Foregone concluding series'?

[Jason Larsen]

Has there ever been a series that has concluded in a foregone way? By that, I mean was there one series in which the winner was already determined before the Conundrum? If that is the case, do they even play the Conundrum?

[Jon Corby]

Yes.

[Jason Larsen]

Do they play the Conundrum in that case?

[Jon Corby]

Yes.

[Jason Larsen]

So, unless the Conundrum is crucial, it's all about bragging rights for the losing contestant, isn't it?

[Ben Wilson]

Yes.

[Jason Larsen]

I trust you both. I figure you've both seen several series' endings.

[Howard Somerset]

So far there have been 57 series completed. Full details are available for the final in every series except the first.

Only in 21 of those series has the conundrum been crucial. Indeed, in 25 of the finals the winner has been determined before the last numbers round. And in one final, the result was a foregone conclusion before the last letters round.

[Joseph Bolas]

So far there have been 57 series completed. Full details are available for the final in every series except the first.

Only in 21 of those series has the conundrum been crucial. Indeed, in 25 of the finals the winner has been determined before the last numbers round. And in one final, the result was a foregone conclusion before the last letters round.

Forgive my pedanticness but 21 + 25 + 1 = 47. What were the other 10 finals?

[JimBentley]

I'm assuming they were determined by the result of the last numbers round.

I think.

[Gavin Chipper]

So far there have been 57 series completed. Full details are available for the final in every series except the first.

Only in 21 of those series has the conundrum been crucial. Indeed, in 25 of the finals the winner has been determined before the last numbers round. And in one final, the result was a foregone conclusion before the last letters round.

Forgive my pedanticness but 21 + 25 + 1 = 47. What were the other 10 finals?

Non-crucial conundrums decided after the last numbers?

[Jon O'Neill]

[Howard Somerset]

I'm assuming they were determined by the result of the last numbers round.

I think.

Exactly

[Charlie Reams]

Question 1: What's the earliest round at which a game has ever been decided?

Question 2: What's the earliest round at which a game has ever been decided given the selections that actually came out?

[Howard Somerset]

Just to clarify (regarding finals):

1 - don't know (series 1)
1 - winner determined before final letters round
25 - winner determined before final numbers round (includes the 1 above)
35 - winner determined before conundrum (includes the 25 above)
21 - crucial conundrum

21 + 35 + 1(the don't know) = 57

And to add something.

Of the 21 crucial conundrums in series finals:

6 - the player who was trailing got the conundrum, and won from behind
8 - the player who was leading got the conundrum
7 - neither player got the conundrum. In 6 of these, the player already leading won the series. In the seventh, as they were already level, the series was decided on a tie-break conundrum.

[Howard Somerset]

Question 1: What's the earliest round at which a game has ever been decided?

Question 2: What's the earliest round at which a game has ever been decided given the selections that actually came out?

Question 1 - probable answer is "before the penultimate letters round". If it's any earlier than that, the leading contestant would have to be 75 points ahead going into round 11.

[Ben Wilson]

We need recaps of JF's octochamp run, particularly the 138-29 which might have fulfilled that criterion (I know for sure he cocked up the final numbers so didn't score there, so was therefore 99+ ahead after round 13).

[Jason Larsen]

Yes, I was asking whether or not the winner of a season was determined by the last numbers round.

And whose initials are J.F.?

[Howard Somerset]

And whose initials are J.F.?

Julian Fell. see here.

[Jason Larsen]

The Countdown king and prodigy, yes.

I think we've seen him here before.

[Gavin Chipper]

We need recaps of JF's octochamp run, particularly the 138-29 which might have fulfilled that criterion (I know for sure he cocked up the final numbers so didn't score there, so was therefore 99+ ahead after round 13).

Julian Fell was 97-23 up after 10 rounds, so his opponent "could" have scraped a draw.

[Jason Larsen]

I'm just curious.

Did Julian Fell appear on Countdown during the time contestants could be co-champions?

[Michael Wallace]

Did Julian Fell appear on Countdown during the time contestants could be co-champions?

...huh?

[Jason Larsen]

There was a time in which both contestants could come back after tying a game as co-champions. This was instead of playing the tie-breaking conundrum as they do now.

Was Julian Fell on during that time?

[Michael Wallace]

oh right - I thought you had dreamed about an age of countdown where two people would try and sit in the champion chair and get to fend off the challenger as a team (a la blockbusters, I suppose...)

[Gavin Chipper]

There was a time in which both contestants could come back after tying a game as co-champions. This was instead of playing the tie-breaking conundrum as they do now.

Was Julian Fell on during that time?

The tie-break conundrums came in a whike before Julian's time.

[Jason Larsen]

No new contestants have ever been introduced to determine a Countdown game's result, Michael.

[Gavin Chipper]

No new contestants have ever been introduced to determine a Countdown game's result, Michael.

Yes, Michael.

[Jason Larsen]

That's like starting a whole new game.