The Lemmings were welcomed to the Nags Head, a lovely old market pub featured in many of the historical photographs of the town. The landlady has taken advantage of the many rooms formerly used by shepherds and cowherds who brought their beasts to town for the market; the quiz therefore took place in an upstairs room isolated from whatever was happening downstairs.
The Dizzy Blonde once again proved itself to be the best of Robinsons offerings and perhaps contributed to the friendly and jocular atmosphere in which the quiz took place. This was best exemplified after the Science Inventions Q6 about Percy Shaw and Bob started to tell a joke and the home team finished the punch line for him – perhaps they’d heard it before.
The questions we thought were very good, there were no armadillos, no Wikipedia warriors (love that phrase) good balance and varied; Matt found his form again and the Lemmings slipped ahead in the Specialist with 58 to 41. This was maintained in the General Knowledge winning with 79 67 – final score 137 to 108.
Individual scores Bob12/21, Matt 12/18, Nick 6/6 Tomo 12/9 Conferred 9/12, Pass-overs 7/13 the Nags collected 4/6 pass-overs.
Nick surprised most players including himself when after his sanctimonious comments about conferrals last week he gave a ridiculous answer to a question loaded with clues (Q30 GK) with an answer from another book!! Blame the Dizzy Blonde I think.
The evening was rounded off with sausage butties – a welcome treat on a very cold night – thank you to the landlord, to Dave Partington for being a patient and fair question master and to the Nags Head team for a very pleasant evening
4 comments:
I think the marks given for the questions in this game (via the very early N&Vs) reflect a night that was tougher than we realised. The airport round isn't one I would rush to repeat, but otherwise the difficulty seemed normal (with the occasional q - eg Wayne Rooney) at the very gentle end. We were bemoaning the balance in the early stages of the GK (first-second seemed a touch easier), but the last few rounds left our opponents of similar opinion - we got a lot of pass-overs in the late stages, so put it down to the Nags going "death or glory" rather than extreme imbalance. I thought the Robin's efforts well clear of bottom of the league and much improved upon last year (for which I can claim credit by absence!), although they do know where I live and my fellow Rainovian and I had relatively fruitful evenings.
I always find it hard to comment on the questions when I haven't played in the game, as I didn't this week, but having read through them quickly they seem tough, but fair overall. There weren't too many "pb" entries required which usually shows that things were at the trickier end of the scale.
This means congratulations are due to the apparently unstoppable Alice Walker who had the week's best score with 42. You know you are doing OK when that is your worst score of the season! Alice could well be on for setting a record "best 12" games total for the season at this rate...I will keep my eye on that.
Top quality efforts also from Ashton Davies of the CHB and Glyn Bradley from the Park Timers who were nearest to Alice in both registering 39. Respect is due…
Well thank you Mark, I appear to have been sitting in the right seat most weeks this season. In the light of your 'kiss of death' remark a few weeks ago about the unbeatable Ox-fford C, after which we immediately lost our next game, I am expecting a score of 9 next week.
There were some problems posting this so I have copied it here so people can see it:
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