Pyramid judging

[Bryce L.]

My apologies if this has been discussed previously, but I recently saw on Youtube the episode of $10,000 Pyramid from 1973 with Richard Deacon and Kaye Ballard that's been on the trading circuit before GSN aired their episodes, and something confused me...

In the final Winner's Circle of the day, on the last subject (Things You Wrap), the contestant said "Things You UN-Wrap" and also said "Wrapping things". The judges did not give him the win; however, the judge, when asked by Dick Clark for a ruling on whether or not a win took place, said "go to commercial".

After the break, Clark explained that there had been "a judging discrepancy" and that they could argue "ad infinitem what was or wasn't said", and as "the most equitable thing to do", they gave the contestant a make-up subject with the full amount of time he had when he originally was going into the $200 category (12 seconds). He then got the make-up category to win the $10,000.

My questions are

1) What could Clark have meant by a "judging discrepancy"?

2) What would the judges be looking for when ruling on "yes, he got the last one" or "no, he didn't have the answer"?

3) In the opinion of the members here, were his answers sufficient to merit giving him the $10,000 WITHOUT the make-up category?

4) Have there (to the knowledge of this board) been other situations where a substitute category was given, since the judges could not conclusively rule on a win?

[jmangin]

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252661\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 05:31 AM\']1) What could Clark have meant by a "judging discrepancy"?[/quote]
There was probably one person arguing for and another against awarding the money. There's not always one person judging gameplay.

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252661\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 05:31 AM\']2) What would the judges be looking for when ruling on "yes, he got the last one" or "no, he didn't have the answer"?[/quote]
Something you wrap might not necessarily be something you unwrap. You could wrap garbage in newspaper but would likely never unwrap it.

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252661\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 05:31 AM\']3) In the opinion of the members here, were his answers sufficient to merit giving him the $10,000 WITHOUT the make-up category?[/quote]
In my personal opinion, without having heard the clues given by the celebrity, the key word was "wrap"--if the contestant said it, give him/her the money.

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252661\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 05:31 AM\']4) Have there (to the knowledge of this board) been other situations where a substitute category was given, since the judges could not conclusively rule on a win?[/quote]
I've never seen it but it's plausible it happened one or two other times when two ruling parties could not come to an agreement.

[vtown7]

There's this example from from the $100K Pyramid from 1988, if it helps: link

[chris319]

There was probably one person arguing for and another against awarding the money. There's not always one person judging game play.

More likely there was a conference with the Standards and Practices rep.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'252667\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 07:21 AM\']In my personal opinion, without having heard the clues given by the celebrity, the key word was "wrap"--if the contestant said it, give him/her the money.[/quote]
This is where I am, assuming all of the clues were legal. They paid off "Things you don't forget" for THINGS YOU FORGET as well. Same idea.

[parliboy]

For reference, I'm linking back to this thread from 2009 where the contestant in question tells his story about the show.

[Bryce L.]

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'252684\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 02:10 PM\']For reference, I'm linking back to this thread from 2009 where the contestant in question tells his story about the show.[/quote]

THANK YOU! Much appreciated!

[Jay Temple]

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252661\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 04:31 AM\']they gave the contestant a make-up subject with the full amount of time he had when he originally was going into the $200 category (12 seconds)[/quote]
I just wanted to add that for much of the 1980's run, this was not quite the way they handled similar situations. I saw the following sequence of events more than once:
(X seconds left)clue 1
clue 2
(Y seconds left) clue 3
BUZZ!
(return from commercial)
The judges have decided that they should have accepted clue 3, so they're giving you a new subject with Y seconds left on the clock.

[Bryce L.]

also, speaking of legal and illegal clues, did the judges know what subjects were coming up prior to them going on the board? That way, they could get some sort of idea "ok, let such-and-such clue go" or "if he says X, buzz him immediately"

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'252818\' date=\'Dec 19 2010, 09:59 PM\']also, speaking of legal and illegal clues, did the judges know what subjects were coming up prior to them going on the board? That way, they could get some sort of idea "ok, let such-and-such clue go" or "if he says X, buzz him immediately"[/quote]
Yes, of course.  The judge or judges were frequently the writers themselves, and of course they would be aware of the material (and potential clues) in advance, just as Jeopardy writers and judges have prepared in advance for their clues.

[Mr. Matté]

Dick Clark has stated on-air a few times that the reason for a fast buzz sometimes is because the judges came up with a list of synonymous words ahead of time and if the clue giver said such a word, immediate zap.

With regards to your first question on the "Things You Unwrap" thing, remember that the show had only been on for a few months at the time so maybe the judges were a little more rusty compared to the consistency of the 80s episodes.

[byrd62]

[quote name=\'Mr. Matté\' post=\'252860\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 10:22 AM\']Dick Clark has stated on-air a few times that the reason for a fast buzz sometimes is because the judges came up with a list of synonymous words ahead of time and if the clue giver said such a word, immediate zap.

With regards to your first question on the "Things You Unwrap" thing, remember that the show had only been on for a few months at the time so maybe the judges were a little more rusty compared to the consistency of the 80s episodes.[/quote]

Either they were "rusty", if not at least so new at this, or, as Preston explained, the "Contestant Lady" [Edythe Chan, I believe] explained to him and the other potential contestants that they had to give an exact answer on the last category.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'252696\' date=\'Dec 17 2010, 08:13 PM\']I just wanted to add that for much of the 1980's run, this was not quite the way they handled similar situations. I saw the following sequence of events more than once:
(X seconds left)clue 1
clue 2
(Y seconds left) clue 3
BUZZ!
(return from commercial)
The judges have decided that they should have accepted clue 3, so they're giving you a new subject with Y seconds left on the clock.[/quote]

This is a load of hooey. At Y seconds left, the receiver had heard two clues already. If it's a new category, they should go back to X seconds left.

[Jay Temple]

I completely agree. That's why it stuck out in my mind.