Not really a Rules question................but is ...........sort of

[bluenose1940]

I'm sure that there are quite a few of you who have had a game of snooker that has involved three people as opposed to the normal two or four persons.

With this in mind I would like to seek your thoughts on the allocation of penalty points in such a game.

My own thoughts are as follows :-

Player A plays a red and goes in-off - Outcome = penalty of 4 points to both opponents.
Player C attempts to hit a red, misses and hits the pink - Outcome = penalty of 6 points to both opponents.
Player B lays a very difficult snooker with the red being the ball on, and the next to play misses - outcome = 4 points to player B only as it was he who laid the snooker.

When playing a three hander earlier today, my opponents insisted that BOTH of them should be awarded the 4 points following the snooker. I disagreed with this as the situation regarding the score could be such that the frame was handed to one of them because the 4 points added to their score might mean that I would then need snookers.

To give you an example, with just Pink and Black on the table, say the scoreboard reads as follows :-

Player A (me) - 37 points - Player B - 49 points - Player C - 51 points.

I (A) am at the table and I snooker Player B, he misses and so I have gained 6 points putting me on 43 points, using my method of scoring I now need Pink and Black to win on 56 points but, using my opponents method, i.e. having to give Player C the six points aswell, thereby putting him on 58 points, I now need snookers again. Can’t be right can it?

[GeordieDS]

4 points to both players irrespective of who lays the snooker

[bluenose1940]

4 points to both players irrespective of who lays the snooker

So in my scenario, what is the point of playing on? Nothing to be gained by trying to win, might as well leave the other two to it and go and have a pint!

[Londonlad147]

So in my scenario, what is the point of playing on? Nothing to be gained by trying to win, might as well leave the other two to it and go and have a pint!

There's probably a very good reason why the official rules don't provide for three players!

[itsnoteasy]

Bluenose, what happens if you lay a snooker , next player misses and leaves a free ball, do you get to go again as you laid the snooker or does the last player get the free ball chance?

[acesinc]

Just an opinion here...if you are playing in a three way, it is really just a social frame, a few mates having some fun knocking balls about. It's not about determining the champion of the room or anything serious. Although, perhaps a wager is in order, loser buying the next pint.

With that said, I believe three way would be best played in an "all out offence" format meaning no penalties awarded at all; everyone's score is determined strictly by the balls that he puts into the pockets. However, there would appear to be a glaring flaw here because the human race by its very nature is rather nefarious. So if there is no punishment for the crime of committing a foul, then what will prevent players from playing intentional fouls if they do not have a possible scoring shot? One of the attractions of snooker I think is that it is possible to score points in an offensive fashion and also in a defensive fashion. One cannot score a point on the football pitch by blocking a kick no matter how good the block may be. But when playing "all out offence" on the Snooker table, it is actually very easy to stop players from laying traps, whether intentional or accidental. A special rule for "all out offense" is to play it forward meaning that if Player A leaves the table and Player B comes to the table but does not like the lie of the table (let's say that Player A accidentally left a full snooker), then Player B simply says "I will pass" and Player C comes on. Of course, he will also say, "I will pass" bringing the shot back to Player A who cannot pass because it was he who left the table in the first place so he is obligated to play the shot.

This can make for some interesting gameplay because some players are comfortable with certain types of shot while others are not. The "passing" can be done on any shot at all when the striker changes, not just an actual snooker. Say Player A leaves the table and there is only a long pot on. Player B is no good at long pots so he passes, but Player C loves long pots so he may choose to play. Or perhaps a double is left on which some players like but others do not. With this format, nobody can score defensively so there is no point in trying to lay snookers. However, that doesn't mean that you leave easy shots for your opponent all the time. The best strategy is to play "half safe" all the time if a fair percentage pot is not on, leaving long pots open or whatever else, so that if your opponents pass on the challenge that you leave for them, you are ready to jump on the challenge and continue your turn. It is a heartbreaker for the player that had passed on a long shot near a cushion, and it gets back to the original striker who ends up potting it and taking 8, or 16, or more.

This means the score is strictly based on who pots the balls which I think is best for a simple, social situation. The logical conclusion then is that once a player is "out" (requires snookers), he is out; no point in playing on. So the first one out is off to the bar to get the next round. And once the penultimate player requires a snooker, frame over. Rack 'em.

[bluenose1940]

Just an opinion here...if you are playing in a three way, it is really just a social frame, a few mates having some fun knocking balls about. It's not about determining the champion of the room or anything serious. Although, perhaps a wager is in order, loser buying the next pint.

With that said, I believe three way would be best played in an "all out offence" format meaning no penalties awarded at all; everyone's score is determined strictly by the balls that he puts into the pockets. However, there would appear to be a glaring flaw here because the human race by its very nature is rather nefarious. So if there is no punishment for the crime of committing a foul, then what will prevent players from playing intentional fouls if they do not have a possible scoring shot? One of the attractions of snooker I think is that it is possible to score points in an offensive fashion and also in a defensive fashion. One cannot score a point on the football pitch by blocking a kick no matter how good the block may be. But when playing "all out offence" on the Snooker table, it is actually very easy to stop players from laying traps, whether intentional or accidental. A special rule for "all out offense" is to play it forward meaning that if Player A leaves the table and Player B comes to the table but does not like the lie of the table (let's say that Player A accidentally left a full snooker), then Player B simply says "I will pass" and Player C comes on. Of course, he will also say, "I will pass" bringing the shot back to Player A who cannot pass because it was he who left the table in the first place so he is obligated to play the shot.

This can make for some interesting gameplay because some players are comfortable with certain types of shot while others are not. The "passing" can be done on any shot at all when the striker changes, not just an actual snooker. Say Player A leaves the table and there is only a long pot on. Player B is no good at long pots so he passes, but Player C loves long pots so he may choose to play. Or perhaps a double is left on which some players like but others do not. With this format, nobody can score defensively so there is no point in trying to lay snookers. However, that doesn't mean that you leave easy shots for your opponent all the time. The best strategy is to play "half safe" all the time if a fair percentage pot is not on, leaving long pots open or whatever else, so that if your opponents pass on the challenge that you leave for them, you are ready to jump on the challenge and continue your turn. It is a heartbreaker for the player that had passed on a long shot near a cushion, and it gets back to the original striker who ends up potting it and taking 8, or 16, or more.

This means the score is strictly based on who pots the balls which I think is best for a simple, social situation. The logical conclusion then is that once a player is "out" (requires snookers), he is out; no point in playing on. So the first one out is off to the bar to get the next round. And once the penultimate player requires a snooker, frame over. Rack 'em.

A very interesting reply acesinc, I might just suggest that idea at the club. Thank you. I just can't run with the way they play it at the moment, there seems very little point in trying to make a 'comeback' in the scenario that I mentioned, particularly as you are enhancing the score of a player already in the lead (he's done nothing to earn these points!)and also, there is little point in potting the remaining balls as there isn't enough points left to catch the leader.
I'm going to print off your reply and give it some more consideration. thanks again.

[acesinc]

A very interesting reply acesinc, I might just suggest that idea at the club. Thank you. I just can't run with the way they play it at the moment, there seems very little point in trying to make a 'comeback' in the scenario that I mentioned, particularly as you are enhancing the score of a player already in the lead (he's done nothing to earn these points!)and also, there is little point in potting the remaining balls as there isn't enough points left to catch the leader.
I'm going to print off your reply and give it some more consideration. thanks again.

I try to promote alternative rules in my club as I think it can make for more interesting gameplay if players only have a moderate talent level. I really don't enjoy watching my local "Neil Robertson" wannabe pondering a shot for two minutes against me, then decide to attempt a difficult pot only to fail the pot but leave me in a ridiculous fluke snooker. To me, that style gameplay is "gnaw your own arm off" dull. "All Out Offence" is great as a two player game as well but you can leave in the foul scoring for two players if you want. You can also change it for two players to All Out Offence to Colours meaning that after Reds are off the table, you can play for the snookers to come back for the win. With multi-player, 3, 4, even 5 players, AAO works well and tends to make shot choices faster because in essence, it removes half the decision making...you are looking for the scoring stroke, not the safety stroke. Have fun with it!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I've been trying to think of a game that involves no safety for a while now. I like the concept of awarding more points for unconventional shots, like doubles or plants, and having different pockets scoring different points - a black in a baulk pocket scores more than a black in its own pockets etc. I reckon this would lead to an interesting game which demands creativity in shot making. It would also be time limited, so rewarding the faster thinking player.

[Miig]

I've been trying to think of a game that involves no safety for a while now. I like the concept of awarding more points for unconventional shots, like doubles or plants, and having different pockets scoring different points - a black in a baulk pocket scores more than a black in its own pockets etc. I reckon this would lead to an interesting game which demands creativity in shot making. It would also be time limited, so rewarding the faster thinking player.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaisa_(cue_sport)

Have you heard of this one?

I've only played it couple of times, but as far as I remember, it matches all your requirements other than the time limit. It's really hard game of pool too, because the pockets are far more tighter than in any other billiards game I've tried.

[GeordieDS]

So in my scenario, what is the point of playing on? Nothing to be gained by trying to win, might as well leave the other two to it and go and have a pint!

That would be up to you but if you're playing you can't change the rules to give one a better advantage

[bluenose1940]

That would be up to you but if you're playing you can't change the rules to give one a better advantage

The rule wouldn't change to give someone an advantage, it would simply mean that a player not involved in that particular bit of 'play' would not get any penalty points, only the person that had 'earned' them would. There is absolutely no logic in penalty points being awarded all round as the player that laid the snooker really wasn't gaining anything, nor was there any point in potting the balls as they would not produce sufficient points to get a win.

The rule as it stands at the moment give the player in the lead an advantage, as his points tally is being increased for doing nothing and, is effectively putting him out of reach.

[jonny66]

When I've played threes usually the 2 that are behind will gang up on the leader, the first player trying to set up an easy snooker for whoever goes before the player in the lead, always a chance of being stabbed in the back if you set one up though.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaisa_(cue_sport)

Have you heard of this one?

I've only played it couple of times, but as far as I remember, it matches all your requirements other than the time limit. It's really hard game of pool too, because the pockets are far more tighter than in any other billiards game I've tried.

No mate, looks insane lol.

I think games like mine need to be played on tables with bigger pockets generally, adds they encourage more risk taking. A Russian pyramid table would drive me mad.