Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
skrambler
Sam Kavanaugh's Mustache
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:42 am
Contact:

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by skrambler »

Bamaman wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:02 pm
I thought Savannah was going to be the alternative city Alex mentioned. As New Orleans was French in 1790, that wasn’t possible.
Just fyi, New Orleans was under Spanish control in 1790, not French. It very briefly became French again in the early 19th century, but Napoleon had other ambitions at the time and sold it.
Audacious! Loquacious! Voracious!

User avatar
LucarioSnooperVixey
Darling Sillyclaws
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by LucarioSnooperVixey »

57 R (Missed Cast Your Pearls $800 and the Bottom Two in I Quit.)
DD: 3/3
FJ: :mrgreen:
LT: Deserters, Basil Rathbone, Swill, (Nicaragua), Shadow
Douglas Squasoni
QuizUp: 132.3k games
Alpaca Farm: 1548 quizzes

User avatar
SBurrus
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:57 pm
Location: Simpsonville, SC

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by SBurrus »

I was sad to see Mackenzie's run end; I really enjoyed her run on the show. Not only was she bright with a deep knowledge base, but she had a great personality and seemed like a fun person. At least, I know she'll be part of the next TOC.

Aaron seems intense, in the Matt Jackson mode.

talkingaway
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:59 am

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by talkingaway »

econgator wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:23 pm
This Is Kirk! wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:47 pm
1stlvlthinker wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:41 pm
Since the word "she" was in the clue, I figured "Curie" would have been enough. Do we refer to Irene as "Curie" or as "Joliot-Curie"?
I didn't even realize she went by the hyphenated "Joliot-Curie" until today.
As did her husband!
Actually, in some brief internet research (of dubious reliability, of course), I read that they both used just their own names (Curie for Irene and Joliot for her husband, whose name I've already forgotten) in their scientific papers.

I've always disliked the idea of a BMS, but I guess it's the best you can do. I guess you just have to know that "Curie" falls under the "Hemsworth/Roosevelt" rule. The only tinkering to J! rules I can think of would be to allow a "pass" option to BMS - no harm, no foul, locked out for the clue. It seems a little bit unfair when J! rules are generally "last name only" to quasi-suddenly require a first name, but it's heavy-handed to force every clue involving a Curie to start with "This is the first and last name of the scientist who...", because that would give away the correct response often enough. A "pass" response, with $0 taken away from the offending player, would actually help the other two players, but not punish for incomplete knowledge. I mean, my nightmare would be responding "Who is Reubens?", not knowing for sure if there's another famous Reubens painter, and then having to BMS.

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4722
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

talkingaway wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
econgator wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:23 pm
This Is Kirk! wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:47 pm
1stlvlthinker wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:41 pm
Since the word "she" was in the clue, I figured "Curie" would have been enough. Do we refer to Irene as "Curie" or as "Joliot-Curie"?
I didn't even realize she went by the hyphenated "Joliot-Curie" until today.
As did her husband!
Actually, in some brief internet research (of dubious reliability, of course), I read that they both used just their own names (Curie for Irene and Joliot for her husband, whose name I've already forgotten) in their scientific papers.

I've always disliked the idea of a BMS, but I guess it's the best you can do. I guess you just have to know that "Curie" falls under the "Hemsworth/Roosevelt" rule. The only tinkering to J! rules I can think of would be to allow a "pass" option to BMS - no harm, no foul, locked out for the clue. It seems a little bit unfair when J! rules are generally "last name only" to quasi-suddenly require a first name, but it's heavy-handed to force every clue involving a Curie to start with "This is the first and last name of the scientist who...", because that would give away the correct response often enough. A "pass" response, with $0 taken away from the offending player, would actually help the other two players, but not punish for incomplete knowledge. I mean, my nightmare would be responding "Who is Reubens?", not knowing for sure if there's another famous Reubens painter, and then having to BMS.
I think the premise is you should always know the first and last name of the person you wish to answer correctly, but in most cases you can stick with last in the interest of saving time and avoiding botching the first name. Yes it can be a bit arbitrary when they prompt and when they don't and it's impossible to have a one size fits all set of rules beyond simply always requiring full names. If you're concerned that every answer you give where you only know a last name might be prompted, then, well, I guess your two choices are take your chances and risk occasionally losing money because of it, or learn more first names. :mrgreen:

User avatar
twelvefootboy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1750
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:18 pm
Location: Tornado Alley / Southwest Missouri

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by twelvefootboy »

teapot37 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:20 am
twelvefootboy wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:57 pm
I'm sure Allison just whiffed on the significance of the year.
She told me she bolted upright in bed that night realizing that the Louisiana Purchase wasn't until 1803.
Yeah, it was obvious she is an intelligent lady and this was an unforced error, probably the lights and the time stress. You don't get the lead in a slugfest like that one without being solid in all phases. I thought Alex covered for the oversight nicely. She should be very proud of her performance.
Disclaimer - repeated exposure to author's musings may cause befuddlement.

User avatar
morbeedo
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by morbeedo »

twelvefootboy wrote:
Sat Feb 29, 2020 12:20 am
teapot37 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:20 am
twelvefootboy wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:57 pm
I'm sure Allison just whiffed on the significance of the year.
She told me she bolted upright in bed that night realizing that the Louisiana Purchase wasn't until 1803.
Yeah, it was obvious she is an intelligent lady and this was an unforced error, probably the lights and the time stress. You don't get the lead in a slugfest like that one without being solid in all phases. I thought Alex covered for the oversight nicely. She should be very proud of her performance.
I assumed Alex was referring to New Orleans and Charleston as the two sides of the coin. Maybe he just said that because that’s what he saw on the screen before the reveal, and then he ad libbed “you had two choices on this one” to make hoopla on Mackenzie’s reveal. Surprised she had zero confidence in her own answer. I had it down to Savannah and Charleston and picked the right one, but wish there was more to go on in the clue

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

This Is Kirk! wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:10 pm
TenPoundHammer wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:43 pm
I remember this one getting a lot of discussion in the daily thread, and IIRC the consensus was that either just "Curie" or "Madame Curie" should have been enough.
Huh, I would definitely think this is a case where you'd need to specify Marie. I'm surprised most people thought just "Curie" should be enough.
There's no consensus in that thread. One poster makes a forceful argument for just "Curie," and one poster expresses agreement. That poster: TPH... :roll:

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

jeff6286 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:13 pm


I think the premise is you should always know the first and last name of the person you wish to answer correctly, but in most cases you can stick with last in the interest of saving time and avoiding botching the first name. Yes it can be a bit arbitrary when they prompt and when they don't and it's impossible to have a one size fits all set of rules beyond simply always requiring full names. If you're concerned that every answer you give where you only know a last name might be prompted, then, well, I guess your two choices are take your chances and risk occasionally losing money because of it, or learn more first names. :mrgreen:
It's not unusual for clues to refer to famous last names that are paired with widely unfamiliar first names. An example that comes to mind: They name James Ives and ask for his famous partner. I'll bet they don't expect that we will remember that he was Nathaniel Currier.

Charleston seemed a safe guess for the FJ. I imagined the slave trade kept it hopping... :(

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

talkingaway wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:06 pm
I mean, my nightmare would be responding "Who is Reubens?", not knowing for sure if there's another famous Reubens painter, and then having to BMS.

Hidden due to comment about the next day’s game.
Spoiler
Friday’s game proved that just Reubens is acceptable

Golf
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Golf »

jeff6286 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:13 pm
I think the premise is you should always know the first and last name of the person you wish to answer correctly
This would be a false assumption.

If you are certain of the last name you should almost always ring in. To lose money two things must happen. 1, you are prompted for a BMS. 2, you then give a wrong first name.

As long as this scenario doesn’t occur half the time you’re going to come out ahead in the long run. This is rarely the type of miss where an incorrect answer spoon feeds a gimme to the other contestants. So the threshold for showing positive expectation is not much greater than 50%.

talkingaway
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:59 am

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by talkingaway »

Golf wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:07 am
jeff6286 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:13 pm
I think the premise is you should always know the first and last name of the person you wish to answer correctly
This would be a false assumption.

If you are certain of the last name you should almost always ring in. To lose money two things must happen. 1, you are prompted for a BMS. 2, you then give a wrong first name.

As long as this scenario doesn’t occur half the time you’re going to come out ahead in the long run. This is rarely the type of miss where an incorrect answer spoon feeds a gimme to the other contestants. So the threshold for showing positive expectation is not much greater than 50%.
I think I've seen a few BMSes that could have potentially spoon-fed the correct response, but I could be wrong. I mean "Ghandi, BMS, Mahatma Ghandi" gives the correct answer right away if you've ever heard the name "Indira Ghandi" - you don't even have to know much about her.

That said, even if it's spoon-fed, the other contestants may have already known the clue to begin with, so you're not really helping them that much (other than by the fact that you goofed on the correct first name in the first place).

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4722
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

#4402, aired 2003-10-28 COME WHAT MAY $2000: A female suicide bomber assassinated this candidate for Prime Minister of India May 21, 1991

User avatar
jeff6286
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 4722
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by jeff6286 »

Golf wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:07 am
jeff6286 wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:13 pm
I think the premise is you should always know the first and last name of the person you wish to answer correctly
This would be a false assumption.

If you are certain of the last name you should almost always ring in. To lose money two things must happen. 1, you are prompted for a BMS. 2, you then give a wrong first name.

As long as this scenario doesn’t occur half the time you’re going to come out ahead in the long run. This is rarely the type of miss where an incorrect answer spoon feeds a gimme to the other contestants. So the threshold for showing positive expectation is not much greater than 50%.
I didn't mean that this should be the player's strategy, I meant from the perspective of the one asking the questions, it's their prerogative when they wish to require more information, so it's not worth worrying about whether it's fair or right when they choose to do it.

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 8340
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TenPoundHammer »

jeff6286 wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:02 am
I didn't mean that this should be the player's strategy, I meant from the perspective of the one asking the questions, it's their prerogative when they wish to require more information, so it's not worth worrying about whether it's fair or right when they choose to do it.
One of the most bullshit "we need the first name" moments ever was the Kit Carson clue at $200 in this game.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6977
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

TenPoundHammer wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:44 am
jeff6286 wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:02 am
I didn't mean that this should be the player's strategy, I meant from the perspective of the one asking the questions, it's their prerogative when they wish to require more information, so it's not worth worrying about whether it's fair or right when they choose to do it.
One of the most bullshit "we need the first name" moments ever was the Kit Carson clue at $200 in this game.
Disagree. They were seeking to reward knowledge of the person, not of Nevada's capital city.

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 8340
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TenPoundHammer »

seaborgium wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:21 am
TenPoundHammer wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:44 am
jeff6286 wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:02 am
I didn't mean that this should be the player's strategy, I meant from the perspective of the one asking the questions, it's their prerogative when they wish to require more information, so it's not worth worrying about whether it's fair or right when they choose to do it.
One of the most bullshit "we need the first name" moments ever was the Kit Carson clue at $200 in this game.
Disagree. They were seeking to reward knowledge of the person, not of Nevada's capital city.
Literally every other clue that "reward[s] knowledge of the person" accepts solely the last name unless the last name is ambiguous (such as Presidents named Adams, Roosevelt, or Bush). There is literally only one notable frontiersman named "Carson". Just saying "Who is Carson?" was sufficient for History: Hired & Fired for $800 in this game, which also used the "capital of Nevada" TOM. How is that clue any different, since it also "reward[s] knowledge of the person"?
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6977
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

TenPoundHammer wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:32 am
seaborgium wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:21 am
TenPoundHammer wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:44 am
jeff6286 wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:02 am
I didn't mean that this should be the player's strategy, I meant from the perspective of the one asking the questions, it's their prerogative when they wish to require more information, so it's not worth worrying about whether it's fair or right when they choose to do it.
One of the most bullshit "we need the first name" moments ever was the Kit Carson clue at $200 in this game.
Disagree. They were seeking to reward knowledge of the person, not of Nevada's capital city.
Literally every other clue that "reward[s] knowledge of the person" accepts solely the last name unless the last name is ambiguous (such as Presidents named Adams, Roosevelt, or Bush). There is literally only one notable frontiersman named "Carson". Just saying "Who is Carson?" was sufficient for History: Hired & Fired for $800 in this game, which also used the "capital of Nevada" TOM. How is that clue any different, since it also "reward[s] knowledge of the person"?
That was bad of Alex not to BMS.

Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Bamaman »

Here is a really bad one. The DD in World Universities.

http://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_ ... ight=Nehru

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Thursday, February 27, 2020 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

Bamaman wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:07 am
Here is a really bad one. The DD in World Universities.

http://j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_ ... ight=Nehru
It's the $1200 clue, not the DD, unless you're saying that we should all be ready to name James McGill... ;)

Post Reply