'Play-to-lose' on Final Jeopardy is an abomination

Something strange and infuriating has been happening recently on Jeopardy. Contestants in second or third place prior to Final Jeopardy, even when within striking distance of the money leader, have bid zero or some negligible amount in the hope that all contestants answer incorrectly, resulting in a win by virtue of not losing money.

Take this scenario based on yesterday's game: Alex unveils the category - International Relations. Not so bad, right? "International Relations" is more or less code for history of the past 150 years and anyone on Jeopardy should know plenty about that. The money leader has $20k, second has $15k, last has $5k. The question is pretty easy: Over what country's airspace may America only fly 'hurricane hunter' planes? (Cuba.) Yet, it is answered wrong by each contestant. (Iran, China, and N. Korea, respectively. Idiots.)

Last place wagered everything and zeroed out. Second place wagered $1k and finished with $14k. The money leader placed the standard bet for money leaders, that is, twice the second place contestant's money total before Final plus one. Here, that came to $10,001. That put the leader prior to Final at $9,999, handing the victory to the second place player with $14k.

What sort of bullshit is this feckless strategy? Final Jeopardy clues are often tricky, but it is the rare clue that draws on hopelessly obscure knowledge as to be unanswerable. Typically, the clue provides several hints leading most intelligent people to the answer, regardless of the topic. (Yesterday, those clues were hurricanes and nations hostile to America - hence Cuba.) The 'play-to-lose' strategy is predicated on the assumption that the bidder isn't going to be smart enough to answer the question. I am stunned at this lack of confidence and find that it taints a victory.

Fine, the strategy can work. But only if you're a weak-willed conniver. It's kind of like taking the Don't Pass Line in craps. Sure, you win every now and then, but it's so contrary to the spirit of the game that you deserve a hearty amount of derision when you achieve victory.

Granted, 'play-to-lose' is occasionally acceptable. Last place contestants, where the top two are neck-and-neck, may play to lose. Truly obscure categories where a contestant legitimately may have no knowledge permit a play-to-lose strategy. (Yet, as stated above, well-written questions will almost always have an out for a smart contestant to make a strong educated guess even if he or she doesn't know much about the category.)

The inverse of play-to-lose is excessive aggression, which I really enjoy watching and would probably employ if I were a contestant on Jeopardy. My favorite example of over-aggression was a kid in last year's Teen Tournament who went for 'true' Daily Doubles almost every time he had the opportunity. Because he was really sharp and boundlessly confident, he had some success. However, like 'play-to-lose,' the strategy is flawed. It is based on the assumption that you can answer all of the questions, as opposed to the assumption underlying 'play-to-lose' - nobody can answer any of the questions. He was eventually tripped up on a crucial Daily Double involving Václav Havel. Poor kid. The difference between these strategies is that one is confident and affirming, while the other is cowardly and weak.

So yeah. Get some balls and bid like the trivia genius you obviously think you are. You're on Jeopardy - act like it.