Date:
04-11-2017
Quiz: H.A.N.D.
Venue: Indian
Institute of Scientific Education and Research, Pune
Organized by/Fest:
Karavaan 2017
QM(s): Bhavesh,
Aditya, Vishal, Anisha, Samarendra, Yogesh, Amit, Amla
Results:
1. Pranav Pawar and Omkar Dhakephalkar, 255 Points (Open)
(Team A)
2. Ranajeet Soman, 205 Points (Solo, Open) (Team F)
3. Ajai Ragde and Gokul Panigrahi, 50 Points (Open) (Team E)
Other Finalists
4. Advay and
Ananya, 20 Points (AFMC) (Team D)
5. Rohit and
Harshini, 15 Points (IISER) (Team B)
6. Arnabh Senupta
and Anirudh Anilkumar, -170 Points (AFMC) (Team
C)
On a bright
Saturday morning, the quiz started at 10:30 (standard delay of half an hour).
The elims composed
of 48 questions divided into 4 sections, each set by a different person. They
were themed around mythology, music, pop culture and one more. The questions
were easy and consisted of many Peters. However, the usual IISERized title
hints were a treat. Some of them were difficult though well-framed.
Unfortunately, every question was offered a hint, after a vote on whether a
hint is needed and gone through again. This caused it be a very long prelims.
And in terms of number of questions it was longer than the finals.
The finals were
held about two hours after the elims, providing a much-needed break. However,
the point system was very skewed. The first IR had a +30/-10 on Pounce (teams
could pounce on their own question), +10 on direct and +5 on passing. The
questions were well-framed, however there were only six of these.
-At the end of
this round, Scores (A->F) were 65, 20, 50, 10, 70, 65 -
The next round
was a Hangman round. The rules of this round changed and kept changing as more
and more points against parity and unfairness were brought forth by the
finalists. It seemed the QMs were themselves unsure of rules. The existing
rules made it mandatory to guess a letter for a team (the order randomized
using chits) for a +5, a correct guess and -5 for not. Teams could not not
guess a letter. After every letter, teams could guess the word which had a
question (brilliant qs though). And this went on. Later however, doubts were
raised regarding the added information other teams would gain and yet get same
points based on the number of people who attempt. Negatives were also
differentials.
After more
protests and again discussing among themselves, QMs agreed to make it written
with differential marking. But they did retain the hangman part with the one of
the QMs now revealing letters. This was much better and more fun was had.
-At the end of
this round, Scores (A->F) were 235, 45, 150, -5, 95, 170 -
The next round
was even surreal: a wheel of fortune. There were fourteen slots on the wheel.
12 contained questions (though only six would be asked, one for each team,
unpassable, for +30). One team member would be blindfolded and would stop it while
the other would spin it. The two left-over slots contained a ‘+20’ and ‘-20’
which would give a flat +20/-20 and no question if it was landed. This was
unfair for a team who got it because they would lose out on a chance on getting
+30 via a question and a team who would get -20 based on pure luck. Moreover,
the sequence would be decided at random, further increasing the chances of a
latter team landing on -20; as the wheel would be spun another time if the
arrow landed on a slot whose question was already asked. This was a scary
round. Despite protests from the finalists this round went ahead after much
debate among the QMs.
-At the end of
this round, Scores (A->F) were 265, 45, 180, 15, 125, 170 –
The next round
was like the first round with even more skewed scoring, though making it easier
to catch-up, at the same time degrading the usefulness of points scored in
earlier rounds. The scoring system was +50/-20 on pounce (temas could pounce on
their own q), +30 on direct correctly and +20 on pass correctly. HOWEVER, if a
team did not attempt an answer, or answered wrongly, even on its own direct, it
got a negative. If it passed, and an incorrect attempt was made, or no attempt
was a made, a -5 was incurred. Also there was a strange system of part points. A
team could attempt for only a part of the answer and get half points if correct,
however if wrong, a team would get half negatives. If an attempt was made for
both parts, and one part was wrong, then negatives would be granted and no
points for answering a part correctly. Only six questions were asked.
Such strange
distribution of marks and random negatives left a bad aftertaste despite some
excellent questions.
-At the end of
this round, Scores (A->F) were 345, 15, 230, 20, 130, 230 –
The last round
was a bidding round. There were six questions. Teams had to blind bid a minimum
of 20 points and a maximum of the amount of points they had. If a team did not
have 20 points, then the QM would pay the rest. Whoever bid the most before a question
was would get the question. If there was a same bid, tied teams would go on
bidding until one wins. Only that team would then get the question (no pouncing
or passing or question going down to the next team which bid). If it answered
correctly, it would get points based on the amount it bid, else negatives equal
to the same amount. Then there was a second chance to answer, in which it would
not incur the penalty if it answered correctly, but at a risk of double
negatives.
Teams raised
objections regarding how one team could potentially run-away with all the
questions with minimal loss by out-bidding them due to their margin and how
teams below 20 had no chance of getting a question. Teams also suggested
revealing the questions or the subject of the questions so that an intelligent
bid could be made. Also, how a single wrong answer could mean doom for all the
hard-work so far.
At the first
question, after a fierce fight for it, with upto three tied bids between Teams
A and C, C got the question and after answering wrongly at both the chances to
get a whopping -400. Then Team A bid for three questions in a row successfully (getting
-90 in that process). Teams E and F got the last two and answered wrongly.
Thus no question
was answered either fully or correctly and no one ended up gaining any points
in this round, though some of the fundae were really good.
The quiz ended at
about 6 with prompt handover of prizes.
A special mention
is a must for :
-Ranajeet Soman
who played H.A.N.D. solo and came second.
-The efforts of
the IISER Quiz Club for finding such interesting fundae and questions.
Suggestions:
*Whereas the idea
to get something different, or a fresh idea for a round is commendable and one
daresays, a necessity in a monotonous quiz scene filled with IRs and written
rounds; care should be taken that it does not become too gimmicky and allows
luck to play a much greater role required in an event designed around knowing
stuff. In case this does happen, and the quizzers all feel that the quiz would
be better served if the round would be modified to be more fair, it would be a
good idea to accept the suggestions and be flexible in that regard.
*If questions are
going unanswered, a way must be devised so as to ensure that maximum are being
answered and that they don’t go unutilized.
*Because the
screen was big and quite close to the finalists, they had to strain their necks
to see at the questions. Perhaps, next year, they could be seated in the
audience chairs: the front row.
*It would be a
good idea to have a single QM who takes all decisions instead of multiple heads
thinking and discussing during every doubt as it consumes a lot of time.
Report by: Omkar
Dhakephalkar with inputs from Anirudh Anilkumar, Arnabh Sengupta, Pranav
Pawar, Ajai Ragde and Gokul Panigrahi
