c4countdown

Trivial questions for the great minds around here, but anyway, here's two for the weekend.

With the World Snooker Championship on the telly, We all know the maximum* total clearance break is 147, but what is the smallest total clearance break available?
(*actual maximum break is 155 with the use of a free ball to start)

And a slightly more annoying one to try and work out.... in darts what is the lowest 'bogey' number, ie the lowest number (greater than 1, less than 170) that cannot be checked out in 3 darts.

sean d wrote:Trivial questions for the great minds around here, but anyway, here's two for the weekend.

With the World Snooker Championship on the telly, We all know the maximum* total clearance break is 147, but what is the smallest total clearance break available?
(*actual maximum break is 155 with the use of a free ball to start)

In theory you could pot all 15 reds in one shot, then pot the yellow, then clear up all six colours for 44.

Graeme Cole wrote:

sean d wrote:Trivial questions for the great minds around here, but anyway, here's two for the weekend.

With the World Snooker Championship on the telly, We all know the maximum* total clearance break is 147, but what is the smallest total clearance break available?
(*actual maximum break is 155 with the use of a free ball to start)

In theory you could pot all 15 reds in one shot, then pot the yellow, then clear up all six colours for 44.

I've done this.

Why are the high-value colours near the non-baulk end where they're easier to get to after potting reds? After you've potted a red, it's likely to be easier to pot the black or pink than one of the baulk colours, but you get more points for the easier shot than for the harder one.

Surely it makes more sense to put pink, black and blue on the baulk line in place of yellow, brown and green, and put yellow, green and brown in place of black, pink and blue?

Graeme Cole wrote:Why are the high-value colours near the non-baulk end where they're easier to get to after potting reds? After you've potted a red, it's likely to be easier to pot the black or pink than one of the baulk colours, but you get more points for the easier shot than for the harder one.

Surely it makes more sense to put pink, black and blue on the baulk line in place of yellow, brown and green, and put yellow, green and brown in place of black, pink and blue?

I imagine some guy just made it all up years ago - there's so much about snooker that's arbitrary - and it just stuck.

Grame, of course, is right. Graeme, of course, is always right.

Regarding moving high value colours to the baulk end, I'm not sure if it'd make it more difficult for the better players. Sure you'd be moving up and down the table but you'd have a very large margin for error in terms of positioning on the baulk end colours.

No takers on the darts question.....

Graeme Cole wrote:Why are the high-value colours near the non-baulk end where they're easier to get to after potting reds? After you've potted a red, it's likely to be easier to pot the black or pink than one of the baulk colours, but you get more points for the easier shot than for the harder one.

Surely it makes more sense to put pink, black and blue on the baulk line in place of yellow, brown and green, and put yellow, green and brown in place of black, pink and blue?

Break building would be a lot harder. And since break building is the fun part of the game, you don't want that.

Snooker720 might actually be brilliant to see professionals play. (See Chess960 i.e. randomly assigning the colours at the start of each game).

Mark Deeks wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:Why are the high-value colours near the non-baulk end where they're easier to get to after potting reds? After you've potted a red, it's likely to be easier to pot the black or pink than one of the baulk colours, but you get more points for the easier shot than for the harder one.

Surely it makes more sense to put pink, black and blue on the baulk line in place of yellow, brown and green, and put yellow, green and brown in place of black, pink and blue?

Break building would be a lot harder. And since break building is the fun part of the game, you don't want that.

Ricky Walden and Barry Hawkins clearly agree with me, as they've just spent about a quarter of an hour setting up the table like this...

And only a minimum of 13 more frames to go! Thrilling stuff lined up there.

37 is the lowest TOTAL clearance...

Dave Preece wrote:37 is the lowest TOTAL clearance...

Explain that then!

Ian Volante wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:37 is the lowest TOTAL clearance...

Explain that then!

Presumably you go in-off the final black, so your break would score 37 and 7 foul points would be awarded to your opponent.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:37 is the lowest TOTAL clearance...

Explain that then!

Presumably you go in-off the final black, so your break would score 37 and 7 foul points would be awarded to your opponent.

That's not a total clearance then, as the final black would be respotted, although this is moot as the frame would be over anyway.

Saw a break started on a colour in this year's World Championship, which for some reason had never occurred to me before. Can't remember who was playing, but he snookered himself having potted a red, then nominated green and missed at least one attempt, thus ending his break and conceding foul points to his opponent. He was put back in and subsequently escaped from the snooker, potting the green in the process, and starting a new break at 3 points.

Ian Volante wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:
Explain that then!

Presumably you go in-off the final black, so your break would score 37 and 7 foul points would be awarded to your opponent.

That's not a total clearance then, as the final black would be respotted, although this is moot as the frame would be over anyway.

Yeah, cos if that counts, you might as well pot everything on your first shot and score nothing.

Adam Gillard wrote:Saw a break started on a colour in this year's World Championship, which for some reason had never occurred to me before. Can't remember who was playing, but he snookered himself having potted a red, then nominated green and missed at least one attempt, thus ending his break and conceding foul points to his opponent. He was put back in and subsequently escaped from the snooker, potting the green in the process, and starting a new break at 3 points.

Interesting, I've never come across that one before.

In off final black, as Adam says, the black wouldn't get respotted, as the frame would be over?

Ian Volante wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:Saw a break started on a colour in this year's World Championship, which for some reason had never occurred to me before. Can't remember who was playing, but he snookered himself having potted a red, then nominated green and missed at least one attempt, thus ending his break and conceding foul points to his opponent. He was put back in and subsequently escaped from the snooker, potting the green in the process, and starting a new break at 3 points.

Interesting, I've never come across that one before.

Interesting, missed that one, and I watched nearly all of it!

Dave Preece wrote:In off final black, as Adam says, the black wouldn't get respotted, as the frame would be over?

Well quite, but the final black hasn't been potted legally, so it's not a total clearance.

Of cousre it is?

Thick as mince!

Dave Preece wrote:Of cousre it is?

Thick as mince!

A total clearance couldn't, and doesn't include a foul shot.

Dave Preece wrote:Of cousre it is?

Thick as mince!

Or, to put it another way, say player A gives away 28 points in fouls at the early in the frame due to a fiendish snooker, but then flukes all fifteen reds on his eighth attempt and goes on to pot 1 yellow and all of the colours. However, he fouls the final black as per your scenario, leaving the score at 37-35. Player B comes to the table, pots the black, wins the frame.

By your logic, player A has made a total clearance and lost. A total clearance would not end with the black on the table available to be potted.

But that wouldnt be a scenario for the lowest possible total clearance wold it?

37 is the LOWEST POSSIBLE total clearnce, the table will be totally cleared of ALL BALLS, and the break will be 37!

Dave Preece wrote:But that wouldnt be a scenario for the lowest possible total clearance wold it?

37 is the LOWEST POSSIBLE total clearnce, the table will be totally cleared of ALL BALLS, and the break will be 37!

If your scenario counts then so does mine and the lowest possible is 0. So it seems that the answer has to be 44 or 0. 37 is just some arbitrary compromise.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:But that wouldnt be a scenario for the lowest possible total clearance wold it?

37 is the LOWEST POSSIBLE total clearnce, the table will be totally cleared of ALL BALLS, and the break will be 37!

If your scenario counts then so does mine and the lowest possible is 0. So it seems that the answer has to be 44 or 0. 37 is just some arbitrary compromise.

Yep.

Even more logically, if you're going to ignore the rules of the game, why bother with all the potting? Just knock a cushion off and sweep the balls onto the floor.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:Why are the high-value colours near the non-baulk end where they're easier to get to after potting reds? After you've potted a red, it's likely to be easier to pot the black or pink than one of the baulk colours, but you get more points for the easier shot than for the harder one.

Surely it makes more sense to put pink, black and blue on the baulk line in place of yellow, brown and green, and put yellow, green and brown in place of black, pink and blue?

I imagine some guy just made it all up years ago - there's so much about snooker that's arbitrary - and it just stuck.

Bored British soldiers in India, mixed a game called pyramids and something else which escapes me.

Ian Volante wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:But that wouldnt be a scenario for the lowest possible total clearance wold it?

37 is the LOWEST POSSIBLE total clearnce, the table will be totally cleared of ALL BALLS, and the break will be 37!

If your scenario counts then so does mine and the lowest possible is 0. So it seems that the answer has to be 44 or 0. 37 is just some arbitrary compromise.

Yep.

Even more logically, if you're going to ignore the rules of the game, why bother with all the potting? Just knock a cushion off and sweep the balls onto the floor.

Amazing.

Potting ALL balls on the table in one shot scoring zero wouldn't be the end of the game though? ALL colours (not reds) would be respotted and play would continue!

The same would happen in Ian's even odder example? However, the LAST black potted legally or not, is the end of the game, unless scores are tied!

Two words: Jacintha Saldanha

What if someone pots all the balls on the first shot and then immediately concedes the frame?

Dave Preece wrote:However, the LAST black potted legally or not, is the end of the game, unless scores are tied!

Nope. The black can be respotted no matter what the scores are. People only don't play on when just the black is left because they don't reckon you can get a snooker but you could feasibly (well, as feasibly as potting all the red balls in one go) get the snooker by getting one or both of the balls in the jaws of the pockets.

Mark James wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:However, the LAST black potted legally or not, is the end of the game, unless scores are tied!

Nope. The black can be respotted no matter what the scores are. People only don't play on when just the black is left because they don't reckon you can get a snooker but you could feasibly (well, as feasibly as potting all the red balls in one go) get the snooker by getting one or both of the balls in the jaws of the pockets.

Nope, ignore all that. I'm wrong. Dave is right.

Interesting. I had 44 for my answer, but Dave's thrown a cat among the snooker playing pigeons. I think I'll stick with 44 though, it can't be considered a total clearance with a foul in it, imo.

Hmm, we run into an impasse, purely since the term "total clearance" isn't actually defined as far as I can tell.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Two words: Jacintha Saldanha

Two words: read on...

Innis Carson wrote:What if someone pots all the balls on the first shot and then immediately concedes the frame?

Why would they?

Thy would be 7-0 down, with 27 to play for?

Mark James wrote:

Mark James wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:However, the LAST black potted legally or not, is the end of the game, unless scores are tied!

Nope. The black can be respotted no matter what the scores are. People only don't play on when just the black is left because they don't reckon you can get a snooker but you could feasibly (well, as feasibly as potting all the red balls in one go) get the snooker by getting one or both of the balls in the jaws of the pockets.

Nope, ignore all that. I'm wrong. Dave is right.

Just to clarify, when the black is gone, it's gone... Unless scores are level!

sean d wrote:Interesting. I had 44 for my answer, but Dave's thrown a cat among the snooker playing pigeons. I think I'll stick with 44 though, it can't be considered a total clearance with a foul in it, imo.

It's a total clearance, I was first asked this question, and old the answer when I was about 9, it's an old question to say the least, good one tho...

Ian Volante wrote:Hmm, we run into an impasse, purely since the term "total clearance" isn't actually defined as far as I can tell.

I suppose calling it a 'draw' is about as good as winning an argument against some of the bell ends on here who are that far up their own 'clever' arses that they are never wrong...

Well done me I say!

PS

A total clearance is a TOTAL clearance of all 21 balls that ends the game.

Missing the last black on 37 doesn't end the game, as the oncoming player can get potting practice, score seven and save a whitewash — if he wished

Potting the black and going in off ends the frame.

Dave Preece wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Hmm, we run into an impasse, purely since the term "total clearance" isn't actually defined as far as I can tell.

I suppose calling it a 'draw' is about as good as winning an argument against some of the bell ends on here who are that far up their own 'clever' arses that they are never wrong...

Well done me I say!

It's all I can do to save the tattered shreds of my pride.

Dave Preece wrote:PS

A total clearance is a TOTAL clearance of all 21 balls that ends the game.

Even by this definition you could have a 'total clearance' of 0, if you twice fail to hit a red on the opening shot, and on the third attempt, pot all 21 balls having hit the pink first. By failing three times to hit the right ball when you had a clear shot at it, you automatically lose the frame.

Innis Carson wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:PS

A total clearance is a TOTAL clearance of all 21 balls that ends the game.

Even by this definition you could have a 'total clearance' of 0, if you twice fail to hit a red on the opening shot, and on the third attempt, pot all 21 balls having hit the pink first. By failing three times to hit the right ball when you had a clear shot at it, you automatically lose the frame.

Nice. But even with the conceding thing where Dave asked why you would do it, it doesn't matter why - the fact is you could!

Edit - I suppose you could argue in your case that the total clearance doesn't end the game. The game is over with the hit pink and the others just happen to follow it in. And with conceding, it's the act of conceding not the clearance. But it's open to interpretation as the definition is just a passive description and not part of the game.

By the way what are the rules on referee errors? If a referee miscounted a break and insisted he was right, would that be final? If so, you could have a total clearance of -79. And yeah the game would end because the referee says so.

Edit - Is a football referee required to keep count of the scores or they just assumed? But then what would happen in a game that could go to extra time and the referee disagrees about whether it should?

Gavin Chipper wrote:By the way what are the rules on referee errors? If a referee miscounted a break and insisted he was right, would that be final? If so, you could have a total clearance of -79. And yeah the game would end because the referee says so.

Edit - Is a football referee required to keep count of the scores or they just assumed? But then what would happen in a game that could go to extra time and the referee disagrees about whether it should?

Years ago I read somewhere that a football referee (no idea what level) miscounted the score of the match. Team A beat Team B 3-1. The ref then went into the dressing rooms after 90 minutes to get the players out for extra time. Both teams agreed that the score was 3-1 to Team A, but the referee was having none of it, and insisted it was 2-2. They played extra time and the team that had actually lost the match went on to win.

I can't find any authority for that story, but there's a similar one here.

Incidentally, in searching the web for unusual football phenomena I've found this strange match between Barbados and Grenada in a tournament with such unusual rules that it was in Barbados' interest to score an own goal, then in Grenada's interest to score a goal or an own goal with the result that Barbados had to defend both ends.

159 is the lowest bogey number for the darts question.

gg wp Martin!
It's hard to give a satisfactory explanation of darts bogeys, but briefly...
It's fairly easy to find a checkout for any value up to 140.
From there you can check out all even numbers up to 160 using T20, T20 and a double.
And all odd numbers up to 157 using T20, T19 and a double.
The lowest number not covered so far is 159, and there's no way to check it out using one or more bulls.

Yes there is. Treble twenty, treble twenty, double nineteen and a half. Or treble twenty, single 49, bull.

I guess I was correct then...

Again!!!