Twenty-One

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 04:32 PM\']

BTW, games do not straddle between shows in the Y2K version.  After two rounds, if there is not enough time for a third round, the game is automatically over and the leading player wins. [/quote]
 Technically, there was one straddled game. Early in the run, a show ended with the contestants tied at the end of the game. The next show saw the two players go back into the booths to play a tiebreak question.

[clemon79]

That said, though, this is the kind of information Charles should take with a grain of salt, because who KNOWS how the Quebecois version of the show is going to handle such things.

[gameshowguy2000]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 12:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 3 2004, 11:18 AM\']
SECOND CHANCE
- Once per game, a player may call upon their Second Chance "lifeline" after hearing their question, but before answering. This summons a player's friend, who had been sequestered backstage, to confer with the player for a set amount of time. If a player answers incorrectly on a Second Chance, they lose two lifelines. [/quote]

Second Chance was the only "lifeline" offered on 21. As goongas said, an incorrect answer gave the contestant two strikes. [/quote]
 But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?

That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jun 6 2004, 05:49 PM\'] But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?

That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated. [/quote]
 You're right, I believe I remember seeing it happen on occasion.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jun 6 2004, 03:49 PM\'] But what if the player already had 2 strikes, then called the Second Chance, and missed THAT?

That means the player would get ONE more strike, for the total of 3, and be eliminated. [/quote]
 But it would go down in the official 21 record books as a four-strike game.

(Hey, if Kazuhiro Sasaki can strike out four guys in an inning, why not? Besides, it's either this or flaming GSG2K for another asinine post.)

[Blaq]

Remember: on the French-Canadian Twenty One, there will only be three rounds per game, not four. Also, I tend to have a distinct advantage when buzzing-in is required. (See: Wizz, Une Paire d'As...)

Judging from what I read, and watching again the 2000 NBC premiere, it seems that:

"STRAIGHT" STRATEGIES

Three-question play:

- The safest strategy seems to be aiming for 21 in three questions. Getting 21 in two means having to correctly answer a 10 and an 11-pointer, quite a feat. If getting to 21 is the main objective, as opposed to aiming for a "good enough" score in case I or my opponent wants to stop, the chances are much, much higher by answering three average questions than two extra-hard ones.

- 7-7-7 is the evident choice, but one can then vary one's point choices depending on how safe one feels with the category. This way, if I answer a 9-point question on round one or two, that's two extra points which give me room to maneuver if I run into a bad category later in the game. It can also keep opponents off-balance, if future players get to watch tapings in progress and see how the champion plays. However, if I deviate too far from 7, I enter the "10 or 11" range where I might as well be going for a two-question play, no?

Two-question play: (i.e. stopping the game)

- If I'm given the opportunity to stop the game, it means my opponent has <21, and so do I.

- I assume I shouldn't even contemplate doing this if I don't have two right answers.

- Disadvantages include: the gamble associated with stopping; the unlikely chance that the game is tied. (I believe the chances of both players being tied at 21 after three questions are much higher than a N-point tie after two questions -- since I'm a quick buzzer-presser, a tie breaker is an interesting proposition)

"EXTRA" STRATEGIES

These are strategies that go beyond the strict rules of the game.

- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?

- Regarding this "clapping" thing: if I answer questions one and two correctly (assuming I have over 11 points combined), and I only hear fading clapping once for my opponent, should I assume they only have one right answer, and end the game right there and then?

If I don't hear clapping, either my opponent has given a wrong answer, or the director has done his job correctly.

- If I have the chance to watch the show before my tape date, I can start keeping statistics on gameplay, distribution of player totals after two and three rounds, etc. which can help me decide on the likelihood that my opponent has one or two wrong answers after two questions, if I can't depend on overheard clapping.



Again, your comments are much appreciated!

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'Blaq\' date=\'Jun 21 2004, 04:59 PM\']- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?

[/quote]
I seem to remember that in the US version, they piped in clapping to drown out the outside noise for a few seconds to take away such an advantage. I would guess that the Canadian version would do the same. The producers would want to assure a fair game, given the show's history.

[Speedy G]

Three-question play:

- The safest strategy seems to be aiming for 21 in three questions. Getting 21 in two means having to correctly answer a 10 and an 11-pointer, quite a feat. If getting to 21 is the main objective, as opposed to aiming for a "good enough" score in case I or my opponent wants to stop, the chances are much, much higher by answering three average questions than two extra-hard ones.

- 7-7-7 is the evident choice, but one can then vary one's point choices depending on how safe one feels with the category. This way, if I answer a 9-point question on round one or two, that's two extra points which give me room to maneuver if I run into a bad category later in the game. It can also keep opponents off-balance, if future players get to watch tapings in progress and see how the champion plays. However, if I deviate too far from 7, I enter the "10 or 11" range where I might as well be going for a two-question play, no?

Playing to the 18-20 range is equally valid two-question play, and probably safer than the play to 21.  If you have 20, the worst you can do is tie if you get the chance to stop the game (and you should).  If you have 19 and the chance to stop, the only way you lose is if your opponent has 20, and they'd beat you to the punch anyway.

With only three rounds though, one mistake means you go back to 2-round strategy, or you're too far away to have a shot to reach 21.

Two-question play: (i.e. stopping the game)

- If I'm given the opportunity to stop the game, it means my opponent has <21, and so do I.

- I assume I shouldn't even contemplate doing this if I don't have two right answers.

- Disadvantages include: the gamble associated with stopping; the unlikely chance that the game is tied. (I believe the chances of both players being tied at 21 after three questions are much higher than a N-point tie after two questions -- since I'm a quick buzzer-presser, a tie breaker is an interesting proposition)

Yes, yes, and maybe.  I think it's guessing at the wind to try and predict what your opponent has going into that point, unless you know enough about their gameplay coming into the show.  It's easier just to play your score, and always stop on 20 or 19.  Unless the categories are REALLY out in left field, I wouldn't consider much lower than that.  Any opponent that doesn't stop on 20 is an idiot, and is playing really tight if they don't stop on 19.

"EXTRA" STRATEGIES

These are strategies that go beyond the strict rules of the game.

- Many times in the premiere episode, the sound was turned on in a player's booth while the audience was still clapping, presumably from the opponent's right answer! In a game based on secrecy, cluing in to this is a huge advantage, wouldn't you agree?

- Regarding this "clapping" thing: if I answer questions one and two correctly (assuming I have over 11 points combined), and I only hear fading clapping once for my opponent, should I assume they only have one right answer, and end the game right there and then?

If I don't hear clapping, either my opponent has given a wrong answer, or the director has done his job correctly.

The US version played applause to the headphones in the booth no matter what happened to the other player.  But who knows how they'll handle it?  If you can glean an advantage from their poorly thought out execution, do it.  Worked for Michael Larson...  ;-D