Pub Quiz tennis question

steven · Tennis legend

Pub Quiz tennis question

steven · Tennis legend

eblunt wrote:
steven wrote:
12 is the obvious (and, I assume, correct) answer, but if one was to get really sneaky, 4 could be enough - 4 aces in one game and all other points in the set double faults, with the double faults from the player in question being serves where, instead of not playing the ball and tossing it up again, they do try to serve but miss the ball. That may come under "etc" in the exceptions though!
Well you're pretty close .... Yes, tossing the ball up and attempting to hit the ball but missing the ball completely is a service fault, so you can double fault without hitting the ball at all. And that isn't under etc, so perfectly valid for the purposes of the question. But you didn't quite think it through completely

Ah yes, you're right - I didn't think it through because I didn't think it was a serious answer. LOL

So, the player we are interested in starts off receiving. Double faults all the way from both players ('our' player's dfs all through trying to serve and missing the ball) up to *6-5 in the tiebreak, when our player finally connect with the ball and serves an ace to win the set. (it can of course be any service point in the tiebreak)

-- Edited by steven on Tuesday 22nd of January 2013 02:51:59 PM

eblunt · Club Coach

Similar to the one that cropped up on 'Millionaire' but subly different. Certainly created some discussion at a pub quiz I was at.

"Excluding retirements, penalty points, time penalties etc. , what is the fewest possible number of times a player can hit the ball during a set of tennis and win it ?"

Akhenaten · Pro player

12?

korriban · Challenger level

12

eblunt · Club Coach

Well the answer given was 1 ! And believe it or not I think it is actually correct. Anyone care to guess how ?

eblunt · Club Coach

steven wrote:
12 is the obvious (and, I assume, correct) answer, but if one was to get really sneaky, 4 could be enough - 4 aces in one game and all other points in the set double faults, with the double faults from the player in question being serves where, instead of not playing the ball and tossing it up again, they do try to serve but miss the ball. That may come under "etc" in the exceptions though!

-- Edited by steven on Tuesday 22nd of January 2013 02:34:51 PM

Well you're pretty close .... Yes, tossing the ball up and attempting to hit the ball but missing the ball completely is a service fault, so you can double fault without hitting the ball at all. And that isn't under etc, so perfectly valid for the purposes of the question. But you didn't quite think it through completely

korriban · Challenger level

If its doubles, and this ball toss and swing without touching it logic is true, then presumably its possible to win with zero hits. assuming you must mean singles.

eblunt · Club Coach

korriban wrote:
If its doubles, and this ball toss and swing without touching it logic is true, then presumably its possible to win with zero hits. assuming you must mean singles.

Yes , sorry I forgot to say singles in the original question

adz1983 · Intermediate Club Player

Service faults as mentioned above all the way through to a tiebreaker. At 6-5 in tiebreak send an ace down.

adz1983 · Intermediate Club Player

adz1983 wrote:
Service faults as mentioned above all the way through to a tiebreaker. At 6-5 in tiebreak send an ace down.

Im too slow!

eblunt · Club Coach

steven wrote:
Ah yes, you're right - I didn't think it through because I didn't think it was a serious answer. LOL
So, the player we are interested in starts off receiving. Double faults all the way from both players ('our' player's dfs all through trying to serve and missing the ball) up to *6-5 in the tiebreak, when our player finally connect with the ball and serves an ace to win the set. (it can of course be any service point in the tiebreak)

-- Edited by steven on Tuesday 22nd of January 2013 02:51:59 PM

Yes, one ace in the tie break (obviously not the deciding set in a GS) does it. And yes, it doesn't sound serious, but in as far as the exact wording of the question goes it's 100% correct. It certainly caught a few people out in the quiz.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I'd be very sorry for anybody that had paid to watch that match! Well, I suppose they would get amusement out of it. . .

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Madeline wrote:
I'd be very sorry for anybody that had paid to watch that match! Well, I suppose they would get amusement out of it. . .

You mean like watching the Chinese play badminton at the Olympics ??

eblunt · Club Coach

Bob in Spain wrote:
Madeline wrote:
I'd be very sorry for anybody that had paid to watch that match! Well, I suppose they would get amusement out of it. . .
You mean like watching the Chinese play badminton at the Olympics ??

LOL, yes that game *did* look like they were trying to be the answer to a very hypothetical pub quiz question !