| Player 1 |
|
#player1 Jason Jason
#player2 Scott_Jackson Scott Jackson
>Jason: AEEEFGR 8G FEE +12 12
>Scott_Jackson: AABCKWX J6 KAB +28 28
#note Scott sounded complimentary after the game. Talked like it was a thrill to beat me, congratulated me on my Arden, said he looked at my annotations and said "I was one of the 'rack-stalkers' you mentioned." First off: Yeah, I know. Second off: Should I have told him that it wasn't a compliment? He seemed to be almost proud.
>Jason: AEEGRSZ I7 Z.E +44 56
>Scott_Jackson: AACDDWX K3 ADDAX +53 81
#note Have to admit, this was a nice play.
>Jason: AAEGRSU 4H GAU. +8 64
#note Clearly best, surprisingly to me.
>Scott_Jackson: ?CCRSTW I3 C.W +11 92
>Jason: AEEHIRS L1 HIES +38 102
#note I like this play with opponent close to a bingo. Risky, yes; he could bingo through the H or trip-trip if his rack is flexible enough. But I felt it was more likely that he'd play a 70-some point bingo hooking ZEE and I could whack him back for 30-some through the H. Sim, without rack inference, says this is the play, simming four clear of the field.
>Scott_Jackson: ?ACRSTU 10C CURATeS +73 165
#note He can bingo through the H for 13 more.
>Jason: ADEJRTY 1L .ADJ +45 147
#note Needless to say, I'm glad he didn't. I love it when my plans work out.
>Scott_Jackson: INOV 7D VINO +14 179
#note (Counted as 15.) This was the only rack Scott didn't include ... if his best play was through the R (to leave fEROCITY open) or even (C)OVIN to give me E(N)ORmITY, I'll be pissed. The evil part of me wonders if he missed a nice play and is too embarrassed to admit it.
>Jason: ?EIORTY 11F YO +12 159
#note Glad I wasn't missing a bingo here ... thought I might be. Duck prefers the YO(W) fish. (-1)
>Scott_Jackson: BLMNORT H10 .NTOMB +36 215
#note Even sweeter than ADDAX, as there's really no option B here. Nice play.
>Jason: ?EGIRST 14B STERIG.a +74 233
#note Didn't see GRISETTE along row 12 ... I was already in not-so-good time shape and spent a lot of it on this turn looking for non-existent stuff from the B. I didn't think this would be held; in fact, Scott said after the game he might've challenge, except for what it gave him coming back. (-4)
>Scott_Jackson: HILRRSW 15A WHIR +43 258
>Jason: AEFILOT 12A FOLATE +32 265
#note Nice post-bingo rack, but a bad time for it. Glad Duck agrees, but this is a time where turnover's a negative ... only QS to draw in the way of power tiles. Sims neck-and-neck with OF, 9E.
>Scott_Jackson: EELORRS 11A OLE +15 273
>Jason: GIINQVY 6E QI +28 293
#note Duck likes (D)IVING. I can see it, but I still like this. (-1)
>Scott_Jackson: EELPRRS 2L .RE +14 287
>Jason: GINPUVY I13 P.Y +24 317
#note A little frustrating that through ten turns I've lost less than seven equity points and still in a dogfight with a mid-1500s player. But, I've just killed the last good bingo lane (that I can see) and am feeling good about my chances to win.
>Scott_Jackson: EELOPRS 2C ELOPERS +74 361
#note Recognizing phony four *FAIL*! Ugh. I held, for what that's worth (nothing). The ironic thing is if I don't challenge ELOPERS vs. Big Fisz in Pittsburgh, I may challenge both words. After a challenge, I'm in great shape. He's got decent opening plays, though (PRO(OF), BYE). *sigh* I just gave him too much credit.
>Jason: AGINNUV 1A VINA +29 346
#note I really don't know why I didn't challenge ... this rack puts me in lousy shape in a race situation. This is the frickin' second time since I hit 1900 that I lost a game on a phony three-to-make-four (the other one I had challenged off). Inexcusable.
>Scott_Jackson: DEEIIRU 3A IRE +12 373
#note So, my agent in the field (read: Viebranz) tells me later that at lunch, Scott was recounting our game. He said something like: "I beat Idalski because I got away with SCAW*. He's going to Can-Am; he shouldn't be making mistakes like that!" Ouch. Trashed by a 1500s player. To some degree, though, it's sad because it's true. I thank George for telling me, but it wasn't exactly what someone with my admittedly not great self-confidence wanted to hear.
>Jason: AGNNOOU A8 GAN.. +27 373
#note D'oh! Wrong one! GON(OF)! I was trying to keep ONO for 21 at 1F intact.
>Scott_Jackson: DEILNTU 4C DUNT +15 388
#note What really horked me off was that, even after I heard Viebranz' story, the guy kept trying to suck up to me, asking how I was doing, etc. And he rack-stalked me a couple times, so even though I suck I'm apparently interesting enough to watch (maybe it's the NASCAR/car-wreck theory).
>Jason: IMNOOTU J12 UT +7 380
#note Proud to see this. And when I saw my leave was IMNOO, I thought: "Hey, there's a five in this!" And, the spot is unblockable. Andy Bohnsack commented after our game, "Wow, you had some clunky racks!" I responded: "Well, I drew well enough to win." "So you won?" Andy said. "No, but it wasn't the tiles' fault."
>Scott_Jackson: EIL 6J ..IL +8 396
#note (T)I(R)L at E12 and L(O)I(N) at E1 are his only wins. Of course, Quackle assumes opponent knows his fives, which Scott's didn't. Looking at the standings Sunday morning, Scott lamented his 2-6 day but said: "I'm just as good as Idalski!" Nicely worded. I came dangerously close to uttering the first words that popped to mind: involving the phrase "in your dreams" and an expletive.
>Jason: IMNOO 11J MONOI +19 399
>Jason: IMNOO -- -19 380
#note Yeah, picked the wrong one. It's NOMOI. Gave it to him twice. This is the golfing equivalent of hitting a good drive, duffing the second, hitting a great recovery to three feet ... and missing the putt. Again, *not* the way to start the tournament. And, in the words of Keller (not said meanly), "You can't make that mistake at Can-Am." Indeed I can't.
>Scott_Jackson: E 15H ..E +8 404
#note Other than SCAW* and MONOI*, I played near-flawlessly. And, as the saying goes, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" This'll be a stain on my psyche for a bit. Thanks to those (Keller, Frank, George, perhaps others) whose advice was unanimous: "Forget about it/him." It's such good advice, I might follow it. But I haven't yet.
>Scott_Jackson: (IMNOO) +14 418
|
