Rules flaws, etc...

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 09:13 PM\']
On Password Plus (and possibly Super Password as well), the producers took their time in deciding whether or not a clue was illegal.  As a result, a player would guess the word before being informed that the clue was illegal, and as a result, the other team was given the chance to solve the puzzle.[/quote]That's not a rule flaw, that's merely bad producing/judging.

[Steve Gavazzi]

Hit Me on TPIR had a huge flaw when it came to dealing with aces in the house's hand -- there were no rules that spelled out what to do when the hand would fall into a different range (1-16, 17-21, 22+) depending on whether the ace was a 1 or an 11.  This lead to Barker handling the same situation in different ways on different episodes, because there really was no "right" way to do it.

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'210776\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 09:16 PM\'][quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210770\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 05:27 PM\']If the car was $17,059 and the player guessed 8 for the 3rd #, 8-0=8, however, the player could argue "well I thought the 3rd digit was 8, as in $800, and that 0 could be $1,000 therefore 10-8 = 2.[/quote]The easy way to solve this point is to say "For every dollar away that you are away on the number line, you lose a dollar. Numbers stretch in two directions, not form a clock face, like Kevin said.

So why haven't TPTB done this? My guess is that it's easier to add options to the car to weed out the noughts rather than have someone complain "I thought the numbers wrapped around!". They seem to take the path of least resistance in cases like this.[/quote]
I don't really think avoiding the wraparound argument had anything to do with this -- there were certain game setups that Roger just wouldn't use because he considered them "cheating," and I believe putting zeros in Lucky $even was one of them.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'210857\' date=\'Mar 20 2009, 04:50 PM\']
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 09:13 PM\']
On Password Plus (and possibly Super Password as well), the producers took their time in deciding whether or not a clue was illegal.  As a result, a player would guess the word before being informed that the clue was illegal, and as a result, the other team was given the chance to solve the puzzle.[/quote]That's not a rule flaw, that's merely bad producing/judging.
[/quote]

It's really neither, just taking the time to make sure.

[ChuckNet]

Another $otC flaw, also during the NBC shopping era, was offering the cash jackpot as a separate prize. Except for Barbara Phillips, virtually every champ who made it to that plateau opted to take the money and run...understandable, considering how more often than not, the value of all the other prizes on offer added up to less than the value of the jackpot. This was corrected w/the syndie version, which replaced it w/an option to buy the lot, sans cash jackpot, and basically guaranteed a champ who made it that far would go for everything.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'210888\' date=\'Mar 21 2009, 12:28 AM\']It's really neither, just taking the time to make sure.[/quote]The problem is, it's inconsistent. An obvious illegal clue gets buzzed immediately and the offenders lose a turn. If there's uncertainty and you buzz after a wrong guess, then the offenders lose a turn AND the competition gets the extra advantage of knowing one word that isn't right when they guess. If you buzz after a correct guess it's even worse, for the reasons TDG stated. It seems to me that the best way of going about that would have been to penalize ALL illegal clues (two words, going Paar, etc.) at all times the same by putting the word up and giving the option to the other team.

[That Don Guy]

[quote name=\'pyrfan\' post=\'210793\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 08:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 10:13 PM\']
Randall vs. Klugman was also on the CBS 10K version.  I'm fairly certain that on one of those shows, they had three $10K wins (if a tiebreaker ran long, they played the WC at the start of the next show), all with Klugman.
[/quote]
According to an article in several newspapers from 1973, Jack Carter was the first celeb to give away $30,000 in one week on "Pyramid," and it was a few months after the Klugman/Randall week. I'm not saying you recall incorrectly; maybe they forgot about Klugman's streak.
[/quote]
Didn't Randall and Klugman have more than one week together?

Then again, Klugman was on other times; it's possible I'm thinking of one of those.

(Also, was there a time when the contestant didn't have a choice as to whether to give or receive in the Winners Circle?  I remember thinking that a Klugman-Randall week was the first time the contestant got the choice.)

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'210887\' date=\'Mar 20 2009, 08:58 PM\']
Hit Me on TPIR had a huge flaw when it came to dealing with aces in the house's hand -- there were no rules that spelled out what to do when the hand would fall into a different range (1-16, 17-21, 22+) depending on whether the ace was a 1 or an 11.  This lead to Barker handling the same situation in different ways on different episodes, because there really was no "right" way to do it.
[/quote]
I remember two times:

First, the player had something like 15, and the house had 16, and Barker said that the player lost because "the house wouldn't hit when it's ahead", but somebody offstage told him that "House Hits to 16" means the house doesn't have a choice, even if it's ahead; the house took another card and busted.

Second, the player had, let's say, 19, and the house had A-7; Barker said, "Since the house would lose by counting that as 11, the house will count that as 1", took a couple of more cards, and got 20.

(One problem is, even Vegas has two different rules - some casinos hit a soft 17, while others stand.  If you ever see a list of casinos that have 21 online and see the terms "H17" and "S17", this is what they mean - hit/stand a soft 17.)

-- Don

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'211086\' date=\'Mar 23 2009, 08:01 PM\'](One problem is, even Vegas has two different rules - some casinos hit a soft 17, while others stand.  If you ever see a list of casinos that have 21 online and see the terms "H17" and "S17", this is what they mean - hit/stand a soft 17.)[/quote]Right, but those casinos post the rules.  Price did not.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'211099\' date=\'Mar 23 2009, 08:38 PM\']
Right, but those casinos post the rules.  Price did not.[/quote]
The problem isn't even there, it's consistency in enforcement. It seems that the rule for whether to hit soft 17 was "does Barker feel like it that day."

[pyrfan]

[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'211086\' date=\'Mar 23 2009, 09:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' post=\'210793\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 08:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210783\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 10:13 PM\']
Randall vs. Klugman was also on the CBS 10K version.  I'm fairly certain that on one of those shows, they had three $10K wins (if a tiebreaker ran long, they played the WC at the start of the next show), all with Klugman.
[/quote]
According to an article in several newspapers from 1973, Jack Carter was the first celeb to give away $30,000 in one week on "Pyramid," and it was a few months after the Klugman/Randall week. I'm not saying you recall incorrectly; maybe they forgot about Klugman's streak.
[/quote]
Didn't Randall and Klugman have more than one week together?

Then again, Klugman was on other times; it's possible I'm thinking of one of those.

(Also, was there a time when the contestant didn't have a choice as to whether to give or receive in the Winners Circle?  I remember thinking that a Klugman-Randall week was the first time the contestant got the choice.)

-- Don
[/quote]
An Internet friend who was in the studio for the Klugman/Randall episodes said that they played a 5-5 tie for the week but Jack hit for $10,000 twice and Tony had no big wins. It's possible that they faced each other again and I just don't have a record of it. The tapings that my friend saw took place in late June of 1973 and would have aired a few weeks later.

I know that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy made repeat appearances together, playing against each other in 1976 and 1977. This same source -- very reliable -- also says that he saw them play against each other in the show's first year, in the Ed Sullivan Theater.

You're right about the contestants giving the clues in the Circle, by the way: verboten for the first 13 weeks or so. Noreen Wald's book confirms this.


Brendan

[Jay Temple]

This isn't quite what we're calling a flaw, but I never liked requiring the celebrity to give the clues. If you're going to have a rule at all, I'd rather it be the opposite.

I always said that if I were producing a version of Pyramid that used the 2-players-2-games/day format, I'd stipulate that a player who wins both games has to give once and receive once.

[BillCullen1]

I believe that on Password Plus and Super Password, the celeb always gave the clues. So if you got a less than stellar celeb, you weren't going to win big money. On MDP with Regis, the contestants had the option of giving or receiving in the money round, and most chose to give.

If this was already brought up, I apologize. I don't have the time or patience to go through all the previous pages.

[alfonzos]

Originally, Three on a Match's gameboard had four prizes in each column. This resulted in a guaranteed win for whomever scored $270. There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that. The fix: place a "No Match" card somewhere on the gameboard. Now that there are no guaranteed victories, players risked the gameboard with as little as $150.

This game change is one the precious few game changes in any game show that made its way into the home game by Milton Bradley.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211129\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 12:15 PM\']
There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that.[/quote]
Um, sure there is: You have, say, $200, and following your strategy, you yell "Play on, Bill!" I slime in on the next contract, and complete it with $150.

I go to the board and get lucky. Oh, and that was my third match. Enjoy your Rice-A-Roni.

(I question the math, too, but was the rule that you could only buy three of the four boxes in each column? The math works out, if so.)

[BillCullen1]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211130\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 03:31 PM\']
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211129\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 12:15 PM\']
There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that.[/quote]
Um, sure there is: You have, say, $200, and following your strategy, you yell "Play on, Bill!" I slime in on the next contract, and complete it with $150.

I go to the board and get lucky. Oh, and that was my third match. Enjoy your Rice-A-Roni.

(I question the math, too, but was the rule that you could only buy three of the four boxes in each column? The math works out, if so.)
[/quote]

That was indeed the rule. Some categories offered two or three "free boxes." The obvious strategy here would be to use the free boxes in the $40 column and spend your money in the $20 and $30 columns.

[Ian Wallis]

I know that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy made repeat appearances together, playing against each other in 1976 and 1977. This same source -- very reliable -- also says that he saw them play against each other in the show's first year

Too bad TVGuide listings from the early days of the show weren't more accurate.  Even by 1976, the listings were pretty reliable - but the '76 Shatner-Nimoy week was never listed (the '77 matchup took place during "premiere week" for the primetime shows).  Anyone know what week the '76 matchup occurred?