- Publication name: Newswink
- Issue number: 26
- Publication date: 9 March 1992
- Publisher: North American Tiddlywinks Association
- Editor: Rick Tucker
- Page count: 20, plus 2 for the NATwA Address List (not provided online)
- Page size: 8½ inches wide by 11 inches high
- Preparation: Word 5.1 on Macintosh
- Production: Printed and then photoduplicated on white paper
- Copyright status: © 1992 North American Tiddlywinks Association
- Transcriber: Rick Tucker
- Transcription date: 22 August 2022 via cut-and-paste of content from digital originals
- Transcription sources: Original digital Word 5.1 for Macintosh files, original .txt and .docx files, .tif files scanned from paper originals on 11 November 2015 by Rick Tucker
- Proofread date: 23 August 2022
- HTML conversion date: 22 August 2022
- Validation of original HTML/CSS transcription via https://validator.w3.org/ date: 22 August 2022
- Update date on Tiddlywinks.org: 24 September 2022
- Saul “Indian” (also “TDI”: “The Dumb Indian”) Agranoff
- Sue Agranoff (Sue Shrut)
- Susan Assman
- Dave Barbano
- Phyllis Barbano
- Patrick Barrie
- Alan Bolton
- Debby Boone (singer)
- Alan Boyce
- Nancy “Nan” Brady
- Tony Brennan
- Shana Bricklin
- Ross Callon
- Sue Crapes
- Alan Dean
- Daniel Dern
- Danny (Ferd’s neighbor)
- Severin Drix
- Don Fox
- Charles Frankston
- Bill “Red Scarf” Gammerdinger
- Simon Gandy
- Arye Gittelman
- John Good
- Simon Gould
- Tim Hedger
- Bob Henninge
- Margaret “Marg” “Henninge
- Paul Henninge
- Scott Hirsh
- Richard “L” Hussong
- Nick Inglis
- Larry Kahn
- Gavin Keyte
- Mary Kirman
- Nigel Knowles
- Pam Knowles
- Michael Krasner
- Steve Krasner
- Nelson C. Lees (Assistant to the Director, MIT Office of Public Relations)
- John Lennon (member of the Beatles)
- Dave “The Dragon” Lockwood
- Déjà Lockwood
- Jonathan “Jon” Abbott Lockwood
- Samantha “Sam” Lockwood
- Paul Mailman
- Jon Mapley
- Christine Marlin (previously: Christine Louise Schonher)
- James “Jim” Robert Marlin
- Mac McAvoy
- Paul McCartney (member of the Beatles)
- George Michael (singer)
- Richard J. Moore
- Muenster (a malformed yellow wink)
- Roman Muszynski
- Geoff Myers
- Harvey Orrock
- Steve Phillips
- Andy Purvis
- Charles Relle
- Bill Renke
- David Rose
- Matthew Rose
- MP Rouse
- Joe Sachs
- Stew Sage
- Brad Schaefer
- Tim Schiller
- Michael “Moishe” Schwartz
- Craig Schweinhart
- Keith Seaman
- Fred Shapiro
- Jeremy Shepherd
- Sisyphus (mythical person)
- David “Sunshine” (also “*”, “Sunsch”) Sheinson
- David “Beast” Solomon
- Dean Solomon
- Andy Strong
- Chris Strong
- Mike Surridge
- Dave Taylor
- Geoff Thorpe
- Harriet Tidd (Gill, Massachusetts town clerk)
- Rick Tucker
- Reverend Edgar Ambrose Willis
- Ferd Wulkan
- Zeno (mythical person)
- * • a potout in a game score, or Sunshine
- BBC • British Broadcasting Company
- CUTwC • Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club
- DB • Debby Boone
- DC • District of Columbia
- EP • English Pairs
- ES • English Singles
- ETwA • English Tiddlywinks Association
- HIP • Handicapped Individual Pairs
- IP • Individual Pairs
- L • Losses
- MIT • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- MUB • Miserable Unshaven Bastard
- NATwA • North American Tiddlywinks Association
- N. E. W. • NATwA, ETwA, World
- NP • NATwA Pairs
- NS • NATwA Singles
- OUTS • Oxford University Tiddlywinks Society
- PBTT • Power Behind the Throne
- Pos • Position
- ppg • points per game
- Pts • Points
- QuCTwC • Queens’ College Tiddlywinks Club
- QUESH • Queen Ethelberga’s School
- QUILTS • Queensmen in London Tiddlywinks Society
- TD • Tournament Directory
- UK • United Kingdom
- ULU • University of London Union
- UNDIMPY • telephone number of Ferd Wulkan in Gill, Massachusetts
- US • United States
- USA • United States of America
- W • Wins
- W-L • Wins-Losses
- WETS • Wessex Exiles Tiddlywinks Society
- WOY • Winker of the Year
- WP • World Pairs
- WS • World Singles
The original document is marked:
- © 1992 North American Tiddlywinks Association
Falls Church, Virginia USA • 9 March 1992 • Rick Tucker, Editor
Winx Upon a Time
Friday evening. UNDIMPY is ready for a record onslaught. Housemates with nonwinking connections to Beast Solomon and Paul Henninge are excited; Ferd’s a bit nervous. But maybe this was all an illusion, a giant auto-hoax. Maybe nobody was going to show up at all. Sure, there were Bob Henninge and Sue Crapes who had arrived the previous day and had helped get ready. But here it was well into the evening and the threatened hordes hadn’t arrived.
A little later. “I have no idea who that is.” “Oh my God, it’s Red Scarf.” “Schiller!?!?” “I haven’t seen you since, now let me think…” Driven by car, plane, and inexplicable passion, winkers from across the country descending on Gill. Everyone’s already saying, “We have to do this again next year.” Ferd is in ecstasy making bed maps of the house. 27 counting the rugged tenters and two infants. More than doubling the previous house record for sleeping humans. Good job, Dave! Arriving after lights out with 2 kids in tow, finding the room that had been reserved in your name without waking others up.
Saturday morning. The idea was that enough people would go out for breakfast that the chaos would be manageable. No such luck. A brilliant new tournament format becomes obvious (see accompanying article). The match opens with a song; nobody leaves. Pumpkin bread and people named Sue abound. The Greenfield Recorder sends a reporter and a photographer. The Springfield Union-News sends a reporter. Daniel Dern sets up video equipment . More new arrivals. The biggest winks event in a decade. Certainly the biggest display of winks memorabilia. Local kids wander in to see if Ferd had been telling the truth.
Saturday afternoon. Lunch right there at the match! It pretty much works as planned. Thanks Bob for making all that chili! Yes, these folks do still remember how to wink. The games are fun and exciting. Dave Lockwood runs a potting contest for the youngsters. Nepotism reigns as Ferd’s neighbor, Danny, comes in second to Dave’s daughter, Sam. Winkers spilling out of Town Hall into downtown Gill. A great day of beverage sales for Susie at the Gill Store.
Saturday evening. Twenty-how many at the Chinese restaurant. [Jonathan, who seats us, remembers Ferd fondly a month later: “Gill…lots of people…some sort of game.”] Upon our return, the signs pointing to Ferd’s house have been taken down. A local mystery. Who would want a big sheet saying “Winx Upon a Time”? We find we’re not only winkers but really nice people. While some people make or renew great connections, others just play bridge. Late into the night they’re winking, bridging, catching up. 28 sleep here this night.
Sunday. Now what? Things feel a bit more disjointed as winkers mull over who’s fading into which sunset. Vows to do this soon again. But first, a bit more eating, winking, hanging out. And—what’s this—a late arrival! Mary Kirman found wandering around near Town Hall by Paul and Ferd who do the final clean-up. And suddenly, they’re all gone. Even Bob and Sue and Sunshine leave a day earlier than expected. Ferd goes into withdrawal.
The aftermath. Harriett Tidd, Gill Town Clerk, sends Ferd a letter saying we didn’t do a good job cleaning up. Ferd feels like he’s been reprimanded by his mother for not straightening up his room. The janitor gets the little bit of extra money collected for the weekend. Ferd makes up with Harriet so we can do this again. Clearly a successful weekend: Dave Lockwood and family appear in Gill just a week later, unable to stay away.
The feedback has been tremendous. [“The best wink event in history.” (Margaret Henninge)] Yes, this is the perfect location for a winks gathering. Will we do it again next year? It might take the local folks just a bit longer than that to recover, but some time soon for sure! It was great having everyone in Gill!
On Wednesday, March 29th, the first world Tiddlywinks championship was won by the American upstarts as Bill Renke '73, made a difficult pot from just below the rim of the cup to clinch MIT's victory over Southhampton University, the European champions. The final score of the match, which took place in Southhampton, a middle-sized city on England's southern coast, was 123-101.
The top pair for MIT was Renke and Jim Marlin '73, who scored 37 points, followed by Tim Schiller '72 and J. Christ '73 with 33, Craig Schweinhart '73 and Dave Lockwood '74 with 28½, and Moishe '72 and Pete Cooper Copper '75 with 24½. Southhampton jumped off to an early 33½–22½ lead, but the MIT winkers showed their poise by coming back to win. Both English television stations (BBC & ITV) covered the tournament on their news shows.
The North American champions had previously defeated Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, by 82–30, a club team from Middlesex, England, by 60–24, the Southern England All-Star Team by 61–51, and Altrincham Grammar School by 63½–20½ in exhibition matches while touring England to create publicity for and interest in the game. Their sole loss came at the hands of the Northern All-Star Team by a score of 61–51. [...]
The match with Southhampton was the first one ever sanctioned by the International Federation of Tiddlywinks Associations as a "world Championship."
25 April 1972, The Tech (MIT student newspaper), article by Fred Shapiro, "MIT's World Champions", page 7, column 3.
From the Editor
While at times it seems that Zeno and Sisyphus were more successful in their endeavors than I have been in getting Newswink out the door in a timely fashion, nevertheless, herewith I offer the second issue of Newswink of the ’90s. I wish to thank all the contributors, some of whom contributed articles over a year ago. I particularly want to thank Richard Moore for his extensive comments and additions to my Tiddlywinks Dictionary that appeared in Newswink 25. I should also thank Ferd for not minding when I accidentally used his squidger to pot several winks against him in the Pairs, and, of course, for being host extraördinaire for NATwA’s 25th. Remember those “Cosmic Impact of Winks on Your Life” questionnaires devised by Bob and Sunshine in association with last year’s Gill event? I plan to reprint what I can in the “next” Newswink (Newswink doesn’t follow the normal strictures of time); this is also a hint to Bill Gammerdinger who was correlating and performing extensive analyses and concordances of what winkers wrote; and if you never got around to submitting your impact statement, Sunsch will probably be tracking you down. And welcome aboard, Jonathan Abbott Lockwood, born to Déjà and Dave on 19 February 1992.
Rick Wins!
Frequently a close runner-up, Rick Tucker finally captured a major title. Paired with Dave “The Dragon” Lockwood, Rick won the 1991 NATwA Pairs with an impressive 7-1 record. This was Rick’s first “Big Six” title and gave him a challenge for the World Pairs against Geoff Myers and Andy Purvis, the current holders of that title.
Rick’s career stretches back to MIT in 1972 where he was initially part of Zoo, then the post-Schiller MIT teams with Dave, Larry Kahn, Joe Sachs, Sue Agranoff (née Shrut), Charles Frankston, and others. Rick often paired with Larry in those days and posted tournament averages in the 4 to 4.5 range. While a strong support to Larry, Rick fared less well with weaker partners. As the 1980s rolled around, Rick was also prone to freezing on pots and psyching himself out, particularly when playing Singles. Happily, both of these elements have been overcome and we expect continued improvement.
The 1991 Pairs was an improvement over the previous year in several ways—more pairs, more games, and more fun. The field expanded to five with Bob Henninge & Mac McAvoy, Larry & Sunshine, Jim Marlin & Brad Schaefer, and Ferd & Indian challenging Dave & Rick. This was the first Pairs tournament in years for Indian (1977) and Sunsch (1982). After the redebut of Indian at the Gill reunion, he is again excited about playing and hosting tournaments. His return is certainly one of the highlights of 1991.
The match always promised to be a close one with over 200 years of experience among the five pairs. Lack of tournament practice was a factor, though, with Sunshine and Indian having little recent Pairs or Singles exposure. Going in, it looked like Larry & Sunshine should win, but Dave & Rick would challenge, particularly if Sunshine was off form. Ferd & Indian and Jim & Brad were dark horses, but not extremely so. Bob & Mac were expected to be competitive in every game but have little chance to win. Broadly, this was the structure of the match but there were several surprises along the way.
The format was a one day double-round robin. In Round 1, Dave & Rick and Larry & Sunshine stated their intentions with 6’s over Jim & Brad and Bob & Mac. Ferd & Indian began their slow start, which was to last 4 rounds and doom their title hopes, by taking their bye. Ferd & Indian were to score, 2, 1, and 3 in their first three games and trail the field before their 4-1 for 25½ finish.
Dave & Rick and Larry & Sunshine remained undefeated into their fifth round match-up, tied at 16. This potential pressure-cooker of a game was diverted when Larry Sighted Six, Sank Same. The remainder of the game was all Dave & Rick as they grabbed the two points available and limited the gap to 3 points. This may have been then game where Sunshine started to go off the rails as Larry & Sunshine failed to get more than 4 points in a game from here on.
The second round-robin round was to be a two-horse race like the first but Ferd & Indian took Larry & Sunshine’s place. These two pairs lost but one game in the second round while the other three pairs got one 4-3 win each. Despite their fade, Larry & Sunshine were only down 3 going into the final game with Dave & Rick. This has been a tough situation for Dave recently, having lost the 1991 ETwA Pairs and NATwA Singles while leading going into the last game.
But not this time. Dave & Rick quickly established a superior position and Larry & Sunshine were not psychologically prepared to focus and turn around. The result was 6-1 and set up an interesting finish in the other game in this final round—Ferd & Indian versus Jim & Brad.
Jim & Brad were never a factor in this match. This was surprising as both are strong players with Jim a former NATwA and World Pairs champion and Brad one of the few improving Singles players in NATwA. The start of the final game had Jim & Brad 1½ points behind Bob & Mac while Ferd & Indian were 5 behind Larry & Sunshine. With Dave & Rick’s 6-1 over Larry & Sunshine, Ferd & Indian could tie for second with a 6 while Jim & Brad could salvage 4th with a 2. On this day, it had to be Ferd & Indian with the 6.
Bob & Mac got the tournament we expected they would. They were tough to beat in every game and split their games with the second place pairs. In addition, they got 4th ahead of Jim & Brad. Congratulations.
This tournament of veterans was both fun and competitive. It did seem to be a bit short. We may decide a triple round is better for the numbers we had. On another note, we need to get the newcomers—Christine Marlin, Chris & Andy Strong, Roman Muszynski, et al.—into these types of tournaments. Hopefully, we can get enough of them that there will be some games they will probably win. It’s good to nurture their interest but it might be good to let them take their chances once in a while.
In summary, congratulations are due to Rick & Dave and a well done to Ferd & Indian. A “Tough Luck” goes to Larry & Sunshine and Jim & Brad. Better luck next time.
Scorecard: North American Pairs
2 November 1991, Marlin residence, Ashburn, Virginia
Round Robin 1 | Round Robin 2 | ||||||||||||
A | B | C | D | E | A | B | C | D | E | Total | Pos | ||
A | Bob Henninge Mac McAvoy | 1 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 4th | ||
B | Larry Kahn * | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2½ | 1 | 31½ | 2nd= | ||
C | Jim Marlin Brad Schaefer | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1½ | 18½ | 5th | ||
D | Ferd TDI | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4½ | 6 | 3 | 31½ | 2nd= | ||
E | Dave Lockwood Rick Tucker | 5 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5½ | 4 | 39½ | 1st |
Cumulative Scores
Round | Bob & Mac | Larry & * | Jim & Brad | Ferd & TDI | Dave & Rick |
1.1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | (0) | 6 |
1.2 | 2 | (6) | 7 | 2 | 11 |
1.3 | 8 | 12 | 8 | 3 | (11) |
1.4 | 10 | 16 | (8) | 6 | 16 |
1.5 | (10) | 21 | 9 | 12 | 18 |
2.1 | 14 | 24 | 10½ | (12) | 23½ |
2.2 | 15 | 26½ | (10½) | 16½ | 29½ |
2.3 | 16 | 30½ | 13½ | 22½ | (29½) |
2.4 | 19 | (30½) | 17½ | 25½ | 33½ |
2.5 | (19) | 31½ | 18½ | 31½ | 39½ |
4th | 2nd = | 5th | 2nd = | 1st |
Scorecard: NATwA's 25th at Gill
Gill Town Hall, 22 June 1991—Gill, Massachusetts
MATCH A Ferd’s Team 29½ vs. *’s team 19½ |
MATCH B Ferd’s Team 32 vs. Bob’s team 31 |
MATCH C *’s Team 21½ vs. Bob’s team 34½ |
||||||
Scott Hirsh |
Ferd |
5 |
Joe Sachs |
Paul Henninge |
4 |
* |
Sue Agranoff |
1½ |
Dave Barbano |
Bill Gammerdinger |
2 |
TDI |
Rick Tucker |
3 |
Bob Henninge |
Tim Schiller |
5½ |
Steve Krasner |
Don Fox |
2 |
Dave Lockwood |
Sue Crapes |
6 |
TDI |
Shana Bricklin |
2 |
Paul Mailman |
Jim Marlin |
5 |
Larry Kahn |
Fred Shapiro |
1 |
Larry Kahn |
Beast Solomon |
5 |
Ferd |
Sue Crapes |
6 |
Dave Lockwood |
Don Fox |
4 |
MP Rouse |
Jim Marlin |
5 |
Paul Mailman |
Sue Agranoff |
1 |
Fred Shapiro |
Tim Schiller |
3 |
Bob Henninge |
Marg Henninge |
2 |
Joe Sachs |
Scott Hirsh |
5 |
Ferd |
Paul Henninge |
3 |
TDI |
Bill Gammerdinger |
1 |
* |
Bill Gammerdinger |
2 |
Bob Henninge |
Beast Solomon |
4 |
Rick Tucker |
Charles Frankston |
6 |
|
|
|
Dave Lockwood |
Joe Sachs |
1 |
L |
Shana Bricklin |
1½ |
|
|
|
Larry Kahn |
Tim Schiller |
6 |
Mac McAvoy |
Paul Mailman |
5½ |
Don Fox |
Michael Krasner |
3 |
Ferd |
Scott Hirsh |
3 |
Dean Solomon |
Bozo & MP Rouse |
1½ |
Dean Solomon |
MP Rouse |
4 |
Tim |
TDI |
4 |
L |
Beast Solomon |
5½ |
Joe Sachs |
Don Fox |
3 |
Dave Lockwood |
Paul Henninge |
3 |
* |
Jim Marlin |
6 |
Bill Gammerdinger |
Shana Bricklin |
4 |
Bob Henninge |
Rick Tucker |
4 |
Mac McAvoy |
Paul Mailman |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
L |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Kahn |
Charles Frankston |
4 |
Dave Lockwood |
Paul Henninge |
5½ |
Ferd |
Don Fox |
4 |
|
|
|
TDI |
MP Rouse |
1½ |
Tim Schiller |
Rick Tucker |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Marlin |
Scott Hirsh |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Henninge |
Bill Gammerdinger |
3 |
|
|
|
TIDDLYWINKS!
Start of page 5
An Antidote for the Nineties (or, a Renewed Sense of Reality)
Sunshine
In planning our 25th anniversary/reunion event, one of the hardest things to come up with was a format for structured winking—the tournament. Late Friday evening, after most folks had already descended upon Gill and environs, we realized that since we had 3 sponsors, that we should each field a team for the match. Rather than the usual ‘choosing up sides’ or using team lines of the past, we thought that a self-selection process would be more in keeping with the spirit of the weekend. So, on Saturday morning, after Ferd unlocked the Gill Town Hall, we provided a sheet with 3 columns (Ferd, Sunshine, Bob Henninge) and winkers chose their own team and how many games they expected to want to play.
30 of the 34 ‘old’ winkers who came for the weekend played in the match—the highest turnout for a NATwA tournament since the 1981 Haverford Continentals. All players had played in the 70’s—in fact, 9 had not played in a NATwA event since 1981.
24 ‘official’ games took place; many were close (there were twice as many 4-3’s as any other score), and some took place outdoors. Only Ferd’s team chose a name. Sunshine’s team quickly fell behind but a very close match ensued between the other two teams, though only scant attention was paid to the results. At first glance Bob’s crew edged out the Gilligans 3.853 ppg to 3.844—but if games using Sunshine players on the other teams only counted half, then the Gilligans were on top 3.839 to 3.828. In the 9 games played between the contenders, 7 were 4-3’s.
Statistical highlights includes: first Sue Agranoff setting a record by ending a 12 year hiatus between games (breaking Paul Mailman’s 10 year stint), but then Shana Bricklin played her first tournament game in 14 years. Four players went undefeated—Jim Marlin (only player to win 4 games), David Solomon (now and then known as Beast, having the best match of his career), Charles Frankston, and Sue Crapes (only player with two 6-1’s). All 19 players who took part in 3 or more games won at least once. Don Fox was involved in four 4-3’s in his 5 games and played with or against 14 players. Muenster extended his (its?) record for tournament games by a paranormal wink. There were no 7-0s. And Bill Gammerdinger no longer has to feel guilty about having a ppg above 4.00.
Nonstatistical highlights included Daniel Dern once again not playing; Sam Lockwood winning the juniors potting competition; Don, Joe Sachs, and Dave Barbano getting their pictures into local papers; and a kitchen complete with lunch.
Attention, All Winkers, Old and New
Let me wish a Happy New Year to you.
And let me say I hope you will
Come this year to the Town of Gill.
For in Town Hall in the month of June
(It sounds far away, but it’s really quite soon),
Winkers of yore, from far and wide
Will come together and show their pride.
Sponsored by Bob and Ferd and Sunshine,
It’s guaranteed you’ll have a fun time.
Besides playing winks, we’ll also celebrate
A quarter century since we met our fate.
For it was in the Spring of Sixty-Six
(Thanks to a man named Severin Drix),
That our three thumbs started to twitch;
And it’s made all our lives so much more rich.
So think of Gill as the days get longer;
Think of Winks as the sun gets stronger.
You’ll hear more about this pretty soon—
Start getting nostalgic—and just stay tuned!
(January 1991)
Start of page 6
Who Says We Aren't Hip?
Dave Lockwood
Late October saw the emergence of a spacious new venue, the Marlin residence in Ashburn, Virginia. The inaugural event was another in our continuing series of HIP tournaments (Handicapped Individual Pairs). This leveling of the playing field, newcomers are competitive with Horsemeat and the Dragon.
Fittingly, our hosts garnered the gold, silver, and bronze medals in this match. It was Chris, or rather Christine, who executed a fifth round potout against Rick Tucker and Roman Muszynksi and gained the only 7 of the day and one of only two scores (after the handicap transfer) larger than 4¾. This enabled her to total 18 in four games and edge husband Jim and son Andy Strong, both at 16½. Andy played very credibly, winning three games and executing his shots well. His ranking in the next HIP will be higher.
The other five participants, Brad Schaefer (13.875), Dave Lockwood (13.25), Rick Tucker (12.375), Roman Muszynski (12.125) and Chris Strong (9.375), all averaged less than 3.5 in a relaxed and fun environment. Christine also managed to feed the lot of us*an extra added incentive given her superior skills in that arena as well. Christine, congratulations on the first victory in a NATwA tournament by a woman in twelve years. We look forward to your future performance.
Scorecard: Handicapped Individual Pairs
26 October 1991—Ashburn, Virginia
Handicaps: Dave Lockwood 7, Brad Schaefer 5½, Jim Marlin 5, Rick Tucker 5, Roman Muszynski 2, Chris Strong 1½, Andy String 1½, Sarah Strong 1, Chris Marlin 0.
H1 | H2 | Actual | H2 | H1 | |||||
3¾ | 3⅞ | Andy Strong | Chris Strong | 4 | 3 | Chris Marlin | Roman Muszynski | 3⅛ | 3¼ |
3¼ | 3⅝ | Dave Lockwood | Rick Tucker | 4 | 3 | Brad Schaefer | Jim Marlin | 3⅜ | 3¾ |
4¼ | 4⅛ | Andy Strong | Jim Marlin | 4 | 3 | Brad Schaefer | Chris Strong | 2⅞ | 2¾ |
6¾ | 6⅝ | Dave Lockwood | Chris Marlin | 7 | 0 | Rick Tucker | Roman Muszynski | ⅛ | ¼ |
1½ | 2¼ | Dave Lockwood | Andy Strong | 3 | 4 | Jim Marlin | Chris Marlin | 4¾ | 5½ |
4½ | 4¾ | Brad Schaefer | Roman Muszynski | 5 | 2 | Chris Strong | Rick Tucker | 2¼ | 2½ |
7 | 6½ | Rick Tucker | Andy Strong | 6 | 1 | Dave Lockwood | Chris Strong | ½ | 0 |
4 | 4¼ | Jim Marlin | Roman Muszynski | 4½ | 2½ | Brad Schaefer | Chris Marlin | 2¾ | 3 |
Point Totals Using Method 1: ((player-1-handicap + player-2-handicap) – (player-3-handicap + player-4-handicap)) / 2
Rick |
Andy |
Chris Marlin |
Jim |
Chris Strong |
Brad |
Dave |
Roman |
13 |
16.5 |
18.5 |
17.5 |
9 |
14 |
11.5 |
12 |
5th |
3rd |
1st |
2nd |
8th |
4th |
7th |
6th |
Point Totals Using Method 2: H2 = H1 / 2
Rick |
Andy |
Chris Marlin |
Jim |
Chris Strong |
Brad |
Dave |
Roman |
12.5 |
16.75 |
17.5 |
16.5 |
9.5 |
13.75 |
13.25 |
12.25 |
6th |
2nd |
1st |
3rd |
8th |
4th |
5th |
7th |
Dave nominated scheme 1 prior to the start of the tournament. But when the tournament was over, Dave decided that scheme 1 was wrong and stated that scheme 2 was correct. Actually, Dave now reports that both of these handicap results are bogus; the latest estimated totals are offered in the article on the previous page. It is left as an exercise to the reader to devise a handicapping scheme which results in an 8-way tie, given the actual game scores above.
Start of page 7
The President's View
Dave “The Dragon” Lockwood
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and to that extent, truth is what you make it. This is to preface a brief examination of where NATwA is and where we might be going.
NATwA is in a trough that began in about 1984. That was probably the bottom of a decline that came after Bill Renke won everything in 1973. Bill was the leader of much of NATwA, having led MIT in the England trip of 1972, created the Zoo superpower, and practiced more than anybody. Bill’s dominance in 1973 left him with no further perceived heights to conquer. The difference between then and now is the weight of history against which we can compare our achievements. If Larry or I have a great year such as Bill’s, we chalk it up and go on to the next year. While not strictly comparable, all of Bill’s marks set that year have been equaled or bettered. His Triple Crown was matched by Severin Drix in 1979. His 29-6 drubbing of Alan Dean in World Singles 1 was bettered by Larry’s 25-3 slaughter of the same opponent in 1985. His 5.38 ppg was surpassed by Larry’s 5.45 in the 1980s.
Bill’s retirement is not complete but his decline killed the Zoo team whose interest was based on him. Toronto might be seen as kindred spirits to the Zoo and they followed Bill into extinction shortly thereafter. Other significant losses have been MIT, Joe Sachs, Charles Frankston, Arye Gittelman, and Severin Drix. (Of these, Severin has the best chance of being redeemed.)
If we have troughed, is there a chance for growth? Hopefully, yes. Certain events lend credence to this conclusion:
- The Gill, Mass. reunion was a resounding success
- Nationwide participation
- Renewed interest by TDI, Paul Mailman, Marg Henninge, and others
- Record equipment sales
- Children of winkers are starting to play
- Children’s potting tournaments at Gill and Ohio were popular
- The Strong boys—Chris and Andy—have played in handicap tournaments
- Handicap tournaments give newcomers an even chance and compensate veterans in Bob-rookie situations
These developments are all positive but if we are to grow I believe we must also achieve some, if not most, of the following goals:
- Weekly club meetings in DC, Ithaca, and Ohio
- Annual tournaments in DC, Ohio, Gill, Ithaca
- Local handicap tournaments to support newcomers
- Price lists on thin squidgers, sets, mats, Larry Kahn autographed photos, bumper stickers, etc.
- More publicity in newspapers about local clubs and tournaments
- Dues collected more rigorously and applied to growth efforts
- Friends invited to learn the game
While we might be able to survive at our current level of 10-15 players, we should aim for 30-40 by 1995. This lead would give us a better mix of skill levels and diminish the huge experience hurdle faced by current newcomers. In summary, we may be able to blame Bill for our decline but we may claim for ourselves all the glory of future growth.
World Pairs 11 · Cambridge, England · 21-22 November 1991
- Queens’ College: Armitrage Room (games 1-5, 7), Erasmus Room (game 6)
- Old pot in odd-numbered games (Dave & Rick preference); new pot in even-numbered games
- Dominant corners with blue & red for Andy & Geoff in odd-numbered games
- Larry Kahn, umpire · Gavin Keyte, recorder
Dave Lockwood Rick Tucker |
1 |
4 |
1 |
5½ |
2 |
6 |
1½ |
21 |
Andy Purvis Geoff Myers |
6 |
3 |
6 |
1½ |
5 |
1 |
5½ |
28 |
Start of page 8
Letter to the Editor: Failure to Free
2, Janmead
Witham, Essex, CM8 2EN
17th October, 1990
Dear Rick,
As you have put into words what many Americans seem to feel about ETwA’s Rule 11 [failure to free; See Newswink 25, page 12], it may be helpful if I outline the thinking behind the most radical rule change since the point transfer in 1965.
First, there still exists the basic difference in the recognition of the obligation to free. NATwA, expressed most vociferously by Dave, holds that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the responsibility to free if it is inconvenient, or if the attractions of potting are too strong. The old penalty of moving a wink was felt to be worth the risk, because the limitations imposed over the years had rendered it difficult for the offended pair to select a wink on top of the biggest pile. So, if there were better things to do, you could probably get away with minimal comeback from the opposition.
On the other hand, ETwA has consistently held the view that the Rules are black and white. If they require you to free, then you must free. As there is a specified means of determining the number of free turns, if this calculation arrives, say, at the number four, what right has anyone to say “Stuff the rules, I want four and a half”? As a result, we have maintained our stance on the freeing shot being first in the requisite turn. In the 1990 revision, this has logically been clarified to include the potting of a sixth wink. You might say “What if this misses?” Our counter to this is that the freeing (in this isolated case, of all the winks) is still dependent upon a single shot. Any attempt at a desquop can screw up, so consistency is not compromised.
The manual movement rule had been under attack for some time. Initial confusion about what was or was not possible had been clarified by various rewordings, but these had merely emphasized (in our minds) the minimal nature of the penalty, a penalty, remember, for breaking the rules.
The suggestion to replace manual movement with what was initially referred to as a “Free Wink” was made by a relative newcomer, Steve Phillips, at the Rules Meeting held during the 1989 Pairs. Larry Kahn [of NATwA] was at that meeting, so no-one should complain that NATwA has been taken by surprise. The Rules Subcommittee was mandated to formulate a revised rule based on this concept. Support for the idea was overwhelming. At this juncture, I must explain why such a departure from previous Holy Writ (the point you make most strongly) was felt to be so logical. Imagine, if you can, that NATwA had reached a similar impasse over a needed rule change, and someone had sug-gested that the Rules of Baseball contained an eminently suitable, and easily adaptable remedy. “What a great idea, that solves all the problems¾why didn’t we think of it before¾etc. etc.” This was precisely our reaction to Steve’s suggestion, because Snooker is such a popular and well-understood sport in Britain. Forgive me if you already know the rules, but there are 15 reds and six other colours. Potting must be carried out in the sequence Red, Colour, Red, Colour (the colours being respotted each time) until all the reds are potted, when the colours must then be potted in a specified sequence. At any given time when a player fails to pot a ball, his opponent comes to the table with a specified colour being the ball “on”. This is usually a red, but late in the game will be one of the six colours. If one player fouls (hits the wrong ball first, pots the wrong ball or pots the white cue-ball) his opponent receives a points penalty award, and starts to play. If however, the foul shot has left him “snookered” i.e. without a clear sight of 100% of the ball “on”, he is awarded a “Free Ball”. He is allowed to nominate any ball and play as if it were the same colour as the ball “on”. If he pots it, it scores the same as if he had potted the correct ball, status quo returns, and the break continues.
The Subcommittee found numerous pitfalls in drafting an acceptable Rule. The decision to allow the whole of the nominated colour to be treated as the player’s own was a compromise to avoid the inevitable disputes on the breaking of a large pile. The sixth round is something I personally disagree with, because I feel that if the freeing shot had been correctly played at the end of the fifth, the freed wink would not have had an opportunity to play anyway. My proposal was to transfer a time limit point from the player due to free to the player due to play next in sequence. But, we have democratic procedures in ETwA, and I was out-voted.
Before anyone gets too heated about this, we have barely had an opportunity to test its effects. The situation has been occurring infrequently in ETwA tournaments, and I suspect that players will be all the more careful to abide by the Rules in the future. Surely that is a desirable outcome?
Jon Mapley
Start of page 9
Letter to the Editor: Slow Play
(ALSO APPEARED IN WINKING WORLD 57, OCTOBER 1991)
Merton College, Oxford OX1 4JD U.K.
13th August 1991
Dear Sir,
I am writing on the subject of slow play. As things stand, if I am taking an age over my shot, my opponents are in the awkward position of having to wait for an indefinite period before they can play. It’s not as though they know there’ll be time for a cup of coffee or a sit down and a nap. There may be, there may not. This is very frustrating for them and they may lose concentration, which helps me. And if I take an age over EVERY shot, it could benefit me in another way: if I’m always slow, I’ll obviously be used to playing at that tempo¾it won’t affect my play. But my opponents, used to playing shots much more frequently, could well lose their form. The amount of pressure on every shot is also increased so they may begin to play too defensively. All in all, playing slowly can give a player quite some advantage.
This must be unfair, yet slow play is hard to legislate against. Limiting the amount of time spent on a shot might speed the game up but might also make it farcical, with noone having time to consider the position fully. The two-minute rule doesn’t work. Chess clocks sound like the ideal solution, but are expensive and would undoubtedly lead to some very twisted sets of rounds. The proposal I make below is aimed to reduce the amount of slow play by helping opponents of slow players. Unlike previous suggestions, it does not directly handicap the slow player, who is still able to play at his or her own pace.
The suggestion is that when a player has taken more than thirty seconds over a shot, the opponents are allowed to practise until a shot is played, provided that a mat is available nearby. This would apply both within regulation and (perhaps with a longer time threshold, maybe a minute) in rounds. The objection might be raised that licence to practise is too much of a bonus to the offended pair. Good¾we surely want to encourage quicker play. While I’m not suggesting that there are any players who play slowly to gain the benefits outlined in the first paragraph, it still seems distinctly likely that the sight of opponents practising their potting and squopping as rounds loom might make some players speed up markedly. At the very least the new measure should, if adopted, raise the quality of play in slow games, with both fast and slow players able to play to their ability. At best, we might have faster games and more of them in a day. Remember that newcomers to the game often give the long wait between shots and games as the worst facet of tournaments. Finally, in case anyone thinks I have an axe to grind, I ought to point out that I’m easily one of the slower players around.
Yours faithfully, Andy Purvis.
NATwA Neostatistics
THROUGH THE 1991 PAIRS, 2 NOVEMBER 1991 · 200 GAMES OR MORE · Larry Kahn
Name | Total Games | Total Wins | Total Losses | Total Ties | Total Points | Total ppg | Total W-L Percent |
Larry Kahn | 769 | 567 | 195 | 7 | 3592.5 | 4.672 | 0.742 |
Dave Lockwood | 723 | 504 | 216 | 3 | 3214.833 | 4.447 | 0.699 |
Bob Henninge | 712 | 436 | 273 | 3 | 2914.0 | 4.093 | 0.614 |
Sunshine | 687 | 427 | 254 | 6 | 2806.833 | 4.086 | 0.626 |
Severin Drix | 657 | 432 | 217 | 8 | 2821.0 | 4.294 | 0.664 |
Rick Tucker | 626 | 312 | 308 | 6 | 2136.333 | 3.413 | 0.503 |
Ferd | 610 | 374 | 229 | 7 | 2523.167 | 4.136 | 0.619 |
Bill Renke | 476 | 327 | 147 | 2 | 2123.0 | 4.460 | 0.689 |
Moishe | 471 | 209 | 257 | 5 | 1546.0 | 3.282 | 0.449 |
Joe Sachs | 457 | 267 | 186 | 4 | 1795.333 | 3.929 | 0.589 |
Jim Marlin | 424 | 214 | 206 | 4 | 1509.333 | 3.560 | 0.509 |
Charles Frankston | 403 | 196 | 205 | 2 | 1367.5 | 3.393 | 0.489 |
AryeGittelman | 353 | 221 | 131 | 1 | 1461.833 | 4.141 | 0.627 |
Fred Shapiro | 347 | 155 | 190 | 2 | 1116.5 | 3.218 | 0.450 |
Mary Kirman | 335 | 165 | 165 | 5 | 1176.333 | 3.511 | 0.500 |
Bill Gammerdinger | 334 | 197 | 136 | 1 | 1333.5 | 3.993 | 0.591 |
Don Fox | 334 | 165 | 166 | 3 | 1203.167 | 3.602 | 0.499 |
Brad Schaefer | 327 | 156 | 167 | 4 | 1102.833 | 3.373 | 0.483 |
TDI | 308 | 177 | 126 | 5 | 1205.5 | 3.914 | 0.583 |
L | 271 | 120 | 146 | 5 | 880.167 | 3.248 | 0.452 |
Dave Barbano | 248 | 144 | 103 | 1 | 927.333 | 3.739 | 0.583 |
Nancy Brady | 247 | 125 | 120 | 2 | 871.833 | 3.530 | 0.510 |
Craig Schweinhart | 233 | 137 | 94 | 2 | 914.333 | 3.924 | 0.592 |
Ross Callon | 223 | 167 | 55 | 1 | 1030.833 | 4.623 | 0.751 |
Dean Solomon | 221 | 98 | 123 | 0 | 745.167 | 3.372 | 0.443 |
Tim Schiller | 204 | 150 | 53 | 1 | 930.5 | 4.561 | 0.738 |
Start of page 10
Corrections to the Rick Tucker Lexicon of Winks
Richard J. Moore
1990
* • asterisk is now used as the symbol for potouts in Winking World scoresheets (and isn’t just Sunshine’s logo)
area • part of the mat dominated by the winks of, or containing squops or piles chiefly controlled by one color or partnership, into which an opponent is usually reluctant to venture
baseline pot • (UK) variation of winks in which squopping the opponent is not allowed. If this happens accidentally, the winks are desquopped
Beady • (UK) nickname of British winker Geoff Myers
Betty’s Boys • team formed by Stew Sage and Richard Moore, first appearing in the ETwA Teams of Four in 1988 (earlier known as ‘Sideways Amigos’)
Bombay Bowl • Tournament between the four ‘home unions’ in Britain (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland) which has now lapsed. [Name was a play on ‘Calcutta Cup’, an England-Scotland Rugby Football match.]
brace • actually a Relle-ism, not in general use, though worth mentioning
Bristol Good • also known in Britain as ‘Cambridge Good’ (since CUTwC players seem particularly keen to employ it.)
butt under • a shot, sometimes intentional, which rather than squopping the target wink nudges it under an existing pile
Cambridge blue • actually not yellow-green, but a pale turquoise known also as ‘duck-egg green’
Cambridge Open • British tournament, similar to an Individual Pairs but not so systematic; partners and opponents are drawn completely randomly each round. The player with the highest ppg after two days is the winner.
Carpenter’s Fan Club • name used by WETS when competing in the ETwA Teams of Four; 1989-90 holders of the trophy
carve out • (UK) to chip or piddle a wink out of a pile
Catford Invitation • exclusive invitation tournament held at the home of, and under the influence of the cider of, Charles Relle
chip • (UK) to piddle or carve out a wink from a pile
circular squop • another term used for this situation in Britain is “Thorpe’s Ring” [after Geoff Thorpe, who is always especially keen to discuss its implications]
color order • perhaps mention of the definition that this is based on alphabetical order in English
CUTwC • actually pronounced \cut-wuck\ and not \cut-wik\
desquop • in British usage usually means manual freeing of winks, say after a potout, failure-to-free (under the old rule), or illegal shot
Dr. Fatty • (UK) nickname of British winker Nick Inglis
Dr. Superfatty • (UK) nickname of British winker Stew Sage
double squop • a shot which sends two friendly winks towards two different target winks, often in different directions
felt • you could mention that this is actually industrial superfelt and now obtained from a manufacturer in Belgium
flexible squidger • made of nonrigid plastic, often a bottle-top or (especially in Britain) a phonecard or credit card
Goons • this definition should mention the third Goon, Harry Secombe
Gottesman • British equivalent of this term is ‘Dave Taylor’ [after a former CUTwC winker]
Hampshire Open • Pairs tournament played annually at Southampton
judge • (US) a third party called in to decide a dispute between two players. In Britain, the term generally used is ‘umpire’, although ‘judge’ is used when the matter in question is the legality of a shot
knock off • shot played with the aim of disturbing another pile or squop and hopefully freeing friendly winks
knock-off-and-squop • shot played to free a friendly wink andsquop the opponent who was originally squopping the target pile or squop
London Open • Pairs tournament played annually in London
Mad Dog • nickname of British winker Andy Purvis
Marchant Trophy • (UK) tournament for teams of four, played over the years to different formats and now practically in abeyance. Trophy presented originally by Marchant Games
mat rotation • system ensuring that in a serious tournament a player cannot play on the same mats too frequently
‘middle for diddle’ • (UK, especially Relle) a cry of encouragement preceding the squidge-off.
mint-jelly squidger • (UK) made of nonrigid plastic, but somewhat more than credit card thicknessoften from the lid of a jar of Sainsbury’s Mint Jelly (see Winking World 49, page 23)
M.U.B. • nickname of British winker Richard Moore [= Miserable Unshaven Bastard; see Winking World 52, report of London Open]
nurdle, boondock, penhaligon • British drinking game based on counting
‘Other Nations’ • the anthem of Tiddlywinks, as composed by Rev. E. A. Willis for the Goons match in 1958
OUTS • actually stands for Oxford University Tiddlywinks Society
Start of page 11
Paul McCartney • (UK) a boondock-and-sub [Back-formation from John Lennon]
penhaligon • a carnovsky [after a TV presenter who managed it first time on BBC’s Breakfast Time]
phonecard squidger • (UK) made from a flexible British Telecom phonecard
pile flip • a shot which results in a wink from within a pile or underneath a squop ending up on top
positional game • in Britain, chiefly associated with Nick Inglishence sometimes an ‘Inglis game’
QuCTwC • \kwucktwuck\ (UK) Queens’ College Tiddlywinks Club (Cambridge)
QUESH • actually short for Queen Ethelberga’s School, Harrogate, an establishment having nothing at all to do with any of the players on the team, but which they once happened to drive past.
QUILTS • British Marchant Trophy team formed by players from Queens’ College, Cambridge [= QUeensmen In London Tiddlywinks Society]
Rick Tucker squidger • (UK) 1½ inch diameter marbled-effectsquidger, usually yellow, as sold to British players during 1985 US tour
run six • to pot all six winks of a color in successive shots of a single turn
salmon pink • (UK) one of the 1½ inch diameter marbled-effect squidgers made of gambling chips in Britain in the early 1980s—many were salmon pink in color
Secretary-General • the ETwA equivalent is actually Chairman
singleton (UK) • a one-on-one squop separate from other piles
Somerset Invitation • exclusive invitation tournament held annually by Stew Sage in Chilcompton, Somerset
squop, bristol, John Lennon memorial shot • British drinking game
stack • (UK, especially Pinner) = gromp
tar baby • a pile under your own control, but into which your winks seem to be sucked entirely inadvertantly. A tactical nightmare [Bob Henninge, 1990]
teams of four • (UK) short for the ETwA National Fours
tempo • advantage to be gained by forcing opponent into a shot, thereby allowing yourself a turn in which to do what you want. Essentially therefore a measure of who has the initiative henceto gain tempo or to lose tempo [originally a chess expression]
‘The Winks Club Mats’ • anthem of CUTwC, sung to the tune of the ‘Red Flag’.
two minute rule • rule enacted in the 1980s, but rarely enforced, according to which a partnership has only 2 minutes to play a shot in rounds, after which time the shot is forfeited
umpire • usual British term for ‘judge’, especially when the matter in question is simply whether or not a wink is squopped
Varsity match • it ought to be specified that this refers only to the annual CUTwC vs. OUTS match
waste • (UK) = to lose or boondock
Wessex Trophy • competition inaugurated in 1988 for two large and amorphous teams chosen on the morning of the tournament from amongst those present; held in London
Terms Unknown in Britain
(British equivalent in brackets) [Usage note in square brackets]
- autoboondock
- autosquop
- birthday present
- blowup (crud)
- carno
- climb up
- cuddle
- dance
- DB/Debby Boone
- double (doubleton, brace)
- eat (snaffle [rarely])
- feeb (George Michael [early 1980s but now rare])
- Gottesman (Dave Taylor)
- grand tour
- Indian rule
- IP
- jab shot
- junior birdman (Port Stanley)
- kickshot [obs.]
- kumquat
- minimum
- miracle shot
- murgatroyd [obs.]
- PBTT
- persimmon (rotating three)
- piddle (chip, carve out)
- plexy
- press (tap)
- quad (quadrupleton)
- rim shot
- rotate
- scrunge [now obs.]
- shoot (play)
- squopped out (squopped up)
- submarine
- tangent (side by side)
- triple (tripleton, tetrad [latter rare—used mainly by Relle])
- ULU [obs.]
- Visine shot
- wiggle
- winked out
- WOY
Other Notes on Usage
- bucket • not particularly rare in Britain
- Congress • also used in Britain (ETwA Congress, every October)
- free • definitely also used in Britain
- out • also used in Britain, though ‘squopped out’ is certainly an Americanism
Start of page 12
Sunshine's Singles Stall Strategy Surprise
Sunshine
The 1991 NATwA Singles was full of surprises. The most impressive one being Marg Henninge besting Larry Kahn 6-1 late in the round robin to knock him out of first place. Two other surprises were supplied by Sunshine. First of all–I showed up and played my first appearance at the Singles since 1979. And secondly I executed a game plan so alarming that it brought about a NATwA rules change to guard against it being use again. I discarded my reputation as being among the fastest (if not the fastest) players by going into a deliberate stall from the onset of the game.
When I decided to take part in the match I thought up a strategy for my game against Dave Lockwood. I believed that unless playing above my norm, that I would very likely fall to Dave 1-6—that my style of play and late game unreliability would do poorly against Dave. What I wanted to do was to shorten the game (give myself fewer chances to make errors) and to do so in a manner that would put me ahead as time and rounds expired—even thought it would be a position that would deteriorate were any more play available. With the 20 minute time limit for Singles and with Dave’s slow play, I hoped to have time expire after only at most 13 rounds (if Dave shot in 5 seconds instead of 15, there would be 4 more rounds). I would use the full 30 seconds on every shot.
So—Plan A was to squidge-in well and after 4 or 5 turns, to blitz. If any one of my first 5 would be captured, wink #6 would remain on the line to avoid being squopped out and getting to kill 30 seconds before passing. My second color would try to get involved—not going after my captured wink but trying to make a controlled potout impossible. I would not give up doubles and would not let either color get squopped out. I believed that Dave would not be able to catch me for first and that a 4-3 was achievable (and a potout also possible as would be a 0-7 loss).
However—I came in poorly. Dave had his own blitz threat and I had to go to Plan B. Still using 30 seconds, still not trying much, I kept one color mostly free and ran for the pot as time expired. Again, poor execution hurt—a pottable wink overshot and was captured—so my #1 color—red—was sitting on 10 points (3 in, 1 up). 13 or even 12 points probably would have been enough for first. Still, in the 5th round I had the option to make a 3 inch pot for a likely 3-4 loss or try a not easy 5 inch squop and/or drag-off for at least a 3-4 if not a 4-3. I missed the win shot, Dave made his not-so-difficult 5th round squop, and I lost 2-5. I came close despite poor execution. My strategy was sound: it almost gave me a win in a game in which I was outplayed by a top player.
But should such a strategy be allowed? England already had a rule in effect to eliminate stalling. If a player felt that their opponent was intentionally stalling, the tournament director (TD) could be called in and was empowered to decide on how much time to add to the game. In the middle of my game with Dave time was stopped, a short discussion held—and we agreed that no such rule held for NATwA but that after the game we would talk about it (and we now have the rule). However, I hope that should a stall happen in the future that the TD involved judge the circumstances of the game and decide appropriately. My strategy was not devised to annoy my opponent—it was set up to increase my chances of winning, my expected score—and as such, could be seen as legitimate.
Winkers play at different speeds—both as personal tendencies and as a response to game conditions. I took thing to an extreme—deciding that I would do best using 30 seconds per shot—something well within the rules. What I didn’t do was to try to disguise my plan—I informed Dave before we started to play—even offered to let him advance the clock if he didn’t want to wait 30 seconds again and again.
Does the stall belong in winx? It would be less effective against a faster player, in 25 minute games. (It is used to a much lesser extent in many games, either intentionally or just by slow play.) But the total stall, while giving a lesser player a chance to steal a game, does create a boring and tense game. I wouldn’t want to see too many such games but do feel that circumstances could merit a variation on my strategy.
Start of page 13
1991 NATwA Singles
Larry Kahn
This year there were several surprises even before the start of the first round. Sunshine made his first Singles appearance since the 1979 Singles and Marg Henninge decided to try playing with the biggies for the first time ever. Jim Marlin was late as usual only this time he was so late that he hasn’t played his first game yet. This left us on a field of 8, with the usual other 6 of Larry Kahn, Dave Lockwood, Rick Tucker, Brad Schaefer, Bob Henninge, and Mac McAvoy. Dave flew in for the weekend from London and apparently only made it because his flight was late. He only spent something like 30 hours in DC, almost half of that at the tournament. We decided on a full round plus top four playoff, slightly shorter than normal, since Dave had to leave early on Sunday to fly back.
The first round went as expected with Larry, Bob, and * taking 6’s off Mac, Brad, and Marg. The random draw set up the Dave Larry game in the next round, and after Larry brought in one color perfectly, he potted out. Excellent Dave potting saved 2 points. Meanwhile, Bob got another 6 to take the early lead. The next two rounds went as expected, Larry getting an undeserved 7 off * along the way. In the 5th round, Brad played extremely well and took 6 off Larry. Dave kept rolling with another 6 (off Mac) and took the lead. Larry recovered in the next round with a 6 off Bob and now it began to look like the usual race, with Dave and Larry battling it out, although the trio of *, Bob, and Brad were closer behind than in past years. In round 7 there were two surprises, one medium sized and one the mother of all upsets. Mac beat Rick 4-3 and then Marg took Larry 6-1 in a regular squop game, making all her critical shots. At this point it looked like the tournament had been handed to Dave, who was playing really well with another win, 5-2 over *. This game saw * use a questionable strategy (also as a partial protest against Dave’s slow play), never officially ruled out in NATwA. He decided that his best chance was to take the full 30 seconds before the clock could be stopped by Dave each time, even on bring-ins. This practice was immediately outlawed that evening and we now conform to the ETwA ruling on deliberate stalling.
So, with one round to go (rounds got screwed up because of the Jim problem), there were 5 potential finalists with only Dave certain: Dave had 31 in 7, Larry had 26 in 7, * had 28 in 8, Bob had 26 in 7, and Brad had 25 in 7. Larry, feeling he needed to really push it, tried for and got 7 from Rick. Brad took 6 off Mac to get in, and Bob now needed 2 off Dave to tie *. He just got it, at which point * decided not to try and go on, allowing Bob to go through uncontested. This left Dave on 36, Larry on 33, Brad on 31, and Bob on 28. Close.
The finals were held on Sunday, with anyone being able to win it. The first round pairings were Larry-Brad and Dave-Bob. Larry reversed the first encounter results with a 6-1 win and now had to wait for the other game. By rounds, Dave had boondocked all Bob’s yellows to the edge in an attempt for a 7. This unorthodox strategy worked and he upped his total lead to 4. Next, Bob played Larry really tough and looked like he was actually going to win the game after Larry had one of those disaster type shots. He recovered soon after with a miracle shot and now had a chance for a win. Bob potted well with his one leading color but Larry barely caught him with some good potting in the last round to escape with a 4. Dave was still playing Brad, and would lead by whatever he got in that game. Through the third round it looked like 6, but in the 4th a 5-inch pot attempt bounced out backwards and destroyed one of Dave’s doubles. Brad was able to exploit this incredibly bad luck by playing perfectly in the 5th to set up a possible win. Dave missed relatively easy pots with both colors in the fifth after having potted extremely well throughout the tournament to leave himself with a disgusted 3.
This only served as the preliminary for what came next. Brad held off Bob, getting the required 2 for 3rd. Meanwhile Larry needed 5 to tie. The game started off rather positionally, with both players setting up pot threats. Larry accidentally squopped a big blue from the line with a yellow, but this was in an area with blues only. Green had 6 free but with a little on a red very near the cup, and a big on both of these. Red was also in good position. Here it comes:
Dave brings his last blue in, knocking the little yellow off and leaving 6 blues free. Green goes for the potout, gets the 5 in but potting the big off the squop does not move the little enough and the pot is now nearly impossible. Larry decides to click off safe, about 10 inches from the cup and at least a foot from any Dave winks. Reds are all free, relatively near the cup, several surrounding a yellow. Yellows are also all free, but one little is touching the cup and one big is about 16 inches away. Red decides to pot, but misses his hardest one long. Yellow resquops the big blue to prevent that potout and Dave now has to squop the green from 12 inches with the other big. He does it! Red can now take a yellow, go out and protect, or continue to pot. He tries a pot and misses short on another red, making it nontrivial to pot. Yellow can either try for the squop with a big from about 10 inches or (gulp) go for the pot. Larry decides the pot is the best bet (given the way red missed) and makes the three easy close ones but misses the totally nurdled one. Dave now tries a 1½” inch squop of the little yellow on the big blue but misses short (is this 1984 all over again?), leaving himself on the blue Start of page 14″“on the far side of the cup and knocking the yellow angled down on the near side (squop about 3 inches from cup). Red continues potting, making one and then missing, figuring he’ll have at least 2 more turns to do it in. WRONG!! Larry makes the pot off the squop, then the easy one, and lines up the 16 inches big. After a brief moment of indecision on which squidger to use, he knocks it straight in, much to Dave’s disbelief of the last three rounds. It really did appear to both players that Dave had the tournament won after the blue squop of green. Both players are obviously drained but there are still some very important shots to play. After a round of misses, Larry makes the last green for the 7 and another miracle finish at Dave’s expense. I only wish we had the final few games on tape; this is the kind of stuff we need to make winks a real spectator sport.
Some irrelevant notes: Bob and * should have had a playoff game. Bob’s NATwA total after the tournament was 699. Dave went over 700. Brad needed to make a short squop in the last game to prevent any fractional scores for the whole tournament. Marg in her first Singles finished 5th averaging slightly over 2.
Scorecard: North American Singles
4 May 1991—Silver Spring, Maryland
After Day 1 |
After Day 2 |
||||||
Pts |
W |
L |
Pts |
W |
L |
Winker |
Pos |
33 |
5 |
2 |
50 |
8 |
2 |
Larry Kahn |
1 |
36 |
6 |
1 |
46 |
7 |
3 |
Dave Lockwood |
2 |
31 |
5 |
2 |
38 |
6 |
4 |
Brad Schaefer |
3 |
28 |
4 |
3 |
36 |
5 |
5 |
Bob Henninge |
4 |
28 |
4 |
3 |
* |
5 |
|||
15 |
1 |
6 |
Marg Henninge |
6 |
|||
14 |
2 |
5 |
Mac McAvoy |
7 |
|||
11 |
1 |
6 |
Rick Tucker |
8 |
Day 1—4 May 1991—Round Robin
1 | Larry | 6 | 1 | Mac McAvoy |
Bob Henninge | 6 | 1 | Brad Schaefer | |
* | 6 | 1 | Marg Henninge | |
2 | Larry Kahn | 5* | 2 | Dave Lockwood |
Marg Henninge | 3 | 4 | Mac McAvoy | |
Brad Schaefer | 5 | 2 | * | |
Bob Henninge | 6 | 1 | Rick Tucker | |
3 | Dave Lockwood | 6 | 1 | Brad Schaefer |
Marg Henninge | 2 | 5 | Rick Tucker | |
* | 5 | 2 | Bob Henninge | |
4 | Bob Henninge | 5 | 2 | Mac McAvoy |
Larry Kahn | 7 | 0 | * | |
Dave Lockwood | 6 | 1 | Rick Tucker | |
Brad Schaefer | 6 | 1 | Marg Henninge | |
5 | * | 7* | 0 | Rick Tucker |
Brad Schaefer | 6 | 1 | Larry Kahn | |
Dave Lockwood | 6 | 1 | Mac McAvoy | |
Bob Henninge | 6 | 1 | Marg Henninge | |
6 | * | 6 | 1 | Mac McAvoy |
Brad Schaefer | 6 | 1 | Rick Tucker | |
Larry Kahn | 6 | 1 | Bob Henninge | |
Dave Lockwood | 6 | 1 | Marg Henninge | |
7 | Mac McAvoy | 4 | 3 | Rick Tucker |
Larry Kahn | 1 | 6 | Marg Henninge | |
Dave Lockwood | 5 | 2 | * | |
8 | Larry Kahn | 7 | 0 | Rick Tucker |
Brad Schaefer | 6 | 1 | Mac McAvoy | |
Bob Henninge | 2 | 5 | Dave Lockwood |
Day 2—5 May 1991—Playoff of Top Four
1 |
Larry Kahn |
6 |
1 |
Brad Schaefer |
Bob Henninge |
0 |
7 |
Dave Lockwood |
|
2 |
Larry Kahn |
4 |
3 |
Bob Henninge |
Brad Schaefer |
4 |
3 |
Dave Lockwood |
|
3 |
Bob Henninge |
5 |
2 |
Brad Schaefer |
Larry Kahn |
7 |
0 |
Dave Lockwood |
Presbyopia—A problem NATwA needs to see clearly on
Sunshine
As technology improves to aid on difficult squopping judgments, our vision itself may be declining. Presbyopia is a defect of vision incident to advancing age, in which near objects are seen with difficulty. My eye doctor’s office has a sign which says if you’re over 40, you’ve got it. At short distances glasses could hinder rather than enhance vision. When one asks for a judge, one tends to hope for an experienced player to answer the call—but many of us are past or fast approaching 40.
I’m not saying we’re at a crisis, but I am serious. My own close range vision has recently deteriorated (I’ll soon be 43) and though in the past I didn’t feel totally comfortable winking sans glasses, I now see better without than with glasses at winking distances. And several weeks before our recent Pairs tourney, Bob Henninge (even older) remarked that he was having trouble seeing clearly during winking and reading. Just who is a trustable judge these days? Should bifocals be added to our judging equipment?
Start of page 15
Squopping
Larry Kahn
ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN WINKING WORLD 56
Despite the recent proliferation of maniac potters, squopping is the way to go. Even if you play pot-squop (ugh), it’s still important to be able to stop the opponents or rescue yourself.
Here’s some general advice to get started with:
Squidger and grip. The squopping squidger should be a thin edged one somewhere between 1 3/8 and 1 1/2 inches in diameter. The material is not critical unless the squidger sticks too much or is so slippery that winks come out too early (premature squopulation). The squidger should be gripped from the side with the thumb and first two fingers. Make sure to grab enough of the squidger to maintain a firm grip but not enough that your fingers get in the way of the shot. When using a one inch squidger this is particularly important.
I use my regular squopping squidger for at least 90% of my squops. The few exceptions are when a one inch is needed, for specialty shots such as clicks, and for squopping with big winks from about a foot or more. For the longer distances I find that going to a 2 inch squidger reduces accidental rolling.
The basic shot. The setup for a normal squop shot starts with the squidger touching the wink about 2/3 of the way (or further) back from the leading edge with the top of the squidger angled forward. The more the squidger is tilted, the lower!the trajectory the shot will have (vertical squidger gives highest trajectory). Anything much past vertical gives you the usual potting shot. To shoot the wink, press down slightly and slide the squidger back until the wink jumps out and forward. This takes some practice since everyone does the shot a little differently and you should find the style that’s comfortable for you. I tend to start fairly far back on the wink and sort of chunk them out while others like to stroke it more (however, no amount of stroking will enlarge a little one into a big one).
There are only two reasonable ways to line up the shot: shooting towards yourself or shooting away from yourself. Shooting towards yourself has the advantage of seeing more of the shot and making it easier to keep your fingers out of the away. I always liked shooting away from myself because I could get the distance better. One thing I found was that for very short or delicate shots, particularly at critical times, towards was better because you could see the shot and the way your hand rests makes for a more stable base. I highly recommend at least getting comfortable with both methods since there are times when only one method can easily be used. For most squops use whatever method is producing the best results.
Squopping single winks. The most important thing to remember when going after a single free wink is that most of the time you must aim short of the wink since if you hit it on the fly the shot will probably be too hard. The breakpoint for this distance is something between one and two inches depending on the mat and winks. Anything shorter than this can be shot at directly but for longer shots the squopping wink needs to hit just short of the target wink and then bounce on. It’s hard to explain exactly where to aim for and a reasonable amount of practice is required to get the hang of it. Once you feel confident of making the shot you can concentrate (on the short shots) on getting on bristollably but your first priority should be to make the shot in the first place.
The quality of the mat can have a big effect on squopping. If the mat is dead, it becomes more difficult to get the winks to bounce, resulting in a lot of butt shots. About the only thing you can do is use a more vertical squidger angle and a little more downward pressure to try to get more height on the shot.
Also, temperature and humidity have an effect on the slipperiness of winks. It appears that cold winks are more slippery than warm ones, and that high humidity will cause stickiness. Scratchy winks are of course more sticky than unscratched ones. Beware of new or rarely used winks since these will consistently shoot short for both squopping and potting until they are broken in. You can speed up this breaking in process by rubbing two winks together face to face with lots of pressure. This seems to get some of the shine off.
Squopping onto piles. Probably the easiest squop shot of all is one in which the target wink is ramped up facing you. This shot has a larger margin for error in the too hard direction since the upward ramp will slow you down a little. Conversely, with the ramp facing away from you, the squopping wink tends to slide off. However, for the ramp away shot the biggest danger is to miss short, allowing an easy double. You must aim to hit the top of the target wink so the squopping wink will be slowed enough to stay on. Usually it is better to miss long in this case rather than short.
In general, the higher off the mat the target wink is, the more difficult the shot. Even squopping a two wink pile can be dangerous if it is set up for a Bristol because if you miss and land close you are dead meat. It is best to practice squopping a two wink pile from different distances to get the feel for when you can aim straight for the top wink and when you have to try and bounce them on.
Start of page 16[>
For larger piles be aware of what other winks may be able to do for you. Sometimes there will be an obvious backstop that you can use so you may want to shoot a little harder than normal. If the wink is up fairly high, a direct shot may work because as the whole pile topples over the winks will often fall down in order and the end result is something like a line squop. Also, squopping pot-style onto a wink right in the middle of a pile will often work, particularly with a big wink from medium distance.
Special shots
Click shot—This is a shot in which you are shooting a wink from off another wink and they are positioned so that you must launch off the lower wink without being able to hit the mat. This is a difficult shot and the best way to try it is to use a one inch very sharp squidger and almost a vertical squidger angle. You have to start the shot close to the edge of the wink and chop straight down without much backward squidger motion. This shot does work a reasonable amount of the time so don’t be afraid to try it.
Squop and drag off—Sometimes you don’t have any choice and need to perform both of these at once. If you have a choice, pick a target setup in which the top wink is already partly off the bottom one with the bottom one being closer to you. For this shot you pretty much have to land on the target wink and hope that the momentum carries it off the lower one and that your wink is still squopping it. Unless the target wink is mostly off to start with this is pretty much a crapshoot but I have made the shot with a small wink onto a totally vertical big wink pile from about 6 inches so it’s never completely hopeless.
Boondock and squop—The usual mistake here is to have the squidger coming down from the wrong angle. Imagine a two wink pile, top wink half over the bottom, and you are trying to squop a wink behind your top one. The boondock should be performed with the squidger at right angles to your wink (so that the boondocked wink goes off at a 90 degree angle to the line along the original 3 winks) as you would be in a Bristol shot. The shot should be done in a jablike fashion in an attempt to jump your wink onto the other one. Before you do the shot decide on which of the two parts of the shot are most important and make sure you get at least that part of the shot done.
Knock off—a lot of times simply knocking off the offending wink can be almost as useful as actually getting it since you gain a tempo and are now in the area. Almost all knock-offs are done by hitting the target on the fly. Aim for the close edge of the target wink. A pot-style shot can also work from medium to long range.
Shooting at multiple winks—Sometimes you’ll be lucky enough to try for more than one wink. The difficulty here can be that the target winks can block your intended landing area or they may be slightly apart. If you are going to try for all of them it can sometimes be right to aim to cover one of them just slightly to avoid a butt shot. This is typical when shooting a little one at two big ones that are not quite touching. If you’re really in doubt it might be better to wuss out and make sure of getting one wink rather than miss everything.
Some final advice. If you are just starting out, squopping isn’t as hard as it looks. The first thing to do is get used to shooting squop-style so that you can gauge distance and then practice in the two inch and shorter range. Being able to consistently make a 1 inch squop is the key to winning a lot of games. The more difficult shots come with practice, especially for pile shots where no two are the same. I like to do a lot of experimenting in practice games to see what works and what doesn’t. It really doesn’t take that long to get reasonably competent. An hour a day of squop games for a few weeks will do it (unless you’re a total turkey, in which case you might want to try something less physically demanding, like go or chess).
1991 ETwA Singles—Finals
24 November 1991 · Armitrage Room, Queens' College, Cambridge, England
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
Total |
Pos |
||
A |
Andy Purvis |
1 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
41 |
5 |
|
B |
Larry Kahn |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5* |
6 |
1* |
7* |
4 |
2½ |
2 |
50 |
2 |
|
C |
Nick Inglis |
4 |
1 |
7* |
5* |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
5* |
33 |
9 |
|
D |
Patrick Barrie |
1 |
1 |
0* |
1 |
5* |
2 |
0* |
3 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
21 |
12 |
|
E |
Matthew Rose |
1 |
2 |
2* |
6 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1* |
6* |
6 |
4 |
34 |
8 |
|
F |
Dave Lockwood |
3 |
2* |
6 |
2* |
3 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
5½ |
4 |
1 |
34½ |
7 |
|
G |
Jon Mapley |
6 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
49 |
3 |
|
H |
Geoff Myers |
1 |
6* |
6 |
7* |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
7* |
6 |
60 |
1 |
|
I |
Alan Dean |
3 |
0* |
3 |
4 |
6* |
1 |
5 |
2 |
4½ |
1 |
1 |
30½ |
11 |
|
J |
Richard Moore |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1* |
1½ |
1 |
3 |
2½ |
5* |
4 |
32 |
10 |
|
K |
Simon Gandy |
4 |
4½ |
6 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
0* |
6 |
2* |
6 |
41½ |
4 |
|
L |
Tim Hedger |
5 |
5 |
2* |
2 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
35 |
6 |
Start of page 17
Survey: What to Do When a Wink is Shot Off the Mat?
Sunshine
Since February 1986, the “Perimeter Rule” (see below) has been in effect in a number of NATwA games. In some matches it’s been the rule, in others it has been used on when all players in a particular game agree to use it instead of the old standard, and in some matches it has not been used at all. In this year’s Pairs, three of the five pairs opted for Perimeter; thus six of the twenty games used the Perimeter rule. For a while it looked like a vote would be taken at a post-match Congress, but instead it was proposed that a poll be taken of NATwA dues-paying members. To facilitate such a poll, this article contains the wording and rationale for the proposed new rule. Please inform Rick and Sunshine of your opinions and preferences.
Perimeter Rule: When any wink is shot off the field of play, the opponents of the shooter choose where to place the wink (regardless of color) on the perimeter of the mat—7/8 inch from the edge and no closer than 4 inches to any other!wink or occupied baseline. The shooter loses their next shot only if more than one wink was shot out of play.
Rationale:
Fairness of penalty.
Many off-the-table shots are the result of bad luck more than bad play. A loss of turn, squopping of other unprotected winks, and a far away wink is often a very unjustly severe penalty. Having the wink three feet away is penalty enough.
Boondocking skill.
The rule rewards skill more than brute force. One can earn an advantage by being skillful at boondocking to the edges of the mat. And, brutal boondockings are punished as the exiled wink will appear closer to the action and to the pot.
ETwA, NATwA agreement.
True, it is a nuisance at times if our two groups use different rules. However, if an improvement to the rules/game is possible¾and some feel that this rule is such an improvement, then one association must be the first to make a change.
Possible choices:
Rule A: Keep current rule, with Perimeter rule used only if all players in a particular game so choose.
Rule B: Perimeter rule becomes the standard; current rule used only if all players in a particular game so choose.
Rule C: Different rules for different matches. Such as Rule A for Singles, Pairs; Rule B for Individual Pairs; to be determined for other matches.
Please rank order your preference, such as:
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
|
example 1 |
C |
A |
B |
example 2 |
A |
No other choices |
|
example 3 |
B |
C |
No 3rd choice |
(From the ETwA Archives, courtesy of Andy Purvis.)
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CAMBRIDGE 39
Office of Public Relations Room 3-339
December 3, 1962
Dear Sir:
Recent interest in tiddlywinks at M.I.T.—largely attributable to your recent matches in this country I believe—has given rise to speculation on the origin of the game.
My own modest efforts to track down the game have been very inconclusive. I presume the game to be of relatively recent origin since specific references to it in dictionaries and amusement manuals occur no earlier than the latter part of the nineteenth century. Despite occasional descriptions of the game, such as that in “The Young Folks’ Cyclopedia”, published in 1890 (which, by the way, specifies in its rules that “A player may not intentionally cover any of his opponents counters” which may possibly account for the American unfamiliarity with squopping), no reference to the origin or derivation of the name of tiddlywinks is proposed.
My question to you and your associates is, then: Can you illuminate this puzzle?
In addition, any information regarding the history and status of the game in England would be very welcome, and any assistance you may be able to give me, greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Nelson C. Lees
Assistant to the Director
As a postscript: the definition of “tiddlywink” as British slang for an unlicensed public house leads to a very tempting hypothesis of the game, flipping sixpence into empty glasses with a penny.