Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Dr. J »

alietr wrote:It was a long, long time ago, but my recollection is that the explanation they gave was that they didn't want you to forget to put it in the form of a question, thus invalidating your response (and gave a specific example of it) and causing a debacle. I don't remember it having anything to do with the amount of time to write.
That makes perfect sense. And now I'm singing "American Pie" in my head.

User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Save Me, Maggie!
Posts: 3030
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Wherever I May Roam
Contact:

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by BigDaddyMatty »

Coryat: $42,400
44 R/2 W
DD: 1/3
FJ: :(
LT: The Golden Rule, System of a Down, Bali, Rive Gauche, Ireland, the Mafia, extemporaneous, Izaak Walton

I'm watching the week out of order, but I'm now one miss away from ticking the box of shame in the weekly poll. I went with Liz Taylor over Natalie Wood. Neither Hepburn occurred to me.

I also lost a coin flip on the John Donne DD, allowing the "Pseudo-Martyr" part to overrule the date, which led me to Henry VIII over James I. That and "nabob" for "naysayer" kept me from a perfect DJ! round.
Sprinkles are for winners.

cthulhu
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:29 am

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by cthulhu »

On FJ, I thought Kate Hepburn right away, then spent a few seconds with Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland, before settling in with KH. I never even considered Audrey.

MattKnowles
selwonKttaM
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by MattKnowles »

Bamaman wrote:
davey wrote: Here's a post in which Roger Craig suggests that players may have been given an extra tipoff for specificity prior to FJ

http://jboard.tv/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17 ... ible#p1626
This game seems to disprove Roger's theory about what would be accepted.


http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=5187

This game seems to confirm Roger's theory about what would be accepted: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3160

A player was ruled incorrect for putting "King Name" without putting "King Name Number"
Spoiler
For the game Bamaman posted the clue was about the King James Bible and they accepted "King James" without a number. It seems like a special case.
Is there another example of a response of "King Name" instead of "King Name I" which is ruled correct or incorrect? I'm curious if being the first of the name actually allows the number to be omitted.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.

Kenny
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:37 am

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by Kenny »

MattKnowles wrote: Is there another example of a response of "King Name" instead of "King Name I" which is ruled correct or incorrect? I'm curious if being the first of the name actually allows the number to be omitted.
John Paul was accepted for John Paul 2.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7908
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by opusthepenguin »

Here's your smoking gun:

SJ Clue 29, $800 THE PILGRIMS - Matthew says, "Who is James?" Alex fires back, "Which one?" Matthew guesses James II and is negged. Tom picks it up on the rebound.

Other examples:

DJ Clue 20, $2000 MR. TEA - Steve says "Who is Charles?" Alex says "Which one?" Steve gets it right with Charles II.

DJ Clue 11, $800 MOVIE BIO DOUBLE - Noam is asked to specify whether Blanchett and Dench both played Elizabeth I or II

SJ Clue 28, $600 ROYALLY LAST - Monica says Nicholas was the last Romanov ruler of Russia. Alex wants to know which one. She guesses Nicholas I. Alex says no. NO ONE ELSE RINGS IN!

SJ Clue 11, $200 HISTORIC NICKNAMES -
Tucker: Who is George?
Alex: Give me a number.
Tucker: There was more than one?
Alex: Anybody else?
Peggy rings in and gets it right

I found these by searching for phrases like "which one" and "need a number." This naturally turned up examples where Alex does ask the contestant to be more specific. I can't think of a way to search for times when he doesn't.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4782
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Post by jeff6286 »

So here's the thing, we go round and round on discussions like this from time to time, (and I do enjoy them!) and often it seems that the bottom line is, there is no smoking gun. The Jeopardy writers/judges aren't always consistent, even with themselves. It would make sense to see different rulings on similar responses in a 1987 game and a 2016 game, given the turnover in show staff and the evolution of the show's standards. But there definitely seem to be times where even from one week to the next they don't seem to be consistent on what they take or don't take, what they prompt or don't prompt, what they accept or don't accept in FJ.

Some of it seems to come down to the whims of Alex, whether he feels like prompting or whether he assumes the contestant knows who they're talking about. Certainly there are some clues where it's marked on his card in advance that he should BMS if needed, but I think it's hard for the writers to foresee in advance every possibility of what a contestant might say and whether it is acceptable.

It would certainly be frustrating if you were on the show and gave a response such as "King James" and got prompted when you specifically remember the FJ where no prompt was given for the same response. If you challenged, they could explain that in that case since the King James Bible was being referenced, they made the unusual decision to not require a regnal number. More likely, they would not explain their reasoning and just tell you that you were prompted and didn't know which James, so you don't get the money. Inconsistency can be maddening but if it's their show, their rules, and their money, sometimes those are the breaks and you have to live with their decision.

Post Reply