Pyramid WC query

[TLEberle]

One of the $100,000 tournament wins featured the final subject as "Things Used by the Pioneers".  The clue given was "Lewis and Clark's wagons," and it won the money.

From the rules repeated hundreds of times by Dick, the rules were to give only a list of things that fit the category.  "Lewis and Clark's wagons" don't really exist, they're really just wagons, but that sort of clue has been used for years on the show.  I wonder when the clue givers started to figure out that such a clue was not only legal, but a better way to win the money.

Would it be exceptionally anal to zap "A Mel Brooks Musical" for "Things that are Produced," or am I way off the deep end here?

-Travis

[JasonA1]

Would it be exceptionally anal to zap "A Mel Brooks Musical" for "Things that are Produced," or am I way off the deep end here?

Depends on the judge and delivery. If it were first clue, and you just plain said it, it could easily pass for just a description. Second or third clue and you just plain say "A Mel Brooks Musical" - maybe. Say it with your voice raised at the end like a question, and you could probably get away with it.

-Jason

[mystery7]

That's one of the many grey areas that made the judge so unpopular at times. I guess, following the logic they used for the win you mentioned, it wouldn't be a big deal. On the other hand, mentioning Mel Brooks in "Things That Are Produced" could lead the judge into thinking the giver was intentionally trying to get the player to think of "The Producers", rather than just giving an example of a producer (which would be fine). It'd almost be like deliberately overemphasizing the "O" in Ohi-O for "States That End In O". Either way, it's possible to take something like that as conveying the essence of the answer, even if it's not intended.

If a hundred thou were at stake, I'd decide during the break on a call like this. Sadistic? Sure, but also worth a hundred thou!

[Jay Temple]

The rule on clues like that, which they didn't follow perfectly, was that it had to fit the category.  If Lewis and Clark used wagons, then their wagons do qualify.  Likewise, musicals are indeed produced, including Mel Brooks'.  The two clues I remember most clearly of the type that they buzzed are "a diaper" for THINGS YOU PAMPER and "a potato chip" for THINGS WITH RUFFLES.  You don't pamper a diaper, and a potato chip doesn't have ruffles.

The reason I say that they didn't follow it perfectly is that I recall them buzzing "a Great Lake" for THINGS THAT ARE SUPERIOR.  As Dick Cavett argued, correctly but unsuccessfully, the lake in question is the largest of those lakes, which makes it superior.

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jun 9 2004, 12:17 AM\'] ... The two clues I remember most clearly of the type that they buzzed are "a diaper" for THINGS YOU PAMPER and "a potato chip" for THINGS WITH RUFFLES.  You don't pamper a diaper, and a potato chip doesn't have ruffles. [/quote]
 In the WCs I've seen over the years, the second-most common infraction* is somewhat along that line.  When the subject is "Things with..." such-and-such, people would often give as a clue something that does not have a such-and-such, but instead is a such-and-such.  Here's an example from from the notorious $0 win when Tom Poston received: the $200 box was "Things with springs".  The contestant's clue of "bed coils" was immediately buzzed because bed coils do not have springs; they are springs.

Sometimes, clues like that lead to a gray area.  During the visually-impaired players' week, in the first WC one player got all but the $250 box, which was "Things with claws".  The clue "a lobster's hand" was buzzed, because the judges thought lobsters do not have hands per se.  There was debate during the break as to whether lobsters really have hands or not, and after the break the judges gave her the $10K.  (The whole thing was eventually moot when she won the second game and got the $25K.)

* The most common is using synonyms.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 8 2004, 10:19 PM\'] One of the $100,000 tournament wins featured the final subject as "Things Used by the Pioneers".  The clue given was "Lewis and Clark's wagons," and it won the money.

Would it be exceptionally anal to zap "A Mel Brooks Musical" for "Things that are Produced," or am I way off the deep end here? [/quote]
 If I'm the judge, I don't accept "Lewis and Clark's Wagons" but I do accept "A Mel Brooks Musical".  And I think most people would consider that inconsistant.  So there's an example of the judge's problem.  What instinctively makes sense at the spur of the moment may be hard to defend in retrospect.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 9 2004, 10:13 AM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 8 2004, 10:19 PM\'] One of the $100,000 tournament wins featured the final subject as "Things Used by the Pioneers".  The clue given was "Lewis and Clark's wagons," and it won the money.

Would it be exceptionally anal to zap "A Mel Brooks Musical" for "Things that are Produced," or am I way off the deep end here? [/quote]
If I'm the judge, I don't accept "Lewis and Clark's Wagons" but I do accept "A Mel Brooks Musical".  And I think most people would consider that inconsistant.  So there's an example of the judge's problem.  What instinctively makes sense at the spur of the moment may be hard to defend in retrospect.[/quote]
Just thinking with my fingers here, but could that be because Lewis and Clark's wagons were used by only *two* pioneers, as opposed to *the* pioneers (which implies a much larger group)? "A Mel Brooks musical" or "A Bob Stewart show" (the latter of which *was* declared legal by the judge) tend to lead you into the correct answer, but there were no synonyms involved (as much as Mr. Stewart might have liked to think otherwise), and both of those things are most definitely produced, in a fully legitimate sense of the word.

[ITSBRY]

[quote name=\'mystery7\' date=\'Jun 8 2004, 10:46 PM\']On the other hand, mentioning Mel Brooks in "Things That Are Produced" could lead the judge into thinking the giver was intentionally trying to get the player to think of "The Producers" [/quote]

Nah...this clue is 100% acceptable in my book.  A Mel Brooks' musical IS produced...it just so happens that he had a musical called "The Producers".  Disallowing these kinds of clues would make the WC less fun, IMO.  I always thought it was very cool when the giver got creative and as Dick said, "painted the picture" for the receiver like this.  It's one of the subtle "nail biter" nuances of the 80s Pyramid that was missing from the most current revival.  

I still stay that had Donny's Pyramid not messed with ANY aspect of the WC, his version would have been 200 times better.

ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Jun 9 2004, 01:46 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 9 2004, 10:13 AM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 8 2004, 10:19 PM\'] One of the $100,000 tournament wins featured the final subject as "Things Used by the Pioneers".  The clue given was "Lewis and Clark's wagons," and it won the money.

Would it be exceptionally anal to zap "A Mel Brooks Musical" for "Things that are Produced," or am I way off the deep end here? [/quote]
If I'm the judge, I don't accept "Lewis and Clark's Wagons" but I do accept "A Mel Brooks Musical".  And I think most people would consider that inconsistant.  So there's an example of the judge's problem.  What instinctively makes sense at the spur of the moment may be hard to defend in retrospect.[/quote]
Just thinking with my fingers here, but could that be because Lewis and Clark's wagons were used by only *two* pioneers, as opposed to *the* pioneers (which implies a much larger group)? "A Mel Brooks musical" or "A Bob Stewart show" (the latter of which *was* declared legal by the judge) tend to lead you into the correct answer, but there were no synonyms involved (as much as Mr. Stewart might have liked to think otherwise), and both of those things are most definitely produced, in a fully legitimate sense of the word.[/quote]
I see it as "Lewis and Clark" being a description of, or synonym for, "pioneers."  At first I thought the clue acceptable, but thinking about it now I'd have to go with Matt on this one.  I'll also agree on the Mel Brooks clue.

[Kevin Prather]

I think "A Mel Brooks musical" is just as acceptable as "A Rodgers & Hammerstein musical", or "A Gilbert & Sullivan musical".

[trainman]

[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Jun 9 2004, 10:46 AM\'] Just thinking with my fingers here, but could that be because Lewis and Clark's wagons were used by only *two* pioneers, as opposed to *the* pioneers (which implies a much larger group)? [/quote]
 I would argue that Lewis and Clark weren't pioneers as I would define the term.  Explorers or surveyors, yes, but not pioneers.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Jun 13 2004, 11:15 PM\']
I would argue that Lewis and Clark weren't pioneers as I would define the term.  Explorers or surveyors, yes, but not pioneers. [/quote]
 That's a hard point to argue. If they weren't pioneers, why would you bother including them in the clue?

And I, too, agree with Matt. Though I think "Springtime for Hitler" would be the more clever clue.

[Jimmy Owen]

Would "A Max Bialystock-Leo Bloom Musical" be too specific?

[mystery7]

No more specific than "A Mel Brooks movie". It'd take a fairly sharp receiver to connect Max and Leo to "The Producers," though. Especially that quickly.

[Fedya]

How about "Springtime for Hitler"?