2 Points to Win? (1st player, alt. break)

[Mr. Dogg]

“When the alternate-break format is used, the first player to break must have accrued at least two more points, upon reaching match point, than his opponent to win the match. If the requirement isn’t met, the match continues until the first player is two points ahead of his opponent, or until the second player is one point ahead of his opponent. A draw may be declared if blah blah blah…”

Wouldn’t that look good in the next BCA Official Book? Whatcha think?

If this has been talked about before, a link to it would be fine.

 

[hang-the-9]

“When the alternate-break format is used, the first player to break must have accrued at least two more points, upon reaching match point, than his opponent to win the match. If the requirement isn’t met, the match continues until the first player is two points ahead of his opponent, or until the second player is one point ahead of his opponent. A draw may be declared if blah blah blah…”

Wouldn’t that look good in the next BCA Official Book? Whatcha think?

If this has been talked about before, a link to it would be fine.

Why are people making new accounts to talk about alternate break all of a sudden LOL

Sure as an optional rule like the 3 point break rule. They do have must win by 2 rules in some events, even with winner break rules. Every one I have seen also puts a limit to that so matches don't end up like baseball games., I don't think it should be in any rules since there is no rules set to how long a match goes to, or many other details that tournaments use. Jump cues for example, that is left up to the turnament director, as in length of the races, how many entries are allowed, skill level of players limit or not, table size, etc...

 

[Mr. Dogg]

lol! I don't know! I didn't know they were! I've been wondering about this (the 2 point thing) for a long time! Maybe the sudden public interest is due to a rash of YouTube videos of close matches popping up in our recommendations.

edit:
The match could be declared a draw, at any time, by the tournament director, the referee, or by agreement of the players.

 

[Cron]

Why won't people just realize that the lag is actually part of pool, and a very significant part! Just like breaking from behind the headstring or spotting on (or near) the spot? As said at least a thousand times, if you don't like alternate break, lag better... that's the rule.

 

[hang-the-9]

lol! I don't know! I didn't know they were! I've been wondering about this a long time! Maybe the sudden public interest is due to a rash of YouTube videos of close matches popping up in our recommendations.

edit:
The match could be declared a draw, at any time, by the tournament director, the referee, or by agreement of the players.

How can you possibly have a draw? Who advanced through the bracket? And "at any time"? Nope, bad idea. You going to allow NASCAR drivers stop going around if they get sick of it after some number of laps? It's not hockey where you count things by points at the end of the season, you keep going till there is one guy left at the end.

Every win by 2 event gives them maybe 2-3 extra racks to play, so if it's a race to 9 win by 2, if the score is 11-11 or something, then the winner is the guy that gets to 12.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Wouldn’t that look good in the next BCA Official Book? ...

No. In general the format of the tournament (who breaks, how many games win, round-robin/double-/single- elimination, details of the break requirements, etc., etc.) is left up to the tournament organizer.

In particular, "win by two no matter how long" is a really, really bad idea for tournaments. The first match that goes 127-125 will demonstrate this clearly.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Why won't people just realize that the lag is actually part of pool, and a very significant part! Just like breaking from behind the headstring or spotting on (or near) the spot? As said at least a thousand times, if you don't like alternate break, lag better... that's the rule.

The same could be said about "if you don't like winner breaks", then maybe YOU should practice more so that YOU could stay at the table instead of sitting on the chair watching.

 

[Mr. Dogg]

There are stalemate rules on the books.

 

[hang-the-9]

There are stalemate rules on the books.

Sure in 8 ball, in a single game. Never seen one for a match.

 

[Mr. Dogg]

Sure in 8 ball, in a single game. Never seen one for a match.

Yeah, you're right. There are stalemate rules in other games, too, but you're right that a drawn game and a drawn match are two different things. I believe that, in this scenario, the addition of a drawn match rule would be appropriate.

From Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book - 2017/2018, page 36:
World Standardized Rules of Pocket Billiards > General Rules > 1.12

"1.12 Stalemate
If the referee observes that no progress is being made towards a conclusion, he will announce his decision, and each player will have three more turns at the table. Then, if the referee determines that there is still no progress, he will declare a stalemate. If both players agree, they may accept the stalemate without taking their three additional turns. The procedure for a stalemate is specified under the rules for each game."

 

[Mr. Dogg]

"Win by two no matter how long" is what I had in mind when I wrote "A draw may be declared..."

I was thinking the tournament director could declare a draw, or the referee, or by agreement of the players at any time.

 

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by Cron View Post
Why won't people just realize that the lag is actually part of pool, and a very significant part! Just like breaking from behind the headstring or spotting on (or near) the spot? As said at least a thousand times, if you don't like alternate break, lag better... that's the rule.

Winning the lag does not eliminate alternate break, it just gives you first break, which is what you probably meant.

The same could be said about "if you don't like winner breaks", then maybe YOU should practice more so that YOU could stay at the table instead of sitting on the chair watching.

I think a fair rule would be "winner breaks" and each player is guaranteed to get to the table at least once. The only time this rule would take effect is if the lag winner breaks and runs the entire match, in that event, the opponent still gets one opportunity, after the first player misses, to break and surpass the original breaker's run. If he does, he wins the set.

Otherwise, usual "winner breaks" rules apply, and talent wins.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Winning the lag does not eliminate alternate break, it just gives you first break, which is what you probably meant.



I think a fair rule would be "winner breaks" and each player is guaranteed to get to the table at least once. The only time this rule would take effect is if the lag winner breaks and runs the entire match, in that event, the opponent still gets one opportunity, after the first player misses, to break and surpass the original breaker's run. If he does, he wins the set.

Otherwise, usual "winner breaks" rules apply, and talent wins.

I agree 100%.

Both players should be able to go to the table at least once.

If my opponent runs 9 racks for the race from the lag and I'm still sitting when he has hit the winning ball, I should get a crack at the table. If I don't run 9 racks to tie it up or surpass it, I lose.

Simple as that.

 

[hang-the-9]

"Win by two no matter how long" is what I had in mind when I wrote "A draw may be declared..."

I was thinking the tournament director could declare a draw, or the referee, or by agreement of the players at any time.

Ok, so let's say there is a match that ends without a winner after a bunch of games, you already held up the tournament brackets from advancing waiting for them to get to two ahead. Then what do you do with the bracket and those two players in the tied match? Toss a coin to see who advances? Or play another set holding up the rest of the tournament even more, and what if that set also does not reach the win by 2 rule? Duel to the death after the second set with knives? None of those are very good options, not even close to simply saying "win by 2, if you get to this many racks before anyone is 2 ahead then next person to win a game wins the set". Those win by 2 rules are used in some events now, without being in the standard rule book.

You can't have a tie in a match unless you are doing one on one gambling or something and the players decide to pause the match and start it later or just quit and try something else.

 

[Mr. Dogg]

Why won't people just realize that the lag is actually part of pool, and a very significant part! Just like breaking from behind the headstring or spotting on (or near) the spot? As said at least a thousand times, if you don't like alternate break, lag better... that's the rule.

I did think about that, and I have two ways of thinking about it:

1. The lag does indeed require good speed control, but most other shots do, too, plus - speed control isn't the only skill needed to win. The lag, as a shot, is, imo, not significant enough to declare a champ.

2. Yeah, number 1 above, but since the match is so close anyway...

Number 2 is what we've got. Good enough, but I would prefer eliminating the advantage of that one good shot.

 

[Mr. Dogg]

Then what do you do with the bracket and those two players in the tied match? Toss a coin to see who advances?

Good point. Maybe that's why it is the way it is. I have seen a match where, for some reason (stalemate, not 2 points - I don't remember) the match was decided by some kind of weird "shootout" thing. It had something to do with the ref setting up various shots, and the first to miss loses. That's cumbersome.

How much longer would an extra game or two take? How much variance is there in lengths of other games, anyway?

I still like my idea, but it needs work.
Hmmm.... SECOND player break on hill/hill? … Nah. That just reverses the advantage. … *sigh* Oh well, I guess that lag shot at the start will just have to remain the decider.

 

[markjames]

Check out darren appleton’s
“Soccer-style” tie breakers they used at steinway a few years ago.
5 different spot shots

 

[Mr. Dogg]

Check out darren appleton’s
“Soccer-style” tie breakers they used at steinway a few years ago.
5 different spot shots

I was thinking of that earlier in this thread, but I couldn't remember who or where or the details. I'd like to post a link here, but I can't find it.

 

[sjm]

Going back to about 2000 or so, the Camel Tour tried alternate break with a twist. There would be a lag prior to the double hill rack to determine who broke it. Not a bad idea, but it was abandoned.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Why won't people just realize that the lag is actually part of pool, and a very significant part! Just like breaking from behind the headstring or spotting on (or near) the spot? As said at least a thousand times, if you don't like alternate break, lag better... that's the rule.

This:: there have been 14.1 games where the loser of the lag never even got a shot.