Final Jeopardy: Foreign Service (6-13-14)

The Final Jeopardy question (6/13/2014), in the category “Foreign Service” was:

William Sullivan retired from the Foreign Service in 1979. He was the last ambassador to this country.

New champ Katie Frank won a whopping $30,200 in yesterday’s game. In the last game of the week, she goes for a second win. Her opponents are: Whitney Marshall, from Overland Park, KS; and Shelby O’Neill, from Austin, TX.

What is 6,829?: Alex Trebek was presented with his very own Guiness World Record award today that reads, in true Jeopardy! fashion: “This man has the Guinness World Record’s title for the most game show episodes hosted by the same presenter?” Trebek said it was a tribute to the fact that he’s lived this long, and felt it was even more significant because his kids were there to witness the presentation. But, he humbly added, it was a record that probably could be broken by Pat Sajak — “He’s a lot younger than I am.” (Video here).

Round 1: Shelby found the Jeopardy! round Daily Double in “U.S. Franchises” under the $600 clue. She was in second place with $600, $4,600 behind Katie’s lead. She bet the $1,000 allowance and she was RIGHT.

The sandwich generation loves this chain, now tops in number of U.S. restaurants. show

Katie finished in the lead with $10,600. Whitney was second with $3,200 and Shelby was last with $1,600.

Round 2: Whitney found the first Daily Double in “‘Co’ncerning Science” under the $1,600 clue. This was the third clue picked in the round because Whitney had decided to catch up and went right for the $2K clue after getting the first one right. So he now had $5,600, $5,000 behind Katie’s lead. He made it a True Daily Double and he was RIGHT.

In an experiment, the people getting sugar pills instead of the drug being tested are this group. show

Shelby found the last Daily Double in “Opera Characters” under the $1,200 clue. In second place with $15,400, she had $4,000 less than Whitney’s lead. She bet $3,000 and she was RIGHT.

While reading fortunes in a pack of cards, she sees death for herself & her lover Don Jose. show

Whitney finished in the lead with $20,000. Katie was next with $18,400 and Shelby was in third place with $400.

NONE of the contestants got Final Jeopardy! right.

Mission To Iran WHAT IS IRAN?

William Healy Sullivan served as U.S. Ambassador to Laos, the Philippines and, lastly, Iran during his foreign service career. Sullivan died on 10/11/2013. From his NY Times obituary: “In February 1979, a month after the shah had fled, the United States Embassy in Iran was briefly overtaken by Iranian militants, and Mr. Sullivan and several other Americans were taken prisoner. The Iranian government quickly freed them, but the episode prompted Mr. Sullivan to begin reducing the number of United States government employees in Iran, to fewer than 100 from more than 1,000…. He left Iran that spring and retired from government service later that year. On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian militants scaled the walls of the United States Embassy compound and took 66 Americans hostage, holding 52 of them until January 1981. The United States has not had an ambassador in Iran since Mr. Sullivan left.”

For more info on irregular diplomatic relations, see wikipedia’s list of de facto embassies.



Shelby thought it was North Vietnam. She didn’t bet a đồng so she remained at $400.

Katie came up with East Germany. She lost her $10,000 bet and finished with $8,400.

Whitney wrote down Zaire. His big $16,801 bet brought him down to $3,199.

So Katie Frank won this match with $8,400 and remains champ. Her 2-day total is $38,600.

Wow! Can you believe it? Great performance in the first (Katie!) and second (Whitney!) rounds all the same.

Related Clue: In Nov 2005, this triple stumper was the $200 clue in the category “Intelligence”:

Better geographic intelligence could have aided the failed 1980 Iran hostage rescue, as helicopters were disabled by these. show

2 years ago:: TWO of the players got this FJ in “Islands”

This nation, independent since 1960 is the largest island in the world with French as one of its official languages. show

We may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases made from Amazon.com links at no cost to our visitors. Learn more: Affiliate Disclosure.

Share

You may also like...

35 Responses

  1. eric s says:

    I can’t help but wonder if there are more female winners simply because there are more female contestants.

    • vj says:

      idk but how do you think Katie will do next week? You mentioned sciences as her weakness? I couldn’t get a bead on that today because Whitney was a software engineer who said in the chat he worked on something involving quantum physics. Man, first chance he got, he went straight for that $2K clue in the science category that had to have “co” in it. After getting it and the next one (DD), he just left for the $200 clue in the last category. He did get all the clues in the science one eventually.

      • eric s says:

        Naturally, it’s hard to predict how anyone will do and I only perceived that perhaps she possessed that gap in her knowledge (I think those are the only disclaimers needed).
        First of all, having a gap in your knowledge really isn’t that big of a deal as it’s probably only going to be one category and, at most, one DD: that is, unless others know it to be your weakness and it involves the FJ.
        Secondly, concerning GAME THEORY (not yelling, but making the subject available from afar), a weakness can be used positively. A player who fears a category can go after the top value clues in order to hunt DDs. This allows for the wasting of an opportunity by others, as very little is bet and thus a major chance for others is thwarted. We saw this as the villian AChu bet $5 on a sports category and then clearly stated “I don’t know” and rolled on. Imagine how frustrating it would be for VJ if someone pounced on Keats for 1600 and just responded “who is…oh, let’s just move on”. Remember, this is not a quiz bowl, there are distinct rules and a good player may use them for advantage.
        On a side note, leaving the 200 and even the 400 clues really doesn’t matter much as they are mostly scraps and usually are intellectual toss-ups: it’s more important to hunt for DDs.

        • eric s says:

          So, Katie, if you’re still winning, keep that in mind for next year!

        • vj says:

          Great points, Eric!

          And, yes, that would be more than frustrating for me… I would probably be choking with rage and unable to talk for the rest of the game. LOL!

        • eric s says:

          That’s the way I would have felt if I were playing that game against ACu and my dream answer of “what is the Stanley Cup” was diminished to “I don’t know” and quickly dismissed as he rolled on to the next category. I’m kind of glad that I didn’t watch it “live” and certainly not in person: on YouTube it was bad enough.
          In all fairness, Arthur Chu has used his fame to forward some good causes, he has gotten into really good shape, and I think learned a little temperance since his leaving the show. I think that he has a real chance to take the ToC and impress a lot of people.

  2. eric s says:

    Let me take a second to discuss betting strategy. This game is very straightforward: as we saw yesterday, you never want to get the FJ right and exit because you didn’t bet enough (there is an exception, concerning extra information, which is probably not applicable in this case), so:
    a) the leader needs to cover the second’s doubling (e.g.Whitney @16.8 or more up to 19.2):more than 19.2 leaves a chance to get passed by the person in third). If he thinks the person in third is weak, betting 19.2 is best. If he thinks the person in second is weak, 16.8 is best (you may remember AChu did this once. It wasn’t because he was a nice guy).Anywhere in between all carried the same risk.
    b) the player in second wants to cover the still (no bet) amount of the first, but, if possible, not risk being overtaken by the third. Therefore, her range was 1.6 to 17.6 (in thousands). The same theory applies to the outer numbers of the range: that is, playing for a tie.
    c) in this case, she should bet it all and hope for a tie.
    The upper amounts of the range are called Martian (as in men are from mars) the lower, Venusian. If you find that sexist (I can see your point: I would go with Larissa Kelly and Julia Collins), these terms were taken from Jarchive. Please take it up with them.

    • eric s says:

      Ok. That was way more of a lecture than discussion. Unless there any questions or disputes?

      • vj says:

        Well, I don’t suppose that every player who goes on Jeopardy is going to be able to follow the betting strategies perfectly. As I have mentioned, I am particularly bad at math and I would not be able to follow it.

        As for the mars/venus thing, I don’t think it’s necessary for us to anticipate backlash from innocuous commentary. I am sometimes amazed by people, like the first year I was doing this, not many would comment unless I made a mistake. I even had one guy demand an explanation on why I mixed up the date on a post. Heh heh. And then there’s Joe Blow who assumed when the post he put a link in didn’t go through, that I censored it. He didn’t ask. He assumed and made a snarky comment about cowardice. I honestly have a low tolerance for that kind of stuff. Maybe I should just add a part to the comments policy that says, if you don’t like someone’s comments, don’t read them.

      • vj says:

        PS back to betting, sometimes I think well, I would just go all or nothing if it was me. I mean, if I could beat the leader by doubling up, I would go for that, and the hell with the extra $1,000. All or nothing, baby!

        • eric s says:

          Yeah, but wouldn’t have just been a horrible game if Shelby had won with $800?
          My point is that this betting is very important: it is way more likely to matter than ANY other subject.
          Again, look at yesterday.
          Of course, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’m writing this for people who may either find it interesting or need it for their Jeopardy appearance.
          The appearance of Joe Blow was interesting to me: he called one of my theories, well let’s go with stupid. Fortunately, I was able to explain that the Jeopardy on a budget theory was really meant as a joke. What I found interesting was that I had said that weeks ago, so, the point being, I don’t know whose out there and certainly not what they’re thinking. Of course, they don’t have to read about betting strategy, which is why I stated the subject early.

        • vj says:

          Yeah, $600, horrible indeed but that’s not what would have happened to me here today, assuming I was in the same position as Katie and not having a lot of confidence in my knowledge of Foreign Service without knowing the clue. I would have bet nothing today.

          Then when it turned out that i knew the Foreign Service answer, I guess I’d be a little ticked at myself, but I’d have $18,400 to console myself with.

          But if the category was some poetry one, I’d bet it all confidently. Then if it turned out to be something none of us knew, it would haunt me the rest of my days, so yes — I see the wisdom of the strategy. But that doesn’t help improve my math skills!

          You were very nice to explain the joke to Joe Blow. But just that he brought it up and the things he said to Tom showed he had been reading comments, making assumptions, before he decided to post and call us on the carpet. That takes some arrogance.

        • eric s says:

          It’s funny. I look at it a totally different way. I think of an intelligent guy who had read enough and got fed up. Most certainly, he came in hot, which is never a good way to make a point. That doesn’t mean, however, that his argument was without merit. I personally think that calling a clue a “no-brainer” antagonizes many readers: no one wants to read a comment, then feel stupid. After all, how many of us dropped our jaws when Ken Jennings lost? Different people know different things. It is simply unfair to the great work that you do on this site to alienate people who come here and happen to read our comments. Further, I love reading Tom, but he can be a tough read for some who may be overly-sensitized. I thought his comment yesterday, though, was thoughtful and a credit to your site.
          As for me, truth be told, I know the least facts of anyone who regularly posts here. I’m at least reasonably intelligent, but have trained my brain for other things, so it doesn’t bother me if someone thinks something is easy, but I can see how it would affect others (I think the Irish in me helps).

        • vj says:

          An intelligent guy… Really, Eric? I know kidding around & many other things can be taken the wrong way online so I try to be fair and even-handed. How about one you recently made that john was unsure of. He ASKED what you meant. That’s intelligent.

          You have to be pretty darn sensitive to take offense to a common expression for easy like “no-brainer”. We know Joe Blow wasn’t sensitive – he said I was with f-ing punctuation. No need to respond belligerently to a civil request not to make personal attacks. Thus I thought he was just looking to pick a fight somewhere.

          Don’t know about you, but I think comments here are mild compared to other sites, even J-board (you have to register to post on there…) where they even keep track of how many triple stumpers they got.

          On Twitter, I saw a hashtag calling the players #dipsh!ts for missing today’s FJ.

    • john blahuta says:

      well, this was pretty straight forward for whitney. katie, as i mentioned was lucky, psychic, whatever not to bet all and hope for a tie. just another appeal- if i would have, could have, should have….

      what got more to me that all 3 missed this rather easy clue!

      • eric s says:

        Why do you think that Katie would ever bet it all?

        • john blahuta says:

          because it happens very often, even if it’s not warranted. since you would win even by not betting it all if the leader is wrong as was the case today- it happens about maybe 5%-10% of the time that a leader plays for a tie, i.e. let’s the 2nd place have a second “cake” so to speak. so if you don’t bet it all and the leader plays for a tie you kick yourself. there are many options and as always, in hindsight everything is 20/20. katie was either lucky or psychic today or she thought that whitney won’t get it but would bet as he was “supposed” to. that’s exactly what happened and it worked in her favor….so, as with so many things in life…..in a few months nobody will ask HOW or WHY she won, it will just say” k.f., xx wins, total winnings xx”.
          it’s sort of a damned if you do,damned if you don’t” situation and several arguments could be made for either decision.

        • eric s says:

          I would say that is a solid argument for the martian alternative.
          Also, as I have mentioned before, hindsight is at least as good as Teddy f’n Baseball’s was 20/10.

  3. john blahuta says:

    smart (psychic?????,a sense of anticipation???) wager by katie in fj.
    but i am shocked nobody got fj!! HOW SOON WE FORGET !!the hostage crisis, the canadian caper… shah mohammad reza pahlavi overthrown in 1979, the hostage taking in 1979…the year alone should have set off a bank of bells. this is a part of american history that even people should know who were very young back then or not even born yet.and the clue was clearly phrased for a change.
    also the 3 DDs were rather (very) easy.even the opera dd. although written by a french composer, how many well know operas are set in spain? carmen and don jose don’t sound exactly german or swedish….
    but good for katie. had she wagered “normal” in fj, whitney would be champ with a mere 3.199. other than the smart/fortunate/psychic or whatever you want to call it as the surprising “highlight”, a smooth, normal game and a good conclusion for this week.
    it was taped earlier, otherwise i might think that the full moon on a friday, the 13th had something to do with it. 🙂

    have a great and safe weekend everybody!!

    • eric s says:

      I ran out of time on this one because I simply could not get 1979/ambassador/Afghanistan out of my head in time. John, do you know why?

      • john blahuta says:

        should i?? i was 31 in 1979 and already finished with my history studies. history also being one of my BIG hobbies and the persian (they did seldom call it iran back then but “persien” in german) the hostage crisis was on the news all over europe practically on a daily basis. day # so and so….with the climax of the release when the gipper took office.
        so for me that whole teheran (austrian spelling) affair was almost a first hand experience. my (german) mother’s first husband was persian, he was the brother of the secretary of the interior for the OLD shah, reza, the father of mohammad reza pahlavi, who was overthrown in 1979.
        why would you have afghanistan in mind?
        maybe because the soviet attack on afghanistan started in december 1979??
        it may well be that afghanistan saw that coming and others as well. so 1979 WAS an eventful year for both, iran AND afghanistan. maybe that’s why you had afghanistan on your mind. you put the beginning of the war with the soviets over the toppling of the shah and the hostage crisis. the hostages in iran were practically taken just a few weeks before the soviets launched their attacks on christmas eve in december on afghanistan.that’s why i could imagine you were thinking afghanistan instead of iran. not to mention that they border each other and how much did the average american really care about iran OR afghanistan before the hostage situation and then, bam, 7 weeks later the ussr attacks iran’s neighbour. so if i were a psychologist i would say “yes, i know why”. you just substituted one country for the other one next door. does that make sense for you?

      • vj says:

        I thought Eric had it on his mind because of Adolph Dubs (but he didn’t ask me).

        • john blahuta says:

          that’s of course another possibility. it must have been like the old wild west when he was kidnapped and then killed, then the killers were allegedly killed and shown to american officials and us-afghan relations cooled to the point of freezing. with no expected support from the u.s., the pro soviet government of sorts encouraged the soviets to attack and we all know how that ended. 1979 was certainly an eventful year in that area even though Dubs’ killing and the hostage taking were some 9 months apart, it was quite a year! and as i said before: who knew, much less cared about iran and/or afghanistan BEFORE 1979???

        • eric s says:

          Of course, really bad euphemisms aside, Dubs wasn’t retired. I probably should set a timer instead of having “think” go off in my head while I’m trying to come up with the answer. And drink coffee. And know more things.

        • john blahuta says:

          that would be sort of the ultimate euphemism…i would put a smiley here if it wouldn’t concern death.

        • john blahuta says:

          well,if you don’t know everything you have the “pleasure” feeling when you add to your knowledge. and who really knows everything? i go with the short version of plato’s mentioning the socratic paradox: scio quod nescio.
          i often experienced – and still do- that the satisfaction of having learned something new is equal or superior to the pleasure of having something new added to what i know already. life would be boring if you knew it all, wouldn’t it?

        • eric s says:

          Also, VJ, if you knew that name off of the top of your head, I would have to say, nice.

        • vj says:

          Like my oops on the Spoiler Talk, it’s because of recent reacquaintance with the info. Re: Iran, someone asked me last week to help figure out how to set up the jurat for an affidavit that is going to be signed in Iran. (I was a legal secretary for many years). Re: Dubs, was adding him to my list of people for the nickname Spike not too long ago. (Mentioned before – I get distracted when looking up names and read people’s entire bios!)

    • eric s says:

      Katie’s wager was in between martian and venusian. For an explanation of that see J-archive, where they explain the final wagers.

  4. eric s says:

    See Nomi, you brainiac, it wasn’t easy for everyone. Congrats to VJ, also, who rated it tougher than I and others did. Since the answers were all over the board (and no one said Cuba), I think this qualifies in the “they’re easy when you know them” category.

    • vj says:

      well, after I saw them all, I was trying to think of a way to justify my tough prediction. Thought Katie might get it and when she didn’t, I thought that was the end of the road for her and Whitney would get it. Oh well.