The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: alfonzos on July 23, 2023, 11:33:29 PM
-
For my one thousandth posting, I want to express my gratitude for being part of this community. Game shows were my first educational experience and I appreciate being able to share experiences and my opinion with like-minded people. Thank you.
As an occasional viewer of “Jeopardy!” I find the contestants’ strategy of shopping for Daily Doubles by avoiding the easiest answers and choosing the more difficult answers unpredictably unnerving. As someone who enjoys playing along with the contestants it is like sitting down to dinner and getting servings of random foods during the meal.
I would like to see a rule to lets the contestant choose a category but the least valuable answer is revealed. This would make the round build to have roughly the toughest answers appear last. I would like to see it but it probably won’t happen because the contestants would balk at having their choices limited.
-
I’d like to see a rule where a dancing light border stops when the contestant in control clicks her signaling button, and Daily Doubles are at the same prescribed point each day.
-
I’d like to see a rule where a dancing light border stops when the contestant in control clicks her signaling button, and Daily Doubles are at the same prescribed point each day.
Would they shout "JEOPARDY!" when pressing it?
-
For my one thousandth posting, I want to express my gratitude for being part of this community. Game shows were my first educational experience and I appreciate being able to share experiences and my opinion with like-minded people. Thank you.
And a doozy of a 1000th post this is.
As an occasional viewer of “Jeopardy!” I find the contestants’ strategy of shopping for Daily Doubles by avoiding the easiest answers and choosing the more difficult answers unpredictably unnerving. As someone who enjoys playing along with the contestants it is like sitting down to dinner and getting servings of random foods during the meal.
I’ve done this before. It’s called a buffet.
I would like to see a rule to lets the contestant choose a category but the least valuable answer is revealed. This would make the round build to have roughly the toughest answers appear last. I would like to see it but it probably won’t happen because the contestants would balk at having
Then go watch a second season episode of Debt and leave Jeopardy! alone.
-
I would like to see a rule to lets the contestant choose a category but the least valuable answer is revealed. This would make the round build to have roughly the toughest answers appear last. I would like to see it but it probably won’t happen
I'm going to +1 this. I think the game flows better when the categories are played from top to bottom. For the record, so did Alex Trebek.
This poking around all over the board used to be rare. For a while it was known as the "Forrest Bounce" because of the one champion who did it back in 1985, and hardly anybody else copied it for decades. Nowadays it's common, and I don't like it. Now get off my lawn so I can yell at some more clouds.
-
I'll counter Matt's +1 with a -1. Not because I disagree with the premise; whether it's the "Forrest Bounce" or a bottom feeder calling all the $1,000 clues first or whatever, it's not as fun to watch. I'm all in favor of playing the board from top to bottom. I just don't think it's deserving of an actual rule.
FWIW, when I taped three years ago, the contestant coordinators actively encouraged us to play the board from the top down--the writers design the categories to be played in order, they told us. And I agree--among other things, hitting the low-value clues eliminates possible answers for the high-value clues (e.g. if the $200 clue was Beethoven, the $1,000 clue isn't likely to be ol' Ludwig van again). There's a rhythm in playing from top to bottom.
But forcing players to play the board that way just doesn't sit right with me.
-
Password 75 Chaos option:
In the Jeopardy! round, each player may declare 'Switch' once per game, but only if they have control of the board.
The Jeopardy! round categories are replaced with the Double Jeopardy! round categories with no introduction or explanation of the categories. Played squares remain out of play for the round, and the clue values remain appropriate to the Jeopardy! round. A clue square may only be played once, regardless of category. Round ends when all squares are played (regardless of category), or time for round expires.
Double Jeopardy! begins with introduction/explanation of the remainder of the DJ! categories, and any remaining clue squares for those categories. Once all clues for a category are played, the column reverts to the category from the J! round if there are remaining clues for it. Clue values remain appropriate to DJ! round.
-
Password 75 Chaos option:
In the Jeopardy! round, each player may declare 'Switch' once per game, but only if they have control of the board.
The Jeopardy! round categories are replaced with the Double Jeopardy! round categories with no introduction or explanation of the categories. Played squares remain out of play for the round, and the clue values remain appropriate to the Jeopardy! round. A clue square may only be played once, regardless of category. Round ends when all squares are played (regardless of category), or time for round expires.
Double Jeopardy! begins with introduction/explanation of the remainder of the DJ! categories, and any remaining clue squares for those categories. Once all clues for a category are played, the column reverts to the category from the J! round if there are remaining clues for it. Clue values remain appropriate to DJ! round.
I hope this is a joke because I don't understand it and it makes my brain hurt.
It's interesting to see Ben say that even three years ago the coordinators encouraged you to play from top to bottom. I got the same talk back in 2004. It's weird to me that they continue to make a point of it privately to the contestants, but don't simply make it a requirement.
Fun fact: Back in the era I played, if there was a category that required video (Clue Crew, celebrity readers, even still pictures) that category would be pointed out to the players in advance, and we were told that category HAD to be played top to bottom. Not necessarily consecutively, but in order. The video servers of the day were loaded that way and couldn't handle the skipping around. I'm sure that's changed today.
-
I also don't care for the jumping around the board. Like others have said, I find it goes against the normal rhythm of the game. It's anticlimactic when the low-value clues are the last ones left in a round. And the strategy of getting the DD(s) out of the way early seems self-defeating. You might keep your opponents from finding it, but where's the fun in finding a DD when you don't have enough cash to actually take proper advantage of it?
I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of forcing the contestant to choose the lowest-value clue available in the category. Like Matt said, it is funny that they clearly want contestants to play the categories from top to bottom, but apparently not enough to force them to play that way.
-
I'm on the fence. While I don't love the DD fishing and bouncing around the bottom of the board from a viewership perspective, from a gameplay and strategy perspective it makes complete sense. A player can put a tight game out of reach with a correct response; on an incorrect response, there likely will still be enough clues left on the board to build your total back up.
To that end, "book" strategy says you should always wager the house maximum on the DD in the Jeopardy! round whenever you find it.
-
While I do prefer questions to be taken in order, a rule requiring it would effectively negate the idea that the Daily Doubles can come up at any point during the round, and that's not my cup of tea.
-
Password 75 Chaos option:
In the Jeopardy! round, each player may declare 'Switch' once per game, but only if they have control of the board.
The Jeopardy! round categories are replaced with the Double Jeopardy! round categories with no introduction or explanation of the categories. Played squares remain out of play for the round, and the clue values remain appropriate to the Jeopardy! round. A clue square may only be played once, regardless of category. Round ends when all squares are played (regardless of category), or time for round expires.
Double Jeopardy! begins with introduction/explanation of the remainder of the DJ! categories, and any remaining clue squares for those categories. Once all clues for a category are played, the column reverts to the category from the J! round if there are remaining clues for it. Clue values remain appropriate to DJ! round.
I hope this is a joke because I don't understand it and it makes my brain hurt.
Yes - in the same vein as making a word game a math game
The intent in jest was to amplify the bounce. Functionally you're blindly substituting the Round 2 categories into the top of the board during Round 1, when called for. The Jeopardy is you don't know what the Round 2 categories are when you call for it, and even then you may not have the context for the clues until you call for one. Once the player has exercised their Switch for the game, they're locked into the Round 2 categories unless a competitor calls for a Switch, returning the categories to originals.
Double Jeopardy becomes an exercise in completing the remaining clues across all 12 categories for double the value.
Again, completely in jest!
-
While I acknowledge that Daily Double hunting is the mathematically optimal strategy for winning the game, as a viewer, I also hate it when the clues are taken out of order. However, I'm more likely to put up with it if the following two things occur:
1. A contestant who finds a Daily Double because they were hunting for it proceeds to make a huge, gutsy wager (if we're still using the term "Forrest Bounce," then I will continue to call this "doing a Roger Craig"). If you're going to diminish my entertainment by throwing clues at me in an nonintuitive order, then I want you to replace that entertainment with a big gamble.
2. Once all of the Daily Doubles in a round are gone, the contestants go back to playing the categories top to bottom. Unless there's less than a minute left in the round, there's no more reason not to play the board that way*, and if you're such an amazing Jeopardy! player that you'll benefit from Daily Double hunting, you should be answering quickly enough that there won't be any chance of time running out before all the clues are exposed.
I can understand why the show doesn't want to create rules forcing the contestants to play the game a certain way, and I'm sure the contestants don't care whether I'm rooting against them, but it is one of those things that might make me less likely to tune in on a given day.
*Okay, I suppose there might be some game theory in trying to unbalance weaker players by keeping them from settling into a mindset of a specific category or by not eliminating the potential responses used in the lower-value clues. The counterargument is that that no longer has any effect now that everybody has rigorously prepared for the show and is ready for category shifts. I miss the days when Jeopardy! could be played by good-natured contestants who were simply familiar with the game as opposed to everybody training for the show like it's the Olympics.
-
I like the idea of most contestants still being able to make a comeback at the end of DJ because the high dollar clues (and at least one DD) are still in play. It's already one thing when FJ is anticlimactic- it's a whole other when you're halfway into the DJ round and viewers are figuratively heading for the exits because you're playing bottom up. I understand why people do it, but the viewing experience is worse because of it.
Former J champ Bill Schantz runs an event called 5X5 at many trivia conferences- the game is played exactly as the OP suggests- top to bottom. The last clue in every category is a Daily Double-like power up- the contestant can answer the question a double or nothing, or pass altogether and open it up to the others. Video below- it's from a decade ago, but you'll get the gist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv2zn6HDdOI
-
My unpopular suggestion: require Daily Double wagers to be in $100 increments.
- There's not really any strategic reason to have an oddball wager
- Simplifies FJ math for viewers and contestants
- Prevent circumvention of banned FJ wagers by engineering the total to be a forbidden number
- Harmonize the new $100 minimum for a Daily Double as the smallest nonzero wager possible (just like the original $5 wager was in 1964)
-
In a tie game, the round should start with a Daily Double already on 2nd.
-
I think you all hit the salient points. Bouncing around really is the best strategic way to play the game, and it's hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube. But Scott hit it on the head for me by saying...
I'm more likely to put up with it if the following two things occur:
(...)
2. Once all of the Daily Doubles in a round are gone, the contestants go back to playing the categories top to bottom. Unless there's less than a minute left in the round
THIS. When I watched Jeopardy! Masters, it wasn't uncommon to end a round with a discordant set of top-row clues. Playing off of Scott's other points -- those were some of the best people in recent memory to play the game. So taking the categories out of order, top-up for the entire time has no true effect, since the playing field is relatively level.
-Jason
-
My unpopular suggestion: require Daily Double wagers to be in $100 increments.
- There's not really any strategic reason to have an oddball wager
- Simplifies FJ math for viewers and contestants
As for second comment, Making FJ math harder for other contestants is a strategy and I have seen at least once a winner.
-
Just to throw my 2 cents in...I kind of like the way the game is played now. I grew up in the Art Fleming era and the first years of the Trebek era, where most games went top down. It got kind of boring seeing every game go the exact same way. For me, it adds interest when they jump around.
If any kind of rules had been in place forcing them to play top down, you never would have had James Holzhauer's dominating streak the way it unfolded.
Want a compromise?...OK, how about this. Force them to play top down at the beginning of the round...instead of announcing one minute left, announce when there's two. After that announcement, they're free to jump the board anyway they want. That way, if a player in distant third place gets control, they could play the higher values, maybe find a Daily Double and get back into the game.
-
Want a compromise?...OK, how about this. Force them to play top down at the beginning of the round...instead of announcing one minute left, announce when there's two. After that announcement, they're free to jump the board anyway they want. That way, if a player in distant third place gets control, they could play the higher values, maybe find a Daily Double and get back into the game.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. This seems nice.
-
Want a compromise?...OK, how about this. Force them to play top down at the beginning of the round...instead of announcing one minute left, announce when there's two. After that announcement, they're free to jump the board anyway they want. That way, if a player in distant third place gets control, they could play the higher values, maybe find a Daily Double and get back into the game.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. This seems nice.
Same. I like this, and I say this as someone who’s not a fan of jumping around the board.
-
ISTR reading somewhere an idea that if any contestant should successfully "run" a category from top to bottom, there could be a monetary bonus of some sort. This would allow better chances for clues to be answered in order from low to high $$ amounts and, if an opponent stops a potential sweep in one category, they may begin a run in one of the remaining categories.
By this idea, once all potential sweep opportunities are exhausted, then you should have decent amounts of high dollar clues remaining.
-
ISTR reading somewhere an idea that if any contestant should successfully "run" a category from top to bottom, there could be a monetary bonus of some sort. This would allow better chances for clues to be answered in order from low to high $$ amounts and, if an opponent stops a potential sweep in one category, they may begin a run in one of the remaining categories.
By this idea, once all potential sweep opportunities are exhausted, then you should have decent amounts of high dollar clues remaining.
I believe Davo suggested that in a recent interview. It was also briefly a part of the Fleming version towards the end.
-
If it's such a great rule, why didn't they implement it in 1964?
-
If it's such a great rule, why didn't they implement it in 1964?
Perhaps for the same reason that waiting until the clue was finished being read before a player could buzz wasn't implemented until 1985 (when it became clear that this method of playing the game was problematic)? Likewise with co-champions until 2014.
(To be sure, there were also probably technical limitations with both of these changes—having a lockout device to prevent premature buzzes and setting up the apparatus for a tiebreaker clue—in 1964.)
-
The removal of the co-champions rule was, according to TPTB, to ensure that everyone who flew out to Culver City to play the game actually got the opportunity to do so.
In actual fact, it's likely because Arthur Chu exploited the "wager for a tie" advice that was first published on Keith Williams's "The Final Wager". It also likely had something to do with the fact that so much of the quizzing/trivia community at large became more and more able to communicate with each other online, and TPTB were worried about contestants conspiring with one another to ensure large paydays for all.
Notwithstanding being Canadian, I think I'd probably be ineligible for both The Chase and Master Minds due to having played with/played against/read matches for no less than three of the resident trivia mavens across both shows in various online trivia leagues.
-
Notwithstanding being Canadian, I think I'd probably be ineligible for both The Chase and Master Minds due to having played with/played against/read matches for no less than three of the resident trivia mavens across both shows in various online trivia leagues.
Granted I'm sure the rules are likely stricter in America, but Jenny Ryan has said that this wouldn't be disqualifying on the British show. In order to be ineligible, you'd pretty much have to have been to one of the Chaser's houses or vice versa.
-
Notwithstanding being Canadian, I think I'd probably be ineligible for both The Chase and Master Minds due to having played with/played against/read matches for no less than three of the resident trivia mavens across both shows in various online trivia leagues.
Granted I'm sure the rules are likely stricter in America, but Jenny Ryan has said that this wouldn't be disqualifying on the British show. In order to be ineligible, you'd pretty much have to have been to one of the Chaser's houses or vice versa.
This is part of the reason why there are some shows that I've purposely avoided auditioning for. When I heard Split Second was coming back, I got excited. And then I found out that I know at least one of the people involved in the production, so I dialed it back. Lord forbid I run afoul of the rules in any way. Ditto Pyramid, ditto Weakest Link.
-
Granted I'm sure the rules are likely stricter in America, but Jenny Ryan has said that this wouldn't be disqualifying on the British show. In order to be ineligible, you'd pretty much have to have been to one of the Chaser's houses or vice versa.
Heh, I was found to be ineligible for "Master Minds" a few days before I was scheduled to tape in February 2020 because I had been to the apartment of one of the researchers.
-
Similar to the way that game shows change in small ways that are large when sen over the corse of generations, I like the freedom afforded by “control of the board” and also am sympathetic to those who want to follow along or would prefer a climactic outcome:
The current production company is trying to massage Jeopardy into a sport. Taken as a whole product, they just are. Box scores, a promotion and relegation ladder—it’s all stuff from soccer and baseball. The same way that they are not going to impose a winnings limit that was the way things were for twenty years, I cannot see the show taking away the weapon for players who want to be elite and to pile up huge prize money in a hurry,
Part of my issue is that game shows as a whole are moving in ways I don’t love. I guess we all have something to bear in a fashion.
-
Fun fact: Back in the era I played, if there was a category that required video (Clue Crew, celebrity readers, even still pictures) that category would be pointed out to the players in advance, and we were told that category HAD to be played top to bottom. Not necessarily consecutively, but in order. The video servers of the day were loaded that way and couldn't handle the skipping around. I'm sure that's changed today.
Indeed it has. I was at a taping in 2014 where there was a brief delay in one such clue being chosen in a non-consecutive order. In the momentary pause, Alex blurted, "Have to take them in order" when the video suddenly began to play. His remark was, of course, edited out.
The current production company is trying to massage Jeopardy into a sport.
This really hits the nail on the head and is one part of the problem. The other I would say is, at the same time, they are "stunt casting" to fit this mold. I don't watch anymore, so I'm not on the up-and-up with the contestants' occupations Johnny's listing off at the top of each episode; but as I saw more and more contestants were from occupations of a high-risk-tolerance nature (e.g., professional gambler or career stock trader, etc.), what do you see but more "breaking the game" style of play. They've got people wagering massive bucks as if they don't care because they're used to riding a lot of cash on one horse, and if this horse doesn't pay off, well, they've got others because they're not betting the whole farm.
Contrast that with the bookworm who is trying for the one-in-a-lifetime shot to make more money in a half hour than he'll ever make in the same timespan who is going to play at least conservatively enough to try to stay ahead in the game should he be playing well. The attitude seems to be the former type of contestant now tests better with the viewing audience than the latter, and the former is going to exploit the game to achieve his ends. There's also the attitude that seeing the same old top-down, organized, OCD-friendly style of play after 40 years has run its course, so actively putting contestants into the game who will not play that way and, well, spice added, I guess.
I don't know what the best solution is. We could try going back to Fleming-style and nix the wait time on buzzing in to see how many are jumping the gun and see how much that wrenches the gameplay. We could try the more relaxed style of gameplay that was the mid '80s where much of the board was still untouched by the time's up beeps. We could go back to the five-timers limit (what I personally think would be the best solution to maintain the integrity of the game, even though you're going to kill the Internet and media buzz by not giving birth to Ken Jennings, Julia Collins and James Holzhauer types that drive clicks, Tweets and views, which are supposedly measures of relevance).
If nothing else, I think Scott's got it when it comes to the casting: Go back to good-natured contestants familiar with the game than Olympic-style trained competitors. People who are just going to approach the game in a different way can change a lot about the end product.
-
If nothing else, I think Scott's got it when it comes to the casting: Go back to good-natured contestants familiar with the game than Olympic-style trained competitors. People who are just going to approach the game in a different way can change a lot about the end product.
Here's the problem: the Jeopardy contestant pool is already self-selecting people who take the game with some degree of seriousness. I have a hard time believing anyone in 202X who is selected would not do any sort of prep, whether it's research, buzzer practice, or just collaborating with the larger community. It's all on the internet and not hard to find; anyone who chooses to not partake even a little is a fool.
-
Here's the problem: the Jeopardy contestant pool is already self-selecting people who take the game with some degree of seriousness. I have a hard time believing anyone in 202X who is selected would not do any sort of prep, whether it's research, buzzer practice, or just collaborating with the larger community. It's all on the internet and not hard to find; anyone who chooses to not partake even a little is a fool.
Is this what you call "being a victim of your own success"?
-
Similar to the way that game shows change in small ways that ar3 large when sen ove4 the corse of generations, I like the freedom afforded by “control of the board” and also am sympathetic to those who want to follow along or would prefer a climactic outcome:
The current production company is trying to massage Jeopardy into a sport. Taken as a whole product, they just are. Box scores, a promotion and relegation ladder—it’s all stuff from soccer and baseball. The same way that they are not going to impose a winnings limit that was the way things were for twenty years, I cannot see the show taking away the weapon for players who want to be elite and to pile up huge prize money in a hurry,
Part of my issue is that game shows as a whole are moving in ways I don’t love. I guess we all have something to bear in a fashion.
At the end of the day, if the show is not watchable or interesting, it won't survive, irrespective of whatever competitive or strategic merits it may have. If players regularly went full-Holzhauer for weeks on end, for instance, and viewers revolted, the producers' hand would practically be forced, and they'd have to address the issue.
Even televised sports face this pressure too.
PS: One merit of the five-day limit was that if you had an annoying contestant or a contestant who makes the game not fun to watch, they'll be gone in a week at most.
-
PS: One merit of the five-day limit was that if you had an annoying contestant or a contestant who makes the game not fun to watch, they'll be gone in a week at most.
Herb Stempel was born 50 years too early.
-
The Onion A.V. Club covers this very subject: https://www.avclub.com/jeopardy-technique-james-holzhauer-forrest-bounce-1850935799 (https://www.avclub.com/jeopardy-technique-james-holzhauer-forrest-bounce-1850935799)
-
Would it help if they went back to the Art Fleming and season one rule of being allowed to ring in upon reveal of the clue rather than waiting for the light? Maybe one avoids choosing weaker categories. Maybe it would take away an advantage the returning champion always has: Getting good at reacting to the light, rather than the speed of your thinking being measured. (Same problem with the new Split Second.)
Or maybe it wouldn't help.
-
Or maybe it wouldn't help.
Um, go with this.
-
Would it help if they went back to the Art Fleming and season one rule of being allowed to ring in upon reveal of the clue rather than waiting for the light? Maybe one avoids choosing weaker categories. Maybe it would take away an advantage the returning champion always has: Getting good at reacting to the light, rather than the speed of your thinking being measured. (Same problem with the new Split Second.)
I personally hate when game shows allow the contestant to ring in. Even though it adds risk to a show like “Split Second” or J! (“And that’s the Jeopardy…”), something about it feels like it’s rude to interrupt the host(ess) mid-question.
-
Depends on the show for me. It works on Sale of the Century because the questions are much easier and it sometimes leads to some funny moments. But a show that is 100 percent Q&A, or A&Q I guess, would have the pacing thrown off severely.
-
something about it feels like it’s rude to interrupt the host(ess) mid-question.
If it's part of the game, I promise you the host(ess) isn't taking any offense. :)
-
jage makes a good counterargument. With the right format, making the contestant answer right then and there is the better option IMO.
Years ago there was an Aussie Temptation contestant who sabotaged the champ playing for The Lot. The champ was in second place going into the speed round, and the third contestant kept ringing in during the question, basically locking out the champ.
I realize that's one very specific scenario, but it never sat right with me. Point taken.
-
Years ago there was an Aussie Temptation contestant who sabotaged the champ playing for The Lot. The champ was in second place going into the speed round, and the third contestant kept ringing in during the question, basically locking out the champ.
I realize that's one very specific scenario, but it never sat right with me. Point taken.
I posit that isn't on the format, that's on the contestant coordinator for not sniffing out someone willing to pull a dick move like that and letting them even get close to that buzzer.
-
I posit that isn't on the format, that's on the contestant coordinator for not sniffing out someone willing to pull a dick move like that and letting them even get close to that buzzer.
If I remember the story correctly, the producer (or contestant coordinator or whoever) straight up told this contestant "You're not going to win, so just enjoy your last minute on TV." If that's true, then the whole thing was entirely their fault.
-
If that's true, then the whole thing was entirely their fault.
While that's sorta a tone-deaf thing to say, there's also a better way to interpret something like that than "so feel free to blow up the entire production."
This is the Monopoly problem, right? Not that I am holding Monopoly up as the pinnacle of board game design, but it applies to most any game with player-to-player interaction: if one player at the table decides they simply aren't going to interact, or if all other players at the table agree that they aren't going to interact with one specific player, the game is broken. A basic tenet of games is that it's assumed that everyone at the table at least wants to play the game in the spirit the game wants to be played in.
That dude essentially flipped the table. They really probably should have stopped down tape and told him to quit it with his temper tantrum.
-
I was fuzzy on the details of that incident, so I looked through the Wikipedia edit history of the Temptation article and found this from when the show was still on:
A large amount of controversy erupted after the October 20, 2006 episode in which Lainie kept buzzing in during the mad minute without necessarily knowing the answers. Eventually, Charles became the champ, winning by $20 over Harry while Lainie (who finished on just $10) admitted, "I helped Charles, I hope." Harry, dismayed (as can be seen after the final siren), missed out on winning a $20,000 holiday to Japan, but still left with over $12,000 in cash and prizes. After the episode went to air, there were many complaints made either in the news or directly to Grundy, the company that owns Temptation, demanding that Harry be reinstated as champion. The Nine Network's A Current Affair reported that Grundy executives had decided that Harry would not be coming back. Despite this decision, a phone poll was conducted to see whether or not Harry should come back. 94% of the fourteen thousand entries agreed that Harry should come back. Grundy then re-reviewed its decision, but it is still unchanged as it was clear during the footage that Harry did not once 'simultaneously' buzz with Lainie, instead not attempting to buzz in at any time at all.
And a report from Extra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B3UnbRFPLM
-
Grundy then re-reviewed its decision, but it is still unchanged as it was clear during the footage that Harry did not once 'simultaneously' buzz with Lainie, instead not attempting to buzz in at any time at all.
It feels like this reasoning actually makes Harry's case, especially if Lainie's answers were off center enough to suggest she had no idea what the question was looking for.
The smoking gun was definitely her admitting she hoped she was helping Charles. This would not fly in the US.
-
The smoking gun was definitely her admitting she hoped she was helping Charles. This would not fly in the US.
Collusion doesn't fly in the U.S. (and is explicitly forbidden). Forfeiting your chances of winning in order to help or hinder another player -- so long as it wasn't done with the expectation of sharing in the champion's winnings -- is permissible so long as the rules of the game are followed.
See, for example, any Press Your Luck contestant who was in third place and passed the final spin. Or that Wheel of Fortune contestant from 2015 who started making terrible guesses in the speed-up round (for reasons that were never revealed, although one hypothesis was that she wanted one of her opponents to win additional consolation money). Or a Price Is Right contestant deliberately overbidding on a showcase because they already won enough nice prizes and they want their opponent to win something.
If it's possible for a game show contestant to ruin another contestant's chances of winning through legal in-game actions, then it indicates a flaw in the game and/or a flaw in the contestant selection process. It's true that what Lainie did goes against the spirit of Temptation, but that's the risk the producers took when they played a game in which an incorrect answer immediately ends a scoring opportunity. The spirit of Jeopardy! is to play to win, but when too many contestants started wagering to tie rather than add that extra dollar, the exploit was patched. But until that time, playing in a manner not in the spirit of the game is completely legal.
-
If it's possible for a game show contestant to ruin another contestant's chances of winning through legal in-game actions, then it indicates a flaw in the game and/or a flaw in the contestant selection process. It's true that what Lainie did goes against the spirit of Temptation, but that's the risk the producers took when they played a game in which an incorrect answer immediately ends a scoring opportunity. The spirit of Jeopardy! is to play to win, but when too many contestants started wagering to tie rather than add that extra dollar, the exploit was patched. But until that time, playing in a manner not in the spirit of the game is completely legal.
I don't think anyone's questioning the legality. You nailed it when you brought up the contestant selection process.
-
Back on topic: I floated this idea during a tape stop at a J! taping last week. Kennings, after giving a rote speech about how like baseball the rules are adapting constantly, expressed his disdain for the idea. Watson ruined the game for me as a viewer.
-
What was off topic, Al?