Author Topic: The Pyramid (Read 89910 times)

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #255 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:05:02 PM »

Quote from: Joe Mello on August 31, 2012, 07:42:54 PM

And you just don't get it.

Nice counterargument there. At least Chris offered a reason why he disagreed.

TheLastResort · « **Reply #256 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:26:30 PM »

Quote from: clemon79 on August 31, 2012, 07:27:50 PM

Quote from: Kevin Prather on August 31, 2012, 05:58:52 PM
If I was the judge, I would not allow that clue.
Good thing you're not the judge, then, because:

Quote
It's akin to saying "Mayim Bialik" for "Things that blossom"
Quote
or "Vanna" for "Things that are white".
...these are not equivalent situations, and for that matter are both perfectly legitimate clues. Are you suggesting Miss Bialik has not blossomed or that Vanna is not caucasian? I think the word "are" in there saves it, frankly.

No way in hell either of those would be acceptable on classic Pyramid. There was a specific rule about giving clues that are "leading" the partner, as Dick put it.

HYHYBT · « **Reply #257 on:** September 03, 2012, 10:43:32 PM »

"Leading" would be saying "Vanna..." in the way you do in the front game to indicate you want the blank filled in. How would it be leading to say it in a more closed manner?

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #258 on:** September 04, 2012, 12:18:56 AM »

There's more than one way to lead. Saying Vanna for "Things That Are White" is trying to lead one's partner to think of the word "white" in a fashion other than that intended in the Winner's Circle.

"Well, it's technically correct" has never defeated "you're being more sneaky than you are giving a list" in any judgment I've ever seen on any version of Pyramid.

pyrfan · « **Reply #259 on:** September 04, 2012, 12:54:45 AM »

Quote from: Robert Hutchinson on September 04, 2012, 12:18:56 AM

There's more than one way to lead. Saying Vanna for "Things That Are White" is trying to lead one's partner to think of the word "white" in a fashion other than that intended in the Winner's Circle.

"Well, it's technically correct" has never defeated "you're being more sneaky than you are giving a list" in any judgment I've ever seen on any version of Pyramid.

It has in instances I've seen. For THINGS YOU FRY, Joel Brooks said, "French potatoes," and he got buzzed. Dick Clark pointed out that there are Irish potatoes, Idaho potatoes, and German potatoes, so why can't there be French potatoes? When they came back from the commercial, Dick announced that although the judge thought that Joel was indeed leading to "French fries," since there was such a thing as French potatoes, they couldn't disqualify the clue, so they awarded the contestant the $250 for that box.

Also, a number of times for THINGS THAT RATTLE, the judge has allowed the clue "A baby's toy." Yes, you might automatically think of a actual rattle when you first hear that clue, but there are a number of baby toys that could rattle, so it's legal.

I'm sure there was a "within reason" clause. Note Vicki Lawrence getting buzzed for saying "A kid's toy bag" for THINGS YOU GRAB or Robin Riker getting the buzzer for saying "A dog's bugs" for THINGS IN A FLEA MARKET.

Brendan

TLEberle · « **Reply #260 on:** September 04, 2012, 01:04:48 AM »

Quote from: pyrfan on September 04, 2012, 12:54:45 AM

I'm sure there was a "within reason" clause.

You don't need one. What does a judge do?

Fedya · « **Reply #261 on:** September 04, 2012, 07:01:38 AM »

Quote from: pyrfan on September 04, 2012, 12:54:45 AM

Quote from: Robert Hutchinson on September 04, 2012, 12:18:56 AM
There's more than one way to lead. Saying Vanna for "Things That Are White" is trying to lead one's partner to think of the word "white" in a fashion other than that intended in the Winner's Circle.

"Well, it's technically correct" has never defeated "you're being more sneaky than you are giving a list" in any judgment I've ever seen on any version of Pyramid.
It has in instances I've seen. For THINGS YOU FRY, Joel Brooks said, "French potatoes," and he got buzzed. Dick Clark pointed out that there are Irish potatoes, Idaho potatoes, and German potatoes, so why can't there be French potatoes? When they came back from the commercial, Dick announced that although the judge thought that Joel was indeed leading to "French fries," since there was such a thing as French potatoes, they couldn't disqualify the clue, so they awarded the contestant the $250 for that box.

Frenching is a way of cutting potatoes into strips. One would probably expect frenched potatoes would then be fried.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #262 on:** September 04, 2012, 08:31:19 PM »

I'll give you "French potatoes" as a counter, and retract my "never". But "a baby's toy" is legal because the reason it's called a rattle is that it rattles. Vanna's last name is probably not White as a description of skin tone.

HYHYBT · « **Reply #263 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:15:52 AM »

No, "a baby's toy" is legal because rattles are not the only baby's toys that can rattle.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #264 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:42:34 PM »

Disagree. The only notable thing "a snake's tail" can do is rattle, but that would also be a legal clue.

HYHYBT · « **Reply #265 on:** September 06, 2012, 04:58:21 AM »

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with that. Some snakes' tails rattle, and others' don't. "A snake's tail" is not a synonym for "rattle," because they're not the same thing, even if one sometimes includes the other.

If the only baby's toy ever invented were the rattle, then "a baby's toy" would be synonymous with "rattle," and therefore illegal. But of course there are countless other toys besides rattles, and some of them, whether by design or defect, make that noise nonetheless.

Vanna is, in fact, white. I don't see how whether her name was intended to reflect that fact or not has any bearing on the clue's legality.

(This whole thing reminds me of a 1988 Family Feud episode. Pointing out a coincidence, Ray said something like "we have the Brown family against the White family, and they're color coordinated.")

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #266 on:** September 06, 2012, 10:33:09 AM »

Last month, I was playing Pyramid with some friends. Three of the people in the room were professionals who had actually been Pyramid judges for various incarnations of the show. Even they didn't agree on everything. My point is that I'm a little tired of seeing just about every thread on Pyramid disintegrate into a picky, hair-splitting argument about hypothetical situations. Can't we please talk about what's happening on the shows themselves and not make up things to argue about that are impossible to resolve?

Mr. Armadillo · « **Reply #267 on:** September 06, 2012, 10:40:50 AM »

Quote from: Robert Hutchinson on September 04, 2012, 08:31:19 PM

Vanna's last name is probably not White as a description of skin tone.

Given how literal surname origins can be, there's a decent chance that it was at one point.

Quote

It's akin to saying "Mayim Bialik" for "Things that blossom"

Whoa.

Marc412 · « **Reply #268 on:** September 06, 2012, 11:02:18 AM »

OK. I think that Yvette has made a name for herself as a good Pyramid player, and GSN would do well to invite her back next season.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #269 on:** September 06, 2012, 11:34:50 AM »

Quote from: Matt Ottinger on September 06, 2012, 10:33:09 AM

Last month, I was playing Pyramid with some friends. Three of the people in the room were professionals who had actually been Pyramid judges for various incarnations of the show.

Matt Ottinger is ... the most interesting man in the world!