284.—"I beg to enclose 1s. 6d. as a renewal of my subscription to The Billiard Monthly, which is invaluable. I would not be without it at any price. The help I have derived from it is incalculable. I had played billiards for twenty years before I got the first copy of your paper. I find I knew nothing really about the game. Now I am the sixth best player in my club, and have frequently played the best players level and beaten them. I venture to make a suggestion to you which I hope you will reply to in your 'Questions and Answers.' Would it not be a good idea to have another spot on the table just 2 feet up from baulk in order that we may tell exactly when the red ball is in Gray's position for plain half-ball loser into middle pocket? I consider this spot would be of great help. I should like your opinion on the matter."
Many thanks for your kind letter. From the practice point of view your suggestion as in an additional spot is quite sound, but spots out of baulk are only used in connection with the spotting of the balls under the rules and there would be no occasion to spot a ball at the point that you suggest.
On one's own table a slight dot with tailor's chalk is sufficient for standard positionings, but even then we are not sure that it is not better to practice the in-offs from "there or thereabouts;" rather than from an absolutely fixed point, as it is so seldom that the red ball returns to that identical spot. The thing to do before each successive stroke is to glance through the object ball from the intended point of contact towards the cushion near the billiard spot and to correct the identical contact, whether thick or fine, in such a way that the object ball will strike the top cushion a little wide of the billiard spot on the same side of the table as that on which it is at rest before the stroke is made.
285.—"In the course of a game of snooker pool one of the players pocketed a red with his first stroke and then played on the blue with his second. He succeeded in pocketing the blue, but cannoned on to a red and pocketed the red also. The marker penalized him five less one for the red he first holed. The player, on referring to the rules which we have framed in the room, contended that he should also receive credit for the value of the red ball he holed with his second stroke and that his net penalty should be three. The outcome of this was that a bet was made that, according to Rule 9 (I enclose the actual rules which were hung up) the marker was wrong in penalizing him 5 less 1 = 4. The taker of the bet contends that this rule in no way applies to the stroke in question. Will you be kind enough to give us your opinion on the matter and on the bet made?"
Rule 9 on the card that you send runs as follows:—"If a striker shall pocket a ball and then cannon on to one or more coloured balls and pocket them he shall receive the value of the ball he originally played at and shall pay the value of the highest coloured ball he may have pocketed in the same stroke." This rule (which might or might not be taken as applying also to the converse stroke as instanced by you) is now replaced by Rule 7 of the Billiards Control Club, which states clearly that "If a red and coloured ball or balls are pocketed in the same stroke, the striker shall forfeit the value of the highest coloured ball so pocketed."
Rule 19 on your card and Rule 16 of the Billiards Control Club alike state that no score can be allowed if a foul stroke is made.
Consequently the marker was right in not allowing for the second red, but as Rule 9 on your card appears to us to be insufficiently drafted, we think that any bet made with regard to it should be declared off.
286.—"Will you be so good as to enlighten me on the following point?:—If a player opens a game with the customary miss, can his opponent follow with another?"
Rule No. 9 of the B.C.C. on 'Limitation of Misses' has been causing some confusion out here. One club holds that the counter miss is quite in order.
Another club, of which the amateur champion of Burma is an active member, holds a contrary view. I enclose the amateur champion's reply to me, which indicates that his club's view is not based on any interpretation of the B.C.C.'s rules, but on his own personal experience, gained during his match with George Gray during the latter's sojourn here. In the last paragraph of his letter he admits that the position he has taken up is not quite in agreement with the opening sentence of Rule 9. He himself seems to be in doubt, and suggests that the point be elucidated by you, and hence this request. My view, however, is that the second player is entitled to respond with a counter miss. It would be, however, to his advantage—if a strong player—to run the coup and thus compel the first player to open out the game in virtue of the opening sentence of Rule 9. which reads:—' A player may not make two misses in successive innings.'
The letter of Mr. E. O. Millar ran as follows:—'When Mr. George Gray came to Rangoon with his father, no copy of the rules under the Billiards Control Club, under which he played, was available in any of the shops. As I was not aware of any new departure to be observed, I made it a point to ask what were in particular to be noted in the matter of (i.) limitation of misses; (ii.) foul strokes; (iii.) potting the red. His father then said to me, in regard to (i.) somewhat as follows:—This is what we have observed in all the big matches played in Europe. When a game is to be started, suppose my son gives you a miss, either out of, or within, baulk. You cannot respond by returning a miss, which would be a foul stroke, but you can fire your ball into a pocket. By your so doing my son is compelled to play on the red in his second innings, otherwise the balls are spotted.
This action was actually carried into effect when playing Stewart and myself, and I can only say that Gray was the authority who should doubtless know what was, and was not, in accordance with the rules.
I have now read Rule 9 bearing on which are Rules 17 (i) and 18.
I think the converse meaning of the second sentence of Rule 9 is what Gray employed as constituting a foul stroke, and this seems to lend conviction to the view by the action of Gray in running a coup or firing a ball into a pocket, when a miss was given. I quite admit that the first sentence of Rule 9 does not make the position of Gray quite clear. It would not be inappropriate if we could ask The Billiard Monthly to elucidate the doubt.' "There is really no doubt whatever as to this matter, and we feel convinced that Mr. Millar must have misunderstood what Mr. H. Gray said. We think that the latter, in instancing the coup as a reply to the opening miss, was surely referring to a point in tactics and not to the rule at all. Rule No. 9 runs as follows:—"A player may not make two misses in successive innings, unless he or the opponent scores after the first miss, or a double baulk occurs. Any miss given when the striker is in hand and there is no object ball out of baulk does not count as one of the two misses which constitute a foul stroke." Turning now to Rule 4 (j) we read:—"A miss is a stroke where the striker's ball fails to touch either of the other balls," and the next section (k) says: "A foul stroke is one made in contravention or the rules of the game. Foul strokes are defined by Rule 17."
Turning next to Rule 17 (i) we read that foul strokes are made by (amongst other things) giving two misses in contravention of Rule 9. It is thus perfectly clear that to run a coup is to give a miss, and that the particular form that the miss takes does not affect the matter. Therefore, if George Gray or his opponent had not been entitled to reply to the opening miss with another miss, the running of the coup would have been equally foul, and the balls would have had to be spotted for the non-striker. The use of the coup, however, as a piece of tactics is obvious, especially when the regular opening miss back into baulk has been given in preference to the miss under the cushion, although in either case it is frequently good play.