Round 3109 rolling scores revised.

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Shefler

unread,
Oct 6, 2020, 2:12:13 PM10/6/20
to Dixonary
[code]
                      5-Round 4-Rnd  Round    Round    Round    Round    Round
 Player                 TOTAL         3105     3106     3107     3108     3109
 -------------------  -------      -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
 Widdis, D...............  17  15     2        5*       1        5*       4*
 Lodge, T................  15  13     2        4        2        3*       4*
 Mallach, E..............  12  12   D 0        8      D 2        0        4*
 Shefler, M..............  11   6     5      D 1        2        4        0
 Naylor, S...............  11   9     2        2        2        3        2
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Madnick, J..............  10   9     1        5        2        1        1
 Abell, T................   9   7     2        0        2*       1        4
 Keating, P..............   8   7     1        1        3      D 2        3
 Shepherdson, N..........   7   6     1                 3                 3
 Mallach, A..............   7   5     2        1        3        1        0
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Barrs, J................   7   7     0        1        2*       2        2*
 Carson, C...............   6   6     0                 1        5      D 4
 Bourne, T...............   6   5     1        0        3        0        2
 Mcgill, R...............   3   0     3        0        0
 Embler, D...............   3   3     0        0        0        3        0
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Cunningham, D...........   2   2              0        2        0
[/code]

Tim Lodge

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 3:50:52 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary
It's now been more than 24 hours since Mike posted the revised rolling scores showing three of us with a score of unnatural 4. Dan's ahead in the rolling scores, so I've been expecting him to post a new word. I guess he must be otherwise engaged, so if he hasn't posted by 22:30 UTC / 2:30 PM PDT, I shall take over and post a new word myself.

- Tim L

Tim Lodge

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 3:51:26 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary
It's now been more than 24 hours since Mike posted the revised rolling scores showing three of us with a score of unnatural 4. Dan's ahead in the rolling scores, so I've been expecting him to post a new word. I guess he must be otherwise engaged, so if he hasn't posted by 22:30 UTC / 2:30 PM PDT, I shall take over and post a new word myself.

- Tim L
On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 7:12:13 PM UTC+1 Mike Shefler wrote:

Shani Naylor

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 3:56:28 PM10/7/20
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
Tony is shown in the table below with a natural 4. Doesn't that make him the winner, or am I missing something?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/36f5f5e3-100f-4060-94f1-0a15d253dc0dn%40googlegroups.com.

Efrem G Mallach

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 3:59:51 PM10/7/20
to 'Mike Shefler' via Dixonary
If memory serves, that was an error in the results table that seems to have been carried over to the rolling scores table. Tony's def got three votes, so his score should have been 3.

Efrem

======================

Tim Lodge

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 4:05:09 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary

Shani

You're absolutely right, of course.  I'm not doing well this week- that's two cases of number blindness! I'll  go back to sleep again.

-- Tim L

Daniel B. Widdis

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 4:24:09 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary
I'm sorry, I have been following the back and forth and missed that I was on top.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/27170c2d-8b86-4df6-a0c5-b237cfe18586n%40googlegroups.com.

Daniel B. Widdis

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 4:25:33 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary
But am I on top? The latest exchange indicates Tony's 4 points are valid?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/36f5f5e3-100f-4060-94f1-0a15d253dc0dn%40googlegroups.com.

Daniel B. Widdis

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 4:28:59 PM10/7/20
to Dixonary
OK, I just visited the voting thread again.

Tony got 4 votes, from Tim B., Tim L., Nancy, and Alan.

Tony should be dealing.

If Tony can't deal, I'm ready to do so.


On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:50 PM Tim Lodge <d...@timlodge.co.uk> wrote:
--

Paul Keating

unread,
Oct 7, 2020, 4:35:25 PM10/7/20
to dixo...@googlegroups.com
There is adequate precedent here. Commentary to rule 1(a) about the dealer of a new round, from The "Real" Rules:

Communication delays (608), dealer error (2505), or plain carelessness (2477), may result in two players each considering that the obligation to deal
has fallen to them. The first player to successfully publish The Word is the
dealer of the new round, even if the scoring rules and the timestamps of
competing announcements would impose dealership on the other (1668 &
1768).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages