- Publication title • Newswink
- Whole number • 25
- Publisher • North American Tiddlywinks Association
- Publication date • 29 September 1990
- Publication location • Falls Church, Virginia USA
- Page side count • 18, plus 2 pages with the NATwA Address List
- Editor • Rick Tucker
- Preparation • Microsoft Word for Macintosh version 4.0
- Production • Printed in black and white on 8½” by 11″ white paper
- NATwA Archives artifacts: Original Microsoft Word document; original photoduplicated printed pages; digitized images of original pages
- Date updated: 17 August 2022
- (2022-08-17) Restructure elements in Elementor Pro to have article sections and #hashtag-ids for each section
- (2022-08-17) Add tw-divider widgets between articles
- (2022-08-17) Add table of contents in Toggle widget
- (2022-08-17) Add list of people mentioned
- (2022-08-17) Add abbreviations used
© 1990 North American Tiddlywinks Association
Falls Church, Virginia USA · 29 September 1990 · Rick Tucker, Editor
World Pairs Falls to Brits
by Larry Kahn
The 9th World Pairs match saw Dave Lockwood and Jim Marlin defend against Geoff Myers and Andy Purvis. The first two games were very positional ones with little action at the beginning. In the first game, Dave and Jim made the first attack far from the cup and got control of the area, but in rounds Dave missed pots with reds to allow a possible 5½ to Geoff & Andy. Ending game, green missed a pot off a wink to end with a 4-3 win. The second game was similar, with a similar score, 4½ to Geoff & Andy. In the 3rd game, yellow (Geoff/Andy) carnovskied its 5th wink but disdained a tough potout and with better play took a 6-1 squopping battle to open up a 14½ to 6½ lead. In the 4th game, Andy tried an early potout, missing the second wink. Jim & Dave then played much better and ended up with a 5½ to come to within 4, 16-12. At this point I stopped taking notes out of frustration at the incredibly slow pace. Geoff & Andy got a 6 in the next game as Dave & Jim were playing very erratically and making more mistakes than Geoff & Andy. This left the score at the dreaded 22-13—at least Dave knew that a comeback was possible. They got half the job done in the 6th game when Geoff & Andy were perhaps a bit too tentative at protecting the big lead and a 6-1 to Dave & Jim left the score at 23-19. In the last game, Jim got 3 of his winks tied up early. A passive game developed (I thought Dave & Jim needed to force the issue more) and not until near the end of time did Dave & Jim really attack and form a large pile. Dave & Jim were always in trouble for getting 6 out of the game, and despite some great attacking shots in rounds, Geoff & Andy made an equally good defense and won 6-1, making the final score 29-20. In a nutshell, it was a very slow paced match with everyone playing erratically, with Dave & Jim more so.
World Pairs 9 · Ithaca High School, Ithaca, New York
23 September 1990
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 Tot. Geoff Myers Andy Purvis 4 4½ 6 1½ 6 1 6 29 Dave Lockwood Jim Marlin 3 2½ 1 5½ 1 6 1 20
Editor: Rick Tucker · 5505 Seminary Road # 1206 N · Falls Church Virginia 22041 USA
Home 703-671-7098 · Work 703-883-6699 · Internet [email protected]
Table of Contents
1 Larry Kahn World Pairs Falls to Brits 2 Larry Kahn England Trip—Spring 1990 3 Larry Kahn NATwA Pairs 1990 3 Rick Tucker The 1990 British Tour 4 Sunshine Class of ‘69 Sweeps Match 5-8 Andy Purvis World Singles 31 and the 1990 ETwA Pairs 8 1989 NATwA Singles scores 9 Larry Kahn The 1980s—A View from the Top 10-11 Jon Mapley Rules and Their Interpretation 11 Corrections to Newswink 24 11 Jon Mapley A Personal View from England 12 Rick Tucker Rules of Engagement 13-19 Rick Tucker Tiddlywinks Dictionary 19-20 NATwA Address List
England Trip—Spring 1990
by Larry Kahn
In late April to early May Liz Penaranda and I visited England for about 2 weeks. The first 4 days were filled with winks as I had a World Singles match against Richard Moore and then played with Charles Relle in defense of our ETwA Pairs title. We arrived on Wednesday and went to visit Geoff Myers and Andy Purvis in Oxford. Thursday was the only rainy day of the trip and by Friday I was sufficiently rested for the trip into London to play the World Singles at Hamley’s toystore. Details of the match are elsewhere so here’s a short description. I kicked ass for 4 games and the last 3 were even.
Actually it was a pretty good match. I suspected Richard might be nervous early on and played slightly conservatively. This paid off as mistakes in the first two games by Richard let me take a 11½-2½ lead. The third game was even most of the way through and by the end of the game I decided to play for a 3, figuring he would guarantee the win rather than go for more. This is what happened and after taking another 6 I had a comfortable 20½-7½ lead. The next game was a disaster as I rolled 3 off and couldn’t squop, virtually handing him a 7-0. I still had a 6 point lead, though. The 6th game was tight all the way and probably the best played game. In round 4 I decided to pot a wink instead of going for a pile, guaranteeing something like 2½ and forcing Richard to bring in and pot from the close edge. His bring in was not great and in the 5th he missed the pot, giving me a 4 and the deadly 24½-17½ lead. The final game was the usual boring outcome and I ended up a 30½-18½ winner.
The only unfortunate event of the day happened when some turkey stole Liz’s purse right from our pile of things in the store. We had to take the following Monday morning to replace a lot of the items.
The weekend was spent in Southampton at the Pairs. It was another really enjoyable tournament even though Charles was more erratic than he had been the year before. 18 pairs showed up and we ended up third behind Geoff and Andy, who pretty much ran away with it, and Jon Mapley and Richard. We were the only ones to beat the winners when I potted out early in the game. I had to endure another rules meeting where the new failure to free rule was passed (infinite for, one against). At least the undersized table rule interpretation went our way.
That was the end of the winks and we picked up a car and headed for South Wales. Driving on the left was not much of a problem, the worst part was the A roads in Wales being only a lane and a half wide in a lot of places with tall hedgerows that prevented seeing very far ahead. We spent 5 days in a timeshare in a puny town on the coast. The setting was very nice and we spent most of the time visiting castles.
The weather turned out to be too hot and sunny, most of the time it was near 90 and I had to buy a pair of shorts to keep from sweating like a hog. Over the final weekend we headed to North Wales and visited a few more castles and gardens up there. Then it was time to head back to London and fly home. We really had a great time but as usual, there was not enough free time during the tournaments to relax and socialize much, although the Pairs is certainly less hectic and serious than the Singles is.
NATwA Pairs 1990
by Larry Kahn
The 1990 NATwA Pairs was held at Bob Henninge’s new house in Ohio and it turned out to be a real disappointment (the turnout, not the house, which was outstanding). We managed to get 4 pairs to play, a number that I barely consider sufficient for a meaningful tournament, but under the current rules one that is still valid. Anyhow, enough pissing and moaning for now about our current situation.
The 4 pairs were Dave Lockwood (Dr. Frankenstein) and Jim Marlin, Larry Kahn and Bob (created by Dave to get Larry to come after Rick Tucker couldn’t make it), Mac McAvoy and Marg Calhoun, and Sue Crapes and Déjà Lockwood. The format was double elimination knockout using 3 game matches, with the agreement that if the finalists each had one loss the final match would be 5 games.
The first round seedings held form as Dave & Jim beat Mac & Marg 11-3 and Larry & Bob beat Sue & Déjà 12-2 with each of the lower seeds getting a 2 from the higher seeds. In the second round, Dave & Jim just could not get untracked and lost a pair of 6-1’s to Larry & Bob. In the other match, Mac & Marg got by Sue & Déjà in 3 games with scores of 6, 2½, and 7.
Dave & Jim recovered in the next round, taking a 6 and a 7 from Mac & Marg to set up the rematch against Larry & Bob. They got off to a good start in game 1, staying close throughout the game and playing very well in rounds to get 5 after Bob missed a short pot in round 5 (one of his few mistakes all day). In the next game Larry & Bob pulled ahead with a 6-1, setting up a crucial game for Dave & Jim since a loss would mean the end of the road. The third game was probably the best all day. Bob questioned Larry’s strategy of an early lunch but executed the shot. It turned out to be right and the wink advantage helped throughout the game. By rounds, the game was still tight. Potting was good by both sides and in round 4 Dave got on the edge of a reasonable sized pile. In 5, Larry made a critical 6 inch pot and then made a good pile shot to squop Dave’s wink, effectively winning the game. A final miracle shot did not come off, leaving Larry & Bob the winners. This must set some sort of record for time between national championship wins as Bob’s last Pairs or Singles win was in the 1972 Singles. (Is this before some of the current British winkers were even born?) Larry gets his 10th NATwA Pairs win, with his 4th different partner.
An interesting set of World Pairs matches will take place this fall. If things go as planned, Larry and Bob will take on Geoff Myers & Andy Purvis, the two young upstarts who won the ETwA Pairs and beat Dave & Jim in World Pairs 9 (see cover story).
1990 NATwA Pairs · Glouster, Ohio · 26 May 1990
1 Larry Bob 7 0 Sue Déjà 1 Larry Bob 5 2 Sue Déjà 1 Dave Jim 6 1 Marg Mac 1 Dave Jim 5 2 Marg Mac 2 Dave Jim 1 6 Larry Bob 2 Dave Jim 1 6 Larry Bob 2 Marg Mac 6 1 Sue Déjà 2 Marg Mac 2½ 4½ Sue Déjà 2 Marg Mac 7 0 Sue Déjà 3 Dave Jim 6 1 Marg Mac 3 Dave Jim 7 0 Marg Mac 4 Dave Jim 5 2 Larry Bob 4 Dave Jim 1 6 Larry Bob 4 Dave Jim 1 6 Larry Bob
The 1990 British Tour
by Rick Tucker
After horrendous hagglings, the 1990 British tour has finally materialized. Transatlantical this year are Andy Purvis (first visit to the States), Stew Sage, Nick Inglis, Geoff Myers, Richard Moore, and Simon Gandy (who will miss the final winking events in Washington DC). After roaming around Arizona, Utah, and New England shedding a few pounds, the Brits will settle down for a few winking encounters. Rumor has it that long-missing winkers Arye Gittelman and Charles Frankston, and possibly L rolled out a mat for them as they passed through Cambridge.
23 September · World Pairs 9 · Ithaca NY
Dave Lockwood & Jim Marlin defeated by Andy Purvis & Geoff Myers, challengers
29 September · Individual Pairs · Falls Church VA
30 September · NATwA Singles · Falls Church VA
1 October · World Pairs 10 · Silver Spring MD
Class of ‘69 Sweeps Match
IP 7 took place on 28 April 1990 as Dave Lockwood’s home became the fourth DC area locale for an Individual Pairs tourney. For the second straight year there would be a new old champion. Rick Tucker, Bob Henninge, and Sunshine continued their perfect attendance record but someone who had tended to do very well in the match was off in England.
By the end of the 3rd (of 7) rounds, there had been two 4⅔ – 2⅓ games, only ⅚ of a point separated 4th and 8th places, and only Sunshine was undefeated. Host Dave pulled away from Ferd in the battle for sophomore of the match honours. Most games were close—there were only four 6-1 or higher scores (old record low was 6; average is 8 out of 14 games) and the ppw was a match record low of 5.09. The big battle turned out to be for 2nd and 3rd place, with 5 of the 8 players entering the last round within 3⅔ points. When the smoke cleared, 2nd was still only 4½ points ahead of 6th. And the traditional post-match Chinese dinner had been turned into a fine spaghetti lunch (via Déjà Lockwood and Chris Strong).
Statistical highlights included: 5 wins by a player for the 1st time since the 1st IP, 4 wins being the most popular win total for the 6th time out of 7 matches, 7 different scores being turned in by 2 players (after only 1 player ever doing it before), a record for improvement (14½ points) and decline (10⅔ points) between matches, 5 of the players having their 2nd best IP, and a record 5 players having their outright highest score of the match with the same partner. Brad Schaefer has been the winner in half of all the 4-3 games, Mac McAvoy has the lowest standard deviation in points per match. The only participant not mentioned thus far was Jim Marlin.
Individual Pairs 7 · 28 April 1990
Silver Spring, Maryland
Over the 7 IP matches
Over the 7 IP matches
ppw = 5.39
World Singles 31 and the 1990 ETwA Pairs
by Andy Purvis
A dozen or so spectators (mostly CUTwC) have gathered in Hamley’s Toy Shop for this, the 31st World Singles Challenge. Outnumbering them is the posse of press photographers, furiously snapping away to catch shots of the combatants in a variety of silly poses. In the Red corner, next to the My Little Pony, is the defending holder, Larry Kahn; 9 times World Singles Champion, 5 times World Pairs Champion, n times NATwA Singles Champ, 10 times NATwA Pairs champ, n times ETwA Singles Champ, current ETwA Pairs champ, current World Master. In the Blue corner, near the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with moveable joints, is Richard Moore, co-winner of the 1987 ETwA Handicapped Teams of Four… The recent form of both looked dubious; Larry had gone for 1 and 0 when solo against Geoff Myers and Andy Purvis in Oxford the previous evening, while Richard had warmed up with 4-17 against Patrick Barrie. Richard it is who wins the toss for corners and gets the first round of applause of the day for guessing correctly which corners he should choose.
But he goes off the table with his first squidge-off, and that about sums up the game. Clearly nervous, he makes virtually nothing and Larry, although not near his top form either, has free turns embarrassingly quickly (but the speed of play is almost ridiculously fast throughout the match). Fairly late on, Larry is playing free turns when people notice that Richard has a free wink on the main pile. No-one could say how long it has been free. Richard could claim Larry’s previous shot as out of turn, and thus blow the pile, but very sportingly allows Larry to continue. Larry immediately resquops it and goes on to an easy 6-1.
Richard’s nerves seem to subside a bit now, though, and he starts game 2 well; his bring-in is better and Larry is very lucky not to go off when a big wink rolls back off an upturned edge of mat. Richard plays a lovely shot to take a well-spread triple, Larry misses a bristol and comes off, and now Richard has a definite edge. But he is unlucky when he fails to spread a pair of his big winks. Larry squops these and then knocks off and squops an attacker. A couple of fairly easy misses by Richard now let Larry take control, especially when Richard subs a big blue. Richard makes quite a bit of play with his last red, forcing Larry to play a sequence of good shots to squop him up.
Yellow is sniffing a pot-out now, but Richard plonks his freed red right on top and, after a surprising miss by Larry, blows the pile well. Larry recovers most of it, but good shots, including a deliberate baseline squop, keep Richard going. Yellow squops a green, Richard brings a blue in to pot, green misses a two inch squop and a red crud frees two reds near the pot and a blue at the edge. Yellow pots an eight incher, but misses among the reds from 5 inches. Starting round 4, it looks like good blue potting will secure a much-needed 4-3, but red is almost bound to finish last. Richard pots one of his two pottable blues to move to 5, then thinks long and hard. Rather than risk missing the close one (4 inches), he brings in the crudded blue. It ends up a good eight inches away—ouch—but manages to nudge a green under a green-controlled pile and so put green down to 5; Larry pid¬dles this green free again. Red takes a yellow, leaving himself on 2 and yellow on 3. Yellow tries to squop the blue that Richard could have potted. He subs—“That’s amusing”—but leaves the blue very tough. Richard lines up the eight incher, but it hits the rim; this is the first of two round five misses that will really cost Richard dear in this match. Green pots one to gain first, then takes out a red. Red can’t come off a yellow, so passes. Larry, ending, has a small off large for the 6 but it doesn’t go and he has to make do with 5½.
With the score at 11½ – 2½ everyone goes to the pub for lunch. While Larry sips at his Coca-Cola, Richard gets stuck in to the drinking games. Perhaps because of this, he initially arranges the colours in the wrong order on the restart. Larry, playing green and yellow, has the edge on bringing in. Richard misses a bristol onto a Larry baseline squop, and a pile develops here. Larry plays the better shots and gains a good position, helped by yet another sub from Richard. Richard is not out of it yet, though, and gets an amazing tripleton. Larry plays a neat knock off and squop and, although Richard retakes, another knock off gives Larry an excellent position. After only 7 minutes, red is out and Richard is down to three blues, but one of these gets a great knock off and doubleton on the main pile. Perhaps the best play of the match now follows: Larry flips two big winks onto this mess, but blue gets beautifully on top of the pile. The blow-up is reasonable, but Larry takes a doubleton of big winks on the remnants of the pile. Richard misses an easy blue shot but makes a great shot on the next blue turn to squop all the free winks on the pile. Larry coolly takes this blue. There is a yellow by three blues; Jon is called in to see if the yellow is free but, halfway through judging it, he kicks the table. Yellow, adjudged free, takes two of the blues and the third retakes. There are seven uninvolved winks: three greens and two of each of red and blue—all the rest are in piles. A hiatus follows as everyone misses easyish shots. Then, although Larry gets a great knock off and squop with green, yellow misses an easy clean-up shot and is squopped up with 4 minutes left. Green is forced to boondock to free a yellow and all colours line up hopeful pile shots in round 0. Larry, faced with an impossible bristol, asks “Where’s Charles?”. Richard pots three good blues from 7 to 10 inches to start round 2 and Larry just squeaks a couple of greens in. The game is now very tight with no flat winks. A neat squop off a blue onto red, and a round 5 yellow pot let Larry take a useful 3-4 defeat. This is the first singles win for Richard over Larry, who now leads 14½- 6½.
A baseline squop of small blue (Richard) onto big green becomes an early focus in game 4. Although the play is scrappy, Larry’s yellows are too far away and Richard gets a good position. Larry tries a bomb shot but misses by a foot, yellow is squopped up as he arrives, but Richard fluffs a green doubleton to let Larry off the hook. Larry now edges his way in, putting a yellow onto the pile with green. A neat little blow up by yellow is offset by Larry missing a very easy squop shortly after. The game is now very tight and there are three wimp-outs in a row, before Larry gets a neat squop of yellow onto blue followed by a good bristol with green. Blue is soon squopped up. Red makes a bristol but is squopped by yellow, and red subs on his next turn as the end of regulation is reached. Yet another sub by Richard leaves him with just one blue and, although he puts this right on top of the pile, Larry makes a really good yellow bristol to secure the 6-1 for a ‘useful’ 20½ – 7½ lead.
At the start of game 5, Richard squops a big blue with a big red. Larry brings a big yellow in close, and this takes the red when Richard splits up the doubleton. Richard brings his fifth blue in near to a yellow, and Larry chooses this moment to send a green off. Yellow takes the blue, another blue retakes and now yellow goes off. Blue boondocks the yellow and green brings in close to the blues. It is now decision time and Richard coolly chooses to bring the sixth blue in rather than start potting with one on the line. This decision is vindicated when Larry, not for the first time today, misses a one inch squop. Yellow misses too and there are still five Larry winks at the edge. Richard sinks the two close blues, makes the third, shakes quite badly as he pots the fourth, and sinks the fifth. He (and everyone watching) takes a deep breath and the sixth one goes in to great (and gloriously biased) applause. The other colours are all widely spread, but red looks best for second. Larry helps Richard by missing an easy pot with each colour and Richard sinks his last big red to even more applause to secure the 7-0. This is Larry’s first ever zero in World play, and brings the match back to life at 20½ – 14½.
The sixth game develops in an open fashion, but no-one can quite line up a pot-out threat. Red (Larry) is squopped up briefly with a couple of minutes to go, but this only really gains tempo as blue can blow a small pile to free red. The game is tactically quite tight, even if not played to a desperately high standard. Larry is looking to cut his losses most of the way through, but a beautiful nudge by Richard turns a doubleton into a triple in round 4 and now a game-ending pot will make it 5-2 to him and leave the score at 19½ – 22½… But it slips by, and 3-4 leaves Richard in the unenviable position of needing a 7-0 to tie.
Desperately needing a good bring in, Richard sends the second yellow off and rolls a couple of greens around. Refusing to be outdone, Larry sends a blue on to the floor, but no pot out threat develops. Richard’s heart seems not to be in it as he is squopped up inside seven minutes. Although he makes some good attacks, such as a superb double atop the biggest pile, and a neat Lennon onto a doubleton on top of the same pile, Larry defends well enough. Having coped with Richard’s efforts, Larry frees Richard on the pile in free turns and the resulting crud leaves five yellows and three greens free. But Larry keeps his head and starts potting early in rounds. Richard doesn’t seem to notice a possible colour-order knock-off which just might leave a pot-out chance, and Larry runs out a 6-1 winner for a rather unconvincing 30½ – 18½ defence.
This was the least impressive performance I’ve seen from Larry, and he must be greatly relieved that Richard was both equally off-form and very nervous. Or maybe he was saving himself for the rematch… Richard acquitted himself very well after overcoming his nerves, scoring more points than Alan Dean has totalled in his three losses, but should rue those missed pots and some careless attacks onto piles.
And, when it was all over, and the players had left the scene, a mother and her young daughter came up and asked, “Who won? The British one or the American one?” The American one. “Oh, shame!”
The next morning, the scene shifted to Southampton for the ETwA Pairs. The field of eighteen pairs was slightly down on what had been hoped for; Alan Dean, trying to sell his house, was missing an ETwA National tournament for the first time, Tony Heading and Peter Wright completely failed to cope, and Mike Surridge was disappointingly the only member of the host club to take part. It had its good side though; 18 is the biggest number we can fit into an all-play-all. Any more and we’d have had to play two or more leagues. The heat was sweltering throughout the two days—why is it that the English weather is only glorious when I’m stuck indoors?
At the top of the draw, Larry and Charles Relle were looking to be the first pair for a good many years to retain the title (arguably the toughest of all to hold on to), and Jon Mapley & Richard Moore and Andy Purvis & Geoff Myers were looking to stop them. Nick Inglis & Alex Satchell, seeded 4, also looked to be in with a shout, but Alex’s thumb had only come out of plaster a couple of days before after a skiing accident, and no-one knew quite how it would hold up. It was good to see 6 winkers in their first Pairs, two from Cambridge (Ian Gameson and James Cullingham) and four from Oxford (Gavin Keyte, Rupert Wilson, Phil Carmody and Naveed Chaudhri).
The seedings looked a bit dodgy after just the first round; only four of the ‘top’ nine pairs managed to win, with Nick & Alex going down to Simon Gandy & Adrian Jones and Alan Boyce & Jim Carrington (4th last year) falling the same way to Graham Hancock & Gavin Keyte. Clearly the tournament was going to be more about ferret-taming than rabbit-bashing.
After three rounds, only the top three seeds remained unbeaten. Leading the pack were Patrick Barrie & Ed Wynn (who were seeded in the bottom half, and so playing against the top half) and Mike Surridge & Stef Norman. Although the top three were racking up the sixes and sevens, the games were tougher than the scorelines suggest; Sean Mayes & Dave Salter were on a pot-out against the holders but went down 6-1 and Simon & Adrian were up for most of their game against Geoff & Andy, before some missed pots cost them first the game and then any points at all. Sooner or later one of the top three had to come a cropper, and it happened in round 7. That ludi¬crously erratic pair, Geoff Thorpe & Dave Hull, out-thought the holders and won a very well-worked 4-3; it would have been 5-2 but for a great Charles squop from the edge ending round 5. But they couldn’t keep it up—Jon & Richard beat them 6-1 to finish on 51 from 8 at the end of “a good day’s work.” Andy & Geoff had Julian Wiseman & Steve Phillips squopped up but Julian crudded the pile well. Andy started potting while Julian & Steve tried to play for 3- 4. Squops were missed so Julian started boondocking Geoff! Andy finally potted out with Geoff’s winks scattered everywhere and a 5-2 on the cards. But Geoff stuck them all in in two turns to finish only two points down overnight. “Well potted, you bastard,” said the watching Jon. Charles & Larry were three points further back, five ahead of Stef & Mike. Ed & Patrick had scored five wins and 34½ points from eight games against the top half of the draw, to lie a most impressive seventh. At the other end of the table, three pairs were clustered around the 1 ppg mark, fervently hoping that tomorrow would be easier.
Indeed it would be—bottom-placed James Cullingham & Alaistair Grant beat Dave & Geoff 7-0 first thing on Sunday morning, while the other two trailers finished 4-3 in their game. Geoff & Andy started with a 7 but were then so nearly beaten by Stew Sage & Matthew Rose, who played some outra-geous shots (the highpoint being a 3 foot squop by Stew onto two of Geoff’s winks atop the main pile). The Oxford pair were very relieved to sneak a 5-2 with tight play in rounds.
The other leaders kept going nicely, but the wheels started to come off for Larry & Charles; Mike & Stef worked hard to beat them 4-3 and then Rob Cartwright & Phil Clark played some fine pressure shots to take them 4⅔ – 2⅓. Next Matthew & Stew, who played some really good games, held them to 4½ points while Jon & Richard were in all sorts of trouble against Nick & Alex. Fairly early into rounds in this game, it was clear that Nick & Alex would win, but Jon had three he could bring in and pot for at least 2-5. But the bring-ins rolled past, Alex & Nick played very solidly, and now Andy & Geoff were five points clear at the top. They were also, for the first time in the tournament, both playing well at the same time. They extended their lead with a fourth successive six while Alan & Jim beat Richard & Jon.
After 14 rounds, Geoff & Andy led with 85, Jon & Richard were still not out of it on 77 and Charles & Larry were 3⅙ behind them. Patrick & Ed were lying 4th, but were nearly 25 off the lead so it was at most a three horse race. Now the top two pairs met head-to- head. Andy brought in nicely, with 5 near the pot and one at the edge. Jon & Richard both missed squops to stop the blitz. Geoff & Andy ummed and ahhed before, as Geoff looked away, Andy took a doubleton rather than cock up the pot-out. From here on, neither Richard nor Jon played at their best while Andy and Geoff missed one shot each. The squop-up came with ten minutes to go, but Andy’s miss let Jon blow the pile. Geoff retook a double, Richard missed a squop onto Andy who took a triple, and that was that.
Meanwhile, a 5½ – 1½ win over Jim & Alan nosed the holders up into second place, 11⅔ behind the leaders and 1⅓ ahead of Jon & Richard. More importantly (and who says it’s only Americans who think up daft statistics?) the 5½ – 1½ was their seventh different scoreline (out of only eight possible non-freaky ones) in successive games. All they needed now for the set was a 3½ – 3½ in their game against the leaders. Seemingly blind to beckoning statistical immortality (and knowing they needed at least 6 if they were to defend their title), Larry prosaically blitzed instead. He’s no fun. The 18 remaining winks were all around the pot, with Andy to play. A zero here would have been a bit worrying, but Andy ran six, Charles ran five but the sixth bounced off and Geoff made no mistake, the 2-5 clinching the title. A 4-3 for Jon & Richard over Mike & Stef left them with a good shout at third.
Jon stood in front of the scoresheet, did some sums, double-checked the scores, announced that 5-2 would do but 4⅔ – 2⅓ would not, and returned beaming 40 minutes later to fill in the 5-2. Geoff & Andy tried for the 7-0 that would have taken them to 100, but Geoff’s sixth just slid by in round 5. Patrick & Ed finished 6*, 6, 7*, 6 to end up an excellent fourth (with no score lower than a two), ahead of Mike & Stef and Matthew & Stew. Nick & Alex were disappointed to finish 7th while Rob & Phil had some excellent results in their eighth place. At the bottom of the table, Naveed & Phil squeezed out of last place with a last round 7-0 pot-squop against Dave & Geoff. Guess where they’ve been learning… Dave & Geoff, even by their own impeccable standards, were particularly ludicrous this year. They averaged better against the pairs finishing higher than them than against those finishing below. They took more points (11) of the top four than did anyone else, yet failed to take a single point off the bottom two finishers!
So Andy & Geoff gain their first National titles, and hope to become the first British pair to win the World Pairs when they play Dave & Jim this September. Jon & Richard seemed to wilt a bit after lunch on Sunday, and Larry was left unable to remember when he’d last finished third in a tournament. Everyone seemed to enjoy their 17 games (and the beer), and everyone won at least two. Why not come over next year?
World Singles 31 · London, England · 27 April 1990
North American Singles · 29-30 July 1989 · Silver Spring, Maryland
Hughes Methodist Church & Kahn residence
First Round Robin
Second Round Robin
The 1980s—A View From the Top
by Larry Kahn
In the words of the immortal Chico Esquela, “Tiddlywinks been very, very good to me.” This certainly turned out to be a productive decade for me, but after winning 10 of 15 Singles and 7 of 10 Pairs what’s in store for the 90’s? With the younger British players finally breaking through it will probably be a lot tougher for anyone to duplicate this kind of success. Geoff Myers and Andy Purvis already won the 1990 ETwA Pairs so who knows what comes next. Based on past trends, things look good for me at the 1990 NATwA Singles, not so good for the ETwA Singles. Since 1980, I’ve been in a pattern of finishing second, winning three in a row, finishing second, winning three. The only break for the entire decade came in the 1983 NATwA singles.
The 1980’s saw major changes in the state of equipment. Way back in 1978 I discovered a winks flattening method that I brought over to England that summer. It stirred up a huge controversy when Charles Relle wanted to use his flattened set of winks at tournaments. The whole thing became irrelevant a few years later when the new winks were introduced and everyone had to use them. I think the level of play declined among the established players for a year or so but then picked back up. I know that for me, potting definitely dropped off but now with some new potting squidgers I can finally pot the damn things at least as well as I could the old ones.
Mat types have come and gone as usual, but perhaps the biggest technical innovation has been the flexible squidger. This makes potting small nurdled winks almost impossible to miss unless they are extremely close to the cup. This seems to be about the only type of shot they are good for, at least for now.
The game itself has changed somewhat over the last 10 years, partly due to the new equipment. Back in 1979 Joe Sachs introduced the squop-style bring-in and had great success with it. I started using it the next year, and now most new players do it this way. It takes a little longer to master but the results are probably better. Over the last few years, the bristol good shot was developed. I’m not sure if the shot would have been as effective using the old winks. Some shots became harder with the new winks, some easier, so it pretty much evened out. Subbing is certainly a bigger factor than it was before.
Over the last five years, the strategy seems to have opened up a lot and there are a lot more potouts. This is great for the game (particularly spectators) and was probably due to some of the newer British players having good successes against established players in blitz games. It seems to have caught on, partly by force, since a lot of times games are played blitz style from the start.
While the level of potting has probably improved significantly, I can’t necessarily say the same for squopping. I know for myself that my pile manipulations and bristols have improved but I’m not sure my open field squopping has gotten significantly better since 1980. Since I hardly ever practice squopping anyhow, I guess that’s to be expected. The one thing I did finally figure out after almost 20 years was to squop backwards (forwards to the rest of the world), especially for short squops at crucial times.
World Singles action really got lively after Larry finally wrestled the title from Dave Lockwood after his long tenure. The title passed from Dave to Larry to Arye Gittelman to Alan Dean (first Brit to win it), back to Larry, then to Jon Mapley, before finally returning to its natural state. Nobody missed a challenge in the whole decade and no Brit has ever won the title off of a “legitimate challenge” (not using the foreign visitor rule).
Despite the recent showings of the young turks, the Singles has remained in the clutches of the old-timers. The only “new” players to win titles in the 80’s were Pam Knowles and Arye. The others went to Larry, Dave, Jon, Charles, and Alan. This is likely to change in the near future.
The biggest negative for the whole decade has been the decline of American winks. We lost a number of top players to apathy and have not had much success in recruiting new players. It all probably started when Reagan got elected in 1980. Since then, there has been a huge shift towards conservatism, particularly among the young people. College students turned into a bunch of nerds and apparently didn’t have time for winks. The distance factor over here really hurts also. The winking centers (D.C., Ithaca, Ohio, and Boston?) are all at least 300 miles apart, making one day trips impossible. However, our hard core group will keep things going until we have an upturn.
So now that the 80’s are over, what’s in store next? I hope to continue to be a pain in the ass to Dave, as well as to the rest of winks. If I had to take a guess as to who will be the first “new” player to win a Singles title I’d probably pick Geoff (due to his more consistent style of play) over Andy or Richard Moore, but any of 4 or 5 others could make it. I’m not sure who I’d least likely want to face in a World Singles.
Rules and Their Interpretation
by Jon Mapley
As the recently-elected Chairman of ETwA’s Rules subcommittee, I read the articles by Brad Schaefer and Larry Kahn in Newswink 24 with some interest. First, let me state my position on the definition of shot legality.
Most of the ambiguity in the current set of rules is in the reader’s mind. The previous version of ETwA’s rules, i.e. prior to the genuine attempt to define legality, was indeed full of legalistic language, and suffered interpretatively as a result. This is hardly surprising, as its author was Bungy Wells, a lawyer. Charles Relle is not a lawyer, but is an expert in the economic use of the English language, to convey a meaning as unambiguously as possible. He should be praised, not criticized, for the version we currently use.
I will now cover the essential elements separately. To be legal, a shot must satisfy ALL the following criteria:
- The squidger’s motion must contain downward directionality.To satisfy Brad’s laws of physics, any wink which, subsequent to its being “played”, does not rise from the mat by one micron cannot be exhibiting the necessary equal and opposite reaction to the propulsion with an element of downward motion, and has not, as a consequence, been played legally. So, there is no need to outlaw rubber squidgers; the sweep shot is illegal.
- The squidger must first contact a (visible from above) portion of an unsquopped wink of the player’s own color.I once had to call a Rich Steidle shot foul on five consecutive attempts. I do not think there are any current players who misunderstand this part of the rule.
- After touching the “top” wink, the squidger may only subsequently touch winks which were vertically beneath the “top” wink at the start.Again, I think there is no real problem with interpretation here. In Brad’s rotational swivel shot, even if motion is quick and continuous, it is illegal to play a wink which only becomes beneath the top wink as a result of the rotation.
- Movement is irreversible if, when the squidger ceases contact with the wink, all winks do not return to the positions they occupied before contact with the squidger began.I quote verbatim the words in the ETwA rules, which to my mind, say everything necessary for the unambiguous interpretation of the next part of the rule.
- From the moment when a wink starts to move irreversibly, the movement of the squidger must be quick and continuous.Again, this is a direct quote. It clarifies Brad’s misunderstanding about whether it is wink motion which must be quick or continuous, so Arye Gittelman can take five minutes playing his bristols. There is, nonetheless, the use of the subjective words “quick” and “continuous”. We have agonized on this subject for many years. I do not want the rules to become over-burdened with definitions of definitions, or clarifications of clarifications. So, I hereby put myself in the pillory with my own interpretation of these words:“Quick” means fast enough to defeat the human eye and ear. In other words, if you can’t see a wink being dragged back, or don’t hear two distinct clicks, the shot has been played with sufficient skill to raise considerable doubt over judging it foul, therefore it is legal.“Continuous” means that there should not be an obvious change in the direction of the squidger’s motion between commencement and completion of the shot.
- A shot takes place if it is an attempt to move a wink.This is an area where the unwritten code of conduct must apply. I like the use of the chess phrase “j’adoube” to clarify any uncertainty over whether the attempt is being aborted. Naturally, if irreversible motion has taken place, it is up to the conscience of the opponents to determine if they are going to apply the letter of the law.
I think the above should satisfy Brad’s “strawman set of rules” which I do not consider at all stupid. I just happen to think that the existing rules are comprehensive enough to adjudicate on all the points he raises.
There are one or two other points raised by the articles which warrant further discussion. A small wink totally obscured by a large wink cannot legally be boondocked in the normal sense of “play one, then the other”. Either the squidger has swept the large wink aside (illegally), or the squidger motion includes an upward element (also illegal). It can, of course, be as skilfully propelled wherever one wants by allowing the top wink to do the work of the squidger. It all depends on the relationship of one wink with the other, and the direction of the shot.
Finally, I would like to return to a subject hinted at in the rotating wink scenario. On many occasions, I have seen players start a shot, find that it’s going wrong to the extent that irreversible motion has patently occurred, and then continue through the rest of the shot, knowing it will be called a foul, but hoping that they will get a second chance, having learned from the experience. There’s not a lot the rules can offer in this situation, but it’s a practice I condemn.
Corrections to Newswink 24
Page 1. In the article “Dave & Jim Capture Second NATwA Pairs”, last paragraph: Change sentence “This left Larry & Rick needing 76 against Dave & Jim” to “…needing 7 …”.
Page 11. In the chart “World Pairs Through the Ages”, In the chart of World Pairs, it was Nigel Knowles who partnered Charles Relle in match # 2.
Bush League Winks
Author, gadfly and bon vivant George Plimpton found his recent weekend with George Bush at Camp David strenuous. Among the activities: bowling, tiddlywinks, horseshoes (a presidential triumph), skeet shooting and wally ball (a form of volleyball played on a handball court).—from a well-known newsweekly magazine.
A Personal View from England
by Jon Mapley
Newswink 24 expressed surprise that Winking World carried no report on the World Pairs which had just taken place in England. At first glance, this would appear to be a bad case of sour grapes, as the Brits, Alan Dean and Mike Surridge, had been overwhelmed by 30 points to 5. The reason is more complex. No one who had been present could be found to commit to paper anything more erudite than “It was the most tedious mind-numbing event in the history of Winks, and Alan and Mike were bored to defeat by the midpoint of the second game.”
Sunshine in particular has been criticised for turning up at the NATwA Singles as a spectator. Others have stopped playing outside their own back yard, and serious recruitment has dried up. Without any British visitors, the NATwA Singles and Pairs tournaments are no longer worthy of the name “National Championships”, because there are only two players or pairs who believe in their own ability to win either, and the total turnout is a joke. This can be attibuted to two main factors—the win-at-all-costs attitude and the absence of clubs or tournaments where the main objective is to encourage new players to take up the game, and to continue playing once they have been bloodied in competition. Maybe a more relaxed attitude would also attract back the older players, particularly in the Boston area, because they might feel that it was worth putting something back into the game to ensure its future, getting some fun games in as well. Both the “I don’t like it serious” and “I want to win everything” brigades have to compromise on this if NATwA as a whole actually wants to progress. Of course, if you are all happy with the situation, or can’t be bothered one way or the other, so be it.
Looking again at Newswink 24, I find a report written by Sunshine on Individual Pairs 6, a tournament he did play in. You got four “novices” to attend, but you condescendingly allowed them to compete in only six games, none of which counted in the tournament. What an opportunity wasted for a 12-player handicap competition. I guess, though, that it would have ruined somebody’s lifetime stats in games played against Larry with green winks from the left-hand corner partnering someone under six feet two on Lady Day in odd-numbered years. That would never do, would it? Eleven rounds in one day can be achieved with good organization, and a willingness on all sides to get on and play. We did it in Kidderminster this year, starting at 10:40 and finishing at 6:45.
I was elected to the IFTwA post, as others before me, to fulfill a largely arbitrative role, keeping the two countries as close as possible on the rules of the game, and to use a casting vote where necessary on international matches and their procedures. I also see it as my duty to promote the expansion of the game. If at times this involves the double negative of avoiding the contraction of the game, then I must speak out on that too.
I HAVE A DREAM. It won’t be fulfilled if you guys roll over and give up.
Best wishes for the Nineties,
Rules of Engagement
by Rick Tucker
The latest edition of the ETwA rules was published in May 1990 and is included in the mailing of this issue of Newswink. Since the last version, the principal changes made have been to Rule 3 (winks landing in unsupported areas of the mat), Rule 5b (disturbing winks in motion), Rule 7b (winks supported by the pot), and Rule 11 (squopping up and free turns).
In the past year or so, ETwA has been working diligently to clarify a few key points that have always been unclear. NATwA and ETwA are now in total agreement on all but one part of the rules. Rule 11 remains quite controversial, and NATwA does not concur with the ETwA proposal. The views in this article are my own; however, I believe they are representative of the prevailing opinions in NATwA.
Recent ETwA Changes to the Rules
ETwA has adopted the metric system for squidger size, winks size, and pot size, but not for mat size, which remains 6 feet by 3 feet, and baseline distance from the center, which is still 3 feet. NATwA has no problem with this change. The only net effect is that squidgers may be between 25mm and 51mm in diameter, and hence may be a tad larger or smaller.
The change to Rule 3 (The Mat) incorporates NATwA’s practice for handling undersized tables. The rules now state that unsupported winks “may be moved the shortest distance onto the playing surface”.
In Rule 5b, clarifications are made to the rule prescribing what to do when winks in motion are disturbed. These changes comply with NATwA practice. The only uncertainty I have with Rule 5b is the part that states that a disturbed, nonmoving wink is replaced, “squopping or squopped if necessary to comply with this Rule”. I presume that the wink should always be squopped by any wink that has landed where it used to be, and never squopping that wink, because the wink, if it had not been disturbed, presumably would be below the wink that arrived later. I need a clarification on this. If the intention is that piles should be reconstructed, the phrasing did not convey that to me.
Rule 7b describes what to do when a wink is supported (in part) by the pot. The changes comply with NATwA practice, except possibly for the situation where a wink is both supported by the pot and squopped. In this case, the wink is “left as it lies”. This revision is acceptable to NATwA.
Rule 11 has the controversial revisions. The motivation for the changes is to enact a stiff penalty for a failure to free upon conclusion of the free turns awarded a partnership when they have squopped-out their opponents. As I understand it, the revisions were approved by ETwA with only one dissent—Larry Kahn. When I read the new rule, I am astonished at how nonaesthetic the changes are. Here is a key excerpt from Rule 11:
(d) If a freeing shot is not played as required by section (b), or a wink is squopped contrary to section (c), the turn in which the offence occurs is terminated, and the offended partnership is awarded a “nominated wink”. For the first shot of the turn immediately following the failure to free, the player due to play the next colour shall nominate a playable wink of any colour and play it as if it were his own. If this shot fails to free any of the squopped partnership’s winks, free turns are recounted and start immediately. If in the playing of the nominated wink any of the nominated colour is potted, it will ultimately count for the opposition, but the player may continue the turn, playing any wink of his own colour freed by the previous shot. If a wink of the nominated colour leaves the field of play, the player forfeits the next shot due to be played with his own colour.
This “nominated wink” concept is cognitively immoral in my view. It provides the offended partnership an excessively generous opportunity while violating a primary principle of a classic game—namely, that a player should not squidge another player’s wink. Adding insult to injury, the rule continues:
If the failure to free occurs on the final turn of the fifth round after expiry of the time limit, the next colour in sequence shall be entitled to one extra turn, commencing with a nominated wink.
There would appear to be a mass muddling of minds on the other side of the Atlantic.
Other Clarifications Required
- Clarify use of “squidge” vs. shot. A “squidge” is the application of a squidger by a player, whereas a “shot” includes the results of the squidge as well.
- Adopt a term to replace “time limit points”.
Minor Tailoring Needed for NATwA Version
- Use of US terms instead of British ones (squopped-out vs. squopped-up, free vs. desquop); also US spellings (color) and usage (expiration vs. expiry, woman vs. lady)
Once ETwA and NATwA come to total agreement on rules, the rules should be labeled “Approved by the English Tiddlywinks Association and the North American Tiddlywinks Association” instead of the current labeling (“compiled for ETwA”). The rules should also be copyrighted.
© 1990 Richard W. Tucker
Following is my first cut at assembling a complete dictionary for tiddlywinks. In a future version, I plan to include exemplary citations for some entries, in much the same manner as in the Oxford English Dictionary. However, I need your help! I would greatly appreciate your uninhibited comments on the definitions, your suggestions for additions and improvements, etc. I particularly need help in identifying Briticisms vs. Americanisms. Even though I have copyrighted this, I am permitting members of NATwA and ETwA to reproduce it for free distribution.
* • n Sunshine, an American winker.
11 Khartoum Road • n (UK) a team.
AGM • n (UK) Annual General Meeting.
Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents • n (US) a publication by Sunshine in February 1976 describing tiddlywinks perversions. [From Allegheny Airlines (now USAir), an airline company.]
Alliance • n (US) a US team of the 1980s.
approach shot • n a shot with the objective of placing a wink at a particular position on the mat, sometimes near a target pile, without an intent to squop.
autoboondock = 2boondock
autosquop (UK) = sub (Cohen, 1977)
baseline • n a line near each corner of the mat behind which winks are placed at the beginning of a game. This line is perpendicular to the diagonal of the mat and is three feet from the center of the mat.
beaker (rare, obsolete) = n pot. (Hull Guildhall, 1962, in Winking World 4, page 11)
birthday present • n an opponent play which results in an unexpectedly easy shot for a gain.
BIT • n (US) Boston Invitational Tournament, or generically, a tournament with a varying format, e.g. a BIT-like tournament.
blitz • n an attempt to pot out when opponent winks are not under control, particularly before the time limit has been reached. • Also vi.
blowup • n a shot, usually forceful, which separates winks that are in a pile
bomb • n a shot in which a wink is shot toward a target pile, usually from a distance, with the objective of knocking one or more winks out of the pile. • Also vt.
Bonham recording system • n a method for transcribing the shots and results of a tiddlywinks game (Winking World 5; ETwA E2, 1964)
boon (US) = 1boondock [a clipped form of boondock]
1boondock • n a shot in which a squopped wink is freed and comes to rest far from the center of action in a game, or is sent off the mat. • Also vt. [circa 1971, US]
2boondock • n a perversion in which the goal is to pot all of a color’s winks, and when a wink is squopped, it is returned to its baseline. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules.
boondock and squop • n A shot which produces two results: a wink is boondocked, and the shooting wink comes to rest on another wink, squopping it.
bounce out • vi to shoot a wink that enters the pot but hits the interior of the pot or a wink inside the pot and comes out of the pot. Also n. (Winking World 1, page 4)
brace (UK) = bridge
bridge • vt to shoot a wink to squop two winks, neither of which are squopping the other. o n a pile in which two winks are bridged. (Edwards, in Partridge, 1984)
bring-in • n a squidge-in or an approach shot from a distance.
bristol (also B-) o n a gromp shot in which the face of the squidger is held perpendicular to the wink being played, and roughly parallel to the intended direction of the shot. • Also vt. [from University of Bristol in England, where the shot originated.]
bristol good (also B-, G-) • n a shot in which the squidger is held as for a bristol, with an intended trajectory as in a Good shot.
bucket (UK) (rare) = n pot
butt • n a shot where a wink hits the edge of a target wink, usually with the objective of knocking the target wink off a pile. • Also vt.
Cambridge blue • n a bright yellow-green colored wink that came in tiddlywinks sets from Marchant Games in the late 1960s; this color was used instead of blue, which was missing from these sets.
Cannonball • n nickname of Bill Renke in the early 1970s.
carno (also C-) • n a clipped form of carnovsky.
carnovsky (also C-) • vi, vt to pot a wink from a corner, usually a squidge-in of an unplayed wink. o n a shot in which a wink was Carnovskied. [named after Steve Carnovsky, Harvard player in 1962, popularized in Life magazine.]
Chickens Courageous • n a US team formed from the TKOs.
Christmas pile • n a pile consisting of only green and red winks.
Christmas present = birthday present.
circular squop • n a pile in which all winks are squopped; sometimes, a pile of two winks with this property.
click off • n a shot in which a wink is removed from on top of another wink, where the squidger stroke stops abruptly by clicking on this other wink. • Also vt.
click shot • n a shot played on a wink which is squopping another wink. The squidger’s stroke on the played wink stops abruptly on this other wink, causing a sharp click sound. The other wink typically is intended to be left unmoved by this shot.
climb up • vi to shoot a wink that bounces off the exterior side of the pot on its trajectory which leads into the pot.
Closet of Fame • (US) n a repository of tiddlywinks memorabilia in Bill Renke’s house.
1color order • n the prescribed official order of play of winks during a game: the cycle blue, green, red, and yellow.
2color order • n the tactical recognition of the importance of dealing with one color rather than another because of the ramifications of the order in which those colors play.
comb • vt to remove loose fluff from the mat with a comb.
concave up • adj until the 1980s, nearly all winks had a slightly concave side and a slightly convex side. Concave side up was considered preferable by many winkers for most shots.
Congress • n (US) annual meeting of NATwA members.
constipated • adj a tactical situation in which all winks of a color (or a partnership, or all players) are busy squopping other winks and sometimes busy protecting piles. (Cohen, 1977)
Continentals • n (US) the NATwA team championship tournament that was traditionally held in February and first held in 1967. [Referring to the North American continent, the domain of NATwA.]
Cornell • n a US team
corner • n the area behind a baseline on the mat.
counter (obsolete) = n wink (Hull Guildhall, 1962, in Winking World 4, page 11)
counterblitz • n an attempt to blitz by an opponent of a player that already has begun to blitz.
Crown & Centipede • n a US team formed by Severin Drix.
crud • n, vt (UK) = blowup. See also megacrud. (Winking World 5, page 5)
cuddle • v to shoot a wink close to a pile, generally within a wink’s diameter.
cup = n pot.
CUTwC • n \CUT wik\ Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club, formed in 1955 and still active.
dance • n the movements of a wink that is twirling around in the pot or on the mat before coming to rest.
DB (US) = double boondock
Debby Boone (US) = double boondock [Debby Boone, American singer.]
Delrin • n a material sometimes used to make squidgers, generally black or white. [trademark of duPont.]
denurdle • vi, vt to remove a wink from proximity to the pot, either by shooting that wink or by knocking it away with another wink.
desquop (UK) = vt free. (Winking World 1, page 2)
dock (UK) = boondock. (Devlin, 1985)
double (US) • n a pile in which two winks are squopped by one wink. •o vt shoot to create a double.
double blitz • n simultaneous blitz attempts by both colors of a partnership.
double boondock • n a boondock which sends two (opponent) winks far away.
double-pot • n a game strategy in which both players of a partnership attempt to pot out. Such a strategy rarely succeeds in modern winks.
double-squop • n a game strategy in which both players of a partnership attempt to control their opponents by squopping, without intending to pot their own winks until control is obtained. (Winking World 4, page 8)
doubleton (UK) = n double.
Dragon Cup • n (US) a tournament sponsored by Dave Lockwood in 1979. Later, a challenge singles match (best score in five games), starting in 1989, patterned after ETwA’s Jubilee Singles. [Dragon, nickname of Dave Lockwood]
drunken wink • n a wink which rolls and slides along the mat in an unexpectedly meandering fashion.
eat = vt squop
ETwA, Etwa • n English Tiddlywinks Association, 1958 to present.
failure to free • n a situation during a game after one partnership has played its free turns resulting from squopping out its opponents, and has not freed any opponent winks.
feeb • vi to make a poor attempt at a shot, usually in reference to a short squop attempt in which the shooting wink falls short of its target. • Also n. [clipped from feeble]
felt • n the material with which all officially-sanctioned mats have been made.
Ferd • n (“Ferd the Bull”) American winker Peter Wulkan
five-way pot-squop • n a perversion in which five colors are employed. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules.
fiat vincs ruat caelum • let winks be played, though the heavens crumble; NATwA motto. (NATwA Songbook, 1976.)
Fleas • n an encyclopedic publication by Fred Shapiro which appeared in November 1978. [From fleas, the name for the game of tiddlywinks in many languages, e.g. jeu de puce (French).]
flip • n a shot which results in at least one wink coming to rest on its other side. • Also vt.
flog • n a perversion in which players pot winks. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules. [golf, backwards]
four-color game • n the official game of tiddlywinks, in which four sets of colored winks are used, six each of blue, green, red, and yellow.
four pot relay • n an event recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records which involves four winkers each potting winks into his or her own pot for a specified length of time. When the first winker pots a wink, the second winker removes it and pots it into the 2nd pot, and so on.
fractional score • n a game score of 5½ to 1½, 4⅔ to 2⅓, 4½ to 2½, or 3½ to 3½ in the official four-color game of tiddlywinks.
free [verb] (US) • vt, vi to get a squopped wink out of a pile as a result of a shot.
free turns • n The turns awarded a partnership which has squopped-out the opponent partnership.
free wink • n a wink which is not squopped, not in the pot, and has been played from the baseline.
game point • n in the official four-color game of tiddlywinks, a total of 7 points, of which 4 are awarded to the color with the most time-limit points, 2 to the next color, 1 to the next, and 0 to the remaining color. 1 point is transferred to the winning partnership in the event of a potout.
Good (also g-) • vt, vi to perform a Good shot on a wink.
Good shot • n a shot in which a played wink causes another wink to be moved (typically knocked off another wink) as a result of the played wink’s pressure on the wink from the bottom face or edge of the moved wink. [Invented by John Good of MIT, 1972.]
Goode shot • a misspelled variant of Good shot.
Goons • n a BBC radio comedy troupe from the 1950s which played CUTwC in March 1958. The Goons included Spike Milligan, Peter Sellers, and others.
Gottesman • n a game strategy in which each wink that is brought in from the baseline is potted before subsequent winks of that color are brought in. [Named after Mike Gottesman of Harvard, 1966.]
grand tour • n the path of a wink that rolls around the pot or through areas where other winks are located.
gromp • n a shot which moves a pile of winks to squop a wink. • Also vt.
GUTS • n Gargoyle Undergraduate Tiddlywinks Society at Harvard, 1962-1964.
Horsemeat • n nickname of Larry Kahn.
HOTT • n (US) Halloween Open Teams Tournament.
Hyth • short for HYTHNLBTWOC.
HYTHNLBTWOC • n \HITH n’l BIT wok\ (US) Hark yon tree hath no leaves but they will out club, a team formed by Sunshine. (February 1970 Continentals.)
idiot’s delight • n trying to pot a wink into a pot which is held in the hand and used as a squidger on the wink. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules.
IFTwA • n \IF twa\ International Federation of Tiddlywinks Associations.
Ilkeston Toys • n name of a British toy company which supplied tiddlywinks equipment until the early 1970s; formed by the owner of Marchant Games.
Indian rule • n a convention in which blue squidges-off first, either green or yellow next, and then the color partnering the closer wink to the cup squidges-off. [Named for Saul Agranoff (Indian), who proposed it.]
Individual Pairs • n a type of tournament during which each winker partners each other winker in the match; the individual with the highest total of match points is designated the winner.
Individuals = Individual Pairs
IP • abbreviation for Individual Pairs.
jab shot • n a type of shot in which the squidger is forcefully applied to a wink in a short, straight motion
John Lennon memorial shot (UK) = boondock and squop.
Jubilee Singles (UK) • n a singles match in which anyone may challenge the current champion to a match in which the best score in five games wins.
junior birdman • n a bomb shot in which a wink is shot high into the air toward the target.
kick = butt (Cohen, 1977)
kickshot (UK) • (rare) n a shot in which the wink is potted after bouncing on the mat (Winking World 5, page 5, 1964)
kumquat • n (US) a variant of a persimmon in which three players play the two colors of a partnership in a game, with one player shooting one color regularly, and the other two players alternating shots with the other color. (October 1978, Harvest tournament.) [From kumquat, the fruit. See persimmon.]
L • n American winker Richard Hussong.
launching pad • n the wink(s) below a wink which can be clicked against it to be sent sharply and with a low trajectory to bomb a pile.
Lennon (UK) = n John Lennon memorial shot.
line = baseline.
linear squop • n a sequence of three or more winks in which each wink (but one) is squopping just one other wink.
lip • n upper rim of the pot.
lose (UK) = vt 1boondock.
lunch • vt to pot an opponent’s wink (Cohen, 1977).
LUSTS • n Latymer Upper School Tiddlywinks Society
Marchant Games • n an English company which supplied tiddlywinks sets to ETwA and NATwA during the late 1950s, the 1960s, and the early 1970s.
mat • n the surface on which the game of tiddlywinks is played, which is 6 feet long 3 feet wide, and normally made of felt.
match points = game points
megacrud (UK) • n an illegal crud shot where the squidger starts high above the intended wink on a pile which is being shot.
Milton Bradley • n a US manufacturer of tiddlywinks for the general market; usage generally connotes a quality insufficient for tournament play.
minimum • n a minimum-sized squidger, 25mm (formerly 1 inch) in diameter.
miracle shot • n a shot which attempts to accomplish objectives which are very unlikely to be achievable.
Missing Wink, The • n a publication of NATwA which appeared from May 1974 to November 1976, during the absence of Newswink. [From missing link]
MIT • n a US team
MITwA = n MITTwA
MITTwA • n Massachusetts Institute of Technology Tiddlywinks Association
mobile wink • n a wink which is not part of a pile or in the pot. Compare with free wink.
murgatroyd (UK) • n a badly manufactured wink which is flat on both sides. (Edwards, in Partridge, 1984).
MUTS • n MIT Undergraduate Tiddlywinks Society, circa 1962.
My Winkly Reader • n a publication of NATwA which appeared from February 1977 to March 1978, during the absence of Newswink. [From My Weekly Reader, publication for elementary school children.]
NAC • n (US) North American Championship
NATwA • n North American Tiddlywinks Association, founded in 1966.
Newswink • n official publication of NATwA, 1969 to present. [From Newsweek, a US weekly news magazine]
NEWTS • n (UK) New London Tiddlywinks Society
nurdle • vt to shoot a wink to land in a nurdled position. (Hull Guildhall, 1962, in Winking World 4, page 11)
nurdled • adj describing a wink that is very close to the pot, typically beneath the top rim of the pot and hence probably not easy to pot.
NUTS • n National Undergraduate Tiddlywinks Society (US), 1962-1966.
NW • abbreviation for Newswink.
OAK-BYTE • n 1. the telephone number at 64 Dane Street in Somerville, Massachusetts. 2. the house at that address.
On the Mat • n a report by Guy Consterdine published in March 1967 which described the origins of modern tiddlywinks from 1954 to 1957.
out (US) = squopped out
OUTS • n Oxford Undergraduate Tiddlywinks Society
Pairs • n a type of tournament in which fixed partnerships compete to win
PBTT • (US) n abbreviation for power behind the throne, someone with great influence over a NATwA Sec-Gen.
perimeter rule • n an experimental rule which dictates that a wink sent off the playing surface can be placed anywhere on the perimeter by the opponents, and that the shooting player does not miss his or her next shot.
persimmon • n (US) three players playing the two colors of a partnership, rotating uniformly among the three players. (February 1978, Continentals tournament.) [From persimmon, the fruit; analogy with pear, being a pun on pair, a partnership.]
perversion • n a game played with winks which is not the standard four-color game, including simulations of other sports (e.g. baseball). Sunshine’s Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents (February 1976) is the seminal publication on perversions.
Petrie piddle (obsolete) = n piddle (Cohen, 1977)
PFTL = pot-from-the-line.
piddle • n a delicate shot in which a squopped wink is gently freed. o Also vt.
pile • n a set of two or more winks, some squopped and ordinarily one or more free, in which each wink is either squopping another wink in the group, and/or is squopped by another wink in the group.
pile-jump (UK) = gromp (Winking World 50, page 13)
PINTS • n Pinner Tiddlywinks Society (UK)
pivot • n the movement of a wink around a point of contact with another wink.
Plan 47 • n potting a partnership’s remaining free winks when many of its winks are squopped in a large pile, with the hope that the opponents will be forced to free a wink from that pile.
plexy • n a squidger made of Plexiglas
point • n either a time-limit point or a game point.
point transfer • n the transfer of one game point to the winning pair in a game which ends in a potout.
Port Stanley (UK) = n bomb (Devlin, 1985)
positional game • n a game which is marked by many small adjustments to the positions of winks on the mat.
pot • n the cup that is placed at the center of the mat in the official four-color game of tiddlywinks. It has an external diameter of 48mm at the top and 38mm at the base, and is concave around its side. • vt, vi to shoot a wink with the objective of having it come to rest in the pot. (Winking World 1, page 2)
pot-from-the-line • n a Guinness Book of World Records event in which 12 small winks at the baseline of the mat are potted in the fewest number of shots.
pot-out, potout • n the achievement of having all winks of a color in the pot. • Also vi.
pot-squop • n a game strategy in which one player of a partnership focuses on potting out and remaining pottable, while the partner focuses on squopping the opponents.
pot-style • adj holding the squidger at an obtuse angle toward the direction of a shot.
pottable • adj a wink that potentially can be potted, either directly or indirectly.
ppg • points per game average.
ppl • points per loss average.
ppw • points per win average.
press • n a shot which consists predominantly of downward pressure. A press shot is often used to free a wink that is barely squopped somewhere in a pile.
push shot • n a shot which consists overwhelmingly of lateral pressure (with little or no downward pressure), which is contrary to the rules. (Winking World 5, page 5, March 1964)
PVC • n polyvinyl chloride, a material sometimes used for making squidgers, and typically light gray in color.
quad • n a pile in which four winks are squopped by one wink.
Quesh • n (UK) the name of a team
quick and continuous • adj said of a shot in which the squidger is moved without hesitation or discontinuity during the execution of the shot.
rabbit-bashing • n playing against very weak opponents to rack up high scores.
ramp • n a wink in a pile which is leaning against another wink and is also touching the mat.
regionals • n (US) Eastern Regional and Western Regional tournaments.
Relix • n (US) a US team formed from the Zoo team. [From Relix, newsletter for Grateful Dead fans.]
Renaissance • n (US) a US team formed in Fall 1976. [Named after a bookstore in Ithaca NY.]
rim shot • n a shot in which a wink bounces off the top edge of the pot.
Rivendell • n a US team formed by Severin Drix. [from J.R.R. Tolkien]
roll • vi to move about on the mat along the circumference; said of a wink.
rotate • vt to adjust a mobile free wink which involves turning the wink around in place.
rounds • n the portion of play after time expiration when a potout has not occurred.
Samson • n nickname of Severin Drix in the late 1960s.
Schiller squidger • n a squidger made by Tim Schiller of the US, 1973.
scrunge (UK) = bounce out (Hull Guildhall, 1962, in Winking World 4, page 11)
Sec-Gen = Secretary-General
Secretary-General • n the principal officer of NATwA or IFTwA; the ETwA equivalent is Secretary.
seduce • vt to tempt the opponent into trying a risky shot (Winking World 5, page 5, March 1964)
self-protecting • adj said of a pile which can easily be gromped or bristoled to squop nearby opponent winks.
shoot • vt, vi to make a 1shot.
1shot • n a squidge and the corresponding results.
2shot • n an exclamation of commendation for a good shot (Cohen, 1977)
sideways bristol • n a shot similar to a bristol except that the squidger is not held parallel to the intended direction of the wink being played.
Silver Wink • n (UK) a trophy donated by Prince Philip for inter-varsity matches.
Singles • n a kind of match in which one player plays both colors of a partnership.
Somerville • n a former US team based in Somerville, Massachusetts and associated with OAK-BYTE.
Sotwink • n a UK club based in Southampton.
sponned (UK) • adj (obsolete) said of a wink on which an opponent is kneeling or standing (Hull Guildhall, 1962, in Winking World 4, page 11)
squabble (obsolete) = pile (Winking World 5, page 5, March 1964)
squallop (obsolete) = vt squop (CUTwC rules, 1956)
squapt (obsolete) = squopped out (CUTwC rules, 1956)
squidge • vt, vi to apply a squidger to a wink (Winking World 1, page 4).
1squidger • n the round instrument used to play winks. It may be no smaller than 25mm (formerly 1 inch) in diameter, no greater than 51mm (formerly 2 inches) in diameter, and no greater than 5mm (formerly 3/8 inch) in thickness at its edge.
2squidger • n (rare) someone who squidges.
squidge-in • n the play of a previously unplayed wink from behind its baseline. • Also vi.
squidge-off • n the determination of which color starts a game by shooting a wink of each color toward the pot. The closest color wins the squidge-off. • Also vi.
squop • vt to play a wink so that it comes to rest vertically above some or all parts of another wink. • n a wink that is squopped.
squop-style • adj holding the squidger at a sharp angle toward the direction of a shot.
squopped • adj a wink that has some part vertically below another wink.
squopped-out (US) • n a game situation in which all winks of one color (or both colors of a partnership) are squopped or in the pot.
squopped-up (UK) = squopped-out.
squopper • n one who squops.
streaking • n a perversion in which the goal is to pot as many winks in a row as possible without missing. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules.
sub • vi, vt to shoot a wink that ends up coming to rest under another wink, squopped. • Also n.
submarine = sub
Sunsch = Sunshine [clipped]
Sunshine • n American winker David Sheinson.
tangent • adj said of two winks that are very close to each other but are not squopping each other.
TDI • n (“The Dumb Indian”) American winker Saul Agranoff.
tempo • n an abstract measure of the positive value of a good shot compared to the potential for opponents to recover from it.
Thesis, The • n The Science of Tiddlywinks, a study published by members of CUTwC in 1955.
thin squidger • n a squidger with an edge that is sharp rather than rounded. [Circa 1972.]
30-second rule • n a rule enacted in the 1980s in which a partnership has the option to stop the game clock after 30 seconds has elapsed since the previous shot, and the opponents have not made a shot.
tiddly • n (obsolete) In some antique games, same as squidger. Not used in modern winks. (Also tiddledy.)
tiddlywink • (rare) = wink.
tiddlywinker • n (rare) = winker.
tiddlywinks • n a competitive partnership game in which the objective is to gain an advantage over opponents by squopping opponent winks and by squidging friendly winks into a pot. (Preferred spelling.)
tiddledy-winks • n the original spelling of the game of tiddlywinks. [Trademark registered in England in 1889 by Joseph Assheton Fincher.]
tie • n a game score of 3½ to 3½ in the official four-color game of tiddlywinks.
time limit • n the duration of time permitted for the play of the game prior to rounds. This is 25 minutes for games with pairs, and 20 minutes for games with singles.
time-limit points • n points calculated at the end of the game which are used to determine the order of colors for assigning match (or game) points. For each color, 3 time-limit points are earned for each wink in the pot and 1 time-limit-point is earned by each other unsquopped wink in play.
TKOs • n (US) “The Knowledgeable Ones”, a US team that first played in the 1974 Westerns (November), replacing Hyth.
Toads • n a US team (also Chrome Toads, Xenopus).
triple • n a pile in which three winks are squopped by one wink.
triple crown • n (US) first place in the Continentals (team championships), Singles, and Pairs. [From triple crown in other sports, e.g. winning the three major US horseracing championships.]
triples • n an uncommon type of match played with six colors and six players, three players playing in partnership against the other three. See Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents for the rules.
trundle (rare/obsolete) = gromp (Cohen, 1977)
Tucker two-turn • n A variation on partnership play in which two (or more) players play the two colors of a partnership, but one player plays the turns for both colors consecutively, and then the other player does; partnership play continues in this fashion.
turn • n one shot, or a sequence of shots, made by the player of a color, where each shot after the first one is an extra shot resulting from a wink of that color being potted on a previous shot. Compare with free turns.
two-ply • adj a tiddlywinks mat made of two plies of felt, one light gray, one off-white, available from the early 1960s to 1973.
ULU • (UK) = sub [from University of London Union].
Varsity match • (UK)
Visine shot • n a shot in which a red wink is squopped (“gets the red out”). [from Visine, an eye care product.]
Walmsleys • n a British supplier of winks and squidgers until the 1980s.
warp • n a property of some older winks in which one part of the wink had more concavity than the rest of the wink.
WETS • n Wessex Exiles Tiddlywinks Society (UK).
wiggle • vt to make a miniscule adjustment to a wink on top of a pile.
Willis, Rev. E. A. (Edgar Ambrose) • n the first ETwA Secretary-General and a dominant personality of the CUTwC club in the 1950s.
wink • vi to play the game of tiddlywinks.
wink • n a disk that is played in the game of tiddlywinks.
winkdom • n the sphere of tiddlywinks activity in the world.
winked out • adj fatigued due to playing tiddlywinks.
winker • n a tiddlywinks player. (Winking World 1, page 1)
winking • adj playing tiddlywinks.
Winking World • n an official publication of ETwA, first published in February 1961.
winks • n 1. shortened form of tiddlywinks, the game. 2. plural of wink.
Winks Rampant • n a report by Guy Consterdine, published in October 1972, describing the development of modern tiddlywinks in England from 1957 to 1958.
winx (Canada, US) (variant) = winks.
World Master • n a winker who has won a world championship match, either a World Singles or a World Pairs.
World Pairs • n a world championship match for pairs players in which the current world champion (or a national Pairs winner) is challenged by a national Pairs winner. The match is won by gaining the most match points in seven games.
World Singles • n a world championship match for singles players in which the current world champion is challenged by a national Singles champion. The match is won by gaining the most match points in seven games.
WOY • n abbreviation for Winker of the Year.
Written Word • n a publication by Joe Sachs which appeared in July 1978.
WW • abbreviation!for Winking World.
xylophone shot (UK) • n a shot, usually illegal, in which the squidger is dragged across three or more winks that form a linear squop. (Winking World 50, page 14)
Zoo • (US) n a US team originating at MIT, first playing in the 1972 HOTT (October), later becoming Relix.
Pages 19 and 20 of Newswink 25 included the NATwA Address List, which is not provided online.