Why? It's his timer running down. Why would it not be acceptable to hold for as long as you want? If my opponent wants to waste that much time over a simple hold, I welcome it.
Watching these videos is dangerous... yesterday I spent a few seconds considering a play of GIEPA before remembering where I learned the word from Keep it up Mack
Hahaha maybe I need to add a liability disclaimer to these videos "Mack cannot be sued for damages if you lose a Scrabble tournament because you played a phony mentioned in one of his videos" 😂
I mean, if "niece" was spelled correctly, the Collins-only 2-letter word "di" would be played in the first 2 examples, and the phony "il" would be made in the last example.
I don't understand the outwin/outwon portion of the video since the video title is about spelling. The players didn't misspell anything, they simply thought something was a word.
What I don't get is the randomness and inconsistency of the dictionaries. Some alternative spellings - and even misspellings - of words are accepted ("momento", for example, is just a common misspelling of "memento"), but some are not. Some plant, animal, and mineral names like "primula", "plumeria", "cattleya", "ruru/mopoke" (morepork owl), and "kokowai" (red ochre) are accepted at least in CSW, but "lycoris" is not, and it's not even a rare plant. And why are "noob" and "pwn" accepted while "respawn" is not?
The dictionary is hella inconsistent, it's true. I sometimes think there should be a wordlist committee, but it's too big (and controversial) a job, so we have to use a dictionary and accept its flaws. ps. I wonder when "alot" will be included?
Would you be willing to do a video on phonies that were intentionally left alone (outside of endgame scenarios where challenging would lose the game if wrong) because they have back a bingo or an otherwise high scoring play? TAPADERA being an example. I think a lot of us would find it interesting!
Building off of this, I'm incredibly new to viewing anything about competitive scrabble (I've loved watching your videos lately though) and I'm wondering if there ever moments in games where people intentionally play phonies with hopes that their opponent doesn't catch on? And if so, are they allowed to challenge it when their opponent uses it as a hook? Like if someone plays OUTWIN knowing it's not valid, but it slips through the cracks. Could they later challenge "OUTWINS" if it came up? It seems like bad sportsmanship, but it's a side of the game I'd not at all considered until watching this video@@mackmeller
The plot of the Joel - Conrad game is even thicker than this. I was at this tournament. Early that same morning, Joel entered the playing area holding a tray of coffees. One of said coffees was intended for the director of the event, a good friend of Joel's. This nice gesture quickly turned into its own disaster, as Joel placed the tray of coffees right next to the new version of the Tournament Rules. A tablecloth covered a small gap between two tables, and the tray tipped over, spilling fresh coffee all over the newly revised rulebook. The decision was made to trash said rulebook, and as a result, the director did not have access to it later that day, when it was needed. Joel not only got away with the Scrabble equivalent of fraud, but he also sabotaged the evidence that would incriminate him, all because of a kind gesture gone wrong. Karma is an interesting beast.
Love these phonies! Something I've always wondered when I watch these videos is how often the reverse happens - Scrabble players challenging a play that IS a real word? Happened to me once in a regular game, where an opponent called out FIRING before immediately facepalming when I said it out loud - they'd been thinking of FIR the tree and had totally mindblanked on the other interpretation of the word. Would be interesting to hear if this happens much at higher levels!
Great idea! This has definitely happened, though it's rare. The most famous example is WAS, which someone challenged because they reasoned if WA* is not a valid two-letter word, it can't be validly pluralized!
The story behind that very first 'neice' made me wither in my seat... Not a very neice situation to be in. I would have quit scrabble altogether if that happened to me in a tournament.
Seriously bad call from the director for the first one. If a player can just say "I thought you said 'I accept'", then what's the point in the hold? I think it's Joel who is out of line here. Kind of lowers my estimation of him tbh.
That's a fair point, though I know Joel well enough to be confident he wouldn't have done that maliciously. Joel and I definitely have our differences (both personally and in terms of how we approach the game), but I have a ton of respect for his integrity and what he's done in Scrabble, and I know many others do as well. It's also worth reiterating that what Joel misheard as "I accept" wasn't Conrad saying "hold," it was his muttering "I can't believe I'm so bad at spelling." Technically Conrad shouldn't have said anything after holding other than either "I accept" or "challenge," so it's not unreasonable that when Conrad said something and clearly wasn't challenging (as he didn't stop the clock), Joel assumed he was accepting.
@@mackmeller I think it comes down to the difference between outright cheating and not necessarily acting in good faith. Sounds to me like what Joel did was the equivalent to running into the box and falling over (to borrow a soccer analogy). Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean that you should do it. At the very least, he should ask for Conrad to clarify. After this, he should have called a foul on himself. Scrabble is better than that.
It shocks me that Conrad thought it was acceptable to hold the play for FOUR MINUTES.
Why? It's his timer running down. Why would it not be acceptable to hold for as long as you want? If my opponent wants to waste that much time over a simple hold, I welcome it.
Watching these videos is dangerous... yesterday I spent a few seconds considering a play of GIEPA before remembering where I learned the word from
Keep it up Mack
Hahaha maybe I need to add a liability disclaimer to these videos "Mack cannot be sued for damages if you lose a Scrabble tournament because you played a phony mentioned in one of his videos" 😂
I was half expecting a combination of outwin and neice at some point
I mean, if "niece" was spelled correctly, the Collins-only 2-letter word "di" would be played in the first 2 examples, and the phony "il" would be made in the last example.
I don't understand the outwin/outwon portion of the video since the video title is about spelling. The players didn't misspell anything, they simply thought something was a word.
What I don't get is the randomness and inconsistency of the dictionaries.
Some alternative spellings - and even misspellings - of words are accepted ("momento", for example, is just a common misspelling of "memento"), but some are not.
Some plant, animal, and mineral names like "primula", "plumeria", "cattleya", "ruru/mopoke" (morepork owl), and "kokowai" (red ochre) are accepted at least in CSW, but "lycoris" is not, and it's not even a rare plant.
And why are "noob" and "pwn" accepted while "respawn" is not?
The dictionary is hella inconsistent, it's true. I sometimes think there should be a wordlist committee, but it's too big (and controversial) a job, so we have to use a dictionary and accept its flaws.
ps. I wonder when "alot" will be included?
5:21 FAUGHT*?
Yep I faught the urge to mention that and distract from the task at hand :)
Would you be willing to do a video on phonies that were intentionally left alone (outside of endgame scenarios where challenging would lose the game if wrong) because they have back a bingo or an otherwise high scoring play? TAPADERA being an example. I think a lot of us would find it interesting!
Good idea! I’ll see if I can find some examples
Building off of this, I'm incredibly new to viewing anything about competitive scrabble (I've loved watching your videos lately though) and I'm wondering if there ever moments in games where people intentionally play phonies with hopes that their opponent doesn't catch on? And if so, are they allowed to challenge it when their opponent uses it as a hook?
Like if someone plays OUTWIN knowing it's not valid, but it slips through the cracks. Could they later challenge "OUTWINS" if it came up? It seems like bad sportsmanship, but it's a side of the game I'd not at all considered until watching this video@@mackmeller
there are instances of this happening in some of the other videos in this series.
Oh! Good to know. I'll have to check out more the series. So far I've mainly watched a bunch of Mack vs. Machine
@@Lily-jn9ct yeah the phony vids are rlly interesting and just straightup funny at times
After this video no one will be able to play OUTWIN* anymore :(
except CSW players 🙃
The plot of the Joel - Conrad game is even thicker than this. I was at this tournament. Early that same morning, Joel entered the playing area holding a tray of coffees. One of said coffees was intended for the director of the event, a good friend of Joel's. This nice gesture quickly turned into its own disaster, as Joel placed the tray of coffees right next to the new version of the Tournament Rules. A tablecloth covered a small gap between two tables, and the tray tipped over, spilling fresh coffee all over the newly revised rulebook. The decision was made to trash said rulebook, and as a result, the director did not have access to it later that day, when it was needed. Joel not only got away with the Scrabble equivalent of fraud, but he also sabotaged the evidence that would incriminate him, all because of a kind gesture gone wrong. Karma is an interesting beast.
I've seen this comment before...
That is wild!
You had me for a few seconds there not gonna lie.
Has this become a Scrabble copypasta?
Spreading misinformation isn't cool
In one of Eric Rosen’s videos called “Amazing Scrabble Coincidence”, he tries NEICE at 16:12
your descriptions are incredible
"i before e, except after c" should never be forgotten
you forgot neighbor and weigh exceptions
It shouldn't be forgotten, but it has more counterexamples than any rule I've ever seen.
The rule is actually "i before e, when the sound is ee, except after c".
speil?
Did your foreign neighbour Keith tell you that?
Love these phonies! Something I've always wondered when I watch these videos is how often the reverse happens - Scrabble players challenging a play that IS a real word? Happened to me once in a regular game, where an opponent called out FIRING before immediately facepalming when I said it out loud - they'd been thinking of FIR the tree and had totally mindblanked on the other interpretation of the word. Would be interesting to hear if this happens much at higher levels!
Great idea! This has definitely happened, though it's rare. The most famous example is WAS, which someone challenged because they reasoned if WA* is not a valid two-letter word, it can't be validly pluralized!
@@mackmeller Oh wow that hurts
The story behind that very first 'neice' made me wither in my seat... Not a very neice situation to be in. I would have quit scrabble altogether if that happened to me in a tournament.
Seriously bad call from the director for the first one. If a player can just say "I thought you said 'I accept'", then what's the point in the hold? I think it's Joel who is out of line here. Kind of lowers my estimation of him tbh.
That's a fair point, though I know Joel well enough to be confident he wouldn't have done that maliciously. Joel and I definitely have our differences (both personally and in terms of how we approach the game), but I have a ton of respect for his integrity and what he's done in Scrabble, and I know many others do as well. It's also worth reiterating that what Joel misheard as "I accept" wasn't Conrad saying "hold," it was his muttering "I can't believe I'm so bad at spelling." Technically Conrad shouldn't have said anything after holding other than either "I accept" or "challenge," so it's not unreasonable that when Conrad said something and clearly wasn't challenging (as he didn't stop the clock), Joel assumed he was accepting.
@@mackmeller I think it comes down to the difference between outright cheating and not necessarily acting in good faith. Sounds to me like what Joel did was the equivalent to running into the box and falling over (to borrow a soccer analogy). Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean that you should do it. At the very least, he should ask for Conrad to clarify. After this, he should have called a foul on himself. Scrabble is better than that.
I before E except C... not every word applies :/
as a csw player, I get to use the word outwin :D
what does speiiling have to do with scrabool?
i do nut now
Evreytihng
Everybody knows that Scrabool is like professional wrestling Big guys in lycra shorts or something.