Hey guys. I\'m sure at some point or another this has been discussed when I wasn\'t around, but it just came up in a team discussion yesterday, so this is to update my knowledge.
In classic Joker\'s Wild play, we were debating the circumstances of how scoring and winning was handled when a player spun three Jokers. There were two key situations discussed that we wanted clarification on how they would be handled, assuming they ever actually happened.
1) In standard play, challenger gets to a score over $500. Champ spins 3 Jokers and gets it right to win. Do they only get $500 or do they at least get a match of the score the challenger reached?
2) In tournament play, the player at the first podium spins 3 Jokers, gets it right and goes to $500. Meanwhile, the #2 player has $350 at the time this happens. Should that player then spin a triple and get it right, that would mathematically put them ahead at $550 and give them the win. But are 3 Jokers allowed to get trumped like this in the tournament?
I think we had a 3rd scenario too about tournament play, too, but I can\'t remember it right now. So for now, what\'s the rulings on these first two?
Three Jokers is an automatic win with a correct answer, regardless of when they turn up. There wasn\'t any rule stating otherwise as far as I know.
IIRC, when Hal Shear had his famous three Joker spin after rubbing his suit, his opponent had just accumulated $550 but he got to $500 with the win. I am probably wrong, at least on the first half, but he received $500 for the win for sure.
1) In standard play, challenger gets to a score over $500. Champ spins 3 Jokers and gets it right to win. Do they only get $500 or do they at least get a match of the score the challenger reached?
2) In tournament play, the player at the first podium spins 3 Jokers, gets it right and goes to $500. Meanwhile, the #2 player has $350 at the time this happens. Should that player then spin a triple
IIRC, when Hal Shear had his famous three Joker spin after rubbing his suit, his opponent had just accumulated $550 but he got to $500 with the win. I am probably wrong, at least on the first half,
Now, if the three joker spin came during a tie-breaking round (meaning both players were already over $500), would the winner have their current score or just the minimum $500?
IIRC, when Hal Shear had his famous three Joker spin after rubbing his suit, his opponent had just accumulated $550 but he got to $500 with the win. I am probably wrong, at least on the first half,
Yes, you are.
Now, if the three joker spin came during a tie-breaking round (meaning both players were already over $500), would the winner have their current score or just the minimum $500?
Although I\'d operate under the assumption they\'d try to avoid that if at all possible?
Although I\'d operate under the assumption they\'d try to avoid that if at all possible?
Um. How? And once again, when you answer that question, remember this is Jack \"I almost lost my entire career because I rigged game shows\" Barry we\'re talking about.
During the tie breaker or \"Spin Off\" round(s), during normal game play, was the same as before. If the the challenger scored 3 jokers and answered the question correctly, game over. If the not, quoting Jack Barry \"The game goes on as before.\"
This precisely. Really, there probably wouldn\'t be a C&P problem with switching out the slide carousel on the third wheel, since it affects both players equally, save for two things: it would likely involve a tape stopdown, and this is Jack Barry we\'re talking about.At the same time I\'m pretty sure they couldn\'t because it would raise a red flag somewhere.
Now, if the three joker spin came during a tie-breaking round (meaning both players were already over $500), would the winner have their current score or just the minimum $500?
Here\'s another one, which I doubt ever happened: if the second player is behind 500-350 and spins three Jokers, could the player ask for a $200 question? (One thing I do remember: if the first player has 500 or more and the second player spins an amount that can tie/win but misses the question, the first player did not get the opportunity to answer for more money.)
My recollection is that spinning three Jokers and answering the question correctly only bumped your score to $500 and won you the game. I don\'t think people were given the option for any other outcome other than that.
Why would he? If he gets it right, he wins 500*-500, if he doesn\'t the question can\'t be stolen so the game ends 500-350.Here\'s another one, which I doubt ever happened: if the second player is behind 500-350 and spins three Jokers, could the player ask for a $200 question?
Here\'s another one, which I doubt ever happened: if the second player is behind 500-350 and spins three Jokers, could the player ask for a $200 question?
Why would he? If he gets it right, he wins 500*-500, if he doesn\'t the question can\'t be stolen so the game ends 500-350.
Because if someone behind 500-350 answers a $200 question correct, he wins 550-500 and gets $550 instead of \"only\" $500.
Of course, normally you would not do this - for example, if you were ahead 350-300 and asked for a $200 question, you run the risk of getting it wrong and then, since it\'s \"a normal $200 question\", the opponent then would get a chance to answer it, and would win 500-350. However, in the situation I posed - being behind 500-350 - there was no \"additional penalty\" for getting it wrong, since you lost anyway.
I would suspect that, in the name of keeping the prize budget as low as possible, that option wouldn\'t even be given to the contestant. Winning on three jokers = $500, the end.
If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.
If anybody ever missed anyJoker\'s WildB&E show questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.
Your stock rose three points just by saying this.If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.
If anybody ever missed any Joker\'s Wild questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.
Especially the \"Over 80\" tournament where all the questions, IMHO, were either True or False or multiple choice
/Became depressing to watch when I realized most all the contestants were dead by the time I watched it (1997).
If anybody ever missed any
Joker\'s WildB&E show questions at all, they deserved to lose instantly.
Fixed. :)
There were a few that not everybody was expected to know. One that comes to mind (I think it was the winning question for the player who beat the syndicated version\'s biggest money winner, not including tournaments) was, \"In what state does Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman take place?\".
In it\'s day, the question wasn\'t too difficult. If you didn\'t watch MHMH, you probably watched Fernwood 2 Night.
2) In tournament play, the player at the first podium spins 3 Jokers, gets it right and goes to $500. Meanwhile, the #2 player has $350 at the time this happens. Should that player then spin a triple and get it right, that would mathematically put them ahead at $550 and give them the win. But are 3 Jokers allowed to get trumped like this in the tournament?
I remembered a similar scenario during the $1M tournament - took me a little time to find it. If the player in position 1 spins three jokers then then the second player gets a chance to match the first spin.
Video (along with Jack\'s explanation of the amended rule at 6:30) is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GRw8KPubLeI&list=PLB63F91DA9F7C7583&t=391
Hated that rule in tournament play. The game was already balanced in favor of the champion. Taking away the challenger\'s only advantage made it worse, and a tournament is not the time to do that.
I\'m missing something. Why is it an advantage when they are merely insuring that both players get the same number of chances to spin?
Hated that rule in tournament play. The game was already balanced in favor of the champion. Taking away the challenger\'s only advantage made it worse, and a tournament is not the time to do that.
I\'m missing something. Why is it an advantage when they are merely insuring that both players get the same number of chances to spin?
That seems really ticky-tack, because if you force the champion to take that last spin, barring a natural triple (and why do you want a situation where you are rooting AGAINST a natural triple?), or three Jokers (which can\'t be stolen) you\'re gonna take a singleton or go off the board for $50 with a Joker and 99.5% of the time it\'s not going to matter.
(And I forget, are you obligated to take a natural pair or triple for its full amount? I know you don\'t have to with Jokers involved, but that\'s because ostensibly you can \"change\" the wild Joker to something that doesn\'t match.)
Yes... and I will note that unlike many of the B-E formats which were quite sound, the second format of Pt% was basically a hackneyed attempt to make use of space for a few more weeks, and was likely cobbeled together at a breakneck speed.
(And I forget, are you obligated to take a natural pair or triple for its full amount? I know you don\'t have to with Jokers involved, but that\'s because ostensibly you can \"change\" the wild Joker to something that doesn\'t match.)
Yes - you could not break up a natural pair or a triple.