You Are The Ref

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:59 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:39 am
Videprinter?
Come on Gev. You really have been living under a rock if you don't know what this is...

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7624
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Matt Morrison » Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:24 am

Especially as he probably still goes to Ceefax for his news. Because he is so old. Like Jon Corby.

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Conor » Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:45 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:39 am
If you show the scores but not the standings, it might solve the error correction problem, but for the prevention of potential tactical antics, that's almost the worst of both worlds. The majority of players, who are just naturally curious about where they're finishing in relation to others, now have that taken away from them, but the one player who's set on gaming the system can still work out the necessary details if they remember the appropriate people's wins and points totals from the previous round.
Well at least then they'd have to work for it. And easy collusion would still be pretty much out the window since two players would have independently needed to do this. And probably the biggest opportunity for gaming the system is when you only have 1 game left to play, and so you'd need to ask around for results (unless it happened to be on your table). On the face of it it's a lot of effort to ensure no gaming takes place, and determined players can always take advantage of it.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fiona T » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:00 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:43 pm

You are the tournament organiser. You clearly overhear Cock and Dick agreeing with each other not to buzz for the conundrum, so as to deliberately draw the game, giving them 5½ wins each, putting them both through to the final.

What action, if any, do you take?
Is this hypothetical or has this (or something similar enough to be recognisable) actually happened?
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:09 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:00 pm
Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:43 pm

You are the tournament organiser. You clearly overhear Cock and Dick agreeing with each other not to buzz for the conundrum, so as to deliberately draw the game, giving them 5½ wins each, putting them both through to the final.

What action, if any, do you take?
Is this hypothetical or has this (or something similar enough to be recognisable) actually happened?
As far as I know, nothing similar to this has happened.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fiona T » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:10 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:09 pm
Fiona T wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:00 pm
Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:43 pm

You are the tournament organiser. You clearly overhear Cock and Dick agreeing with each other not to buzz for the conundrum, so as to deliberately draw the game, giving them 5½ wins each, putting them both through to the final.

What action, if any, do you take?
Is this hypothetical or has this (or something similar enough to be recognisable) actually happened?
As far as I know, nothing similar to this has happened.
Good :)
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Conor » Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:20 pm

With the collusion case, it might not be explicitly overheard but it would likely be pretty obvious what it is going on at a Lincoln style event. The host would pick up on it and if this was the game to decide who makes the final there’d be some spectators to witness it too. But at a Bristol style event you’d never know.

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Conor » Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:25 pm

Conor wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:20 pm
With the collusion case, it might not be explicitly overheard but it would likely be pretty obvious what it is going on at a Lincoln style event. The host would pick up on it and if this was the game to decide who makes the final there’d be some spectators to witness it too. But at a Bristol style event you’d never know.
Unless you looked through the recap afterwards. I think it’s probably a useful exercise to go through all Bristol style events and by looking at the final standings and fixtures, back out any last round games which have had the potential for manipulation, e.g. through conservative play. And then examine the recaps if they are available. Of course nothing can be done retrospectively, but would be good to know who the culprits are.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:55 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:51 am
Noel Mc wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:28 am
Letters round, selection is MNTSWAOIE.

You are declaring second and know there is a 9. Unsure what it is, you write down a few random ones.
WAMNIOTES
MAWSONITE
AWMNIOTES

Player 1 declares a 9, you also declare a 9. Wait for them to declare MAWSONITE.

You then say 'Yep, same word' and point to the correct one. Is that ok?
Absolutely okay. It's just part of the advantage of declaring second. I have done this a couple of times before at co:events (not made up random words, but written a couple of dodgy ones and opted for the one my opponent went with to minimise risk).
This is a perfect example of why Nick should swap the order when asking for the words. If C1 is asked for their length first, and they're the same length, C2 should be asked for their word first.

Watching a repeat today, in one of the rounds, I noted down words like NABBIES and WABBIES. That's quite a common form actually - consonant vowel double consonant IES. Sometimes with poor letters it's all you can see, so you write them all down and look at them to see which is the most plausible. Even better you're declaring second, so if your opponent declares 7 and then you do as well hoping that they pick one from your list. As it is, both Jonathan Wynn and Philip Aston declared a 6 so I took a punt on NABBIES and won the round.

The more I think about it, the more I think how ridiculous the current declaration process is.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:55 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:55 pm
This is a perfect example of why Nick should swap the order when asking for the words. If C1 is asked for their length first, and they're the same length, C2 should be asked for their word first.
This is the system my wife and I use when we play against each other at home. We can't be bothered with writing anything down so we had to come up with a system that didn't depend on that, and mutual trust clearly wasn't good enough for us, so we started using the reverse order thing.

What is it they say? Necessity is the mother of invention? Maybe we need to manufacture the situation from one of the other questions in this thread and get two contestants with broken arms to play each other. That should be enough to get them using the right system.

Noel Mc
Acolyte
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Noel Mc » Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:14 pm

(Maybe the wrong place to ask this)
So I know (I think) there are two conundrum rules:
- No plurals
- Only one valid solution

Are there then any possible 9 letter selections with two valid 9 letter words which could be used as a conundrum?

So imagine SHEEPLANT was a valid word. ELEPHANTS is also valid.

ELEPHANTS can't be a conundrum because it's a plural. Can SHEEPLANT be a conundrum? It's the only non plural arrangement of those letters.

Don't know if I'm conveying what I mean here, but someone might be able to answer!

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:21 pm

Noel Mc wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:14 pm
(Maybe the wrong place to ask this)
So I know (I think) there are two conundrum rules:
- No plurals
- Only one valid solution

Are there then any possible 9 letter selections with two valid 9 letter words which could be used as a conundrum?

So imagine SHEEPLANT was a valid word. ELEPHANTS is also valid.

ELEPHANTS can't be a conundrum because it's a plural. Can SHEEPLANT be a conundrum? It's the only non plural arrangement of those letters.

Don't know if I'm conveying what I mean here, but someone might be able to answer!
Yes, it could. As another example, SHAMBOLIC was used as a conundrum even though CHOLIAMBS is a valid word. The contestants are given the rules and are told that the solution to the conundrum will not be a plural ending with S.

However, if they have a conundrum like that they often make the plural word the scramble, which makes clear that the answer isn't that. Examples here and here.

Noel Mc
Acolyte
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Noel Mc » Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:25 pm

Ah, excellent!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:43 pm

CHOLIAMBS/SHAMBOLIC caused quite a lot of controversy at the time though.

Damian said in the thread:
You do realise i'm doing these deliberately don't you?
But actually it's a very rare occurrence and I think it was probably accidental with that comment being a bit of shit-stirring, and I don't think they would have SHEEPLANT as a solution knowing that ELEPHANTS was in the selection.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:54 am

Graeme Cole wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:21 pm
Noel Mc wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:14 pm
(Maybe the wrong place to ask this)
So I know (I think) there are two conundrum rules:
- No plurals
- Only one valid solution

Are there then any possible 9 letter selections with two valid 9 letter words which could be used as a conundrum?

So imagine SHEEPLANT was a valid word. ELEPHANTS is also valid.

ELEPHANTS can't be a conundrum because it's a plural. Can SHEEPLANT be a conundrum? It's the only non plural arrangement of those letters.

Don't know if I'm conveying what I mean here, but someone might be able to answer!
Yes, it could. As another example, SHAMBOLIC was used as a conundrum even though CHOLIAMBS is a valid word. The contestants are given the rules and are told that the solution to the conundrum will not be a plural ending with S.

However, if they have a conundrum like that they often make the plural word the scramble, which makes clear that the answer isn't that. Examples here and here.
I can't remember the exact wording of the rules, but I always thought the opposite of Graeme here. I though there was a rule saying that the shuffle only has one valid anagram unless it has 2 in which case the shuffle itself will be one of those anagrams.

By Graeme's logic you could set something like RAXELNAST and not give the points when somebody buzzes in with RELAXANTS which would be ridiculous. Remember that TV viewers aren't aware of the plural rule, so they would be outraged.


Also I'm aware that some people in the community take answers in this thread as gospel, including potential Co:Event conundrum setter. To those people: Please do not ever apply the logic from Graeme above to justify setting a conundrum like the example I have given because this would be highly unfair!

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:56 am

The Shambolic/Choliambs example I don't think should set a precedent here. To me it looked like an oversight from the production team, or a deliberate (sneaky) attempt to challenge Kirk who was at the time on course to break Records and was easily cruising to victory in every game in his Octorun. Special circumstances.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:57 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:43 pm
CHOLIAMBS/SHAMBOLIC caused quite a lot of controversy at the time though.

Damian said in the thread:
You do realise i'm doing these deliberately don't you?
But actually it's a very rare occurrence and I think it was probably accidental with that comment being a bit of shit-stirring, and I don't think they would have SHEEPLANT as a solution knowing that ELEPHANTS was in the selection.
Agreed

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:00 am

JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:54 am
I can't remember the exact wording of the rules, but I always thought the opposite of Graeme here. I though there was a rule saying that the shuffle only has one valid anagram unless it has 2 in which case the shuffle itself will be one of those anagrams.
FWIW here are the rules they sent me earlier in the year:
Countdown wrote: CONUNDRUMS

The conundrum will never end in ‘S’ to make a plural of a singular word, so words like BUNGALOWS will not be used. Some CAN end in ‘S’, but they will not be plurals, ie DIAGNOSIS, HEARTLESS etc.

Whatever comes out in the mixed-up version will never be the answer (so if the conundrum spells out a word when it is first revealed, this won’t be the actual answer – ie – If the conundrum is revealed as GERANIUMS, then the answer will not be GERANIUMS. In this case, it would be MEASURING.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:51 am

JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:56 am
The Shambolic/Choliambs example I don't think should set a precedent here. To me it looked like an oversight from the production team, or a deliberate (sneaky) attempt to challenge Kirk who was at the time on course to break Records and was easily cruising to victory in every game in his Octorun. Special circumstances.
Am I missing something, or does this just make no sense? The SHAMBOLIC/CHOLIAMBS example I linked to is from nearly a year after Kirk's octorun.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am

JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:54 am
By Graeme's logic you could set something like RAXELNAST and not give the points when somebody buzzes in with RELAXANTS which would be ridiculous. Remember that TV viewers aren't aware of the plural rule, so they would be outraged.

Also I'm aware that some people in the community take answers in this thread as gospel, including potential Co:Event conundrum setter. To those people: Please do not ever apply the logic from Graeme above to justify setting a conundrum like the example I have given because this would be highly unfair!
FWIW, I agree with this as far as if I wanted to use TRANSAXLE for a co-event conundrum, I'd make RELAXANTS the scramble. I don't think there's an obligation to do this, though.

Suppose the setter hadn't realised TRANSAXLE has an anagram, and used the scramble RAXELNAST. If someone buzzed with RELAXANTS, would you give them the points?

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:14 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am
JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:54 am
By Graeme's logic you could set something like RAXELNAST and not give the points when somebody buzzes in with RELAXANTS which would be ridiculous. Remember that TV viewers aren't aware of the plural rule, so they would be outraged.

Also I'm aware that some people in the community take answers in this thread as gospel, including potential Co:Event conundrum setter. To those people: Please do not ever apply the logic from Graeme above to justify setting a conundrum like the example I have given because this would be highly unfair!
FWIW, I agree with this as far as if I wanted to use TRANSAXLE for a co-event conundrum, I'd make RELAXANTS the scramble. I don't think there's an obligation to do this, though.

Suppose the setter hadn't realised TRANSAXLE has an anagram, and used the scramble RAXELNAST. If someone buzzed with RELAXANTS, would you give them the points?
Yes I would 100% give them the points and I would apologise for setting a shite conundrum.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:15 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:51 am
JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:56 am
The Shambolic/Choliambs example I don't think should set a precedent here. To me it looked like an oversight from the production team, or a deliberate (sneaky) attempt to challenge Kirk who was at the time on course to break Records and was easily cruising to victory in every game in his Octorun. Special circumstances.
Am I missing something, or does this just make no sense? The SHAMBOLIC/CHOLIAMBS example I linked to is from nearly a year after Kirk's octorun.
Looks like I completely misremembered this. My bad.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:22 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am


FWIW, I agree with this as far as if I wanted to use TRANSAXLE for a co-event conundrum, I'd make RELAXANTS the scramble. I don't think there's an obligation to do this, though.
Wording of the rules here is ambiguous so if you want to apply the robotic software developer brain (which we both possess) to it then I agree there is no obligation.

If for a you think more like a person and whether this is fair and makes sense, I'd argue that it doesn't. As far as I am concerned you as a setter are obliged to give conundrums that are fair, and exploiting a loophole in the plural rule so disallow an anagram of the shuffle that is in the dictionary (but a plural) is very unfair. Therefore as an event host / tournament conundrum setter, you are strongly encouraged not to do this.

Thomas Cappleman
Series 72 Champion
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Thomas Cappleman » Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Yep, any conundrum where you have to suppress an answer that your brain comes up with due to an arbitrary rule isn't fair. Even having a valid word as the scramble is slightly harsh - I rarely read the scramble directly so may end up buzzing in with it by the time my brain's had a while to work on it.

Alternatively, setting a conundrum with TENSORIAL as the answer at a Bristol-style event (all other anagrams aren't valid conundrum solutions) and watching the carnage unfold would be an excellent troll.

David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by David Williams » Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:20 pm

JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:14 pm
Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am
Suppose the setter hadn't realised TRANSAXLE has an anagram, and used the scramble RAXELNAST. If someone buzzed with RELAXANTS, would you give them the points?
Yes I would 100% give them the points and I would apologise for setting a shite conundrum.
And when the opponent says he saw RELAXANTS but rejected it because it's invalid?

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:27 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am
if I wanted to use TRANSAXLE for a co-event conundrum, I'd make RELAXANTS the scramble. I don't think there's an obligation to do this, though.
As far as my pie-in-the-sky (for now) ideas of hosting a co-event go, this is something I have very much considered and decided I would do. Even the (in)famous RELAPSING/SPANGLIER example is something I would take full advantage of - any conundrums with two answers can be used as long as you have one of them as the scramble. Surprised the show and co-events don't do this more.

I had this discussion about SANTASITS (Christmas Day 2001) a few years ago and I stand by what I said at the time - the "other" answer is not a valid conundrum.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:44 am

David Williams wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:20 pm
JackHurst wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:14 pm
Graeme Cole wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am
Suppose the setter hadn't realised TRANSAXLE has an anagram, and used the scramble RAXELNAST. If someone buzzed with RELAXANTS, would you give them the points?
Yes I would 100% give them the points and I would apologise for setting a shite conundrum.
And when the opponent says he saw RELAXANTS but rejected it because it's invalid?
Very good point! Sort of underlines how dumb it is to set these sort of Conundrums in the first place...

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:32 am

Numbers round

75 1 4 6 7 7 -> 777

Clock finishes:
[P1] 777
[P2] 770

[P1] 75 - 1 = 74
[P1] 6*7 = 42
[P1] 74*42 = ...
[Rachel] 74*42 is?
[P1] hesitates
[Nick] We're going to have to hurry you along now P1, we can't allow hesitation
[P1] Well 74*42 is 777X4 (whatever that is), so I was going to divide the result by the remaining 4.

Sure enough, P1 has (75 - 1) * 6 * 7 / 4 = 777 on their paper.
Last edited by JackHurst on Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:35 am

JackHurst wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:32 am
Numbers round

75 1 4 6 7 7 -> 777

Clock finishes:
[P1] 770
[P2] 777

[P1] 75 - 1 = 74
[P1] 6*7 = 42
[P1] 74*42 = ...
[Rachel] 74*42 is?
[P1] hesitates
[Nick] We're going to have to hurry you along now P1, we can't allow hesitation
[P1] Well 74*42 is 777X4 (whatever that is), so I was going to divide the result by the remaining 4.

Sure enough, P1 has (74 - 1) * 6 * 7 / 4 = 777 on their paper.

Personally I would allow this and give them the points. Declaring a legal method that leads to the target should always be allowed if the contestant has it written down properly, even if they cannot work out the intermediate steps.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:39 am

JackHurst wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:32 am
Numbers round

75 1 4 6 7 7 -> 777

Clock finishes:
[P1] 770
[P2] 777

[P1] 75 - 1 = 74
[P1] 6*7 = 42
[P1] 74*42 = ...
[Rachel] 74*42 is?
[P1] hesitates
[Nick] We're going to have to hurry you along now P1, we can't allow hesitation
[P1] Well 74*42 is 777X4 (whatever that is), so I was going to divide the result by the remaining 4.

Sure enough, P1 has (74 - 1) * 6 * 7 / 4 = 777 on their paper.
Disallow because P1 declared 770.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:56 am

Yeah, I don't think you need to know the intermediate totals.

Although declaring 770 and writing down 74-1 could count against you.

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:45 am

Whoops. Post edited to make sense now.

Fred Mumford
Enthusiast
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fred Mumford » Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:38 pm

In the famous James Martin 952 game he didn't know the intermediate total, and it would have been unfair to have expected him to know it.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:22 pm

You have to train yourself not to say intermediate totals, because if you know it it's out of force of habit, and very easy to cock it up and have it disallowed.

If you make a mistake it's harder to "undo" it if you get the intermediate wrong because nowadays declaring an intermediate total is counted as a "step". In the 30BC was it Darryl Francis who said "... is 611" and it was actually 511? He could have fudged if I remember correctly had he not said "... is 611".

Equally, if Jono had said (eg) 1825 rather than 1625 in his 813 solve (unlike J Martin) then I suspect he'd have been disallowed.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests