Today’s Final Jeopardy – Monday, July 18, 2022

Here’s today’s Final Jeopardy (in the category Art & Theatre) for Monday, July 18, 2022 (Season 38, Game 221):

Asked to design a new set for a restaging of this 1952 play, Alberto Giacometti came up with one scraggly plaster tree

(correct response beneath the contestants)

Today’s contestants:

Erica Weiner-Amachi, a 4th grade teacher from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Erica Weiner-Amachi on the July 18, 2022 episode of Jeopardy!
William Chou, a research fellow from Austin, Texas
William Chou on the July 18, 2022 episode of Jeopardy!
Emily Fiasco, a middle school band director from St. Louis, Missouri (3-day total: $87,201)
Emily Fiasco on the July 18, 2022 episode of Jeopardy!

Andy’s Pregame Thoughts:

Ken Jennings returns as host for the final two weeks of Season 38! Today, Emily Fiasco returns as a 3-day champion, needing to keep winning to keep her Tournament of Champions hopes alive. However, Erica Weiner-Amachi and William Chou have designs to become Jeopardy! champion themselves!

One thing that I would like to point out: One unintended, yet postive, consequence of Jeopardy! adding “next episode” previews to the end of episodes allowed me to get a picture of William, despite the Jeopardy! website not having one posted yet (I’m sure there was a technical issue there.)

On a more personal note: For the past two and a half years, I have often raised money for the MS Society of Canada through their “Gamers vs. MS” program. This July, Gamers vs. MS is running a month-long fundraising campaign called “Boss Battles.” In an attempt to raise $25,000, the Gamers vs. MS team has designed a “fundraising adventure” to defeat eight evil bosses. (Much like a Mario game might have eight bosses to defeat.) You can get more information about the program at, and if you’d like to donate, you can do so via Tiltify!.

PSA: The best way to keep COVID-19 at bay (and keep Jeopardy! producing new episodes) is for everybody to get their vaccinations as soon as they can, including any boosters as recommended. When wearing a mask, please ensure that your mask covers both your nose and your mouth.

Are you going on the show and looking for information about how to bet in Final Jeopardy? Check out my new Betting Strategy 101 page!

I recently updated my tournament wildcard models with as much tournament data that I’ve been able to find! If you’re playing in a tournament, you’ll want to check this out!


(Content continues below)

If you appreciate the work I do here on The Jeopardy! Fan and would like to make a one-time contribution to the site, you may do so here!

Correct response: What is Waiting for Godot?

You can find game-by-game stats here at The Jeopardy! Fan of all 14 players, including Matt Amodio, Jonathan Fisher, Amy Schneider, Mattea Roach, and Ryan Long, that have won 10 or more games on Jeopardy!?

More Information About Final Jeopardy:

(The following write-up is original content and is copyright 2022 The Jeopardy! Fan. It may not be copied without linked attribution back to this page.)

Waiting for Godot is a favored topic of the Jeopardy! writers; it is a 1952 play by Samuel Beckett in which two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, spend the play waiting for a character, Godot, who never arrives. Giacometti’s set design was from a 1961 restaging of the play; the Tate Modern has an article detailing the friendship between Giacometti and Beckett.

We have many new offerings at The Jeopardy! Fan Online Store! Proceeds from the sale of the “Doctor Oz’s Fast-Acting Snake Oil Elixir” T-shirt are being donated to The Trevor Project:

Game Recap:

Jeopardy! Round:

(Categories: Giving You The Boot; Good History; Acting Up On Tv; The Wouk Mob; Color Me Bad; “The” End)

In a round that saw 13 Triple Stumpers (as the contestants were clearly not Herman Wouk fans), Erica had the best performance, picking up 9 correct responses over the round to hold a slim lead after Single Jeopardy.

Statistics at the first break (15 clues):

Emily 4 correct 0 incorrect
Erica 5 correct 2 incorrect
William 1 correct 1 incorrect

Statistics after the Jeopardy round:

Erica 9 correct 3 incorrect
Emily 5 correct 1 incorrect
William 3 correct 1 incorrect

Double Jeopardy! Round:

(Categories: Giving You The Boot; 10-, 11- & 12-Letter Words; Trophy Husband; Americana; Active Bible Verses; Feelin’ Independent)

Emily and William got to play Daily Doubles in this round — Emily the recipient of a favorable judges’ ruling on hers, and William getting his under more normal circumstances. However, Erica had the best round, picking up another 10 correct to hold a good position after Double Jeopardy.

Statistics after Double Jeopardy:

Erica 19 correct 5 incorrect
William 12 correct 3 incorrect
Emily 11 correct 3 incorrect
Total number of unplayed clues this season: 83 (0 today).

Today’s Final was a triple-get; unfortunately, Erica didn’t wager enough to cover William, only betting enough to cover Emily by exactly $1. Because William also bet to cover Emily by exactly $1, we saw a tiebreaker—which William claimed to become Jeopardy! champion. He returns tomorrow to defend his title!

Tonight’s Game Stats:

Looking to find out who won Jeopardy! today? Here’s the Monday, July 18, 2022, Jeopardy! by the numbers:

Scores going into Final:

Erica $11,600
William $8,800
Emily $7,800

Tonight’s results:

Emily $7,800 + $7,800 = $15,600 (What is Waiting for Godot?)
William $8,800 + $6,801 = $15,601 (What is Waiting for Godot) (1-day total: $15,601)
Erica $11,600 + $4,001 = $15,601 (What is Waiting for Godot)

Tiebreaker category: BIOGRAPHIES

Tiebreaker clue: “The Passage of Power” covers 1958 to 1964 in Robert Caro’s 4th volume on the life of this American

(William: Who is Lyndon Johnson?)

William Chou, today's Jeopardy! winner (for the July 18, 2022 game.)

Scores after the Jeopardy! Round:

Erica $3,200
Emily $2,600
William $400


Opening break taken after: 15 clues

Daily Double locations:

1) GOOD HISTORY $600 (clue #8)
Erica 1200 +600 (Emily 600 William 0)
2) AMERICANA $1200 (clue #8)
Emily 3400 +2000 (William 800 Erica 6400)
3) GIVING YOU THE BOOT $1600 (clue #18, $14400 left on board)
William 5600 +2400 (Emily 7000 Erica 8000)
Overall Daily Double Efficiency for this game: 152

Unplayed clues:

J! Round: None!
DJ! Round: None!
Total Left On Board: $0
Number of clues left unrevealed this season: 83 (0.38 per episode average), 0 Daily Doubles

Game Stats:

Erica $11,600 Coryat, 19 correct, 5 incorrect, 36.84% in first on buzzer (21/57), 2/2 on rebound attempts (on 5 rebound opportunities)
William $8,000 Coryat, 12 correct, 3 incorrect, 22.81% in first on buzzer (13/57), 1/1 on rebound attempts (on 7 rebound opportunities)
Emily $7,000 Coryat, 11 correct, 3 incorrect, 19.30% in first on buzzer (11/57), 1/2 on rebound attempts (on 8 rebound opportunities)
Combined Coryat Score: $26,600
Lach Trash: $16,400 (on 18 Triple Stumpers)
Coryat lost to incorrect responses (less double-correct responses): $11,000

Emily Fiasco, career statistics:

75 correct, 9 incorrect
4/5 on rebound attempts (on 23 rebound opportunities)
30.26% in first on buzzer (69/228)
4/6 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $7,000)
4/4 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $15,700

William Chou, career statistics:

14 correct, 3 incorrect
1/1 on rebound attempts (on 7 rebound opportunities)
24.14% in first on buzzer (14/58)
1/1 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $2,400)
1/1 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $8,000

Erica Weiner-Amachi, career statistics:

20 correct, 5 incorrect
2/2 on rebound attempts (on 5 rebound opportunities)
36.21% in first on buzzer (21/58)
1/1 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $600)
1/1 in Final Jeopardy
Average Coryat: $11,600

William Chou, to win:

2 games: 31.861%
3: 10.151%
4: 3.234%
5: 1.030%
6: 0.328%
Avg. streak: 1.468 games.

Today’s interviews:

Erica started her trivia career in 4th grade.
William covered the 2003 college tournament from Yale’s college radio station.
Emily has a dog named Shostakovich.

Andy’s Thoughts:

  • Traditionally, omitting an internal article on Jeopardy! has led to responses being ruled incorrect. I’m not sure if the show decided to change the rule, but Emily’s response on the second Daily Double, “The House of Seven Gables”, would traditionally not have been accepted by the show’s judges.
  • Link to the box score: July 18, 2022 Box Score

Final Jeopardy! wagering suggestions:

(Scores: Erica $11,600 William $8,800 Emily $7,800)

Emily: If Erica bets to cover, she falls to $5,599. Limit your bet today to $2,199. (Actual bet: $7,800)

William: Standard cover bet over Emily is $6,801. (Actual bet: $6,801)

Erica: Standard cover bet over William is $6,001. (Actual bet: $4,001)

Contestant photo credit:

When commenting, please note that all comments on The Jeopardy! Fan must be in compliance with the Site Comment Policy.

If you are going to quote any information from this page or this website, attribution is required.

Have you had a chance to listen to our podcast game show, Complete The List, yet? Check it out! It’s also available on Apple Podcasts.

39 Comments on "Today’s Final Jeopardy – Monday, July 18, 2022"

  1. Michael Johnston | July 18, 2022 at 9:14 am |

    Hah! Poster child for minimalism 😀 The theater is usually a weak area for me. Since I got it immediately, I’d assume that most players will know it also.

    Current FJ streak: 3W

  2. I figured “a tree grows in brooklyn” wouldn’t be right…but it’s all I had.

    • I stepped into that trap as well. There’s a lot of concrete and plaster in Brooklyn but not the answer for this clue. I’ll try again tomorrow, alas.

      • Fixating on “scraggly”, I thought “palm tree” and went with ‘South Pacific’. Then I looked up that musical and found I wasn’t as far wrong on the dates [1949 vs 1952] as I assumed I probably was (having NO knowledge of Giacometti). I never saw ‘South Pacific’ until the late ’90s and have never seen ‘Waiting for Godot’ (though I have heard of it merely as the butt of jokes occasionally over the years, never “getting” the joke except sometimes somewhat in context).

    • Pam Schultz | July 18, 2022 at 1:45 pm |

      Same here. Glad to see Ken back

    • Pizza Face Fred | July 18, 2022 at 11:28 pm |

      Ditto. I’m unfamiliar with either play, novel——whatever. Incredibly frustrating to get 8 of the 18 Triple Stumpers, when all the contestants get the Final, and come up empty. Not the first time, of course. Timely luck is definitely a factor in the game. I’ll get it out of my system when I drag my 65-year-old body out for a run tomorrow. I deserve to be punished for my weaknesses . . .

  3. I was thinking Our Town since that play normally uses minimalist settings.

  4. Wow. Waiting for Godot was a correct FJ answer as recently as Amy Schneider’s run

  5. Amy Schneider also got this waiting for godot answer in her previous run. But happy for a triple solve today. 18 triple stumpers? That’s way too much. I thought a lot of people watched herman work. But I would like to see at least 6 or 7 triple stumper tomorrow in the main round.

    • Robert Fawkes | July 18, 2022 at 8:13 pm |

      Interesting that after 18 triple stumpers during regular play, FJ was a triple get.

  6. I had no real idea of who Herman Wouk was (just that I realized I had heard the name before) but I got 4 of the 5 responses correct, just from the clues. My answers would have to be considered “guesses” based on NOT knowing the works they pertained to, but they seemed so obvious, I can’t believe no one was willing to risk a guess (except the $200 one, which William could have just gotten from the well-known movie title).

    In the $400 clue, I think the writers were being deliberately sneaky by including the e-mail reference just to make one think perhaps Wouk was prescient and the correct response would be “TV” (as I don’t think they could possibly be implying “podcast” 😏). So rather than none of the three being able to come up with “radio”, surely they thought it was a 50/50 chance it was radio or TV but did not want to take a chance on saying the wrong one, with not only dropping $400, but then being down $800 to whichever contestant followed up with the alternate response.

    • I guessed TV, because the given year was shortly after commercial stations starting broadcasting, and I figured that was a clue.

      I probably would’ve left it alone if anything were at at stake, though.

      • What do you think are the chances that he did originally write it as TV and his editors made him change it to radio?

  7. Concerning the “The House of Seven Gables” response, the J! Archive says that Emily didn’t just leave off the interior “The” but didn’t even say “Seven”. Is this a typo? Because SURELY they would not have accepted THAT! [If it was just a missing “the”, I would be OK with a new rule that omitting an internal article is still not OK in a question you buzzed in for (when you should be presumed to think you know THE correct response), but is good enough for a daily double which you didn’t exactly volunteer for. Now, I do not mean that I would advocate for that rule, just that I would mount no objection.]

    I thought maybe the book had at one point been published as just “The House of Seven Gables”. I cannot find any evidence of that, but if one searches on “The House of Seven Gables” it will bring up around 200,000 results (including both with and without an interior ‘the’). But if your search is “The House of The Seven Gables” you get well over a million results. So perhaps if the judges do not have time to DEFINITIVELY rule a “near right” answer to be wrong, they will go with ruling it acceptable.

    But, again, if she actually said “The House of Gables”, I think that should have been deemed WRONG!

    • Trevor807 | July 18, 2022 at 5:10 pm |

      Since I can’t find anything else regarding a lack of the word “Seven”, I’m gonna assume that it is a typo.

    • 200,000 is not an insignificant number. Perhaps that is why the response was accepted. While apparently not OK with some, it’s OK with me. I’m more bothered by the acceptance of last names that need to be more specific, like the acceptance of “Adams” being permitted instead of Samuel Adams, or “Bush” without specifying which one. The standards of specificity seem to have become, to me, more lax this past season.

      • Trevor807 | July 18, 2022 at 6:21 pm |

        For Bush, I’m sure it was accepted because there was only one of the two George Bushes that died.

      • Well, when you look in the verbiage “found” via a search on “The House of Seven Gables” most ACTUALLY say “The House of The Seven Gables” but the search algorithm(s) took that as a “hit” anyway. However, many are exact matches and the point was that it would take a long time to check them.

        I suspect maybe the judges are being a bit more lenient this season (particularly the last half of this season) because it generally benefits the contestants that are being thrashed by multi-champions more than those champions themselves. [I don’t mean they would be more strict on the champions, just that the champions are far less likely to give a “not quite correct” response.]

    • She did include “seven” in her response. Nonetheless, I don’t think it should have been accepted, unless one is allowed to drop any articles whatsoever from proper nouns. I don’t believe that to be the case.

  8. Nothing against Mayim, but happy to see Ken back. On another note, if William had answered incorrectly, would Erica automatically win, or does she have to give a correct answer?

    • You cannot win a tiebreaker by default. If neither player answers correctly another tiebreaker clue is given (and any TB clues that did not yield a winner are likely to be edited out).

  9. I had my doubts about Erica’s handwriting in Final Jeopardy! She wrote her response quickly at the end of the 30 seconds and this meant that some of the letters were not clear (perhaps changing pronunciation when read aloud). Do judges give contestants the benefit of the doubt when it comes to handwriting?

    • The judges can see the responses as they are being written. They were satisfied that all of the required letters were present in the response.

  10. Robert Fawkes | July 18, 2022 at 8:26 pm |

    Now that I’ve seen the episode, judging by Erica’s body language after her FJ response was revealed, she clearly thought she had won. That tells me that she accidentally covered the wrong total (Emily’s $7,800) or made a math error in doubling William’s $8,800. Sad and unfortunate for her but a lucky break for William as, otherwise, Erica would have won.

    Fortunately, the favorable judge’s ruling on Emily’s DD didn’t affect the final outcome of the game. Therefore, we won’t have to suffer through a big controversy of whether she should have won or not.

    Congratulations to all of the contestants for an interesting game that was close at the end and made for an exciting finish.

  11. Erica’s FJ response looked less like “Godot” than Sadie’s FJ response from a few weeks ago looked like “Tubman.” Yet Erica was ruled correct, and Sadie was ruled incorrect. It ultimately did not matter in today’s round, as Erica lost the tiebreaker. But it is concerning to see what appears to be inconsistent judging.

    • Dave:

      The response is not judged on how it ultimately looks, as doing so fails to acknowledge the vagaries of the light pen.

      The response is judged on the physical movements made by the pen, which is unseen by the home viewer but seen by the judges.

      To that end, to call the judging inconsistent is incorrect. In my opinion, the correct ruling was made in both cases.

  12. Andy, what is your basis for stating “The response is not judged on how it ultimately looks”? Has someone you believe to have inside knowledge of the show’s judging protocols told you that? Trying to base a decision on perceived movements of a pen seems too subjective to me.

    • I suppose that if the contestant is attempting to write something that’s not being picked up, then being able to see their movements could be useful as a corrective.

      That doesn’t seem to be what happened here, though. It appeared that the contestant was writing past time. She was rushing, got down a plausible ‘o’, was cut off mid-stroke and was unable to complete anything resembling a ‘t’.

      The alternative is that the screen stopped picking up her writing for a moment before time was up, the judges were able to determine that those motions completed a ‘t’, and also that none of the motions that she attempted after time were necessary to complete the ‘t’.

      Going with Occam’s Razor here. The judges just made a bad call. It happens.

      • Disagree. The judges’ call was fine. I also think your assertion of “anything resembling a T” is also incorrect. To me, there was a left strong and a down stroke. And, to write a T, one must make a leftward stroke and a downward stroke.

      • Could the big difference in this case be that “Godot” is pronounced “god-oh” and so would “Godo” be pronounced if she didn’t write the ‘t’? In other words the ‘t’ is silent so shouldn’t that “spelling error” be acceptable even if [presumably] caused by running out of time?

    • I don’t have inside knowledge. My knowledge is based entirely on things released to the public. is a public video taken inside the directors’ booth. It shows the judging being made based on the judges seeing the writing as it happens.

      • What the judges see being written here is exactly what ends up on the screen. They’re not looking at video of pens or hands, and hence the output is subject to exactly the same vagaries of the light pen as the final responses. Maybe they do have access to such video — I have no idea – but that’s not what this clip shows.

        And while the judges are certainly evaluating the responses in real-time, they’re not using that ability to resolve any orthographic ambiguity in this clip. In general, I don’t understand how seeing the same lines being traced out gives any more information than the final product.

  13. Once again, more specificity should’ve been requested on the “Roosevelt” response.

    • Robert Fawkes | July 18, 2022 at 10:23 pm |

      Sorry to say, I disagree as there is only one Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore. No need to specify otherwise.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: