Stroboscopic photo of a wink being potted in the game of tiddlywinks The North American Tiddlywinks Association
T i d d l y w i n k s !
Share |

Newswink™ 28


Falls Church, Virginia USA · 10 April 1993 · Rick Tucker, Editor

© 1993 North American Tiddlywinks Association
ISSN 1063-2336

Toward IFTwA Rules of Tiddlywinks
Winks Headline-Up
News from the Realm
Barrie vs. Sachs on the Rules
Bending the Rules (Once Again)
Winking Upstarts of StATS
The Perimeter Rule in Peril?
Kahn’s Rule Revelations
1, 2, 3 Pots—You’re Out!
Régles par Relle
Purvis on the Relle/Barrie Proposals
Rules for Winks Akimbo
Dave Misses Best Chance at # 1
NATwA Pairs 1992 (Seems Like Old Times)
More Britrant
Tiddlywinks Lexicon—Poss
’Mer’cans ’n Oxf’rd
NATwA Archives
IFTwA
Relle Responds to the Lexicon
Mapley Responds, Too
alt.games.tiddlywinks
Correction to Newswink 26
Newswink ISSN, ©, ™
Lexiconominations
Recently Unearthed Song
Purvis on the Move
Dragon Cup Matches
Pervasive Perversions
Veritable Perversions& Dave’s Dominant Corner
Career Rankings
New Records
Down in the Boondocks
Dragon Reigns at the Frog Palace
NATwA Gets Its Name in Lights
On the OUTS
THE WORLD’S GREATEST 1936 CRAZE!
indiviDUAL PAIRS—IP8
They Came Back and We’re Glad They Did
Random Notes
The Ratings Explication
Ratings after Oxfordshire Open
NATwA Address List • England, Scotland
NATwA Address List • United States
Rick Tucker’s Proposed IFTwA Rules

Toward IFTwA Rules of Tiddlywinks

Rick Tucker

In recent years ETwA has taken the lead to rewrite a number of rules that historically have been subject to con­tention, most notably failure to free. At the moment, ETwA’s May 1992 rules and NATwA’s practice differ only in two or three key areas. During the past ten years, NATwA has been lax in maintaining and updating its rules, and ETwA is to be highly com­mended for its members’ devotion to the im­provement of the game. Rules must and should evolve over time, but only with measured review and trial before adoption.

Way back when I started winks in 1972, the rules book I read and relied upon was the small blue pamphlet that was included in the red box of Match Play Tiddlywinks as approved by the National Tiddlywinks Associations distributed by Marchant Games Ltd. Those were IFTwA rules—IFTwA being the arbiter on anything tiddly­winks on the globe.

Later, in 1979, Joe Sachs spearheaded a total rewrite of the rules, which he named The Rules of Four-Color Tiddlywinks. As NATwA SecGen at the time, Joe ultimately declared these rules to be official NATwA rules. At that time, winks activity in England was considered stagnant by NATwAns. How times have changed.

Back to 1993. ETwA’s current proce­dure for revisions to its rules is to submit proposals for vote at its annual meeting. Those present at the meeting can vote, but those not present (even ETwA members such as me) cannot. This has been effective in enfranchising ETwAns, but has left NATwA at the plate (a baseball allusion).

Now that ETwA has expended con­siderable effort in the past decade to “modernize” the rules to the needs of the early 1990s, it is time for ETwA and NATwA to converge on an IFTwA-approved Rules of Tid­dlywinks in 1993.
First, the current ETwA rules must be revised, minimally, and be declared to be IFTwA rules by the Secretary-General of IFTwA, Jon Mapley.

Second, an IFTwA committee of 6 winkers designated by Jon Mapley, representing a cross-section of estab­lished winkers from both ETwA and NATwA, should constitute the IFTwA Rules Committee. A revision to the IFTwA rules will be approved by a majority vote of the IFTwA Rules Committee. The IFTwA SecGen, at his or her option, may choose to vote to break a tie.

Third, each individual national asso­ciation recognized by IFTwA (currently NATwA and ETwA) may continue to try out new revisions to the rules, but they cannot mandate them as official rules without IFTwA approval. In fact, revisions to the IFTwA rules should not be proposed unless the revisions have been used experimentally for a period of time such as a year.

I request that the IFTwA SecGen name the members of the IFTwA Rules Committee, and define a procedure and a schedule for conducting its business. I offer my private opinion here with my nomi­nations for members of the IFTwA Rules Committee: Rick Tucker, Joe Sachs, Dave Lockwood, Charles Relle, Nick Inglis, Patrick Barrie. No slight to others is intended by these nominations.

Inside Newswink 28 I offer my suggestions for revising the May 1992 ETwA rules to transform them into a set of rules that I would support as IFTwA rules.

Winks Headline-Up

Does Prince Philip Cheat at Tiddlywinks—The Spectator, 1957

Oxford ‑ Cambridge Game is a Snap—New York Times, 1958

Virile Oxford Wins Healthful Tiddlywinks—New York Times, 1959

... Hold that Squop!—Life, 1962

Wink Stink—Harvard Crimson, 1962

Squapping Across the Rubicon—Technology Review, 1969

Somerville Pots Out on Cornell Felts—Ithaca Journal, 1970

Top Tiddly Teams Tussle For Total Title at Toronto—Philadelphia Bulletin, 1971

Mr. Tiddle and General Wink—Ottawa Journal, 1971

Tabletop Trauma at Tiddlywinks Tourney—AP, 1972

Wide World of... Tiddlywinks—Ithaca Journal, 1974

Tiddledy, Winken and Nod—Tech Talk (MIT), 1975

Replay! The Squidger Flicker's Knickers Were Showing—(England, ~1975)

Here's Winking at you, Kid—California Monthly, 1976

The Bristol Gromp—Boston After Dark, 1977

The Inside Squop On Piddling Your Winks—Good Times Gazette (Ithaca NY), 1977

When the going gets tough, the winkers get gromping—Boston Herald American, 1978

Titillating tiddlywinks tourney to bring gromps & squops here—Columbus Post-Dispatch, 1979

Tiddlywink king goes potty over flipping record—The Sun, 1983

Tiddlywinks: The Rodney Dangerfield of games—UPI, 1984

Counter attack thrashes Oxford—Cambridge Evening News (England), 1988

Don't go squopping without a squidger— The Recorder (Greenfield MA), 1991

News from the Realm

1993 NATwA Officers

Chair Dave Lockwood
President Larry Kahn
Treasurer Jim Marlin
Secretary Rick Tucker
Newswink Rick Tucker

NATwA Treasurer’s Report

As of 10 April 1993 (after Newswink 27 & 28)

NATwA account

$275 (est.)

NATwA Foreign Visitor Fund

$295

Contributions to the NATwA Foreign Visitor Fund are above and beyond the normal NATwA dues.
NATwA dues for 1993 are $15 per household.

Congress

Agenda items for the NATwA Congress are solicited. Send them to Dave Lockwood. May I suggest that a top priority for NATwA is the squidger crisis—NATwA has virtually no squidgers to provide with tiddlywinks sets. Congress will be held the evening of 26 June 1993, after the first day of the Singles.

Random Points

Marg Henninge Calhoun has generously offered to design the 1993 NATwA membership cards (and 1992, too, since we never got them out) Hint, hint!

Equipment Sales

Due to an extreme shortage of plain squidgers, no more than one plain squidger can be sold per purchased set at this time. However, for the first purchase of a set by a customer, one additional plain squidger may also be purchased. Some remaining squidgers have minor appearance defects.

Estimated shipping costs within the USA are given below. Please make your check payable to “NATwA”. Shipping costs apply only to the USA. Send your order to: Larry Kahn, North American Tiddlywinks Association, 10416 Haywood Drive, Silver Spring MD 20902 USA.

Regular
Price

Member
Price

Shipping @

Quantity

Total Cost

Remarks

Full set of 24 winks and pot

$5.00

$4.50

$1.00

Squidgers not included in set

Plain squidger

$1.00

$0.90

.29

Quantities extremely limited

1-inch Delrin squidger (white)

$10.00

$9.00

.29

Availability not guaranteed

1½-inch Delrin squidger (black)

$10.00

$9.00

.29

Availability not guaranteed

1¾-inch fiber-based phenolic (FBP) squidger

$10.00

$9.00

.29

Availability not guaranteed

2-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) squidger

$10.00

$9.00

.29

Availability not guaranteed

Minimat (approx. 1½ by 3 ft)

$8.75

$7.50

$2.00

Full mat (3 by 6 ft)

$35.00

$30.00

$8.00

Total

NATwA Tournament Schedule

Date

Tournament

Place

17 Apr 1993

Dragon Cup Mini-Singles

Washington DC

26-27 Jun 1993

NATwA Singles

Washington DC

24-25 Jul 1993

Teams of Four

Cleveland OH

11 Sep 1993

Brit Random

Washington DC

18-19 Sep 1993

NATwA Pairs

Boston

Brits continue their invasion this year. Why stop when you’re ahead? Jon Mapley and Andy Purvis are expected at the Singles. A team from Oxford is expected to circumim­bibe whilst in the USA during September, and, perhaps re­gardless of the venue, appear in full noxious Oxonian force at the NATwA Pairs. See the letters elsewhere in Newswink.

Teams of Four? You noticed that NATwA is hosting a new type of tournament? Well, the Brits have been doing this for perhaps a decade. Start assembling your Team of Four!

ETwA Tournament Schedule

Also, for the transatlantically inclined (those who are not continentally challenged), here is the remainder of the 1993 ETwA tournament schedule. We understand (or at least we will) that ETwA has a notion to scramble its current annual tournament layout, and so the Singles may magically reappear again in late Winter or early Spring in 1994. We’ll know come October.

Date

Tournament

Place

1-2 May 1993

ETwA Pairs

Cambridge

10 July 1993

London Open

London

30-31 October 1993

Teams of Four

Oxford

20-21 November 1993

ETwA Singles

Cambridge

Welcome, ScotTwA!

The Scottish Tiddlywinks Association has recently been recognized as a national association by IFTwA.

Date

Tournament

Place

17-18 Apr 1993

Scottish Pairs

St. Andrews

World Tournament Schedule

Date

Tournament

Place

17 Sep 1993

World Pairs

Boston

Barrie vs. Sachs on the Rules

From alt.games.tiddlywinks Wed Jan 27 21:33:51 1993 From: ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie)
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Re: Failure to free (was Gosh, look what's here!)
Message-ID: <1993Jan26.111445.29216@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:14:45 GMT

sachs@FID.Morgan.COM (Josef Sachs) writes:

>This is specified in Section (d) of Rule 11 of the May 1990 ETwA Rules
>(is there something more recent?):

Yes, the 1992 rules are more recent. There are only a couple of very minor changes in wording from the 1990 rules to clear up some freak occurrences (like it is technically possible for the nominated wink to be one of your partner's winks etc.). I've posted the current rules somewhere in this newsgroup...

>I have to admit that I consider this rule convoluted, confusing, and overly
>verbose to an extreme. I also find the concepts of "nominated wink" and of
>"sixth-round play" to be injurious to my sensibilities. As a paid-up member
>of ETwA, how can I best register my dissatisfaction with this rule?

You should notify the chairman of the ETwA rules subcommittee to express any opinions about the rules. This is easier said than done- Steve Phillips is nominally Chairman I believe, but he's elusive. Your best bet is to mention it to Charles Relle, who is on this sub-committee and happens to be ETwA Chairman as well. He is contactable via E-mail (back page of Newswink probably has his E-mail address).
I should point out that there is overwhelming (even unanimous!) support for this rule in the UK. The previous rule was physically impossible in some circumstances and exceedingly unfair in others. It was often in a player's interest to _deliberately_ fail to free, and there were occasionally ugly scenes when this happened. The nominated wink rule is recognised as being fair and working in all situations so far encountered (it only can go wrong in certain Thorpe's ring/circular squop situations).
Incidentally, moving winks aside by hand is far more injurious to my sensibilities than playing enemy winks (which happens whenever I boondock!).

>How's this for a simple, reasonably equitable rule:
> If, after its first turn following the free turns, the squopping team
> has failed to free an opponent's wink, the game immediately ends, with
> all seven game points being awarded to the squopped-out team.
>("team" meaning the same as "partnership" in the ETwA Rules)

Are you seriously suggesting that if you happen to boondock a wink into the pot by mistake on your freeing shot, or the winks roll and resquop the freed wink by mistake, that you deserve to lose 7-0? Hardly reasonably equitable.

>By the way, what is the history of Section (e)? When I wrote _The Rules of
>Four-Color Tiddlywinks_ (copyright 1979 by me), I'm pretty sure the rule was
>that the *freeing turn*, and not the first turn of the previously-squopped
>team, was mandated to be in Round Zero. Can anyone point me to a Newswink
>article or Congressional Minutes that discusses this? I notice that the
>Dean/Wand vintage _The International Rules of Tiddlywinks_ (the "little blue
>book" included with the Ilkeston sets in the red boxes labeled "Match Play
>Tiddlywinks as approved by the National Tiddlywinks Associations") makes no
>mention of any such rule.

I don't know the answer to this question. It's been the case since I took up the game (ca. 1984). The little blue book dates from very early on in the game (late 60's?). The little yellow book which replaced it in 1980-81 stated that the time limit didn't come into operation until "immediately after the completion of the last free turn", which corresponds to the current rule.

Patrick Barrie

From alt.games.tiddlywinks Thu Jan 28 12:48:58 1993 Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
From: sachs@FID.Morgan.COM (Josef Sachs)
Subject: Re: Failure to free (was Gosh, look what's here!)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:04:57 GMT

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 11:14:45 GMT, ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie) said:

ucca61b> The previous rule was physically impossible in some
ucca61b> circumstances and exceedingly unfair in others.

I'd be interested in hearing examples of either of these cases.

ucca61b> It was often in a player's interest to _deliberately_
ucca61b> fail to free, and there were occasionally ugly scenes
ucca61b> when this happened.

I'm surprised and dismayed to hear this. Such behavior is antithetical to the gentlemanly nature of the sport of Tiddlywinks that *I* know. Even so, my _The Rules of Four-Color Tiddlywinks_ dealt with the situation as follows: "The Tournament Director is empowered to impose discretionary penalties in cases of clear violations of the moral principles of the game."

ucca61b> Incidentally, moving winks aside by hand

Like what occurs in every pot-out game? Also, this was the penalty for failure to free prescribed in the little blue book: "The next shot must free one of the opponent's winks. If it does not, the squopping wink must be moved aside to allow the opponent to play."

ucca61b> is far more injurious to my sensibilities than
ucca61b> playing enemy winks (which happens whenever I boondock!).

This is the first time I've heard the boondock shot characterized as "playing enemy winks". Contact between the squidger and any wink directly below the first wink contacted has always been allowed, at least as far back as "the little blue book". Otherwise, the game would be totally unrecognizable to its practitioners of the last 30 (?) years.

ucca61b> Are you seriously suggesting that if you happen to
ucca61b> boondock a wink into the pot by mistake on your
ucca61b> freeing shot, or the winks roll and resquop the freed
ucca61b> wink by mistake, that you deserve to lose 7-0? Hardly
ucca61b> reasonably equitable.

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. Considering how trivial it is to abide by the "must free after free turns" injunction, that is a reasonable penalty. Accidentally potting, subbing, or squopping the wink you're attempting to free can only be the result of gross negligence.

[Regarding Rule 11 Section(e)]
ucca61b> I don't know the answer to this question. It's been
ucca61b> the case since I took up the game (ca. 1984). The
ucca61b> little blue book dates from very early on in the game
ucca61b> (late 60's?). The little yellow book which replaced
ucca61b> it in 1980-81 stated that the time limit didn't come
ucca61b> into operation until "immediately after the
ucca61b> completion of the last free turn", which corresponds
ucca61b> to the current rule.

How can that be interpreted to correspond to the current rule? If the time limit goes into effect immediately after the completion of the last free turn, doesn't that mean that the subsequent turn is necessarily in Round Zero? If that is the squidge-off winner's turn, and the free turns did not end prematurely, then the freeing turn would be in Round One. This is contrary to Rule 11 Section (e), which states "If the time limit expires during free turns, it is deemed to have expired at the moment before the first playable shot (including a nominated wink) of the squopped pair" meaning that the first playable shot of the formerly-squopped pair is in Round Zero.

By the way, a review of _The Rules of Four-Color Tiddlywinks_ (it's been a long time!) reveals that I was in error in my recollection that the freeing turn was in Round Zero. Rather, as it turns out, the turn *subsequent* to the freeing turn was to be in Round Zero:

"The _time period_ begins at the first shot of the squidge-off winner and expires when [whatever] minutes has elapsed.

_Regulation play_ consists of all shots prior to the end of the time period. If a team is squopped-out at this time, regulation play is extended to include the freeing turn.

If no color has potted-out, play ceases after the sixth turn of the squidge-off winner after regulation play."

So I ask again, how and when was this rule changed? Does anyone have a Newswink or Winking World reference that describes it? How about Congressional Minutes? If not, then is this change really in effect?
Here, then, is a summary of what some different bodies of rules have to say about the time-limit ending during free turns:

LBB: no mention
TROFCT79: the turn subsequent to the freeing turn is in Round Zero
LYB: the turn subsequent to the last free turn is in Round Zero
ETwA92: the first playable turn of the formerly squopped-out pair is in Round Zero

At least LYB and TROFCT79 agree in the case of freeing prematurely.

If I were designing the game today, I would mandate that the freeing turn was in Round Zero, since that essentially guarantees the squidge-off winner at least five turns after the freeing. I believe this is the most sensible, and was most likely the intention of the original framers.

How can I get a copy (preferably original) of the LYB?

Does this thread qualify for a _The Best of Usenet_ article in Newswink? :^)
--
Josef Sachs \ Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. sachs@FID.Morgan.COM \ 1251 Avenue of the Americas Fixed Income Research Department \ New York, NY 10020 USA (212) 703-7031

Bending the Rules (Once Again)

From: ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie)
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Out of sequence revisited
Date: 30 Mar 93 09:28:59 GMT

Latest idea for improving/clarifying the out of sequence rule. No matter which rule is used about who is to play next (i.e. green or yellow after red plays when it’s blue’s turn), difficulties occur in games where the offence isn't spotted immediately. An entertaining thought to overcome this: how about giving the offended side a choice of which colour to play in out-of-sequence scenarios? That way there'd be no penalty for failing to spot an out-of-sequence shot by the opposition. [As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, playing both green and yellow can be construed as ‘logical’ if the out-of-sequence shot wasn't recognized immediately].

One difficulty in the above idea is how it applies to Singles (as it would be nice to maintain identical rules for Singles and Pairs). I can foresee utter confusion about what happens if red plays when it’s blue’s turn (either accidentally as in a ‘foul shot’ or deliberately as they’d got confused over what colour was to play next). This probably isn’t a very good idea after all...

Patrick “Not on the Rules Sub-Committee” Barrie

Winking Upstarts of StATS

Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
From: bs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Ben Soares)
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 12:26:07 GMT
There was a StATS AGM recently, and the new committee I think is as follows:

President: Jo Mitchell; jvm@uk.ac.st-and
Vice-President: Sarah Watson & David Jackson (a strange double entity. Actually Sarah won't let David go to committee meetings unless she's there as well).
Secretary: Bruce Turnbull; wbt@uk.ac.st-and
Treasurer: Julian Cole; jcc1@uk.ac.st-and
Keeper-of-the-Wink: Tim Butterworth.
Bejant Winker: Darren Higgins.
Captain of B Team: Jonathan Greenald.
Captain of B' Team: Ben Soares.

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, called out “Silence!” and read out from his book, “Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.

Everybody looked at Alice.

I’m not a mile high,” said Alice.

“You are,” said the King.

“Nearly two miles high,” added the Queen.

“Well, I shan’t go, at any rate,” said Alice; “besides, that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now.”

“It’s the oldest rule in the book,” said the King.

“Then it ought to be Number One,” said Alice.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

The Perimeter Rule in Peril?

Last year a mail ballot vote was initiated to vote on adoption of the perimeter rule. The condition of the vote was that a majority of the 24 dues-paying NATwA members would need to vote in favor in order to change the current NATwA practice. These were the options in the vote:

A: Current non-Perimeter rule; Perimeter used only if all players in game agree
B: Perimeter Rule; non-Perimeter used only if all players in game agree
C: Different rule for different matches; e.g. Rule A for Singles, Pairs; Rule B for Individual Pairs; TBD for others

For the record, there were 6 votes for option B, 2 for op­tion C, and 1 for option A. Unfortunately, the number of votes did not reach quorum, and therefore the current NATwA practice remains. I should point out that ETwA voted down the perimeter rule. Also, in the 1992 NATwA Singles, a vote of all winkers present resulted in a tie, and therefore status quo (option A) stood for that tournament.

Since last year, Joe Sachs has proposed an improvement to the current perimeter “rule”: when winks are sent off by a winker, the opponents may only place their own winks at positions of their choosing along the edge of the mat; however, the offending partnership’s winks are placed on the edge of the mat where they went off the ta­ble (as in the current ETwA rule and NATwA non-pe­rimeter rule practice).

Kahn’s Rule Revelations

Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
From: lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn)
Subject: Possible rules fodder from Horsemeat
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 20:36:05 GMT

I see there will be more rules discussion at the ETwA pairs. Here’s my $.02 worth on getting the rules stan­dard­ized, plus some other things. These are my views, not NATwA’s although maybe I can convince everyone over here to agree with this:-).

I’m basically happy with the way the current ETwA rules are with a few exceptions. As far as I can tell, the only differences between ETwA and NATwA are in potting at risk, jab height, and the failure to free rule.

(It’s not clear what NATwA as a whole thinks of it, feel­ing is mixed). I can live with the failure to free rule even though I don’t like the 6th round shot, but as a whole the rule isn’t bad and doesn’t come into play that much to worry about it. As long as you beefed up the penalty you might as well allow potting at risk, hopefully this will pass.

As far as jab height goes, we use 1” but maybe we’ll just accept 2”. This isn’t a big deal. My only comment is that I think a significant percentage of crud shots are likely to be illegal in theory, but never ruled illegal in practice. I’d guess that often the top wink isn’t hit first, but if you’re off by 1/32 of an inch with a crud shot it’s probably irrelevant since the result is random anyhow. I think that 1” should be sufficient for blowups and make it more likely that the shot is legal, but this is a pretty minor point and if 2” stays as is maybe we’ll just go ahead and use it.

One addition I would like to see if it’s not already in the rules by now - if winks are boondocked and come to rest less than a big wink’s diameter from the edge I think they should get moved in to that distance automatically. I don’t think someone should be penalized if it’s right on the edge and hard to shoot and I always tell people they can move them in if it happens in a game.

Could someone post any rules changes up for discussion once they get on the agenda?

Larry

1, 2, 3 Pots—You’re Out!

[From The Washington Post, 6 April 1993, page A14]

[...] the Japanese have invented a new, improved way of counting the score in a baseball game.

The innovative “Attack Points” system was designed not only to pick a winner in long, close games but also to in­ject some excitement into the famously conservative brand of baseball played here. [...]

[...] So the league invoked its new tie-breaker scoring system. Since Hiroshima had run up more “Attack points”—total bases on hits and steals—the Carp became the first team in baseball’s long history to win a game not on runs, but on points. [...]

In Australia, where fans found baseball too slow, batters are now awarded a walk after three balls [instead of 4], so that 2-2 becomes a full count. The South Korean majors, to appease fans who found the game drab, brightened things up with uniforms of Day-Glo green and screaming orange.

The Japanese have added some terms of their own, including the lovely “Sayonara Homah,” a home run that ends the game.

Règles par Relle

English Tiddlywinks Association
From the Chairman, Charles Relle
26 Canadian Avenue, London SE6 3AS
081-690-2885
E-Mail: GREENNET:hesiod@GN.APC.ORG
April 3, 1993

Dear Rick,

How are Newswink and the Grompers’ Gazette? And how are you? I seem to have heard a great deal of silence from the other side of the Atlantic lately.

We are proposing some clarifications and rewordings of some of the rules. They are to be discussed at our Rules meeting on May 1st. Here is an offprint of the suggestions I have sent to our Rules Committee members:

RULES SUGGESTIONS 1993

RULE 5 Add to: “Winks played from behind the baselines must be brought in one at a time” the words: “and from a position where they rest only on the mat”.

RULE 5 needs a small modification. Last year we accepted the following additional sentence: “If any wink or winks are accidentally impeded while in motion, they are placed in a position agreed by all the players, or left where they come to rest, at the discretion of the offended pair.” To be consis­tent we need to change the last word to “side” or “player or players”, for we need to make the rules the same for singles and doubles.

RULE 7 (b) If a wink comes to rest in a position where it is unsquopped but supported by the pot so that part of the wink is higher than the rest, it is moved to lie touching the pot but no longer supported by it. It squops any wink within the range of its required movement. If any wink comes to rest in a position where it is both supported by the pot and squopped, it is left as it lies. If it is subsequently freed but remains supported by the pot, it is moved as above. To move a wink under this rule does not constitute a shot.

The simplest alteration is to say that winks coming to rest against the pot stay as they are.

Alternatively write: “If any wink comes to rest in a position where it is both supported by the pot and squopping or squopped, it is not moved.”

A new suggested wording for Rule 12:

“12. FOUL SHOTS AND FOUL PLAY

(a) If a player squidges a wink contrary to Rule 5 (b) or 11, this is a foul shot, and his opponents may require him to replace all the winks disturbed by the foul shot and play a further shot as part of the same turn. He need not attempt the same shot as caused the foul. The opponents may in­stead accept the shot in its entirety if they consider it to be to their advantage. They cannot accept part and have part replayed.

(b) If a player plays an opponent’s wink, or the incorrect colour of his partnership, in mistake for his own, or his own colour when it is not his turn, this is also a foul shot. The opponents may have the shot, and any shot subsequent to it in the same turn, retracted, or they may accept the shot or shots, and if necessary, allow the turn to be completed. If the opponents accept such a shot, play continues as if the correct colour had been played, and their own sequence of turns is not disturbed.

(c) If the opponents play a shot subsequent to a foul shot, this is equivalent to accepting it, their shot must stand and the sequence of colours must be continued from that turn. Any time taken to correct a foul shot is not counted as part of the game.

(d) If a player deliberately interferes with any wink or winks, the pot or the mat, or deliberately impedes any other player, the penalty is that the game is declared ended, and all seven points are awarded to the player’s opponents. During his own turn, however, a player may turn or clean any of his own winks which is neither squopping nor squopped, and replace it in its correct position.”

Rule 5 needs the insertion because somebody at the Oxford Open tried to bring in winks from on top of other winks.

The reason for a call to rewrite part of Rule 7 is that it is possible to have two winks leaning against the pot with one squopping the other but not touching it. The present Rule 7 is unsatisfactory in this situation.

Rule 12 has not been altered except in wording.

You are very welcome to circulate this in NATwA. As you know, I am very keen that we should have an agreed inter­national body of rules, and they are gradually edging together. I also think it would be a good idea if NATwA wrote its rules down and updated them!

Best wishes as always,

Charles Relle

Rick replies (10 April 1993):

I think at this stage of the game, NATwA won’t be writing down a separate set of rules, but instead will rely on the IFTwA Rules (as suggested in my front-page editorial). Once IFTwA Rules are established, NATwA may dink with the rules experimentally. First things first.

I have taken these rules revision suggestions to heart in my suggestions for revising the May 1992 ETwA Rules in order to produce 1993 IFTwA Rules. In fact, I was holding back distribution of Newswinks 27 and 28 to wait for your letter, to which you alerted me via telephone message.

As for the ETwA Rules meeting on 1 May—while I may discover that I have accidentally wended my way to Queens’ College on that day, in case I don’t, I, an ETwA member, hereby vote by proxy to support all of the changes in my Newswink 28 attachment.

Purvis on the Relle/Barrie Proposals

From alt.games.tiddlywinks Sat Apr 10 21:08:18 1993
From: purvis@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Rule 12: Foul shots and foul play
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.184048.13118@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Apr 93 17:40:48 GMT

The ETwA newsletter that has been sent out in the last few days contains a proposed rewording of rule 12 (Foul Shots and Foul Play). I appreciate that many readers of this board won't be getting ETwA newsletters, so I'll type the proposal in full. The idea seems to be that playing out of turn ceases to be a concept more or less, just becoming a kind of foul shot. However, the proposal may also be intended to introduce another new feature: the offended partnership can choose which colour is to play next. I'm happy with that idea but I'm not even sure if the wording that follows is attempting to address it There are other problems with it too, I feel, and I'll mention those I've spotted after the text of the proposal which, give or take the odd typo follows:

[Rule 12 as given in Relle’s letter elided here]

There you have it. The part of (c) beginning '...their shot must stand...' suggests that the attempt has been made to prevent the offended partnership ever being penalised by an 'out-of-turn' shot or shots, i.e. they can play either colour and be correct. However, the rule as written allows them to play _any shot whatsoever_ and "it must stand". So they could play _any_ illegal shot, not just an out-of-turn. I'm sure this was never the intention. I don't know how the rule might be worded to fix the problem.

I also have more minor points.

The second sentence of part (c) ("Any time taken to correct a foul...") really belongs at the end of part (a), as it's true of all foul shots.

The start of part (b) ought to allow for the fact that players can legally play opponents' and partners' winks under the nominated wink rule.

Also in part (b), I would suggest that, after the words "...in the same turn" should be added "that were played before the foul was noticed".

Also in (b), the last sentence strikes me as ambiguous. "Play continues as if the correct colour had been played" I think means that, if green played when it was yellow's go, it's a foul by yellow so blue plays. But people might argue during a game that it means "play continues as if the colour played had been correct". I think a clarification, perhaps by example, would be in order here (especially if I've misread the intention).

In (d), now might be a good time to add that players should not deliberately interfere with the table on which the mat is placed. It wouldn't be worth revising the rule especially to achieve this change, but if the rule is being re-written anyway, it might be worth it.

The wording above was thought up by Patrick and Charles, so perhaps Patrick might tell us just what he has in mind with the proposed changes. I like the tenor of his ideas as he's put them on the net, but I wish the rule would state more explicitly just what the purpose is supposed to be. I appreciate it's a nightmare trying to word most rules changes, and that words have to be chosen very carefully and often downplayed, but a more up-front approach might clarify the rule considerably.

In the meantime, perhaps everybody ought to focus on trying top play the damn shots legally!
_____________________
Andy Purvis

Not on the rules subcommittee either
Watch out in two days for the repeat

Rules for Winks Akimbo

From alt.games.tiddlywinks Sat Apr 10 21:08:18 1993
From: purvis@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Outlawing the Wiseman
Message-ID: <1993Apr7.095848.13152@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Apr 93 08:58:48 GMT

Here's another rules proposal, originating this time with Julian Porter. It's an attempt to outlaw not just the "Wiseman bring-in" (in which a wink is clicked off another wink or squidger) but also the bring-in Larry demonstrated (not in games) a while back, in which a rubber or cork squidger is placed in the middle of the wink and then flicked towards the target. The rules proposal that has already been tabled, while outlawing the Wisemn bring-in, does not outlaw the 'Larry shot'.

It's not been phrased in rules language, but the proposal is that if, in the course of a shot, appreciable sideways motion is imparted to any squidged wink, then the squidger edge must eventually pass down over the edge of the squidged wink.

That's it. Another shot that this would outlaw (we'd have to decide whether we want this outlawed or not - personally I do) is the 'cork squidger crud through the pile' shot; the top wink is hit hard and pushed or dragged right through the whole pile on which it sits. I think this shot is extremely messy and unpleasant but I reckon it's currently legal (i.e. can be played legally).

What do people think?

Dave Misses Best Chance at # 1

Date: Sun Nov 15 09:33:01 1992
From: L_A_Kahn%MW.W50S1@mwmgate1.mitre.org

Dave lost probably his best chance at overtaking me in the all time rankings when I successfully completed a skydive last September. It was always something I thought about doing and someone at work organized a group trip so I decided to go. It was absolutely the most incredible experience I’ve ever had. They give you several hours ground training so you have all the procedures pretty well memorized because when you actually jump it’s hard to concen­trate at that point. I did free-fall method where two jump­masters go with you and hold on to stabilize you and give you help if you need it. Anyway, we went up in a little plane up to 11,000 feet and then you get out on the strut with the other guys and go. I was surprised that I wasn’t more nervous. The only bad part was when I actually got out on the strut. You’re going about 90 mph and its fairly cool up that high. I was kind of light­headed and thought what happens if you black out. But after a few seconds I got into the exit routine and focused on that and everything was OK. They told me we had a really smooth exit and I remember just sailing off away from the plane. After that, you have to do a few practice ripcord pulls and check altitude because at 5500 feet you have to signal to show aware­ness. My biggest problem was not being able to easily read the altimeter. They strap it on your chest, and as long as you keep a nice arched back, the lower part of the dial can be read (it looks like a clock). However, when you’re up there it’s different. When I went to look at it I couldn’t read the bottom numbers but I could see the needle. I remember thinking that when I get down I’m going to cuss these guys out because I told them it might be tough to read. Anyway, I remembered the dial layout and knew that 6000 was just about at the bottom of the dial, so when the needle got past that a little I gave the 5500 sign, then waited about another 5 seconds to do the wave off at 4500 and then pulled the ripcord. They told me that I gave the signals right on cue so I feel good that I was able to man­age it. After your chute opens, you can really relax. These things are really maneu­verable and there’s a radio so the ground person can advise you. I did a lot of turn­ing back and forth to play with the chute and eventually landed right in front of the hangar about 20 yards from the ground controller. Landing was easy—they don’t try for a standup landing the first time so I did a nice roll and got right up. Free fall is about 40 sec and then it takes 4-5 minutes once the chute opens. I really can’t de­scribe the feeling of flying through the air at 120 mph. There’s a lot of wind and it’s very quiet, especially under your chute. I got a video made (you can have a photographer jump with you) and it really came out great—he has the entire free fall phase covered. Also I have some re­ally good still shots; I’ll probably blow up the best one.

NATwA Pairs 1992 (Seems Like Old Times)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 17:51:57 EST
From: L_A_Kahn%MW.W50S1@mwmgate1.mitre.org

The 92 Pairs was held in Boston and we had a large turnout (for us) of 19. We were trying to figure out if this was the largest all-male turnout ever for a NATwA tournament. I won’t bother to list everyone here, you’ll have to look at the scoresheet [Elsewhere in this Newswink]. On paper, the three strongest pairs appeared to be Geoff Myers–Nick Ing­lis, Dave Lockwood–Rick Tucker, and Larry Kahn–Arye Gittelman (coaxed out of retirement after too long a hiatus). There would be a definite dogfight for the 4th spot in the fi­nal playoff. The top seed was unclear, Dave had a close call on the turnpike the previous night and was no doubt tired, Arye hadn’t played competitively in at least 7 years, and Nick and Geoff had been on the road sightseeing instead of practicing. A number of old-timers were in attendance - Indian had gotten Bill Renke to play (and actually show up!), and the pair of Joe Sachs–Charles Frankston reap­peared. It was good to see Boston represented again. On to the tournament. Most of the games were quite competitive; a lot of the so-called lesser pairs achieved good results against higher ranked pairs. In the first complete round-robin, Dave-Rick fell to Indian-Bill and Don Fox-Ferd 4-3 in close games. Don-Ferd also played tough against Nick-Geoff, getting 2. Larry-Arye weren’t playing all that well either, but did just enough when necessary and went into the last two games (against the other top two pairs) un­beaten. They saved their best games for last and took a 5½ and a 6 to end the day 9-0 for 53 pts, 8½ ahead of Nick-Geoff and 13 up on Rick-Dave. Competition for the final spot was tight, with Don-Ferd just edging out Ed Wynn–Richard Moore and Joe-Charles. Sorry about not mentioning other people—I wrote this at the last minute on a Friday after work. Larry-Arye were really glad to have built up a big lead since neither one got a lot of sleep that night. One of Arye’s kids woke up at about 4 and they did­n’t get to sleep after that (somehow Rick was immune to the sound of crying). Anyway, they beat Don-Ferd in the first game (5½) to nearly sew it up when Dave-Rick beat Geoff-Nick. Dave-Rick then gave Larry-Arye their only loss, 6-1, and Geoff-Nick kept their slim hopes alive with a 7 off D-F. This meant they needed 7 in the last game (seems like a lot of that going around), but it wasn’t to be as they ended with 1. Dave-Rick snuck into second with a 6, sweeping the 3 final games, 2½ ahead of G-N.

More Britrant (via Winking World 59, Oct. 1992)

NATwA Pairs 1992

One notable feature of the tournament is that James [Cullingham], Stew [Sage], and Rupert [Thompson] managed to start and complete their entire game (admittedly a pot-out) in the time that it took Don [Fox] and Ferd to play a single shot. Draw your own conclusions.

Tiddlywinks Lexicon—Poss

From: purvis@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: The Poss - a new winking term
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:18:07 GMT

The Cambridge Open has thrown up a new addition to the winking lexicon - the Poss. Picture the scene: it is the last round of the tournament and Charles Relle will win overall if he can win his last game. His partner is Oxford first-year, Poss. Imagine Charles’ delight when an enemy wink lands a millimetre away from a Poss wink. Now imagine his consternation when Poss squop attempt falls short. Thus, to "Poss" is to send a wink no more than a quarter of the distance intended (especially if the shot was an easy one).

Poss is very happy with the new term, though he had hoped that any shot named after him might be useful.

’Mer’cans ’n Oxf’rd

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 09:16:29 +0000
From: purvis@vax.ox.ac.uk
To: rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org

Dear Rick,

We have four novices who are heading back to Stanford University this week (they were here for a couple of exchange terms). They are:

Scott Schlossberg (burger)
Brian Yamasaki (byamaski) (note spelling of username)
Joe Goodman (danger)
Pankauz Shrestha, a.k.a. "COZ", (himalaya)

The usernames are in brackets. The computer they’re all on is leland.stanford.edu.

We also have Kate Woolfitt, whose postal address is Som­erville College, Oxford. She’s from one of the Seven Sis­ters, and will be returning there after this academic year.

Scott et al. are currently unable to read their E-mail, but will once again have net access when they return. We gave them a good mat for a fiver, and they have several sets. They’re hoping to set up a club on their arrival in the US. They reached the semifinal of Cuppers (OUTS’ inter­collegiate knockout tournament for teams of 4), beating my team 16½-11½ and losing only narrowly to a powerful team from two colleges (Lincoln/St Anne’s). I hope they can be encouraged. Scott particularly has amazingly deep strategy (especially given that he only came to one OUTS meeting ever - they play in their residence).

I hope that’s all in time for Newswink.

Cheers,

Andy

NATwA Archives

Rick Tucker has been the Archivist of NATwA since 1978, when he and Fred Shapiro embarked on chronicling the origins and history of the game. Most of the NATwA Archives are actually privately owned by Tucker. The Tucker Collection in the NATwA Archives includes virtually all NATwA and ETwA publications, copies of all NATwA tournament scoresheets, copies or originals of many important books and magazines discussing tiddlywinks, antique and modern tiddlywink sets, antique and modern rules, copies of all US tiddlywinks patents and several UK patents, and so on. The NATwA Archives also includes the Severin Drix collection which includes considerable correspondence from the early days of NATwA and the famous Trix cereal tiddlywinks sets used by Severin in his pre-NATwA days. A boondocked outpost of the NATwA Archives is the vaunted Closet of Fame at Bill Renke’s house in Newton MA, dating back to 1970.

The NATwA Archives is now initiating a service to provide copies of key tiddlywinks documents. The table below lists the initial offerings. Many tiddlywinks documents are available on MS-DOS diskette, usually in text or Microsoft Word formats. Diskette versions cost $1.00 per diskette; as many requested files as fit will be included. Shipping costs are 50% of the paper document price (minimum 29¢), or $1.00 per diskette. These prices apply to the USA. Shipping prices elsewhere will be supplied upon request.


Title

Cost

On disk

Lexicon of Winks, by Richard W. Tucker
(1992, updated periodically)

$0.50

NATwA leaflet, 1 sheet, 2 sides
(1993, updated periodically)

free

On the Mat, by Guy Consterdine, March 1967;
(retranscription $1.00 less)

$2.00


no illus

The Rules of Tiddlywinks: Compiled for the English Tiddlywinks Association, May 1992
(update periodically), 1 sheet, 2 sides

free

The Science of Tiddlywinks (The “Thesis”) by the Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Association, October 1955, 30 pages

$1.50

Tiddlywinks Bibliography, by Richard W. Tucker and Fred R. Shapiro, 83 pages
(1993, updated periodically)

$4.25

Winks Rampant, by Guy Consterdine, October 1972; (retranscription $1.00 less)

$2.00


no illus

An Introduction to Tiddlywinks, by Andy Purvis, Charles Relle, and Jon Mapley, 1989, 12 pages

$1.00

In the future, back copies of Newswink and Winking World, both on paper and on diskette, will be offered.

IFTwA

The Secretary-General of IFTwA—the International Federation of Tiddlywinks Associations—is Jon Mapley of ETwA. Tell us, Jon… what does an IFTwA SecGen do?

Relle Responds to the Lexicon

26 Canadian Avenue
LONDON SE6 3AS,
16 March 1992
Dear Rick,

I list my corrigendis corrigenda to the Lexicon of Winks. Brace: a term I do use for any two winks close together, but first used by John Furlonger (Cambridge, 1957-61). I sometimes use brace as a verb, meaning to squop a brace of winks. Doubleton was in fact first used by myself, when I was the only Cambridge player also to be active at Bridge. Which brings me to another point: Cyril Ed­wards has written that bridge should be used to describe squopping a wink adjacent to one you are already squopping, doubleton to describe squopping two previously unsquopped winks. The first use of the expression run six is, as far as I can trace, in Newswink 14, p. 13. Back to numbers: I do not use tetrad for tripleton, especially as the word means a group of four, not three. I know my counting is bad, but it is not that bad. The terms for groups of two to ten are as follows: dyad, triad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, heptad, octad, ennead, decad. I use tetrad in particular because it is less of a mouthful than quadrupleton.

Presbyopia: I have been conscious for some years of the onset of this condition. The two Greek words from which it comes mean “old men’s sight”. Like Sunshine, I squop without glasses, but I bring in and pot wearing them. Maybe I am less presbyopic than he. Of course, Sunshine and I are the people who play the most often in bare feet. I would not have thought there was a connexion, but per­haps this is a subject for research biologist Andy Purvis.

With best wishes,

Charles Relle

Mapley Responds, Too

2, Janmead,
Witham, Essex, CM8 2EN
17th March, 1992

Dear Rick,

Thank you for sending me NW26. It was good to read such an upbeat issue. I will admit that I thought long and hard about gatecrashing Gill, but decided that although it would have been great fun, the cost/games ratio would have been too high. [...]

I smiled when I read the article on the Perimeter Rule, be­cause the identical proposal is being debated at our Rules Meeting on May 2nd, along with Andy’s practising brainwave, and one or two minor clarifications. It is the latest in a long line of attempts to temper the penalty for going off, and I suspect that it will go the same way as the regular attempts in the British Parliament to reintroduce hanging. I enclose a well-argued rant (his word, not mine) from Richard [Moore] on the subject, and I am in agreement with most of his points, although I think he is too dogmatic about luck not playing any part in baseline shots played by the top two in the current World Rank­ings. My bet is on status quo but about two to one.

Andy’s suggestion is a strange one. He is in danger of be­coming paranoid about playing against Dave in Pairs. WW 58 carries not only the scores of World Pairs 11, but the timings as well. Three consecutive games lasting more than an hour constitutes an unacceptable rate of play. It causes ill-feeling, and Gavin [Keyte] and others comment on this in the latest edition of “The world’s premier winking journal” [Ed.—in other words, the first to be published]. By the way, it was Gavin who named our team in the Fours [Citius Quam Lockwood—which I gather means “how to speed up Lockwood”]. I don’t think the cause of sportsmanship is going to be advanced by a player or pair abandoning interest in their opponents’ shot and buggering off to the nearest free table, then hav­ing to be called back to discover what’s happened, play their next shot hurriedly, wait another thirty seconds and disappear again. The remedy is for those players who are the worst offenders to do something about it. When Dave protests “I actually play quickly” most of ETwA can be forgiven for undisguised mirth. Taking ten minutes to discuss the second shot in a turn, having firmly decided to pot the first, then to miss the pot, is one example reported to me from the World Pairs.

On a much more worthwhile subject, I have a few comments on the lexicon saga, based on MUB’s {Richard Moore] recent update. I may be duplicating, but I think he’s left a number of words out.

Amigos: To swallow a pint of whatever in one gulp. (Sideways A.) To position a Mars Bar traversely in the mouth prior to the above. (CUTwC)

Board (Off the -): (Relle) Table or mat.

Circular squop: Definitely obsolete, being superseded by Thorpe’s Ring.

Tetrad: Is of course not a tripleton, but a quad.

Mickey Mouse: A form of tripleton where the squopped winks are flat and separate, usually all small, so that when squopped, two ears and a mouth/nose stick out. (UK, ori­gin Bancroftian)

QESH should not have a “U” in it.

To be scrunged: I less obsolete than Richard imagines.

Turnover: Much more common than pile flip.

Hairy’s den: An area totally dominated by the opposition (UK, origin Bancroftian)\

Best wishes,

Jon

alt.games.tiddlywinks

The newsgroup alt.games.tiddlywinks was established in January 1993, spearheaded by Julian Porter of Oxford. Newsgroups are available on computer hosts on the Internet which subscribe to a news feed. So far, most of the participants on alt.games.tiddlywinks have been established NATwAns (Sachs, Kahn, Tucker) and ETwAns (Barrie, Purvis, Porter, Heading, Grant), although others have spoken up, including long-lost winkers. Once established, Joe Sachs commented that the name of the group should have been called alt.sport.tiddlywinks.

Correction to Newswink 26

In Newswink 26, on page 19, a list of all winkers who had won one or more of the Big Six championships ({World | ETwA | NATwA} {Singles | Pairs}) omitted Andy Tomaszewski, who partnered Severin Drix in 1972 to win the NATwA Pairs.

Newswink ISSN, ©, ™

Observant Newswinkers (hey, that’s a new word formation for the lexicon!) will notice that the masthead of Newswinks 27 and 28 include “ISSN 1063-2336”. ISSN stands for International Standard Serial Number. ISSNs are assigned by the National Serials Data Program of the Library of Congress, and are akin to ISBNs used for books. A serial is a print or nonprint publication usually bearing issue numbers and/or dates, and is expected to continue indefinitely. An ISSN is keyed to a unique title for a publication. ISSNs are maintained in an international database.

Each issue of Newswink since Newswink 25 was published in September 1990 has been copyrighted. Copyright provides a declaration of ownership and various levels of protection against undesired republication. The articles in Newswink, unless accompanied by separate copyright notices, may be freely copied by NATwA, ETwA, and ScotTwA members with attribution, so long as the copied material is included in official tiddlywinks association publications.

Newswinks 25 and later also are marked with ™, the trademark symbol. This symbol claims that Newswink is a unique trade name of the North American Tiddlywinks Association, although there has to date been no effort expended to register the trademark (i.e., ®) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Lexiconominations

Tim Schiller named his consulting company WINX Software Designs. Larry Kahn’s car sports Maryland license plate “WINKER1”. Rick Tucker has “GROMP” on one car and “SQUOP” on the other, in Virginia. Larry Kahn and Chris Marlin have spotted a car in Virginia with “TDLYWNK” on it. The owner is, alas, unknown.

Recently Unearthed Song

From Sunshine, 10 July 1989

Written by Sarah Purtle (Purdle?)

Oh there once was a woman who gobbled swiss cheese, gobbled swiss cheese, gobbled swiss cheese.

And one day she woke up with holes in her knees, woke up with holes in her knees.

This woman cried help me, oh what shall I do, what shall I do, what shall I do.

When I look at my knees I see sky shining through, now I see sky shining through.

So she went to the doctor who answered with ease, answered with ease, answered with ease.

She said swallow some tiddlywinks, they’ll fill up your knees, tiddlywinks will fill up your knees.

So she salted some tiddlywinks and gobbled down lots, gobbled down lots, gobbled down lots.

And now instead of holes she has green polka dots, now she has green polka dots.

Purvis on the Move

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:02:51 +0000
From: purvis@vax.ox.ac.uk
To: rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org

Dear Rick,

Merton College is an address for me, but won’t be for much longer. Better are St Cross College, Oxford, OX1 1LZ; or Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS. My work phone number is 0865 271272 and home phone number is 0865 241368 until July 11th, when it will change. My home address is currently 1 Woodbine Place, Oxford OX1 1JS; on July 11th I shall move to 30 Western Road, Oxford. (Just to update NATwA records.)

Dragon Cup Matches

[8 Sep 1992]

After several years of residing at Horsemeat’s house, the Dragon Cup has changed hands and returned to its sponsor. In February 1992, Dave Lockwood beat Larry Kahn 21-7 (best of 5). In July, Dave played Dr. Brad Schaefer and won 23-12.

Everyone is encouraged to put in your own challenge and see how you do. It’s good, cheap Singles practice against the top players and it can be a fun evening’s diversion.

The Cup itself languished unpolished at Larry’s house; it was beautifully [restored] cleaned up by Déjà Lockwood after the transfer. Unfortunately, it needs it again.

Pervasive Perversions

Andy Purvis is updating Sunshine’s classic Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents, a compendium of winks perversions.

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 12:36:33 +0000
From: purvis@vax.ox.ac.uk
To: rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org

Dear Rick,

Thanks for putting Sunshine in touch with me. I received a splendid load of strange versions of winks through the post yesterday. I hope to finish “The Flip Side” (working title) over Easter, then give it to ‘beta-testers’ throughout next term. Then we’ll give a copy to all new joiners next year and try to interest ETwA too.

Cheers,

Andy

From: rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org (Richard W. Tucker)
Subject: Re: Introductory leaflets / Alleghany Airlines
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:41:03 GMT

In <1993Jan26.140711.11542@vax.oxford.ac.uk> purvis@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

Also, I intend to produce an updated version of "Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents...". If you don’t know what that was (and, let’s face it, there’s no reason on earth why you ought to), it was a compilation of twisted versions of

"perverted" is the preferred adjective, rather than "twisted".

tiddlywinks. Many of these were fairly close to the original game whereas others were more distant (e.g., they did not all feature tiddlywinks).

Well, they all used a mat and winks, and many used a cup. What do you mean, Mr. Purrrrvis?

The original booklet, having been produced (I think) in the late-1960’s, is rather out-of-date now. Many of the variants it features are no longer played by anyone, and lots of new games have sprung up.

Now, Andrew. I appreciate your attempt to add new variations (oops, perversions) to the legacy of global tiddlywinks, but to be sure, to say that "Alleghany Airlines Book Club Presents" is out-of-date is really incorrect. The winks perversions it describes are timeless. Feel free to document or introduce your own, but Sunshine documented a time window of winks (it was 1976 when it was written, not the late 1960s) when perversions were at their peak.
Tongue in cheek aside, I look forward to hearing about new perversions, but please (I mean PLEASE!) try them out, play them for a while, and then write them up. Don’t just invent them in your mind. Like I did the Tucker Two-Turn one evening in Ithaca in the late ‘70s in MP Rouse’s house.

I’d also be grateful for suggestions about a title for the thing.

By the way, "Alleghany Airlines" was derived from "Allegheny Airlines" (note the different spelling) which was the previous name for USAir, which is the airline that British Airways is currently trying to buy a stake in.
At the time, Sunshine actually wrote the company (Allegheny Airlines) for official permission to use their name. The idea cropped up when Sunshine was traveling on one of their airliners and the idea of an Allegheny Airlines Book Club came up in conversation with a fellow passenger. Alas, but Allegheny Airlines rejected Sunshine’s request, which is why he misspelled the name of the airline ("a" for "e") in the title of his February 1976 magnum opus.

Rick Tucker, Archivist

North American Tiddlywinks Association

Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
From: lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn)
Subject: Plan 47 Perversion
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 19:39:07 GMT

This is a version of winks that * and I tried out and found it could be interesting. Basically, as soon as a side becomes squopped out, you count the number of free turns at that point. The squopping side gets those number of turns and then that’s it, the game ends and you count up time limit points. If during the allotted free turns, an opponent’s wink is freed the game immediately ends on that shot and tlp’s are counted up.

This makes Plan 47 a viable one. Say you have one color with 2 or 3 in. What you might do is pot your free winks in order to get points plus end the game before the opponents have enough free turns to respond. Conversely, if you’re the squopping pair you might have to free squopped winks so the opponents can’t force a squopped out condition on you.

Try it, you’ll like it.

Larry

Veritable Perversions

Widdly Tinks®

Tiddly~Winks gone potty

HOW TO PLAY WIDDLY TINKS

Each player has a set of coloured counters—4 small tinks and a large widdler. Play either on a carpet or on a table covered with a thick cloth. In turn, players attempt to score a direct hit into the pan, flipping their tinks by pressing down one edge with their widdler. To start, each player places one tink in front of the loo about 20 cm (8 inches) and widdles it. If the shot misses, the player can either continue to widdle the same tink or bring a fresh tink into play. There is no order of play in Widdly Tinks and players may take as many shots as they like. Should another player’s tink land partly or wholly on top of yours, you may widdle the opponent’s tink in any direction and then take a shot with your own tink.

NOTES

A tink may bounce off the lid of the loo or the bathroom wall before ending in the pan (splashdown).

Should a tink land on the ledge at the base of the bathroom wall, then it can only be b[r]ought back into play by being knocked off by another tink widdled by the same player or one of the opponents.

As the loo fills up, direct hits may bounce out (a flash in the pan). In this case, try again!

WINNING

The first player to get 4 tinks in the loo (final splashdown) is the winner and retires flushed with success.

Copyright: Gibsons Games, London.

(This modern game was purchased for £6.99 by Rick Tucker in November 1992 at Hamsleys on Regent Street in London.)


“Hello again, Winkster!

“I’m so happy that you got your first issue of Winks [...]

“To begin with, there might be some people who’ll ask ‘What’s a wink?’ But I know that you know, and I also know that you know exactly what to do. I sure hope so, because there are so many friends that I want you to meet, such as The Winkette Twins, the girls from The Wink Club, my favorite, Dinky—and all the girls, naughty or nice, who also are sure to make a hit on your list.

“Of course, there’s a very special lady who we’ve chosen as The Wink of the Month—and you’ll know why when you see her. We also have games for you to play. There’s The Winks Match and The Missing Wink. Use your head, or, as they say, your noodle! Plus, baby, be the star you were meant to be and Sync-a-Wink, where’s it’s your turn to do the talking! And don’t forget to send us your personal Wink-O-Gram.”

Winks magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993, Wink Publishing Inc., 401 Park Avenue South, New York NY 10016

Dave’s Dominant Corner

Career Rankings

by Dave Lockwood [8 Sep 1992]

  1. Larry Kahn
  2. Dave Lockwood
  3. Jon Mapley
  4. Alan Dean
  5. Severin Drix
  6. Geoff Myers
  7. Andy Purvis

New Records

DHL [8 Sep 1992]

2 national singles titles in three different decades

David Lockwood

(this record could be tied in the year 2000, at the earliest)

1 ETwA and 1 NATwA Singles title each in two different decades

David Lockwood

Records Tied

Most years between first and most recent national singles victory—15.

Dave ties Alan Dean

Secondary Statistics

With his 7th national singles victory, Dave passes Alan for sole second place behind Larry’s 11.

With his 4th NATwA Singles victory, Dave passes Severin Drix for sole second place behind Larry’s 7.

Larry’s Big Six total (39 championships) falls behind the sum of second (Dave, 24) and third (Severin, 16)

Down in the Boondocks
We hear from winkers past

From: wand@dec5120z.ccs.northeastern.edu (Mitchell Wand)
Subject: Ancient winker says hi
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:00:13 GMT

I’m so glad somebody thought to create alt.games. tiddlywinks. I played for MIT 1969-1972. Alas, I had to miss the MIT tiddlywinks reunion last summer, so I’ll take this opportunity to say hello to all the former winkers out there.
I’m looking forward to reading this group.

--Mitch

--
Mitchell Wand
College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
360 Huntington Avenue #161CN, Boston, MA 02115 Phone: (617) 437 2072
Internet: wand@ccs.northeastern.edu
Fax: (617) 437 5121

From: abdab@dartmouth.edu (Adam Milligan)
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: introduction
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:10:32 GMT

Okay, I’m new here. A friend @cornell from my high school sent me a copy of a post asking us to introduce ourselves. Okay. I’m Adam Milligan (commonly called Abdab, see below). I have won no tournaments. I have _attended_ no tournaments. In fact, I basically just got to the point where I could pot with reasonably probability and squop (sp?) once in a while. :-) Severin Drix was my calculus teacher at Ithaca High School. Winks was more fun than calculus...
abdab@cornell, are you out there? :-O

From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern)
Subject: Re: Ancient winker says hi
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:57:46 GMT

Speaking as the official NATwA photog (I had the record of attending the most games without playing until I broke my streak in Cornell), it’s good to see something important on the net for a change, namely, winks.
I’m hesitant to admit I’ve still got all the negs and prints from the MIT 69-74ish era, and a mixed bag from the 25th Winks Reunion held by Ferd & Leslie in Gill, Mass something like a year and a half ago. I haven’t looked at the 3/4" videotapes I shot yet, so I don’t know if we have the makings of a winkomentry or not.

Any progress on the virtual reality winks project? :-)

Daniel Dern, free-lance technology journalist
Internet: ddern@world.std.com
UncaSam: PO Box 309 Newton Centre, MA 02159
Ma Bell: (617) 969-7947 Mr. Fax: (617) 969-7949

From: pottle@cs.wisc.edu (Sam Pottle) at -smtp-
Date: 1/25/93 3:21PM
To: L_A_Kahn at w50s1
Subject: Re: NATwA Singles

In article <1993Jan22.135431.29342@linus.mitre.org> you write:

The NATwA singles is planned for the last weekend in June in Washington.

Aha! The original Horsemeat speaks! (Does anyone call you that anymore?)

Glad to see you’re still winking. I was active for a few years in the late 70’s/early 80’s, coming out of the Sev Drix Ithaca High School winx machine. I got boondocked to Seattle after Cornell, and now I’m going for a PhD in Wisconsin, so I’ve sort of lost touch with NATwA. How healthy is American winking? It appears not to have died out completely, at any rate.

Is Severin still playing?

Sam Pottle
pottle@cs.wisc.edu


Larry Kahn says that as of March 1993, Rick Tucker is now above Severin Drix in NATwA lifetime number of games, moving up to… 5th after Larry, Dave, Bob, and Sunshine.

Dragon Reigns at the Frog Palace

by Dave Lockwood
[8 Sep 1992]

The 20th NATwA Singles Championship was held on June 27-28, 1992. It was a bi-state affair with Day 1 in Maryland and the finish at the Frog Palace, a.k.a. the Marlin residence in Ashburn, Virginia. From a possible 19 players, an eventual 13 played. Those missed were Jon Mapley, Big, Ferd, Mac McAvoy, Deja Lockwood, and Christine Marlin for a variety of reasons.

The format was two divisions qualifying four each to a complete double round. Games in the qualifying round against those who qualified with you counted. The "heavies" division - Larry "Horsemeat" Kahn, Bob Henninge, Dr. Patrick Barrie, Jim Marlin, Sunshine, Andy Strong, and Christopher Strong - wasn’t, as Sunshine was a self-designated non-qualifier and Andy and Chris were getting some tough practice games. Between them, the brothers got 1 point in 7 games. A fairly good result actually. Also Sunshine took 5th to not qualify.

The mixed gender division - both divisions would have been so if Jim and Andy had appeared on time - was Dave "The Dragon" Lockwood, Dr. Brad Schaefer, Joe Sachs, Rick Tucker, Marg Henninge, and Dr. MP Rouse. Marg and MP were dark horses to qualify but always guaranteed a tough game. (Lightning didn’t strike again this year as Marg didn’t beat any of the seeded players.)

The eight qualifiers were, therefore, as was expected. Their three game qualifying scores were: Dave (14½), Rick (13), Jim (12), Bob (11), Larry (10), Patrick (9), Brad (8), and Joe (6½). This was the high water mark of the tournament for Rick who got two good 6’s against Brad and Joe in qualifying.

Two more games were played on Saturday before most of us (18 winker-related people) went to the Baltimore Orioles - Kansas City Royals game on Saturday night. At that point, 7 players were either 3-2 or 2-3, the range from 1st to 8th was a mere 8½ points (22½ points to 14 points) and 9 more games would be played on Sunday.

The even play continued into the first round Sunday morning. Rick took his third 6 in a very relevant game against Patrick. After six games, only Dave remained above a 4 average.

From this point in the tournament, Dave, Larry, and Patrick dominated the rest of the field going undefeated in 16 games for 86½ points. In the final first round robin game though, Larry beat Dave 5-2 to close the gap. After 7 finals games, i.e. half way, the scores were: Dave (30½), Larry (28), Patrick and Jim (27), Bob (24), Rick (22), Brad (20), and Joe (17½).

The first round had its share of surprises. Rick’s best Singles ever, looked even better at this point. Jim started Sunday superbly with 13 in 2 games to tie Patrick 3½ points behind first at the half. Joe, the darkest horse of them all, showed what we believed he’d still have. He beat Bob 6 and took two 4’s from Larry and Brad. Brad, who might have been a contender, did not fare well in the first round. He had only a 2-5 record despite beating Dave. Larry beat Dave and had a 5-2 record but only averaged 4 and trailed Dave’s 4-3 for 30½. Dave lost his first, fifth, and seventh games but led rounds 3 through 7. "I expected Larry to average 5 and be leading. Instead, I contended from the lead." Patrick Barrie, our British scholarship winner and Dave’s 1991 ETwA Pairs partner (2nd), started slowly before finishing 3-1 for 18 in the last 4 games of the first round.

With nine games scheduled, two from the first round-robin and the full second round-robin, Sunday was always going to be a long, grueling day. The second round robin, beginning with the third game of the day, therefore, started quickly, Dave playing the others from lowest score to highest. With Dave and Larry 1st and 2nd, respectively, the final full round robin had Dave v. Larry to finish once again.

Despite a 6-1 win over Joe in the first game of the second round, Dave lost a point to Larry who sneaked an ugly 7 against Rick. Patrick kept pace with Dave, giving Brad his only 1 of the day. In the Jim-Bob game, they looked like they were going to tie 3½-3½ until Bob sank a 2 footer with the last shot to jump to 5½-1½. That shot was the eventual difference between the two.

The next two rounds saw Dave win 5 and 4 while Larry and Patrick got 10 and 11½. In the Bob-Patrick game, Bob didn’t know what hit him as our skillful import successfully blitzed and gained the 7. With 4 rounds to go, the top 3 were within 1, 45½ (Dave), 45 (Larry), and 44½ (Patrick). The next round also left the three within a point but Patrick had taken over first with 50½, then Dave (50), and Larry (49½).

With 3 rounds to go, the top 4 and bottom 4 from the first round robin separated and played mini-round robins among themselves. In the top 4, Jim got stuck with Dave, Larry, and Patrick and got 5 credibly. In the bottom 4, Brad got 16, while Bob (11), Joe (10), and Rick (5) trailed. This final rush by Brad gave him 28 for the second round and fourth place overall. This match confirms Brad’s slight edge over Bob for third ranked American.

With 1 point separating them, Larry played Patrick in Game 12. His 4-3 win, the exact score Dave wanted them to get, left them tied at 53½, 1½ behind Dave whose 5-2 over Jim regained the lead.

In the penultimate round, Dave played Patrick and Larry faced Jim. The Dave-Patrick result was quickly known as Dave ran 6, and Patrick grabbed an excellent 1 with a sixth wink 2 footer. (His baseline sixth wink with his other color didn’t go.) In all 23 of 25 pot shots were successful from distances of 1 inch to 2 feet. "Perhaps the best overall potting I’ve seen," said Dave. Jim got 2 against Larry to give Dave a 2½ point lead going into the dreaded Dave-Larry final.
Many Singles Championships, World, ETwA, and NATwA, have come down to Dave and Larry to finish. Recently, Larry has had the solid upper hand in these confrontations. Not this time. Dave potted well in rounds and didn’t give Larry the chances he needed. 5-2 Dave for a final total of 66 points. Patrick’s 6 against Jim tied Larry for second at 60½. Brad led a close group of 3 with 48; Bob had 44 and Jim, 42½. In the last round, Joe beat Rick to edge him 36½ to 34.

This was a good tournament for several people. Dave won the NATwA Singles for the first time since 1983. Patrick contended and held the lead for the only round Dave trailed of the last 11. Jim, flattered to deceive, beating Patrick, Rick and Joe big in the first round (19 points) but gained only two 4’s in the second. Bob beat Larry 6-1 in qualifying but lost big 5 times to trail Brad (who had the same won-loss record). Joe came ready to play and gave Larry, in particular, a tough time. Rick had his best Singles but couldn’t put a win together in the second round. His ppl in it though was a healthy 1.71. Watch him in the Pairs.

Larry didn’t win. For anybody but him, that would not necessarily mean he had a bad tournament. For him, it does. Larry’s dominance has been dented. He’s now lost 4 of the last 5 national singles. Of course, he’s been second in all the losses. But this is WINKER1, Horsemeat Kahn, who won 8 of 10 at one point. Geoff Myers will be a real match in the next World Singles. Dave now waits in the wings. An exciting time to come, for sure.

NATwA Singles • Preliminaries • Left Division • 27 June 1992
Hughes Methodist Church • Silver Spring MD

Left Division

L

B

P

J

*

A

C

Larry Kahn

1

5*

4

7*

np

np

Bob Henninge

6

1

4

7*

6

Patrick Barrie

2*

6

1

4

7*

7*

Jim Marlin

3

3

6

np

7*

np

*

0*

3

np

7*

7*

Andy Strong

np

0*

0*

0*

0*

np

Chris Strong

np

1

0*

np

0*

np

NATwA Singles • Preliminaries • Right Division • 27 June 1992
Hughes Methodist Church • Silver Spring MD

Right Division

D

B

J

R

Ma

MP

Pts

Dave Lockwood

3

6

6

7*

27½

Brad Schaefer

4

3

1

6

7*

21

Joe Sachs

4

1

4

6

16½

Rick Tucker

1

6

6

6

6

25

Marg Henninge

1

1

3

1

5

11

MP Rouse

0*

0*

1

1

2

4

np = not played • First NATwA match for Patrick Barrie

NATwA Singles • Finals, 1st Round Robin • 27-28 June 1992 • Silver Spring MD & Ashburn VA • includes games played in divisions for finalists

Finals, 1st Round

D

L

P

Ji

R

Br

Bo

Jo

Rd3

Rd4

Rd5

Rd6

Rd7

Dave Lockwood

2

2*

6

6

3

6

14½

20½

22½

28½

30½

Larry Kahn

5

5

4

6

4

1

3

10

16

19

23

28

Patrick Barrie

5*

2

1

1

6

6

6

9

15

20

21

27

Jim Marlin

1

3

6

6

1

3

7*

12

13

14

21

27

Rick Tucker

1

1

6

1

6

1

6

13

14

15

21

22

Brad Schaefer

4

3

1

6

1

2

3

8

9

15

18

20

Bob Henninge

1

6

1

4

6

5

1

11

12

18

19

24

Joe Sachs

4

1

0*

1

4

6

12½

16½

16½

17½

NATwA Singles • Finals, 2nd Round Robin • 28 June 1992 • Ashburn VA • Marlin residence

Finals, 2nd Round

D

L

P

Ji

Bo

R

Br

Jo

RR1

Rd1

Rd2

Rd3

Rd4

Rd5

Rd6

Rd7

Pos

Dave Lockwood

5

6*

5

4

5

6

30½

36½

41½

45½

50

55

61

66

1

Larry Kahn

2

4

5

6

7

4

28

35

41

45

49½

53½

58½

60½

2=

Patrick Barrie

1*

3

6

7*

6

6

27

33

37½

44½

50½

53½

54½

60½

2=

Jim Marlin

2

2

1

4

1

4

27

28½

32½

36½

37½

39½

41½

42½

6

Bob Henninge

1

0*

5

3

3

24

29½

30½

30½

33

36

41

44

5

Rick Tucker

3

0*

1

3

2

1

2

22

22

25

28

29

30

32

34

8

Brad Schaefer

2

3

1

6

4

6

6

20

21

23

26

32

38

44

48

4

Joe Sachs

1

3

4

5

1

17½

18½

21

24

26½

30½

31½

36½

7

NATwA Gets Its Name in Lights

DHL & RWT [8 Sep 1992]

On Saturday, 27 June 1992, 18 winker-related people [0.04% of the 45,994 official attendance] went to the Balti­more Orioles–Kansas City Royals baseball game [including one Brit—Patrick Barrie] at the new stadium, Camden Yards. Attending were Dave & Deja Lockwood, Sam, Alex, Max, Jonathan, Audrey, MP, Brad, Chris, Andy Strong; Chris & Jim Marlin; Rick Tucker, Joe Sachs; Larry Kahn & Ann; Patrick Barrie. The Orioles lost 2-0 to the Kansas City Royals in a ho-hum game; the only excitement being a bunt base hit and a hit-by-pitch; at this stage the Brits are all envisioning question-marks in their minds. Since the Orioles lost, the highlight of the game was the welcome message on the scoreboard in centerfield. Dave Lockwood asked if a welcome message could be displayed on the scoreboard bust was told they might not do it. At the end of the sixth inning, a message went up, “Welcome to the following Clubs and Organizations”. Perhaps 15-20 names went up in alphabetical order, with 4 or 5 per screen. Nothing appeared under N or T and Dave thought they weren’t going to do it. Then at the end, on a screen by it­self, on two lines, “North American Tiddlywinks Associa­tion”! It looked great!

Joe Sachs arrived by Silverado from New York state at 2 am Saturday morning. Before that, Marg & Bob drove in from Ohio; Patrick Barrie jetted from England on Wednesday. The Marlins show up at 11:30 am on Saturday; Jim was still asleep at 9:45 am.


North American Pairs • Preliminaries • 26 September 1992 • Dedham MA
First NATwA match for James Cullingham, Rupert Thompson, Ed Wynn

TDI
Bill

Don
Ferd

Rick
Dave

Stew
Rup’t

Joe
Chas

Arye
Larry

Ed
MUB

Nick
Geoff

Tony
Brad

James
(solo)

Pts

ppg

W

L

Pos

TDI, Bill Renke

1

4

6

3

1*

1

24½

2.72

3

6

7

Don Fox, Ferd

6

4

6

3

2

3

2

3

6

35

3.89

4

5

4

Rick Tucker, Dave Lockwood

3

3

6

6

5*

4

6

40

4.44

6

3

3

Stew Sage, Rupert Thompson

1

1

1

1

0*

1

1*

1

0*

7

0.78

0

9

10

Joe Sachs, Charles Frankston

4

4

1

6

1

4

1

6

32½

3.61

6

3

6

Arye Gittelman, Larry Kahn

6*

5

7*

6

6

5

7*

53

5.89

9

0

1

Ed Wynn, Richard Moore

4

2*

6

3

1

6

6

34

3.78

5

4

5

Nick Inglis, Geoff Myers

5

3

6*

6

1

6

6

6

44½

4.94

7

2

2

Tony Heading, Brad Schaefer

6

4

1

6

1

2

1

1

23½

2.61

3

6

8

James Cullingham (solo)

1

7*

0*

1

1

21

2.33

2

7

9

North American Pairs • Finals • 27 September 1992 • Dedham MA

Arye
Larry

Nick
Geoff

Rick
Dave

Don
Ferd

Carry-over

Rd1

Rd2

Rd3
(Tot)

ppg

W

L

Pos

Arye Gittelman, Larry Kahn

6

1

53

58½

59½

65½

5.458

11

1

1

Nick Inglis, Geoff Myers

1

2

7*

44½

46½

53½

54½

4.542

8

4

3

Rick Tucker, Dave Lockwood

6

5

6

40

45

51

57

4.75

9

3

2

Don Fox, Ferd

0*

1

35

36½

36½

37½

3.125

4

8

4

On the OUTS

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 09:16:29
From: purvis@vax.ox.ac.uk
To: rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org
Subject: RE: Newswink 27 (or 28?)

P.S. Gavin Keyte is now looking actively into a US trip in September. Also interested are Andy Purvis, Geoff Myers and several OUTS folks. Nothing may come of it, but hopefully we’ll get 4-6 over for a couple of weeks. We’re interested in playing winks and in staying on the East Coast (lack of cash and transport).

9 Croft Rd, Aylesbury HP21 7RD
22nd Mar.

Dear Rick,

I am writing to let you know that OUTS are trying to organise a trip to the US in September this year.

We will be touring Boston and Wash­ington and any assistance that you could provide (e.g. some floors to kip on for a couple of nights) would be much appreciated. Also, some tips on where to go would be good as I, for one, don’t have much idea.

The trip is to begin on the first weekend in September and should last 2 weeks. If a non-serious tournament could be arranged to coincide with our presence, that would be great. I have written to Larry and Dave also and they may be in touch with you to arrange something. We are expecting around 6-8 people—me, Andy Purvis, Geoff Myers, Julian Wiseman, Chris Wilson, Simon Julier have all ex­pressed an interest.

Hope to see you at the Pairs.

All the best

Gavin Keyte


“TIDDLYTENNIS”

Pro. Pat. 22857/35. Registered at Stationers’ Hall.

THE WORLD’S GREATEST 1936 CRAZE!

The Game that interested H.R.H. The Duke of Kent, at the British Industries Fair, Feb. 20th, 1936.

“TIDDLYTENNIS” is played with 5 white and 1 green counter— these are clipped over a net on a specially printed green cloth and scores are made according to the numbered squares in which the counters fall. The green counter is the “King” and counts double for or against your score. As the counters go out of bounds they are removed from the cloth until all are out of play.

A Number of variations are suggested in the rules.

DAILY TELEGRAPH, Feb. 21st, 1936
says:—

THE DUKE OF KENT PRAISES B.I.F EXHIBITS.

“Further on he stopped at a stall showing a game of Tennis played with Tiddlywinks. At his request, George and Leonard Jennings, High­gate twins, gave a demonstration of the technique.”

DAILY SKETCH, FEB. 21st, 1936,
says:—

BOYS DEMONSTRATE GAME

“Fifteen year old twins supplied some unrehearsed amusement. When the Duke saw a ‘Tiddlytennis’ Set, he asked the lads who were sitting at the table if they would play for him. They readily complied and the onlookers were highly amused.”

2/6, 5/-, & 7/6

TIDDLYTENNIS is a product of the Ernest Sewell Series.
TIDDLYTENNIS can be played on any table, anywhere, at any time.
TIDDLYTENNIS has the amusement, skill and fascination of all games rolled into one.
TIDDLYTENNIS is suitable for young or old.
TIDDLYTENNIS is a game for 2, 4 or more players.
TIDDLYTENNIS is entirely British.
TIDDLYTENNIS will be played in every home this year.
TIDDLYTENNIS is on sale at all Stores, Toy Shops, Sports Dealers and Stationers.
TIDDLYTENNIS is the “King” of all games.

Manufactured by THE LONDON MAGICAL Co., Francis Terrace, Junction Road, London, N.19.

WILLSONS’, LE’STER

indiviDUAL PAIRS—IP8

Sunshine

After nearly a three year hiatus, IP winx returned to DC and for the 6th time out of 8 matches, Larry was the champion. Bob, victor at IP6, took an early lead but Larry dealt him his only 2 defeats and pulled away from the field, going undefeated for the second time. A late cancellation had lowered the field to 7, introducing singles play for this first time since IP4. After averaging only 2.73 ppg in winning 6 of 24 games, solo players went 4-3 for 24 points—almost capturing 3rd place, but Dave finished strong to overtake Sunshine (and the absent Mac) for his highest finish in 3 IPs. Marg became the 13th player to take part in an IP—and the first woman.

The match had started slowly with the usual rules debate (modified perimeter) and a shorter than normal wait for a late Jim. Rick did not distribute Newswink. After lunch the pace picked up as time limit was shortened to 23 minutes. A rules and match scheduling discussion followed play before the traditional Chinese dinner. And thus concluded the first Presidents’ Day Winxend in many a year (the Friday snow did bring back travel memories).

Records set in the match included highest point total for second place (Bob) and lowest total for 3rd place (Dave). Ohio might have become the first or second state to have 4 participants over the years, depending on how one counts Rick, and possibly the first to send five (unconfirmed).

Individual Pairs 8 • 13 February 1993
Kahn Residence • Silver Spring, Maryland USA

1

Larry

Rick

6

1

Dave

Marg

Bob

(solo)

6

1

*

Jim

2

Dave

Bob

7*

0

Marg

(solo)

Larry

Jim

4

3

Rick

*

3

Rick

(solo)

5

2

Marg

*

Bob

Larry

5

2

Jim

Dave

4

Larry

(solo)

6

1

Bob

Rick

Dave

*

4

3

Jim

Marg

5

Bob

*

6

1

Dave

Rick

Larry

Marg

5*

2

Jim

(solo)

6

Larry

*

Bob

Marg

Dave

(solo)

4

3

Rick

Jim

7

Larry

Dave

6*

1

*

(solo)

Bob

Jim

5

2

Rick

Marg

Rounds 1-3 were 25 minute games
Rounds 4-7 were 23 minute games

Winker/Round

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pos

Larry Kahn

6

10

15

21

26

31½

37½

1

Dave Lockwood

1

8

10

14

15

19

25

3

Sunshine

1

4

6

10

16

21½

22½

5

Bob Henninge

6

13

18

19

25

26½

31½

2

Rick Tucker

6

9

14

15

16

19

21

6

Marg Calhoun

1

1

3

6

11

12½

14½

8

Jim Marlin

1

5

7

10

12

15

20

7

(solo)

6

6

11

17

19

23

24

4

They Came Back and We’re Glad They Did

Dave Lockwood [Faxed 21 Sep 1992]

Is this a trend, or what? Starting with the 1991 NATwA Singles and greatly spurred by the Gill Reunion, an increasing number of long-gone but not forgotten winkers are appearing at NATwA events. Sunshine & Marg started the trend by playing in the May 1991 Singles. Sunsch hadn’t played in either the Pairs of Singles since who knows when.

At Gill, in addition to the boondocked winkers like Tim Schiller and Gammer, Joe Sachs, Charles Frankston, Indian showed up, played, and have come back for more. At this year’s Pairs, such fabled Pairs as Joe & Charles (former World Pairs champions), Larry Kahn & Arye Gittelman (former World Pairs champions) and Indian & Bill Renke joined a large British contingent, as did Don Fox and Ferd.

NATwA, which might have been called the DC5 plus Ohio, had stabilized at about a dozen active players over the last 7 years. We have been successful in getting some kids to play in Ohio and in DC but only Chris and Andy Strong are able to play tournament-level winks. Roman Muszynski and Bruce Polsener were getting active but then moved away. Therefore, the return of the lost tribe is a welcome event.

The Pairs looks to be the high point of this wave. Without going so far as to speak of commitment (heaven forbid), why are these winkers returning? Most people believe their schedules are full, their responsibilities growing, and time to be a precious commodity. Why are they re-adding winks? The answer must be found among several possible factors:

Whatever the reason(s), we’re glad they’re back and hope they can teach us how to reach out to others who would enjoy our game and whom we would enjoy playing with and against. For despite this welcome development, winks needs growth for survival. Help us help the game.

Random Notes

(also appearing in Winking World 60)

From: jdporter@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Wodehouse on winks
Date: 8 Feb 93 12:50:30 GMT

This was posted to me by one Katherine Woolfitt, famed in winking circles as THE American novice, and as she has no access to the NET I thought I’d post it for her. As you can see, she appears to have discovered a hitherto unknown first draught of what later became one of the Master’s golfing stories.

THE CLICKING OF CUTHBERT
by
Pelham Grenville Wodehouse

The young man came into the back room of the pub near the college and flung his box with a clatter on the table. He sank moodily into an arm-chair and pressed the bell.

‘Waiter!’

‘Sir?’

The young man pointed at the box with every evidence of distaste.

‘You may have these squidgers,’ he said. ‘Take them away. If you don’t want them yourself, give them to one of the freshers.’

Across the room the Oldest Member gazed at him with a grave sadness over the rim of his pint glass. His eye was deep and dreamy,--- the eye of a man who, as the poet says, has seen winks steadily and seen it whole.

‘You are giving up winks?’ he said.

He was not altogether unprepared for such an attitude on the young man’s part: for from his spot against the wall near the corner tables he had observed him start out on the afternoon’s round and had seen him Poss a couple of winks in the second round after sending three winks off the table in the bringing in.

‘Yes!’ cried the young man fiercely. ‘For ever, dammit! Footling game! Blanked infernal fat-headed silly ass of a game! Nothing but a waste of time.’

The sage winced.

‘Don’t say that, my boy.’

‘But I do say it. What earthly good is winks? Life is stern and life is earnest. We live in a practical age. All round us we see foreign competition making itself unpleasant. And we spend our time playing winks! What do we get out of it? Is winks any use? That’s what I’m asking you. Can you name me a single case where devotion to this pestilential pastime has done a man any practical good?’

The sage smiled gently.

‘I could name a thousand.’

There unfortunately the manuscript breaks off. However, as a result of my own researches I can reveal that originally the heroine of the story was to be named Ermyntrude rather than Evangeline Pendlebury, the alteration being made at some stage in the course of the change of sport in the story.

Who can tell why the Master decided upon this radical alteration of his intention? Did he feel that perhaps winks was too recondite a pastime? Or did he have a very bad National Singles in the course of competition? We can only hope that further research by Miss Woolfitt can uncover the truth.

Julian ‘say Street and die’ Porter


Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
From: sachs@FID.Morgan.COM (Josef Sachs)
Subject: Did Bill Clinton cheat at tiddlywinks?
Sender: sachs@fid.morgan.com (Josef Sachs)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:42:54 GMT

Does anyone know whether Bill Clinton had any contact with winks or winkers when he was at Oxford from 1968 to 1970 on a Rhodes scholarship? Does anyone have access to Oxford records from that period?


Control, he has said, comes through knowledge, and [Tom] Cruise has immersed himself in the details of his craft. He wants to get it right. All the time. “He wants to be the best at everything he does,” says an actor friend. “It doesn’t matter if it’s tiddledywinks, racing a car or being a movie star. He’s going to be the best. That’s his number one goal. —GQ, December 1992, page 186


Richard W. Tucker

5505 Seminary Road # 1206N
Falls Church VA 22041 USA

Home Tel +1-703-671-7098
Work Tel +1-703-883-6699

Member,
American Game Collectors Association

Tiddlywinks!

Collecting antique (1888-1940) and modern (1940 to present) boxed tiddlywinks games

Tiddlywinks, Tiddledy Winks

Tiddledy Winks Tennis, Golf, Croquet, Baseball, Quoits/Rings, Football, Hop Scotch, Ten Pins

McLoughlin Brothers, E. I. Horsman Jr., Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, Selchow & Righter, J. A. Fincher, Chas. Zimmerling

and all other varieties and manufacturers!
Ephemera also wanted.

The Ratings Explication

From: Captain Redbeard <NFJI1@phx.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 92 11:55:05 BST

Here’s a brief explanation of my ratings system and the conventions I use.

Each file lists the players in rating order and gives: their new rating; their previous rating; the difference; the number of rateable games (q.v.) they have played in the past year; the number of games they have played in the past year; their p.p.g. (points per game average) in the past year; the number of rateable games they played in that tournament; the number of games they played in that tournament; their total score in that tournament; and their performance rating (q.v.) in that tournament. Asterisks denote players whose rating is provisional (fewer than thirty rated games in the past year).

[ = 1/6    ~ = 1/3    \ = 1/2    ^ = 2/3    ] = 5/6

The system works by estimating, for each game in a tournament, the average score. This is done by taking the difference in ratings (in a singles game) or the difference in average ratings (in a pairs game) and using a function some of whose values are shown in the first table (the Percentage Expectancy Table) below. Thus a difference of 100 points suggests roughly a 4-3 win to the stronger player. The new rating of a player is R + K*(S-ES) where S is the actual score, ES is the expected score, R is the old rating, and K is a number depending on the number N of games in this tournament and the number M of games in the past year. A table of values for K is shown in the second table below. Thus a game point is worth about 6 to 7 rating points if you’ve played 65 games in the past year, but only just over 4 if you’ve played 95. The M and N referred to are numbers of rateable games: a game is rateable for a player if:

        (a) the player is unrated.
or    (b) the player’s partner is rated.

Games in which a rated player partners an unrated player are only used to rate the unrated player.

The performance rating is the rating you would have had to have to give an estimated score equal to your actual score.

Percentage Expectancy Table

                           N 

               M          3       5       7          9      11      13         15

              10        33.692  28.436  24.290     20.989

              15        24.563  21.817  19.484     17.495  15.792  14.327     13.061

              20        19.287  17.610  16.128     14.817  13.654  12.619     11.697

              25        15.867  14.738  13.717     12.792  11.953  11.191     10.497

              30        13.473  12.662  11.917     11.231  10.599  10.016      9.479

              35        11.705  11.095  10.527      9.999   9.507   9.048      8.620

              40        10.346   9.870   9.424      9.005   8.611   8.241      7.893

              45         9.270   8.888   8.528      8.188   7.866   7.561      7.272

              50         8.396   8.084   7.787      7.505   7.236   6.981      6.738

              55         7.673   7.412   7.163      6.926   6.699   6.482      6.275

              60         7.064   6.843   6.632      6.429   6.235   6.049      5.870

              65         6.544   6.355   6.173      5.998   5.830   5.668      5.513

              70         6.096   5.932   5.774      5.621   5.474   5.333      5.196

              75         5.705   5.562   5.423      5.289   5.159   5.034      4.913

              80         5.362   5.235   5.112      4.993   4.878   4.766      4.658

              85         5.057   4.944   4.835      4.729   4.626   4.526      4.429

              90         4.785   4.684   4.586      4.491   4.398   4.308      4.221

              95         4.541   4.450   4.362      4.276   4.192   4.110      4.031 

Rating Points Per Game Point
N = number of games in this tournament
M = number of games in past year

  R1-R2      Expected Result R1-R2   ExpectedResult R1-R2      Expected Result

    0        3.500 - 3.500   350     5.124 - 1.876   700        6.244 - 0.756

   25        3.623 - 3.377   375     5.224 - 1.776   725        6.300 - 0.700

   50        3.747 - 3.253   400     5.322 - 1.678   750        6.353 - 0.647

   75        3.869 - 3.131   425     5.416 - 1.584   775        6.403 - 0.597

  100        3.991 - 3.009   450     5.508 - 1.492   800        6.449 - 0.551

  125        4.112 - 2.888   475     5.596 - 1.404   825        6.493 - 0.507

  150        4.232 - 2.768   500     5.681 - 1.319   850        6.535 - 0.465

  175        4.350 - 2.650   525     5.763 - 1.237   875        6.573 - 0.427

  200        4.467 - 2.533   550     5.842 - 1.158   900        6.609 - 0.391

  225        4.582 - 2.418   575     5.917 - 1.083   925        6.643 - 0.357

  250        4.695 - 2.305   600     5.989 - 1.011   950        6.674 - 0.326

  275        4.806 - 2.194   625     6.058 - 0.942   975        6.703 - 0.297

  300        4.914 - 2.086   650     6.123 - 0.877  1000        6.730 - 0.270

  325        5.020 - 1.980   675     6.185 - 0.815  1025        6.755 - 0.245 

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 18:55:48 GMT
From: Captain Redbeard <NFJI1@phx.cam.ac.uk>
To: Has He Got A Volume Control? <ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Chunder At 8000 Feet <PURVIS@vax.ox.ac.uk>,
        Quid Faciendum Est <hesiod@gn.apc.org>,
        Rick Tucker <rwtucker@starbase.mitre.org>,
        Larry Kahn <lkahn@mitre.org>

Ratings after Oxfordshire Open

[ = 1/6    ~ = 1/3    \ = 1/2    ^ = 2/3    ] = 5/6


1993  Oxfordshire Open                       Past Year       Current Tournament

                       New R Old R  Diff   RG    Pl     ppg    RG   Pl TotSc  PerfR

   Larry Kahn          2620  2620     0   49    61    4.861    0    0     0   ----

   Geoff Myers         2601  2605    -4   78    88    4.750    7    7    37   2546

   Andy Purvis         2539  2540    -1   75    87    4.705    7    7    29   2518

   Jon Mapley          2471  2471     0   54    65    4.459    0    0     0   ----

   Patrick Barrie      2450  2424    27   78    98    4.308    7    7    36   2575

  *Mike  Surridge      2444  2444     0   26    26    5.135    0    0     0   ----

   Dave Lockwood       2443  2443     0   62    62    4.411    0    0     0   ----

   Charles Relle       2430  2437    -7   59    67    4.575    7    7    32   2381

  *Arye  Gittelman     2410  2410     0   12    12    5.458    0    0     0   ----

  *Tony  Brennan       2400  2400     0    4    4     4.250    0    0     0   ----

  *Chris  Andrew       2390  2390     0   12    13    4.577    0    0     0   ----

   Richard Moore       2365  2365     0   60    67    4.522    0    0     0   ----

  *Bob  Henninge       2365  2365     0   26    26    4.115    0    0     0   ----

   Matthew Rose        2357  2363    -5   60    71    4.563    7    7    37   2304

   Alan Dean           2352  2359    -8   55    55    4.527    7    7    32   2304

   Brad Schaefer       2295  2295     0   44    44    3.602    0    0     0   ----

  *Charles  Frankston  2258  2258     0    9    9     3.611    0    0     0   ----

   Simon Gandy         2251  2323   -72   48    62    3.992    7    7    23\  2051

   Phil Scarrott       2240  2263   -23   67    68    4.279    7    7    26   2130

   Nick Inglis         2234  2200    34   78    92    3.759    7    7    29   2390

  *Don  Fox            2206  2206     0   12    12    3.125    0    0     0   ----

   Alan Boyce          2204  2204     0   40    49    4.214    0    0     0   ----

  *Sunshine            2176  2176     0   12    12    3.417    0    0     0   ----

   Rick Tucker         2166  2166     0   46    46    3.674    0    0     0   ----

   Geoff Thorpe        2157  2157     0   65    66    3.343    0    0     0   ----

  *Alex  Satchell      2132  2132     0   15    15    4.267     0   0     0    ----

  *Jim  Marlin         2128  2128     0   24    24    3.312    0    0     0   ----

   Julian Wiseman      2120  2192   -72   48    62    4.169    7    7    23\  1920

  *Joe  Sachs          2119  2119     0   14    23    3.000    0    0     0   ----

  *Jenny  Hall         2115  2115     0    2    2     5.750    0    0     0   ----

  *Jim  Carrington     2106  2106     0   15    15    4.800    0    0     0   ----

   Alasdair Grant      2088  2009    79   36    36    3.639    7    7    29   2238

  *Rob  Cartwright     2086  2086     0   28    28    4.250    0    0     0   ----

   Stu Collins         2073  2073     0   32    34    3.838    0    0     0   ----

   Jon Marchant        2068  1976    91   32    42    3.683    7    7    26   2217

   Ed Wynn             2063  2022    41   49    49    3.939    7    7    36   2174

  *Jason  Westley      2051  2125   -74   21    21    3.405    7    7    20\  1993

  *Dave  Salter        2044  2044     0    4    4     3.875    0    0     0   ----

  *David  Clarkson     2041  1992    48   27    38    3.553    2    2    12   2401

  *John  Breeze        2039  2039     0    7     7    3.857    0    0     0   ----

  *Bill  Renke         2011  2011     0    9     9    2.722    0    0     0   ----

   Anthony Heading     2001  2001     0   62    64    3.891    0    0     0   ----

  *Heather  Dean       1999  1999     0    3     3    2.333    0    0     0   ----

   Cyril Edwards       1994  2071   -76   39    51    3.275    7    7    14\  1828

   Stew Sage           1988  1903    85   68    77    3.156    7    7    29\  2303

   Tim Jeffreys        1988  2019   -31   47    47    3.564    7    7    26   1885
Steve Phillips     1987  1987    0   28   28   3.125    0    0    0   ---- *Rupert Wilson      1982  2046  -64   18   18   2.972    7    7   21   1940  Phil Carmody        1974 1964    10   46   46   3.815    7   7   24   2010  Ben Deane           1974 1864   110   53   54   3.321    7   7   29\  2264 *Ian Gameson        1970  1970    0   18   28   3.232    0    0    0   ---- *David Gamez        1941  1941    0   14   14   4.679    0    0    0   ---- *Tim Hedger         1940  1940    0    6    6   3.417    0    0    0   ----  Nick Reid           1930 1931    -1   58   59   3.508    7   7   29   1908  Gavin Keyte         1930 1917    13   70   74   3.095    7   7   19   2018  Jon Carlaw          1912 1912     0   38   38   3.368    0   0     0   ---- *Phil Clark         1903 1903     0   11   11   3.909    0   0     0   ---- *Paul Woodman       1901  1999  -99   11   11   2.409    7    7   21   1876 *Robin Smale        1890  1860   30   20   20   2.925    7    7   24   1924 *Steve Harbron      1886  1886    0   16   18   3.333    0    0    0   ----  Chris Wilson        1865 1865     0   64   64   2.562    0   0     0   ----  James Cullingham    1855 1866   -11   82   82   2.933    7   7   25   1812  Rupert Thompson     1852 1890   -38   59   70   2.817    5    5   13   1695  James Orwell        1842 1842     0   30   30   3.233    0   0     0   ----  Simon Julier        1812 1732    81   38   40   3.013    7   7   26   1928  Andy Milligan       1807 1785    22   66   66   2.902    7   7   19   1894 *Dave Rickard       1798  1798    0   15   15   2.867    0    0    0   ---- *Marg Calhoun       1791  1791    0   12   12   2.125    0    0    0   ---- *Tim Batham         1778  1778    0   14   14   3.393    0    0    0   ---- *Christine Wiggins  1764  1764    0   15   29   2.328    0    0    0   ---- *Ben Soares         1757  1757    0    7    7   3.667    0    0    0   ----  Jon Williams        1755 1785   -31   61   61   3.107    7   7   20\  1688 *Poss Ellis         1737  1737    0   25   25   2.560    0   0     0   ---- *Elizabeth Whalley  1711  1711    0   23   23   2.478    0    0    0   ----  Paul Roberts        1702 1697     5   30   30   2.767    7   7   17\  1724 *Andrew Busby       1667  1667    0    9    9   1.833    0    0    0   ---- *Barnaby Hoyal      1635  1635    0   14   14   2.357    0    0    0   ---- *David Carslake     1633  1633    0   28   29   2.362    0    0    0   ----  Chris Goddard       1623 1687   -64   57   57   2.278    7   7   12\  1475  Andrew Dominey      1610 1610     0   37   38   2.750    0   0     0   ---- *Paul Lewis         1604  1604    0   14   14   2.250    0   0    0   ---- *Kate Woolfitt      1598  1591    7   22   22   2.848    7    7   17\  1620  Naveed Chaudhri     1594 1542    52   36   36   1.875    6   6   18   1708 *MP Rouse           1576  1576    0    5    5   0.800    0    0    0   ---- *Tom Allen          1574  1574    0   14   14   3.071    0    0    0   ---- *Han Kim            1556  1556    0    2    2   3.500    0    0    0   ---- *Chris Strong       1519  1519    0    3    3   0.333    0    0    0   ---- *Sophie Agrell      1518  1518    0   10   10   1.700    0    0    0   ---- *Ed Porter          1486  1486    0   23   24   1.854    0    0    0   ---- *Kevin Hall         1475  1475    0   14   14   2.679    0    0    0   ---- *Helen Emes         1458  1458    0   15   15   3.233    0    0    0   ---- Andrew Garrard      1422 1422     0   31   31   2.548    0   0     0   ---- *Andy Strong        1422  1422    0    4    4   0.000    0    0    0   ---- *Jo Mitchell        1420  1420    0    6    6   2.167    0    0    0   ----  Simon Dean          1418 1361    58   36   36   1.986    7   7   19   1498  Julian Porter       1407 1489   -82   60   60   2.058    7   7  14\  1246 *Gavin Orpin        1405  1405    0    4    4   2.333    0   0    0   ---- *Andrew Young       1382  1382    0   26   26   1.865    0    0    0   ---- *Joseph Goodman     1359  1359    0    5    5   2.600    0    0    0   ---- *Brian Yamasaki     1353  1353    0    7    7   2.643    0    0    0   ---- *Christine Hall     1115  1115    0    3    3   1.667    0    0    0   ----

 

 

Tiddlywinks.org is the official web site of the North American Tiddlywinks Association.
Contact Rick Tucker for anything relating to tiddlywinks!
© 1994-2013 Rick Tucker.  All Rights Reserved.  Legal notice.