You can get Texas Express rules from
http://www.texasexpress.com
Using these rules, if the CB hits onle the same rail to which the OB is frozen (and the OB doesn't hit another rail), it's a foul since their rule says the CB must hit another rail. However, according to BCA rules, it isn't a foul. Here's the BCA rule:
Once again, pool shoots itself in the foot by not having a single, clearly defined set of rules. Most people I know use the BCA definition of this rule (instance presented by FOXYCOXY is not a foul), but technically, if the Texas Express rules are being followed, it IS a foul. Personally, I'm with satman, I wouldn't have called a foul. The only real difference is that in the Texas Express rules, it says the CB must be driven to "another" rail, while the BCA rules say it must be driven to "a" rail. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion, and it's just one more reason pool needs a single, clearly defined set of rules.
One more unclear thing, this time in the BCA rule, specifically part D above. It says that, "A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again." Isn't this a prime example of a double-kiss? Doesn't it make a double-kiss legal? If so, what's the purpose of this rule again?
-djb