Blitzing

• From: JeremyCEC
• Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:54:01 -0800
• Message-ID: <000TU0449.001PD3IPS.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

In training some new moderators for our upcoming
tournaments, the issue of blitzing came up last night. Please
comment on the correctness of our understanding of
blitzing...

 Basically, a question was asking for Henrik
Ibsen, but the person answering gave the name of the
work, "An Enemy of the People", and then said, "By
Henrik Ibsen." Since the work was cited later toward the
end of the question, and technically, the person gave
no *incorrect* information, then, his answer was
counted right. If, however, he had started blurting out a
bunch of answers, and some of them were unrelated or
incorrect; for example, "Hedda Gabler" or "A Doll's House",
then even if he had gotten the Ibsen part correct, he
would still have been marked wrong.

 As far as I
can tell, the whole point of blitzing is so as not to
punish someone for having overall knowledge of a
subject. On occasion, a question appears to be asking one
thing, but leads to another. Someone who knew all about
that thing should not be punished if he did not read
the question-writer's mind and answer the one thing
that was being asked.

 Having said that, I
believe well-written questions will obviate the need for
blitzing. If it is very clear what's being asked every time
(e.g., a person, place, thing, idea, etc.), then
typically blitzing is unnecessary. Do you
concur?

Jeremy R.