Susie's Judgments

[Wil Ransome]

Is it right for Susie to pronounce on the acceptability of a word before contestant 2 has offered anything? It struck me today, when C1 offered GONNERS, and was told that there was only one n in gonners, that C2 now had the chance to offer a different word. Suppose that he had GONNERS and CONGERS and knew that they were both dodgy and wasn't sure which one to offer: his decision would have been made for him by Susie's disallowing GONNERS before he had been asked to say anything.

I have no reason to suppose that C2 was so devious, but why are contestants given the chance to cheat in cases like this, when Des is so strict about getting contestants to show their paper if they offer the same word? Shouldn't Susie keep her mouth shut until both contestants have offered?

[Jon O'Neill]

Yep.

Oh well!

[Jon Corby]

Yeah, this has been happening consistently for a few series now (I don't remember it happening under Whiteley, but definitely under Lynam) and it is a bit odd

[Craig Beevers]

Yea, plus judgement spelt without the first e looks really, really crap.

[Ralph Gillions]

Yea, plus judgement spelt without the first e looks really, really crap.

I always understood there is only one E in "judgment". Indeed it slightly niggles me when I see it written with 2 Es.

[Craig Beevers]

Yea, plus judgement spelt without the first e looks really, really crap.

I always understood there is only one E in "judgment". Indeed it slightly niggles me when I see it written with 2 Es.

One E in general usage is probably an Americanism, the first time I saw it spelt in this aesthetically displeasing way was when Terminator 2 was released.

[Jason Larsen]

I don't think so.

Regardless, I shall call her Susie the Surrey Softie and Sweetie from now on. Try saying that five times fast.

[Joseph Bolas]

One E in general usage is probably an Americanism, the first time I saw it spelt in this aesthetically displeasing way was when Terminator 2 was released.

I don't think so.

I don't know about the Terminator part, but the JUDGMENT spelling is American.

In non-legal contexts, a judgment (American English) or judgement (British English) is a balanced weighing up of evidence preparatory to making a decision.

EDIT: Here's a bit more on the spelling.

In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling; but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance); but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”

[Ralph Gillions]

I am now very upset.
All these years I have been spelling it j-u-d-g-m-e-n-t, even criticising others for putting a first E in it.
I am cowed. Learning can be so painful.

[Jon Corby]

If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”

Won't this make all your sentences pretty nonsensical? I don't like it without the first "e", but it's certainly better than having "colour" after it all the time.

[Joseph Bolas]

If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”

Won't this make all your sentences pretty nonsensical? I don't like it without the first "e", but it's certainly better than having "colour" after it all the time.

I don't know if that question was aimed at me , but this is where I got that quote from http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html

[Wil Ransome]

Neither Chambers nor the Shorter Oxford Dictionary say anything about one form being American and the other not. I have always thought that 'judgement' was a bit shoddy, although it might be just about OK.

[Damian E]

Neither Chambers nor the Shorter Oxford Dictionary say anything about one form being American and the other not. I have always thought that 'judgement' was a bit shoddy, although it might be just about OK.

Goodness me, is that the time

[Jason Larsen]

Either way, it's true.

[Gavin Chipper]

Is it right for Susie to pronounce on the acceptability of a word before contestant 2 has offered anything? It struck me today, when C1 offered GONNERS, and was told that there was only one n in gonners, that C2 now had the chance to offer a different word. Suppose that he had GONNERS and CONGERS and knew that they were both dodgy and wasn't sure which one to offer: his decision would have been made for him by Susie's disallowing GONNERS before he had been asked to say anything.

I have no reason to suppose that C2 was so devious, but why are contestants given the chance to cheat in cases like this, when Des is so strict about getting contestants to show their paper if they offer the same word? Shouldn't Susie keep her mouth shut until both contestants have offered?

Back to the topic - I've noticed this before and probably commented on it. She should wait. I'm sure I've seen it loads, and I'm sure I saw it under Whiteley's rule, Corby.

[Jon Corby]

and I'm sure I saw it under Whiteley's rule, Corby.

Probably, I didn't really watch much in those days. I mentioned it because it was consistently and noticeably the case under Lynam (and now O'Connor), and I'm sure I remember Whiteley saying stuff like "well we'll check that in a second, let's hear your word" after a dodgy declaration.

I realise this adds nothing.

[Gavin Chipper]

I realise this adds nothing.

Charlie said that about a post he made in the Scrabble thread. Is there a new police force on the forum you're all worried about?

[Martin Gardner]

Sometimes I get the impression when they do that that they've not shot it in that order, and they've edited back that way to make it easier for the viewer, but in actual fact they did ask both contestants their word before making any ju- erm decision.

Martin

[Jason Larsen]

I don't understand you, Martin.

Please explain that.

[Jon Corby]

Sometimes I get the impression when they do that that they've not shot it in that order, and they've edited back that way to make it easier for the viewer, but in actual fact they did ask both contestants their word before making any ju- erm decision.

I don't think so mate, it happens too often, and there are relatively few retakes.

Something which has also 'bothered' me (very slightly) is the whole "having it written down" thing. While you do have to have your words written down (or declare that you don't) you don't actually have to specifically identify which word on your sheet you are declaring. You could have several alternatives written down, and only decide which one to go for upon hearing your opponent's word. In Matt Shore's CoC game against Mark Tournoff, he told me he had written down both ANTHERISE and HERNIATES and when asked for his declaration began to explain that he had two nines written down, but wanted to be clear about which one he was going for. Instead, as soon as he'd mentioned having two nines, Des talked over him and asked Mark for his word. Matt then felt slightly embarrassed at having to show his paper with two nines on (one bad, and one good which Mark had just offered) and also tried to explain it to Mark.

[Jason Larsen]

Yes

[Damian E]

.........we have no bananas?

[Jason Larsen]

Damian, you're a funny guy!

[Martin Smith]

Good point here, if both players declare the same length there should really be no "Susie will have to check that" or "not sure you can spell it without the e" type comments until both players have declared their words. I'm not sure anybody would cheat for the sake of a teapot, but you never know.