alphabetics question

[TLEberle]

but again that 20% penalty is not really a penalty.

Well now there Mr. Moneybags, why don't you come on out to Seattle on your private jet and fork over that $1,000 since it isn't "really a penalty."



For serious, I'd like to point out that I thought it was a little dumb to continue playing Super Password if the jackpot was disqualified.

And it grated on my whenever Regis would say "Now, (example) would be a correct password for (answer)." The reason why should be self evident.

[clemon79]

That's interesting, because hockey and soccer have yellow/red cards and two/four/five minute minute penalties and nobody is clueless as to why.

Tom Kennedy didn't host soccer.

Yeah, saying "but hockey has rules!" is a really poor argument. Ask a newbie to explain what happened to make the ref blow his whistle on an icing call and you'll see why.

[JakeT]

For serious, I'd like to point out that I thought it was a little dumb to continue playing Super Password if the jackpot was disqualified.

While I understand what you are saying, there still was $100-per-word at stake for whatever remaining letters had not yet been played.  The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.  I mean, that would really suck if the illegal clue was given on the first word so the contestant was prevented from even attempting to collect the remaining $900 possible.

JakeT

[TLEberle]

The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.

Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.

[Kevin Prather]

The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.

Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.

Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?

[TLEberle]

Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?

Course not: the winners circle is a competition in itself. Both players have a chance to rack up money.

[Kevin Prather]

Do you think the Winner's Circle should end when the $100 box is botched?

Course not: the winners circle is a competition in itself. Both players have a chance to rack up money.

Fair point. I forgot that the players on SP don't compete for highest score in the bonus round.

[Bryce L.]

'

If you were on the last word and time was running out couldn't you just "accidentally" give an illegal clue and still get four grand.

The celebrity could (and did) give the password as the clue, the contestant picked up on it and won $4,000.

That just seems like all sorts of goofy to me. "Whoops! Four thousand dollars!"

Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward. Granted, if that became a regular thing, then at some point either the rules would have changed so the entire jackpot was forfeited, or they just would not invite celebrities back who exploited the rule. Now I'm actually seeing why the contestant never got to give the clues.

Perhaps the possibility for exploiting that rule could explain why, when Super Password came on in 1984, they changed it so that with ANY illegal clues the jackpot went down the porcelain...

[JakeT]

The contestant should still be able to pick up whatever remaining coin was there in spite of the illegal clue.

Yes, you're correct: that money still exists. If the contestant is no longer able to win Forty Thousand Dollars, I really don't care much about another $700.

And I guess that is what makes us different...while I would hate to lose the $40,000, my tummy would still be thrilled with the groceries that extra $700 would provide...I suppose that's what years of living on a fixed income can do to a fellow...

JakeT

[TLEberle]

And I guess that is what makes us different...while I would hate to lose the $40,000, my tummy would still be thrilled with the groceries that extra $700 would provide...I suppose that's what years of living on a fixed income can do to a fellow...

Hey, I wouldn't turn up my nose at $700; that's a mortgage payment and condo dues. But I'm still irked about the $39,000 that I didn't get.

[Mr. Armadillo]

Well, if there are one or two seconds remaining and it doesn't look like your partner is going to get it, then throw the last password and take the reduced cash reward.

Exactly. Loopholes don't make for good television.

Repeated loopholes.  If it only happens once or twice, I think it's alright...Cletus says to Josephine "Heh, that's pretty clever." and everyone moves on with their lives.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I recall one Alphabetics, with Greg Morris giving, where they were down to the word "nearsighted". Greg did his best to clue it fairly until there were about five seconds left, then went with "farsighted...", got bleeped, and the contestant got it and won $4000.

I say all this only to get to what happened later: Allen complimented him on his strategy in going for the reduced jackpot. I was surprised.

[PYLdude]

I recall one Alphabetics, with Greg Morris giving, where they were down to the word "nearsighted". Greg did his best to clue it fairly until there were about five seconds left, then went with "farsighted...", got bleeped, and the contestant got it and won $4000.

I say all this only to get to what happened later: Allen complimented him on his strategy in going for the reduced jackpot. I was surprised.

I would think in a situation like that, where you can still salvage $3,100 more for your partner and there aren't too many clues that could fit the word to begin with, it's the best thing to do as the clue giver.

That's why I didn't like it when they went to that no opposites rule. To me it felt like change just for the sake of it.

[SRIV94]

That's why I didn't like it when they went to that no opposites rule. To me it felt like change just for the sake of it.

I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule.  Having opposites just made the game way too easy.  I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".

/Wow.  Post #4700.  Should approach 5000 some time in 2015 at the rate I'm going.

[clemon79]

I may be in the minority here, but I liked the "no opposites" rule.  Having opposites just made the game way too easy.  I agree when Ludden said at the time that it made the game more "pure".

We actually play "no opposites" when we play at game night, for exactly this reason.