c4countdown

So, we're just 4 days away from Christmas, so how about some pre-party Christmas Countdown action

Today's the first semi-final, and having been in the audience for the previous shows, I can tell you that Thomas Carey had a massive smile on his face when he saw Matthew Tassier knock out John Hardie in the last quarter-final, but will he now live up to his #1 seed billing to reach Wednesday's final, or will Matthew upset the applecart again....

Statistics Corner:

Firstly, No.1 Seed Thomas "The Bingley Brainbox" Carey - 9 Wins, 1,047 Points. (Average: 116.33)
Highest Score: 124 vs. Matty Artell (Quarter-Final)
Lowest Score: 109 vs. Adam Curran (4th Game) and vs. Chris Selman (7th Game)
9's Achieved: 3/7
Total Points/Max/%: 1047/1161 (90%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 632/724 (87%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 325/357 (91%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 90/90 (100%)

Secondly, No.5 Seed Matthew "The Ealing Express" Tassier - 9 Wins, 921 Points. (Average: 102.33)
Highest Score: 122 vs. John Hardie (Quarter-Final)
Lowest Score: 75 vs. Jim Anderson (8th Game)
9's Achieved: 2/9
Total Points/Max/%: 921/1193 (77%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 577/753 (77%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 314/350 (90%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 30/90 (33%)

Sir Tim Rice finishes off in DC for the rest of week.

Join Andy for the recap later.

James Robinson wrote:having been in the audience for the previous shows, I can tell you that Thomas Carey had a massive smile on his face when he saw Matthew Tassier knock out John Hardie in the last quarter-final

Partially because I like Matthew more, partially because I really didn't want to play John.

You know you're being enthusiastic about a Countdown game when even Robbo was taking the piss out of you for it...

PROLATIVE in r5

Excellent game, chaps, very high standard. Many congrats on making the final, Matthew also well done Thomas on making the final four, I think you meant to add the three rather than minus it on the second numbers game, an excellent set of games by you throughout the series, well done.

Shame for Thomas the numbers were hard today. When I saw OUTBRAVES and Thomas didn't it suddenly got very exciting.
Well done to both for a cracking game.

Terrific game, very well played Matthew, hard luck Thomas, although I have to say, John Hardie would have been crucified on here if he had been guilty of the very dubious behaviour that went on in the second last letters game.

Steven M. McCann wrote:Terrific game, very well played Matthew, hard luck Thomas, although I have to say, John Hardie would have been crucified on here if he had been guilty of the very dubious behaviour that went on in the second last letters game.

Missed that. What happened?

Very exciting and high-standard contest, well done to both of you.

R8 MUDARINE;MADARINE

Great game by both players. Playing along at home I had 0 after 6 rounds.

But - if I had a silly made-up nine (which happens a lot to most people I imagine), and obviously didn't go for it, I wouldn't say I was sticking with an 8. Yes, I'm talking about overplait. I mean, that could never be a word!

What an amazing game to be in the audience for!! You couldn't have made it up, was such a display of brilliance, drama and pure emotion.

A big well done to Matthew for winning that semi-final, and a huge commiserations to Thomas, who lost in a very cruel way, as the conundrum had to be redone FOUR times, firstly because the clock didn't start the first time, then Matthew's buzzer failed on the 3 times when he tried to buzz in (he guessed incorrectly as well), so he just abandoned buzzing himself while it was being fixed between the semi-finals.

4th Numbers Alt.: (((4 x 10) + 6 + 5) x 9) + 2 = 461

Great game, both of you. One of the closest and hardest-fought games for a while. Commiserations to Tom in losing in that way, in a game which could easily have gone the other way on another day.

James Robinson wrote:A big well done to Matthew for winning that semi-final, and a huge commiserations to Thomas, who lost in a very cruel way, as the conundrum had to be redone FOUR times, firstly because the clock didn't start the first time, then Matthew's buzzer failed on the 3 times when he tried to buzz in (he guessed incorrectly as well), so he just abandoned buzzing himself while it was being fixed between the semi-finals.

This buzzer problem needs looking at. Having to put a contestant through losing the same crucial conundrum four times is one thing, but if the buzzers and/or clock aren't reliable, how long will it be before a contestant is beaten to the buzzer then claims they buzzed first but their buzzer didn't work? I wasn't at this recording - did Matthew's buzzer not have any effect at all, or did it do the thing I've seen on another occasion where the buzzer sounds and the nameplate lights up but the clock and music carry on as if nothing's happened? (It's not as bad if it's the latter.)

James Robinson wrote:A big well done to Matthew for winning that semi-final, and a huge commiserations to Thomas, who lost in a very cruel way, as the conundrum had to be redone FOUR times, firstly because the clock didn't start the first time, then Matthew's buzzer failed on the 3 times when he tried to buzz in (he guessed incorrectly as well), so he just abandoned buzzing himself while it was being fixed between the semi-finals.

So what actually happened? They used the same conundrum each time? And Matthew tried to buzz in for the later attempts as a scripted thing? What about Thomas? Was he then given all this time to solve the conundrum? Or did they use a different one each time?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Great game by both players. Playing along at home I had 0 after 6 rounds.

But - if I had a silly made-up nine (which happens a lot to most people I imagine), and obviously didn't go for it, I wouldn't say I was sticking with an 8. Yes, I'm talking about overplait. I mean, that could never be a word!

The problem is the dictionary's now full of silly made-up words (for example, outbraves), and at that stage in the match I'd definitely be tempted.

Thanks guys. I was really calm for this one, as it was the first game for which I felt it really wouldn't matter if I ended up losing.
Round 2 was a bit of a shocker. 10 mins before we went on in the green room Judy Bursford was telling us about a nice new word she'd found in a book she had recently been reading. Thomas checked it was Countdown-valid and then spelt it out to me E-T-A-G-E-R-E. Sure enough by round 2 I'd forgotten exactly how it went and merely had a feeling that "that word" was probably there. At that point I was thinking this might just be a case of damage-limitation.
For the conundrum, my buzzer sounded but the clock continued. The repeated conundrums were just re-filming with Tom buzzing in with increasing despair knowing he had to give the same wrong answer. I think at that point Tom did well to hold it together at all given his disappointment. I must say Tom was a gent in defeat and great company in the green room afterwards as I tried to recompose myself before the final.
I didn't think overplait was that silly. Essentially you can plait either by taking a strand over another or under another, and it made some sense to me at the time that this could be called overplaiting and underplaiting.
Thrilling game to be involved with. Though easy to say that as the eventual winner.

Yeah, that was a great game. Especially as it looked like it was going to be a breeze for Thomas after the first two rounds.

I just went back and watched Steven's dodgy round, and I assume he's on about Thomas taking a long time to declare after hearing Matthew's declaration of eight. I'm usually hot on stuff like that, so it's funny how it didn't register first time around with me. Is it because I wasn't previously suspicious of Thomas? Or did something else convince me that Thomas actually was just deciding between a 7 and an 8 himself - possibly his use of language (he says "I'll stick with a seven" - I think pretty much every other time somebody has obviously gone searching they are much more resigned when declaring lower (e.g. "no... I've just got a 7"). INTERESTING.

Massive upset though, Thomas was a huge favourite to win.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

James Robinson wrote:A big well done to Matthew for winning that semi-final, and a huge commiserations to Thomas, who lost in a very cruel way, as the conundrum had to be redone FOUR times, firstly because the clock didn't start the first time, then Matthew's buzzer failed on the 3 times when he tried to buzz in (he guessed incorrectly as well), so he just abandoned buzzing himself while it was being fixed between the semi-finals.

So what actually happened? They used the same conundrum each time? And Matthew tried to buzz in for the later attempts as a scripted thing? What about Thomas? Was he then given all this time to solve the conundrum? Or did they use a different one each time?

It was the same conundrum each time.

When it happened originally, Thomas buzzed in at about 5 seconds, guessed PANALLATE, but he didn't know that only the music was playing, and that the clock hadn't actually moved. The time carried on and Matthew buzzed after about 20 seconds or so with his guess, which was wrong.

So, they were told what happens and are just asked to do the same again. They both buzz in at the same time, both do their guesses, but as before Matthew's buzzer still doesn't work, then the same happens again, then they tell him just to not bother, while they tried to fix it.

So, it was even more agony for Thomas, as he was forced to redo saying PANALLATE each time, which must've just been awful...

Jon Corby wrote:I just went back and watched Steven's dodgy round, and I assume he's on about Thomas taking a long time to declare after hearing Matthew's declaration of eight. I'm usually hot on stuff like that, so it's funny how it didn't register first time around with me. Is it because I wasn't previously suspicious of Thomas? Or did something else convince me that Thomas actually was just deciding between a 7 and an 8 himself - possibly his use of language (he says "I'll stick with a seven" - I think pretty much every other time somebody has obviously gone searching they are much more resigned when declaring lower (e.g. "no... I've just got a 7"). INTERESTING.

It seems to be accepted that it is OK to hesitate while deciding between two words. Why?

David Williams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I just went back and watched Steven's dodgy round, and I assume he's on about Thomas taking a long time to declare after hearing Matthew's declaration of eight. I'm usually hot on stuff like that, so it's funny how it didn't register first time around with me. Is it because I wasn't previously suspicious of Thomas? Or did something else convince me that Thomas actually was just deciding between a 7 and an 8 himself - possibly his use of language (he says "I'll stick with a seven" - I think pretty much every other time somebody has obviously gone searching they are much more resigned when declaring lower (e.g. "no... I've just got a 7"). INTERESTING.

It seems to be accepted that it is OK to hesitate while deciding between two words. Why?

Yeah, you're right. I definitely think it's okay provided you're choosing between words that you've spotted before the time is up. (I'm pretty sure I did it when I was on, but generally I used it to emphasise that I wasn't sure so I wouldn't look daft if the word wasn't good, or even sometimes when I was sure but wanted to make it appear as if I wasn't so I wouldn't look like a dictionary-memorising nerd.) I'm not sure I can articulate why I think it's okay though - for me personally it's certainly more about a bit of 'presentation' than furiously working outside of the time. As long as you're not finding stuff out of time, I don't really see the problem. Some people have to count the letters in their word when they're asked, I don't mind them doing that work outside of the time. If such a person had to count two words first because they weren't sure which was longer, I'd be fine with that (as long as they found the words in the time).

But yeah, I'm not convinced by that argument really. But I do still think it's okay if you are just choosing between words that you've spotted in time. I can't articulate why though at this moment.

James Robinson wrote:What an amazing game to be in the audience for!!

As well as a fantastic game, I also enjoyed the incident at the start which didn't make the cut.

Nick was having his preamble with Rachel and was talking about books. Rachel had been explaining that she prefers to read short stories and then said something along the lines "I regularly like to knock a quick one out!" She then realized what she had said and collapsed in laughter leaving the audience in hysterics.

Jon Corby wrote:But yeah, I'm not convinced by that argument really. But I do still think it's okay if you are just choosing between words that you've spotted in time. I can't articulate why though at this moment.

You're seven points behind, so losing the round costs you a lot more than winning the round will profit you. All you've got is CRIMES and COMBERS (which you think is an unlikely agent noun). You are second to declare. As he declares six you spot MICROBES. Presumably you wouldn't declare an immediate confident eight? (You don't even have to say it's not written down.) Or do you pause for a think (you've already had 35 seconds to think about it)? The logical action is to match his word, but what if you suddenly remember that COMBERS are long rolling waves, and not dodgy at all. Can you use that information to influence your decision?

Yes, declaring the 8 is definitely not on. I think it's okay to consider (for a moment) what to declare though. I see a difference between that and actually finding words.

And do you go for COMBERS? After 30 seconds your thought would have been to match your opponent. It may not be a new word you've thought of since, but it's new information you've thought of that's persuaded you it's OK. What's the difference?

David Williams wrote:And do you go for COMBERS? After 30 seconds your thought would have been to match your opponent. It may not be a new word you've thought of since, but it's new information you've thought of that's persuaded you it's OK. What's the difference?

Yes, I would say it's okay to go for COMBERS. The difference is that you haven't found the word out of time. The strategy of choosing your declaration is built into the game. (If it wasn't, I would say your final word had to be written down and clearly indicated on your paper at the end of the 30 seconds.) That strategy is based upon weighing up the points versus the riskiness of the word, and when declaring second, your opponent's declaration. Since you can't know your opponent's declaration before they give it, you can't really second-guess what they are going to say and therefore how you are going to react. So that needs a little thought. And what else could that thought be other than assessing the risk vs benefit, part of which would be "how likely is this word to be in?"

Jon Corby wrote:Since you can't know your opponent's declaration before they give it, you can't really second-guess what they are going to say and therefore how you are going to react. So that needs a little thought.

Even if you only thought of both your words at the very end of the thirty seconds, you've had a few more seconds to think hypothetically about it while Nick is asking him and he's declaring, and a second or two after he's declared and Nick is asking you. That should be enough. There's certainly nothing in the rules that says you can have a little think after your time's up.

David Williams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Since you can't know your opponent's declaration before they give it, you can't really second-guess what they are going to say and therefore how you are going to react. So that needs a little thought.

Even if you only thought of both your words at the very end of the thirty seconds, you've had a few more seconds to think hypothetically about it while Nick is asking him and he's declaring, and a second or two after he's declared and Nick is asking you. That should be enough. There's certainly nothing in the rules that says you can have a little think after your time's up.

Yes, I don't mind people having a little think about their declaration after the time's up, even the player being asked first. I mind them finding new words, ESPECIALLY ones based on their opponent's declaration.

Well at least we all now know that if we want to cheat on TV, we just have to look conflicted, rather than like we're still looking, and then Corby won't go on a rant.

Zarte Siempre wrote:Well at least we all now know that if we want to cheat on TV, we just have to look conflicted, rather than like we're still looking, and then Corby won't go on a rant.

Well, Thomas is here so he can clear this up. What were you doing? Searching for an eight, or weighing up whether to risk one you already had? (I was wondering about cosignee myself)

Hah, I should point out, I wasn't accusing Thomas of anything. I was more offering a general route to avoid your bitching

Zarte Siempre wrote:Hah, I should point out, I wasn't accusing Thomas of anything. I was more offering a general route to avoid your bitching

You were obviously doubting Thomas.

Jon Corby wrote:

Zarte Siempre wrote:Hah, I should point out, I wasn't accusing Thomas of anything. I was more offering a general route to avoid your bitching

You were obviously doubting Thomas.

Wahey!

Ok, to clear it up, I had COOEEING written down but wasn't sure and only had six otherwise, then spotted SOIGNEE right at the end and was writing it as the clock ran out. I was just deciding which to go for, and decided that even though Matthew had declared 8 that mine was too risky. Silly really.

Anyway, what a game. Obviously it was a massive upset, and we both came into the game expecting me to win it. Being 15-0 up after 2 rounds was great (Matthew has already told the ETAGERE story, thanks Judy), and apparently Usman in the audience said 'He's won already'. It was just my numbers that let me down. I spent pretty much all of September and October using almost all my free time on apterous or using a word list cramming program I built (might release it on here soon because that's the main reason I improved so fast). However, I did so much work on letters (new words included, credit to Jen, Giles, Callum and Ray for them) and because of this my numbers went to shit. I was quite unlucky with what CECIL generated, and obviously Matthew is a fantastic numberist (despite only maxing 2/4 numbers that game) but I shouldn't have cocked up any of the numbers rounds that I did. And that was what let me down.

PANATELLA I might have got if I'd had about 5 minutes but I obviously didn't bother and during all the retakes it was Matthew who spotted it. As for the outbraves round, I saw SABOTEUR quickly and thought 'ok, he definitely won't get that'. I actually spent most of the time looking for 8s that Matthew might get and couldn't find any, which made me think I was going to be 16 ahead. Didn't even consider a nine being there. Even when he declared 9 I thought he was just risking some bollocks. I'd never heard of outbraves, might have seen it if I was looking for a 9 but probably wouldn't have risked it in my position. Didn't know PROLATIVE either fwiw, we both chickened overplait.

What a game. Not gonna lie, I'm disappointed that after doing so much, becoming the favourite, almost winning cohud, getting up to 2158 rating and 5th pro ranks and most importantly wasting a solid 3+ months (or 5 years if dicking around on apterous counts) practicing; that I didn't even get to the final let alone win the sodding thing. But Matthew is a great guy, massive congratulations to him. I feel a bit bad for distracting him in the green room afterwards because it meant he wasn't concentrating when REQUIEM came up. And Matthew had the only finals game performance that beat me playing along (against John), so he's definitely better than he seems. Great person too, in fact all the finalists were decent people (I didn't talk to Stephen or John much tbf). Sorry I didn't make it a Carey-Wynn final ('I don't Carey who Wynns' - Jack Worsley) but, as they say, shit happens.

Thanks everyone for your support. This is a fucking amazing community and I'm so glad to be a part (even though I joined being an annoying immature 12-year-old shit).

Now to find something else to do.