Author Topic: Password Plus rule question (Read 14623 times)

Kevin Prather · « **on:** May 11, 2012, 02:47:21 AM »

On Password Plus, the rule was that if you didn't give a clue in time, the other team got a chance to give two clues. Now, if the other team locked up too, would you get to give three clues?

golden-road · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2012, 03:43:46 AM »

I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.

whewfan · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2012, 05:32:51 AM »

Quote from: golden-road on May 11, 2012, 03:43:46 AM

I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.

I've never seen that happen, someone not giving a clue in time when the other team failed to give a clue in time. On Super Password, for the FIRST episode only, they had that rule. On the second show, someone failed to give a clue in time, and Bert was about to tell them "you have two clues", he said "oh, we're not doing that".

Didn't they drop that rule at some point on PW+?

TLEberle · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2012, 11:48:27 AM »

Matt: Huh?

Leave the quoting alone.

PYLdude · « **Reply #4 on:** May 12, 2012, 01:14:28 AM »

Quote from: golden-road on May 11, 2012, 03:43:46 AM

I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.

I would figure they'd throw the whole puzzle out, stop tape, and pick up with another one like nothing happened.

Of course, there is at least one person here who knows better than I do...

TLEberle · « **Reply #5 on:** May 12, 2012, 01:21:41 AM »

Quote from: Kevin Prather on May 11, 2012, 02:47:21 AM

On Password Plus, the rule was that if you didn't give a clue in time, the other team got a chance to give two clues. Now, if the other team locked up too, would you get to give three clues?

I don't see why. The bible certainly doesn't mention that possibility.

whewfan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2012, 05:33:52 AM »

Quote from: TLEberle on May 11, 2012, 11:48:27 AM

Matt: Huh?

Leave the quoting alone.

Sorry about that, I wasn't fully awake and didn't realize where I was typing.

Something I was just thinking about... I've seen most of the run of PW+ and a good majority of SP, but on either of those versions, did they ever have a password that was so difficult, both clue givers couldn't get out a clue for the word with two clues per team? I could've sworn it happened on SP once.

Bill Neuweiler · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2012, 08:37:57 AM »

IIRC if you were awarded two clues and got buzzed on the first, then you would still get time to give the second clue. I'm not certain of it though.

Bryce L. · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:11:10 AM »

There's one member of the site who could almost certainly give a definitive answer... paging Mr. Clementson...

JasonA1 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2012, 02:11:51 PM »

Quote from: Bill Neuweiler on May 12, 2012, 08:37:57 AM

IIRC if you were awarded two clues and got buzzed on the first, then you would still get time to give the second clue. I'm not certain of it though.

I was going to reply and basically say the same thing. While it would take some combing through episodes, my best guess/fuzzy memory of it happening would be just that. The person awarded two clues might run out of time on one, and at that point, that clue just goes away.

-Jason

Unrealtor · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:16:17 PM »

Why give any kind of advantage to the team that already had a chance to give a clue but blew it?

My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound. (Chris C can confirm or deny if the wishes.) In that case, just getting control back after your opponent freezes on one of his/her chances is probably advantage enough, anyway.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2012, 01:02:54 AM »

Quote from: Unrealtor on May 12, 2012, 10:16:17 PM

My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound.

That's why you'd pass in the first place, no gaming needed.

I imagine it was there because the pass/play decision had to have a time limit, and what's the penalty if you don't decide? The other side gets two clues, penalizing you for hemming and hawing by giving them both the first and second clue anyway.

-Jason

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2012, 01:17:56 AM »

Quote from: JasonA1 on May 13, 2012, 01:02:54 AM

Quote from: Unrealtor on May 12, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound.
That's why you'd pass in the first place, no gaming needed.

Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2012, 12:19:21 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Prather on May 13, 2012, 01:17:56 AM

Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.

Not quite, Kevin. That was also a two-clue scenario, where you'd get two clues because I failed to respond.

-Jaso

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM »

Quote from: JasonA1 on May 13, 2012, 12:19:21 PM

Quote from: Kevin Prather on May 13, 2012, 01:17:56 AM
Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.
Not quite, Kevin. That was also a two-clue scenario, where you'd get two clues because I failed to respond.

Exactly. I'm just illustrating why that rule is there. Without it, my scenario becomes not only plausible, but reasonable.