Not a match, board goes back...

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 27 2003, 01:47 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 26 2003, 04:56 PM\'] It was also just as likely that you'd simply keep the money bag you'd uncovered.  Either way you passed your turn, but memorization wasn't always required in order to "Break the Bank". [/quote]
Wow. I'll defer, because I'm sure you've seen more episodes of it more recently than I have, but I could have sworn there was some mechanism in place such that it was in the players interest NOT to claim a bag, because they wouldn't lose their turn. I'll freely admit I'm wrong, tho, if that's the case. [/quote]
 OK, we're talking around each other 'cause your last statement is correct but I've led you to believe somehow that it's different from mine.  Let's recap.

You always lose your turn when you accept a Money Bag.  That's regardless of whether you found one blindly on your turn OR whether you turned one over that you knew about because the other player declined it on an earlier turn.  Yes, losing your turn was the strategic disadvantage to accepting a Money Bag.  You're gambling that you're going to get your turn back a couple more times to pick up two more bags.

In an earlier message, Chris, you said that "they could pluck them all off in a row", which implied that a player could call for three Money Bags all in the same turn.  I was just trying to set the record straight that even if you knew where three were hidden, it still took three turns to get them all and it was still a gamble to accept them since you lost your turn each time.

[Ian Wallis]

Still, I recall during the daytime run of Break the Bank on ABC in 1976 that when of their programs ended in the middle of a game, they would take the contestants offstage for a change of their clothes for "tomorrow's" program, and while they were offstage, the show's stage crew would re-arrange "portions of the undisclosed area of the game board" (according to host Tom Kennedy) so that previously unexposed "cash amount"/"money bags"/"wild"/"blank" boxes would be in different places than they were before.

I never understood why they would do that.  Did they think the contestants would "sneak behind the set" and take a look before the next show started to tape?  Didn't they just take them off the set to change clothes and bring them back without them getting anywhere near the board?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 27 2003, 06:29 AM\'] In an earlier message, Chris, you said that "they could pluck them all off in a row", which implied that a player could call for three Money Bags all in the same turn. [/quote]
 Because I thought you could, for some strange reason that I can only explain away now as being crack-induced. I understand why that's not the case now, and I see where I made my error.

So the reasoning behind turning down a bag would be either a) because you don't think your opponent would be able to remember where it is later, or b) because you're right on the verge of nailing the third dollar-amount box to win a game and didn't want to give up control?

See, this is one of the reasons I would have EATEN UP the Dark Period, but I didn't get moved up here (and, by extension, GSN-ed) until after it had JUST ended...

[Matt Ottinger]

Realizing this started off as a very good CONCENTRATION thread....

So the reasoning behind turning down a bag would be either a) because you don't think your opponent would be able to remember where it is later, or b) because you're right on the verge of nailing the third dollar-amount box to win a game and didn't want to give up control?

Those are two reasons (though remembering where they were wasn't usually much of a problem), but there were actually lots of strategic variables that entered into whether you played for the Money Bags or not.  That's what made the game so interesting.