Newswink 15 • 19 February 1983 – North American Tiddlywinks Association

Document Metadata

title • Newswink
whole number • 15
publication date • 19 February 1983
editor • Rick Tucker

An official publication of the North American Tiddlywinks Association

19 February 1983

Parable of the Continentalents by Fred Shapiro The big story at the 1982 Continentals was the attendance, or lack thereof. Only 29 winkers showed up at MIT for the tournament, as compared with a typical Continentals turnout of 40-50. Severin Drix missed his first Continentals after 15 years of attendance, Bill Gammerdinger his first after 11, and similarly for Jake Solomon (11), Mary Kirman (10), Scott Hirsh (l0), and Matt Solà (7). With no one from Ithaca in attendance, the format was four teams of six winkers, each playing a four-thirds round-robin. Alliance, with a solid sixsome of Dave L, Larry, Joe, Rich, Rick, and Fred, had been the pre-tournament favorite. Bill “George” Renke, however, plunged once again into the free-agent market and came up this time with Bob Henninge to complete a powerful team already including Bill, TDI, Ferd, Don, Nan, and Dave York. The opening matches saw Relix beat MIT 58-26 and Alliance top Chickens 60½-23½. In the second team round, it was Relix 64½, Chickens 19½ and Alliance 52, MIT 32. As in 1981, Relix had out-crunched Alliance, leaving a 10-point margin to be overcome in the final head-to-head team round. Alliance took the first two rounds from Relix, 11-10 and 13-8, with the third round ending in a 10½-10½ tie. Relix thus led by 4 points going into the final round, requiring Alliance to get a 12 2/3 – 8 1/3 round to win the championship. After Bob and Nan defeated Joe and Rich 6-1 and Larry and Rick got 5 against Ferd and Don, Dave L and Fred were left needing a 7 in the last game against Bill R and TDI. This situation possessed historical ironies two years after Bill had gotten a 7 in the opposite position (with Bill G as a partner) to win the 1980 Continentals. The game was tight throughout, with the pot-out looking unlikely. Amazingly, though, the fifth round saw Dave with six free winks and a chance (about 3%) at a pot-out. The first wink missed, however, and Relix became the second team to win three straight Continentals, joining Renaissance (1977-79). Real numbers, Severin: the victory was a record seventh Continentals win for Bill Renke, the sixth for TDI and Ferd, and the fifth for Bob Henninge. Rick Tucker and Fred Shapiro finished second for a change (five in a row for each, six in seven years for Rick).

Top Scorers

                             w—1 pts  ppg
Larry Kahn, Rick Tucker     11-1 59½ 4.96
Bill Renke                   7-4 53  4.82
TDI                          7-4 52  4.73
Dave Lockwood, Fred Shapiro  9-3 56  4.67

Four Letter Words

The “Another Dumb Contest” on page 16 of Newswink 14 drew an avalanche of entries from places as far away as Bridgewater Corners, Vermont, and I am pleased and proud to announce the winner. DAVE LOCKWOOD edged out Fred “Lexi-talential” Shapiro in the contest to find the most 4 letter words in the word TIDDLYWINKS (no plurals, no proper names). Dave’s sciolistic erudition follows. didy, dink, dint, disk, inky, inly, iwis, kiln, kilt, kind, kiwi, knit, link, lint, liny, list, nisi, silk, silt, sink, skid, skin, skit, slid, slit, snit, tidy, tiki, tiny, twin, wild, wilt, wily, wind, wink, winy, ywis. That’s 37. Dave also had tisk and wisk which have been disallowed (for now). Congratulations, all!

The Wrath of Khan

In a re-enactment of the Boston Massacre, Larry Kahn demolished all opposition in rolling to a 12-0 70 point win in this year’s Singles. He became the first person to post a perfect record in the tournament and broke Bill Renke’s old ppg mark of 5.625 set back in 1973.

Only 7 managed to make it: Larry, Sev, Arye, Sam, Fred, Brad, and Ken. We lost Rick (mono), Ferd (Peru trip plans), Joe (work), Charles (wedding, not his), and Dave (too far to come just to finish 3rd again. Actually got bumped at last minute).

Larry made his only mistake of the tournament by naming Sev t.d. Sev & Fred then conspired to wreak havoc on the schedule when Sev allowed Fred to go to lunch after Fred finished ½ round late, not ½ round early. (Seems like Sev is always out to lunch).

Saturday morning saw Larry get out of the blocks fast (19 in 3) while Arye had his usual problems with Sev, losing a 2½ in rounds. Brad was doing quite well, Ken not so well, and Fred even gave Larry a tough game, eventually losing a 5-2 in rounds. Sam may have picked the wrong Singles to debut in, but he beat Ken in a solid 6-1.

In the 6th round Larry & Arye met, with Larry holding a slight lead. In a very good game, Larry used two lucky key pile shots to hold down a 6-1 victory. At this point, Arye felt he must go into crunch mode to get 7’s. Saturday afternoon became a very interesting battle, with Arye finishing his games first (because of pot-outs) only to see Larry eventually grind out a 6 or controlled 7.

Meanwhile, Brad was battling Sev for 3rd and everyone was playing pretty well with some very good games taking place.

Late Saturday saw Larry beginning to get sick and by Sunday morning he was quite ill and tired from a bad night’s rest. This was obvious when Fred was able to get a 3 from him on Sunday (should have been a 4 but Larry pulled it out in rounds). This appeared to be Arye’s big chance and in the 10th round he pulled ½ point ahead, pending the outcome of the Iarry-Sev game. In that one, Larry had the chance to repay Sev for 1978 by getting his first 7 ever over Sev.

In round 11, Sev doomed Arye to 2nd by again beating him, this time 6-1 while Larry held off Brad 4-3. At this point, Larry had clinched it but the big question was could he beat Arye to go undefeated and break Bill’s record? In perhaps the best game of the tournament, Larry prevailed 6-1, helped by an Arye autolunch and Larry’s constantly coming from behind with brilliant long-range shots that finally overcame Arye’s good play.

Final notes—probably one of the best tournaments in recent years in terms of total enjoyment, competitiveness, and friendliness. Familiarity does indeed breed contempt, as all those practice games between Fred & Larry allowed Fred to finish 2nd under the Severin placement system (most points off the winner). Ken unfortunately had 3 consecutive zeroes. Sam did quite well, averaging nearly 2 in his Singles debut. Larry managed to lead after every round. Nearly one-fifth of the games ended up 7-0’s (8/42). Is Severin finally over the hill or will he once again make a comeback?

A Note on ‘Unexplored Frontiers’

by Charles Relle

(Newswink 14, page 6)

In his article ‘Unexplored Frontiers’ Rick Tucker sets out all the possible results of a game and assigns scores to them. There are three situations, all fairly unlikely, in which the scores he gives disagree with the scores I would give, and since he solicits comments from ‘rules generators’, here are mine. The situations are these:

all four colours share first place;
Blue and Green share first place, with Yellow third and Red fourth;
Blue, Yellow, and Green share first place with Red fourth.

All assume a pot-out, the crucial shot being played by Blue or Red. You can see how unlikely these situations are by working out what Blue or Red has to do. Perhaps this is why they do not appear to be covered by the present rules. So in assigning scores in these situations we must seek guidance from the rules as they stand and apply the principles implicit in them. The relevant sentences are:

(i) part of 2(b) “The shot ends when contact between the squidger and playable winks ceases and all winks have come to rest”;
(ii) part of 11(a) which states that after a pot-out “Partners’ game points are added together and one game point is transferred from the losing pair to the winning pair”;
(iii) part of 11(b) “If two or more players have an equal number of time limit points the appropriate game points are aggregated and shared equally between these players.”

This has some relevance: see below. From (i), supported by (iii), we learn that we need not watch the order in which winks potted in the same shot enter the pot, for we add up the scores at the end of the final shot. Rick, in footnote 1, agrees. (ii) shows that we decide who has won before making the point transfer, not after, (iii) establishes that scores can be shared.

How do we resolve the three situations? Assume Blue plays the potting-out shot, (a) is a four-way tie; neither side has won, so there is no point transfer and the score is 3½ – 3½, not, as Rick suggests, 4½ – 2½ to Blue-Red. It is amusing to consider how (a) might arise:

(i) Blue could pot his last wink, bouncing simultaneously into the pot all the other winks on the table, which must include at least one wink of each colour. Anyone who achieves this should be made to stand drinks to all the other players in the world.
(ii) There could be a pile containing at least one wink of each colour with Blue on top, and at least one separate free Blue. Blue pots out all winks ending with the entire pile.
(iii) as (ii) with further piles controlled by Blue, Blue pots everything ending with the four colour pile.
(iv) A four colour pile alone: Blue pots the entire pile. Notice here that Blue has failed to free, and that his opponents can make him play the shot again!
(v) as (iv) but with one or more piles added consisting of Blue on at least one other wink. Blue pots all winks in all piles ending with the four colour one. Failure to free again: work out what the rules allow his opponents and when!

I do not propose to discuss how situations (b) and (c) can arise, but this is how I would score them, (b) Blue and Green 3 each, Yellow 1; Green and Yellow get a point transfer and win 5-2. Rick would have this 4-3 to Blue-Red. (c) Blue, Green, and Yellow score 2 1/3 each. Green and Yellow get the transfer and win 5 2/3-1 1/3 not, regrettably, Rick’s exotic 3 2/3 – 3 1/3. My fundamental difference from Rick is that I would give the point transfer to the partnership with the higher score, not necessarily that which played the potting-out stroke.
I think the rules support me, and so does the principle on which the rules are based. Thus, there are two ways in which it is possible to pot out and lose. The situations when they could occur should be obvious to the player at the table. If he does pot out and lose, that is his responsibility.

References are to the Etwa rules of 1981.

—

Newswink Editor: Rick Tucker
2701 Woodedge Road
Silver Spring MD 20906 USA

Unbalanced Eastern Regionals

by Larry Kahn

Randomness struck again in Boston with 70° December weather and NATwA’s first pinglimmon tournament (that’s pairs, singles, persimmons for you dunderheads). Four teams were represented! Alliance by Larry Kahn, Joe Sachs, and Fred Shapiro; Relix with Bill Renke, Don Fox, and Nan Brady; MIT with Arye Gittelman, Charles Frankston, Brad Schaefer, and Sue Assman; and Chickens by L and Moishe (= the Uninomical team intends to go nameless if the Continentals is not officially opened with the NATwA Anthem, some have said =)

People were allowed to play as a one, two, or three depending on their desires. Everyone seemed to enjoy the low key format. Early talk of applying strange handicap systems against Larry were struck down by the SecGen, who allowed him to play singles and rack up 35 points (NO, not in 5 games).

The final absolute totals were Alliance 75, MIT 55½, Relix 31½, and Chickens 9½. The pseudo-random PPG synthesizer blew a fuse on this tournament and the actual results will never be known.

—

Q. Sev Drix and Larry Kahn have won a record four Pairs tournaments. Has any other pair even played in four Pairs tournaments together? If not, what pairs have played in three Pairs tournaments together?

A. on page 9

Nuptial Nonsense

by Fred Shapiro

With the marriage of Dave Lockwood, NATwA can now, for the first time, field an All-Married Team which would be competitive with any All-Unmarried Team. Although still facing an uphill battle against an All-Unmarried Team of, for example, Larry, Arye, Bill R, Ross, Sunshine, and Bob, the All-Married Team of Dave L, Sev, Joe, Brad, TDI, and Fred could probably make it a close match.

—

Monday 2/7 or 8/82

…My official position is that, like the baseball players, (remember my analogy to being the Andy Messersmith of Winks) I’ve gone on strike for better working conditions and benefits. If you remember our original contract it was for 12 dancing girls & choice of partner. Well since you have decided to abrogate that agreement, I’m on strike.. .Solidarity Forever!… Soon all winkers will join me in my strike of demigod team captains!!… Since my union is boycotting the Continentals & yet I feel this primordal urge to do something winking-oriented in February, I went to the Best town around, Wink, Texas (see photo)… Also, it’s about time that Newswink begin to give me the credit and press I desire for making that 5th round pot in the ’80 Continentals… Just because I don’t have an on-the-scene press agent pushing my case, I get a 2-sentence story 2 years later. As Larry would say, “Horsemeat”.

Bill Gammerdinger

“Win it for the Gammer!” “Winkers Unite!”

—

NATwA Secretary-General: Larry Kahn
18802 Nathan’s Place, Gaithersburg MD 20879 USA
Work: (301) 840-3315
Home: (301) 258-1129

The Dragon Examines the Continentals

by Dave Lockwood

The 1982 North American Tiddlywinks Association Continental Team Championship was the most disturbing match in history. In the tournament that everyone in NATwA attends, 29 showed up. Severin Drix, the father of North American winks, missed his first North American championship in 16 years. He and Pam Rozelle married on March 20 and preparations kept him from NATwA’s 104th tournament. Bill Gammerdinger got married on 20 February and also missed this tournament.

The Continentals traditionally garners individual entries from the far corners of NATwA’s empire, often getting such boondocked winkers as Bill G, Scott Hirsh, Tim Schiller, Martin Ross, Ohio (Mac, Sue, Marg, Mary, Mex, and Bob), Rich Steidle, Charles, etc. to attend. Only the last three made it and Charles is now back at MIT. In fact, nobody from NATwA’s second strongest city, Ithaca, made it to the Continentals. This was basically a Boston plus Alliance tournament. Of the 29 attendees, 16 winkers live in the Boston area. All of MIT and about 2/3 of Relix and Chickens are Boston-area residents. (Also, Boston is the closest match site for Don and Nan.)

While 29 winkers attended, Chickens were unable to field a complete team for the last half of the tournament. Before the match began, it was decided that no penalties would be incurred by Chickens but it made things unwieldy nonetheless. MIT also played their last round with 5 players (against Chickens). In the future, this may be a significant argument for a knockout format as it only affects one round and makes levying penalties more equitable.

Another argument in favor of a knockout format is the extreme difference in ability and experience between the top 2 and bottom 2 teams. Relix and Alliance scored 161 and 158 points, respectively, while MIT and Chickens got 75½ and 67½ in 10 rounds. MIT and Chickens tended to put together one top quality pair against the other two teams and let the other two pairs do the best they could. * & L played most games together and * was 3-5 against Alliance and Relix for 27 points and a 3.375 ppg. L was 2-6 for 21 and a 2.625 ppg. Charles and Arye were the #1 MIT pair and crunched Alliance, almost singlehandedly giving Relix the victory. Charles was 4-0 for 22 against Alliance and the pair was 2-2 for 13½ against Relix. They beat Joe & Rich 7-0. The game marked the turning point for Joe & Rich as a 3-1-1 for 22½ start changed to a 6-5-1 for 42½ finish. Therefore, if you take a 9-7 for 3.91 against the Big Two as success for the Little Two’s top pairs, the strong pair philosophy makes sense. The rest of the Little Two were 1-29-2.
Ask one of them, but I suspect the fun content was lacking. Put another way, Alliance won 11 rounds and tied 1; Relix was 8-3-1, and MIT & Chickens were 1-9 each. The rounds they won were against each other. These more interesting games for them were even cut short due to Chickens’ reluctance and inability to play 12 rounds.

At Congress Saturday night, the most startling and revealing incident was the scarcity of raised hands for attendance at the Pairs. Boston is going to punish Ithaca for not attending the Continentals. Even the Dragon will miss the Pairs, breaking the longest current NAC attendance streak (the last he missed was the 1973 Singles). His reason perhaps is slightly more understandable, given his new residence in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Money and equipment were other problems discussed at Congress. Winks are the big problem.

Turning aside from the editorializing, I wish to make a personal plea. In the 10 years ending last June, I played 507 tournament games and some 60 odd tournaments in NATwA. In addition, I’ve been to Britain almost 40 times, mostly for winks. Most of my non-work friends are winkers and I find the average level of intelligence at winks matches exceptionally high. I’ve learned a lot about alternate life-styles from my winking cohorts and without winks my knowledge and travels would have been much more restricted. All of us must make our own decisions as to what place winks has for us. I have obviously placed a high personal priority on winks. With my new circumstances, my participation in NATwA and probably ETwA, will decrease. If I can get equipment, I will make a stab at getting SATwA started. We’ll see. What I ask of each of you is to make a conscious decision as to your personal level of future NATwA participation and let Larry know so he has an idea of what to expect. This will help us decide what we must do to sustain NATwA. You are NATwA. You’re a combination of freaks and straights and the ability to learn from one another has made better persons of all of us. Try to make 3-5 tournaments next year, at least 1 away from home. Don’t let NATwA die… at least until I get back.

Joe – Charles Take the Pairs

by Larry Kahn

The 1982 Pairs was a tournament that appeared jinxed from the start. At the Continentals it looked like only 3 or 4 pairs were interested in an April Ithaca tournament so the tournament subsequently was moved to late June in an effort to pull in more people. Also, pair alignment was somewhat unstacked, with none of the traditional superpairings.

In the end these changes paid off, and 7 pairs showed up: Larry-Rick, Joe-Charles, Sev-Sam, Arye-Gregor, Bob-Mac, *-L, and Moishe-Sue A. Several of these pairs stated they were not really interested in a playoff and a big mistake was made when we started playing without a clear-cut idea of exactly what the format would be later. In the future, this error should not be repeated as it left several pairs very dissatisfied by the shortness of the tournament.

As the games progressed it became obvious that Joe-Charles were playing quite well, and the other pairs were fairly even, beating up on each other. Larry-Rick got off to a slow start; the long trip to Ithaca probably didn’t do Rick any good, as he was still recovering from mono. By the time the next-to-last round was played, Joe-Charles had a large lead and it appeared there would be at most a one game playoff. Larry-Rick went into the Joe-Charles game ½ point down with one more game already played & needed a big win to be within striking distance. They probably could have gotten a 3 but that wouldn’t have helped and in trying for at least a 5 ended with a 1. Since *-L refused to participate in a playoff the tournament ended after 6 games. Not a particularly satisfying pairs tournament but even in 9 games Joe-Charles most certainly would have won.

Final Standings

Joe-Charles   6-0 35  5.83
*-L           4-2 26  4.33
Larry-Rick    3-3 24  4.
Bob-Mac       3-3 19  3.17
Arye-Gregor   2-4 18½ 3.08
Sev-Sam       2-4 15  2.5
Moishe-Sue A  1-5 9½  1.58
              w—1 pts ppg

Winks Volleyball

by Dave Pinckney

I. Equipment

1 mushroom set, 1 mat laid out as per the diagram.

II. Setup

Each team places 2 colors on the mat within that team’s half of the court.

III. Serve

Serving team places 1 of their winks and the ball (little wink of an unused color) into the service area. The ball is then shot into the opponent’s court.

IV. Play

Upon receiving the ball, a team has 2 shots to squop the ball. When this is accomplished, the squopping wink is moved aside from and adjacent to the ball and the player may either (l) pass the ball to another wink, or (2) shoot the ball into the opponent’s court.

Passing – Player shoots the ball toward another wink, then has one shot to squop the ball. A wink may not handle the ball twice in succession. No more than 2 passes while the ball is in a player’s court.
Do I have to explain this?

V. Infractions

Shooting a team wink onto or across the net is an infraction. Failure to squop the ball in the allotted number of shots is an infraction. Shooting the ball out of bounds is an infraction. Shooting a team wink back in bounds before the ball has left the team’s court is an infraction. Killing, maiming, or otherwise causing bodily harm to your opponent is an infraction. (See also special accurrences [sic, should be occurrences]).

VI. Scoring

The serving team scores when: A) the receiving team commits an infraction, B) the serving team squops an opposing wink with the ball. The receiving team wins the right to serve if it performs (B) or if the serving team commits an infraction. Only The Serving Team May Score Points!

VII. Special Occurrences

A team controlling the ball totally within their spike zone has the option to spike. If they exercise this option, they must immediately (and legally) shoot the ball into their opponent’s court. The spiked team then has one shot to squop the ball.

A team squopping one of its own winks with the ball does not incur a penalty. The ball is moved aside and play continues as if the pass was completed.

VIII. Out of Bounds

The net, serving areas, and the spaces around the court are out of bounds. Winks on the line around the court are in. In case of conflict, the net takes precedence.

IX. Winning

To win, a team must score 15 points and beat the opponent team by at least 2 points.

Black Winx Scandal at Pairs

by Larry Kahn

NATwA honchos Sev, Arye, *, and Bill voted to throw Larry out of the organization and melt down his PVC squidgers after what he did to Rick in the last game of the season. Going into the Singles it looked like Larry was headed for his 3rd ppg crown in a row. Second and third place at the time belonged to Rick and Fred. Prior to the Singles, Larry was quoted as saying, “I know I was in good shape because I’d do a lot better at the Singles than either of those two turkeys.” However, Rick came down with mono and didn’t make it, and when Larry subsequently got 55 points it left them exactly tied at 4.83.

In an attempt to improve his chances, Larry then tried to dump Rick as a partner for the Pairs and obtain Severin (from Sam) by offering Sev two zucchinis and an eggplant. However, this didn’t work and now Larry had to figure out how to both win the tournament and average less than 4.83 (since Larry played more games than Rick this would result in Larry getting the ppg title).

The 10th and last game turned out to be irrelevant in the tournament standings but very relevant to the ppg title. With 43 points, a 6 would give the crown to Rick but less and it would go to Larry.

From the start it was clear that the fix was in. Larry’s squidge-off went off the table and during the game itself he “accidentally” lunched himself twice and missed many one inch squops. Only superb play by Rick kept them in the game. Going into the last round, Larry had only to pot a big wink from two inches for the 6; otherwise it was a clear 5.

Larry stepped up, inspected the shot and commented, “This is a pretty fat wink. I’d better shoot hard enough to get it up.” With that he proceeded to shoot the wink twelve inches over the pot and off the table. “Oops, a little too hard,” he said, as Rick kicked the table over in disgust.

An immediate inquiry was held and Larry was kicked out. * stated, “If he had at least made a decent effort to cover up his intentions we probably wouldn’t have had a case but to show such contempt for winks sportsmanship left us no choice.” Fred and * have yet to decide whether to remove Larry’s statistics for this season from the records.

Larry’s response has been, “What’s all the fuss? I had no idea whatsoever that by getting a 5 I would end up at 4.822 with Rick at 4.815 but a 6 would have given Rick 4.833 to my 4.831.”

—

Q. on page 5

A. No one has played four Pairs tournaments together except Sev & Larry. Three-Pairs pairs are: Ferd & Bob (1970 , 71, 72),
Bill R & Ross (1973* 74, 80), Dave & Larry (1973, 74, 79), and Dave B & Phyllis B (1976 , 78 , 79) . — by Fred Shapiro

Aptitude Test

by Larry Kahn

Match the knack or description on the left with the duo most apt for each.

bridge       Bill - Ross
Frisbee      L - Moishe
tennis       Dave - Joe
ping-pong    Larry - TDI
chess        Sue - Terri
computer     Bob - Arye
veggie       Dave - Brad
fastest      Brad - Franz
slowest      Dave - Tim
competitive  Ross - Fred
laid back    Rick - Charles
married      Sev - Ross
single       Larry - *
wimp         Arye - Gregor
macho        Brad - Mabbitt
biggest      Larry - Arye
smallest     Larry - * (again)

Lockwood Holds Fast

The 14th World Singles on the 16th of October in London pitted Charles Relle, the 1981 English National Singles champ, against Dave Lockwood, the defending World Singles champion in his 8th defense of the title he took from Severin Drix in August 1978.

Dave prevailed easily, winning 25-10 in 5 games. The game scores: 6-1, 1-6, 7-0, 6-1, 5-2.

A week later, the internationally-acclaimed Mr. Lockwood pushed his way through a field of 26 British winkers to take American revenge for Pam Knowles’ snatching of the 1980 North American Singles title.

The score up to the final 1st vs. 2nd playoff was Dave Lockwood Jon Mapley 42, Charles Relle 34, and Mike Surridge 33. In the final one-game playoff, Jon needed a 7 to protect the Crown, but managed only a 6 to end up at 48 to Dave’s 48½.

The 15th World Singles brings Larry “Horsemeat” Kahn in for his 3rd challenge for the title against Dave, and will take place the 18th of February 1983 at MIT.

{insert Berry’s World cartoon}

Hexatwirl Puzzle Solution (from Newswink 14)

The hexatwirl puzzle was solved by Larry Kahn.

1 once ate Trix cereal. S E V
1 played in most tournaments by far. S U N S H I N E
2 acronymic team of past. H Y T H N L B T W O C
3 Jonathan M A P L E Y .
4 The Supreme Dean. A L A N
5 inventor of the game & originator of the name. F I N C H E R
6 get a wink out. P I D D L E
7 Cannonball SecGen. R E N K E
8 cozy up closer. C U D D L E
8 aka the pot. C U P
9 feed the pot. L U N C H
10 Pres. of Ilkeston Toys. R U D D
10 what's the R U L E
11 essential instrument. S Q U I D G E R
11 cover-up. S Q U O P
11 bring in from the line. S Q U I D G E - I N
11 co-founder of 1st Tw club. S T E E N
11 S I L L Y Mabbitt.
12 jeu de P U C E .
12 plink. P O T
13 put too close for comfort. N U R D L E
14 rag. N E W S W I N K
15 P R I N C E Philip Silver Wink.
16 original official winks supplier. M A R C H A N T
17 move a pile. G R O M P
18 vertical English city. B R I S T O L
18 a B R I D G E too far.
18 clean your winks with a B R I L L O pad?
19 said "We look to tiddlywinks to get us back to the primeval simplicity of life". W I L L I S
19 against stupidity, the W I N K S themselves contend in vain.
20 World Singles resident. L O C K W O O D
21 Sultan of squop. K A H N
22 go between the mat and a wink. S U B
23 wink’s revenge on squidge-in. R O L L
24 23 years old this year. E T w A
25 15 years old this year. N A T w A
26 name of the game. T I D D L Y W I N K S
27 a good way to get a mobile wink. B O O N D O C K
28 made famous by Life magazine in 1962. C A R N O V S K Y
29 bash for #31. C O N T I N E N T A L S
30 eating french fries while playing winks is T A B O O.
31 G E O R G E Washington played here.

Solution to hexatwirl puzzle in Newswink 14