Deep Bench at Imperial, 10/3/12

[Kyle]

It's about to happen. I figure it's worth having a thread so I can post some results.

Cambridge isn't here, a fact complicated by the fact that nobody has ever met a single one of the players on their team. Why has Oxford gone 13-0 in the Varsity Match? This is why.

Speaking as a moderator -- I see that I have set a poor example in this thread by talking glibly about the answers. I have been careful to do so only for the afternoon rounds, which were played on a slightly modified version of Michigan and Virginia's MOO set. That set is now clear for discussion. The morning rounds were held on a slightly modified version of Hunter's Prison Bowl set, which is absolutely not clear for discussion. I apologize for not being specific about this in my first post. -Kyle

[Kyle]

Confusion over rosters. Don't get to see quads until afternoon. Nobody wants to make any changes. North has put excellent players on second doubles, which I deem a strange strategy. Cambridge has compelled their fill-in high school student to play first singles. He says he is thrilled to get to play me; this is a good attitude.

[Kyle]

Doubles:

South 27
Oxford 21
North 19
Cambridge 5

Singles:

Oxford 27
North 13
South 10
Cambridge 4

Overall:

Oxford 48
South 37
North 32
Cambridge 9

[Kyle]

Oxford 1st quads are 3-0 and 2nd quads are 2-1, so we've won assuming we give up and don't play three more rounds.

A very exciting game last game. Question begins: "With his second wife, he fathered Edward of Woodstock." Alison and I both buzz in (in different rooms) to say Edward III. We are wrong. I am gleefully informed that Edward III fathered a different Edward of Woodstock with his first wife, not his second.

[Auks Ran Ova]

A very exciting game last game. Question begins: "With his second wife, he fathered Edward of Woodstock." Alison and I both buzz in (in different rooms) to say Edward III. We are wrong. I am gleefully informed that Edward III fathered a different Edward of Woodstock with his first wife, not his second.

FOOLISH AMERICANS

[Kyle]

Yes, also if you hear "this football team" and Thomas Grinyer is among the people editing the tournament, you should just buzz in and say Southampton and get it over with.

[Red Panda Cub]

What sets was the tournament played on? The questions were almost prohibitively hard for me and the rest of the even less experienced actual Cambridge students who comprised our 2nd quads team.

Also, Kyle, I was listening to a podcast about [a topic that came up in the morning rounds] the night before and was confused about who [performed a particular action], but decided to not to clarify because I felt I wouldn't have to be that fine grain, figured I would have to say [something], y'know? Well, I decided to buzz on that clue the very next day against you. You know the rest.

Edited to avoid giving away answers in the Prison Bowl set. -Kyle

[Kyle]

Sorry, Joey -- I have edited the answer to your question into the top post above. I should have made that clear from the beginning.

So, uh, yeah. The questions were pretty hard in the afternoon. It was jarring to me to play on them because it has been three years since I have heard sets like that, and we have not done a good enough job in practice of playing harder material. But I'm glad that people in this country are finally getting a taste for how quizbowl is meant to be played at the college level.

[Edmund]

A very exciting game last game. Question begins: "With his second wife, he fathered Edward of Woodstock." Alison and I both buzz in (in different rooms) to say Edward III. We are wrong. I am gleefully informed that Edward III fathered a different Edward of Woodstock with his first wife, not his second.

There is a more fundamental distinction here. Edward III fathered Edward of Woodstock. Edward I fathered Edmund of Woodstock. Edward III also fathered Edmund of Langley. Surely not so hard to keep track of? But now I am curious what Thomas's question actually said. As it happens I can claim descent from Edward III, so I should be well apprised of my relatives.

I remarked in jest during the afternoon that for every set he contributes to, Thomas Grinyer writes a James Bond tossup, a mediaeval English history tossup and a tossup about Southampton FC. The first two having turned up in the packets I moderated, when I and some combined super-teams were playing the last couple for fun at the end, it is to my eternal regret that I did not buzz on "This football team" for 15 points.

Edit: while we're at it, this was a terrific tournament. It was great to have a new format and although the questions were tough in the afternoon, people were still answering them. It was also very nice to head to a new destination, and for the first time ever to turn up to a tournament I had neither organised, edited, nor was playing in.

[Kyle]

Stats are here: http://hsquizbowl.org/db/tournaments/944

Singles:

Oxford 27
South 10
North 9
Cambridge 8

Doubles:

South 24
North 22
Oxford 21
Cambridge 5

Quads:

Oxford 23
North 22
South 9
Cambridge 0

Total:

Oxford 71
North 53
South 43
Cambridge 13

The power totals for the quads rounds offer a really wonderful example of what happens when one person writes questions about pet topics he has shared with his friends.

[Priscus Attalus]

The power totals for the quads rounds offer a really wonderful example of what happens when one person writes questions about pet topics he has shared with his friends.

I don't think you're talking about me (Hugh), but I'm paranoid and I need to assure you that that certainly wasn't the case on my part.

User was reminded to enable a signature. --Mgmt

[Kyle]

The power totals for the quads rounds offer a really wonderful example of what happens when one person writes questions about pet topics he has shared with his friends.

I don't think you're talking about me (Hugh), but I'm paranoid and I need to assure you that that certainly wasn't the case on my part.

Don't worry, I'm not.