Thursday, May 22, 2014 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Archivists]

Game Recap for Show #6844, 2014-05-22

Julia Collins game 14.

CONTESTANTS
Ryan Real, a sports information director from Clinton, South Carolina
Alex Tran, an auto repair shop service manager from St. Louis, Missouri
Julia Collins, a supply chain professional from Kenilworth, Illinois (whose 13-day cash winnings total $261,410)

OPENING REMARKS
Alex: Hey, Johnny. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Standing backstage, I could hear the audience gasp a little when Johnny read out the total winnings for Julia. Alex and Ryan, you know something? It could happen to you also. But in order for it to happen to you, you first have to defeat this lady. All right, good luck. Here we go. Here are the categories for the first round today...

JEOPARDY! ROUND CATEGORIES
TOURING ALABAMA (2/5)
BRANDS (5/5)
THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE (4/5, including 1 correct Daily Double)
SIMON SAYS (5/5)
POP MUSIC OF TODAY (5/5)
2 SYLLABLES, 1 SYLLABLE (5/5) (Alex: There are two words in each correct response. The first one has 2 syllables, the second word has 1.)

THE RIGHTS & THE WRONGS
Julia: 10 R (including 1 DD), 1 W
Alex: 8 R, 1 W
Ryan: 8 R (including 1 rebound), 1 W

Clues revealed: 30
Triple Stumpers: 4
Jeopardy! Round Potential Lach Trash: $3,200



SCORES AT THE FIRST BREAK
Julia: $4,800
Ryan: $2,600
Alex: $200

CONTESTANT INTERVIEWS



Alex Trebek: Ryan Real is a sports information director who works in the athletic department of...

Ryan: Presbyterian College, and we are the Presbyterian College Blue Hose.

Alex Trebek: Blue hose?

Ryan: Blue hose.

Alex Trebek: H-O-S-E.

Ryan: That's right. It's like White Sox, Red Sox. That's how it started. And now it's like a Scotch warrior, you know, like Braveheart--the kilt, the sword, the whole deal.

Alex Trebek: Aha.

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

Alex Trebek: How good is the team?

Ryan: We're all pretty good. We're all pretty good.

Alex Trebek: Yeah? You're --

Ryan: They're good people.

Alex Trebek: Yeah?

Ryan: Well, yeah. Good people.

Alex Trebek: What's the best sport that you guys excel in?

Ryan: We excel in, um, tennis. We're an old tennis school. We're pretty good in tennis.

Alex Trebek: Okay.

Ryan: Yeah.

Alex Trebek: Good. No contact sports.




Alex Trebek: Alex Tran is an auto repair service manager from St. Louis, Missouri. And it says here that every time you have to change a tire, you don't have to change the tire.

Alex Tran: Well, I do anyway because someone will stop and I tell them, "I've got this."

[Chuckles]

Alex Trebek: You've got it?

Alex Tran: I've got it. I've known how to change a tire since before I could drive a car.

Alex Trebek: Uh-huh. Did your dad teach you?

Alex Tran: Yes.

Alex Trebek: I've seen the commercial.

[Laughter]




Alex Trebek: All right, Julia Collins is our champion. We keep introducing her as a supply chain professional and I'm not sure we have talked about exactly what you do.

Julia: Um, well, until recently I was a management consultant doing mostly supply chain.
Prior to that, I got a master's degree in supply chain management.

Alex Trebek: But what does "supply chain" mean?

Julia: Um, I've done things like inventory forecasting and purchasing. I've, uh, tracked logistics, import logistics for a retailer. It's anything to do with getting things from one place to another, producing them, buying them. It's kind of the nuts and bolts.

Alex Trebek: Well, the big deal--well, the big deal nowadays for big companies is to not produce things too far in advance.

Julia: Yes.

Alex Trebek: To just be able to get them--we get the call today, we'll produce it tomorrow, and you'll have it the day after that, right?

Julia: Yes, everyone wants to save money any way they can.

Alex Trebek: Okay.

Julia: So a supply chain's a good place to do it.

Alex Trebek: All right.

JEOPARDY! ROUND DAILY DOUBLE
Julia found the Daily Double on the 25th clue. Julia had $6,200, Alex had $2,600, and Ryan was at $4,000. Julia wagered $1,500.

THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE $800: A 1937 short novel by Steinbeck:
Preposition
(Alex Trebek: [*] Mice and Men. You got it.)

TRIPLE STUMPERS IN THE JEOPARDY! ROUND
THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE $1000: Budd Schulberg's Hollywood novel about Sammy Glick:
Verb (1 of 2)
(Alex Trebek: What [*] Sammy [**]? So it was either [*] or [**].)

TOURING ALABAMA $400: The first White House of the confederacy in this city is decorated with period furniture from the 1850s & 1860s

TOURING ALABAMA $800: The USS Alabama, which is moored in this bay, serves as a memorial to all Alabamans who've been in the military

TOURING ALABAMA $1000: The piano on which he composed "St. Louis Blues" is on display at his birthplace & museum in Florence
(Julia: Who is Duke Ellington?)
(Ryan: Who is Robert Johnson?)
...
(Alex: And I said "St. Louis Blues". I should probably have said "St. Lou-ee Blues".)

SCORES AT THE END OF THE JEOPARDY! ROUND
Julia: $6,700
Alex: $3,200
Ryan: $3,000

[Archivists]

DOUBLE JEOPARDY! ROUND CATEGORIES
BRITISH ART & ARTISTS (5/5)
FAMOUS GEMSTONES (3/5)
TV THEN & NOW (5/5)
AMERICAN HISTORY (3/5, including 1 correct Daily Double)
"I-O" (3/5) (Alex: Those two letters coming up in that order.)
YOU (4/5, including 1 correct Daily Double)

THE RIGHTS & THE WRONGS
Julia: 13 R (including 1 rebound and 1 DD), 0 W
Ryan: 6 R (including 1 DD), 2 W
Alex: 4 R, 2 W

Clues revealed: 30
Triple Stumpers: 7
Double Jeopardy! Round Potential Lach Trash: $12,000



FIRST DOUBLE JEOPARDY! ROUND DAILY DOUBLE
Ryan snagged the next Daily Double on the 13th clue. Julia had $15,900, Alex had $2,000, and Ryan was at $2,600. Ryan wagered $1,000.

AMERICAN HISTORY $800: In 1851 The New York Times was founded to represent the views of this party that didn't last much longer

SECOND DOUBLE JEOPARDY! ROUND DAILY DOUBLE
It was Julia who snatched up the last Daily Double of the game on the 30th clue. Julia had $18,300, Alex had $4,400, and Ryan was at $7,200. Julia wagered $2,000.

YOU $2000: This main artery of the thigh ends just above the knee

TRIPLE STUMPERS IN THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY! ROUND
FAMOUS GEMSTONES $1200: The 3,107-carat Cullinan Diamond, the largest gem diamond ever known, was presented to this British king in 1907
(Alex Tran: Who is George II?)

FAMOUS GEMSTONES $2000: The Chalk emerald ring & the Mackay emerald necklace both showcase gems from this South American country

AMERICAN HISTORY $1600: This 1972 pick for running mate told McGovern he had been treated for depression & withdrew from the race

AMERICAN HISTORY $2000: On July 10, 1962 this satellite was placed in orbit & soon began relaying TV pictures between the U.S. & Europe

"I-O" $1600: An organizer & sponsor of public entertainments such as concerts or plays

"I-O" $2000: An official representative of the pope
(Alex Trebek: Usually you hear it as papal [*].)

YOU $1600: This soft, purplish organ with sinusoids may be removed if one has cancer of the lymphatic system
(Ryan: What is the kidney?)
(Alex Tran: What is the thyroid?)

SCORES ENTERING FINAL JEOPARDY!
Julia: $20,300 (lock game)
Ryan: $7,200
Alex: $4,400

FINAL JEOPARDY! CATEGORY
TECHNOLOGY

VENUSIAN MONOLOGUES/MARTIAN CHRONICLES
Lock for first place; crush for second place.
Julia: Wager between $0 (venusian) and $5,899 (martian), and enjoy your victory.
Ryan: Wager $1,601 to cover Alex.
Alex: You have the hope of surpassing Ryan for second place if you come up with the correct response or if your opponent fails to. Bet between $1,200 and $4,398.

FINAL JEOPARDY! CLUE
When Apple sued for iPad patent infringement, Samsung cited this 1968 movie as the originator of the design

FINAL SCORES
Alex: $4,400 + $1,200 = $5,600 (What is A 2001?) (3rd place)
Ryan: $7,200 + $2,500 = $9,700 (What is 2001: A Space Odyssey?) (2nd place)
Julia: $20,300 + $2,390 = $22,690 (What is 2001: A Space Odyssey?) (261411-day champion: $22,690)

Total Potential Lach Trash: $15,200

GAME DYNAMICS


CORYAT SCORES
Julia: $19,600, 23 R (including 2 DDs), 1 W
Ryan: $7,000, 14 R (including 1 DD), 3 W
Alex: $4,400, 12 R, 3 W
Combined Coryat: $31,000

BATTING AVERAGES
Julia: 24/60 = .400
Ryan: 15/59 = .254
Alex: 13/58 = .224
Team: 52/63 = .825

MISCELLANEOUS INTERESTING CLUES
POP MUSIC OF TODAY $200: The song heard here put this teenager on the map

"And we'll never be royals (royals) /
It don't run in our blood..."

THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE $200: Pronoun in the title of a 1940 Hemingway classic whose title "rings" out
(Alex Trebek: For [*] the Bell Tolls. You are correct.)

POP MUSIC OF TODAY $800: Try to form a mental image of this group heard here

"Whoa, oh, oh /
I'm radioactive, radioactive..."

SIMON SAYS $1000: This man said, "Justice for crimes against humanity must have no limitations"

BRANDS $600: Big date tonight? Try this toothpaste "with Scope"
(Alex Tran: What is Colgate?)

THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE $400: A novel about Daisy Buchanan, among others:
Adjective
(Alex Trebek: [*], from The [*] Gatsby.)

THE PART OF SPEECH IN THE BOOK TITLE $600: A 1937 Tolkien tale:
Article
(Alex Trebek: [*], in [*] Hobbit.)

BRITISH ART & ARTISTS $800: (Alex Trebek delivers the clue from the J. Paul Getty Museum.) In the 1770s, Thomas Gainsborough painted a portrait of this friend, the founder of a London auction house; he's leaning against 1 of the artist's own paintings & is holding what is probably an auction list
(Ryan: Who is Sotheby?)

"I-O" $800: A leather case for carrying important documents
[Alex Trebek did not give the expected correct response.]

CORRECT RESPONSES
Of
Makes (or Run)
Montgomery
Mobile Bay
W.C. Handy
the Whigs
femoral
Edward VII
Colombia
Thomas Eagleton
Telstar
impresario
nuncio
spleen
2001: A Space Odyssey
Lorde
Whom
Imagine Dragons
Simon Wiesenthal
Crest
Great
The
(James) Christie
portfolio (folio accepted)

[jeff6286]

Technology
When Apple sued for iPad patent infringement, Samsung cited this 1968 movie as the originator of the design.

Spoiler

What is 2001: A Space Odyssey? (Alex's response of "2001" was accepted.)

Julia Collins: $20,300+$2,390=$22,690...now a 14-day champion with $284,100
Ryan Real: $7,200+$2,500=$9,700
Alex Tran: $4,400+$1,200=$5,600

[JFanForever]

I didn't exactly know FJ, per se, like I didn't know that particular fact, but a 1968 film surrounding technology, that was the only one I could think of, and sure enough.

[tgs]

As AP said on yesterday's thread: it's not that Julia's opponents are idiots; they're just bad at Jeopardy. Wagering 1000 of 2600 on a second row DD facing a huge deficit was nearly the difference maker. A bigger wager plus DD hunting (for a pretty easy bottom row DD) and Julia's streak could be over.

[Rex Kramer]

As AP said on yesterday's thread: it's not that Julia's opponents are idiots; they're just bad at Jeopardy. Wagering 1000 of 2600 on a second row DD facing a huge deficit was nearly the difference maker. A bigger wager plus DD hunting (for a pretty easy bottom row DD) and Julia's streak could be over.

I know that tgs has been supportive of Julia on her merits -- and I know nothing about what tgs thought of Arthur Chu's run -- so while what I am about to say springs from the above comment, I do not mean to imply that tgs specifically holds the viewpoint I am about to question. It's just out there in the internet. But:

Why is it that when Arthur Chu was winning, it was because he was a genius whose understanding of gameplay could not be withstood by ordinary opponents; but when Julia is winning, it's because her opponents are "just bad at Jeopardy!"? Does anybody seriously contend that Julia's opponents are any more bad at Jeopardy! than any other set of J! opponents? I just don't think that's qualitatively true; the majority of contestants are somewhat hapless. Is the implication that Arthur somehow "earned" his less able opponents because he was crafty and ruthless, but Julia doesn't deserve hers because all she does is get closer and closer to Dave Madden's record?

There is a sickening condescension in the way some people write about Julia, as if she were being granted her victories under some kind of affirmative action program for soft-spoken complaisant women. How many games does she have to win before people start crediting her streak to her and not her opponents?

Rex

[tgs]

As AP said on yesterday's thread: it's not that Julia's opponents are idiots; they're just bad at Jeopardy. Wagering 1000 of 2600 on a second row DD facing a huge deficit was nearly the difference maker. A bigger wager plus DD hunting (for a pretty easy bottom row DD) and Julia's streak could be over.

I know that tgs has been supportive of Julia on her merits -- and I know nothing about what tgs thought of Arthur Chu's run -- so while what I am about to say springs from the above comment, I do not mean to imply that tgs specifically holds the viewpoint I am about to question. It's just out there in the internet. But:

Why is it that when Arthur Chu was winning, it was because he was a genius whose understanding of gameplay could not be withstood by ordinary opponents; but when Julia is winning, it's because her opponents are "just bad at Jeopardy!"? Does anybody seriously contend that Julia's opponents are any less bad at Jeopardy! than any other set of J! opponents? I just don't think that's qualitatively true; the majority of contestants are somewhat hapless. Is the implication that Arthur somehow "earned" his less able opponents because he was crafty and ruthless, but Julia doesn't deserve hers because all she does is get closer and closer to Dave Madden's record?

There is a sickening condescension in the way some people write about Julia, as if she were being granted her victories under some kind of affirmative action program for soft-spoken complaisant women. How many games does she have to win before people start crediting her streak to her and not her opponents?

Rex

I wasn't posting here during Arthur's run, but his opposition was just as bad, with the exception of a bigger challenge (Julie Singer) to get over that first-game hurdle.

[dhkendall]

As AP said on yesterday's thread: it's not that Julia's opponents are idiots; they're just bad at Jeopardy. Wagering 1000 of 2600 on a second row DD facing a huge deficit was nearly the difference maker. A bigger wager plus DD hunting (for a pretty easy bottom row DD) and Julia's streak could be over.

I know that tgs has been supportive of Julia on her merits -- and I know nothing about what tgs thought of Arthur Chu's run -- so while what I am about to say springs from the above comment, I do not mean to imply that tgs specifically holds the viewpoint I am about to question. It's just out there in the internet. But:

Why is it that when Arthur Chu was winning, it was because he was a genius whose understanding of gameplay could not be withstood by ordinary opponents; but when Julia is winning, it's because her opponents are "just bad at Jeopardy!"? Does anybody seriously contend that Julia's opponents are any less bad at Jeopardy! than any other set of J! opponents? I just don't think that's qualitatively true; the majority of contestants are somewhat hapless. Is the implication that Arthur somehow "earned" his less able opponents because he was crafty and ruthless, but Julia doesn't deserve hers because all she does is get closer and closer to Dave Madden's record?

There is a sickening condescension in the way some people write about Julia, as if she were being granted her victories under some kind of affirmative action program for soft-spoken complaisant women. How many games does she have to win before people start crediting her streak to her and not her opponents?

Rex

I see quite a difference in the ways that Julia and Arthur play, Arthur definitely plays with a strategy that is calculated to increase his odds of winning and maximie his earnings, it's very apparent that he played with a strategy in mind. Julia's play, though, is not that distinguishable from the way 99% of players play (including Dave Madden and Ken Jennings), in fact, maybe it's Julia who deserves the mad praise because Arthur needed to resort to a "strategy" to get to his lofty heights.

[lieph82]

As AP said on yesterday's thread: it's not that Julia's opponents are idiots; they're just bad at Jeopardy. Wagering 1000 of 2600 on a second row DD facing a huge deficit was nearly the difference maker. A bigger wager plus DD hunting (for a pretty easy bottom row DD) and Julia's streak could be over.

I know that tgs has been supportive of Julia on her merits -- and I know nothing about what tgs thought of Arthur Chu's run -- so while what I am about to say springs from the above comment, I do not mean to imply that tgs specifically holds the viewpoint I am about to question. It's just out there in the internet. But:

Why is it that when Arthur Chu was winning, it was because he was a genius whose understanding of gameplay could not be withstood by ordinary opponents; but when Julia is winning, it's because her opponents are "just bad at Jeopardy!"? Does anybody seriously contend that Julia's opponents are any less bad at Jeopardy! than any other set of J! opponents? I just don't think that's qualitatively true; the majority of contestants are somewhat hapless. Is the implication that Arthur somehow "earned" his less able opponents because he was crafty and ruthless, but Julia doesn't deserve hers because all she does is get closer and closer to Dave Madden's record?

There is a sickening condescension in the way some people write about Julia, as if she were being granted her victories under some kind of affirmative action program for soft-spoken complaisant women. How many games does she have to win before people start crediting her streak to her and not her opponents?

Rex

I see quite a difference in the ways that Julia and Arthur play, Arthur definitely plays with a strategy that is calculated to increase his odds of winning and maximie his earnings, it's very apparent that he played with a strategy in mind. Julia's play, though, is not that distinguishable from the way 99% of players play (including Dave Madden and Ken Jennings), in fact, maybe it's Julia who deserves the mad praise because Arthur needed to resort to a "strategy" to get to his lofty heights.

I think Dave Madden was a lot more like Arthur than like Julia.

I think that both Arthur and Julia played a lot of "eh" players. They probably both played a lesser level of competition than did 5-day champions 10 or 20 years ago. That definitely has helped them both out, but I credit their wins much more to their considerable (admittedly different) merits than to their opponents' weaknesses.

What percentage of the differences in the reactions to Arthur's and Julia's runs can be attributed to their different strategies, or societal norms/expectations, or sexism, or racism, or the fact that Arthur came first? I don't know, but I join you in being disturbed by some of what I've read.

[tgs]

I think that both Arthur and Julia played a lot of "eh" players. They probably both played a lesser level of competition than did 5-day champions 10 or 20 years ago. That definitely has helped them both out, but I credit their wins much more to their considerable (admittedly different) merits than to their opponents' weaknesses.

Maybe it only seems that way because superchampions are able to get to a level of comfort as champion that five-dayers never got to experience. Part of it is probably that your opponents look a lot worse when you're comfortable and it's day eight or whatever and everything's clicking.

[southsidehitman]

Here's the thing. You don't win 14 games and average $20k+ over that stretch without having a baseline measure of talent. I highly doubt that TPTB would select 28 milquetoast players (see what I did there?) just for the possibility that Julia could beat all of them in 14 straight days. I think Julia, also, has just as much a strategy as anyone else - grab whatever correct answers she can, clam on something she's not sure about, and bet according to category strength and game situation. Seems pretty sound to me.

[Bamaman]

Congrats to Julia on winning her 14th game. Of course, since the three wide I saw the other day in the preview ad is from Friday's show, her win was no shock to me.

Granted, I had home field advantage so I ran it easily, but did anyone find the Alabama category hard? The players only got two of them right and one had nothing to do with the state itself. But the first Confederate capital was a stand and stare, as was Mobile? I admit W.C. Handy may be a bit vague, but he was from my hometown, so I got him.

Highlight of the game.....

He was king in 1907.

Who is some dude that clearly came before the guy who was king in 1776?

No comment on his DD wager except I wish he had ended less than $1,600 shy of breaking the lock and then had a sole solve on FJ.

I got FJ on an educated guess. A sci-fi movie made in the late 1960s. I really wasn't sure when the movie came out (I've never seen it), but 1968 seemed close enough and I had no other guess.

[sarah0114]

"This salad dressing is named for a site near Santa Barbara -- We can say no more"

How near is near? My answer was Catalina.

[TenPoundHammer]

Not every opponent can be a tough fight. So Julia's had some subpar competition. Who cares? She's won 14 freakin' games!

====

I could've stared at Alabama for a month and never gotten "snowstorm". That seemed totally impenetrable to me.

Montgomery eludes me yet again. Dunno why that city refuses to stick in my mind.

Part of Speech was tough. I knew $200 was asking for the Bell quote, but I couldn't quite piece it together.

Brands for $400 and $600 seemed like total coin tosses on Bud/Miller and Colgate/Crest.

Once again I forget that pearls are gems. You'd think as a Steven Universe fan, I'd stop doing that by now…

"Oh, the bones around the brain. Skull-something. It begins with skull. Oh, they wanted only skull?!"

====

1968 movie. 2001: A Space Odyssey? Monolith? Sure.

[zakharov]

It may be time for a JuliaChat thread to mirror the Chu one. Anyone else agree?

As for tonight's game:

Julia sounds like she has the most boring job in the history of the universe.

Lost the Sotheby/Christie coinflip. Was there any TOM there?

I was positive I was toast when DJ got started: I know less than nothing about British art and gemstones of any kind. Went 1/5 in both. I still managed to clean up thanks to some really easy questions in the other categories. Finally, my history degree is useful, and all of the "you" questions were pretty laughable. Wound up getting 41 right with 2 negs.

Trash: Mobile Bay (would they have taken "Mobile?"), Eagleton, Telstar, nuncio.

Instaget FJ. There's only one science fiction movie from 1968 that matters.

[econgator]

"This salad dressing is named for a site near Santa Barbara -- We can say no more"

How near is near? My answer was Catalina.

It's about 150 miles away, so ... maybe?

Lost the Sotheby/Christie coinflip. Was there any TOM there?

If there was, I didn't see it. (ETA: I guess the real TOM, as best I can tell, is that Sotheby's is not named after anyone).

Instaguess FJ.

[esrever]

Congrats to Julia on her 14th win!

I counted 11 non-DD clues that none of the contestants got right.

Picked up Lach trash: "Mobile Bay", "W. C. Handy", "Thomas Eagleton", "Telstar", "impresario", "spleen"

Instaget FJ.

[eboettch]

Anyone else remember the 2010 game where British Art & Artists was a TS for all five clues? Alex got a bit of a laugh out of it by introducing the FJ category as British Art and Artists. Glad that it proved more accessible tonight.

[skygilbert]

Saying just "Freud" in the British Art category would have warranted a prompt, correct?

[jpr281]

Julia sounds like she has the most boring job in the history of the universe.

I thought the girl in the middle was going to collapse due to stage fright during the interview.