Password Plus rule question

[Unrealtor]

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.

Emphasis added above. He was talking about what could be done if not for the two clues rule.

[chris319]

Has anyone found an episode where this happened? My answer is we would stop tape while Bobby confers with Compliance and Practices. The logical answer is to put up the word and resume play with a new word, with no one guessing the puzzle. If it's the last word in the puzzle, throw out the password?

We had a policy, not a rule, that the fifth password had to be absolutely gettable.

[JasonA1]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]

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.

[/size][/color]
[size="3"] [/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues. It never paid to let time expire (not until Super Password). I was saying the two-clue rule had to be there because otherwise, there was no reason to have a time limit on the play-or-pass question.[/size][/color]
[size="3"][color="#1C2837"]
[/color][/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]-Jason[/size][/color]

[clemon79]

I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.

I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.

[Kevin Prather]

I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.

I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.

Exactly. The two-word rule made the play/pass mechanism ungameable.

[rjaguar3]

I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.

I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.

Exactly. The two-word rule made the play/pass mechanism ungameable.

Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.

[clemon79]

Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.

Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).

Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.

Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy.

[rjaguar3]

Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.

Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).

Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.

Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy.

The reason why I brought this up is that I recall seeing a clip where the password is "Belgium," the celebrity is told to "say anything," and he promptly says "hockey puck," getting buzzed.

EDIT:  It was part of blackwood's clips compilation, so there's no context and I can't say whether the celebrity was passed the first clue.

[Bryce L.]

Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.

Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).

Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.

Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy.

Emphasis added by me, to help illustrate the reasoning behind my next question: If, in the course of your play (I dunno if you use the puzzles format, or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?

[TLEberle]

Emphasis added by me, to help illustrate the reasoning behind my next question: If, in the course of your play (I dunno if you use the puzzles format

They don't.

or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?

That's a rarity. Like once a quarter that a word can't be played. Nobody scores, other side gets a new word.

[clemon79]

(I dunno if you use the puzzles format, or good ol' CBS-era rules),

Neither one, because while good TV, they both suck as an actual *game*: one point per word, loser of the previous word has the option on the next one, bounce back and forth between giving and receiving, a 30-second shot clock to give a clue and get a response, no opposites, no limit on number of clues, and we play a full card per side, so 20 words in a game.

or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?

That's a rarity.

And by this Travis means "it has never happened in the eight-or-so years I have been playing Password with these people." We LIVE for those words. Those are the words that make Password great. At the absolute worst, there comes a point in a particularly nasty word where the two givers kinda glance at each other and implicitly (and wordlessly) agree that it's time to back off the "plausible clue" restrictions a tiny bit, to include non-plausible words that rhyme with (or, more often, rhyme with a part of) the word in play. And that doesn't even happen until we're *at least* fifteen or twenty clues into a word.

When I tell people "if the National Password League ever caught on, I'd quit my job," I'm dead serious.

[TLEberle]

I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to. In all the time playing Password, there's never been a word where you couldn't clue something. There's nothing in the rules that says every Password is gettable in one or on the bounce. Sometimes it takes that dragnet approach and it'll take several clues to drive the point home. With the rules as I've learned 'em, Password is up on the medal podium of games I'll play any time I'm asked.

[clemon79]

I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to.

I did too, and I still can't think of a time we've totally thrown in the towel on a word.

But yeah, there ESPECIALLY does not exist a word we couldn't even START.

[Kevin Prather]

I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to.

I did too, and I still can't think of a time we've totally thrown in the towel on a word.

But yeah, there ESPECIALLY does not exist a word we couldn't even START.

"The password is...boondoggle." *ding*

[clemon79]

"The password is...boondoggle." *ding*

"Snafu", "trifle", "busywork", "political" (followed closely by "pork"). We'd probably get to that "alright, back it off or we'll be here all night" point, and lead into "Daniel...." and "coonskin" to get us to "Boone", and it would probably solve pretty soon after that.