From: Dina Bennett <bennettd@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:57:50 -0500
Subject: RE: Consensus Game #1, Turn #5
Message-id: <01BD2F08.E3BB7900.bennettd@ERE.UMontreal.CA>

From: Rich Baker [SMTP:rgb5@cornell.edu]
Sent: February 1, 1998 5:55 AM
To: crossword-games-pro@MIT.EDU
Subject: Consensus Game #1, Turn #5

(Of course, if you had listened to me, we wouldn't have set up the h column, and the PLAZA-s hook wouldn't be worth much. As I pointed out, there isn't much use setting up hot spots that we have almost no chance of using very soon.)

Just becuz it didnt work out this time (yet) doesnt mean we didnt choose correctly last time. At the time we were overwhelming favorites to hit one of the two openings, with our most likely scenario being a play along row 15 that hooked plaza and killed the second opening. Right now we are only slight underdogs to get one of those spots.

I vote CUlLIONS at 3f.

Not sure if I'd have seen Cocounsel over the board, but hyphenophobia would have prevented me from playing it with all the other roughly equal options.

Cousinly is better "bingo-defense" as it exposes LY instead of NS, but Cullions is less likely to give up a high scoring nonbingo play, especially if opponent drew a Uless Q. Cocounsel sets up another S hook, which altho likely to be inconsequential right now, is more likely to hurt us than help us a few turns down the road.

for what its worth- not only can we infer no U on Johns previous rack, we can also infer no L or W, A, or G.

David Boys 2034