ONE pocket question

[cueball1950]

Player A and player B agree to play some 1 pocket. Player A is spotting player B the breaks....Player B for the 1st 4 games breaks from the same side of the table so as to keep shooting the same pocket. Player A objects and tells player B that he has to switch to alternate sides. Player B objects and says that with the spot he can do what ever he wants to. Does anybody know the "legal" ruling concerning this? I watched this unfold at the open a few years ago and when player B disagrees and wants to continue breaking from the same side, player A breaks down his cue and quits playing....So i was just wondering if there is indeed a legal ruling about this. My train of thought is that since player B is being spotted the break he should be able to break from either side he wants to...................mike

 

[Fast Lenny]

You can break from whatever side you choose when your the one who has the break and have your choice of pocket,if someone gave me a hard time about it then i would just quit and tell them they are a nit.

 

[AZE]

First, player A isn't that bright for not stating that player B must alternate pockets.
Second, player B breaking to the same side is generally a much bigger spot (then alternate pockets).

So answer - if they didn't clarify before the match started then player B isn't wrong. At the same rate I don't think Player A is a nit for quitting, sometimes it's just too much of a spot.

 

[gulfportdoc]

There is no "rule" in this situation. The player giving the weight must tell his opponent prior to the match that he wants him to alternate breaking sides. If there's a disagreement, the weight-giver might decide to back out.

Of course in a private match, it's important to cover in advance all equivocal rules, such as "snooze you lose", cue ball fouls only, and the like.

Doc

 

[1pocket]

This is something we adressed in the OnePocket.org Official Rules, but because it gets into the nuance of the handicap, it would have to be something for the two players to discuss. In our rules we have it listed as a "house rule" advisory, not an actual rule:

In a handicap situation when one player or team is awarded the break in every game, unless otherwise agreed, they should break towards alternate pockets on alternate breaks.

 

[Gerry]

When gambling EVERYTHING is up for negotiations! If someone is spotted the break with no stipulation of alternating, then they can break from wherever they wish and the guy trying to tell him to alternate is most likely losing and pulling a move IMO!....because if he was winning he would just keep his mouth shut and win.....right?

Gerry

 

[pdcue]

When gambling EVERYTHING is up for negotiations! If someone is spotted the break with no stipulation of alternating, then they can break from wherever they wish and the guy trying to tell him to alternate is most likely losing and pulling a move IMO!....because if he was winning he would just keep his mouth shut and win.....right?

Gerry

Child care - where I grew up playing one pocket,
even the newbies understood the advantage of
one side over the other. Anyone being spotted the break
knew the DEFAULT was alternate sides unless otherwise specified.
As you say, you can always negotiate, but you can't assume the
right to change unless stated.

Anyone who would have argued they had the 'right' to break
for the same pocket would never have gotten played again.
Simple, self regulating idea.

Dale

 

[alphadog]

rep to you

First, player A isn't that bright for not stating that player B must alternate pockets.
Second, player B breaking to the same side is generally a much bigger spot (then alternate pockets).

So answer - if they didn't clarify before the match started then player B isn't wrong. At the same rate I don't think Player A is a nit for quitting, sometimes it's just too much of a spot.

Gave some rep for candid accurate answers nice to read replys that don't belittle others -antagonize

 

[Russ Chewning]

Child care - where I grew up playing one pocket,

Right. "Where you grew up." And if you grew up in Kentucky, and someone asked if you wanted to play some pool, they might have been talking about banks. Just because that's how you played a long time ago, doesn't mean it's inherently right, or that the player was doing anything wrong.

Rules or "norms" get imported from other areas, and that's just the way it is. It could be that the guy grew up in a room that never had a lot of action, never had a road players come through regularly, and did not learn the "norms". In that case, the player being spotted has every right to insist that he can break wherever he wants. For all we know, the other player might have been a much better player.

Anyone who would have argued they had the 'right' to break
for the same pocket would never have gotten played again.
Simple, self regulating idea.

Dale

IMHO, you would be the nit. If I play a guy 2 balls better than me, and he offers me the breaks to get me to the table, and does not specifiy alternating holes, then I damn well am gonna shoot wherever the hell I want to.

And again, In my HUMBLE opinion, Player A has ABSOLUTELY no leg to stand on here. If he wanted to quit, he should have quit after the first game when his opponent tried to break towards the same pocket again. If he felt that strongly about "doing it the right way", then he would have quit LONG before he lost 4 games.

Any high and mighty speech by him saying how Player B was not playing the spot correctly, was simply him trying to cover up the fact he gave up too much weight and was getting clobbered.

I'd willingly bet whatever you want, that if he was four games ahead, he wouldn't be arguing about the guy breaking towards the same pocket.

Russ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Player A and player B agree to play some 1 pocket. Player A is spotting player B the breaks....Player B for the 1st 4 games breaks from the same side of the table so as to keep shooting the same pocket. Player A objects and tells player B that he has to switch to alternate sides. Player B objects and says that with the spot he can do what ever he wants to. Does anybody know the "legal" ruling concerning this? I watched this unfold at the open a few years ago and when player B disagrees and wants to continue breaking from the same side, player A breaks down his cue and quits playing....So i was just wondering if there is indeed a legal ruling about this. My train of thought is that since player B is being spotted the break he should be able to break from either side he wants to...................mike

After losing 4 games? He's trying to change the spot or quit.

pj
chgo

 

[Cory in DC]

A few weeks ago playing even up, I had an opponent insist that I alternate my pocket. I guess I was breaking too good from my preferred side.

FWIW, if someone gave me the breaks doesn't specify otherwise, I'm breaking from whatever side I want all night long.

Cory

 

[pdcue]

Right. "Where you grew up." And if you grew up in Kentucky, and someone asked if you wanted to play some pool, they might have been talking about banks. Just because that's how you played a long time ago, doesn't mean it's inherently right, or that the player was doing anything wrong.

Rules or "norms" get imported from other areas, and that's just the way it is. It could be that the guy grew up in a room that never had a lot of action, never had a road players come through regularly, and did not learn the "norms". In that case, the player being spotted has every right to insist that he can break wherever he wants. For all we know, the other player might have been a much better player.






IMHO, you would be the nit. If I play a guy 2 balls better than me, and he offers me the breaks to get me to the table, and does not specifiy alternating holes, then I damn well am gonna shoot wherever the hell I want to.

And again, In my HUMBLE opinion, Player A has ABSOLUTELY no leg to stand on here. If he wanted to quit, he should have quit after the first game when his opponent tried to break towards the same pocket again. If he felt that strongly about "doing it the right way", then he would have quit LONG before he lost 4 games.

Any high and mighty speech by him saying how Player B was not playing the spot correctly, was simply him trying to cover up the fact he gave up too much weight and was getting clobbered.

I'd willingly bet whatever you want, that if he was four games ahead, he wouldn't be arguing about the guy breaking towards the same pocket.

Russ

Well, like I didn't say - my position has absolutely
nothing to do with the score, or even this specific match.

But hey, thanks for pointing out that I'm a nit.
Here I always thougjt I was just a guy who held the same
ideas as EVERY high dollar gambler I ever saw match up.

You were expected to have integrety, even when you gambled,
even when you lost. Otherwise you were invited not to play
anymore.

Fatboy - would you care to comment?

Dale

 

[gesan]

First, player A isn't that bright for not stating that player B must alternate pockets.
Second, player B breaking to the same side is generally a much bigger spot (then alternate pockets).

So answer - if they didn't clarify before the match started then player B isn't wrong. At the same rate I don't think Player A is a nit for quitting, sometimes it's just too much of a spot.

You have nailed it - across the board - well said

 

[deadwhak]

Child care - where I grew up playing one pocket,
even the newbies understood the advantage of
one side over the other. Anyone being spotted the break
knew the DEFAULT was alternate sides unless otherwise specified.
As you say, you can always negotiate, but you can't assume the
right to change unless stated.

Anyone who would have argued they had the 'right' to break
for the same pocket would never have gotten played again.
Simple, self regulating idea.

Dale

the "default" was alternate pocket?..never heard that before...the "default" should be break wherever you choose from unless specifed before you start playing you must alternate pockets!!!

 

[cueball1950]

After losing 4 games? He's trying to change the spot or quit.

pj
chgo

Yes. Player A quit because his opponent refused to alternate sides. I must also add that player A is a very good 1 pocket player...........mike

 

[Gerry]

Child care - where I grew up playing one pocket,
even the newbies understood the advantage of
one side over the other. Anyone being spotted the break
knew the DEFAULT was alternate sides unless otherwise specified.
As you say, you can always negotiate, but you can't assume the
right to change unless stated.

Anyone who would have argued they had the 'right' to break
for the same pocket would never have gotten played again.
Simple, self regulating idea.

Dale

Child care?....me? you have got to be kidding. Where I grew up even the "newbys" understood you cover all the bases BEFORE you put it on the light no matter if you played the guy before or not. Assuming anything was your loss. When you get spotted the break do you have to "ask" the guy who spotted you where you are aloud to break from? please! gimme a break!

yes, we all know about the percieved advantage of "most" tables on the 1P break, but to know that, and NOT stipulate before starting is sleeping a BIG advantage.....local customs or not!

do you guys also call EVERY rail?, touched side of the pocket?, one cue butt distance off the rail if its frozen?

 

[pdcue]

Child care?....me? you have got to be kidding. Where I grew up even the "newbys" understood you cover all the bases BEFORE you put it on the light no matter if you played the guy before or not. Assuming anything was your loss. When you get spotted the break do you have to "ask" the guy who spotted you where you are aloud to break from? please! gimme a break!

yes, we all know about the percieved advantage of "most" tables on the 1P break, but to know that, and NOT stipulate before starting is sleeping a BIG advantage.....local customs or not!

do you guys also call EVERY rail?, touched side of the pocket?, one cue butt distance off the rail if its frozen?

Since you asked, everyone played exactly the same rules
as were used in the World Championship, thank you very much.
Except for the 'CB fouls only', which I still don't like, but accept with
objection.

Not that it should matter in the least - and perhaps I shojuld have
started off with this info - this was in no way some kind of backwater
"local custom". There were TWO of the best One Pocket players in the
country who played in the room where I learned the game.
Unfortunately I didn't get to see them nearly as much as I would
have liked, but all the players took their "cue" from them.

Silly me, I thought a guy who played Eddie Taylor even, might just
know how to play the game.

Dale

 

[AZE]

Since you asked, everyone played exactly the same rules
as were used in the World Championship, thank you very much.
Except for the 'CB fouls only', which I still don't like, but accept with
objection.

Not that it should matter in the least - and perhaps I shojuld have
started off with this info - this was in no way some kind of backwater
"local custom". There were TWO of the best One Pocket players in the
country who played in the room where I learned the game.
Unfortunately I didn't get to see them nearly as much as I would
have liked, but all the players took their "cue" from them.

Silly me, I thought a guy who played Eddie Taylor even, might just
know how to play the game.

Dale

I'd agree that amongst genuine one pocket players that alternate pockets when you're getting spotted the breaks is a default.
With that said, I still think a smart gambler should always go over the basics before any game that means anything.

The convo should go something like this;
A: "C'mon, you got action, I'll take the breaks"
B: "Alright, let me get my cue.. Hey, alternate pockets, right?"
A: "... duh! What kind of question is that? Just get your stick old man!"

 

[Poolplaya9]

If we are alternating breaks and playing normally, I can break from whichever side I choose. If he is spotting me the breaks, he is doing so to give up the advantage that he would have by breaking every other game, and giving up the advantage he would have by being being able to choose his pocket every other game.

If I have to alternate breaking from each side of the table, something I would not have to do in a regular game, then I am in effect giving him a spot too, albeit a smaller spot to help offset his larger one. Any weight, spots or concessions must be agreed to in advance IMO. That being said, I am not a big one pocket gambler and cannot verify what might be customary, only what is common sense.

But the biggest tell here, as Patrick Johnson pointed out, is that if he truly believed that giving up the breaks means you have to alternate sides you are breaking from, he would have called you on it at the beginning of the 2nd game, not the 5th. Sounds to me like he decided he didn't like the game anymore and wanted to adjust.

 

[Thunderball]

Being new to one hole and having no shortage of ignance,I gotta ask:

How does alternating sides offset the break spot (which i do agree is a large spot)???

My imagination says left to right to left is no different then left left left ect....
I'm obviously missing something.