Spoilers for Tuesday August 12th 2014 (S71 P26)

[Jordan F]

Mark Davies got his second win yesterday and has looked like a strong contender so far. Can he get a third one and prove his strength?

Join Callum for the recap later.

[Tony Atkins]

TOSTADO as alt to STIFADO in R11.

[Tony Atkins]

No beaters nor controversial judgements today.

[James Robinson]

No beaters nor controversial judgements today.

Probably the only "controversial" thing was Mark missing that last numbers game

3rd Numbers Alt.: (100 x 7) - 25 - 9 - 5 = 661

[David Williams]

No controversial judgements today.

Well, let's give it a go.

Round 3: 100, 75, 5, 7, 9, 4. Target: 718.

John "100x7. Oh, I've made a mistake." Rachel then pauses for a while, which can only be to give him a moment to think of the obvious solution. Is she encouraging him to cheat? Or would it be OK?
Mark: 718. 7x100+9+5+4 (10)

John also said "I've used the 7 twice". But suppose the 75 was a 7, and Mark had declared first. If John had then made the 18 by doing (9-7)x(5+4) he clearly wouldn't have been cheating, because we can assume that's what he did. Would he have been accused of it on this forum, however? Would it be different if he was a woman of a certain age?

[Jon Corby]

Would it be different if he was a woman of a certain age?

The fuck is this shit, seriously?

It wouldn't have been different if instead of being honest, he'd tried to do something else. Rachel I guess was just giving him the opportunity to get back on track in case he prematurely declared himself out (it's easy to get confused on the spot) but he didn't take advantage. He could have done I guess, and then we'd probably discuss what happened. Since it didn't, it seems a bit stupid to not only compare it to Tricia, but also imply that she got discussed due to her gender and age. It's got nothing to do with it.

[David Williams]

Here was someone who clearly did miss the obvious solution and came up with a solution that was very similar, but convoluted. Because he declared first and had made a mistake it was a non-event, but it does show that it's easily done. When Tricia did that she was condemned for blatant cheating. I think another person might well not have been.

It wasn't you that jumped in initially, and it's the initial reaction that I didn't like.

[Jon Corby]

If the 75 had been a 7, and John made the 18 by doing (9-7) x (5+4), it's a different solution. I doubt it would be therefore be discussed. Not because he's male, but because it's a different solution. It's pretty far removed from doing 9/9 instead of using a 1, or saying 4 x 7 instead of 7 x 4.

Just to reiterate, I don't think Tricia cheated on those two numbers games. I'm pretty sure I said at the time that her body language etc suggested she was happy with her solve. What is painfully obvious to me though is that she should have offered her paper to her opponent (I distinctly remember clocking him sitting there with a look as if to say "oh... we're just leaving it like this are we?") - the fact that she didn't doesn't suggest cheating, but adds to a weight of evidence that she has a personality/character that I don't like - somebody with a "win at all costs" mentality that crosses the line of fair play, and shows no respect to her opponents and everyone involved with the show. I know you guys probably think I go way overboard over shit like this, but it's a real bugbear of mine. It's a trait I absolutely abhor.

[David Williams]

Just to reiterate, I don't think Tricia cheated on those two numbers games. I'm pretty sure I said at the time that her body language etc suggested she was happy with her solve. What is painfully obvious to me though is that she should have offered her paper to her opponent (I distinctly remember clocking him sitting there with a look as if to say "oh... we're just leaving it like this are we?") - the fact that she didn't doesn't suggest cheating, but adds to a weight of evidence that she has a personality/character that I don't like - somebody with a "win at all costs" mentality that crosses the line of fair play, and shows no respect to her opponents and everyone involved with the show. I know you guys probably think I go way overboard over shit like this, but it's a real bugbear of mine. It's a trait I absolutely abhor.

I await, with interest, your comments on today's show.

[Jon Corby]

I await, with interest, your comments on today's show.

Oh crud, I span through it on x2 with subtitles on, what did I miss?

[David Williams]

I await, with interest, your comments on today's show.

Oh crud, I span through it on x2 with subtitles on, what did I miss?

C2 25x8=200 200x2=400 plus something or other
C1 "I just did 8x2 . . ." Rachel "Fine, fine"
The end. (Or something like that.)

[Jon Corby]

I await, with interest, your comments on today's show.

Oh crud, I span through it on x2 with subtitles on, what did I miss?

C2 25x8=200 200x2=400 plus something or other
C1 "I just did 8x2 . . ." Rachel "Fine, fine"
The end. (Or something like that.)

Yeah, I just pulled up 4od quickly and watched that round. I've only watched it once but it seemed a bit rushed through as if edited or reshot. Or maybe fell into the category of "yeah, yeah, we all got that, easy, let's not waste more time than necessary". *shrugs*

[David Williams]

Yeah, I just pulled up 4od quickly and watched that round. I've only watched it once but it seemed a bit rushed through as if edited or reshot. Or maybe fell into the category of "yeah, yeah, we all got that, easy, let's not waste more time than necessary". *shrugs*

So it was obvious Mark had it, and his solution was a little different, and no-one asked him to show his solution, so he obviously didn't waste everyone's time by offering it. Whereas Tricia, (please fill in the rest for me)

Actually, not you really. Some of the ones who put the boot in then and not now, perhaps.

[Jon Corby]

So it was obvious Mark had it, and his solution was a little different, and no-one asked him to show his solution, so he obviously didn't waste everyone's time by offering it. Whereas Tricia, (please fill in the rest for me)

I'm not sure whether you're just trying to bait me, are just playing devil's advocate, or think you have an actual point, but okay, I'll fill it all in for you.

Mark's numbers game was of the 'one large' variety (that I guess most casual players are hoping for when they pick one large), where the solution is (very obviously) from the outset a * LargeNumber + b, where it is trivial to obtain a & b from the small numbers (in this case in a variety of ways). Mark is sat back in his chair with ten seconds to go, looking around, Rachel is doing likewise, maybe they even made eye contact. Even then, as I said, the final broadcast still looks a bit too rushed through, as if it's maybe heavily edited or re-shot or something.

Compared to Tricia... she was really under pressure against Tom. He had already led, including taking ten points off Tricia on her own (one large) numbers game. He picks six small. There aren't really ANY trivial six small games IMO (well, maybe something like 640 when you have 8,8,10). Tom obviously gives his declaration AND method first (seethe)

Round 6: 8, 7, 1, 5, 9, 9. Target: 281.
Tom: 281. (8 x 5) x 7 + 1 (10)
Tricia: 281. (8 x 5) x 7 + (9/9) (10)

Tricia is not sat back in her chair for ten seconds though, her pen goes down maybe a second before the clock ends. It's not the hardest game ever sure, but it's not on the level of Mark's above - and anyway, you can't have it both ways, if it is so easy, then what the hell is the 9/9 all about? Showboating?

Onto Tom's next pick, and again it's six small (after Tricia's one large), and this time Tricia needs to avoid a 0-10 defeat to take the game. Again Tom has to give his declaration AND method first (seethe)

Round 14: 10, 3, 5, 4, 3, 7. Target: 448.
Tom: 448. (10+3+3) x 7 x 4 (10)
Tricia: 448. (10+3+3) x 4 x 7 (10)

Again, Tricia is not sat back in her chair for ten seconds, it's pen down maybe a second or two before the clock ends. This one is completely not trivial (I didn't get it). 16 x 28 is not an obvious solution. In fact, Tom's first step is presumably to note that 448 is divisible by 4, and there's a 4 in the solution, so try and make 112 from the remaining 5 numbers. Which still isn't easy. And in fact make's Tricia's method doubly rum - her final step is to multiply by 7, not the 4. So she has actually factorised it to 16 and 28? Or she realised instead that 448 was divisible by 7 as her first step? Hmm.

Fucking hell. I'm actually leaning more towards the opinion that she cheated now having just written that. It's far from clear-cut, but I think it's what I'd go with on the balance of probabilities. I'd really love to know Tom's opinion, I'm positive he looks bewildered as if to say "hang on, we're just going with that?" but doesn't feel able to speak up

[David Williams]

That's a long and convoluted argument, that doesn't alter the fact that both of them ended up saying they had a*c*b rather than a*b*c. But even if I were to accept your conclusion that Tricia's case was more suspicious, all that leads to is that she should have been asked to show her workings. No-one ever volunteers this, so why should she? Yet for you it "adds to a weight of evidence" when that was all the evidence there was at the time.

I'm pretty sure I said at the time that her body language etc suggested she was happy with her solve. What is painfully obvious to me though is that she should have offered her paper to her opponent - the fact that she didn't doesn't suggest cheating, but adds to a weight of evidence that she has a personality/character that I don't like - somebody with a "win at all costs" mentality that crosses the line of fair play, and shows no respect to her opponents and everyone involved with the show.

[Jon Corby]

That's a long and convoluted argument, that doesn't alter the fact that both of them ended up saying they had a*c*b rather than a*b*c.

Yeah, except for all the bits of that "long and convoluted argument" that pointed out the differences.

she should have been asked to show her workings. No-one ever volunteers this, so why should she?

Well that's just an out-and-out lie. Plenty of contestants (probably most) offer their paper without having to be asked.

Yet for you it "adds to a weight of evidence" when that was all the evidence there was at the time.

Yes, and as you would have seen from your quote, it adds to the evidence that I believe she has a certain personality type. In fact, you could say that every second she spent on screen is evidence that I've used to form my opinion, but you know, it would be even longer for me to document my full analysis, and I daresay I would lose you even more than I appear to have done with a couple of paragraphs.

[Philip Wilson]

Just to reiterate, I don't think Tricia cheated on those two numbers games. I'm pretty sure I said at the time that her body language etc suggested she was happy with her solve. What is painfully obvious to me though is that she should have offered her paper to her opponent (I distinctly remember clocking him sitting there with a look as if to say "oh... we're just leaving it like this are we?") - the fact that she didn't doesn't suggest cheating, but adds to a weight of evidence that she has a personality/character that I don't like - somebody with a "win at all costs" mentality that crosses the line of fair play, and shows no respect to her opponents and everyone involved with the show. I know you guys probably think I go way overboard over shit like this, but it's a real bugbear of mine. It's a trait I absolutely abhor.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. I wrote on July 25th:
Looking back at Friday's programme, when Tricia declares the 9/9 instead of the 1, Tom looks at Nick with his bottom lip turned down - as if to ask if that's ok.

In some game shows Tom would possibly have been invited back, I think. However with Countdown people come back anyway, so that wouldn't work.

[mark b davies]

I vaguely remember showing my workings when I filmed this. Not sure why they would have cut it out.
After reading this I checked my notes (I kept all the bits of paper from my time on countdown) and its all written down so I don't think it was an issue.

[Philip Wilson]

Onto Tom's next pick, and again it's six small (after Tricia's one large), and this time Tricia needs to avoid a 0-10 defeat to take the game. Again Tom has to give his declaration AND method first (seethe)

Round 14: 10, 3, 5, 4, 3, 7. Target: 448.
Tom: 448. (10+3+3) x 7 x 4 (10)
Tricia: 448. (10+3+3) x 4 x 7 (10)

Again, Tricia is not sat back in her chair for ten seconds, it's pen down maybe a second or two before the clock ends. This one is completely not trivial (I didn't get it). 16 x 28 is not an obvious solution. In fact, Tom's first step is presumably to note that 448 is divisible by 4, and there's a 4 in the solution, so try and make 112 from the remaining 5 numbers. Which still isn't easy. And in fact make's Tricia's method doubly rum - her final step is to multiply by 7, not the 4. So she has actually factorised it to 16 and 28? Or she realised instead that 448 was divisible by 7 as her first step? Hmm.

Fucking hell. I'm actually leaning more towards the opinion that she cheated now having just written that. It's far from clear-cut, but I think it's what I'd go with on the balance of probabilities. I'd really love to know Tom's opinion, I'm positive he looks bewildered as if to say "hang on, we're just going with that?" but doesn't feel able to speak up

Excellent point! It's far more obvious that 448 is divisible by 4 than 7. I'm not sure if it was this round or the 9/9 one, but I'm pretty certain Nick asked Rachel if it was ok [after hearing Tricia's method]. Rachel said it was, but presumably she was just answering in a mathematical sense. Nick asked the wrong person. Oh well.

[Clive Brooker]

It's far more obvious that 448 is divisible by 4 than 7.

If I can remember primary school arithmetic when all weights and measures were done in imperial, Tricia certainly should be able to. Anyone who did countless sums based on factors or multiples of 56 or 112 should be able to see the factorisation of a number like 448 without even thinking about it. One cwt (hundredweight) was equal to 112 lbs (pounds) for anyone unfamiliar. A most useful measure, but we don't do things that way any more.

[Jon Corby]

It's far more obvious that 448 is divisible by 4 than 7.

If I can remember primary school arithmetic when all weights and measures were done in imperial, Tricia certainly should be able to. Anyone who did countless sums based on factors or multiples of 56 or 112 should be able to see the factorisation of a number like 448 without even thinking about it. One cwt (hundredweight) was equal to 112 lbs (pounds) for anyone unfamiliar. A most useful measure, but we don't do things that way any more.

That's interesting. Wouldn't that make her even more likely to end up with 112 * 4 though?

[JimBentley]

It's far more obvious that 448 is divisible by 4 than 7.

If I can remember primary school arithmetic when all weights and measures were done in imperial, Tricia certainly should be able to. Anyone who did countless sums based on factors or multiples of 56 or 112 should be able to see the factorisation of a number like 448 without even thinking about it. One cwt (hundredweight) was equal to 112 lbs (pounds) for anyone unfamiliar. A most useful measure, but we don't do things that way any more.

That's all very nice, but essentially Tricia's final sum was 64 x 7, not 112 x 4.

[David Williams]

she should have been asked to show her workings. No-one ever volunteers this, so why should she?

Well that's just an out-and-out lie. Plenty of contestants (probably most) offer their paper without having to be asked.

I don't think I've ever been called a liar. I thought I'd have been more indignant than I am. My recollection is that people either say "Same" and hand over their workings, or say something different and don't offer their workings. I'm not sure why I or anyone else would lie about that. I'll say no more.

[Clive Brooker]

That's interesting. Wouldn't that make her even more likely to end up with 112 * 4 though?

I'm sure that's what I would do. But if you look at an obvious multiple of 112 and your brain immediately sees the factors 7 and 8, then maybe you might proceed differently. Tricia was nothing if not a little unconventional.

And David, if its any help, I certainly missed the point of your comment about paper-showing first time round. But just to prove that you were wrong anyway, I did actually volunteer my paper on one occasion - the word was CRAZIES which I've always felt must be a borderline word for inclusion. Aware that I'd sounded a bit uncertain in declaring 7, when Innis pushed his paper across I showed him my version just in case there was the slightest doubt (which there wasn't).

[Jon Corby]

I don't think I've ever been called a liar.

I don't believe you.

[Philip Wilson]

I guess we will never know if Tricia really did 64 x 7 or just twisted the end of Tom's method of 112 x 4 for whatever reason. It's taken a while for this to even be discussed here, so how likely would it be that anyone at Countdown would have realised it at the time and said: 'hold on, you wouldn't multiply 64 x 7, that can't be right, better ask her to show her paper.'? I'd say not very.

[Gavin Chipper]

If there was any doubt, Nick should have asked her to show the paper. Maybe she should have offered it too, but ultimate responsibility lies with Nick and not her. That's not to say it's OK to cheat if you don't get caught (not that I'm saying she was cheating), but if someone does try to cheat in that way, then it should be pretty easy to stop it. The point is that not offering her paper was not cheating, and not something we should really condemn her for, even if it is something that could be used to hide cheating. I would probably offer the paper for something very similar anyway, but as I've said, if it's important, the host should tell you to.

[Jon Corby]

Yep agree, but we're going back round in circles now though Gev.

I've said all along that Tricia not offering her paper isn't indicative of cheating, but IS indicative of being a certain type of person, especially when taken alongside everything else (doing it more than once, searching for words after her opponent's declaration, trying to use a retake to win a round she had lost). I personally have swung from giving her the benefit of the doubt at the time on those numbers rounds, to thinking she probably was cheating, but I'm definitely not certain about it.

[Gavin Chipper]

Yep agree, but we're going back round in circles now though Gev.

I know. Fun isn't it?

So it was obvious Mark had it, and his solution was a little different, and no-one asked him to show his solution, so he obviously didn't waste everyone's time by offering it. Whereas Tricia, (please fill in the rest for me)

I'm not sure whether you're just trying to bait me, are just playing devil's advocate, or think you have an actual point, but okay, I'll fill it all in for you.

The bit you didn't quote from David was:

Actually, not you [as in Jon Corby] really. Some of the ones who put the boot in then and not now, perhaps.

So I don't think he was trying to bait you. I think David's point was worth making anyway. You can (and did) argue that it's different due to the ease of Mark's games compared to Tricia's, but I think it was something that was better out in the open and explicitly said. You know, as in "Why's this any better than this?", "This is the reason", "OK, thanks" rather than "Why's this better than this?", "I'll fucking well tell you why!"

I actually noticed it in Mark's game too and considered mentioning it, while also thinking that because it was so easy it didn't matter that much.

[Jon Corby]

Do you fucking want some, Gev?

[Gavin Chipper]

Do you fucking want some, Gev?

Yeah, look in the other thread.

[Mark Deeks]

You two are so CUTE together! *hugs*

[Peter Mabey]

I've been away for a few days, so only just seen this.
Not particularly surprised that Tricia did 64x7 - for 6 small, I always first look to see if target is divisible by largest of available numbers