JBoard.tv

J! Round

DJ! Round

FINAL JEOPARDY! CATEGORY
HISTORIC NAMES

FINAL JEOPARDY! CLUE
He is quoted as saying, "Another such victory over the Romans, and we are undone"

Celeste DiNucci: 15800+6000=21800 (Wildcard)
Nick Swezey: 6600+4000=10400 (Quarterfinalist)
Craig Westphal: 21600+5000=26600 (Semifinalist)

Correct response:

Spoiler

Pyrrhus

Daily Doubles
Craig: 5000+5000
Craig: 9600+6000
Craig: 18000+2000

Coryats
Celeste: 15800
Nick: 6600
Craig: 11600

Combined: 34,000

Scores at the end of the Jeopardy! Round
Celeste: 5000
Nick: 1800
Craig: 10000

Here it is: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2162

I still can't solve that FJ! clue. Perhaps I should watch more of the episodes shown on Netflix & Hulu.

58 R
DD: 3/3
FJ:
LT: Menudo, Mornay, White Granite, Vortices, Sweeney Todd, Carnival Glass, Dred Scott v. Sanford

runs: Canadian Provinces, Supreme Court
Daily Doubles:
trash: menudo, Dred Scott v Sanford
FJ: instaget
Yep, this was a ToC-level board.

Lance Armstrong yesterday, Roman Polanski today...a lot of these people's reputations have gone in interesting directions

Raise your hand if you thought Alex was going to say "your virginity" after "I want to talk about something you lost"

At least he didn't say "man" after Jamaica...

Completely understandable, but Craig seems awfully nervous. It's clearly not affecting his play, though!

Gotta remember that this was taped before Breaking Bad

I, too, fell for the "Cheetah Latifah" negbait

Is there somewhere with a collected database of ToC SF wildcard scores? I thought at the moment that Celeste's score seemed like it would have been highly likely to get her a wildcard slot, and checking the archive sure enough it did, but I'm curious if anyone's charted the probabilities of advancing with a given non-winning QF score. If not then maybe something to do with my time off...

Coryat: $30,000

J: 20R10P. Got DD. 5/5 on Provinces. 4/5 on Columnists, Bach, and 4 "A"s. 0/5 on Buffet.

DJ: 19R9P2W. 2/2 on DDs. 5/5 on Scientists. 4/5 on Machu Picchu. 2/5 on Collectibles and Authors.

FJ: Didn't know it outright, but figured it out immediately

LT: granite, Sweeney Todd

Euphonium wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:23 pm
Is there somewhere with a collected database of ToC SF wildcard scores? I thought at the moment that Celeste's score seemed like it would have been highly likely to get her a wildcard slot, and checking the archive sure enough it did, but I'm curious if anyone's charted the probabilities of advancing with a given non-winning QF score. If not then maybe something to do with my time off...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2136

Euphonium wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:23 pm
Is there somewhere with a collected database of ToC SF wildcard scores? I thought at the moment that Celeste's score seemed like it would have been highly likely to get her a wildcard slot, and checking the archive sure enough it did, but I'm curious if anyone's charted the probabilities of advancing with a given non-winning QF score. If not then maybe something to do with my time off...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2136&p=122013

Nick was the first man out. Had he bet it all, he gets a wildcard.

I missed FJ. I felt it was someone ancient but couldn’t figure it out and put down Patton.

Euphonium wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:23 pm Lance Armstrong yesterday, Roman Polanski today...a lot of these people's reputations have gone in interesting directions

Polanski's was pretty well established already by 2007. As for Armstrong, he had already told us "It's Not About the Bike".

I liked the Supreme Court cat. Santa Claus will be hard-pressed to deliver anything as nice as a daily double in "anagrammed Canadian provinces".

Colette's brother was a Jerome Vered victim. She said in one of her interviews that she wanted to avenge him, or restore the family honor, or some such, and so she did.

Sort of off-topic, but I recently came across another Jerome Vered victim, Devon Ericson, in a Streets of San Francisco episode. The opening credits were chopped from this upload, but she first appears at about the 10:56 mark.

DBear wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 2:15 pm Yep, this was a ToC-level board.

Boy, no kidding! We're expected to know that the St. John Passion, while also first performed in Leipzig, premiered 5 years earlier than the St. Matthew Passion. So don't name the 1724 work that fits every other word in the clue, go for the 1729 one. No way would I have risked ringing in and handing the correct response to someone else. And Classical Music is a wheelhouse category.

Euphonium wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:23 pm I, too, fell for the "Cheetah Latifah" negbait

I think "Catherine Cheetah-Jones" has more claim to being negbait for that clue.

I know what a pyrrhic victory is but did not know the term was derived from a person. I went with Hannibal.

Frustrating day with names. Couldn't come up with David Lynch, Roman Polanski, or "Cheetah" Rivera (the last would have been something I was surprised to get, but I should have been able to name), and barely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

The term I've always heard for intersections of ley lines is nexus, and I spent most of the time trying to decide what the proper plural was. I assume they'd have given it to me, probably as a reversal.

Final: Pyrrhus immediately clicked, and locked that in and spent the rest of the time thinking who else it could be. Didn't come up with anyone. Didn't need to.

Plactus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:53 amand barely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

I'm curious what people think about this--because (unlike most cases) it's commonly referenced solely by the name of the petitioner, would they have accepted simply "Dred Scott"? Or because the clues were written as essentially puns, would the name of the respondent be necessary in order to fill out the wordplay?

Euphonium wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:59 am

Plactus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:53 amand barely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

I'm curious what people think about this--because (unlike most cases) it's commonly referenced solely by the name of the petitioner, would they have accepted simply "Dred Scott"? Or because the clues were written as essentially puns, would the name of the respondent be necessary in order to fill out the wordplay?

I would imagine the full name would be. Even if you didn’t know it they certainly gave you a huge hint with “sitcom junk dealer”.

Plactus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:53 ambarely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

We'd make a good team for that clue then. I got the sitcom junk dealer part just fine. Couldn't think of what went up front. I know about "the Dred Scott decision" of course. Just didn't recall the other party. So {BLANK] v San(d)ford got me nowhere. And fearsome kilt wearer wasn't happening either.

Might be a good set of poll clues if there's room. "I got Dre(a)d Scot(t) but not San(d)ford" vs the reverse.

opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:09 pm

Plactus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:53 ambarely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

We'd make a good team for that clue then. I got the sitcom junk dealer part just fine. Couldn't think of what went up front. I know about "the Dred Scott decision" of course. Just didn't recall the other party. So {BLANK] v San(d)ford got me nowhere. And fearsome kilt wearer wasn't happening either.

Might be a good set of poll clues if there's room. "I got Dre(a)d Scot(t) but not San(d)ford" vs the reverse.

I got Gideon but couldn’t piece together the back half. I am familiar with the case but only knew the plaintiff.

Bamaman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:29 pm

opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:09 pm

Plactus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:53 ambarely came up with Dred Scott before the buzzer (I would have never gotten Sanford).

We'd make a good team for that clue then. I got the sitcom junk dealer part just fine. Couldn't think of what went up front. I know about "the Dred Scott decision" of course. Just didn't recall the other party. So {BLANK] v San(d)ford got me nowhere. And fearsome kilt wearer wasn't happening either.

Might be a good set of poll clues if there's room. "I got Dre(a)d Scot(t) but not San(d)ford" vs the reverse.

I got Gideon but couldn’t piece together the back half. I am familiar with the case but only knew the plaintiff.

I got both parts, but Gideon is definitely the easy half.

The odd part about that category was that Alex introduced it as if it was straightforwardly about cases, not puns. I can't remember another case where he misled. I'm sure the players noticed but I didn't that there was a ? at the end...It took me a while to get up to speed, and the Daily Double was the only one where I came up with both parties.