Once again there were distractions, but fortunately this time they were not in the pub – Manchester United were playing Hull City in the League Cup whist closer to home Macclesfield Town were facing Dover in the League; the TV was switched off and there were no competing darts so apart from the occasional chat at the bar the games was held in relative serenity.
The Specialist questions had been set by the Cock-A-2 and were quite challenging although Tomo scored well and one in particular was immediately nominated for the Nine Banded Armadillo trophy (Geography 1) – the subsequent question could also have been nominated but Tomo knew the answer. In fact Tomo had a very good round. At the end of this phase the Academicals had a narrow lead of 58 to 56.
The General Knowledge were set by the Park Timers and whilst there were some murmurs about imbalance (after all, they’re all easy if you know the answer) were well received with Matt in particular having a very strong run. Although again there was some discussion about one question in particular Q22 (What foodstuff is a berliner) – the Academicals answered with sausage that was
declared incorrect and the Lemmings (with Kennedy’s speech in mind) answered doughnut (the given answer) and were given the point. The Academicals then took advantage of the new rule and referred to Wikipedia (?) and said they were right and got three points – the Lemmings accepted this graciously but I’m not at all sure having since checked – no doubt Bob and perhaps others will have something to say about this. It made little difference to the points as the Academicals won those rounds with 99 to 93 and says much about the spirit of the evening.
Final scores were a victory to the Academicals with 157 to 149, individual scores being Bob 9/9, Matt 3/30, Nick 3/15 and Tomo 21/18; conferred points were 8/14 with 9/7 pass-overs. The visitors collected 6/8 pass-overs.
United and Macc Town both won, results 2-0 and 2-1 respectively. Brian then produced an excellent selection of sandwiches and pickles to round off the evening. Many thanks to Brian to the Academicals and to the question master Jeff and his timekeeper for an enjoyable evening
5 comments:
Berliners are undoubtedly doughnuts, but they are (albeit less prolifically cited on the internet) currywurst sausages also – the Harrington deserved the three points and I saw no problem with the process or outcome of the decision. This was a minor blip in an otherwise very good set of questions from the Park Timers (he would say that, wouldn’t he?), as we have come to expect. The Accies came with their strongest outfit and that outfit deserved its win and, if it was available every week, would be unlikely to be sat mid-table.
When it comes to the specialists I’m going to hark back to the last game and “earlraul’s” subsequent comments. I got 1/8 last night (compared to 3/8 in the last quiz), but rather than being consumed by bitterness caused by not knowing answers, I would say that the questions I received were fine (evidently – given the number that were answered by other players) and they just weren’t an ideal set for me (unlike the GKs). Yes, the Ordnance Survey question was pushing its luck, but one or two ropey ones out of 64 is fine by me. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that round 8 and the question about Tracy Island could act as an object lesson in how to ask questions on very similar material to the last quiz, but asked the “right way around” and with sufficient detail to make the questions accessible. So no elitism on question content on my part nor, as confirmed by last night’s result, any potential pro A League bias – we are very unlikely to be there next year, nor are the Cock A2 who set these questions.
After a convivial evening with the Lemmings, the Academicals returned to base for a last pint. The B team were still at it - up to Q91. On Q96,the QM decreed that cryptology was incorrect and insisted on cryptography. I’d have appealed that one if it had happened to us. Unfortunately I don’t get a 3G signal there and the guest wi fi is somewhere between erratic and useless
The other question asked the other way round was the island setting of Jaws - which I didn't know first time round and immediately forgot
The Christmas round wasn't too well received, but after that there were two good sets.
Thanks to setters and vetters
The answer to Q4 of the GK supplementaries should read CCS and not Led Zeppelin. CCS had a 1970 hit, whereas Led Zeppelin's hit was not until 1997 in the UK. Any question on chart hits surely refers to this country and so rules out any US hit that LZ had in the 1960s.
Thank God that question found its way into the supps. Whilst CCS is the correct answer, I defy any reasonable human (especially those born after 1970) to respond with it.
But...if we are reduced to slagging off the supps then that is undoubtedly a good sign.
A late response:
Sir,
I write on an oft-visited subject, the latest manifestation of which arose in a question concerning “What is a Berliner”? Whilst, according to the people involved the matter was resolved amicably it raises once again the subject of what should happen if an answer is disputed. I refer in particular to i-phone warriors googling furiously after the question has passed. Contestants nod sagely if Wikipedia, (that foolproof font of all knowledge) pronounces one way or the other. The trouble was that if the team relying on a cobbled together anyone-can-do-it encyclopaedia would have dug down enough he or she would have found that both the disputed “wrong answer” and the so-called “right answer” would have both prevailed! I believe that this system has received the blessing of the annual general meeting!
And what of the poor question-master? It is all very well to say that the matter was resolved amicably but try telling that one when the teams are neck and neck and promotion or relegation beckons.. What if there is no wi-fi in the pub? What if nobody on the other team has a phone to counter? And, heaven forbid, is the final say going to rest with Wikipedia?
The question master should remain the final arbiter. If both teams agree that a question is bad then it should be thrown out – that is one of the reasons that supplementary questions are provided. If there is any disagreement whatsoever then there is an answer – it is written on the question paper!
That way if the question is wrong teams have a right of appeal and both the flack and the blame rests exactly where it should rest – with setters and vetters.
Concerned
Tunbridge Wells
Post a Comment