278.—"In 'stringing' for lead and choice of ball should the ball come to rest near the baulk line or the bottom cushion?"
The play is from the baulk line, but the goal is the bottom cushion.
279.—"Is there some simple calculation for forecasting the length of an American tournament. For instance, suppose that there are eight players, and each has to meet the other on successive nights. How many nights would the tournament require?"
Twenty-eight. You simply multiply eight by seven and halve the result. In this connection a very simple form of recording the results has lately been brought to our notice.
For the eight players you would mark sixty-four squares, and blank out those from top left to bottom right corner. Now write names of contestants against both the horizontal and the vertical lines of squares, and at the conclusion of a heat insert "Won" in the square opposite the winner's, name and below the loser's., and "Lost" opposite the loser's name and below the winner's., together with the figures., if not elsewhere recorded.
280.—"In a recent article on billiards I read that red ball play is more difficult than top of the table play, and also that successful combination of the two styles of play in the same player is rare. Personally, I should have thought that the reverse conclusion would have been arrived at with regard to the first point, and I am also inclined to doubt the latter statement. What is your opinion?"
We think the writer must have been dealing with the question of specialization and not with the ordinary circumstances of the game. A man who is avowedly a red ball or close game specialist would not, perhaps, be likely to play both games as well as either could be played by a separate specialist.
With regard, however, to the statement that red ball play is more difficult than top of the table play, we shall feel inclined to believe this when we hear of a player making a thousand points under present rules without going to baulk.
281.—"In a recent game at the Leeds Victoria Club, the balls took up a curious position after a player had made his stroke. The player caused the cue ball to jump, and both balls then ran and lodged at the corner pocket, the cue ball behind and over the other. The question, which caused a deal of argument, is, what was to be done. Some said that, as the balls were touching, they ought to be spotted. Others said the cue ball, which was on top, ought to be ruled off the table. What ought to be done?"
Under Rule 4 (B.C.C, section D.), "a ball is forced off the table which comes to rest otherwise than on the bed of the table or in a pocket," and under Rule 18, "if, after contact with another ball striker's or any other ball is forced off the table, the nonstriker shall add two points to his score." Clearly, therefore, the stroke is foul and must pay the penalty, and the balls should be spotted for the opponent. The question of the balls touching in favour of the striker cannot, in our opinion, arise in connection with a foul stroke, otherwise it would apply also to placing with a wrong ball and in other conceivable circumstances. By the way, we cannot quite understand the make of pocket that permits the balls to behave as they appear to have done in the present instance. The leathered portion of the pocket must have been considerably nearer to the fall of the slate than usual.
282.—"I was in the course of making a break when my opponent remarked that I was playing with the wrong ball, and had been doing so from the start. The referee then required me to stop. But under the rule that 'a foul stroke must be claimed before the next stroke is made,' had not my error been condoned?"
The rule (No. 17) that you have quoted only refers to foul strokes that are past and done with. Yours was a continuing foul stroke and could, therefore, be claimed at any part of your break, unless you yourself discovered your error and made a stroke with the right ball. You are, of course, entitled to score all that you make until the fact that you have been playing with the wrong ball is noted.
283.—"I was acting as marker in a tie. The man in play, in the middle of a break, played a push stroke. His opponent, who saw that the stroke was a push stroke, did not claim a foul. I called the score and the break was continued. My contention is that the marker has no authority nor power to question a stroke or to interfere with the continuance of the break unless the opponent claims a foul. It was argued that it was the referee's duty to intimate a foul on his own initiative, and to stop the man in play from continuing his break, on the ground that the referee is responsible for the proper conduct of the game, and must of his own initiative intervene should he observe any breach of the rules. As the matter led to considerable discussion after the conclusion of the tie, I should be much obliged by your letting me have an authoritative ruling on the marker's duty."
We are afraid that, under Rule 20, you are wrong, although your decision, as referee, must stand under the same rule. The opponent probably refrained from claiming the foul as a matter of courtesy, but the striker should have known that it was foul and resumed his seat, leaving you to spot the balls. When the foul is obvious and the player does not at once desist, the referee, as the one impartial man in the room, "must of his own initiative intervene" in what is clearly a "breach of the rules." Otherwise why should he even intervene after the striker has made two successive winning hazards off the spot, or played with the wrong ball, or in other breaches of the rules. This is our own opinion, but if you would prefer that the point should be put before the Billiards Control Club we shall be pleased to do this.