Sometimes, bonus leadins are necessary in order to establish a broad relationship between bonus parts (muscle contraction, events of 1794); many other times, you can structure a question to include relevant facts in the first part of the question (or in a later part where it becomes applicable). This works much better when all parts of the bonus are closely related, like the a bonus about a composer and her work, or about Gladstone and his opponents. For example, you'd be hard-pressed to recast this bonus without a lead-in and still keep it with about as few words: FTP each, name these 17th century American authors from works. He presented an early frontier thesis in his History of the Dividing Line Answer: William _Byrd_ She lamented her lot in poems like Upon the Burning of Our House Answer: Anne _Bradstreet_ He wrote mildly poetic gloom like The Day of Doom Answer: Michael _Wigglesworth_ But does this bonus really need a separate lead-in? It is more concise to do this: FTP each: This Roman poet knew what lovin was all about - he wrote both the "Ars amatoria" and the "Amores." Answer: _Ovid_ Ovid's most famous work, it deals with mythological transformations. Answer: _Metamorphoses_ In the "Metamorphoses," this woman bragged to Latona about her kids, who promptly got mowed down by Artemis and Apollo. She was then morphed into a big hunk of stone. Answer: _Niobe_ than to write this: FTP each, answer these questions about a Roman poet: He knew what... By the way, I wasn't trying to rip PennBowl in my earlier post about bonus lead-ins, just encourage authors to cut as many unnecessary words as they can off their packets for it and other timed (and, really, untimed too) submission tournaments. Economy is especially important for timed packets - everyone would love to get to that one extra tossup in a close match. Matt Schneller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST