3-2 again

First the bingos:

CLE[A]NSED
ATONIES
QUAYL[I]kE
SNORERS
VENTA[I]LS
WEENIER
READ[O]UTS
PaLFREY
RENAILS

Yeah, ATONIES again.

The first rack, the first game, my opponent plays JAWER* for 46, and I have a 94 point double double through and no sevens if I challenge it off.  I moaned (really!) and thought for about half a second that perhaps it was new and then said, to myself, "the hell with it" and played the double double.  I NEVER know what to do in that situation.

Statistical anomaly:  I have gone first once in the last 10 games.

I like this club.  Quirky, bright people, good games.  There's one person I can have difficulty getting along with, but I'm learning skillz what with the basenjis and positive reinforcement, and I'm hoping to learn patience, at the very least.  I do a lot of self-talk when I deal with that person.  "It's not who they are; it's their disorders, whatever they may be."  This is not a foolproof method.

I'm learning more about the holes in my game these days.  So look out.

Full Disclosure: the bingos

It's a rather boring list, with a significantly higher percentage of sevens than usual, and no nines (18 sevens and 12 eights). I suspect that the greater number of sevens is a factor of both the boards and the immersion in the new sevens. I was slightly more wired to look for them this tournament than usual. I had three games with no bingos at all, which seems like a high percentage.

RETASTE
EARBUdS
STRIKES
LINGUAE
[R]UNAGaTE
DISTRuS[T]
OUTLAND
STOrIES
[I]NTERAGE
DENTAl[I]A
AMITIES
PER[I]NEAL
V[E]RBOTEn
ENTERIC
DARIOLE
ENDIVEs
TINWO[R]KS (dbl-dbl)
LAAGERS
THEOR[I]Es
[B]ANNERET
GoaL[L]ESS (trpl-trpl for 113 -- still seems like an almost wasteful use of those lovely tiles)
SURlIER
ALATION
LEVEEIN[G]
VOTIvES
C[O]GNATES
HEEDINg
TONGERS
LUNGYIS
PAINTED

I missed a relatively common bingo at the start of one of my games. Opening rack, and I'm certain -- CERTAIN -- that there is a solution. I'm not going to admit to the word, so don't ask. But my question is... how long do I look for it? I never found it and eventually played something else. When you know -- I don't mean that you suspect, you KNOW -- there's something there, how long do you look? My self-talk went like this: okay, look, if you miss the best play, you have to still make the second best play and do it with purpose. And so I did. And I really sincerely hope that no one saw that rack.

Back in the Saddle

I'm not sure what my expectations were for this tournament. I had nerves galore. People kept saying: "what are you worried about??" Things to worry about included:


1. I had to be really sure of my words. The spidey sense gets lulled when all you play are ISC games. I mischallenged RIsKERS and let TUSKIER# get by me without even a blink. Weirder, in one game I hooked an L onto OCA to make LOCA … and my opponent said a few minutes later: "Oh! I didn't notice you did that!" as though LOCA was no good, and I was rattled enough to think maybe it wasn't! But I looked at her blankly and cheerfully (yes, one can do that), and she muttered at her pen and played one of her three "out of the bag" sevens of the game. Grrr.

I digress.

2. I worried about luck. I draw well, but I know there will be stretches where it doesn't look like it, and so I worried that one of those stretches would be during this tournament. If I look at the "numbers", it looks like I was a little short on the power tiles, but I think that is misleading. In the games where I was outblanked, I drew great bingo racks and was able to stay right in them.

Luck WAS odd in this one. Four of my six losses were blowouts. It's hard to say they were unwinnable: I can point to at least one early error in each game that would have changed the game's flow considerably. So I can't blame tiles.

3. I worried about how I would feel looking over at the division 1 players, and that I would be jealous that John got to play in that division. (I was, a little.)

4. Sleep. Sleep is always an issue for me at tournaments. Ambien knocks me out, no problem, but there is a fuzz factor in the morning. It's tempting to blame my losses on this, since ALL my losses were the first games of the day. But that's not really accurate. Was it a factor? I'm going to compare general performance in the first games against general performance in the later games, but if it's a factor, I suspect it's a minor one. I did, however, take Ambien at 8:30 on Saturday night to try to get it out of my system earlier. I think that helped a little on Sunday.

5. I worried that there would be a kid health crisis. I checked my phone excessively. During the awards ceremony, I noticed that Greg had called and I was terrified for an instant that something had happened. I had to go outside and call him back to make sure things were okay. But I think this was a good way to get back in the tournament saddle. In my heart, I really did know it would be okay to play again. I just had to … do it.

So… I went 12-6 and came in sixth. I particularly enjoyed three of the games: the game with Diana Grosman, which was a quietly excellent game that I barely managed to win by 2; the game with Mike Eldeiry which was a barn-burner from start to finish and just, well, FUN; and the game with Diane Firstman, which I almost didn't get to play. The pairings were weird, and some of us went out in the hallway to "discuss" this with the directors. (For instance, the guy in second place wasn't going to be allowed to play the first place guy.) We and common sense prevailed, and we went to KOH format. Sheesh. In our game, I had an early 120-ish lead, and I kept it… but at the end, with BBIQTTX and two in the bag and a 100 point lead and an open line that I couldn't completely block and bingoey tiles unseen — I had to do some serious thinkin'. (Yeah, that looks like bad rack management, but, um, well, it's not as bad as it looks.)

Games like those make me keep playing.

And the people are the other reason. There was a church service going on in another ballroom (the preacher at one point said something like "you know how babies are really cool when they're newborn and then you don't like them so much when they get older", which baffled me no end, but maybe I missed a theological point). Someone said "we have OUR church" and talked about our dictionary bibles, and we tee-hee-ed. But there is something in that. The Scrabble community is like my tribe. I looked around several times in great (sappy) happiness. The people — my friends — were glad to see me, and I was glad to see them, and there is no substitute for that.

Edited to add: I mean no criticism of the directors re: the last round pairings! The computer was spitting out inexplicable things and they were working hard to make it right.

What is the footprint the player leaves, in general? Go look at a bricap game on isc and blur your eyes so you can't see the letters. Look at the shape of bri's plays versus his opponents'. (The two-color thing on isc helps this tremendously.) Look at a bunch. Okay, then look at some pakorn games, some other top player games. Look at the shape of what they do. Keep your eyes crossed :-). This is not about open vs. closed. This is about domination.

Sunday games

A grand time. I forgot how much I like the Game Parlor, for one thing. It's terrifically nerdy. I will do some Christmas shopping there next week, both to support the place and get a better grip on my Christmas list. And it's so good for me to have human grownup contact. So good.

The games were great. I drew marvelously, as usual, and went 4-1. Alyssa kept me from having a perfect record. The game we played is scary to me. We were neck and neck, trading decent drek-clearing plays. Then she won. I know there were plays in between, but that's my perception of the arc. Tie, tie, tie, game over. And I didn't even break 300.

I allowed two phoney bingoes in the evening, both strategically rationalizable -- tressing* one short of a double word that gave me a good comeback (and I didn't hate the word all that much, either. The "word".) -- and trancer* which I DID hate but theoretically could have lost had it been good. I chickened out of a seven which I know perfectly well and will not admit to publicly. I also chickened out of a five.

We had a field trip in the middle. Brian, Alyssa, and I (and Brian's really cute and friendly dog) went to Wendy's. The highlight of this field trip was the courteous counter person asking Alyssa if she would rather have old cold chicken or fresh hot chicken. I can't imagine it was really an option in his mind...

Then again, one can't make inferences about what a person is thinking, can one?

I sometimes hear Scrabble players say -- usually intermediate level players -- that they are concentrating on "strategy". Once they learn the words, they say, they'll be unbeatable. To which I say... nah.

Here's the problem I have with this kind of thinking.

(I'm rereading George R. R. Martin's sprawling fantasy world series at the moment. You'll see.)

The young lads wishing to become knights train in the courtyards with wooden swords. They learn fancy footwork and how to size up an opponent and what works and what doesn't work. They build their muscles and endurance. When the time finally comes for tournaments, they are as ready as they can be. They go into the ring with sword -- real sword -- in hand.

What is our equivalent? Simming, to an extent. Going over games. Arguing positions. Thinking about why one play is better than another. Open vs. closed. Sizing up opponents.

But when we go into the ring, no one hands us our real sword. If we don't have it -- we are playing in a real tournament with a wooden sword! We can dance around all we like. We can know that what we now need to do is open up this quadrant using only three tiles and preserving our best chances to bingo here AND here... but if we don't have the words -- short and long -- who cares if we know the theory? We're dead.

Craft your sword.

Learn.
The.
Words.

Laura and K.C. were taking on John, as our numbers were odd. (And some odder than others.)

They were debating -- aloud -- whether to play a particular phoney. And John was assuring them, with no sincerity whatsoever, that he wouldn't challenge it.

Laura: "I do think our other phoney may be good, though."

I love Scrabble.

I don't like it when folks choose not to play tournaments because of their divisional placement... and I'm musing about doing just that.  If I have the time and resources to play just ONE tournament for the rest of the year (really since BAT), do I really want to play division two?  No, I really don't.

I'm getting some pressure to play it, since it's in my backyard.

Bah.  I'm really on the fence here.

Three more team games at Scrabble club Tuesday night, this time as Mosaic. Mosaic's experience as a team did make a difference; I'm not sure how to quantify it. I know it affected our time management. We KNOW each other's strengths and weaknesses; we don't have to spend time arguing over which decision is better in a certain scenario. (Although we still do at times.) We defer to the "strong" one in a lot of areas. This saves time. We have also developed some shorthands for things.

We each track, which helps our accounting. We each write the racks (mostly out of habit).

We had several plays where our entire "collaboration" consisted of "that?" "Yeah." "Wait, what about…" "It's okay, because of…" "Oh, yeah." With no pointing, writing down, anything. Can't beat telepathy, man.

Our opponents, Cheezchick and Ataraxy, joined later by Mrsscheisskopf, were a blast. They are hilarious and sharp. We kept them in time trouble, which I'm convinced was pretty much our only advantage (that and the incredible patented Marsh Luck which has helped me out of many a jam.)

I really am lucky. I have proof.

And Scrabble today!

Three team games with Bob and Vince.  The team won every time.  If I'm remembering correctly, and of course I am, this means that the team has never lost.  Don't underestimate how much stronger two heads are than one.  Far better draws?  Blanks growing on trees?  Too bad.  The team wins.  (Mosaic is quite a bit stronger than its component parts of Marsh and JVP.)

This particular session, I happened to be on the team every game, woohoo.  Only one triple-triple, but it was a fun one... bONE[F]IsH.  The rest of the stuff was fairly pedestrian:  OUTWITS, BRAI[N]IER, GOORALS, TRENDI[E]R, OUTLIER, ARISTAE, VELOuRS, and TRAINER.  Anything else?  VOTIVE now takes an S.  Lots of good hard racks with tricky solutions.

The sun is shining, the kids are here until 6, and I'm doing okay.

The most organized study method on the planet.

This is the way it works:

Play.
Write down words you miss.
Look up ones you don't know for hooks, etc.
Do it many times.

John and I both "finished" work by five. (In other words, we said we're going to club, this stuff can WAIT.) Don't tell the kids, but we went to Burger King on the way, because I had not planned ahead and made nice healthy sandwiches. We had to decompress from various work and life things throughout the day, but fortunately DC has lots and lots and lots of traffic which made the commute long enough to do so. Ha ha.

And then we were at club. I have really missed it.

I start the night off with a phoney, which pleases me! PREBOrN. My biggest problem in this game has been nerve. I need to play things I'm not 100 percent sure of. So yay for phoneys! (It stayed on the board, which pleased me even more.) On the way home, some three hours later, the only solution to that rack finally occurs to me.

Honestly, there were very few strategic issues or major puzzles. It was just fun, mind-satisfying, good Scrabble. My time was a problem. I went down to the final seconds in two of the three games. I had to figure out a winning out-in-three in the second game, which was fairly tricky and involved setting up a blockable out-in-two. Okay, so that was a little strategic and if I am feeling motivated later, I may post that endgame.

I was so happy to see the people. Brief little catch-ups, bantering, minor kibitzing. I went 2-1.

It was good.