Why was this Jeopardy contestant the last one standing?

Kristin Sausville was the last player standing for Final Jeopardy last week. 

"Kristin, we're going to start with you. You are in third place...and in the lead." 

That is what Jeopardy host Alex Trebek said to contestant Kristin Sausville as she entered the game show's final round, as the only remaining contestant.

What is a walkover, Mr. Trebek?

It's what happened on Wednesday as Ms. Sausville's other two opponents went broke. With a negative score, you have nothing to wager in the final round, meaning you don't get to advance.

Trebek summed up the the show, saying, "it was not one of our greatest days." 

Sausville brought $8,400 into the final round. The subject was US Government. The clue: "On Aug. 15, 1994, 59 years & 1 day after FDR signed the original act, Bill Clinton made this an independent agency."

Unfortunately for Sausville, she got it wrong, writing, "What is the FDIC?" (Click here for the correct answer).

“On the one hand, it was nice not to have to worry about what anyone else was wagering,” Sausville told People. "But at the same time, it meant that all of the contestant coordinators, compliance people, and stage crew were standing around me.”

She also expressed sympathy for her defeated opponents, tweeting:

According to the viral news site Uproxx, the last Jeopardy game to end in a default victory occurred on March 16, 2011, when Tom Kunzen won over $25,000 in cash prizes, according to the online Jeopardy archive. Perhaps slightly more awkwardly, back in 2005, Los Angeles-based attorney Jeff Richmond was the sole contestant remaining in final round of Jeopardy's "Tournament of Champions." 

Potential contestants vie for a slot on the gameshow by answering at least 35 out of 50 questions correctly in the audition process, according to CNBC.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.