The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: DoorNumberFour on December 13, 2007, 10:21:01 AM
-
So I got a call this morning from one of the ladies I first auditioned for.
Her words:
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
Which, in my eyes, translates to:
"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."
If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?
Then again, maybe this is what a lot of us were expecting when we got word of this show.
Anyway, they wanted me to come down for another development run-through.
But $50 doesn't really beat a chance at a million.
Ah, well.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
Which, in my eyes, translates to:
"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."
If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?[/quote]
Not really. If they're good CC's, they're picking people who are GOOD at the game. The "great" people would a) win ludicrous amounts of money that the budget can't support over the long run and b) suck out all the drama from the game. Those that are good will still do well, but will need to get lucky on the higher levels in order to win the big bucks. Plus, if it's a head-to-head thing, then the lower-end competition has a better chance to pull off an upset.
I understand your frustration, but at least you're in essence a beta-tester to help M$P from becoming a total stinkfest.
-
Whatever you do, please accept the gig to run-through some more. You seem to know what you're doing and talking about, and this show needs to be decent at best.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'171980\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:44 AM\']Not really. If they're good CC's, they're picking people who are GOOD at the game. The "great" people would a) win ludicrous amounts of money that the budget can't support over the long run and b) suck out all the drama from the game. Those that are good will still do well, but will need to get lucky on the higher levels in order to win the big bucks.[/quote]
Still, there was a time when the ability to play a game well was something sought by contestant coordinators, and it's becoming clearer that this is no longer the case. Look at Fifth Grader, where the goal almost by definition is to have average-or-worse Q&A players. Even Jeopardy is more cautious these days about having people who are "too good". Post-Ken, their application now asks potential contestants whether or not they have any involvement with NAQT, pretty much the leading quiz-bowl service in the country these days.
Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities. Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
[/quote]
They told me the same thing, but I hadn't auditioned; I'd just applied for the developmental play. Since I saw game material, I was ineligible for the first six episodes. They didn't rule out the future, though.
I wondered if it was a matter of not wanting to write more stacks of words, although I suspect that MDP isn't a Guild show.
-
Writing stacks of words? I don't know if they are aware of this, but a guy named Webster put out a book containing pretty much every word that could be used in any game of Password.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'171989\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 12:44 PM\']
Writing stacks of words? I don't know if they are aware of this, but a guy named Webster put out a book containing pretty much every word that could be used in any game of Password.
[/quote]
I know you're kidding, but I know too that they work very hard to make sure the words in the million-dollar game are possible--but just barely.
-
I accepted the run-through offer.
They said they offered it to me because I was so incredibly good at the game, so hopefully I can bring something valuable to the table in terms of pointing out flaws and whatnot.
Not like they would listen, but still.
-
Hasn't "Wheel of Fortune" long been discarding applicants who are too good at the game? Seems I heard about that years ago.
I suppose part of the issue with Password is a player being way better at the game than the celebrity.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'172013\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 03:12 PM\']
Hasn't "Wheel of Fortune" long been discarding applicants who are too good at the game? Seems I heard about that years ago.
I suppose part of the issue with Password is a player being way better at the game than the celebrity.
[/quote]
Back in the day, they played the game over the phone with the celeb to make sure that s/he at least had a grasp of how the game worked.
Of course, back in the Ludden days they could easily turn down the incompetent. Probably not so much these days.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'171986\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 12:25 PM\']Still, there was a time when the ability to play a game well was something sought by contestant coordinators, and it's becoming clearer that this is no longer the case. [. . .] Even Jeopardy is more cautious these days about having people who are "too good". Post-Ken, their application now asks potential contestants whether or not they have any involvement with NAQT, pretty much the leading quiz-bowl service in the country these days.
Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities. Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.[/quote]
I think another thing CC's have to balance is financial liability. With the Mo' Money that litters game shows now, you have to prevent too many winners winning too much too often. I was never really of the belief that CC's never excluded the end of the contestant pool (feel free to prove me wrong), but went from the middle. Now that the dollar values are increased, they've narrowed their definition of "middle" and maybe shifted it to further insulate themselves.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']Her words:
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
Which, in my eyes, translates to:
"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."[/quote]I have no connection with the new Password, but I'd take the statement at face value. When Shop 'til You Drop was revived and revamped, I worked for one day as a production assistant (they hired me during a busy day as a favor to an acquaintance of mine). In one of the rooms, I saw game material that they had been using during development, and then saw it again when the shows began airing. Granted, it's not quite the same as picking a different set of words, but it very well could be that they want to use some of the same material when they begin taping.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 07:21 AM\']So I got a call this morning from one of the ladies I first auditioned for.
Her words:
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
Which, in my eyes, translates to:
"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."[/quote]In my adenoids, why do they have to give a reason? If they say "Thank you for your participation, we won't be calling you back," well, that's it then, isn't it? It really doesn't matter what reason they give, does it?
If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?
No. I can give the performance of my lifetime auditioning for a play, and I might be "better" than the rest of the contenders, but if I'm not what the director is looking for, T.S.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'171986\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 09:25 AM\']Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities. Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.[/quote]But if "obnoxious people who can't come up with synonyms" is what they think will make the best show, then that's what they're going to cast for. Whether or not that actually makes for a good, watchable or popular show is a different question entirely.
-
Back in the day, they played the game over the phone with the celeb to make sure that s/he at least had a grasp of how the game worked.
Nope, they came to the office and auditioned. Same with MG. For whatever reason I still remember the day Gordon MacRae came to the office to audition for P+ (he was not booked).
hopefully I can bring something valuable to the table in terms of pointing out flaws and whatnot
Password debuted in 1961. I would hope they have the flaws worked out by now (if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172092\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 12:06 PM\']
Password debuted in 1961. I would hope they have the flaws worked out by now (if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).
[/quote]
Were you privy to the discussions about getting rid of the "doc in the box"...? Or was it just a budget thing?
-Kevin
-
[quote name=\'TwoInchQuad\' post=\'172100\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 02:42 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172092\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 12:06 PM\']
Password debuted in 1961. I would hope they have the flaws worked out by now (if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).
[/quote]
Were you privy to the discussions about getting rid of the "doc in the box"...? Or was it just a budget thing?
-Kevin
[/quote]
Lest we forget, P+ and SP had no "doc in the box", unless you count producer Robert Sherman as the equivalent of such, and each of those versions had a decent run.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172092\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 02:06 PM\']
(if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).
[/quote]
Fear not. There's an authority in the house. He wasn't introduced, but he's a snazzy dresser. He was there for my run-through day, and even had a tricky call when a clue giver said "a lot--oh, damn, that's two words" and, after a "stopdown," the authority ruled that the clue would have been valid since "allot" is one word. Of course, the clue giver blew it by admitting he'd intended it as two words.
-
The decision not to use a word authority was made before I got there. Bobby Sherman didn't think one was needed and Ira Skutch (who was not associated with the show) didn't think it was such a good idea not to have one. Ira was right, of course.
The hardest part of the word authority's job is going to be deciding whether a clue is one word or more than one word. "Webpage" -- one word or two? Just because you saw it written as one word somewhere on the Internet doesn't mean it's "officially" one word for the purposes of playing Password. The solution is to pick a lexicon and decide that it's going to be the final authority. IOW, if the authoritative lexicon is the Merriam-Webster dictionary, if it doesn't appear as one word or appears as two or more words in Merriam-Webster you call it wrong. The word authority made a good call in the above instance. During a P+ rehearsal I was in the booth acting as surrogate judge when the password was "return". The contestant said "come back", then caught herself thinking it was two words. I tried to explain that as a noun, "comeback" is one word, but my explanation fell on the deaf ears of the amateur experts.
Why, here's "comeback" right here in Merriam-Webster's:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/comeback (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/comeback\")
-
This may not be terribly likely to happen on the upcoming "version of Million Dollar Password", but an even better reason to have a word authority IMO is so you don't end up zapping someone who used a perfectly valid word that the zapper just didn't know. (I'm thinking of the Password Plus "pellucid" moment here.)
-
I'm thinking of the Password Plus "pellucid" moment here.
I think that was after my time. Please elaborate -- and who was the emcee at the time?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172126\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 05:59 PM\']The solution is to pick a lexicon and decide that it's going to be the final authority. IOW, if the authoritative lexicon is the Merriam-Webster dictionary, if it doesn't appear as one word or appears as two or more words in Merriam-Webster you call it wrong.[/quote]
So theoretically someone too clever by half could give "pitchblende (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pitchblende\")" for chord. The rule permits abuse, but not without risk. Cool.
-
"pitchblende" would have been a good million-dollar word ('cept now we've spoilt it).
-
[quote name=\'mrchips\' post=\'172157\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 10:15 AM\']
So theoretically someone too clever by half could give "pitchblende (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pitchblende\")" for chord. The rule permits abuse, but not without risk. Cool.
[/quote]
Well, you could give the clue. Would you get the intended response? Doubtful. If I thought for a long time--and they'd let you do exactly that; last I heard there wasn't any time limit on endgame responses--I might have come up with "radium" or maybe "uranium"--but no way would I have come up with "chord."
With that password, I'd've way sooner tried "extensiooooooon..."
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172149\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 12:29 AM\']I think that was after my time. Please elaborate -- and who was the emcee at the time?[/quote]
Oh, gosh--it was in a clip somewhere, but I have no idea where.
Pretty sure the emcee was Tom Kennedy. The password was, I believe, CLEAR (or a synonym of same). The contestant gave a clue of "pellucid", and the buzzer was sounded on the grounds that "pellucid" is not a word. The male celebrity (I forget who) on the other team had a little fun with it, mocking the other side for making up words.
The word played out, with the other team guessing "clear", but before a guess at the puzzle was made, the contestant insisted that "pellucid" was a word. Someone asked her what it meant, and with a wonderful look on her face, she said, "It means 'clear'."
Tom and/or the producers asked for a spelling from her (!!), she provided it, and oopsie, there it was in the dictionary. They eventually threw out the proceedings on that word, with no guess, and moved on to the next word in the puzzle.
-
Well, you see, a real word authority would have known the word "pellucid" and they would have avoided all that rigamarole.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pellucid (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pellucid\")
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172172\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 05:26 PM\']
... they would have avoided all that rigamarole.
[/quote]
NOW who's making up words?
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'172175\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 05:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172172\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 05:26 PM\']
... they would have avoided all that rigamarole.
[/quote]
NOW who's making up words?
[/quote]
It's real. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rigamarole (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rigamarole\") (Although I'd never heard of the original spelling of the word it's supposedly an alternate form of.)
-
Having a definitive word source is a good idea, but don't we still need a judge? To use a previous example, allot is a legal word, but if the Password is "several" do you say no because the giver more likely said"a lot"? (reactions nonwithstanding)
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'172187\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 10:20 PM\']Having a definitive word source is a good idea, but don't we still need a judge? To use a previous example, allot is a legal word, but if the Password is "several" do you say no because the giver more likely said"a lot"? (reactions nonwithstanding)[/quote]
I don't see how that wouldn't fall under the purview of the word authority. You simply tell them not to hit the buzzer when a player gives a single, non-hyphenated word that isn't a form of the password, regardless of context or homonyms. You could possibly argue for a judge to rule on hand gestures and buzzer-beaters, but I'd think you could find a word authority capable of making those calls without too much trouble.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'172177\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 04:13 PM\']
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'172175\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 05:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172172\' date=\'Dec 15 2007, 05:26 PM\']
... they would have avoided all that rigamarole.
[/quote]
NOW who's making up words?
[/quote]
It's real. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rigamarole (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rigamarole\") (Although I'd never heard of the original spelling of the word it's supposedly an alternate form of.)
[/quote]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoosh (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoosh\")
-
allot is a legal word, but if the Password is "several" do you say no because the giver more likely said"a lot"?
"Allot" is a legal clue, but a bad one for the password in question, so the contestant basically shot herself in the foot. This is all spelled out in the rules.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 09:21 AM\']
So I got a call this morning from one of the ladies I first auditioned for.
Her words:
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
Which, in my eyes, translates to:
[/quote]
...we're too lazy to write new material for the shows, and besides, the writers are on strike, so nobody can write new material.
Note to Chris C: It's not the mechanics of clue-and-response (plus word authority issues) they have to work out, but scoring. (See: The original P+ scoring method in run-through/pilot stage.) I would suggest the original Password (or second version variant, with doubling) isn't what they want to do, even if they should.
'Brian
-
On any version of Password, if you were truly only supposed to be using words that were in whatever sponsoring dictionary at the time, shouldn't have any proper names/cities/whatnot been automatically out, since they are not in said dictionary.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'172227\' date=\'Dec 16 2007, 03:10 PM\']
On any version of Password, if you were truly only supposed to be using words that were in whatever sponsoring dictionary at the time, shouldn't have any proper names/cities/whatnot been automatically out, since they are not in said dictionary.
[/quote]
I could swear, at least in the version of Webster's New Collegiate that we had, that there was a dictionary of proper names in the back. At least, of places.
Point made, tho.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'172227\' date=\'Dec 16 2007, 05:10 PM\']
On any version of Password, if you were truly only supposed to be using words that were in whatever sponsoring dictionary at the time, shouldn't have any proper names/cities/whatnot been automatically out, since they are not in said dictionary.
[/quote]
My Merriam-Webster dictionary has lists of "biographical names" and "geographical names." A rule that proper nouns are acceptable as words probably wouldn't lead to any worse examples of twisted logic than some of Bobby Sherman's decisions about whether two words were opposites.
-
Reminds me of my experience trying out for the Donny Osmond "Pyramid." A friend and I went to the audition, and we were both clearly the best players of the game during that round. Neither of us got called to be on the show. I got the distinct impression that they weren't looking for good players necessarily, but, rather, people with more outrageous personalities.
-
[quote name=\'robwargo\' post=\'172340\' date=\'Dec 18 2007, 01:35 AM\']
Reminds me of my experience trying out for the Donny Osmond "Pyramid." A friend and I went to the audition, and we were both clearly the best players of the game during that round. Neither of us got called to be on the show. I got the distinct impression that they weren't looking for good players necessarily, but, rather, people with more outrageous personalities.
[/quote]
Sadly, that does seem to be the more common norm these days on game shows. Frankly, I'm
more worried about how the celebs are going to do on the new Password than the contestants.
-
Somehow, I just have the gut feeling that we'll see this.
"The password is...FAJITA."
Celeb: "Burritoooooo..."
WE'LL FIND OUT IF JIM GETS THE PASSWORD AFTER THIS.
"Commmmmming up...the most dramatic moment in Password history!"
But you have to have a little faith, right?
-
[quote name=\'robwargo\' post=\'172340\' date=\'Dec 18 2007, 01:35 AM\']
Reminds me of my experience trying out for the Donny Osmond "Pyramid." A friend and I went to the audition, and we were both clearly the best players of the game during that round. Neither of us got called to be on the show. I got the distinct impression that they weren't looking for good players necessarily, but, rather, people with more outrageous personalities.
[/quote]
My experience trying out for Pyramid 5 years ago apparently went a lot smoother then yours did. I passed the written test and got paired up with another person who also knew how to play the game, give clues, etc. I was the only one called for the show, and proceeded to win $10,000 and a trip to Aruba.
To be honest, I didn't like the 6-in-20 aspect of the front game, and I didn't like how some of the subjects in the Winners' Circle started getting pretty off-the-wall... I mean, OLYMPIC RING COLORS and WHAT REGIS PHILBIN'S COFFEE MUG WOULD SAY? Seriously...
So far this hasn't parlayed into a callback for Million Dollar Password, but maybe the fact that I'm not in the New York Tri-State area has to do with it (though it still is accessible to me for a 2-day trip or so)....
-
[quote name=\'Brakus\' post=\'172632\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 04:37 PM\']To be honest, I didn't like the 6-in-20 aspect of the front game, [/quote] Admittedly, they got so many other things wrong that this doesn't even rate for me, but what was it that turned you off? You're still playing the Pyramid, and it's even faster-paced than before.
and I didn't like how some of the subjects in the Winners' Circle started getting pretty off-the-wall... I mean, OLYMPIC RING COLORS and WHAT REGIS PHILBIN'S COFFEE MUG WOULD SAY? Seriously...
The problem with the Olympic Rings as a subject is that once you exhaust the small subset of answers, you've shot your wad. At least with the coffee mug you could improvise something like "If Kathie Lee tells one more boring story about Cody or Frank again I'm going to spill my espresso all over her."
Or something.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'172657\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 11:03 PM\']The problem with the Olympic Rings as a subject is that once you exhaust the small subset of answers, you've shot your wad.[/quote]
Ah, but this was Donnymid, where they probably expected "Sydney blue" and "Salt Lake City green" as clues.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'172657\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 10:03 PM\']
At least with the coffee mug you could improvise something like "If Kathie Lee tells one more boring story about Cody or Frank again I'm going to spill my espresso all over her."
[/quote]
"This ceramic sipping container belongs to the host of Millionaire and spokesperson for Harvest Crisps! -- and may contain hot liquid!"
LObs
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'172657\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 10:03 PM\']
[quote name=\'Brakus\' post=\'172632\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 04:37 PM\']To be honest, I didn't like the 6-in-20 aspect of the front game, [/quote] Admittedly, they got so many other things wrong that this doesn't even rate for me, but what was it that turned you off? You're still playing the Pyramid, and it's even faster-paced than before.[/quote]
Speaking only for myself: With 7 in 30, you won by giving good descriptions. With 6 in 20, you won by giving them fast.
-
[quote name=\'Brakus\' post=\'172632\' date=\'Dec 20 2007, 07:37 PM\']
My experience trying out for Pyramid 5 years ago apparently went a lot smoother then yours did. I passed the written test and got paired up with another person who also knew how to play the game, give clues, etc. I was the only one called for the show, and proceeded to win $10,000 and a trip to Aruba.
To be honest, I didn't like the 6-in-20 aspect of the front game, and I didn't like how some of the subjects in the Winners' Circle started getting pretty off-the-wall... I mean, OLYMPIC RING COLORS and WHAT REGIS PHILBIN'S COFFEE MUG WOULD SAY? Seriously...
So far this hasn't parlayed into a callback for Million Dollar Password, but maybe the fact that I'm not in the New York Tri-State area has to do with it (though it still is accessible to me for a 2-day trip or so)....
[/quote]
The original Pyramid had some wacky subjects too, like "What a zipper might say" or "Why you
have an affair." But to get back to Password, I see they're still looking for contestants. If the
writers strike continues, we may see the $!M Password on TV very soon. Since I live in NYC,
I'm going to try to get tickets for a taping as soon as they announce the dates.
-
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'172783\' date=\'Dec 22 2007, 08:08 AM\']
The original Pyramid had some wacky subjects too, like "What a zipper might say" or "Why you
have an affair."
[/quote]
At least those were straight-forward enough where people could figure them out. I'm that pulley thing going down the front of your coat..." or "Because your wife isn't good enough, but her sister is hawter than a gas-powered barbecue..."
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' post=\'172786\' date=\'Dec 22 2007, 11:01 AM\']"Because your wife isn't good enough, but her sister is hawter than a gas-powered barbecue..."[/quote])pbuzz ;-)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172203\' date=\'Dec 16 2007, 07:39 AM\']
allot is a legal word, but if the Password is "several" do you say no because the giver more likely said"a lot"?
"Allot" is a legal clue, but a bad one for the password in question, so the contestant basically shot herself in the foot. This is all spelled out in the rules.
[/quote]
This is similar to what happened on Super Password during a Tournament of Losers, I think. It was during a bonus game; the password was "often," and Constance McCashin said what I thought was "a lot," and I thought she was going to get flagged for an illegal clue. It was only later, when I was taking a business class in college, that I saw the word "allot," and then it hit me regarding this rule. (Bert Convy, unfortunately, never bothered to explain this ruling to the home audience.)
-
Why don't we just modify the Pasword rules to allow for two word clues and see if they can't Get the Message.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'172795\' date=\'Dec 22 2007, 11:28 AM\']
Why don't we just modify the Pasword rules to allow for two word clues and see if they can't Get the Message.
[/quote]I chortled.
:)
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'172795\' date=\'Dec 22 2007, 02:28 PM\']
Why don't we just modify the Pasword rules to allow for two word clues and see if they can't Get the Message.
[/quote]
I had to look it up....VERY well played. :)