Monday, September 03, 2012

The BCQC September Open Quiz - Report

Date: 2nd September 2012
Set and Conducted by: Anannya Deb
Teams of 2 for elims.  35 questions written elims.
Top 6 teams in finals. Participants from 7th-9th top teams were asked to join finalist teams. Teams of 3 for finals.

1st: Sumant Srivathsan, Vibhendu Tewari and Rahul (draft) - 155 pts
2nd: Amit Garde, Anand Sivashankar and Rohit (draft)- 105 pts
3rd: Vikram Joshi, Abhinav Dasgupta and Avaneendra Bhargav(draft) - 100 pts
4th: J Ramanand, Samrat Sengupta and Kunal Sawardekar(draft) - 100 pts*
5th: Debanjan Bose, Hari Nair and Rohan Jain (replaced by Arnold D'Souza)(draft) - 60 pts
6th: Aditya Gadre, Aniket Khasgiwale and Shubhankar Gokhale (draft) - 30 pts

* Lost out on lower elims score

Prizes sponsored by BCQC

The quiz started with an excellent 35 question elim - great questions, interesting fundas and a lot of AV content. Sumant and Vibhendu topped the elim with 24 with the rest of the teams making up the finalists bunched between 17 and 20.

The final was an elaborate affair with several interesting rounds - Set theory ('sets' of people/ things/ events etc) , normal IR passing, a special round on the North east with a few written bonus questions thrown in.

Sumant and Vibhendu led right from the start and produced brilliant answers with great regularity to win the quiz comfortably. Three teams fought it out for the second spot with Amit, Anand and Rohit just nicking it on one of the last questions of the quiz.

Overall Anannya Deb lived up to his Gawd of all things moniker and covered a ton of topics - right from hardcore music to local publications to roman history.

A few negatives
- we had to change the venue due to which some inconvenience was caused
- I personally felt the finals were a bit too 'high-brow' - and we had several "who the hell is this guy" moments in the quiz. Perhaps not the most accessible quiz from an audience point of view.


Ramanand said...

Agreed with most comments, so just a couple of points in criticism:

1. I found the topic distribution to be a little lumpy - e.g. lots of questions on the Soviets, for instance. Not sure if I noticed them more, but it did feel like that.

2. The QM chose to paraphrase many of his questions, rendering superfluous many of his nicely framed (and autobiographical) questions (that's what it looked at, though). I'd have liked to have stuck to the slides, doing justice to the original framing.

3. The N-E round was a bit of a disappointment to me - many of the answers were related to entertainment figures that were probably too well-known. Would have liked a more probing explanation. But that could have been perceived as too 'high-brow' again.

4. I liked some of the 'seemingly obvious turning out to be something else' qns.

Overall, I've seen Anannya put up more better sets, so slightly underwhelmed by this. But enjoyable.

(BTW, we should be listed below V-A-A's team, as we got a lower elims score, which is how we broke ties for the prizes)

Sumant Srivathsan said...

I'm with JR on both the Soviet-heaviness and the zeitgeist-y North East round, but I was generally OK with the paraphrasing of questions, possibly because I was starting to prioritize food over quizzing by then.

We tend to ignore lumpy quizzes when they pertain to India, the US or pop culture, but the unusual subjects tend to jump out at us. I would much rather sacrifice diversity than good questions in the name of coverage.

On the NE, I'd wager that there would have been a lot more "who the hell is this guy" responses if it had been a more hardcore round. As it were, I'm struggling to recall even one of those instances in this quiz. But YMMV.

My only crib really would be that audiobooks should be differentiated explicitly. "Performed by" printed on what seems to be CD packaging doesn't exactly lend itself to literature.