Newswink 21 • 21 November 1987

Rick Tucker, editor · Falls Church, Virginia · 21 November 1987

The First Varsity Match

by Nick Inglis (From Winking World 47, February 1986) We are accustomed to think of 1955 as the start of modern tiddlywinks, but those of you who have been keeping up with the recent correspondence in The Timeswill have seen mention of a Varsity Match in 1946. This article contains what we know about that match—I hope to have more information for a later issue. Our first information about this match came from a letter in 1980 (I’ve been leafing through the CUTwC archives) from Alistair Duncan, whose mother (listed below as Jean Pidsey, though her maiden name was Pidsley) played for Oxford. The following account appeared in the Oxford Mail on Saturday 16th March 1946:

ANOTHER BLOW FOR OXFORD Light Blue Tiddly-Wink Eight’s Skill

Flush with victories over Manchester and Bristol Universities, and hardened in the fires of many an inter-college battle, the Cambridge University Tiddly-Winks Eight visited Oxford today for the first of what is hoped will become the annual match between the Tiddly-Wink Quarter Blues. Cambridge have been the pioneers of tiddly-winks, and to-day’s match was Oxford’s first major encounter. At the moment you just play for Oxford or Cambridge, but the matter has been raised before the Hawks Committee at Cambridge, and it was favourably disposed towards the suggestion that a man or woman who “tiddled” for the University should have his or her prowess recognised by the award of a Quarter Blue. Cambridge already have ideas about a Tiddly-Wink tie, and the design which finds the greatest favour is that of a blue tie, yellow spotted with “Tiddles” and embellished with a Tiddly-Wink Cup.

RIGID RULES

There is nothing haphazard about this business: the rules stipulate that it must be played on a “decent and clean carpet” and you can only tiddle with a half-crown, a penny or a small tiddle. Cambridge were first on the pitch to-day and it came in for the most careful inspection, followed by a long discussion on its qualities for the short and the long tiddle. The hazards of the game find their reflection in the Cambridge motto, “Per ardua ad pocula”. The Cantabs fielded four women and four men, Oxford included five women in their eight. Their names were:- Oxford—Phillipa MacLeigh (St. Anne’s), Jean Pidsey (St. Anne’s), June Mercer (St. Anne’s), Ted Bunker (Keble), Alan Taylor (Keble), Malcolm Waterfall (University) Cambridge—Monica Grut (Newnham), Hilary Guest (Newnham), Janet Knight (Girton), Cecilia Pelmear (Girton), John Shaw (Sidney Sussex), Fritz Bauchwitz (Sidney Sussex), Reg Gilbert (Clare), Ted Purver (King’s) Cambridge beat Oxford by seven games to one, the points score being: Cambridge 95; Oxford 50. Oxford were afloat for 90 minutes, and Col. Raikes, coach, said he was pleased with their form.

The Cambridge Daily News (precursor of the Cambridge Evening News) also contained three items relating to the match in a back page column called “Sports Gossip” by “The Looker-On”. The following appeared on Thursday 4th June 1946:

WAS IT A HOAX?

An unusual query to-day from Mr M. Freeman of 96 Glisson Road, who writes:

Certain of us are of the opinion that the game of Tiddley-Winks is being played on an inter-Collegiate basis. Can you please enlighten us?

As full term is over it is difficult to get full particulars, but it was reported a few weeks ago that Cambridge University had defeated Oxford, Manchester and Bristol Universities at the noble game. There have been suggestions that the whole thing was a hoax, but possibly a reader can enlighten us on the subject?

Then on Saturday 6th April:

“VARSITY’S OLDEST GAME.”

Earlier in the week I asked if any reader could give us any information regarding the playing of tiddleywinks on an inter-collegiate basis—a query originally raised by a correspondent. To-day, I am pleased to be able to throw considerable light on the subject thanks to a letter from Mr Fritz Bauchwitz, the secretary of the Sidney Sussex Tiddley Winks Club. He writes:

It is with deep regret that I learned how badly informed you are of the University’s noblest game—tiddley winks. Every week you devote pages to the mere kicking of a ball, whereas you leave poor Mr Freeman ignorant of the one game that requires really supreme powers of concentration, skill, endurance, and social tact. The game, moreover, which has settled once and for all the vexed question of the supremacy of Cambridge over the other place. We most certainly did beat Oxford last term, and I enclose a cutting from the “Oxford Mail” to prove it. Our victories over Manchester and Bristol are less well authenticated, but no less genuine. As for inter-college games, only Newnham, Girton, King’s, Clare and Sidney have so far competed. Sidney are at present champions, though they have to wink pretty hard to keep ahead of the women. If other colleges should care to take up the game, the secretaries of the five teams mentioned will gladly give them copies of the C.U.T.W.C. rules, and all encouragement.

The final piece appeared on Tuesday 9th April:

TIDDLEY-WINKS TAILPIECE

Following our recent examination of the progress of tiddley-winks as a competitive sport in the University, “F.C.” (name and address supplied) has something to say:

Could not Sir Ben Smith be persuaded to allow the gallant tiddley-wink team extra rations, or would it be better to buy them a baby’s comforter? I suggest they use their time for the benefit of the nation.

I find it fascinating that quarter-blues had been applied for and that there had been matches against Manchester and Bristol. If anyone has further information on the events of 1946 (or any earlier tiddlywinks occurrences) then I’d like to publish it in a future issue.

Mapley v. Dean

by Jon Mapley World Singles 25, the first to be contested between two Britons, took place in Hamleys toy store in London’s Regent Street on April 24th 1987. The publicity was supposed to have been handled by one of the West End’s top agencies, but it was a disaster, with no banners, no announcements, and the public outnumbered by the many keen winkers who had travelled from all points between Amsterdam and Manchester, for the 10:30 start. This was the match everyone had been waiting for—the ultimate showdown between the players who have dominated British winks for two decades, but had taken most of that time to outwit the Yanks. It was Alan’s fifth World Singles, the three worst results in the series being fully redeemed by the first British win in # 22. Jon came to his sixth match with a more consistent record from his four defeats and one win, but everyone knew that, on the day, history would mean nothing. So it proved in the first two games, which Alan took 5-2, 4-3. Neither player had really got into his stride, but Alan deserved to be ahead, having dominated the bring-in in both games, and it was only some nerveless potting in round five that prevented Jon losing the second game 6-1. The previous title match had been played using the Larry Kahn rule of “squidge-off winner takes blue”. Having considered this to be generally a good idea, it had been simplified a stage further in this match. If the winner takes yellow, then the five rounds will always start with blue and end with yellow, which seems more logical. So it was that Alan started game three, as in the previous two, and having carnovskied a yellow, took one look at his four point lead and thought it would be a good idea, as Jon had squopped a green, but was otherwise scattered, to increase it to eleven points at lunch. He potted a second yellow, and then there occurred one of those moments that haunt the memory and make you look back and think “What if…?” In lining up the third yellow, Alan’s squidger touched and moved it slightly before he was ready. Umpire Charles Relle noticed this, as had Alan, and Jon was left with the choice of being a gentleman or playing to the letter of the law. Commenting “This is the World Singles, after all,” Jon gritted his teeth and squopped a yellow. Alan was philosophical but his heart had gone out of the game, and Mike Surridge’s suggested odds of 11 to 10 on Jon were soon matched by the score. Things warmed up in every sense in the afternoon. It was the hottest April day for many years, and the play improved despite the sweaty conditions. A hard fought fourth game deservedly went to Alan 6-1 after superior pile play and the better of the luck. At 12-16, the title was on the line, and Jon knew it. He won the squidge-off in game five, and for the first time in the match, dominated the bring-in and the play, easing ahead 18-17 after a comfortable 6-1. Most World Singles contain a crunch game, and game six was it. Readers will recall Lockwood’s Golden Rules of Winks, one of which tells you how to win a lost game—”If you get behind, pick at the edges.” Jon had started much as in game 5, picking up an early big doubleton, but although his baseline shots had generally improved, he was in poor defensive positions, and Alan soon freed his large winks and made the area his own when Jon counterattacked. Ten minutes into the game, Jon was well down, and decided to create diversions on the other side of the pot. Some good squopping aided by Alan’s poor approach shots led to a more equal position with Alan fast running out of mobile winks. Alan admitted afterwards that there came a point where he said to himself “Hey, I could lose this game.” Jon reached the same realisation a couple of turns earlier, and was now on a high from which he never looked back. Both the skill and the luck deserted Alan, giving Jon the psychological boost of two consecutive sixes (never beaten in 24 matches), and Alan the wrong end of a 24-18 scoreline. Game seven saw Jon grab a blue/red double early, and then surround it with as many defenders as he could muster. A huge pile developed, and Jon had free turns from about the twelfth minute. He became a bit careless with the freeing shots and defensive placement, allowing Alan to blow up a significant part of the pile by the time limit. Needing the seven, Alan potted three blues which had come free, and although Jon still should have been safe, some great play by Alan got him into a round 3 shot with blue sitting on a pile containing the last two blues. There was no guarantee that either (a) if a blue was successfully potted, the other two would land favourably, or (b) if blue potted out, that red would beat both green and yellow (who by now had smelt a rat and potted two himself). Nonetheless, it was a mouth-watering prospect, but it failed, and Jon calmly squopped two blues and ran out the winner 5-2 in a meaningless endgame for a final victory fo 29-20. Perhaps it hadn’t been a classic, but the tension was there for all to see. Games six and seven were good value for the spectators, and the sponsors seemed keen to repeat in the future. So, America: if we can attract thirteen players just to watch, how many can you get to your Singles?

Editor’s Corner

by Rick Tucker Since Newswink 20, NATwA has eked out four tournaments, an increase over 1986 of one tournament and (80 – 56) games in the season. Moreover, for the first time since the February 1986 Bostinentals, there have been winkers playing in their first tournament! The Pairs this year at Cornell attracted 10 new Ithaca High School winkers. Dave Lockwood, back in the States job-hopping, may yet land in Washington. In the meantime, he’s resigned his long-held post of IFTwA secretary-general. Fiber-based phenolic (FBP) squidgers are becoming popular in Washington. Rick Tucker embarked on a search for slicker squidgers after finding that his favorite swirl squidger was sticking too much during the 1985 England tour. Phenolics fit the bill. The perimeter rule espoused by Sunshine in Newswink 20, where a wink sent off the table is placed anywhere on the perimeter by the opponents, and no subsequent shot is missed (unless more than one is sent off), seems to be fading among non-Sunshine winkers. It was used in NATwA tournaments for about a year. Dave Lockwood, who logs every game in a diary and is also tracking total number of winks potted for the year in and out of games, has managed to achieve the mythical score of 22 shots to pot 12 small winks in Pot From The Line (PFTL). In July 1978, when PFTL was the rage, Larry Kahn made a 21, which is considered the record (see Newswink 11). However, the next best anyone could ever muster was 23. Two Brits have been sent as winks emissaries to Washington in the past year, Stew Sage from CUTwC and Tim Jeffreys from Pinner. One American winker has seriously suggested that the NATwA Singles be held in England to attract a larger and more competitive field. Now if only the exchange rates and airlines would be more agreeable!

Not the Continentals

by Sunshine MIT, 29 March 1987 Instead of a winter Continentals, this year’s Boston match [the BIT?], held as usual at MIT in Cambridge, turned out to be an early Spring match with a never-tried-before format. Two teams were chosen—the semiconductors and super seminovae. That is, team names were chosen (unlike last year). The 17 winkers present found a partner and opponents to their liking, played the game—and only then figured out which team they had played for. Whichever pair won the game entered their score for the team that had been behind. Not surprisingly, a close match ensued. Rarely did one team even win 2 games in a row—all 4 game rounds were split 2 games apiece. After 5 rounds—and with only 4 more games to be played, the match was tied. Hopes for the match ending that way were then dashed by a 4 2/3-2 1/3 game (the 41st in NATwA tournament history out of over 5300 games), but the conductors and nova didn’t seem to mind. The individual games were also close, as intended. The ppw of 4.99 was a low one as 10 of the 23 games had a winning score of under 5. All 17 players ended the match with the same number of major titles (Team, Pairs, Singles championships) over the last 17 months. Bob Henninge became NATwA’s first active 39 year-old. Depending on how one looked at the match, individual honours were taken by Jim Marlin (undefeated, highest ppg), Brad Schaefer (most points, highest ppg of the 13 playing 5 or more games), or Larry Kahn (highest rating adjusting for difficulty of schedule). Winkers came from such places as Ohio, Philadelphia, DC, New Hampshire, and even Newton (Bill Renke’s first appearance in 2 years). Top players rated with simple 3 + (P1 + P2 – P3 – P4) / 2 predictor:

       w-l  ppg   rating
Larry  5-1  4.58  5.95
Brad   5-1  5.03  5.35 
Bill   4-2  3.92  4.65
Jim    4-0  5.12  5.50
Bob    5-2  4.17  4.85

Rules Brittania vs. Rules Americana

by Rick Tucker Charles Relle of ETwA (“the sole survivor of two Etwa rules committees”) sent me a copy of the latest version of the ETwA rules, dated April 1987. These replace the previous ETwA rules, which I believe were issued in 1981. NATwA at present has no official set of rules. The closest NATwA has had to official rules were the ones proposed by Joe Sachs circa 1979, which if I remember correctly were not accepted due to bickering and stodginess. NATwA’s generally-accepted rules do differ from ETwA’s, and I will try to identify the differences below. Also, US winks lingo is slightly different from the English argot, for example squopped-up vs. squopped-out, desquop vs. free, etc. Rule 2: The English rules specify a maximum thickness of a squidger to be 3/16″ (4.5mm) “at its edge”. The US has heretofore never stated a limit to the thickness; nevertheless, I think we can adopt this limit without fuss. Rule 3: If a mat is on a surface that is too small, “a wink coming to rest on an unsupported piece of mat is deemed to have left the field of play”. NATwA: General practice suggests that the wink is moved the shortest distance to a place on the mat which is supported by the surface, and the wink is moved to remain the same distance from the pot if possible. Rule 5a: NATwA rules used to specify that the original resting position of each squidged wink was used in determining the squidge-off winner. Current practice uses the positions of all winks after all have been squidged-off, so if a wink is hit and moved by another wink, it remains in the new position. ETwA rules do not address this issue, but it is assumed that current NATwA practice adheres to ETwA rules. Rule 5b: “The squidger must be held not more than 2″ (51mm) above the highest point of the first wink to be played”. A long time ago, NATwA specified 1/2″, and current NATwA practice is 1″. Rule 5c: An interesting twist is that “any winks coming to rest on the top rim of the pot and not resting on any wink inside the pot must immediately be placed inside the pot”. I had always assumed that a wink resting on the rim would be placed inside the pot; this clarification seems reasonable. An interesting issue arises when a potted wink, either inside the pot or on the rim and supported, comes out of the pot as a result of a shot. What happens if this wink hits a pile and changes it? Do the changes remain intact, or are they undone? Personally, I would vote to leave any changes intact. After all, they would occur as a direct consequence of the shot. It would be a rather unique strategy to employ potted winks as bombing missiles, but a successful attempt would be memorable, I’m sure. Rule 7a: “If in any turn a player plays a shot which causes one or more winks of the colour he is playing to leave the field of play … he forfeits the next shot due to be played with that colour.” The initial “in any turn” is superfluous here, since a player can only play a shot during his turn. Picky, picky. This rule corresponds with the standard NATwA practice (when the peripheral [⨳ sic, should be: perimeter ⨳] rule is not used) that a player misses only one shot, regardless of the number of his winks sent out of the field of play. However, this is not symmetrical with getting one extra shot for each wink of the player’s color potted. I imagine the rationale for missing only one shot is that bad players shoot their own colors off more often than good players, so they should not be excessively penalized. The end of the quoted sentence carefully states that the next shot is missed rather than the next turn, since the going off could occur on the same shot that potted a wink of the player. Rule 8: “As soon as one colour has been potted out, all squopped winks are desquopped by moving the winks squopping them. … there should be a gap of 1/25″ (1mm) between winks separated”. I believe NATwA practice employs the thickness of a large wink between, which ETwA gives as 1/16″ (1.5mm). This is symmetrical with the placement of a wink 7/8″ of an inch from the edge of the mat after it has gone off the table, since 7/8″ is the diameter of a large wink. Rule 9a: “The time limit is … subject to … (ii) the umpire’s discretion to extend the game if he considers that time has been deliberately wasted.” NATwA has never had a provision for the umpire to manage the time of the game. Rule 9 continues with what ETwA and NATwA agree upon: “If for any reason more than 30 seconds elapse between one shot and the next, the opponents of the player due to play the next shot may require that any additional time taken by him before he plays his shot be not counted as part of the game”. This 30-second rule was years in the making, and it is a wonder that NATwA and ETwA both abide by this rule. Rule 9c: “The tournament director … may impose an additional restriction of 2 minutes for each shot played in the five rounds … . The penalty for failing to play … is forfeiture of the shot.” This would never fly in NATwA. Rule 10a: This rule states that “the first colour to be potted out scores 4 game points, the second … 2, the third one 1 … . … one game point is transferred from the losing partnership to the winning partnership.” In earlier rules (e.g. Sachs 1979), the point transfer goes to the “team whose color potted-out first”. NATwA does not concur with this ETwA rule as stated. The ETwA rule, of course, does not address the “hypothetical score” situations in which two colors are potted out at once, etc. (see Newswink 14, page 6). Rule 11a: Free turns after a squop-out “are shared between the two colours in normal rotation, even if one colour is unable to play on a particular turn or turns”. I believe current NATwA practice would permit one color to use all free turns if (a) the partner color is squopped out, and (b) the partner color remains squopped out. If the partner color is freed at any time during free turns, both colors share remaining free turns. This corresponds with previous (1981) ETwA rules. It is unclear whether NATwA would agree to go along with this revision. Rule 11a,c: A wink of the squopped-out pair must be freed no later than the first shot after free turns. If not, the squopped-out pair may either move a wink aside to reveal one of their winks, or declare the shot illegal and require it to be redone. Also, Rule 11 does not explicitly state that free turns cease when a wink of the squopped-out pair is freed. NATwA has toyed with rules regarding the freeing shot in the past. At one time, it was simply illegal to try to pot out on the freeing shot. Nowadays, it is not necessary to attempt to free a wink by the required time; however, the squopped-out pair can manually move a wink aside to free one of their winks if none are free. There is no provision for the freeing shot to be taken over. Rule 11d: “If the time limit expires during the free turns, it is deemed to have expired at the moment before the first playable turn of the first freed colour.” This has always been tricky, and I believe ETwA and NATwA only slightly disagree on this. Example 1: assuming red is the squidge-off winner, if the time limit expires and green and yellow are then squopped out by blue, then red’s next turn will end regulation and rounds will commence. No problem there. Example 2: assuming green is the squidge-off winner and green and yellow are squopped out; if the time limit expires and then blue frees a yellow, by ETwA, green’s lack of a turn following blue does not end regulation timed play, but green’s turn after yellow’s would. By NATwA, I believe that green’s turn (without any possible shot) after blue’s freeing turn would end regulation and rounds would commence with red, providing one less cycle of turns than ETwA would. Rule 12: The British finally agree with NATwA practice of dealing with playing out of sequence. All in all, I would say that ETwA and NATwA are closer than ever in their rules of tiddlywinks. Rare and hypothetical situations are always a bane to legislators, but they must be addressed before they happen and not be handled in an ad hoc manner.

Some News from the Isles

ETwA Pairs 25-26 April 1987 Old Hall, Queens’ College, Cambridge Single round-robin with 16 pairs. After 15 games: Alan Boyce & Alan Dean 12-3 for 77 points Tony Brennan & Jon Mapley 13-2 for 77 points Playoff game: Brennan & Mapley 5-2 Boyce & Dean Other top finishers: 3rd place: 68 1/2, Charles Relle & Mike Surridge 4th place: 66 1/2, Tim Hedger & Peter Wright 5th place: 62, Graham Hancock & Gary Shrimpton And there was only one 7-0 score out of the 121 games played! According to Nick Inglis, the most impressive performance was by Hancock & Shrimpton, “neither of whom was good enough to get into the Cambridge Silver Wink team!”.

Old Letter to the Editor

6 January 1986 I agree that Bristolling with a sharp squidger [Newswink 19] is the main cause of scratches—if we get into a long-term relationship with duPont, we might consider standardising some squidger materials. Personally, I prefer more friction than most players, and make my squidgers from the lids of mayonnaise and mustard jars. These are manufactured from a brittle type of plastic similar to the old Bakelite. However, I’ve asked duPont to supply some samples so that I can experiment with their materials. Jon Mapley

1987 Singles

by Larry Kahn & Rick Tucker 22-23 August & 3 November 1987 Cambridge MA & Silver Spring MD This year’s Singles had the lowest turnout since the first NATwA Singles, only 5 players (except of course for 1986, which never materialized). In attendance were Larry Kahn, Dave Lockwood, Jim Marlin, Rick Tucker, and Brad Schaefer. Don Fox and Nan Brady were last minute no-shows due to car trouble, and L, Susan Assmann, and Sunshine played Perquackey in a nearby room. The tournament (Part I) was held at the offices of Applied Reasoning north of Harvard Square, where L works. A triple round-robin format was used, with Dave and Larry being the favorites (favorites to win, at least). The first two rounds went somewhat as expected, although Dave got only 4 1/2 against Brad, and Larry escaped with a 7 against Jim in a potout where he did not run the first 6. Rick then managed a 3 off Larry, while Brad got 6 off Jim, who now had one point in two games. Jim then surprised Dave, 4-3, and Rick took a 4 1/2 off Brad. In the last game of the first round, Dave and Larry were involved in a very tight game that became constipated as rounds began. Dave provided the Ex-Lax to Larry when he missed an aggressive bristol and Larry ended up with a 6 with something like 3-3-2-1 in time-limit-points. Meanwhile, Rick had crept into second place with a 7 off Jim. The second round-robin was somewhat of a reversal for Dave and Larry. In the first four games, Dave got 6, 6, 3, the 3 coming against Jim again, while Larry got 3, 6, 2, Rick getting a rare 5 against him in a blitz. The second of the Dave-Larry games was another tight one, ending in a tie, perhaps the first ever between the two rivals. Dave had moved back into second, 4 1/2 back of Larry. Rick was third, 4 1/2 behind Dave. In the final set, Dave cleaned up against the three players behind him, 6, 6, 7. Meanwhile, Larry had 6, 6, 3, the 3 coming against Jim. The Dave-Larry game had been played during the middle of this set due to rescheduling changes, and Larry took another 6 after a fairly close beginning. He becomes the first player to win 4 Singles titles. The first two places went to Larry and Dave, but the final three were up for grabs. The tension was excruciating as Rick held off playing his final three games for over 10 weeks, finally playing them at Larry’s house in November. In the end, Rick took third place, beating Brad for the third time in the tournament but losing to Jim and Dave. The final results had Larry at 58 1/2, Dave 53, Rick 34 1/2, Brad 33 1/2, and Jim 30 1/2. At long last Dave’s complaint about rabbit bashing was reversed. He actually gained 4 1/2 more points against everyone else than Larry did, but lost 10 in the head-to-head matches.

1987 Pairs

by Larry Kahn 25-26 October 1987 Ithaca High School, New York The 1987 Pairs was essentially a two-team race from the start, with monster pairs Dave Lockwood-Larry Kahn and Sev Drix-Jim Marlin taking on less experienced pairs from Ithaca High School: Keith Faigin and Will Knapp, Mike Lynn and Joel Ufford, Ben Hinkle and Brian Kelley, and Eric Ehrenberg and Doug Thomas. Format was a double round with a top four playoff. Some substitutions in the lower ranking pairs was allowed as Tom Schryver and Isaac Bowers played in some of the games. Ten new winkers in a tournament is the most since the 1979 Westerns, which had twelve winkers in their first tournament. The schedule had set the Dave-Larry and Sev-Jim game for the second round, and in that game it came down to the last round as Jim was unable to pot a big wink from about 18″ and left his pair with 2 1/2. However, this left them within striking distance as it was only a two point swing. The field soon spread out, with Dave-Larry getting three 7s to extend their lead over Sev-Jim to 5 points after the first 5 rounds. Meanwhile, Mike and Joel were beating up on everyone but the two top pairs and were in solid third with a very respectable 20. In the playoff, Dave-Larry went into crunch mode in the first two games and got two 7s. Sev-Jim got 7 in their first round but then Mike and Joel held them to 5 in their next round. Now they needed a 7 just to tie Dave-Larry and when they came in badly in the final game it was all over. Dave-Larry took a final 6 to run their record to 8-0, 51 1/2 points. Sev-Jim ended 6-2 for 39 1/2 while Mike & Joel ended 4-4 for 27 (the four losses being against the top 2, so in other games they were 4-0, 23 points). Dave got his second NATwA Pairs win (after a 12 year wait) while Larry continues to roll along, having won 9 of the last 11 (with three different partners). It’s either boom or bust for Larry, since in his 15 Pairs tournaments he has 9 wins but no seconds.

THE RULES OF TIDDLYWINKS COMPILED FOR THE ENGLISH TIDDLYWINKS ASSOCIATION BY CHARLES RELLE

NOTES.

1. This version of the rules incorporates the modifications sanctioned by the 1986 Congress and supersedes earlier versions.
2. It has been suggested that to aid memory the winner of the squidge-off should always play blue. Players are invited to try this.
3. “He” and “his” have been used throughout these rules for the sake of simplicity. No disrespect to lady players is intended.
4. I have put my name to this document because the English Tiddlywinks Association has appointed me as reviser of its rules in various capacities over the last decade. It is, however, a compilation, not an original work, and I am very conscious of the contributions made by many people to better and clearer rules.

CHARLES RELLE, April 1987 (reprinted by NATwA, November 1987)

THE RULES OF TIDDLYWINKS

1. PRELIMINARIES

(a) The following terms are explained in the course of the rules. (i) Winks: the discs with which the game is played (Rule 2). (ii) Squidgers: the discs used to propel the winks. The act of playing the winks is called squidging (Rule 2). (iii) The mat: the surface on which the game is played (Rule 3) (iv) The pot: the container into which winks may be squidged (Rule 4). (v) To squop: to play a wink so that some part of it is vertically above some part of another wink (Rule 6). (b) In tiddlywinks, four colours of winks are always used, blue, green, red and yellow. Blue and red are always partners against green and yellow, and partners are at diagonally opposite corners of the mat. The colours are arranged clockwise in alphabetic sequence. In pairs games each player has one partnership colour, and in singles games both. These rules apply in all respects to pairs and singles alike. (c) Team matches can be played with any number of pairs per side, and each pair plays one game against each opposing pair. In any match, tournament or series of games, the result is decided on the aggregate number of game points scored (see rule 10), not on individual games won and lost.

2. THE WINKS AND THE SQUIDGER.

There are six plastic discs, called winks, of each colour, two being 7/8″ (22mm) in diameter and approximately 3/32″ (2mm) thick, and four being 5/8″ (15mm) in diameter and approximately 1/16″ (1.5mm) thick. A disc called a squidger is used to play the winks. This must be between 1″ (25mm) and 2″ (51mm) in diameter and no thicker than 3/16″ (4.5mm) at its edge. The squidger must be made of plastic or any non-metallic material which will not damage the winks. In a game, though not for a single shot, a player may use more than one squidger.

3. THE MAT.

Games should be played on rectangular mats measuring 6 feet (1.83m) by 3 feet (0.915m). At each corner of the mat are straight lines drawn at right angles to the mat’s diagonals and crossing these diagonals at a point 3 feet (0.915m) from the centre of the mat. These are called baselines and they and the edges of the mat constitute the boundaries of the field of play. Whenever possible mats approved by the National Associations and currently made of felt should be used. The mat should be placed on a hard smooth horizontal surface so that the whole of the mat’s surface is itself horizontal. If there is no such surface available, the players may agree to play on a less satisfactory surface. If this surface measures less than 6 feet by 3 feet, the field of play is limited to this surface’s actual dimensions, and any wink coming to rest on an unsupported piece of mat is deemed to have left the field of play (see rule 7), and it is not permissible to move the mat in order that the wink may be played. If the surface is unsatisfactory owing to bumps, ridges, cracks etc., the players must agree before the game commences what action is to be taken to avoid the surface’s irregularities. In these circumstances, it is permissible temporarily to move the mat so that a wink is no longer resting on a flaw in the underlying surface, the mat being replaced in its former position after the shot has been played. Alternatively the wink itself may be moved, remaining always the same distance from the pot, but in no circumstances may the pot be moved.

4. THE POT.

The pot is placed in the centre of the mat. It is a concave sided cup 1 1/2″ (38mm) high with an external diameter of 1 7/8″ at the top and 1 3/8″ (35mm) at the base. Nothing is allowed inside the pot except potted winks.

5. THE PLAY.

(a) The winks are arranged as described in rule 1 and behind the baselines, and then the game begins with the squidge-off. One wink of each colour is squidged towards the pot. The wink nearest the pot at the end of the squidge-off wins the squidge-off. For the purposes of this rule all potted winks are equally near the pot and nearer than any unpotted wink; nearness is measured from the nearest edge of the wink. If two or more winks are equally near to the pot, and nearer than any other wink, the players concerned each resquidge one wink from the baseline until the winner of the squidge-off is determined. The winks are then replaced behind the baselines and play begins, proceeding clockwise and starting with the colour that won the squidge-off. Winks played from behind the baselines must be played one at a time. (b) A shot consists of any downward pressure of squidger on wink that is an attempt to move a wink or causes a wink to move irreversibly. In any shot a player’s squidger must first touch the upper surface (which includes the top 50% of the sides) of an unsquopped wink (see rule 6) of his correct colour in sequence. The squidger may subsequently touch only those winks in the same pile, if any, that are vertically beneath some part of the first wink played in the shot. It is not permitted to touch other winks in the same pile. If while playing a shot on either a single wink or a pile of more than one wink, he disturbs with his squidger or part of his body or clothing a wink or winks that were not in the same pile as the wink or pile of winks he was playing, the disturbed winks are immediately restored to their original position. If any wink is accidentally impeded while in motion, the wink or winks concerned are placed in a position agreed by all the players. If any wink is accidentally interfered with while not in motion, it is immediately replaced where it was immediately before it was interfered with, squopping or squopped if necessary to comply with this rule. From the moment that a wink starts to move irreversibly, the movement of the squidger must be quick and continuous. A shot may consist of tapping a wink so that another wink moves from beneath it, but it is a foul shot to squeeze a wink from beneath the top wink and then play the top wink if the two movements are distinct. At the beginning of any shot the squidger must be held not more the 2″ (51mm) above the highest point of the first wink to be played. The shot ends when contact between the squidger and playable winks ceases, and ail winks have come to rest. Any shot that does not comply with these criteria is a foul shot (see rule 12). (c) In each turn a player squidges once in sequence, with an additional squidge for each wink of the colour he is playing potted in that turn. Winks coming to rest inside or on the top rim of the pot are “potted winks”. A potted wink which comes out of the pot or any winks coming to rest on the top rim of the pot and not resting on any wink inside the pot must immediately be placed inside the pot (doing this does not constitute a shot). (d) A player may pass at any turn. If he does this, he must inform his opponents, unless the next opponent colour cannot be played.

6. SQUOPPING.

A wink any part of which is vertically below any part of any other wink on the field of play is described as squopped, even if the upper wink is not touching the lower. A squopped wink cannot be the first wink played in any shot (see rule 5). If all the unpotted winks are squopped the game ceases and the score is calculated in accordance with rule 10 (b).

7. THE BOUNDARIES.

(a) External. If in any turn a player plays a shot which causes one or more winks of the colour he is playing to leave the field of play (i.e. any part of the wink to cross the boundary) he forfeits the next shot due to b e played with that colour. Any wink crossing the boundary is immediately replaced on the field of play 7/8″ (22mm) from the boundary at the point at which the wink crossed it. However, no wink replaced in this manner may be closer than 4″ (102mm) to any other wink, nor closer than 4″ to any baseline with unplayed winks behind it, and any wink moved to satisfy the four inch rule must be moved the minimum distance necessary. (b) The pot. The pot may only be held if it is likely to be moved accidentally by a player or a squidger. It may not be moved during a game except by winks in motion, and if it is so moved it must be replaced immediately at the centre of the mat. Any wink moved when the pot is moved by a wink in motion is replaced in its former position. Any wink coming to rest wholly or partly under the base of the pot, or the place on the mat where the pot is to be replaced in accordance with this rule, is moved the minimum distance necessary for it to be touching the base of the pot but not beneath the base of the pot when the pot is correctly placed. If a wink comes to rest supported by the pot in a position in which part of the wink so supported is higher than the rest of the wink, it must be moved out from the pot but still touching the pot so that it is no longer supported by the pot. It remains squopped by any wink squopping it but squops any other wink in its path. To move wink under this rule does not constitute a shot.

8. POTTING OUT.

When all the winks of one colour have been potted, whether by the player controlling them or not, they are said to have been potted out. As soon as one colour has been potted out, all squopped winks are desquopped by moving the winks squopping them. This movement does not constitute a shot, and must be done in such a way that the distance of each wink from the pot is not altered. If possible there should be a gap of 1/25″ (1mm) between winks separated after a potout. The position of any wink moved under this rule must be agreed between the players. Any wink squopped in the remainder of the game is immediately desquopped in the same manner. Rule 9 ceases to apply in any game in which a colour is potted out, at whatever stage the potout occurs.

9. THE TIME LIMIT.

(a) The time limit of a game is calculated from the first shot played after the squidge-off, and subject to (i) any agreement between the players and (II) the umpire’s discretion to extend the game if he considers that time has been deliberately wasted, the time limit is 25 minutes for pairs games and 20 minutes for singles games. If for any reason more than 30 seconds elapse between one shot and the next, the opponents of the player due to play the next shot may require that any additional time taken by him before he plays his shot be not counted as part of the game. Time elapsing while a wink or winks are lost, or when a player due to play is called away from the game, is not counted as part of the game. For the procedure when an umpire is called, see rule 14. (b) When the time limit has expired, play continues up to and including the colour that won the squidge-off, after which each colour has five further turns in sequence and no more, the game ending with the fifth turn of the colour that won the squidge-off. (c) The tournament director or match organiser may impose an additional restriction of 2 minutes for each shot played in the five rounds following the expiry of regulation time. The penalty for failing to play within the 2 minutes is forfeiture of the shot.

10. THE SCORE.

(a) In a game in which rule 8 has come into operation, the first colour to be potted out scores 4 game points, the second to do so scores 2 game points, the third one game point and the remaining colour does not score. Partners’ game points are added together and one game point is transferred from the losing partnership to the winning partnership. (b) In a game in which rule 8 has not come into operation (i.e. which has ended in accordance with rule 9 or the last sentence of rule 6) game points are calculated as follows: each colour has three time limit points for each potted wink and one time limit point for each unsquopped wink. Unplayed winks behind baselines do not count. The colour with the greatest number of time limit points scores 4 game points, that with the second greatest number 2 game points, the third one game point and the remaining colour does not score. Partners’ game points are added together and if two or more colours have an equal number of time limit points, the appropriate game points are aggregated and shared equally between these colours.

11. SQUOPPING UP AND FREE TURNS

(a) When all the unpotted winks of one partnership are squopped, the opposing partnership is obliged to desquop at least one of the squopped winks. Before doing so, the squopping partnership is entitled to play a total number of turns equal to the number of winks controlled by it on the field of play which were neither squopping nor squopped immediately after the shot which caused this rule to come into operation. These turns are shared between the two colours in normal rotation, even if one colour is unable to play on a particular turn or turns. The desquopping shot must occur no later than the first shot of the turn following the completion of the free turns. If the squopping partnership cannot free at this turn, it must free at an earlier turn. If, at the time when a squop-up occurs, the squopping partnership can play no turn until after a wink is due to be freed, it must free at the first available turn. During the free turns, it must play no shot that would postpone the freeing turn; if it does the opponents have the options set out in rule 11 (c). (b) The squopped partnership must be allowed to play a shot, whether the desquop occurred at the end of or during the free turns. If winks of one colour only are freed, the colour must remain in a position to be played with a legal shot on its next turn in normal sequence. If both colours are freed, it is permissible to resquop such number of them as to leave at least one of either colour free to be played on its next turn. (c) If no attempt is made to release a wink as required by part (a) of this rule, or if the desquopping shot pots the only freed wink, or if after a wink or winks have been freed they are resquopped before the chance has occurred for any of them to be the first wink played in a legal shot, or the desquop fails, the opponents may either invoke rule 12 (a) (Foul Shots) or require that a wink or winks be moved aside to allow them to play. This movement should disturb the smallest possible number of winks, If possible only one, and must not cause any uncovered wink to be covered. If possible it should not alter the distance of any wink from the pot. (d) If the time limit expires during the free turns, it is deemed to have expired at the moment before the first playable turn of the first freed colour, and rule 9 (b) applies from then.

12. FOUL SHOTS AND FOUL PLAY.

(a) Any player squidging a wink contrary to rule 5 (b) or 11 must, if requested by his opponents, replace all the winks disturbed by his illegal shot and play a further shot as part of the same turn. He need not attempt the same shot as caused the illegality. (b) Whenever a foul shot is played, the opponents have the right to accept the shot in its entirety if they consider it to be to their advantage. They cannot accept part and have part replayed. (c) If a colour is played out of sequence, the opponents may require the shot or shots played in the turn out of sequence to be retracted, or they may allow the turn, if necessary, to be completed, and continue as if the colour had been played in sequence. If the opponents play a shot subsequent to a turn out of sequence, this is equivalent to accepting it. If a turn is played out of sequence during the five rounds after the time limit, the opponents have the same options, but no colour may have more than one turn in any one round. E.g. Red plays his third round turn, yellow follows, then red plays again. If this second red turn is accepted, it is in the fourth round. (d) If any player deliberately interferes with any wink or winks, the pot or the mat, or deliberately impedes any other player, the penalty is that the game is declared ended, and all seven points are awarded to the player’s opponents. During his own turn, however, a player may turn or clean any of his own winks which is neither squopping nor squopped, and replace it in its correct position.

13. OUTSIDE HELP.

(a) No advice on the play of the game may be sought from or given by third parties. (This does not preclude discussion with other team members on game points required.) (b) During the course of a game no player may play any wink other than in his rightful turns in that game. For instance, it is not permissible to set up a shot on another table and practise it.

14. UMPIRE.

If the players are unable to agree on any matter concerned with the play of the game, or are in doubt as to the meaning or interpretation of any rule, they must if possible call a competent person to act as an umpire. If a player is doubtful whether a proposed shot can be played legally, he must call an umpire before the shot is played. The umpire must decide whether the proposed shot is legal, and if it is played, whether it has been legally executed. The time from the moment an umpire is called to that when he announces his decision is not counted as part of the game. If he is asked to judge whether a shot is legal or not, the timing of the game starts as the shot is played. If he judges a shot to be foul and winks have to be replaced, the time taken to replace the winks is not counted as part of the game.