North American Tiddlywinks Association

NATwA founded • 27 February 1966

  • Publisher • North American Tiddlywinks Association
  • Publication name • Newswink
  • Whole number • 24
  • Publication date • 28 July 1989
  • Publication location • Falls Church, Virginia USA
  • Page side count • 12
  • Editor • Rick Tucker
  • Preparation • Microsoft Word 1989-1991 for PC
  • Production • printed in black and white on 8½” by 11″ white paper.

An official publication of the North American Tiddlywinks Association

Falls Church, Virginia USA · 29 July 1989 · Editor: Rick Tucker

Dave & Jim Capture Second NATwA Pairs

by Dave Lockwood

In North American winks’ second hub, Ithaca, New York, NATwA held its 19th Pairs Championship. Dave Lockwood and Jim Marlin repeated their 1988 success, albeit this time with only two Brits—Jim Carrington and Stew Sage. Larry Kahn, the man almost synonymous with American Pairs dominance, suffered his second consecutive defeat for the first time since 1975.

The field of five pairs had three strong pairs, one medium pair, and one weak pair. Dave and Jim Marlin, Larry and Rick Tucker, and Jim Carrington and Stew were all veterans with a chance to win. Severin Drix, the Ithaca mainstay, got fellow Ithacans Ben Hinkle and Chuck Houpt to play as well. Sev played credibly with Ben while Chuck labored valiantly with rookies Christopher and Andy Strong.

Tournament structure was a round-robin with a double round playoff for the top three pairs. In the round-robin, games went according to seedings except for a 4-3 victory by Larry and Rick over Dave and Jim for a 1 1/2 lead overall. The losses by Jim and Stew in this round were crticial [⨳ sic, should be: critical ⨳] as they held their own in the playoff rounds (14-14). The play of the bottom two pairs—Sev, Ben, Chuck, Chris, and Andy—was significantly better than their scores indicate. But of course, that’s one of the realiites of winks—small advantages in luck and skill often yield large score differentials. We hope to see all of you playing competitively for years to come. After all, you (not including ex-World Champion Severin) have the advantage of youth and stamina on your side.

The scores at the end of the round-robin were: Larry & Rick, 23; Dave & Jim, 21 1/2; Jim & Stew, 15 1/2, Sev & Ben, 9; and Chuck & Chris/Andy, 1.

With the lead, Larry & Rick played Jim & Stew in the first playoff game. This game was the turning point in the tournament. In typical British winks style, Jim & Stew achieved a difficult potout and a 6-1 victory. If they had won their next game against Dave & Jim, we might be discussing the first also-ran challenge in World Pairs history. But… ’twas not to be. A close 5-2 for Dave & Jim over Jim & Stew left the Brits in third with the top two seeds still to play. The last game of the first playoff round saw another 4-3 to Larry & Rick to leave Dave & Jim 1 1/2 points ahead of Larry & Rick and 6 points ahead of Jim & Stew.

With the change in lead, Dave & Jim played Jim & Stew in the first game of the second playoff round. A solid, no-nonsense 6-1 for Dave & Jim put paid to the title hopes of Jim & Stew but did not stop them from beating Larry & Rick for the second time. This left Larry & Rick needing 76 [⨳ sic, should be: 7 ⨳] against Dave & Jim. As is so often the case, this requirement enabled Dave & Jim to take full advantage of the situation and a final 6-1.

The final results were:

1. Dave & Jim    6-2  41 1/2
2. Larry & Rick  5-3  31
3. Jim & Stew    4-4  29 1/2

Head to head:

  • 1 v 2: 12-9
  • 1 v 3: 16 1/2-4 1/2
  • 2 v 3: 9-12
[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
Bo Winkers, a trademark

Editor: Rick Tucker · 5505 Seminary Road # 1206 N, Falls Church VA 22041 USA

Home 703-671-7098 · Work 703-883-6699 · Internet [email protected]

Table of Contents

1    Dave Lockwood  Dave & Jim Capture Second NATwA Pairs
2    Larry Kahn     Obscure World Singles Statistics That Only Americans Would Think Of
3    Larry Kahn     World Pairs 7—22 July 1989
4    Rick Tucker    Winkettes
4    Larry Kahn     A Proposed Additional Requirement for Shot Legality
5    Larry Kahn     1989 England Spring Tour
6    Sunshine       IP VI
7-9  Brad Schaefer  What is a Legal Shot?
10   Larry Kahn     World Singles 29
11                  World Pairs Through the Ages
11   Larry Kahn     Dragon Cup 1
12   Rick Tucker    Marks of the Trade

Obscure World Singles Statistics That Only Americans Would Think Of

by Larry Kahn

After Jon Mapley was kind enough to list the World Singles composites in Winking World 52, it seemed only obvious to analyze them to death. Besides, it makes for good Newswink or Winking World filler. One note—the scores for World Singles 29 should read 6, 2, 1, 3, 1, 6, 6.

First, the boring stuff. The ppg leader (only 11 games) is Bill Renke with 4.18. Among active participants, Dave Lockwood leads with 3.81 (should we count Severin Drix at 3.83 as active, or is he truly now a paper tiger?). Highest ppw and ppl go to Larry Kahn at 5.87 and 1.61. Dave leads in wins with 50, Larry in games with 92.

There has been only one tie and one 4 2/3 in the 183 games so far. The average winning margin is 10.9—this is perhaps inflated since in 22 of the matches the final game went to the winner by a 6 or 7. The theoretical maximum margin of 28 has been approached by Renke (23) and Kahn (22) over the same unfortunate opponent. No one has yet won by the smallest margin, although Larry came close over Dave at 1 point. The most popular winning score has been 25 and there has no been a 28 1/2 yet.

The longest game winning streak is 7 (Dave in matches against Larry and Pam Knowles) and the longest losing streak is 6 (Alan Dean). There have been 15 7s—Larry has dished out 8 without receiving one; Dave has absorbed 5. However, receiving 0 is not a complete killer—3 matches have been won with a zero. Getting 2 consecutive 6-1s appears to be a guaranteed win. A winner has done this 18 times; a loser has yet to do it. The only consecutive 7s were administered to Dave via Larry (this streak reached 3 as Larry began with a 7 in their followup rematch).

As this article progresses, the randomness increases. Geographically, in matches between countries, the visitor has won 11 of 15. If pure distance is considered, the split between closest and farthest traveler is exactly 15-15 (skewed by Dave being in the Middle East, no doubt).

The younger player has won 21 of 30 (I think). This does not bode well for Charles Relle. Matches have occurred in all months and in all years except 1975. Dave working for the airlines and American computer nerds making big bucks have helped sustain continual challenges over the last 10 years.

Only one match (Dave-Jon #1) has not contained a 6-1, and only one (Kahn-Gittelman #1) has had all different scores (4, 4 1/2, 5, 5 1/2, 6, 7). The winner has lost the final game only 4 times and the final two games only once. Only twice has the winner won fewer games than the loser. No one has yet won with fewer than 3 wins or more than 5. (Yes, you can win with only one win and it could conceivably take 7 wins to clinch.) Nobody has gotten the needed 7 in the last game to win; only recently did someone need 6 and get it. There is a very high correlation between winning the odd games and the match (22/30, 22/30, 21/29, 9/10, for 1, 3, 5, 7); less so for the even games (15/30, 14/30, 17/24 for 2, 4, 6).

Finally, for a truly obscure statistic, the longest streak of nonfractional score games is currently at 25 and counting, by Larry. Has anyone other than Dave read this far?

World Pairs 7—22 July 1989

by Larry Kahn

If there was ever a match that proved the saying “he who makes the last mistake, loses”, this was it. The first game was fairly normal, Larry wins squidge-off, and then a fairly even game develops until just before rounds, when a couple of Dave-Jim misses give a solid lead to Larry-Charles Relle. A good bomb by Jim in the 4th allows them to gain an extra 1/2 point. Larry-Charles win 5 1/2.

The second game is a real comedy of errors. An early triple blitz threat develops (all but Dave) and Jim finally breaks first. Larry-Charles try to get Jim’s 6th wink after he runs five, and misses, but fail. Jim misses again, nurdled and Larry now counterblitzes, getting three in. Jim misses again, Charles misses 1/2 inch squop of green to prevent Dave squopping Larry. Dave then misses 1/2″ squop of red-blue double; instead of making sure of red, gets the blue. Larry then puts the two close ones in and misses the eight-incher, allowing Jim to pot out (finally). 6-1 to Dave-Jim.

Game 3 looks like a solid 6-1 to Dave-Jim as Larry-Charles go into their area to prevent a potout. Larry-Charles have only one or two free winks for much of the game but keep forcing good defensive shots by Dave-Jim. They finally break the pile up near the end of time, and a color order knock-off of a double by Larry in rounds give them some chances. By the last shot, Larry temporarily has first. Jim pots off a pile to tie Larry and guarantee a 4. He can try a pot off the pile and then piddle for anywhere from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 but he risks losing first if he misses. It looks easy (two inches) but just as he is shooting, Dave yells “stop!”, and this disturbs him enough to blow the shot and the game 3-4. Match is now tied at 10 1/2.

In game 4, Jim had an early potout threat and starts a blitz, again running five and missing the 6th off a squop, but relatively safe. However, Larry squops it from twelve inches, big on little. Dave attacks well and eventually frees it but Jim misses again, safe. Dave starts potting as Larry-Charles chase Jim, who eventually pots out. Larry pots well to prevent his first ever zero in world match play, Dave putzes around and lets Charles sink an 18-incher for the 2.

The 5th game revolves around a concentrated pile of Larry-Charles small winks. Jim, late in the game, just misses a double and the pile is blown. Larry makes his pots in rounds while Dave-Jim are missing one or two crticial pots. At the end, Larry takes first and Charles third, to re-tie the match at 17 1/2.

The 6th game is a real nightmare for Dave. The game is close throughout, a large pile develops that Larry controls with Red. Dave has two single small on small squops and as he tries to maneuver them together comes off one of them and loses the wink. Later on, he messes up on a bristol and loses that wink also. It looks like a Larry-Charles 6 but Dave recovers somewhat by making a good pile attack in rounds to salvage a 2.

In game 7, Jim carnovskies his first big, then gets both Larry bigs in a double. Dave has five near, is attacked on two fronts, and sinks the five and brings the sixth in to about 14 inches. Charles misses from 12 inches with a big, Larry has no winks on that side except for the one on the baseline so tries that. It just misses, butting the wink and Dave can pot and get a likely 6 (not guaranteed, but probably). He lines it up, but misses the cup long and lands one inch from Charles. Even though Charles has been erratic on critical shots he makes this solidly and from then on Larry and Charles play ultraconservatively and Larry eventually pots out and they clinch with another 5. Final score, Larry-Charles 27 1/2, Dave-Jim 21 1/2.

Everyone agrees that Dave and Charles both played rather badly, Larry was mostly good with a few misses, and Jim, on average, played one of his best matches. Larry-Charles won six of seven squidge-offs (Larry won 4) but didn’t even average 5 in their 5 winks. The rematch should be interesting if Dave and Charles play closer to their potential.

[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
Willy Winks, a trademark


by Rick Tucker

Jim Marlin is in his 20th year of winkdom.

At World Pairs 7, Dave Lockwood was sighted drinking Dragonade, a thirst-quenching drink with electrolytes à la Gatorade.

Despite the fact that the previous World Pairs was played on British soil, the latest Winking World ignored Dave and Jim Marlin’s win over Alan Dean and Mike Surridge.

Your editor has decided that Newswink henceforth will no longer capitalize certain winking words that are derived from proper names. It is Steve Carnovsky from the 1962 Harvard era who is the eponym for the carnovsky, where a wink is potted during its squidge-in. The bristol, a gromp played with the squidger held vertically, was invented by students at Bristol University in England in the early 1970s. The lennon is commonly known in the US as a boondock and squop, but was deemed the John Lennon Memorial Shot by Brits in the early 1980s. Now if I could only bring myself to refer to John Good’s invention as a good shot rather than a Good shot. John Good invented the shot in 1972 when he was a student at MIT. Interestingly enough, he never played in any NATwA tournaments. Many winkers mistakenly call it a Goode shot.

P.S. The JEW in Sunshine’s article is Jeff Wieselthier, an MIT winker of the late 1960s.

MP Rouse is now at 801 Triphammer Road, Cayuga Heights NY 14850. Phone her at 607-257-2123.

By the way, Sunshine’s phone number is 215-472-7161, which is not what the NATwA address list in Newswink 22 had. Sunsch sent me a song about gobbling swiss cheese that I’ll try to publish in Newswink 25.

A Proposed Additional Requirement for Shot Legality

by Larry Kahn

This restriction will prevent the so-called “sweep shot” executed by rubber squidgers that slides the wink along the mat and is definitely not within the spirit of the game.

Each shot contains a number of “contact points”, defined as the point of contact between squidger and wink during a shot. Obviously, the maximum number of contact points equals the number of legally hittable winks.

Define a contact point with “strong directionality” as one in which the contact point direction can definitely be determined during the shot. Simple examples would be squop or pot shots. Shots with “weak directionality” would consist of things like straight down pile bombs or jab bristols, where there is little or no horizontal motion of the contact point during the shot.

The addition would read something like “if a shot contains contact point(s) with strong directionality, then at least one wink with a strongly directional contact point must travel in a direction approximately opposite to its contact point direction.”

Most shots ordinarily conform to this anyhow. Shots like the single wink sweep shot would now be illegal. A boondock and squop shot is still OK since one wink travels along its contact point direction, but one wink travels opposite. Note that the missed nurdled pot unintended sweep shot is now illegal, but the opponents will just accept it because it missed.

There may be legal shots that would now be defined illegal, and I haven’t thought out all the possibilities, so let’s hear from the rest of you on this idea.


Why should anybody want to spend £6000 a year to attend a small, little-known university overlooking a housing estate, in a country town 12 miles from Milton Keynes? The University of Buckingham, Britain’s only private university, suffers from a big disadvantage: … [with such a concentrated study programme, there is little time for partying, student politics or tiddlywinks societies.

The Economist, 4 March 1989, page 57

via Bill Gammerdinger, who writes, “P.S. Tom (age 4 1/2) and I were practicing our potting earlier today with a set of Pressman winks and cup.”

1989 England Spring Tour

by Larry Kahn

In April I decided to finally bite the bullet and make it back to England to play in their Pairs tournament. I was aiming to become the second person to win all six major championships (National and World Pairs and Singles) and was also looking forward to playing a World Singles against someone other than Dave Lockwood or Jon Mapley. Since I was also going to partner Charles Relle for the Pairs, I didn’t want to totally demoralize him on the Friday night before so I had to be careful. Maybe I should throw the Friday match and then regain the title the following Tuesday since I had a rematch coming.

Anyway, I arrived in Cambridge on Wednesday morning, crashed in Stew Sage’s room for a couple fo hours and then poked around Cambridge until their weekly meeting. They typically get about 30 people and it reminds me of the early days when the current American crop was a bunch of young upstarts. Afterwards, we made the traditional run to a greasy Greek takeout for a late night snack.

On Thursday I made a very pleasant trek up to Spaulding, the bulb-growing capital of England. On the train ride up, I seemed to be passing some very large yellow fields in the distance which I thought might be daffodils. However, when one finally came close by, it turned out to be a rather scuzzy-looking weedlike crop instead. Friday evening was the World Singles, so I relaxed around Cambridge and watched two bozos rotate a punt for about fifteen minutes before giving them instructions. I think they were a bit surprised that a motley American knew what to do.

The match took place in a new wing at Queens, in a small gymnasium complete with bleachers (not needed). About twenty people attended, including an independent TV network. I had my match strategy going from the start, allowing Charles to take a well-played first game 5-2. The second game was close all the way—in rounds Charles missed a subtle strategic sequence that could have given him a 4-3. Instead, I got by with a 5-2 to even the match. After dinner, I started playing really well and ran off three 6-1s to take the match 25-10. Hopefully, Charles wouldn’t be too bummed out for the weekend.

The Pairs turned out to be, as I had somewhat expected, the most enjoyable tournament I’ve ever played in. The format was a single round-robin among the 18 pairs entered. We were seeded second, behind Dean-Surridge, ahead of third seed Myers-Purvis and fourth Mapley-Brennan. I suspected our top challenge would be Myers-Purvis and this proved true.

We started off well, taking the lead early and never looked back. Our only stumble on the first day came against Heading-Wright, where they both played well and Charles and I played badly in the same game the only time during the match.

Charles was potting amazingly well for an old geezer but squopping erratically. I was somewhat the opposite, so we adjusted the strategy appropriately, and by the end of the day had a narrow lead over several others.

On Sunday, things began to spread out a little and it eventually came down to us against Myers-Purvis. We played them third from the end, in my 1000th tournament game. They were 7 back and were looking to pot out, and of anybody in the tournament, the most capable of doing it.

We got them involved in a squop game, but they managed to escape and for the last half of the game kept us chasing Andy. I made a couple of key shots to keep them from potting out, but Andy came close with 4 in. Ending game, I couldn’t pot to beat him, but we escaped with a very useful 3-4 loss.

In the penultimate game, we gained a point, so in the last game against Dean-Surridge we only needed a point. They actually got their 7 against Mapley-Brennan but I’d play anyone in the world for 1 point and virtually guarantee it. Our game was extremely perverted since they had nothing to lose, and when it finally ended we got a 5-2 potout win. There was a huge spread at the top, with 1st and 2nd having 91 1/2 (15-2) and 86 1/2 (14-2-1) with third (Dean Surridge) at 70 (10-7). 5 pairs were bunched between 66 and 70. All in all, I had a really fine time over the weekend, despite being subjected to an ETwA rules meeting Saturday night (before dinner!).

After the weekend, I did mostly sightseeing, although I did show up at a Cambridge—House of Commons match at the Mayfair Hotel as part of a charity event. Since I hadn’t packed my tuxedo, I showed up in a spiffy black pink flamingo T-shirt that really wowed the crowd. I played for the House of Commons in a few games and actually managed to win a couple, and had a great time. I hear it might become an yearly event. The week ended all too soon, and I hope to make it back sometime again other than the traditional November Singles (low airfare but lousy weather).


by Sunshine

The sixth Individual Pairs tourney was held 25 March 1989 in Silver Spring. A number of things were different this time around—there was “rookie” Dave Lockwood, the 7 game tourney would take 9 rounds, and would include 8 extra games involving “novices”, and there would be a new champion.

With Larry Kahn losing 2 of his first 3 games (after only 3 defeats in his previous 29 games of the tournament), Dave and Bob bolted into the lead. Bob, who had never finished higher than 3rd, won a 4th round game between the leaders and continued on to finish undefeated (Arye Gittelman, with 5 wins in 1984 had been the only nonKahn to win more than 4 of 7 in any of the previous 5 matches). Rick Tucker threatened for the title for the second year in a row but once again a last round loss landed him in 3rd. Dave, the only “match rookie” in the field finished 4th. Also participating were Sunshine, Brad Schaefer, Mac McAvoy, and Jim Marlin. The novice-old timer games went well and used various handicapping systems. The newcomers were Roman Muszynski, Chris Strong (Mom), Chris Strong (son), and Andy Strong, who at age 9 may have been the youngest winker in a NATwA tournament. Bob and Rick moved into 1st place in the nonLarry pair division, improving their match record to 4.58. Bob attributed his success to the oldies music and to winkers playing well as his partner but poorly when against him. (His own superb play may have helped too.) Long lost winker JEW was spotted after the match.

Bob Henninge	7-0	36.5
Larry Kahn	4-3	29.5
Rick Tucker	4-3	29
Dave Lockwood	4-3	26.5
Sunshine	3-4	22
Brad Schaefer	3-4	21.5
Mac McAvoy	2-5	16
Jim Marlin	1-6	15

Individual Pairs 6, 25 March 1989,
Kahn Residence, Silver Spring MD

Bob 	Mac	    4-3	Brad	Rick
Dave 	*	    5-2	Larry 	Jim
Larry 	Bob	5 1/2-1 1/2	*	Rick
Dave	Brad	    5-2	Jim	Mac
Jim	Bob	    6-1	Larry	Mac
Rick 	Dave	    6-1	*	Brad
Dave	Jim 	    1-6	Bob	Rick
Larry	*	    6-1	Brad	Mac
Bob	Brad	    4-3	Larry	Dave
Mac	Rick	    6-1	*	Jim
* 	Bob	5 1/2-1/2	Jim	Brad [⨳ sic, score should be 5 1/2-1 1/2 ⨳]
Rick 	Larry	    6-1	Dave	Mac
Dave	Bob	5 1/2-1 1/2	*	Mac
Larry	Brad	    6-1	Rick	Jim

Handicap Novice Games
(handicap rating is in superscripts—half of difference of ratings goes to lower-rated pair)

Dave7    Roman0	    4-3      *6       Chris0	
        =>	3 1/2-3 1/2
Rick5    Andy0	    1-6      Brad5    ChrisM0	
        =>         1-6
Mac4     Chris0      5-2      Roman0   Bob6
        =>	    6-1
Dave7    Andy0	5 1/2-1 1/2  Jim6     ChrisM0
        =>         5-2
Rick5    ChrisM0     4-3      *6      Roman0
        =>     4 1/2-2 1/2
Andy0    ChrisM0     5-2      Chris0  Roman0
        =>         5-2

ChrisM is Chris Strong, mother of Christopher Strong (Chris)

[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
WINK, a trademark

Same Dave, New Address

Dave, Déjà, Sam, Alex, and Max Lockwood are moving in mid-August into their newly bought house at 3148 Gershwin Lane, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904 USA. Call ’em at 301-890-8902. You can’t forget the number.

Ferd Goes West

Ferd has migrated to western Massachusetts, leaving behind OAK-BYTE and a winkly-famous Somerville address. He is now at 195B Main Road, Gill MA. Call him at 413-UNDIMPY.

What is a Legal Shot?

by Brad Schaefer

Most of the disputes that have come up during games in the last year (aside from the strength of Lockwood’s cologne) have concerned the definition of what is a legal shot. The latest set of rules says that a legal 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”. The rules also state that “from the moment that a wink starts to move irreversibly, the movement of the squidger must be quick and continuous.” The trouble with these rules comes in defining what is meant by “an attempt”, “quick”, and “continuous”. That is, different people can (and do) hold perfectly reasonable opinions of what these definitions are, but these opinions would lead to different rulings on the legality of many shots. When the British invasion of 1988 was at its high tide mark (they almost burned the White House like during the previous successful British invasion of 1812), it became apparent that they had a different set of definitions than any American does. Even within the American community, there exists a wide spectrum of opinion with Lockwood perhaps at the most conservative side.

It seems to me that these definitions (or lack thereof) are the single worst point of our rules (or of the British rules). This problem dwarfs the problem of reconciling the two rule systems, since currently the deviations are slight and only cover rare cases that seldom occur in international play. During the British invasion (or was it the Scottish and British invasion), I heard a lot of talk about how these rules could be coalesced, but never once did the situations in question arise. Meanwhile, I heard virtually no reasoned discussion of shot legality; however I did hear a number of acrimonious discussions during games that hinged on the definitions. I think that it is high time that winkers stop playing at being nitpicky lawyers, and address the important issues face on.

Specifically, I think we and the British should evolve a set of definitions which will cover most of the practical cases that actually arise. I think that we and the British must act together, else there will be lawyerlike discussions for decades. I also think that it does not matter terribly much what definitions we decide on as long as they are clearly stated. In other words, I would feel good to go along with any decision provided that I know what the decision is.

Currently, the rules are ambiguous, and that is the worst situation and has already lead to harsh words between participants of our “gentleman’s game”. Let me give a number of examples which are ambiguous, even though tradition or lawyers may think that a clear answer exists:

(1) What about potting a completely nurdled wink? Larry can pot them maybe fifty percent of the time. No one questions their legality. But what is the actual technique recommended by Larry? He recommends that the squidger drag the small wink about one inch away from the pot before a normal pot shot is made. This raises the question about whether a two step shot has been made. In a number of cases, I have heard Lockwood passionately plead that any two step shot is illegal. Of course the squidger motion is continuous and moves with a high velocity. But the question remains as to how “quick” the shot is. I have occasionally heard the definition of quick linked to the total time that the squidger is in contact with winks (after irreversible motion has started). By this criterion, it would be grossly illegal to pot nurdled winks.

(2) What if we take the same shot as in situation 1, except that the wink is sticky (or the squidger has a high coefficient of friction) so that the wink is slid away from the cup along the surface of the mat. Is this legal? Well, I’ve seen it accepted without comment in many games. However, when I was contemplating the use of a rubber squidger (which would have created exactly this situation), Larry lead [⨳ sic, should be: led ⨳] an evangelical movement to stop my introduction of Nazism into our community. Larry tried raising every objection that came into his fertile imagination, but none were legally sound. For example, he claimed the squidger was illegal, but it satisfies all the requirements of section 2 in the rules. (If he would like to modify the rules to include a criterion based on the coefficient of friction, he is welcome to, but such an impractical idea will never come to pass.) Then he tried to claim that a “slide shot” would have no downward pressure, but it has as much downward component as any pot shot (as it must, otherwise physics tells us that no shot would occur). Then he tried to claim that the shot would not be quick, but it is easy to show that the “slide shot” can be made arbitrarily “quick” and it is always quicker than those nurdled pots that Larry always makes. Finally, someone else came up with the real reason not to use a rubber squidger—it will change the strategy and skills of the game so that at least the American community will refuse to play with anyone who uses this (legal) squidger. But then we have the question of whether to ban Larry from play because he uses a special squidger (with a somewhat higher than normal coefficient of friction) for potting small nurdled winks?

(3) What should we do when a sticky wink moves two millimeters when setting up a shot? I heard one of the Brits claim (jokingly) that they accepted just such a nonshot by an opponent. I believe that by all the rules that they would have been within their rights to accept that “shot”. The one possible exception is that the “shooter” may claim that the “shot” was not “an attempt to move a wink”. This argument and possibly the rules shows that intention is a factor in deciding the legality of a shot. Unfortunately, intention is a very hard thing to prove. Most specifically, it is difficult to distinguish an unintentional move from a bad shot. Once again, however, tradition is the final arbitrator of legality in this situation, in that I have never heard of anyone seriously insisting that a “sticky wink” shot be accepted.

(4) What about a squidge-in that slips out too soon and travels three inches? This is the opposite of the sticky wink problem. Here the tradition is for everyone to accept it as a bad shot. But it is not fundamentally different from situation 3.

(5) When I do my pot shots, I often stroke my wink with my squidger several times to get the feel for the shot. What if during one of these strokes, the wink moves by two millimeters? This is legally the same situation as 3 and 4 above. But in the two above examples, tradition gives conflicting precedents.

(6) Suppose that we had a small wink over a big wink and tried to boondock the big. The shot would be to tap the upper side of the small wink so that it moved to one side and then to shoot the big one. But by the placement of the top wink, the stroke on the bottom wink requires the squidger to slide across most of the diameter of a big wink. Even if the squidger motion has a high velocity, the duration of the shot will have to be longer than many people’s standards for a quick shot. I have seen Marlin judge against this very shot. A second question about this shot is how “continuous” it is. That is, the first part of the shot has the squidger moving primarily downwards while the second part of the shot is entirely a horizontal motion. Is the shot discontinuous in that the squidger acceleration is discontinuous? For that matter, when we speak of “continuous”, do we mean that the position, velocity, or acceleration is continuous? Are we picking out any one component of the motion to apply this test to? Should the test of continuity apply to the winks or the squidger or both? A third question is whether the shot is a two step shot. The reason is that the upper wink moves away long before the bottom wink starts to move. (This is a consequence of the long distance that must be stroked.) So in effect, there is a pause in the wink motion while the squidger moves a wink diameter. In practice, all three questions about the legalities of boondocks are ignored as long as a substantial portion of the bottom wink is showing.

(7) But what about boondocks where the bottom wink is not showing, i.e., where the upper wink overhangs the bottom? This is a difficult shot to do effectively, but that is not the question at hand. I have universally met the opinion that these shots can’t be done legally. But there is no technical difference between this and situation 6. Note that in both situations the squidger must first contact the upper surface of the upper wink, but that is easy to do and is not the complaint usually lodged. The indictment is always that the shot was slow. But it is not significantly slower than in situation 6 where it is accepted. (And if the bottom wink is a small wink, it may even be faster in duration.)

(8) A generalization of situation 6 can occur during any pile shot. Let me give a concrete example: suppose a squidger touches the top wink of a high pile, which then begins to rotate while the squidger’s downward motion is still going on in a quick and continuous manner. Further, let the top wink’s rotation stop before the squidger contacts and shoots the bottom wink of this high pile. Through all this time, the squidger is in linear uniform motion with a high velocity. But the wink action is two-stepped in the sense that there was a slight pause in which the wink motion was slight. This example is not imaginary, and I have seen players argue passionately over its legality.

(9) One one occasion, I saw a player make a bad squidge-in, only to then realize that a bad bump under the mat was the cause. Should this shot be taken over? The rules only cover the case where the irregularity is found before the shot.

(10) Are Arye Gittelman’s patented bristol shots quick? Are they also a cure for baldness? His bristols wedge the winks up at a high angle to the mat before they finally escape. From the point when any irreversible motion starts, the squidger moves over a small distance at a relatively slow velocity.

(11) Now let us take a really psychotic case (which I could not conceive happening with any current winker), where the shooter uses his squidger to adjust a disturbed pile, only to have his opponent accept the “shot”. Similar situations can arise from dropped squidgers or large buttons on shirt cuffs brushing a pile. A similar, but less psychotic, example comes from my own experience against a long-retired winker. His claim (I think it was based on an older set of rules) was that a shot is illegal if you used any part of your hand for a shot. He interpreted this to mean that a blow-up shot that had any wink even grazing a hand, arm, or shirt was illegal.

In most of the above situations, tradition has established a norm against which legality is judged. Unfortunately, the norms are occasionally contradictory in their interpretation of the rules. Also unfortunately, the traditions within both the American and international communities are different.

There are two possible routes to codifying legality. One route is to accept tradition and record the traditional values into our formal rules, even if it means specifying many cases and exceptions. The big trouble with this approach is to pick the tradition. Even if we could pick some unique set, it may be difficult to codify them. The second route is to define precisely what is meant by “quick and continuous”. This has the advantage of precision and conciseness. The disadvantage is that many traditions may have to be overturned. Of course, there can be a middle route. That is, precise definitions can be laid down with a number of stated exceptions to cover the most venerable violation precedents.

Let me propose a set of rules to stimulate debate. I do not intend to argue passionately for this particular set; I only advance it as a strawman set of rules:

(A) The quick and continuous rule will apply only to the motion of the squidger.

(B) Shot quickness refers to the velocity of the squidger and not the shot duration.

(B’) Rule B does not apply to bristol shots.

(C) The squidger motion is continuous if all components of its velocity have only one maximum.

(D) The concept of a “two-part shot” has no legal bearing.

(E) An unintentional movement of winks is not a shot. The burden of proof is up to the shooter. This proof can be supplied by the claim that even a horribly bad intentional shot could not conceivably have had the actual result.

I can just see all the people out there reading this rule set and saying that it is stupid. Well, then why don’t you come up with something better?

I think that the important point is not that we take any specific route or that our rulings follow any specific philosophy. The important point is that we do something (anything) specific. The ambiguity of legality is the biggest crippler of our rules.


At the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum (1525 Bernice Street, P.O. Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817) there was an exhibit of a game called Lafoga, involving small discs on something resembling a strip of map and larger objects made out of stitched coconut shells that may have played the role of squidgers as players attempted to knock opponents discs off the mat.

Courtesy of Adele, via Sunshine


LSU head basketball coach Dale Brown: “That doesn’t mean taking tiddlywinks and basketweaving.” Re athletes not playing a freshman year, but studying instead; NCAA Proposition 42. On CNN Crossfire, 17 January 1989.


Recent sightings

Left: Andy Purvis, Charles Relle

Right: Patrick Barrie, Alan Dean, Tony Heading, Bob Henninge, Larry Kahn, Dave Lockwood, Jon Mapley, Mac McAvoy, Richard Moore, Geoff Myers, Alex Satchell, Brad Schaefer, Mike Surridge, Rick Tucker

Both: Sunshine

Please inform Newswink of others you may know.

[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]

World Singles 29

by Larry Kahn

World Singles 29 took place on Saturday evening, 21 January 1989, after a full day of an individual and novice simultaneous tournament. This was Dave Lockwood’s first challenge in about five years. Head-to-head, Larry had a 3-2 advantage.

Game 1 was surprisingly fast-paced. An early large pile is blown up by Dave but is soon reformed. The game remains fairly wide open throughout, but to-wards the end of regulation Larry begins to take con-trol. Red (Dave) is nearly out and this hurts in rounds. Larry eventually squops out Dave for a 6-1 in a well-played, but normal game. The players manage 25 rounds in regulation, but this pace would not hold up for long.

A film crew from Booz-Allen then showed up and the next four games were played under the lights amid random confusions. In game 2, both players brought in well. A big pile develops near the cup; Dave blows it, but it redevelops. Beginning rounds, Larry has many free blues, red is tied up and it looks like a 4-3 to Larry. In the 4th round, Dave makes a nice bomb over the cup to free three greens and takes over the game in the last two rounds to sneak a 5-2 win. Larry begins game 3 by bringing in a green next to a red and then going off with yellow. Dave gets six pottable blues, but Larry gets the furthest one. Red gets a double and a mad scramble begins. Dave is shooting better than Larry in this game and by the end of regulation has Larry squopped-out. With six free turns, there is plenty of pile protection, Dave does not attempt a potout and is content with 6. Dave takes the lead, 12-9.

Game 4 was perhaps the most interesting of the match. Larry gains control of a large thirteen wink pile, and everyone keeps hopping to the high part of the pile, making shot after shot. Dave is wondering if he ever will get to blow it up. His attacks finally pay off near the end of regulation and the game essen¬tially restarts. Larry has a slight edge in a now wide open game and it looks like a 5-2 to even the match. However, poor potting dooms him to a 4-3 loss as neither players distinguishes himself in rounds. It is now 16-12 Dave, reminiscent of their first match in 1980, when Larry held the 4 point lead after four games. In that one, Dave stormed from behind with three 6s.

This time, it doesn’t look like history will repeat, as Dave gradually gains control in a compact pile game. Dave takes a risky shot, hopping off one wink to save a pile, and Larry is reduced to boondocking. Dave eventually squops Larry out for a solid 6-1 and a seemingly insurmountable 22-13 lead.

Booz-Allen apparently have seen enough, as they pack up and leave. I’m sure Dave wishes that they had stayed on, since all his wins were in their presence.

Larry gets a break in game 6 when Dave carnovskies a little green. Each player gets a double; Larry then converts his into a barely judged triple. This pile now becomes quite large, with Larry in tenuous control. Dave blows it, but Larry regains control, and Dave is down to two winks, one on a single and one on a triple. The potted wink really hurts. Dave manages to blow one of the scattered piles, but Larry quickly retakes the free winks and Dave is forced to come off the triple just before time ends. It is an obvious 6-1 to Larry and he now trails by 23-19, at least a manageable score.

Game 7 was the tensest game I have ever played in. Dave rolls off with a green and yellow but Larry can’t capitalize on either. Incredibly, he rolls off another yellow, and then yellow subs into a quad. Dave eventually blows this without a whole lot of success. A monster 19 wink pile develops, Larry in control, but a pile this size normally won’t last, and part is blown near time limit.

At the end of regulation, Dave has four free yellows and a green, Larry has three reds and a blue, and the rest are in a few big piles under Larry’s control. At this point, it looks like Dave can play yellows for at least the necessary 2, but he decides to attack instead. I really disagreed with this strategy. The first few rounds are rather sloppy, with several missed pots by both sides. Tension is really running high and the room is silent. Beginning 4th, yellow pots one but misses a makeable big. Blue pots one, then piddles, green takes a blue on the pile. Red pots, and now has about a five inch little on big squop that will force Dave to pot an 18-incher in the 5th. Larry is obviously quite nervous, as his squopping has been erratic throughout the match, but this one goes right up on top as Dave you know whats in his pants. He now lines up the long one, but it doesn’t go. He now has one chance left, and Larry ekes out the needed 6 to take the closest match to date, 25-24. Larry now gets to play someone other than Dave or Jon (11 of his 14 matches have been against these two) as he will take on Charles and try to tie Dave for most World Singles wins (9).

World Singles 29, 21 January 1989, Silver Spring MD

        Games g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 Pts
Larry Kahn     6  2  3  1  1  6  6  25
Dave Lockwood  1  5  4  6  6  1  1  24

World Pairs Through the Ages

Winner/Loser                      Venue/Date           1   2   3   4   5   6   7  Total  W-L-T
1. Severin Drix & Larry Kahn      Southhampton UK      5   5.5 1   5   6   6       28.5  5-1
   Keith Seaman & Alan Dean       17 July 1978         2   1.5 6   2   1   1       13.5

2. Severin Drix & Larry Kahn      Manchester UK        6   5   1   5.5 6   7       30.5  5-1
   Nigel Knowles & Charles Relle   5 July 1981         1   2   6   1.5 1   0       11.5   

3. Joe Sachs & Charles Frankston  Ithaca NY            4   5   4   1   5   4   6   29.0  6-1
   Severin Drix & Larry Kahn       1 June 1983         3   2   3   6   2   3   1   20.0

4. Larry Kahn & Arye Gittelman    Cambridge MA         6   5   5   3   5   5       29.0  5-1
   Joe Sachs & Charles Frankston  19-20 February 1984  1   2   2   4   2   2       13.0

5. Larry Kahn & Arye Gittelman    Oxford               2   6   1   3   6   6   5   29.0  4-3
   Dave Lockwood & Alan Boyce     30 November 1985     5   1   6   4   1   1   2   20.0

6. Dave Lockwood & Jim Marlin     Cambridge UK         6   5   6   6   7           30.0  5-0
   Alan Dean & Mike Surridge      19 November 1988     1   2   1   1   0            5.0

7. Larry Kahn & Charles Relle     Silver Spring MD     5.5 1   4   2   5   5   5   27.5  5-2
   Dave Lockwood & Jim Marlin     22 July 1989         1.5 6   3   5   2   2   2   21.5

8. Rematch of #7                  Silver Spring MD
                                  28 July 1989
[⨳ sic, Southhampton should be: Southampton ⨳]
[⨳ sic, “Nigel” (correct) was “Pam” in the original ⨳]

Dragon Cup 1

by Larry Kahn

The inaugural Dragon Cup challenge match was held recently. As might be expected, the two combatants were Dave Lockwood and Larry Kahn. The Cup is the American counterpart to the ETwA Jubilee, and the rules are simple. Anyone can challenge the current holder to a five game match, to be arranged at a convenient time and place. It isn’t intended to be strictly a DC affair, although as long as a holder lives here there are likely to be a lot more matches taking place.

In the first game, Larry had a potout threat early with yellow, made the first and then sent a totally nurdled big over the cup into Dave’s area. A large pile soon developed with lots of back and forth fighting. In midgame, Dave sent a big red through the pile and it did everything wrong, allowing Larry to bristol a double. Larry gained the upper hand, and late in the game Dave had another unfortunate shot that secured a certain 5 1/2 for Larry. He ended with 6 as Dave tried for more than 1 1/2. A close game, with two shots making the difference.

Games 2 and 3 were identical: both sides established early potout threats, with Larry’s greens having a slight edge. He made each green blitz by running six and then proceeded to eat it with yellow, but the two 5s meant Dave now needed a 6 and a 7.

The final game was somewhat anticlimactic. After making sure to defuse any potout threat, Larry got Dave into a tight squopping game. Action centered on a large pile initially in Dave’s area. Several pile squops by Larry in which close defenders were also marginally squopped swung the game to Larry, who eventually squopped Dave out and potted out (with yellow this time) for 6. In general, a well-played match where Larry didn’t miss much, particularly the critical pots.

Who wants to be next?

Dragon Cup 1, 22 June 1989
Kahn residence, Silver Spring, Maryland

    Games     g1 g2 g3 g4 Points W-L-T
Larry Kahn     6  5  5  6   22   4-0
Dave Lockwood  1  2  2  1    6
[+template:(Tucker Tw ID • [+xmp:title+] — publisher • [+iptc:source+] — title • [+xmp:headline])+]
WINKHAUS, a trademark

Marks of the Trade

by Rick Tucker

While the name TIDDLEDY-WINKS originally was a trademark registered in England in 1890 and is now in the public domain, there are relatively few trademarks, at least in the US, for tiddlywinks products. However, winking terms seem to be attractive names for new products and services. A recent whirl through the US Patent and Trademark Office turned up the following gems.

TrademarkCompanyReg./1st UseFor
SQUIDGEMattel1988/1987A fantasy character toy
TIDDLEDY WINKSE. J. Brach1937/1937Candy
TIDDLE TAC TOEKarson1956/1955Tiddlywinks tic-tac-toe
TIDDLY CARDWINKSE. S. Lowe1967/1965Parlor game
WinkAstor Products1940/1940Liquid coffee
WINKCanada Dry1949/1947Soft drink
WINKMotch & Merryweather Machinery Co.1954/1952Cutting machines
WINKWink Soap Co.1956/1919Soap & detergents
WINKKraftco1956/1955Vegetable shortening
WINKCollins & Aikman1966/1965Rugs
WINKWink Corp.1984/1976Rear vision mirrors
WINKFort Myers Broadcasting1985/1944Radio & TV
WINKKeptel1987/1984Telephone line testing
CHICKEN IN A WINKWilliam Underwood1975/1971Chicken spread
HOODWINKE. S. Lowe1965/1964Board game
HOODWINKTriple Eye1985/1984Lens cap & sunshade
HOODWINKMYA Co.1985/1984Gloves, scarves, hats
IN A WINKCiba-Geigy1985/1984Soft contact lens solution
KLEEN-WINKRiegel Textile1928/1926Cotton linens
LADY WINKRobert Stein1988/1987Eyelash curlers
NO-WINKGrove Labs1961/1960Stay awake tablets
QUICK-AS-A-WINKWright Buffing Wheel1968/1930Buffing wheels
quick “as a wink”VWR United1968/1967Pancake mixes
QUICK-AS-A-WINKMr. Rooter1977/1976Sewer cleaning services
QUICK AS A WINKJ. C. Brock1984/1976Packaged fresh vegetables
THINK IN A WINKJohn Sooy1987/1986Board game
WINK-AWAKESunbeam1961/1959Alarm clocks
WINK-EASEEye Pro1986/1986Protective eyewear
Bo WinkersTub-Ums Manufacturing1982/1981Slippers
WINKHAUSAug. Winkhaus1980/1973Locks
WinkieWink Corp.1956/1955Power-driven drill
WINKIEWelsh Co.1958/1955Infant stroller
WINKIEBush Brothers1981/1959Canned pet food
WINKIESan Francision Xtronx1985/1985Jewelry employing circuitry & flashing lights
BABY WINKIEEffanbee Doll1982/1963Dolls
Winkie BearDavid C. Cook1973/1970Puppet
Wee WinkieGeneral Time1967/1965Clocks
WINKIESPfizer1973/1971Antibacterial wash cloths
WINKINGor-Vue1976/1976Welding helmet
WINKING CHEFTexas Meat Packers1967/1966Packaged beef products
WINK’N RATTLETomy1985/1984Baby rattle
WINKO-MATICWinko-Matic Signal Co.1953/1946Roadside flash unit
WINKSBrown Durrell1958/1936Pajamas & nightgowns
HOT WINKSEmery Enterprises1983/1982Jewelry with electronic illuminators
MERRY WINKS!E. R. Reinertsens1968/1966Pastry snack
RAINBOW WINKSGatabox1982/1981Dolls
Willy WinksSelchow & Righter1982/1981Fingernail flip game
WINKS LANECharming Shops1986/1985Women’s clothing
WINKY DINKAvalon Industries1973/1953Television game
WINKYW I International1987/1985Knitting yarns
WINKYSWinkys Drive-In Restaurants1968/1962Restaurant foods