Let us consider the illogical values of the points now scored for a cannon and a pocket-shot respectively. It is obvious that the most difficult game is that in which position for three balls is played for, instead of two balls only, or one ball only. In the ordinary losing hazard or winning hazard cannon position, for one ball only has to be gauged. Yet the cannon—the riskiest and most sporting billiards—counts less than the obviously easier red loser or winner. At present, if the player flukes off the red (either "winner" or "loser") he gains three and a probable position, but only scores two on losing the white and loses the good chance for a break. The result of this has tended to discourage playing with the white ball at all. Now, I have always understood that billiards was a game played with three balls; indeed, this is confirmed by many works of reference. A study of the latest development of the game, however, reveals the fact that the third ball—the object white—is regarded as a positive intruder, sometimes to the point of "downing" it.
The comparative simplicity of the losing hazard game was recognised years ago by the late John Lloyd, a good player of the "second class." "Let the others put 'em in; I run through 'em," he would say, meaning, of course, that he realised (though other players at that time did not) that by leaving himself in hand all he need do was to calculate for the position of one ball. Perhaps the position is rather more appreciated by present-day professionals. The losing hazard specialist practically reduces the game to the level of bagatelle; and one may compare him with a first-class all round player about as easily as Mr. Dick, fixing his kite may be compared with the inverted flights and evolutions of Mr. B. C. Hucks. This up-and-down game may be an inevitable by-product of our age; but that is no reason why it should be encouraged, much less endorsed.
I do not wish to imply that a permanently reliable billiard code will ever be achieved. Finality in such matters, as indeed in most matters, degenerates into stagnation, and it is just as well to make up our minds that it will never be attained in matters pertaining to the green cloth. But in these days it would appear that the antiquity of an institution is an insufficient reason in itself for its preservation.
At all events, that is what the modern substitute for politicians are always telling us. Take the safety miss, for instance. A step in the right direction would be the abolition of the gain to one player by the safety misses and coups of the other. It would be much better, I think, if the player giving a miss or a coup lost points himself, instead of points being added to his adversary's score. I would remind the readers of this article that both the French and the American games provide that no score is taken for a miss. Why should the English game differ? Moreover, it should not be forgotten that an alteration such as I have suggested would bring billiards more into line with our hazard games—games like pyramids and pool. It is obvious that such a change would at least possess the merit of consistency. At the present time it is not impossible for a game to be won by a man who does not actually score at all.
If the safety miss is a legitimate stroke in billiards, it seems rather ridiculous that in a neck-and-neck finish one player cannot play a legitimate stroke without giving his opponent the game. This consideration must, I think, appeal to most of us who have been there—and who has not?
One of these days, I hope, this irritating and illogical provision will be set right by common consent, together with innumerable other anomalies now found huddled together for mutual warmth and support, dependent for their continued existence upon the truly British acceptance of crusty tradition, and known generally as the Rules of Billiards. The spirit of reform—not anarchy—is in the air.
"Play the game." Why, of course; but while we are at it, surely it is not sacrilegious to inquire whether the game could be made better worth playing.