Newswink 18 • 17 November 1984

Chicken rumour department

Carl back in the East (can fun be far behind?), MP spotted in Ithaca, offspring count to increase.

Once [Dave Lockwood] started setting up a shot, no one could talk to him. He surveyed the table and the muscles in his face tightened with intensity. He is known for taking his time to shoot, all part of his legendary stature as the game’s master strategist.

Kahn, on the other hand, circled around his table like Minnesota Fats eyeing an eight ball. He slowly fingered three of his squidgers with his right hand. His eyes darted back and forth behind his brown plastic aviator-framed glasses
looking for the perfect shot.

— Michael Oricchio in The Washington Post, 2 July 1984, page C3.

“Take your time,” Tragg said. “This isn’t tiddlywinks you’re playing.”

— The Case of the Moth-Eaten Mink by Erle Stanley Gardner, 1956, Pocketbooks, page 60. (via Susan Assmann)

World Pairs 4

by Larry Kahn

The fourth World Pairs match was held on Sunday and Monday, 19-20 February 1984, at MIT. Challengers Larry Kahn and Arye Gittelman defeated champions Joe Sachs and Charles Frankston in a very well played match, with scores 6, 5, 5, 3, 5, and 5 resulting in a 29-13 match score. The match was closer than the scores indicate; Charles nearly got away with several blitzes but was
stopped by good squopping.

Potting was superb throughout the match by all except Larry, who had at least 3 bounce-outs, so maybe it wasn’t his day. Squopping also was good, Larry being ridiculous at times and not missing within six inches. Joe’s bring-ins weren’t quite up to what he is capable of, and Charles had problems the whole match, rolling off in several key situations.

Most of the games were the same: a fairly even beginning and middle game, Larry and Arye slightly up near the end, Arye outpotting Charles for first, Larry holding down the fort by squopping, and Joe attempting to boost Charles into first. In the end, Larry and Arye teamed very well as pair and had a little too much firepower for Joe-Charles.

Colors: Blue–Joe, Green–Larry, Red–Charles, Yellow–Arye

Game 1. Larry-Arye 6 Match: Larry-Arye 6, Joe-Charles 1

Charles (R) takes squidgeoff. Joe-Charles come in well, have early position but Larry-Arye eventually take it away and squop Joe-Charles out, with one rather large pile. R attacks well, forcing good pile squops from Larry-Arye. Arye misses easy squop in rounds, allowing B to blow pile in 3rd, but not enough as Charles misses long pot twice.

Game 2. Larry-Arye 5 Match: Larry-Arye 11, Joe-Charles 3

R wins squidgeoff. Early monster pile to Joe-Charles, all 6 G’s in pile. R goes off twice trying to approach, allowing Larry to get on pile twice—first time squopped by Joe, second time he makes excellent blow up but also goes off. Y-G have lots of winks in area, R-B mostly at edge. R starts blitz midway through game, makes several 12 inch pots, misses 5th near Y-G. Y misses 4 inch big on big, G has bit [sic, should be: big] 5 inches away, little 6 inches away. B calls and makes 3 foot squop of big G from line. Larry calmly hops over pile with little to squop big R. Larry makes numerous 6 inch squops during game, getting R’s 6th along the way. Joe-Charles take 30 seconds per shot but Larry-Arye eventually work the potout. Larry has a bounce out and Larry-Arye only get 5.

Game 3. Larry-Arye 5 Match: Larry-Arye 16, Joe-Charles 5

Game of single squops with ebb and flow favoring Larry-Arye at end of regulation. Arye pots well and takes first; Larry pots one to end game and squeeze into 3rd.

Game 4. Joe-Charles 4 Match: Larry-Arye 19, Joe-Charles 9

Lots of B involved early in pile. Larry-Arye never really gain control, Joe-Charles boondock well and finally free lots of Joe-Charles in rounds. Arye frees the rest of his also, has one still at line. Larry stops a B potout threat but R still has one (as does Y). R puts in 5, misses 6th near a Y, who squops it. Joe misses first pot in 5th, Arye tries for first place tie but Charles takes first with 5 in cup.

End of day 1.

Game 5. Larry-Arye 5 Match: Larry-Arye 24, Joe-Charles 11

Conservative single squop game with Joe-Charles need for points forcing them to be more aggressive. Larry-Arye helped by occasional poor approaches by Charles. Game swings to Larry-Arye near end and Charles needs to make some excellent pots to get second and force a 6th game.

Game 6. Larry-Arye 5 Match final: Larry-Arye 29, Joe-Charles 13

Larry and Arye play for 1 most of the way, just trying to hold down some of each color. Joe-Charles’s need for a 7 causes some weird play and by the end of regulation Larry-Arye are up a lot, lots of B’s free but one still under. Joe goes after that and gets it but meanwhile another is squopped. In rounds, Joe makes a reasonable attempt at a miracle freeing shot but Larry has all G’s
free and takes first.

World Singles 18

by Larry Kahn

World Singles 18 once again found Larry Kahn and Dave Lockwood squaring off (a record fifth time) to determine winker # 1. Dave had earned the challenge by demolishing everyone in the 1983 North American Singles and seemed hungry to regain the crown, as he flew in a week early to recover from the jet (Jeddah) lag. Dave started off well, winning all three coin flips for colors, corners,
and squidgeoff order. The match:

Game 1. Larry 7 • Match: Larry 7, Dave 0 • Colors: Larry GY • Squidgeoff: R

Early B pot threat defused by G, Y can still pot out. R takes Y, relatively few squops in middle of game but eventually a big pile forms. Dave has excellent blowup, covering most G’s but Y has 6 free, two on R’s but pottable, one at 15 inches. Larry pots 2 Y’s near B, R, then decides about 15 incher. He makes it, then runs last 3. Dave misses B, Larry runs 6 G for 7 (the third consecutive 7 off Dave, counting WS17).

Game 2. Dave 2 • Match: Larry 9, Dave 5 • Colors: Dave GY • Squidgeoff: D [sic]

Dave has better bring-ins, Larry gets two quick doubles but not enough protection and Dave eventually blows up both, controlling area as Larry has two still at the line. Dave eventually gains solid control but very few (or no) free winks. Dave looks like 6 in rounds but makes mistake of attacking Larry’s only mobile pile in the 4th, knocking a Larry wink further up on the pile. Larry pots bottom wink and resquops in the 5th to get 2 points.

Game 3. Dave 4 • Match: Larry 12, Dave 9 • Colors: Dave RB •Squidgeoff: B

Dave comes in better, Larry has great early strip-off and double. Dave gets triple in mid-game, Larry keeps missing squops, eventually misses opportunity to blow up a triple because he didn’t realize a wink on a pile was free. Dave blows up a huge pile to end regulation. In rounds, Dave pots 5 free R’s and on last shot B bounces out to lose 1 1/2 points.

Game 4. Dave 5 1/2 • Match: Dave 14 1/2, Larry 13 1/2 • Colors: Dave GY • Squidgeoff: B

Larry starts out strong with good bring-ins and a Dave roll off. Larry has very solid position but fritters it away with lots of missed shots. Perhaps he is still feeling the effects of an early week stomach flu. Dave gains control, Larry fights back but not enough until last 2 shots when Dave spaz (trying to pot from 3 feet knocks off his own squop 1 foot from the cup) allows Larry a chance for 4. Larry blows his customary 2 inch pot to produce big swing to Dave (5 1/2 instead of 3). At this point it looks like Dave is in control. Larry’s play is very erratic and he is in the match solely on the strength of his opening 7-0.

Game 5. Larry 6 • Match: Larry 19 1/2, Dave 15 1/2 • Colors: Larry GY • Squidgeoff: R

Direct quote from Arye’s notes: “Pathetic play leaves Larry sitting on a 6-1 he deserved only because Dave played even worse.”

Game 6. Larry 5 • Match: Larry 24 1/2, Dave 17 1/2 • Colors: Larry BR • Squidgeoff: G

Dave begins to pot out with one at the line, 5 others pretty close. Misses 3rd reasonably well but Larry totals one G from 6 inches with a big, somewhat in Dave territory. Dave gains solid control of squop, Larry grabs it back with toenail hold. Dave pots other greens. Dave says “It ain’t over yet” but it looks grim. Dave tries to run out clock, taking allowable 30 seconds but Larry now looks like old Larry and makes all needs shots. Larry tries questionable strategy to insure a 6 by giving Dave a chance at his last R from 12 inches. Dave makes a great squop, Larry gets it back by getting on R only, forcing Dave to blow both to the edge of the mat in the 4th. R runs from Y by shooting to other end, Dave misses 3 foot squop for a 3, gets 2 instead and needs a 7 in the 7th game just to tie.

Game 7. Larry 5 • Match final: Larry 29 1/2, Dave 19 1/2 • Colors: Dave BR • Squidgeoff: G

Larry quickly gets involved in squopping game, playing for 1 all the way. Larry’s play is slow as he now uses lots of time. Dave’s necessarily perverted strategy allows Larry to eventually pot out in the 5th but only gets 5.

A hard fought match. Larry wins it on the strength of his opening 7-0. Interestingly, all of Larry’s wins over Dave have been 29 1/2 to something (two 29 1/2 to 19 1/2, one 29 1/2 to 12 1/2). Larry-Dave lifetime World Singles stats are pretty even with matches at 3-2, games 17-16-1, points 129-109, with the edge to Larry in all cases.

A Code of Conduct and Other Ideas

by Jonathan Mapley

From Winking World 43, July 1984, page 23

There are a number of thought-provoking points in Mike Surridge’s excellent article [not reprinted here]. If the ‘casual game’ is the means by which so many new players reach an almost unbelievable standard after only a term’s play, then it must be commended. Winks, or any game, will only go forward and flourish if there is a constant supply of new players who are keen, maintain an interest and have in their midst a few who become good enough to knock the top players off their perches.

There is a ‘code of conduct’ in the game, and it is to its credit that this exists without any real need to embody it in the formal rules. I am an avid sports watcher, and in professional terms, the only games which seem to contain the same degree of sportsmanship are bowls and snooker.

There always has been a fine dividing line between gamesmanship and good high-pressure tactics. For example, if I have played a shot which has left my opponents in a quandary over what to play next, I think it is an acceptable “ploy” to comment to my partner on what I would or would not like them to do. However, when an opponent has committed himself to a particular shot, it is unacceptable to make a remark such as “I’ve seen these missed on many occasions” just as he is in the act of playing or lining up the shot.

There are a number of points which are worth mentioning to new players (and some not so new) as regards tournament and match-play, some of which are not obvious until an error has already been committed, so maybe it would help to list them. No doubt I will miss some, and equally obviously, some players will disagree with me.

1. 1. Accept an umpire’s decision whether you agree with it or not. It is not acceptable to ask for a second opinion—get a different umpire if you need one again.
   2. When asking an umpire to make a decision, state simply what he needs to decide. It is often better to say “what is the situation between small green and large red?” rather than “is red squopping green?”. Never tell the umpire who is playing which colour. In more complicated problems, more information will have to be given. For example, if it is green’s shot and he is on a pile with another green in it, and the point in question is whether the top green is vertically above the lower, simply ask the umpire “can the bottom green be played legally?”.
   3. Keep all unplayed winks behind the baseline. Keep squidgers, squidger boxes, handbags, etc. off the playing area.
   4. When a player is in the act of making his shot, no other person should touch the mat or the table, unless requested to do so by the player—e.g. “please hold the pot for me”. Give him light and breathing space—if it’s a critical shot and could be a foul, let the umpire decide. I can’t remember who it was, but I nearly knocked somebody out fairly recently because they were leaning over me as I played, and I stood up quickly and hit their chin with my head.
   5. When should the pot be held? Only if the squidger, or hand holding it, would otherwise move the pot in the act of making the shot. Thus, if you are deliberately playing a wink to bounce back off the pot, it is not permissible to hold the pot still. If it moves, put it back after the shot.
   6. When watching another game taking place, do not make comments or suggestions which could be overheard by the players.
   7. If you are asked to be an umpire, take a good look at the problem from both sides or ends of the mat, then make a positive decision. My golden rule is that if there is considerable doubt about a squop, I always give the answer unsquopped, i.e. the wink is innocent unless I’m 100% satisfied of its guilt. Lights and magnifying glasses can be very helpful—use them if they are available.
   8. Do not ask for umpires or shot judges excessively.
   9. Be positive about your play. There’s no need to discuss every shot with your partner. It’s far better to make your decision, start to line up your shot and have your partner stop you if he disagrees than to spend fifteen, twenty, twenty-five seconds, on every shot saying “I think I should do this”. “Hmm, well it looks OK to me, is there anything better?” “No, I don’t think so.” “All right, go ahead.” Slow play is the biggest evil in the game today so help to stamp it out. However, as Charles Relle loves a bit of controversy, I must say that I would not wish to ban anybody from a tournament.
   10. Devise an effective method of remembering and recording who won the squidge-off and for counting rounds at the end, and use it.
   11. There is no need to go overboard on the sporting aspects. Be fair and gentlemanly, but as an example, if you hear your opponent counting his (or your) time limit points and he makes a mistake which ends up with his playing in a manner advantageous to you, why point out his error? It is up to each player to know what his points are and if he gets it wrong he is a poorer player for it.
   12. Take great care with manual intervention. If winks or foreign bodies have to be moved or removed, do it gently. Never blow a piece of fluff away—it’s incredibley easy to dismantle a pile with only the lightest puff. If someone is playing a shot which could disturb an unconnected complex pile, set up a duplicate of the pile somewhere else on the mat or on another table; then use it as a model for rebuilding.
   13. There are occasions, particularly with baseline shots, which travel a few inches when it is obvious that the wink is released long before an opponent intends. I wouldn’t condemn any player who insisted that the shot must stand, but in most circumstances I would offer to allow the player to recover the wink and play it again. I would think twice in a World Singles! It all depends on the seriousness of the game.
   14. The Megacrud. This is not a new problem. I was the victim of this shot in the semifinals of the National Junior Championship in 1965. An opponent broke up a pile with a shot which started from such a height and continued at a velocity which made it impossible for any normally sighted person to determine (a) if the first wink hit was the correct one, and (b) if subsequent winks hit were vertically beneath the top one. I’m not bothered about winks being broken, but I would say that in general terms, winks should be a game of subtlety and skill, not brute force and ignorance. Any shot which is not demonstrably legal should be outlawed. I am therefore in favour of any rule amendment which restricts the height from which squidger motion commences. This should obviate the need to ban ‘large’ squidgers. Reverting to the ‘casual game’ concept for a moment, I can remember as a teenager seeing John Mesher go back to the corner of the room like a fast bowler measuring his run-up, in preparation for a desquop, and stoppping about an inch above the pile, as everyone held their breath.
   15. In any complicated pile, where you are attempting to dig winks out or play them in more than one direction, and your intentions might not be obvious, tell your opponents what you are planning. They can then decide whether or not to call a shot judge.
   16. Although the rules do not provide for it, it is normally considered reasonable to stop the clock while an umpire is being called and during his deliberations.
   17. If a wink has been accidentally impeded in flight, it must be placed in a mutually agreed position—not“hard luck, chum it was your arm in the way, I like it where it is.” The intention of this rule is to place the wink as close as possible to the point where it would have landed if it had not been impeded.

I hope that the above comments have proved useful, and look forward to hearing any counter-arguments and disagreements.