Breaks in Doubles Matches

[BB Warrior]

Having looked through the AEBBA Rules, there does not appear to be any rule to prevent the same player taking the break in more than 1 game (in a best of 3 situation) in a doubles match? ???

Although this is addressed in some local league competitions, the rules seem to change from one League to another...... if it is mentioned at all. ::)

Is this not something that should be clarified, as it surely defeats the object of playing doubles if one player can take all the breaks?

[Baby Guinness]

Jan 30, 2009 12:41:14 GMT BB Warrior said:

Having looked through the AEBBA Rules, there does not appear to be any rule to prevent the same player taking the break in more than 1 game (in a best of 3 situation) in a doubles match? ???

Although this is addressed in some local league competitions, the rules seem to change from one League to another...... if it is mentioned at all. ::)

Is this not something that should be clarified, as it surely defeats the object of playing doubles if one player can take all the breaks?

It is certainly a rule in Mid-Sussex

[BB Warrior]

Jan 30, 2009 12:46:18 GMT Baby Guinness said:

It is certainly a rule in Mid-Sussex

Yes, I know..... and I think it is a very good rule as it means that the best "overall" partnership has a better chance and not necessarily where 1 player can dominate for one side.

However, it seems that the rules vary from League to League (often without being stated) and I feel that it would be better if there was 1 rule in place to enable everybody to know exactly where they stood.

[BB Warrior]

Jan 30, 2009 14:25:51 GMT Chunky Monkeys other half said:

I dont know what the problem is each league has the right to run its competitions as they wish. Why are you even suggesting the change?
No one in Brighton has ever had a problem with the way the competitions are run as far as im aware. So as the saying goes if it aint broke dont fix it.

Very simple reason....... so that the rules are the same. ;D

I have now played in 4 different doubles competitions...... in Jersey, Lewes, Worthing & Mid-Sussex. In every one the rules for the breaks were different.

I agree that every League has the right to run its own competitions as it wishes...... however, if each one is to be different...... should the League not provide a set of rules covering these competitions so that the players know what they are?

Possibly it is just a "local" problem rather than something that the AEBBA needs to look at, however if there were national rules that covered this (as they already cover nearly all of the other rules in respect of playing conditions) then the problem wouldn't exist!

From memory, the Horsham League were the first to adopt this, more than 15 years ago, as there were some very lop-sided partnesrships (eg John Slee + 1 and Peter Gibbs + 1) and it was aimed to prevent one of those players playing out an entire 40 minutes without anyone else having a go.

In that respect, it's a good rule.

Mid Sussex followed suit about 5 years later.

I can't speak for any other leagues in Sussex, but always thought it was special to just a few Leagues.

As Sandra says, each League, though following General Playing Rules, is perfectly at liberty to adopt its own rules for domestic competitions.

[Chunky Monkey]

In Brighton the Mixed Dobles is played by the ladies have the breaks in the 1st and 2nd leg but anyone can Break in the deciding.

[Chris_Sav]

One of those several 'Rules' that we have all played to at AEBBA competitions for donkeys years but were never passed by an AGM or put in writing.

It got missed when we compiled the current rules

Basically under AEBBA guidelines, can't call this a rule as it's not in the book.
Two leg games; the same player cannot go first for a pair in both legs
Three legs; not played in AEBBA comps and thus not specified. Common sense says the above rule is applied for the first two legs and any combination in the third.
Four leg games; Each player must play in every position during the four legs. No player can play in the same position in the order twice, they move up by one in the order each leg.
A1 B1 A2 B2
B1 A2 B2 A1
A2 B2 A1 B1
B2 A1 B1 A2

Needs formalising at next year's AGM

Sav

[NigelS]

All local leagues and counties run their own competitions by their own rules. An AEBBA rule on doubles would not get round this and I don't really think it should. Some competitions are best of 3, some are best of 2. Rules vary about break taking and how you decide who breaks and when.

I am glad we brought in the rule in Brighton in that both players break if the match goes three legs BUT it was only changed about 4 or 5 years ago. Many other leagues have no rules on who takes the break or the order of play.

As long as the rules are as fair to both teams there should be no problem, I like Worthing's one coin toss rule at the start of the match, in Brighton you can lose the toss twice and it feels a bit harsh. And of course the rules should be made clear and I am sure most leagues have a proper set of rules for competitions even if it is often hard to find a copy. If a league has no such rules in place (which I find had to believe) then it has to be addressed at an AGM- otherwise you can play what rules you like!

You'd better remind us what the rules are for Sussex County Competitions, then Nigel.

Only at the recent weekend, when settling down to score a game, I gave what i thought at the time was a correct ruling and was over-ruled by one of the sets of opponents. :o

[Mark James]

I agree with the point made previously by a couple of posters that it's up to each league to specifiy their own rules for their own internal competitions, as what's right for one league may not be appropriate elsewhere.

In the Worthing league, which is the one with which I'm most familiar, the current rules certainly represent an improvement on what went before.

For those who don't know them, it's best-of-three games, with one coin toss at the start of the match. The winners of the toss choose whether to break in the first or second leg. However if it goes to three legs the choice of 1st or 2nd break in the deciding game goes to the team who actually took the break in the first leg.

Also, as hitherto stated, the breaks in the deciding game must be taken by the player from each partnership who did not take them in the first two games.

The one failing of this system is that it still doesn't prevent the same player going first for his team in each of the first two legs, so it remains possible for a match to be won by just one member of a pair (I've been on both sides of this on more than one occasion!)

I would like to see all matches in the Worthing league doubles become 4-legs, played according to the rules detailed by Pete Farrelly below. When we go to a neutral venue to play a league doubles, we're already anticipating 3 games (possibly more, with overtime/extra coin) so 4 legs is not much of an increase on that.

And whereas it wouldn't be practical to play 4 legs throughout in one-day tournaments (e.g. Sussex doubles) as it would extend the day too much, in a local league competition there's only ever one match to be completed on any given night, so that shouldn't be an issue.

(Post edited by self - Pete Farrelly correctly states the running order of a 4-leg match, this is what I intended to support, as presently used in latter stages of Sussex & National Pairs))

[keithmacdonald]

As usual Cambridgeshire seems to be different................ our open doubles is played over four legs, all players break in one frame and then you just follow each other!!

keith

[fazza]

Sorry for being an outsider butting in, but thought it best to clarify ??!!!!????

[Chris]

A1 B1 A2 B2
B2 A2 B1 A1
A2 B2 A1 B1
B1 A1 B2 A2

What stops player B2 monopolising this format??

[Chris]

Sorry...

Should have said B2 regarding legs 2 and 3....

[Chris_Sav]

Feb 1, 2009 12:32:30 GMT @fazza said:

Sorry for being an outsider butting in, but thought it best to clarify ??!!!!????

Previous post deleted.

Correcly pointed out that the players postion in the order of play moves backwards not forwards.

Peter, If you can't post without flaming members then don't post.

Chris Saville.

[Colemanator]

Our breaks in doubles matches here are normally between each frame 8-) ;) ;D

There are several good attributes in all the systems mentioned above, and it would be good if AEBBA took the lead and specified a recommended guideline.

Mark's post about the double-frame decider is the first mention I've ever seen of this, and I remember many years ago making a proposal to the (Sussex) County that, if (and only if) in a deciding leg of a best-of-three, one player's opening break took up more than half the time, the decider entered 'double-game' mode: It received no support whatsoever ! :-/

I think Redhill would still go their own sweet way, though, they just play highest aggregate over two legs (which I've always thought a bit of a shame as it denies the excitement of a third frame.)

[NigelS]

I would have to agree with Mark, in that a best of 4 match is a definite way forward for competitions where matches are played around pubs (so there are no real time constraints. Everyone therefore is guaranteed a go.

I don't agree however the score should be decided on legs. You can be 3-0 up but only 30 points ahead on total. I played the Sussex semis a couple of years ago and I was due to take the last break probably about 16k down but 3-0 down so the match was over. A run out would have probably hauled us ahead on aggregate, although we would have only won 1 of the 4 legs.

Your rule change you described above amazes me Tommo, in that noone offered its support, but I know this went on for many years in competitions across the country. So whoever wins the toss in the last leg in a best of 3 had a massive advantage! Thankfully in all cases I now come across any best of 3 the last leg is at least equal opportunity or equal time.

[milko]

Feb 13, 2009 20:46:21 GMT NigelS said:

I would have to agree with Mark, in that a best of 4 match is a definite way forward for competitions where matches are played around pubs (so there are no real time constraints. Everyone therefore is guaranteed a go.

I don't agree however the score should be decided on legs. You can be 3-0 up but only 30 points ahead on total. I played the Sussex semis a couple of years ago and I was due to take the last break probably about 16k down but 3-0 down so the match was over. A run out would have probably hauled us ahead on aggregate, although we would have only won 1 of the 4 legs.

Your rule change you described above amazes me Tommo, in that noone offered its support, but I know this went on for many years in competitions across the country. So whoever wins the toss in the last leg in a best of 3 had a massive advantage! Thankfully in all cases I now come across any best of 3 the last leg is at least equal opportunity or equal time.

For a change Nigel I have to disagree with you on your second sentence, I think matches should always be decided on legs first before aggregate.

I don't think it's fair for a team to win 3-1 and be behind on agg and lose the match.

In Oxford we play the best of 4 games with each player having a break, this is the same as the Bournemouth & World Pairs, except we play it all through the competition and not just in the Semi Finals and Final.

We also use the same format for the order of play; A&C v B&D
A B C D
D C B A
C D A B
B A D C

This means that every player goes in a different position each time.

If aggregate did count over legs, I don't think Wallingford A would have been too happy in last years Inter Area Semi Final, because they beat us 8-2 but we would have won with a higher aggregate. :o

[NigelS]

I think you make a fair point Keith and the example of the Wallingford A result where they have won by such a big margin on legs but actually lost on aggregate must be a rare one, but that was a team match where perhaps many of the winning side touched up wth enough score..

I am all for legs won being the deciding factor in team matches and that goes for our county champs and our team champs. In those events you do your bit for your team by trying to get legs on the board - and you do this by trying to go off with a slow 8k or 9k to not give your opponent enough time to beat you.

I think doubles matches are a bit different though, yes I suppose you could still call it a 'team game' but if you are playing best of 4, then you should play best of 4 so every player gets the break. The only way you can guarantee this is that you make aggregate scores to count. You can say you a hard done by if you are 3-1 up but 1,000 down on aggregate, but I guess you can also say if you are 3-0 with their break to come and a 1,000 up you were a bit fortunate to win under current rules.

I guess it comes down to what people consider is more important - winning legs or scoring points. I have always thought that winning legs is more important in team games (usually because each team gets the same ammount of breaks anyway) , but in individual events scoring points (or match aggregates) should be considered more important. Doubles is a difficult one but I have never thought it fair for a match to be decided before everyone has had their chance of a break in a best of 4.

With respect, I think you're on your own on that one, Nigel. :)

I've never ever before heard anyone expound the theory that aggregate score should have precedence over legs in a best of three singles or doubles. :o

Bar billiards competitions reflect the tried and tested formulae from Snooker: In a best-of-nine legs match there, for example, it's the first one to win five legs - pure and simple. Whether or not either of the players has bashed in any maximum 147s along the way is neither here or there.

[NigelS]

Tommo you can't use snooker as a comparison, each frame is a fair contest in its own right. Ok someone has the break but each player will get an opportunity to play a shot in each frame. But if someone perfected the game of snooker where games where continually won from the break you would soon see the rules change - maybe you would have to win by two clear frames or something like that.

In bar billiards it is a big possibility that many legs of bar billiards will result in one of the two players (or one of the teams) in not getting a chance. So my argument is that in a best of 4 it is possible that in doubles a player will have not had a go and be 3-0 down. I don't see that as fair. I don't see it fair either that you can be a few hundred points ahead but 3-0 up on legs and declared the winner, especially if you have had 2 breaks to the other teams one. And anyway the whole point of playing best of 4 was to give everyone a break, so why then make the rules where it is possible that not all 4 legs may be played??

I am afraid it is a very old school bar billiards to consider legs won above overall score. It is because we all started to play in leagues, and you win a leg you get a point for your team. Unfortunately this does not translate well into singles and doubles competitions and so the possibility of the injustice that I describe in the situation above is allowed to happen.

Let me make it clear I don't believe team matches like league games should be decided on score. This is because each leg is played by different members of each team. If aggregate scores where used to decide to results a big break in one leg would almost certainly determine the result. One big leg score by one player in a 5 (or 7) man team should not overfluence the result of the match. However in doubles (like singles) the participants remain constant in each leg so taking aggregates to decide the result over the 4 legs seem fairer to me, even if only one of the 4 legs has had a big score.

A good and logical furtherance of your argument, Nigel, and I take the title barb of being 'old school'. ;D

Maybe I can see some merit in applying this to a very top-level competition, like an All-England Final, as it would undoubtedly ensure that the strongest pair would prevail.

But a lot of the time Pairings are of unequal strength and abilities and with it being decided on legs rather than total score gives the underdog a bit of a chance - would you deny them that chance?

It is annoying, yes, when one pair bang in 10k in one leg, only to lose 1-2 overall on frames, but I have been both on the giving and receiving end of this on a number of occasions, and to me it's all part of the fascination of the game.

[NigelS]

Thought you might like the old school reference Tommo ;D

I agree that the current rules do benefit the lower scoring players. I do think though that every dog has its day, whatever the rules and I would rather see them win through with a big (or small) runout than maybe two slow leg winning breaks.

I find it frustrating that in competitions outside league games,many players think going off with a slow 8k leg winning score should give them the right to score points. When we play best of 2 (or 4 in the case of doubles), the idea is to score as many as possible in the time available, and beat your opponent on aggregate. So many players do miss the point - I have so often heard players discussing their match in an open saying where they drew one leg all but lost the match on aggregate - as if the leg won has counted for anything!

I think I am trying to say I would rather see players go for it in competitions and run tables out (fast or slow) rather than be in the position to make a slow break and touch up. That is fine for team play, but not for competitions.