Thursday, June 23, 2016 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[BobF]

Totally outside of my wheelhouse, but since my wife is a big fan of hers (and, heck, I think she's pretty cool as well) I was able to get this in about 10 seconds.

[alan tiger]

a technical question.

do the game rules obligate a player to respond "who is _____?" or "what is _____?" are humorous (or semi-humorous) (or poor attempts at humorous) variations allowed?

yesterday (or the day before), one of the answers had to do with the beatles' song "a day in the life" from sgt. pepper. the standard (and obvious) question would be "what is the albert hall?"

but in my mind, i *immediately* thought: "alex, do you know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall?"

i don't recall any such rule when i was on the show ... but that was 60 or 70 years ago.

[alietr]

a technical question.

do the game rules obligate a player to respond "who is _____?" or "what is _____?" are humorous (or semi-humorous) (or poor attempts at humorous) variations allowed?

yesterday (or the day before), one of the answers had to do with the beatles' song "a day in the life" from sgt. pepper. the standard (and obvious) question would be "what is the albert hall?"

but in my mind, i *immediately* thought: "alex, do you know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall?"

i don't recall any such rule when i was on the show ... but that was 60 or 70 years ago.

You don't have to have a proper question (e.g., "What is Helen Mirren?") is fine. But as for adding stuff to make it cutesy, do you really want to have Alex look over at the judges for a ruling? But I think they'd have to take the example you gave and you'd probably get admonished in the process.

Not sure what the fuss is about on Plumb. Totally acceptable rebound in my book. One reason you should always answer with the least acceptable amount of information. If they want you to be more specific, they'll ask you to be.

Sorry, Chuck, Alex says it's seppuku for you ...

TPH, if you spent half of the time you spend whining about not knowing something actually looking stuff up instead, you'd be learning a lot. And I mean that in a helpful way.

Yeah, Laurie does seem to have that Laura Ashby thing going. There used to be somebody (I can't remember who) who posted on here who knew a lot (way too much) about speech science. I wish they were still here to weigh in on it.

[BobF]

a technical question.

do the game rules obligate a player to respond "who is _____?" or "what is _____?" are humorous (or semi-humorous) (or poor attempts at humorous) variations allowed?

yesterday (or the day before), one of the answers had to do with the beatles' song "a day in the life" from sgt. pepper. the standard (and obvious) question would be "what is the albert hall?"

but in my mind, i *immediately* thought: "alex, do you know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall?"

i don't recall any such rule when i was on the show ... but that was 60 or 70 years ago.

IMO, they might just neg you. Because the answer they gave is not the answer to the question you gave. You ask a question that can only be answered by yes or no or "I'll ask Paul McCartney next time I see him."

[Volante]

I gave myself credit for the "2-word phrase" the daylights, because it has more google hits than the living daylights...which is a "3-word phrase"...

The answer on the card was probably just "living daylights"; initial articles are ignored unless they're required to separate responses (e.g., [The] Invisible Man) so I don't think you get credit for that.

[John Boy]

NHO "swan of Avon". I only knew "Bard of Avon" for Shakespeare + "____ of Avon".

I haven't either. Is that a well-known thing?

not to me...

Nor to me....

Learn something every day.

[Bamaman]

NHO "swan of Avon". I only knew "Bard of Avon" for Shakespeare + "____ of Avon".

I haven't either. Is that a well-known thing?

not to me...

Nor to me....

Learn something every day.

Same here. Saturday poll request?

[John Boy]

Champ is rompin' and stompin'. Congrats on a fine third win.

It was intriguing to me to see Will gain the lead going into FJ by getting the last $2K clue right. Too bad he couldn't parlay that into a correct FJ, as his perfect wager would have given him a lovely payday. But that's why they call it...well, you know.

One part of this game is absolutely the pristine evidence of how my J! brain works. I picked up $2K Lach Trash with an Instaget on Jules Massenet, in large part because anything to do with classical music is simply my uber-wheelhouse category, and partly because I performed one of his works in solo and ensemble contest, much longer ago than I care to think about. Meanwhile I'm 0/5 on Adele. I think my brain is too full of old stuff to take in any new stuff.

[whoisalexjacob]

"TPH, if you spent half of the time you spend whining about not knowing something actually looking stuff up instead, you'd be learning a lot. And I mean that in a helpful way."

Yeah, obviously it's been covered before but I agree with this. If you really want to get better, look things up, take notes, review your notes. If you don't care, then don't care and stop complaining about how nothing sticks.

[harrumph]

NHO "swan of Avon". I only knew "Bard of Avon" for Shakespeare + "____ of Avon".

I haven't either. Is that a well-known thing?

not to me...

Nor to me....

Learn something every day.

I was familiar with Sibelius's The Swan Of Tuonela but not this one.

[DHicton]

That first Daily Double about "Presto" was just way too familiar. I guess nine years is a respectable amount of time to wait before recycling a clue, though.

Imagine the panic in the writers' room if they announced even a 5-year minimum requirement for recycling.

Last time they made this factoid into an FJ clue. But even with 26 seconds to think, the contestants couldn't get there. To be fair, the clue was marginally more difficult in its 2007 version. The category was ENGLISH LANGUAGE WRITERS. The text of the clue gave no hint as to nationality beyond what can be divined from "1710 to 1713" and a basic knowledge of history. Today's clue specified "Anglo-Irish" (if I recall). That would have ruled out all three guesses from 2007--Samuel Peeps, Daniel Defoe, and Bejamin Franklin.

Still, the 2007 clue seems eminently gettable for an FJ. And today's clue struck me as a textbook DD. Not something you're prepared to buzz in on immediately. But with a few seconds and no competition, a contestant should be able to get there. I think Laurie made her guess too quickly. She might have benefited from taking a moment.

Well, it kinda worked out for the best back then, but of course I would think that, wouldn't I?

[Woppy T]

a technical question.

do the game rules obligate a player to respond "who is _____?" or "what is _____?" are humorous (or semi-humorous) (or poor attempts at humorous) variations allowed?

yesterday (or the day before), one of the answers had to do with the beatles' song "a day in the life" from sgt. pepper. the standard (and obvious) question would be "what is the albert hall?"

but in my mind, i *immediately* thought: "alex, do you know how many holes it takes to fill the albert hall?"

i don't recall any such rule when i was on the show ... but that was 60 or 70 years ago.

IMO, they might just neg you. Because the answer they gave is not the answer to the question you gave. You ask a question that can only be answered by yes or no or "I'll ask Paul McCartney next time I see him."

You'd actually need to ask Lennon, and he's unlikely to respond.

[BobF]

IMO, they might just neg you. Because the answer they gave is not the answer to the question you gave. You ask a question that can only be answered by yes or no or "I'll ask Paul McCartney next time I see him."

You'd actually need to ask Lennon, and he's unlikely to respond.

Yes, 'tis true. Maybe Yoko is more likely to know the answer than Sir Paul is.

[davey]

I gave myself credit for the "2-word phrase" the daylights, because it has more google hits than the living daylights...which is a "3-word phrase"...

The answer on the card was probably just "living daylights"; initial articles are ignored unless they're required to separate responses (e.g., [The] Invisible Man) so I don't think you get credit for that.

If people commonly said "You scared daylights out of me" or "You scared living daylights out of me" I'd bow to the objection, but they don't. Anyway, it didn't affect the outcome of the game...

[opusthepenguin]

I gave myself credit for the "2-word phrase" the daylights, because it has more google hits than the living daylights...which is a "3-word phrase"...

The answer on the card was probably just "living daylights"; initial articles are ignored unless they're required to separate responses (e.g., [The] Invisible Man) so I don't think you get credit for that.

If people commonly said "You scared daylights out of me" or "You scared living daylights out of me" I'd bow to the objection, but they don't. Anyway, it didn't affect the outcome of the game...

I don't mind them giving credit for "the living daylights." I disagree with anyone who says that "the daylights" would or should have been negged.

[This Is Kirk!]

How was I supposed to know it was Caroline and not any of the 847 other Kennedys?

How many of those 847 lived in The White House?

[davey]

I gave myself credit for the "2-word phrase" the daylights, because it has more google hits than the living daylights...which is a "3-word phrase"...

The answer on the card was probably just "living daylights"; initial articles are ignored unless they're required to separate responses (e.g., [The] Invisible Man) so I don't think you get credit for that.

If people commonly said "You scared daylights out of me" or "You scared living daylights out of me" I'd bow to the objection, but they don't. Anyway, it didn't affect the outcome of the game...

I don't mind them giving credit for "the living daylights." I disagree with anyone who says that "the daylights" would or should have been negged.

Thanks. I've always understood the rule to be that initial articles are not required, not that they must be disregarded...

[davey]

How was I supposed to know it was Caroline and not any of the 847 other Kennedys?

How many of those 847 lived in The White House?

I think that was an open question at the time...

From the Stephen Sondheim musical "Merrily We Roll Along," a song sung in a nightclub act that takes place in 1960-

CHARLEY
There's Bobby

BETH
And Jackie

FRANK
And Jack.

ALL THREE
And myriads more in the back:
There's Ethel and Teddy and Pat alone,

CHARLEY
Plus Eunice

BETH
And Peter

FRANK
And Jean

TED
And Joan

CHARLEY
And what's-his-name — ?

BETH
Stephen.

FRANK
And hold the phone —
The one in the army —

OTHERS
One in the army?

FRANK
Captain … major …

CHARLEY
Sargent!

FRANK
That's it!

ALL THREE
So many cards in the pack,
You want to know how to keep track?
Well, one is good looking and young and rich
While one is good looking and young and rich,
The rest are good looking and young and rich —
There isn't a lot that they lack,
Not Bobby and Jackie and Jack
And Ethel and Ted and Eunice
and Pat and Joan and Steve and Peter and Jean and Sarge —
There's probably dozens of others at large,
God knows —
And Joe and Rose.

[CailinGaoilge]

NHO "swan of Avon". I only knew "Bard of Avon" for Shakespeare + "____ of Avon".

I haven't either. Is that a well-known thing?

not to me...

Nor to me....

Learn something every day.

Same here. Saturday poll request?

I lived under two hours from Stratford-upon-Avon for sixteen years and visited frequently (including taking some of the official tours), and never heard or saw Shakespeare referred to as the "Swan" of Avon. Turns out it refers to a poem by Ben Jonson in his First Folio, written as a memorial to Shakespeare, and which contains the lines:

Sweet Swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear

.

I still got nuthin'.

[dhkendall]

"TPH, if you spent half of the time you spend whining about not knowing something actually looking stuff up instead, you'd be learning a lot. And I mean that in a helpful way."

Yeah, obviously it's been covered before but I agree with this. If you really want to get better, look things up, take notes, review your notes. If you don't care, then don't care and stop complaining about how nothing sticks.

To add to this, I can see TPH saying "but reading about the Kennedys on Wikipedia isn't telling me which one had a hamster and why that's SOOOOOO easy apparently." Doesn't matter. Reading about the Kennedys will get you a Kennedy question in the future you wouldn't otherwise (proof: the number of clues Uncle John helped you get). That's one less question in the future. This will reduce the number of questions you ask over time by learning things. You're on Wikipefia a lot. Use it.