NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/games/tiddlywi/30

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 5.9 KB | 126 lines

Newsgroups: alt.games.tiddlywinks
Path: sparky!uunet!s5!rr5!sachs
From: [e-mail] (Josef Sachs)
Subject: Re: Failure to free (was Gosh, look what's here!)
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 26 Jan 93 11: 14:45 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 103
Sender: [e-mail] (Josef Sachs)
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., Fixed Income Research Dept., NYC
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:04:57 GMT

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 11:14:45 GMT, [e-mail] (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.
[e-mail]             \    1251 Avenue of the Americas
Fixed Income Research Department  \   New York, NY  10020 USA
[phone]                     \