🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick, would you mind summarising the rules? I think my copy of the
rules predates the nominated-wink rule. If this is what I think it is
(opponents get to _play_ a squopping wink) then I see no problem with
the US rules.

Also, the English rules are ludicrous as they stand. It is perfectly
legal, though outrageously unsporting, to play a pile shot in such a
way that no wink could possibly be freed, so it's silly to prevent the
playing of free winks, into the pot or otherwise.
--
Alasdair.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk

In article <1993Jan21.130035.26207@ucl.ac.uk>, ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie) writes:
> 
> Anyone intending to enter the Marchant Trophy should let me know, as it's
> likely to have some action in February. (That particular tournament is only
> open to teams based in the U.K.).
>
Well, I know OUTS want to put forward a team or two, to see if we can repeat
last year's triumph, i.e. OUTS losing the tournament despite all the people
playing in it being members of OUTS.  On March 6th there should be an
opportunity for anybody wishing to play against our teams to do so in Oxford.
> 
> Happy brundling,
> Patrick Barrie
> (ucca61b@uk.ac.ucl)

Yo ho,

Julian Porter

ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

>Patrick, would you mind summarising the rules? I think my copy of the
>rules predates the nominated-wink rule. If this is what I think it is
>(opponents get to _play_ a squopping wink) then I see no problem with
>the US rules.

I'll put a copy of the current rules in the post to you. I could, of course,
transmit the whole lot into alt.games.tiddlywinks but it is extremely long
and tedious. So instead here's a summary of the dreaded rule 11:
(1) After a squop up, get n free turns where n is the number of winks on the
field of play neither squopped nor squopping.
(2) After that obliged to free one (or more) of opponents' winks on the first
available _shot_ (ETwA rules), or _turn_ (NATwA rules). This means in Britain 
you are not allowed to attempt to pot a wink and then play a freeing shot, but
have to play the freeing shot immediately, otherwise it's a failure-to-free.
(3) If there is a failure to free, then ETwA rules proscribe a "nominated wink"
(the equivalent of a free ball in snooker) where you can play an opponent's 
wink as if it were your own. I understand NATwA rules are currently in a state
of flux on this; they've recognised the old moving-a-wink-aside rule is often
unworkable, and several of them have indicated to me that they'll happily 
change to the nominated wink rule if ETwA changes to the freeing on first
available _turn_ rule (in point 2). (Any knowledgeable Americans out there?)

>Also, the English rules are ludicrous as they stand. It is perfectly
>legal, though outrageously unsporting, to play a pile shot in such a
>way that no wink could possibly be freed, so it's silly to prevent the
>playing of free winks, into the pot or otherwise.

This is no longer the English rules (but may still be the American). In the 
English rules the only way to prevent a wink being freed is to make a Thorpe's 
ring of all winks and that constitutes the end of the game anyway!

Hope that satisfactorily explains the situation.

Patrick "Bonecrusher" Barrie, ucca61b@uk.ac.ucl

In article <1993Jan23.132331.30889@ucl.ac.uk> ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie) writes:
>>Also, the English rules are ludicrous as they stand. It is perfectly
>>legal, though outrageously unsporting, to play a pile shot in such a
>>way that no wink could possibly be freed, so it's silly to prevent the
>>playing of free winks, into the pot or otherwise.
>
>This is no longer the English rules (but may still be the American). In the
>English rules the only way to prevent a wink being freed is to make a Thorpe's
>ring of all winks and that constitutes the end of the game anyway!

I meant "deliberately play the freeing shot in such a wimpy fashion that
it would not succeed".  For example:

Big red is on little green, which is on little yellow.  Blue is free
and pottable.  It is red to free.  Red thinks about percentages and
decides that there is more chance of red freeing yellow in the freeing
shot, than when the opponents play it as a nominated wink (don't ask
me why).  So red just gives the big red a little tap and fails to free.

(Of course, this is where the absence of the nominated wink rule turns
a situation that is merely subtle into one that's grossly unfair.)

p.s. in a pairs game, who gets to play the nominated wink?

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:47:17 GMT, ag129 (Alasdair Grant) said:

	ag129> p.s. in a pairs game, who gets to play the nominated wink?

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

(a) When all the unpotted winks of one partnership are squopped, the
    opposing partnership is obliged to free at least one of the squopped
    winks.  Before doing so, the squopping partnership may play one turn
    per wink on the field of play which was neither squopping nor squopped
    after the shot which caused this Rule to be invoked.  These are called
    "free turns", and are shared between the two colours in normal rotation,
    even if a colour cannot play at a particular turn.
(b) A freeing shot is a shot which leaves an opponent's wink unsquopped, one
    which pots the sixth wink of any colour (after which Rule 8 applies) or
    a shot which terminates the game according to Rule 6 (b).  One must be
    played no later than the first shot of the turn following completion of
    free turns, except when the number of free turns is zero and the first
    of the squopping partnership has no playable winks.  In this case his
    partner must free on his first shot.  N.B. A shot which is forfeited
    owing to Rule 7 (a) is always counted in the timing of a freeing shot,
    and the playability of a free wink.
(c) Free turns cease whenever a freeing shot is played.  Thereafter, until
    their opponents have a turn with a playable wink, the squopping pair
    must leave an opponent's wink free after each shot played.  This wink
    must be of the same colour as the wink free prior to the shot, unless
    the other colour is given an opportunity to play first.  If both squopped
    colours become free, the first to play must be left free after each shot.
(d) If a freeing shot is not played as required by section (b), or a wink is
    squopped contrary to section (c), the turn in which the offence occurs is
    terminated, and the offended partnership is awarded a "nominated wink".
    For the first shot of the turn immediately following the failure to free,
    the player due to play the next colour shall nominate a playable wink of
    any colour and play it as if it were his own.  If this shot fails to free
    any of the squopped partnership's winks, free turns are recounted and
    start immediately.  If in the playing of the nominated wink any of the
    nominated colour is potted, it will ultimately count for the opposition,
    but the player may continue the turn, playing any wink of his own colour
    freed by the previous shot.  If a wink of the nominated colour leaves the
    field of play, the player forfeits the next shot due to be played with his
    own colour.
    If the failure to free occurs on the final turn of the fifth round after
    expiry of the time limit, the next colour in sequence shall be entitled to
    one extra turn, commencing with a nominated wink.
(e) 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, and Rule 9 (b) applies from then.

So, for those needle-in-haystack-seekers, the answer is "the player due to play
the next colour" ... "immediately following the failure to free".  So if yellow
fails to free, blue plays a nominated green or yellow wink.  Clear enough?

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?

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)

This leaves the squopping team with the opportunity to try to maximize their
score (as in the classic example of attempting to pot out on the "freeing
turn", even if the potting color is not squopping any opponents), while
providing a penalty in case the "free after free turns" injunction is dis-
obeyed.

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 labelled "Match Play
Tiddlywinks as approved by the National Tiddlywinks Associations") makes no
mention of any such rule.
-- 
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                     \

>In article <1993Jan21.130035.26207@ucl.ac.uk>, ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie) writes:
>> 
>> Happy brundling,
>> Patrick Barrie

Now let's see.  "Brundling"?  There is a rare winking term, "trundle",
meaning to shove a wink under another one (i.e., sub).  So does
"brundling" mean trundling around breakfast or brunchtime?

 - Rick Tucker  rwtucker@mitre.org

In <1993Jan23.132331.30889@ucl.ac.uk> ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie) writes:

>ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

>(2) After that obliged to free one (or more) of opponents' winks on the first
>available _shot_ (ETwA rules), or _turn_ (NATwA rules). This means in Britain 
>you are not allowed to attempt to pot a wink and then play a freeing shot, but
>have to play the freeing shot immediately, otherwise it's a failure-to-free.

Hmm.  Haven't you Brits caved in to the NATwA "turn" here yet?

>(3) If there is a failure to free, then ETwA rules proscribe a "nominated wink"
>(the equivalent of a free ball in snooker) where you can play an opponent's 
>wink as if it were your own. I understand NATwA rules are currently in a state
>of flux on this; they've recognised the old moving-a-wink-aside rule is often
>unworkable, and several of them have indicated to me that they'll happily 
>change to the nominated wink rule if ETwA changes to the freeing on first
>available _turn_ rule (in point 2). (Any knowledgeable Americans out there?)

I still think the ETwA nominated-wink rule is an abomination since any
winks of the nominated color potted during the shot are thereafter
owned by the color shooting, not the color of the wink.  And what if
one or more winks go off the table, of either the shooting color or
the color shot?  This nominated-wink rule needs a lot of clean-up
before I will support it.  The concept of shooting a nominated wink to
resolve the failure-to-free problem does have potential, however.
(That's the first time you've heard THAT from me.)  I also think that
it is too strong a remedy for the squopped-out pair to be able to nominate any
free on the mat to shoot.  Some restrictions should be provided.

Plus the ETwA 6th round shot rule is stupid.  Get rid of it!

>>Also, the English rules are ludicrous as they stand. It is perfectly
>>legal, though outrageously unsporting, to play a pile shot in such a
>>way that no wink could possibly be freed, so it's silly to prevent the
>>playing of free winks, into the pot or otherwise.

>This is no longer the English rules (but may still be the American).

This is still legal in the American rules.  The American rules are
predicated not on requiring a player to make a shot of a certain kind
(e.g. one which frees an opponent), but provides a mechanism to get
a wink free (currently, by moving aside winks to reveal one).  I
believe most Americans would prefer to make whatever choice of shot
they desire and let the rules provide a way to resolve problems
resulting thereto.  Witness the (still-not-official NATwA) Perimeter
rule, which permits a winker to send a wink off the table, but
provides that the opponents can place it anywhere they want on the
perimeter of the mat.

 - Rick Tucker   rwtucker@mitre.org

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 sub-committee 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 labelled "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

>>>>> 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 interpretted 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                     \