"16. He entered the Seven Weeks War on the side of Austria but, on his defeat, signed an alliance with Prussia. As king he invited the exiled Richard Wagner to continue his musical work in Munich, during which time Wagner completed his Ring Cycle.(*) His uncle Prince Luitpold took power when a panel of physicians recommended his removal, and this man known as the Mad King drowned himself soon after. FTP, name this King of Bavaria famous for his many castles like Neuschwanstein, the grandson of Ludwig I and cousin of Ludwig III. Answer: Ludwig II or Louis II (*) Where I buzzed in, answering "Mad King Ludwig"." So, the situation seems prima facie that the question writer used "Mad King" as an identifying clue in the question, and thus did not include "Mad King Ludwig" as an acceptable alternate answer. There seems to be two schools of thought on this issue. One school holds that if you give an alternate answer that also appears as a clue before that clue appears in a question, your answer should be accepted. This school would award you the points. Adherents of this school often submit questions to tournaments that have caveats added such as "accept _Mad King Ludwig_ if that answer is given before the words 'Mad King' appear in the question." The philosophy behind doing this seems to be that a player should never be penalized on an interrupt if the answer indicates clear and precise knowledge of the question, but is in a form that later information in the question would rule out. I hold with the second school of thought on this topic. A toss-up properly constructed in "pyramidal style" is a series of clues, each of which in succession narrows the Universe of Possible Answers until one is precisely pinpointed. While the pinpointing usually comes earlier in the toss-up rather than later, as a practical matter (and to the point of view of the player seeking the answer) the pinpointing can occur anywhere in the toss-up. Additional clues in the toss-up may indicate the form the answer will take. A player who buzzes in early in any circumstances assumes an element of risk: that they have heard enough to correctly pinpoint the answer. In this case, the toss-up eliminates "Mad King" as a form of the answer by using it as a clue, and furthermore it contains clues in the final words that, if heard, pretty clearly indicate that this is going to be Ludwig II. By buzzing early, you assumed the risk that you had enough information; when prompted, it was clear that you did not. You took a risk, and it did not pay off. I would have ruled against you in this case, an adherent of the other school would not have. When questions are going to eliminate a common alternate form of an answer, I prefer to have the alternate eliminated early in the question. But I don't think it is inherently unfair for the elimination to occur later. Others will disagree, I'm sure. :) Now, how about someone posting the "Christiana" question?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST