From: ucca61b@ucl.ac.uk (Patrick J Barrie)
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Subject: Re: Failure to free (was Gosh, look what's here!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:14:45 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

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
Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks