Spoilers For Monday June 15th 2015

[James Robinson]

So, we're another series down, and that also means another series is now about to begin.

Although, thanks to a silly bit of scheduling by those bigwigs at Channel 4, today is the only day when the show will be on this week (That as you might probably be able to guess is due to coverage of Royal Ascot.)

But, this game sounds very interesting.......

Our carryover champion from the last series is the 3-time champion, James Judge. He had some decent performances, and might be in with a chance of becoming the first octochamp of this new series.

But, one of our own distinguished members is taking up residence in the challengers' chair........... None other that RHYS BENJAMIN is in the chair, although I still think he looks like he's still only 12 years old (which would make him ineligible to compete nowadays)

Colin Murray returns for his 4th stint in DC.

Join Andy for the recap later.

[Steven M. McCann]

Was THINKERS disallowed in round 1?

[Mark Kudlowski]

3rd nos alt: ((50 x 2) + 10 + 3) x 7

[Jack Worsley]

Last numbers: 75 x 6 + ((100 + 25) x 2) / 50 = 455

Well done Rhys, great comeback.

[Tony Atkins]

Was THINKERS disallowed in round 1?

It was thankers.

[Tony Atkins]

Last numbers: 75 x 6 + ((100 + 25) x 2) / 50 = 455

Well done Rhys, great comeback.

Well done to Jack too - I maxed the letters and came adrift on that numbers.

BASCINET one of the several alt 8s in R4.

[James Robinson]

An impressive comeback from Rhys there, almost Tracey Mills-esque.

He told me about the result while I was holiday in Lanzarote, when it happened. He also told me that WANDERING was actually the 3rd conundrum, so quite interesting that 2 were cut out..... :p

MATURED in round 5, ASEPTIC in round 10, OUTRAN in round 11.

[Graeme Cole]

He told me about the result while I was holiday in Lanzarote, when it happened. He also told me that WANDERING was actually the 3rd conundrum, so quite interesting that 2 were cut out..... :p

Wait, what?

I can understand cutting out any unsolved tiebreaks to save time, because they don't affect anything. But did they really not have enough time to show the first conundrum?

If this story is true, is Rhys's total now 68 points or 78?

[Rhys Benjamin]

He told me about the result while I was holiday in Lanzarote, when it happened. He also told me that WANDERING was actually the 3rd conundrum, so quite interesting that 2 were cut out..... :p

Wait, what?

I can understand cutting out any unsolved tiebreaks to save time, because they don't affect anything. But did they really not have enough time to show the first conundrum?

If this story is true, is Rhys's total now 68 points or 78?

I was wondering this myself.

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys, but I made it harder for myself! I refused myself SOUPIER in round two, and with round six I meant to say (100 + 75 + 9) x 4, and didn't realise that I'd missed the + 9 until it was too late.

Yeah, the first and second conundra were cut - as you can tell by a piece of shoddy editing (watch my left arm change from stretched to folded and back again!). In anagram form, they were BOLDPAPER and HONEYPLOX.

James was very good and I really didn't deserve to win. I hope he gets another go in 10-or-so years from now and does a Tracey.

[Gavin Chipper]

Well done Rhys. Bit of a shaky start but like the Tories you ignored the polls to get a majority. Fortunately this result is less of a national tragedy.

I'd like to second what James said about the scheduling - one game at the start of the new series and then the rest of the week off? What a joke. They could have just had a special or something.

So to clarify Rhys - the first two conundrums just went unsolved?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Well done Rhys. Bit of a shaky start but like the Tories you ignored the polls to get a majority. Fortunately this result is less of a national tragedy.

I'd like to second what James said about the scheduling - one game at the start of the new series and then the rest of the week off? What a joke. They could have just had a special or something.

So to clarify Rhys - the first two conundrums just went unsolved?

Yes, the first two were unsolved and buzzless.

[James Laverty]

So what if these unaired conundrums were solved by audience members? They miss out on there 5 seconds of fame and a mug?

[James Laverty]

So what if these unaired conundrums were solved by audience members? They miss out on 5 seconds of fame and a mug?

[Graeme Cole]

So what if these unaired conundrums were solved by audience members? They miss out on there 5 seconds of fame and a mug?

Yep. As soon as the decision is made to cut out an unsolved conundrum, a crack squad of Countdown ninjas are sent to the audience member's house to take the mug back.

Sherlock Holmes once observed that a Countdown mug had mysteriously disappeared from his and Watson's kitchen only days after it got there, and from that accidentally deduced spoilers for the finals which Watson had gone to see earlier that week, much to his own annoyance. You won't find this in the canonical work by Arthur Conan Doyle, of course. He had to cut that story out to save space.

[Andy McGurn]

Should I edit the recap to include the two unsolved conundrums?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Should I edit the recap to include the two unsolved conundrums?

As they weren't broadcast, the answer should probably be no. There's lots of instances of edited-out conundrums.

[Graeme Cole]

Should I edit the recap to include the two unsolved conundrums?

AFAIK, on the rare occasions when what happened in the studio doesn't match what happened on the television (usually missing tiebreaks), the recaps, both on the forum and the wiki, have always described the episode as it was broadcast, so I would say no to putting them in as round details. However, it's an interesting enough thing that if I were doing the recap I'd put a note somewhere at the end mentioning the deleted stuff.

[Gavin Chipper]

Should I edit the recap to include the two unsolved conundrums?

As they weren't broadcast, the answer should probably be no. There's lots of instances of edited-out conundrums.

I think it always makes sense to include as much information as possible, even if it's just as a note at the end rather than as "part of the game".

Edit - yeah so what Graeme says.

[Jon Corby]

Do tie-break conundrums count towards points totals for the final seedings?

Well done Rhys btw, the win wasn't looking likely for most of the game.

[Johnny Canuck]

I wonder if editing out all unsolved tie-break conundrums is going to be the new norm. I suppose their lack of influence on the game's result does make them droppable.

Well done Rhys, and good luck (again, retroactively).

[Gavin Chipper]

Well done Rhys. Bit of a shaky start but like the Tories you ignored the polls to get a majority. Fortunately this result is less of a national tragedy.

It turns out that it wasn't an overall majority after all, but a hung parliament, but the back room wheeling and dealing was done off camera!

Do tie-break conundrums count towards points totals for the final seedings?

They're not supposed to count (haven't in the recent past at least), so it would be interesting to see what would happen in this case.

[Jon Corby]

Do tie-break conundrums count towards points totals for the final seedings?

They're not supposed to count (haven't in the recent past at least), so it would be interesting to see what would happen in this case.

I've not really thought about this much, but why not just count them? It's not like the points totals are completely fair comparisons anyway. It's no different than having a 9 available in one game and not in another. Wouldn't it make all the stats much easier? If somebody broke the score record but it was on a tie-break conundrum, would it not count?

[Gavin Chipper]

Do tie-break conundrums count towards points totals for the final seedings?

They're not supposed to count (haven't in the recent past at least), so it would be interesting to see what would happen in this case.

I've not really thought about this much, but why not just count them? It's not like the points totals are completely fair comparisons anyway. It's no different than having a 9 available in one game and not in another. Wouldn't it make all the stats much easier? If somebody broke the score record but it was on a tie-break conundrum, would it not count?

I don't think it's that complicated for the stats to not include the points from tiebreaks. If you count them, obviously they're getting an extra round and getting an advantage from the fact that they drew rather than won by 5 points or something. As you say, it's not exactly a level playing field anyway, but when you have a situation like this where it's basically just as easy not to write an unfair advantage into the rules you might as well do it (i.e. not count the tiebreak score). And certainly if someone beat the record score for a single game, I think it would be a bit ridiculous if they did it with 16 rounds and they counted it (more ridiculous than counting tiebreaks over an 8-game run where its effect is more diluted).

[Jon Corby]

Hmm. Seems complicated to me. You could get somebody winning 110-100, and the max was 110. But it's not a max game because it was a tie-break. Isn't it easier just to say there were 120 points available?

[Graeme Cole]

Do tie-break conundrums count towards points totals for the final seedings?

They're not supposed to count (haven't in the recent past at least), so it would be interesting to see what would happen in this case.

I've not really thought about this much, but why not just count them? It's not like the points totals are completely fair comparisons anyway. It's no different than having a 9 available in one game and not in another. Wouldn't it make all the stats much easier? If somebody broke the score record but it was on a tie-break conundrum, would it not count?

Suppose the reigning champion, C1, has won seven games. He knows he needs to get 100 points from his last game to be #1 seed.

Going into round 14 of his eighth game, C1 trails 95-78. C2 picks the numbers and the clock starts. C1 finds a 1-away solution, then finds an exact solution. The clock finishes and C2 declares nothing.

If points from tiebreaks counted towards the total, C1 would then have a perverse incentive to declare 1 away to score 7 points rather than declare his exact solution to score 10. If the score going into the conundrum is 95-85, C1 could still finish with 105, but if the score is 95-88, he can only get 98.

Edit: If you think C1 would be unlikely to gamble his eighth win on the difference between being #1 and #2 seed, imagine there are eight octochamps already and C1 needs to score 100 or more to be #8 seed. Then he's got nothing to lose.

[Jon Corby]

Sure. It just seems to unnecessarily complicate lots of things, doesn't it? Or am I overstating those? For the sake of nearly all the stats, you're pretty much declaring the game a draw aren't you?

[Gavin Chipper]

Sure. It just seems to unnecessarily complicate lots of things, doesn't it? Or am I overstating those? For the sake of nearly all the stats, you're pretty much declaring the game a draw aren't you?

Well, nothing appears to have broken. But yes, it is a draw in some sense. Perhaps if someone becomes an octochamp, it should count as 7.5 wins!

By the way, I think they used to count the extra points. It would appear that Robert Teuton's total for his seeding counted the 10 extra points. But I'm not sure when this stopped.

Edit - On Mike's page, series 30 is the first series where it's explicitly stated that tie-break conundrums don't count towards the seed totals.

Edit 2 - The Wiki doesn't seem to recognise this distinction between seeding systems and I can't see how to change it because it uses some weird template thing "{{Seeding S22-38}}", and I'm not sure how to edit that. It probably should be 22 to 29 and 30 to 38. I think series 39 was the first where wins counted over points.

[Neil Bellers]

"Yep. As soon as the decision is made to cut out an unsolved conundrum, a crack squad of Countdown ninjas are sent to the audience member's house to take the mug back.
Sherlock Holmes once observed that a Countdown mug had mysteriously disappeared from his and Watson's kitchen only days after it got there, and from that accidentally deduced spoilers for the finals which Watson had gone to see earlier that week, much to his own annoyance. You won't find this in the canonical work by Arthur Conan Doyle, of course. He had to cut that story out to save space."
I do not post here very often but am still a regular 'follower' of Countdown fashions
and so thanks to Graeme for this amusing sideways look at life as we know it...really enjoyed that.
Appreciate that the 2 unsolved at the end were missed on the telly due to lack of edited time available,
but surely a mention could at least have been made, especially with the scores tied, to let viewers have a try,
or less waffle included by Mr H at the start or Mr M during?
I believe that the 1906 Olympics were official during, but downgraded later,
much to the 'mugs' dismay there as well?
And the 1939-40 football season was 'disallowed' years later in the stats for players' appearances?
Belated congrats to the top contenders on an entertaining series just finished
and no backdated recounts hopefully in the future on 'good' new words or 'duff' old ones revised
to deprive the worthy teapot holders.
Still think that there should be a 'top' rated panel for DC guests awarded for finals...sorry Ms Brand but you do not qualify (yet) IMHO.
However, I did meet you briefly at the brand new 'Museum of the Mind' so thanks for being there to give your support
to a worthy cause.
Thanks everyone, from Neil.

[Fred Mumford]

C1 would then have a perverse incentive to declare 1 away to score 7 points rather than declare his exact solution to score 10. If the score going into the conundrum is 95-85, C1 could still finish with 105, but if the score is 95-88, he can only get 98.

This is the Countdown equivalent of the infamous Barbados v Grenada football match in 1994, where at one point it was in both teams' interests to score an own goal.

[Jon Corby]

C1 would then have a perverse incentive to declare 1 away to score 7 points rather than declare his exact solution to score 10. If the score going into the conundrum is 95-85, C1 could still finish with 105, but if the score is 95-88, he can only get 98.

This is the Countdown equivalent of the infamous Barbados v Grenada football match in 1994, where at one point it was in both teams' interests to score an own goal.

Hehe, it's not quite that bad. It's a strange situation all right, but it doesn't particularly disgust me. If C1 wants to take a risk to maximise his score while increasing the chance he will lose, I don't really have a problem with that. The game already has the potential for "win the game vs maximise score" decisions when declaring anyway, it's not so different to those.

[Gavin Chipper]

C1 would then have a perverse incentive to declare 1 away to score 7 points rather than declare his exact solution to score 10. If the score going into the conundrum is 95-85, C1 could still finish with 105, but if the score is 95-88, he can only get 98.

This is the Countdown equivalent of the infamous Barbados v Grenada football match in 1994, where at one point it was in both teams' interests to score an own goal.

Hehe, it's not quite that bad. It's a strange situation all right, but it doesn't particularly disgust me. If C1 wants to take a risk to maximise his score while increasing the chance he will lose, I don't really have a problem with that. The game already has the potential for "win the game vs maximise score" decisions when declaring anyway, it's not so different to those.

I think it is a bit different, and the fact that you're not disgusted leaves me questioning your moral hero status. It's also possible now (this has been discussed previously) for someone to lose a game to guarantee a place in the quarter finals of that series rather than win and go into the next series, where they might not qualify.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Got a local newspaper appearance.

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/13340 ... n_TV_show/

[Gavin Chipper]

Got a local newspaper appearance.

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/13340 ... n_TV_show/

Harrowing times indeed.

[Philip Wilson]

Hmm. Seems complicated to me. You could get somebody winning 110-100, and the max was 110. But it's not a max game because it was a tie-break. Isn't it easier just to say there were 120 points available?

So how did this affect the guys here who play along and go for a max game? You wouldn't know if you would have solved the conundrums or not. Also if you weren't aware they happened at all then you would never have doubted your performance.

[Tony Atkins]

Clearly there's a difference if the tie was made by solving a conundrum or if there was a tie after round 14.
In the second case there are no extra points available and the max is the same as if there had only been one conundrum.