EFT Discussion

[Mike Bentley]

Is this set open for discussion?

Some non-question specific comments I had:

I think on average the questions were too long for what I thought this tournament was striving to be (mainly, but not exclusively, targeted towards newer players and teams). Packet 10 in particular seemed really out of control in this area, with a whole bunch of tossups exceeding 8 lines in 10 point Times New Roman. While I'm okay (but not crazy about) long questions at harder events, I have a few problems with them at events like this. First, they make it hard to follow for newer teams. If your average new team has come from playing CBI, some crappy local high school format, or even NAQT IS sets, 8 line questions are going to be a big culture shock to them which I think will add an unnecessary sense of "these questions are too hard". I got that vibe from the new team playing Packet 10 even though it was one of the more accessible packets in terms of answer selection. The other issue I have with long questions at tournaments like this is that they make it difficult for new schools hosting the tournament to finish on time. I believe there were several programs making this tournament the first tournament they ever hosted, meaning that there weren't a bevy of experienced moderators around. At Gonzaga, for instance, rounds were pushing 45 minutes plus because the non-me readers did not have the experience necessary to read rounds so quickly.

Another somewhat annoying issue was that this set didn't do a very good job of providing alternate answers. There were probably 5 or 6 different times when someone gave an answer that I was pretty sure was an acceptable answer but wasn't listed. Again, this isn't the world's biggest issue, but when you have newer readers reading these packets they probably won't know that a non-listed answer is acceptable, leading to further delays with protests and answer checking.

Besides that, I think the tournament did a good job question wise. The teams playing, even the brand new ones like Whitman, seemed to have fun playing the set and found it around the right difficulty level. Thanks to the people who worked hard to produce it.

[Gautam]

The set was mostly fine. I thought there were some promptable things that weren't included in the answer line, to go along with Mike's point about alternate answers. There were also some tossup answers which I thought wouldn't see more than a 25% conversion level, and I was somewhat shocked by those things being tossed up.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

At the Brown site, the experienced moderators (who were mostly notable players after all) almost always accepted alternative answers that were not on the page but well known.

Apart from bonus difficulty varriance -- a plague upon all tournaments everywhere -- I noted no systemic problems with the set.

[Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat]

I really liked the set a lot. As Bruce said, there were a few bonuses with significantly different difficulties, but I felt like that wasn't as big as a problem as some tournaments I've been to in the past. There were a couple of misplaced clues that slipped through, and the moderators had seemed to have some trouble with words missing in a couple of questions, but neither seemed like a major problem in the set. It looks like there are a couple of mirrors running today, so I'll have a few comments on specific questions once the set is cleared.

[Cheynem]

I enjoyed this set. The only issues I really had with it were an occasionally very bizarre sense of bonus structure (easy/easy/WHAAAAAAAAT?) and the usual "Mmm, is that tossup okay at this level?" questions that plague most novice tournaments. I think I may agree with the bit about alternate answer lines, but I'll wait until it clears for discussion to press further.

[grapesmoker]

The UCLA and Millsaps site are running their mirrors today, so please hold off on providing specifics until those tournaments are concluded, which should be circa 10 PM Eastern Time.

[Mechanical Beasts]

There were a lot of surprisingly poor or unbalanced ideas in the chemistry distribution, but, well, chemistry's hard to write.. The other sciences didn't seem to suffer at all, really, and computer science I thought was really excellent, with the exception of one tossup. (Math, ditto.) I think the set showed the absence of Eric's editing influence in those categories.

I think the trash distribution showed that even experienced writers and editors can't get a consistent sense of difficulty for trash.

[MicroEStudent]

While there are only a small set of categories I feel I could comment on, there was one science question that I feel I got hosed on and will ask for the full text to be posted following clearance.

[aestheteboy]

This comment isn't exactly pertinent to the discussion, but I'd like to just say I'm extremely impressed how so many high school teams played the set so well. UVA site must have been really exciting.

[Brinkley S.]

The UVa site was very exciting! Unfortunately I didn't get to see State College or Maggie Walker play, because neither ever had a match in the room I was reading for, but I heard great things.

As for the packets themselves, I stumbled a bit through some of the missing words/extra words, and found a particular question with '[needs a bit more meat here]" interesting. (It did need more meat.) But I was impressed that we received them on time and didn't noticed any major problems, overall.

[Matt Weiner]

This comment isn't exactly pertinent to the discussion, but I'd like to just say I'm extremely impressed how so many high school teams played the set so well. UVA site must have been really exciting.

It was certainly the first time I can think of that VCU missed a tournament final on the basis of 330-325 and and 320-310 losses. Exciting indeed.

[TheKingInYellow]

On the whole, this set was awesome, and I speak for all of State College when I say we had a great time playing it. I noticed the same bonus difficulty fluctuations everyone else did, and the lack of alternate answers was also crucial... at least it made our 5 point win over VCU a hell of a lot more suspenseful.

I also noticed one or two lit fairly cliff-ish lit questions, which I'll probably talk about after the mirrors are finished.

[women, fire and dangerous things]

I didn't notice any problems with tossup answer selection, personally. For example, of the ten games in which I was involved, four had no dead tossups. There were two games with 19 converted tossups, one with 18, two with 17, and one with 16. There were a few hard parts of bonuses which were pretty out there, though.

[grapesmoker]

I'd like to ask all hosts posting stats to please, please, please turn on round report. This is going to be very useful for people trying to compare packets.

[vcuEvan]

This set was solid and for the most part did a great job of keeping difficulty down.

[grapesmoker]

Also, I'd like to know whether the two packets I wrote were played anywhere. I know at least one was used at the Macalester site and both were read for the finals at Brown. I would really like to compare the numbers for those packets with the rest of the field.

[Matt Weiner]

They were used for the two-game final at UVa.

[grapesmoker]

They were used for the two-game final at UVa.

Great. I realize the performance of teams in the final may not be representative of all teams, but I would appreciate if that could be entered into the stats for comparison.

[Habitat_Against_Humanity]

Also, I'd like to know whether the two packets I wrote were played anywhere. I know at least one was used at the Macalester site and both were read for the finals at Brown. I would really like to compare the numbers for those packets with the rest of the field.

We had to go to a two game final after twelve packets in Illinois, so I think your packets must have been used.

[Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant]

Also, I'd like to know whether the two packets I wrote were played anywhere. ...

At least one was used at USC. Round 13, I think.

[Nuclear Densometer Test]

Also, I'd like to know whether the two packets I wrote were played anywhere. I know at least one was used at the Macalester site and both were read for the finals at Brown. I would really like to compare the numbers for those packets with the rest of the field.

They were used at the USC site as well. One for round 13 and the other in Finals.

There was one tossup in particular that Joey Montoya and I were WHAT?! about but I'll bring it up later.

[ClemsonQB]

I found repeats to be a pretty big issue, notably two bonuses which appeared twice, but also more subtle instances of repeats. Also, forty-five minute rounds is way too long for beginning players. Otherwise, this was a great set which I enjoyed quite a lot.

[grapesmoker]

I found repeats to be a pretty big issue, notably two bonuses which appeared twice, but also more subtle instances of repeats. Also, forty-five minute rounds is way too long for beginning players. Otherwise, this was a great set which I enjoyed quite a lot.

Repeats suck, but I just wanted to point out that the two bonuses which were literally repeated in the set should not have affected anything, as both packets had extra bonuses to cover for them. That was an unfortunate oversight on our part but I hope no one went ahead and read a literal repeat because of it.

[grapesmoker]

Now that the mirrors have ended, you are free to discuss specifics of this tournament. Before that happens, let me say a few words:

First of all, I would like to thank Ike Jose, Seth Teitler, Trygve Meade, and Hannah Kirsch for their contributions to the tournament. In particular, Ike and Seth wrote a whole bunch of questions for us when it became clear that some people were not going to be able to write the number of packets they signed up for. You guys saved our tournament, and we're very grateful for your contributions.

Second, I want to say a few words about the questions themselves. While overall, most sites had the kind of bonus conversion I would have hoped for from this event, I am not completely happy with many of the bonus parts in this set. I thought that many of the hard parts in some of the packets were just too hard for this field. I voiced some objections to various things that I thought were too hard but some of those objections were not heeded and various things that I personally think were too difficult made it into this set. There were several repeats, which was a bad thing; we should have removed them. We tried to do a complete run-through to weed them out, but we missed some informational repeats in tossups that also came up in bonuses. I think the tossups were for the most part both deep enough for relatively more experienced players and accessible enough for newer players, but if people disagree with my assessment, please do let me know. Question length was an issue in a few packets as well; if we'd managed to keep on schedule, we would have dealt with that.

I hope playing this set was a generally good experience for most people and also a good introduction to what accessible and well-written quizbowl is like for those who don't know already. As I have already said, you are now free to discuss specific questions from the set. I and the rest of the writing team will do our best to reply to any points raised.

[Crimson Rosella]

I thought the set was very good, particularly with respect to music, lit, and math. I happened to enjoy a lot of the history I saw, but I can't really comment on the quality of those questions with much confidence. I agree with Andy that chem had a few issues, and I thought there were a few science bonuses that could have given more explicit descriptions of what they were asking for, rather than providing more "word association"-style clues that didn't. I'll try to provide a specific example of this once the set is posted. As far as some tossups exceeding "novice difficulty" level (i. e. Ziegler-Natta), I'm not sure it's ideal, but I thought about it and decided I like the idea of this tournament exposing newer players to some of the canonical regular to nationals-level difficulty topics.

[maxis7]

Now that the mirrors have ended, you are free to discuss specifics of this tournament. Before that happens, let me say a few words:

First of all, I would like to thank Ike Jose, Seth Teitler, Trygve Meade, and Hannah Kirsch for their contributions to the tournament. In particular, Ike and Seth wrote a whole bunch of questions for us when it became clear that some people were not going to be able to write the number of packets they signed up for. You guys saved our tournament, and we're very grateful for your contributions.

Second, I want to say a few words about the questions themselves. While overall, most sites had the kind of bonus conversion I would have hoped for from this event, I am not completely happy with many of the bonus parts in this set. I thought that many of the hard parts in some of the packets were just too hard for this field. I voiced some objections to various things that I thought were too hard but some of those objections were not heeded and various things that I personally think were too difficult made it into this set. There were several repeats, which was a bad thing; we should have removed them. We tried to do a complete run-through to weed them out, but we missed some informational repeats in tossups that also came up in bonuses. I think the tossups were for the most part both deep enough for relatively more experienced players and accessible enough for newer players, but if people disagree with my assessment, please do let me know. Question length was an issue in a few packets as well; if we'd managed to keep on schedule, we would have dealt with that.

I hope playing this set was a generally good experience for most people and also a good introduction to what accessible and well-written quizbowl is like for those who don't know already. As I have already said, you are now free to discuss specific questions from the set. I and the rest of the writing team will do our best to reply to any points raised.

I thought it was a pretty good set of questions - the Toronto mirror saw good tossup conversion for the most part. The bonuses were a little uneven in terms of difficulty and the question length was a little longer than what I have seen in novice level tournaments. On the whole though, I agree that it was suitable for both experienced players as well as beginners. It was definitely well received at our Toronto mirror.

[MicroEStudent]

This was our first mACF event and we enjoyed it. It did show that we have plenty of areas to work on (literature, non-American history and RMP). I don't remember what packet it was, but we were in a bottom bracket game and the final score was something like 65-5 with a ton of toss-ups going dead. Even the moderator mentioned that it seemed more difficult relative to the rest of the packets.

My sole question issue is the question with answer "resistor". I answered during the first line with "transistors" as the first line was not uniquely identifying to resistors. I would also argue that the even more broad "semiconductor devices" should have been accepted as mentioning "thin-film" and two materials does not define a resistor.

If the text of that question was posted, I would appreciate it as there is also a chance that there was a word or phrase that I missed and thus makes my argument invalid.

[women, fire and dangerous things]

I especially enjoyed the math in this set, especially the tossups on matrix multiplication and the real numbers. Also, any tournament with a tossup on Canto General is a winner in my books.

[grapesmoker]

This was our first mACF event and we enjoyed it. It did show that we have plenty of areas to work on (literature, non-American history and RMP). I don't remember what packet it was, but we were in a bottom bracket game and the final score was something like 65-5 with a ton of toss-ups going dead. Even the moderator mentioned that it seemed more difficult relative to the rest of the packets.

Did the order of packets played correspond with the numbering we provided? If so, it should be easy to reconstruct what packet you played.

My sole question issue is the question with answer "resistor". I answered during the first line with "transistors" as the first line was not uniquely identifying to resistors. I would also argue that the even more broad "semiconductor devices" should have been accepted as mentioning "thin-film" and two materials does not define a resistor.

If the text of that question was posted, I would appreciate it as there is also a chance that there was a word or phrase that I missed and thus makes my argument invalid.

Sure thing:

The thin film variety of these devices is generally made from Tantalum nitride or nichrome, while the most popular standard for categorizing them is BS 1852. The gauge factor relates changes in their properties to strain, allowing them to be used for strain gauges, and a potentiometer contains three of them arranged as a voltage divider. A ladder of them can make a simple digital to analog converter. They generate zero reactive power, and four of them can be combined with a voltage and current source to create a Wheatstone bridge. For ten points, name these devices which are frequently coded using four colored bands and whose namesake quantity is measured in Ohms.
ANSWER: resistors

Is the first line (including the bit about tantalum nitride and nichrome) equally true for transistors? If so, then I apologize for this omission. I didn't write this question, and while I checked the information as regards resistors, I did not check it against other possible answers.

[grapesmoker]

I especially enjoyed the math in this set, especially the tossups on matrix multiplication and the real numbers. Also, any tournament with a tossup on Canto General is a winner in my books.

There was actually a complaint about the tossup on the real numbers at the Brown site. I'll post the question here to see if it resurfaces because I'm curious as to what the problem was:

The long line is path connected and locally homeomorphic to this set in the standard topology, but cannot be embedded in it. Paul Cohen used forcing to prove the independence of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms and a hypothesis regarding the cardinalities of this set and one of its subsets. Hilbert defined this system with 18 axioms that imply it is the largest Archimedean field, and up to isomorphism it is the only ordered field with the least upper bound property. Dedekind cuts and equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences provide two methods for constructing this system, which was proved to be uncountable by Cantor’s diagonal argument. For 10 points, name this set that can be decomposed into algebraic and transcendental numbers, or into rational and irrational numbers.

ANSWER: the real numbers or R

[MicroEStudent]

Did the order of packets played correspond with the numbering we provided? If so, it should be easy to reconstruct what packet you played.

There was one issue regarding packets 5 and 10 at our site, but I believe we were on packet 8 for that round.

Sure thing:

The thin film variety of these devices is generally made from Tantalum nitride or nichrome, while the most popular standard for categorizing them is BS 1852. The gauge factor relates changes in their properties to strain, allowing them to be used for strain gauges, and a potentiometer contains three of them arranged as a voltage divider. A ladder of them can make a simple digital to analog converter. They generate zero reactive power, and four of them can be combined with a voltage and current source to create a Wheatstone bridge. For ten points, name these devices which are frequently coded using four colored bands and whose namesake quantity is measured in Ohms.
ANSWER: resistors

Is the first line (including the bit about tantalum nitride and nichrome) equally true for transistors? If so, then I apologize for this omission. I didn't write this question, and while I checked the information as regards resistors, I did not check it against other possible answers.

I buzzed following "nichrome". I think the use of the word "generally" complicates things. While thin film transistors are not usually made with tantalum nitride, nichrome is used frequently in the manufacture of transistors to act as a heat sink, and it is also being explored by a couple of my fellow grad students at RIT to be used as a gate material.

With me missing "generally" from the first phrase, I would think that "transistor" is wrong, but maybe promptable for "semiconductor devices," and that "semiconductor devices" should be accepted until BS 1852.

I apologize for being this analytical, but this type of question is exactly my wheelhouse as transistors were the entire basis of my undergrad and future MS degrees.

[Lagotto Romagnolo]

I buzzed following "nichrome". I think the use of the word "generally" complicates things. While thin film transistors are not usually made with tantalum nitride, nichrome is used frequently in the manufacture of transistors to act as a heat sink, and it is also being explored by a couple of my fellow grad students at RIT to be used as a gate material.

With me missing "generally" from the first phrase, I would think that "transistor" is wrong, but maybe promptable for "semiconductor devices," and that "semiconductor devices" should be accepted until BS 1852.

I apologize for being this analytical, but this type of question is exactly my wheelhouse as transistors were the entire basis of my undergrad and future MS degrees.

Noted. No need to apologize, analysis is what these threads are for.

[Stained Diviner]

was proved to be uncountable by Cantor’s diagonal argument. For 10 points, name this set that can be decomposed into algebraic and transcendental numbers

These particular clues also apply to Irrational Numbers. There may be some others in the question that do as well, though I'm not sure. It wouldn't surprise me if that drew some negs.

[grapesmoker]

was proved to be uncountable by Cantor’s diagonal argument. For 10 points, name this set that can be decomposed into algebraic and transcendental numbers

These particular clues also apply to Irrational Numbers. There may be some others in the question that do as well, though I'm not sure. It wouldn't surprise me if that drew some negs.

The diagonalization argument, as I have seen it, is always about the reals, although clearly you can apply it to the irrationals as well. In any case, the misleading clue was allegedly in the first half of the question so I don't think this is it. But yeah, we should have put some disambiguation in there to prevent people from buzzing with "irrational."

[Mettius Fufetius]

7. One member of this group was able to give his nephew the Castle of St. Angelo and the title Duke of Spoleto, and as pope exonerated Joan of Arc posthumously, even though he excommunicated Halley’s Comet. In addition to the member of this group that became Callixtus III [...]

This is an urban legend that a lot of (otherwise good) sources repeat, but it isn't actually true. All Calixtus III did was ask people to pray about the comet in case (he wasn't even sure) it was a bad omen. A definitive history and debunking of the myth was published as early as 1907 in this short article by G. F. Chambers, but the message still doesn't seem to have gotten out -- if you do a Google Books search on the topic you'll find maybe three-quarters of the sources credulously repeating the rumor without providing any specifics, and about a quarter discussing the real story, tracing it back to Platina and so on.

[Jesus vs. Dragons]

I also noticed that there was a round (I think 10) that was much harder than the rest. I am not sure if it was the same round, but it also had like 4/5 lit tossups being poetry. I believe the Mishima tossup was fairly easy, and I particularly did not like the Candide tossup, as Pacquette was in the opening sentence. Overall I really like this set and the length issue Mike mentioned was not a big problem on my end. Also, I felt that the Krebs cycle tossup was also pretty easy, mentioning succinate and pyruvate pretty early.

[lchen]

was proved to be uncountable by Cantor’s diagonal argument. For 10 points, name this set that can be decomposed into algebraic and transcendental numbers

These particular clues also apply to Irrational Numbers. There may be some others in the question that do as well, though I'm not sure. It wouldn't surprise me if that drew some negs.

The diagonalization argument, as I have seen it, is always about the reals, although clearly you can apply it to the irrationals as well. In any case, the misleading clue was allegedly in the first half of the question so I don't think this is it. But yeah, we should have put some disambiguation in there to prevent people from buzzing with "irrational."

I don't know much about the clues in the first half, but I'm pretty sure Dedekind cuts produce irrational numbers, and that's where I negged on that question.

[Theory Of The Leisure Flask]

As much I personally enjoyed the Renzo Piano tossup, it seemed like a dubious choice for this dificulty level. Also, could someone post the Shostakovich tossup?

[grapesmoker]

I don't know much about the clues in the first half, but I'm pretty sure Dedekind cuts produce irrational numbers, and that's where I negged on that question.

It is possible to construct rational cuts as well. This is what Rudin does in his book to show that Q is a subfield of R. Dedekind cuts are used to construct a field with the least upper bound property, which would be R.

[Ringil]

I thought this set was pretty awesome overall. However, there was also some problems with bonus difficulties as noted previously. However, overall these weren't too important. So, thanks Brown and co for making this awesome set

[Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat]

One clue I really liked was in the Garden of Forking Paths tossup, where it mentioned the riddle whose answer is time. That seemed to me like a clue memorable only after reading the story a couple of times, which is exactly what an early clue in a lit tossup should be.

I didn't really like the trash tossup on people from Japan; it just felt weird somehow. In my room it seemed like people just zoned out, either lost or thinking that the answer was something completely unknown to them, until the very end.

Last, if I heard right the Colorado tossup had a really early clue about Aspen. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Aspen is really famous and should have been near the end of that question, perhaps even after the FTP. Most times I would forget an error like that by the end of a tournament, since there were so many good questions, but that was the first tossup we heard and had me really worried. There are lots of things said about first impressions, and I think the first question of a tournament should have an extra run through editing to set things off well.

[ThisIsMyUsername]

There was actually a complaint about the tossup on the real numbers at the Brown site. I'll post the question here to see if it resurfaces because I'm curious as to what the problem was:

I don't know if you're referring to the protest that happened during the Yale A vs. Yale B game, but that was because Kevin's answer of "the continuum" was initially not accepted and he was negged, until Eric later reversed the call after googling it. I don't know any math, so I can't say for sure, but I think that was a complaint based entirely on acceptable alternate answers rather than any problem with the clues.

I really enjoyed this set. The Monty Python trash bonus was great as was the tossup on Rite of Spring that managed to find interesting middle clues. The only weird general quirk I noticed was the high South African content. Other people already mentioned Pacquette's name in the Candide tossup and Aspen in Colorado, which were the only two instances I remember of clues placed really early. The tossups I remember feeling a little flummoxed by were the ones on Beethoven's Ninth and the Wife of Bath's Tale, if you could possibly post either of those. I may have just been listening badly, though.

[Mechanical Beasts]

I think Hannah mentioned that Asaf objected to that tossup, and since Asaf had taught me about the long line topology, it might be about that clue.

[Sir Thopas]

The tossups I remember feeling a little flummoxed by were the ones on Beethoven's Ninth and the Wife of Bath's Tale, if you could possibly post either of those. I may have just been listening badly, though.

10. In “Getting Down Off the Beanstalk,” Susan McClary claims that the first movement of this piece represents the “murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.” Trombones first appear in a D major trio in its “Scherzo” second movement, which includes the unique use of timpani playing Ritmo di tre battute. This work features a solo for the fourth horn in its third movement, which takes place prior to the last movement, where the hymn-like theme passes from the cellos and basses to the vocalists. FTP, name this D minor symphony, whose fourth movement sets to music Schiller’s “Ode to Joy,” which was the last symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.
ANSWER: Beethoven’s 9th Symphony or “Choral” Symphony [accept or Opus 125 before mention]

4. The narrator of this work recounts Socrates’s statement that “before thunder ceases, the rain comes,” made when his wife urinated on him, and quotes extensively from Ptolemey’s Amalgest. One character argues that gentility comes only from god, and another character draws a metaphor by claiming that a castle wall cannot be defended when it is besieged from every side. The central character tears pages out of Valerius and Theophrastus, which earns her a punch in the ear by Jankin. One character is forced to wed an old woman in return for information but that woman later transforms into a young beauty, and as punishment for raping a maiden, a knight is ordered to name the thing which woman desires most. FTP, name this Canterbury tale in which the title character recounts her misadventures with her five husbands.
ANSWER: “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” (accept the Prologue to the Wife of Bath's Tale)

I don't know about the first one, but you certainly were right to be a bit confused about the second one. It conflates the Tale and the Prologue; I guess the best solution was just to accept either of them. Honestly, the Prologue is more important than the Tale itself, I'm pretty sure, but the Prologue itself doesn't make for the best answer line. (As for tossing up individual Tales at this level...well, I'm not sure.)

[Cheynem]

Wife of Bath's tale is one of the most famous Canterbury Tales and is read in many high schools and certainly intro British Lit classes. While not every tale is fair game, this one should be.

The Colorado tossup was horrible, basically a series of giveaways. I ruled out Colorado from the early clue about Hunter S. Thompson, seeing as how this famous Colorado resident could not be the lead-in for Colorado. But whatever.

I was amused at the two trash tossups on _Japan_ and _Tokyo_. The trash at this tournament was right up my alley--comic book clues, James Bond clues, hockey questions referencing the Detroit Red Wings in some manner, baseball, older movies, TV shows I have watched. I approve.

[ieppler]

Sorry about the Colorado tossup; I thought my yearly visits to family in Colorado had given me deep Colorado knowledge lacked by other members of the quizbowl community. I was unfortunately mistaken.

[Kwang the Ninja]

(As for tossing up individual Tales at this level...well, I'm not sure.)

Wife of Bath's tale is definitely tossupable at this level. In our room, a girl on our team got that who averaged less than three points per game, so yeah, I'd say that's an acceptable novice difficulty tossup.
In general, this set was beyond awesome. I didn't have any problems with the bonus difficulty, as I just assumed that the reason we were getting killed by the bonuses was that I just don't have any of that stuff. Basically it inspired me to go out and read harder sets so I can get my bonus conversion up higher, and really, isn't that what this tournament is supposed to do? I give this tournament a standing ovation.

[Important Bird Area]

Wife of Bath's tale is one of the most famous Canterbury Tales and is read in many high schools and certainly intro British Lit classes. While not every tale is fair game, this one should be.

I agree with this. If you want to conflate the prologue and the tale into a single tossup, isn't the right solution: "this character... answer: _Wife of Bath_"?

[Avram]

I'd like to ask all hosts posting stats to please, please, please turn on round report. This is going to be very useful for people trying to compare packets.

The UCLA mirror's non-SQBS round report can be found at the bottom of the "Round Summaries" page-- http://quizbowl.gimranov.com/stats/stat ... ?t=eft2009 .

[Not That Kind of Christian!!]

1. Asaf looked at the question again and mentioned to me that the word "generally," which he didn't hear in-game, made that first clue okay.
2. I was reading, not playing, but I remember not liking the Rite of Spring tossup. The superimposed dominant-seventh chords are really famous, more famous, I think, than the rehearsal schedule, and dropping the REALLY famous high bassoon solo right after that had everyone racing for their buzzers in my room.
3. That Bolero tossup was great.

One clue I really liked was in the Garden of Forking Paths tossup, where it mentioned the riddle whose answer is time.

The riddle's answer is chess.