What happens when Jeopardy is wrong?

[Justin_Bailey]

On today's episode of Jeopardy!, the Daily Double in the Jeopardy round was in the category James Bond. The question was more or less...

Originally Posted by Jeopardy!

This 1971 film was so named because Sean Connery was adament it would be his final time playing James Bond.

The contestant did not give any reply and Trebek then said the answer was "What is Never Say Never Again".

BUT!

The real answer, of course, is "What is Diamonds Are Forever"? Never Say Never Again is wrong on a lot of levels, but mostly because it was released in 1983, not 1971. I missed the show coming back from commercial before Double Jeopardy so I don't know if they addressed it, but two questions...

a) Did you see it, and if so, did Trebek address the boo-boo?

b) Has Jeopardy! ever gotten an answer wrong like this before and not address it in the show? And what happened with those contestants?

[Spoons]

I didn't see the show in question, but I seem to recall a few shows where Alex introduced a contestant as a past contestant who was invited back because of an error such as you describe.

So I imagine that's what would happen here: the contestant who faced that error would be invited back at a future date. Assuming he or she lost the game, of course; I couldn't see them inviting the contestant back it if the contestant was the day's big winner in spite of the error.

[KneadToKnow]

What Spoons said. If the contestant raises a legitimate beef, they're invited back and given another shot.

I watch a lot of old game shows, and there've been many times I've seen something go down and said out loud, "There's someone who'll be coming back again soon!"

N.b.: If they ever bring Pyramid back again, and you're a contestant, and you say half the word in the process of giving clues, don't stop and look around guiltily. I've seen it work plenty of times to just plow right through and hope the judge will miss it, but if they see you acting like you goofed up, you'll get cuckooed every time.

[Just Ed]

The question was correct. You're misremembering the answer, which was:

This title was a reference to Sean Connery's 1971 insistence that he'd played Bond for the last time.

Note the year is in reference to Connery's quote (presumably after Diamonds Are Forever), not the year of the film.

[mnemosyne]

I have also seen episodes where the answer to a question was reviewed "during the break" and the person who was penalized for "getting it wrong" is given back the money they lost, plus the win amount for that question. I think if someone else had answered the expected answer, they get to keep the money anyways, but I'm not sure about that.

[Birdmonster]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

I have also seen episodes where the answer to a question was reviewed "during the break" and the person who was penalized for "getting it wrong" is given back the money they lost, plus the win amount for that question. I think if someone else had answered the expected answer, they get to keep the money anyways, but I'm not sure about that.

That's my recollection also.

[jonesj2205]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

On today's episode of Jeopardy!, the Daily Double in the Jeopardy round was in the category James Bond. The question was more or less...

Originally Posted by Jeopardy!
This 1971 film was so named because Sean Connery was adament it would be his final time playing James Bond.

The clue was actually:

This title was a reference to Sean Connery's 1971 insistence that he'd played Bond for the last time.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by jonesj2205

The clue was actually:

This title was a reference to Sean Connery's 1971 insistence that he'd played Bond for the last time.

Hmm. Alright then. Memory is a funny thing.

[NoClueBoy]

Besides, Jeopardy! is never wrong. If ever it is, reality is adjusted to make things square again.

[commasense]

And if they don't catch the problem during the taping and correct it after a break, they'll only invite a contestant back if the error was large enough to have changed the final outcome of the game.

For instance, if they made a mistake on a $100 clue and the winner won by $1,000, there wouldn't be a make-good.

Also, IIRC, in the contract you sign as a contestant you agree that rulings of the judges are final, and that you won't sue them over such errors. So if they do have someone back, it's only because they're being nice. They didn't really have to.

[Rin Twisted]

They may not have to, but I think that shows take care to avoid any trace of rigging or impropriety, for fear of public backlash. I remember that recently there was a story about one of those little contests on Regis and Kelly that went awry.

...there, after a typo may have influenced a contestants answer, they allowed the contestant to try again. She lost again, and ended up with two consolation prizes.

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Rin Twisted

They may not have to, but I think that shows take care to avoid any trace of rigging or impropriety, for fear of public backlash.

And federal law! Ever since the Quiz Show scandals of the 1950s, TV game shows have had to observe fairly strict regs. I forgot about that point.

[Serenata67]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

I have also seen episodes where the answer to a question was reviewed "during the break" and the person who was penalized for "getting it wrong" is given back the money they lost, plus the win amount for that question. I think if someone else had answered the expected answer, they get to keep the money anyways, but I'm not sure about that.

When I was on, we got to watch some of the other tapings and there was one particular episode where they kept stopping it to check the answers a contestant was giving. He was giving right answers, but they weren't the ones Trebek had on his cards. They stopped the episode four times. Trebek took his shoe off and threw it at the monitors... it was hilarious.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

I have also seen episodes where the answer to a question was reviewed "during the break" and the person who was penalized for "getting it wrong" is given back the money they lost, plus the win amount for that question. I think if someone else had answered the expected answer, they get to keep the money anyways, but I'm not sure about that.

I believe you are mistaken on the last part. I think they also take money from the person who gave the expected-but-wrong answer. It is only fair, after all.

[Taber]

Originally Posted by Jamaika a jamaikaiaké

I believe you are mistaken on the last part. I think they also take money from the person who gave the expected-but-wrong answer. It is only fair, after all.

Hopefully they only take away the money they won, but don't penalize them for the wrong answer. After all, if Jeopardy had the answer correct, then that contestant wouldn't have been able to buzz in to give their wrong answer.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by Jamaika a jamaikaiaké

I think they also take money from the person who gave the expected-but-wrong answer.

No, they don't - for one thing the expected answer is never, that I've seen, WRONG in this case - it's just not the only valid answer.

And, even if it were wrong, it wouldn't be fair to penalize the players for giving the answer their fact checkers believed to be right.

[JThunder]

You guys keep forgetting to phrase your responses in the form of a question.

[AuntiePam]

I don't recall the exact wording of the question, but on one show aired during the last couple of weeks, I think they screwed up on Final Jeopardy. I don't remember the wording of the question, but the correct response was "whipping boy". One of the contestants answered "patsy", which was ruled incorrect. But aren't they sorta the same thing? Does anyone remember watching that episode? I've been meaning to watch to see if they brought that contestant back -- Alex looked a bit uncomfortable saying no to patsy.

[OttoDaFe]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I don't recall the exact wording of the question, but on one show aired during the last couple of weeks, I think they screwed up on Final Jeopardy. I don't remember the wording of the question, but the correct response was "whipping boy". One of the contestants answered "patsy", which was ruled incorrect. But aren't they sorta the same thing? Does anyone remember watching that episode? I've been meaning to watch to see if they brought that contestant back -- Alex looked a bit uncomfortable saying no to patsy.

IIRC, the answer implied pretty strongly that the term referred to a surrogate for a royal (or at least noble) child. "Patsy" is a more generic term.

'Course, all them funny cigarettes from back in the '60s may be catching up to me. . . .

[Chez Guevara]

Originally Posted by Tengu

And, even if it were wrong, it wouldn't be fair to penalize the players for giving the answer their fact checkers believed to be right.

Anecdote alert.

In the early days of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, a contestant got a question along the lines of 'What is the minimum number of times a tennis player must hit the ball in order to win a set?' The answer given was the answer expected - 24 times (4 x straight winners in each of 6 games). As I recall, the guy went home with £128K.

Subsequently it was pointed out that the correct answer is in fact 12* (4 x aces in each of 3 service games) because the opponent could serve 4 x double faults in his service games thus removing the need for the receiver to strike the ball at all.

The contestant kept his money.
.
.
.
*There are other answers but these depend on technicalities.

[mobo85]

There have been a couple of cases on Jeopardy and Millionaire where a contestant came back after a flawed question, I believe. And then there's the case of Rick Rosner, who unsuccessfully sued Millionaire over a flawed question regarding elevation of capital cities.

[delphica]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I don't recall the exact wording of the question, but on one show aired during the last couple of weeks, I think they screwed up on Final Jeopardy. I don't remember the wording of the question, but the correct response was "whipping boy". One of the contestants answered "patsy", which was ruled incorrect. But aren't they sorta the same thing? Does anyone remember watching that episode? I've been meaning to watch to see if they brought that contestant back -- Alex looked a bit uncomfortable saying no to patsy.

OttoDaFe is correct, the question specifically referenced a child, but it was a terrible Final Jeopardy question, in that it was worded so poorly (not the subject matter). I remember noticing at the time that Alex even seemed to have trouble parsing the question when he read it.

[GoodOmens]

Originally Posted by commasense

And if they don't catch the problem during the taping and correct it after a break, they'll only invite a contestant back if the error was large enough to have changed the final outcome of the game.

For instance, if they made a mistake on a $100 clue and the winner won by $1,000, there wouldn't be a make-good.

See, this is interesting. If that $100 question was, say, the first question of the game, it could have implications through the whole game. The person who lost that money might tend to change his actions (bidding on Daily Doubles, deciding whether or not to ring in on questions) as opposed to if he had won that money. It's hard to tell when $100 really matters.

Now, if it's near the end, I would agree that it wouldn't matter.

[lifeofriley]

A bunch of my American History geek friends and I really think that the Final Jeopardy today 7/13/09 was not only inappropriate for a kids week but just plain wrong. The answer was: In this war, the area that became Indiana was acquired.
All the kids got the "incorrect" answer, which made the far in front favorite lose. Alex said it was "The American Revolution". Well, that is really debatable in history circles. The Continental Congress negotiated with Britain for some land in Indiana but the land had never been truly owned by Britain and had always been in dispute with the tribes. The possible answers could have been: "Old Northwest Indian War", "The Ohio Indian War","Miami Campaign","War for the Ohio River Boundary", or just plain "Indian Wars".

So one kid who probably is pretty good in American History bet according to conventional wisdom, #2 kid bet a paltry sum, and they all got it wrong, so #1 kid loses the whole thing.

What is that kid supposed to do? I think Jeopardy should really "do the right thing" when kids are involved!

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by Tengu

And, even if it were wrong, it wouldn't be fair to penalize the players for giving the answer their fact checkers believed to be right.

I completely disagree. Since the only contestant who gets money from Jeopardy is the winner, the only thing that matters is how the contestants' scores are relative to each other. Thus, in your scenario, the show is being unfair to the contestant who actually got the answer right.

Incidentally, I will have to defer to you as to what the show's actual practice is, as I haven't watched it regularly for years.

[MsRobyn]

Nitpick: Every contestant who appears on Jeopardy gets money. The only one who gets what he actually won is the winner. The other two get smaller, fixed amounts, in addition to whatever parting gifts are involved.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Nitpick: Every contestant who appears on Jeopardy gets money. The only one who gets what he actually won is the winner. The other two get smaller, fixed amounts, in addition to whatever parting gifts are involved.

Very good. My point about the contestants caring about their scores relative to each other still stands, though. Also, the winner gets to play again, which is definitely worth money.

[Raza]

Regarding yesterday's (Monday) kids game, the question was along the lines of "what holiday was commemorated by a stamp of Whistler's Mother", with the answer being "what is Mother's Day" (which no kid answered, though one or two got wrong).

I object on the grounds that Mother's Day isn't a "holiday", either technically nor in common parlance (at least, not in my circles).

[Little Nemo]

Back in 1980, I appeared on a college TV quiz show. One of the questions was "Who is the only American President to have been impeached?" We said Andrew Johnson. And we were told the correct answer was Andrew Jackson.

After the show my team protested this point but we were told that the ruling of the judges was final even if they were factually wrong. I'm guessing Jeopardy has a similar rule in effect.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Nitpick: Every contestant who appears on Jeopardy gets money. The only one who gets what he actually won is the winner. The other two get smaller, fixed amounts, in addition to whatever parting gifts are involved.

Nope. I was on Jeopardy! in 2000, came in second, and was awarded only the parting gift shown. The show does this to encourage betting on the final clue and on Double Jeopardy questions.

In addition to this, hotel, airfare and meal costs to appear on the show are the responsibility of the contestant. Had I come in third place (which was likely - I only pulled out second because I was the only one who got Final Jeopardy right) I would have lost money on the deal.

[President Johnny Gentle]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Nope. I was on Jeopardy! in 2000, came in second, and was awarded only the parting gift shown. The show does this to encourage betting on the final clue and on Double Jeopardy questions.

In addition to this, hotel, airfare and meal costs to appear on the show are the responsibility of the contestant. Had I come in third place (which was likely - I only pulled out second because I was the only one who got Final Jeopardy right) I would have lost money on the deal.

This changed in 2002, precisely to deal with the issue that you mentioned (losing money for appearing). This has led to situations where the third place finisher ends up making more money on a particular show than the winner.

[Mr. Moto]

Consider me educated. I was not aware of this.

I have to say I wasn't disappointed too much with the outcome in my situation - second place for me was a week's vacation in Puerto Rico, and my wife and I wound up using this as our honeymoon.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by lifeofriley

I think Jeopardy should really "do the right thing" when kids are involved!

Well, the right thing would be to not have them on at all. It's for grownups. Let the brats play on some Nickelodeon quiz show or someplace where wrong answers earn a shower of green slime.

[Irishman]

AuntiePam said:

I don't recall the exact wording of the question, but on one show aired during the last couple of weeks, I think they screwed up on Final Jeopardy. I don't remember the wording of the question, but the correct response was "whipping boy". One of the contestants answered "patsy", which was ruled incorrect. But aren't they sorta the same thing? Does anyone remember watching that episode? I've been meaning to watch to see if they brought that contestant back -- Alex looked a bit uncomfortable saying no to patsy.

Unfortunately, a situation like this is impossible to judge without knowing the actual "answer". Usually the specific wording of the answer specifies something significant. It doesn't matter if the meaning is similar if the answer specifies something about a reference to physical abuse, or a small child, or something unique to the phrase origin.

It would be fair to say that "car" and "automobile" are synonymous, but if the answer refers to "this 10 letter word", then "car" is not correct.

[Trick Rider]

Honestly, even if the answer Trebek gave was wrong, I don't see why they would have the contestant back. The contestant didn't actually give an answer. Therfore, the situation would probably be the same if Trebek had given a different answer.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by lifeofriley

Well, that is really debatable in history circles. The Continental Congress negotiated with Britain for some land in Indiana but the land had never been truly owned by Britain and had always been in dispute with the tribes. The possible answers could have been: "Old Northwest Indian War", "The Ohio Indian War","Miami Campaign","War for the Ohio River Boundary", or just plain "Indian Wars".

So is the Wikipedia entry on Indiana wrong when it says "At the conclusion of the French and Indian War and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the Kingdom of Great Britain"?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

What happens when Jeopardy is wrong?

The Four Horsemen ride, the Seven Seals are broken, the Midgard Serpent is set loose, and Huitzilopochtli devours the world.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Leaper

So is the Wikipedia entry on Indiana wrong when it says "At the conclusion of the French and Indian War and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the Kingdom of Great Britain"?

Wikipedia is often wrong when no source is given, so it wouldn't surprise me. A lack of source usually means that no one actually did research, and merely gave what was considered common knowledge. If that common knowledge is disputed in a reputable source (and I assume U.S. History experts wouldn't say it unless it was), then it falls afoul of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, and is, therefore, wrong.

[Kamino Neko]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Unfortunately, a situation like this is impossible to judge without knowing the actual "answer". Usually the specific wording of the answer specifies something significant. It doesn't matter if the meaning is similar if the answer specifies something about a reference to physical abuse, or a small child, or something unique to the phrase origin.

This is the case for the answer in question. It was about the origin of the term.

Now referring to a scapegoat, this term originated as someone designated as a "proxy for correction"

- the origin of Patsy isn't really known, but that definitely isn't that.

(No, I didn't remember it, specifically, I went to J-Archive.)

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Irishman

It would be fair to say that "car" and "automobile" are synonymous, but if the answer refers to "this 10 letter word", then "car" is not correct.

"Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz, and Lucille LeSueur."

"Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?"

"I'm sorry, that's absolutely wrong. The correct response is, 'What were the real names of Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, and Joan Crawford?'."

"Be that as it may, Alex, those people have never been in my kitchen."

[lifeofriley]

Originally Posted by Leaper

So is the Wikipedia entry on Indiana wrong when it says "At the conclusion of the French and Indian War and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the Kingdom of Great Britain"?

In this case, the Wikipedia entry is taking the old Eurocentric view that has been debunked. Instead, it is pretty accepted that Britain did not have control (real control) of the area and its inhabitants during that period and that they knew that the tribes would not accept either British or rule by the Confederation of States/US. The area remained embattled until after Jefferson's term was over.

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

"Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz, and Lucille LeSueur."

"Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?"

"I'm sorry, that's absolutely wrong. The correct response is, 'What were the real names of Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, and Joan Crawford?'."

"Be that as it may, Alex, those people have never been in my kitchen."

Just the other day, on a real episode, I saw a column: Three People Who Have Never Been In My Kitchen

Alex smiled coyly and I pooped my pants.

[Irishman]

Trick Rider said:

Honestly, even if the answer Trebek gave was wrong, I don't see why they would have the contestant back. The contestant didn't actually give an answer. Therefore, the situation would probably be the same if Trebek had given a different answer.

Wait, so you're saying the contestant should guess wrong and lose money and perhaps the game to ensure that they protect the possibility they will be allowed to come back? The issue is that the "answer" was wrong and misleading, so there was no right "question".*

It's the age-old question of if there is a penalty for incorrect guesses. On Jeopardy, there is. Don't make a weak guess unless you're already way behind and the only way to have a chance is bold moves. Note also this is a Daily Double. That means it is in regular round play, and the results can affect your position for the rest of the game.

If Jeopardy is going to do something to make up for their own mistakes, then they should do something regardless of how you answered. The only reason they shouldn't is if it makes no difference in the outcome. If it's Final Jeopardy and you only have $200 and the next contestants have $15,000 and $25,000, then it doesn't matter whether you bid $200 or $2000, you can't win unless the other two royally screw the pooch. But a Double Jeopardy question early in the game that you think can get and bet $1000 and that hole affects your play through the rest of the game, then it made a difference.

Justin_Bailey said:

What happens when Jeopardy is wrong?

They shoot the contestant, dispose of the body, and nobody mentions it ever again. (They're coming for you now.)

The Other Waldo Pepper said:

"Be that as it may, Alex, those people have never been in my kitchen."

[/Cliff Claven]

Alex Trebek: "That guy - he scares me."

-----
*Except in the OP, the question was clear and just misunderstood by the poster.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Irishman

It's the age-old question of if there is a penalty for incorrect guesses. On Jeopardy, there is. Don't make a weak guess unless you're already way behind and the only way to have a chance is bold moves. Note also this is a Daily Double.

However, in a Daily Double, you place your bet before seeing the question and noone else gets a crack at answering. Therefore, in this situation, your penalty for guessing incorrectly is exactly the same as your penalty for not guessing at all.

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

Besides, Jeopardy! is never wrong. If ever it is, reality is adjusted to make things square again.

So what would happen if Chuck Norris were ever a contestant?

Or is that what's going to happen in 2012? Cosmogenesis.

[Small Hen]

What happens when Jeopardy is wrong?

You say, "NOT so fast, Trebek."

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Projammer

So what would happen if Chuck Norris were ever a contestant?

It would mean Celebrity Jeopardy has become dumbed-down to point of feeling the warmth of Earth's mantle.

[mobo85]

Originally Posted by Leaper

So is the Wikipedia entry on Indiana wrong when it says "At the conclusion of the French and Indian War and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the Kingdom of Great Britain"?

Originally Posted by BigT

Wikipedia is often wrong when no source is given, so it wouldn't surprise me. A lack of source usually means that no one actually did research, and merely gave what was considered common knowledge. If that common knowledge is disputed in a reputable source (and I assume U.S. History experts wouldn't say it unless it was), then it falls afoul of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, and is, therefore, wrong.

The Wikipedia article "History of Indiana" features the line, "Britain ceded the entire trans-Allegheny region to the United States—including Indiana—in the peace treaty negotiated in Paris" and then gives a link to the complete text of the Treaty of Paris, the second article of which gives a long-winded account of the official boundary of the United States.

Originally Posted by Raza

Regarding yesterday's (Monday) kids game, the question was along the lines of "what holiday was commemorated by a stamp of Whistler's Mother", with the answer being "what is Mother's Day" (which no kid answered, though one or two got wrong).

I object on the grounds that Mother's Day isn't a "holiday", either technically nor in common parlance (at least, not in my circles).

Mother's Day was made a national holiday in 1914 and is codified as a national holiday under the United States Code, Title 36, Section 117. A postage stamp depicting Whistler's Mother with the text "In memory and in honor of the Mothers of America" was issued on May 2, 1934 (and later reissued unperforated and ungummed among other issues the next year due to a large controversy involving Postmaster General James Farley giving uncut sheets of stamps as "gifts" to government officials).