| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 SB Susan Bertoni
#player2 JJB John J. Bulten
>SB: AIM 8F AMI +10 10
#note 1:19 [23:41] JJB anticipated going first but when the smoke cleared he was assigned second for the fourth time in five games. (The system will correctly give him three firsts afterward.) So SB gets to set up the board with a brief vowel dump. Quackle prefers 8h by 0.5.
>JJB: AHIOPUX 7F HOAX +35 35
#note 1:01 [23:59] It would seem that hoax 35 is a hardly arguable best play, but JJB didn't check on hm! It turns out that ouph scores 28, leaves AIX with very slight negative synergy (much better than IPU), and is preferred by 2.7 points of static value. Always triple-check when there's time. (And, please, no amphioxus jokes.)
>SB: AELV 9E VEAL +23 33
#note 1:16 [22:25] SB can also parallel park perfectly.
>JJB: AAEIPRU D8 AUREI +20 55
#note 1:06 [22:53] JJB continues to favor turnover while permitting negative synergy, showing off the hook (uveal) and dump instead. Cautious search would turn up paua/pail/ax 23, with EIR 1.5 (5.6 ahead), or vau 12 with AEIPR 7.4.
>SB: ?HIORSS 11C H.ROISmS +70 103
#note 3:47 [18:38] And SB draws into a clear bingo for a sizable lead. Many are available; to cash both H and X she could play sourish/sail/ox 80. Also notable, sho/soma/hail/ox 28 (IRS? 38.0) rates higher than the lowest bingo.
>JJB: AOOPSTT 6H TOP +24 79
#note 2:00 [20:53] Again JJB writes down a valid bingo, patoots, and laughs at it. It scores 78 with either thae/soma or pail/ax (46.6 diff). Going for top/tail/ox he should have preferred topo anyway.
>SB: NOZ 8A ZON. +39 142
#note 0:53 [17:45]
>JJB: ABORSTW H11 .WOBS +42 121
#note 0:56 [19:57] Now JJB finds himself in the city of Barstow with no bingos. A little calculation would show that the added synergy of S with his preferred leave of ART is likely to be much higher than the S's standard static value of 8: it's 13.2. This allows bow/box/op 32 to be better than the outstanding swobs, by 3.2.
>SB: ?ACDLOR 15A CORDiAL. +86 228
#note ~0:45 [~17:00] SB will be happy to know that her productive rack is even better with JJB's opening. If he had played bow 5i, she would lose both cordials/caldrons 86 and collard/cordial (with cox) 84, but would be compensated with caroled/bowl 83.
>JJB: AAEFQRT 6D QAT +23 144
#note 1:06 [18:51] Now behind by 107, JJB needs a bingo plus to compensate. On this board he has the luxury to hold qat/thae (or qats j8 15) for another turn if there is a strong premium elsewhere. And there is: fab/fa/al 31, keeping a safe AEQRT, valuing 5.7 better. However, AEFR 4.3 is within safe bingo distance.
>SB: J -5 +0 228
#note ~0:08 [16:52] Providentially SB gets one of those racks that isn't worth even writing down accurately. This does no serious injury to her spread and evaluation.
>JJB: AEEEFKR K2 FAKEER +32 176
#note 1:19 [17:32] JJB knows how to turn over this rack back into a positive value (E 0.3). For sheer points, 14f commends itself with kebar 41 or kab 37, with values up to 3.6 higher; but neither choice is as close to a bingo as previous leaves. JJB's consonantal placement allows hoaxer to tempt both players.
>SB: DEU 4I DU.E +18 246
#note 2:11 [14:41] After having turned over both blanks, SB is plagued by a run of mediocre racks, making the best of them.
>JJB: DEFGIIV 2I VI.FED +36 212
#note 1:44 [15:48] At least this ugly rack has a standout dump available and JJB can pull the trigger on it in time.
>SB: EERW 1L EWER +38 284
#note 1:03 [13:38] The anticipated overlap response is quite helpful to SB.
>JJB: AGINRTT 13G R.TATING +72 284
#note 1:04 [14:44] Finally JJB draws into an obvious bingo, irrespective of leave choices. This exactly ties the game and so there is still much strategy to employ for either player to win.
>SB: ENN J4 .N.EN +25 309
#note 3:24 [10:14] After 31 seconds, SB must stop to handle JJB's overdraw, returning G from EGU (another -ing is a risk!) SB herself will draw the remaining four Ns over the course of the game: she relieves herself of two of them with this useful insertion, including hoaxer.
>JJB: BDEPSTU N10 BUD.E +30 314
#note 3:24 [11:20] Once again, JJB writes down a valid bingo and cannot believe it exists, and this time the judgment is shared by others who review the case later. The play is dubstep/duked, and John's only thought is that Budapest won't play and he will be laughing with his son about how dubstep played and couldn't possibly be a word. (Just like his judgment of patoots!) Further, he didn't even need to trust dubstep if he had studied up to know subdepot 80 (best, at 40.4 above his play). He does allow one redeeming feature to his play, though: knowing he is basically holding two of the three last hooks onto budge 30, he puts that down with intent to triple on one of the two lanes. Another strategy would have been to insert pub 12j 29, with DEST rated at 16.3 and synergistic with O in column B. Bedu 14j 30 is a nice underlap but there is no point in taunting an S-less opponent with a tempting spot that does not take an S.
>SB: CEILM O8 CLIME +42 351
#note 1:07 [9:07] SB replies forcefully. JJB's hunch is correct that she will likely not steal row 15; given her known tiles her only chance for best play there was if she held lucite 43 at this point. However, clime is the safest play in most cases, unless she already held the G for glime instead.
>JJB: EIOPSTY 15K PIETY +43 357
#note 4:09 [7:11] Now JJB sees the natural seven (isotype) and is finally absolutely confident, but there's no place for it. His piety 43 is an impressive use of his setup, leaving one in the bag; but much sharper, and bingo equivalent, would have been to calculate poesy 14b 63 with five twos (diff of 12.8). The difference in win percentage is over 15%. Pity 46 is also very comparable to piety.
>SB: JNO 14B JO +38 389
#note 1:44 [7:23] SB is able to cash the J in the open overlap lane. The only better play would have been if she held jura 10b 38 and if it gave a better leave. Will this lead be enough to overcome her drawing the last tile?
>JJB: GIILOSY 14E OY +27 384
#note 5:44 [1:27] Down 32, JJB finally has the leisure to verify tracking and calculate an endgame closely (though his more pressured endgame gut calls were not out of line except for failing to milk the Q). Sizily* is tempting but will not carry the day. Syli plays twice (vid or hoaxers) but GIO does not go out. Sigil does play in two places, close enough for his purposes (and if he had spotted sigloi b4 the choice would be even clearer). Opponent can still block both sigil locations by hooking unpent (e.g. tang/tung), so it would be necessary to regroup (literally) into sigloi, but playing off OY should win, according to the estimate. Thus, oy 27. This is not optimal because boy and yo slot through 14j for 31 instead; and SB asked afterward why boy was not played, as it would have blocked her first choice. Oy 27, tang/tung 15, sigloi 11+4 nets 27 to JJB; boy/yo would net 31. What else? (Interestingly, ilia 8 might be considered as setting up both goosy and yogis; but it also sets up SB to escape with the surprise antigun!) Reversing the order, sigil 24, bag 19, oy 27+8 would net 40 due to getting the value first; no other combo packs this power. So the play is sigil/hoaxers for 13 better spread. In fact, oy sets JJB up to lose by 5 if SB spots a block.
>SB: AGNNTU 14H .AG +19 408
#note 0:16 [7:07] SB also has time to track and calculate, but doesn't note that unpent is a key hook and tang or tung 15 would reduce JJB's score by the same 13, so she gives those points back to him by playing bag, equivalent to tang/tung otherwise. With JJB's victory margin of 8, this means that tang/tung would have won by 5 on the last turn. Further, gude 12l 20 in the alternative would also tie the game, being an improvement by exactly 8: 1 point of score, same leave, but 7 points in blocking one sigil. Missing these two means of improving her standing was the final decisive point of this game.
>JJB: GIILS L7 SIGIL +24 408
#note 0:19 [1:08] JJB is able to breathe freely and conclude his not-too-mistaken endgame as intended, after recovering from a deficit of 107.
>JJB: (NNTU) +8 416
#note Though SB did not report her racks, she is one of those compact players who reveals very little error in play, while most of JJB's plays were suboptimal, most notably staring off two good neologisms. Known points available: JJB 13, SB 23. Overall points available: SB 23.5+, JJB 133.6. |
