with black pool, there are
no accepted rules, the published code being of little use, so many are
the deviations from it. The general method of play is here laid down, so
that those who are unfamiliar with the game may make its acquaintance.
The pyramid balls are set up in the usual way, and the striker always
uses the white ball. The black ball is set on the billiard spot, the
pink on the centre spot. Blue is placed just below the apex-ball of the
pyramid, brown on the centre spot of the =Ｄ=, with yellow and green on
the right and left corner spots.
If pink and black are not introduced, blue is put on the billiard
spot, brown on the centre spot, green at the apex of the triangle, and
yellow on the centre spot of the =Ｄ=. The positions of pink and black
are sometimes reversed.
A red ball counts one, yellow two, green three, brown four, blue five,
pink six, and black seven. The score, if two persons are playing or
sides are formed, may be marked on the board as at billiards.
A red ball must be taken before a coloured ball can be played at; if the
striker, playing on a red, holes it, and takes a coloured ball also, the
latter does not count and is spotted. If, playing on red, he fails to
hole it, but holes a coloured ball, the value of the latter is scored to
the other side.
In each of these cases the striker is allowed in some rooms to score
the coloured ball; the rule given is the generally accepted one.
After taking a red, the striker must play on one of the coloured balls.
If he holes one of them, any other balls that go down by the same stroke
count to him. All coloured balls which are holed must be spotted
immediately; if the striker plays before all are spotted, the stroke is
foul. No red ball is ever put up. The rules for foul strokes are the
same as those of ordinary pool, and penalties are incurred in the same
way, but the amount of the penalty is the value of the ball played
at—_i.e._ to miss a red counts one, to miss the yellow two, and so
forth. If the striker, playing at red, hits a coloured ball, the penalty
is the value of the ball struck.
The rule is not always as severe as this. In many rooms, to miss red
involves a penalty of one, to miss yellow of two, and so on,
regardless of the value of any ball that may be struck afterwards.