Jerry wrote: "To me it seems that you should reward good all-around knowledge, i.e. getting a science tossup and then 30-ing a literature or history bonus. It shows that your team has a breadth of knowledge." Yeah I concur with Jerry. Sure when a tossup was right up my ally - St. Augustine I believe - as someone on my team could imagine I was licking my chops in anticipation of 30ing the bonus. Of course on a fluke biology buzz my reaction was subsequently "aw crap" in that - like Jerry - I hadn't a shot at getting anything on the bonus. I think that could have been typical for teams with similar composition - however I agree it does look good when you get a science tossup, per se, then bust out with the art history knowledge to get the conversion. (Or I could try to learn biology...). Certainly Deep Bench was an interesting format and I enjoyed it to some extent, but when people are negging with Paul Desmond when the answer is Alan Greenspan I'm somewhat suspect. Props to UMN nevertheless and of course props to CalTech for hosting yet another great one. I applaud their consistency in running good tournaments and it's always a pleasure to play there. Regards, Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST