c4countdown

Game VII for Ann, can she set herself up for a chance at octochampdom?

A few beaters about today, but not got by me sadly.

Alt last nos 3x75+7x10-7

Second nos but well out of time: ((100-9)x8)/(10-8) = 364

Another classy performance by Ann. NEONATE was very impressive given the difficult selection. Best of luck tomorrow and in the finals!

Ann definitely got the short end of the stick by being asked to spell OCELOT. Similar situations also happened with Gerry Tynan in the Series 72 finals (VERBATIM) and one of Conrad's opponents (FLUORIDE). I don't think spelling checks should be permitted in any case if DC knows that the correct spelling is in the selection, because there's no fair way of deciding (or even knowing) when to do them and when not to.

Johnny Canuck wrote:Ann definitely got the short end of the stick by being asked to spell OCELOT. Similar situations also happened with Gerry Tynan in the Series 72 finals (VERBATIM) and one of Conrad's opponents (FLUORIDE). I don't think spelling checks should be permitted in any case if DC knows that the correct spelling is in the selection, because there's no fair way of deciding (or even knowing) when to do them and when not to.

I disagree. That kind of rule opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. What if both C1 and C2 offer PIRANHA, and when C1 shows C2 their paper, C2 discovers that C1 has spelt it PIRAHNA? You might then disallow C1's word, but what if C2 had PIRHANA? If C2 offered their word first, would anyone ever know? Would you end up giving points to C2 and not C1?

Susie should ask the contestant to spell their word if in her opinion there's any doubt over whether they've got it right, and I think this is exactly the policy they have. On this occasion it was Ann's pronunciation of "ocelet" that tipped her off. Ann didn't get the short end of the stick at all, she offered an invalid word and Susie correctly disallowed it.

Remember that if a contestant is asked to spell their word and they get it right, that bit sometimes doesn't make it to air, so spellings are queried more often than you'd think by watching the programme.

What Graeme said. However harsh it sounds, it's fair.

Graeme Cole wrote:On this occasion it was Ann's pronunciation of "ocelet" that tipped her off. Ann didn't get the short end of the stick at all, she offered an invalid word and Susie correctly disallowed it.

And this. It was spelt and pronounced differently. So it was just simply a different word - and one that wasn't in.

Tony Atkins wrote:Second nos but well out of time: ((100-9)x8)/(10-8) = 364

I got that in the time. Surprised Rachel didn't!

Ann doesn't have an account on here, but she's asked me to say that she also agrees that Susie was right to ask her to spell the word. Also, and I hadn't realised this, Ann added "I don't think I've spelt it right" (not shown on TV) which prompted Susie to check it.

Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that spelling checks could be cut if the spelling came back correct, but of course those cuts would be logical given that they will never affect the outcome of the game. In certain cases -- such as the PIRANHA example, in which many of the potential misspellings are identically-pronounced anagrams -- I still probably wouldn't do automatic checks if I were the lexicographer, but I admit that a spelling check does have validity if the person is audibly pronouncing the word differently, which I didn't notice clearly when I was watching Ann (mainly because I was notating the wiki recap at the time). Anyway, glad she is fine with the decision that was made.

Graeme Cole wrote:Susie should ask the contestant to spell their word if in her opinion there's any doubt over whether they've got it right, and I think this is exactly the policy they have.

When you put it like that it sounds quite unsatisfactory because it's entirely down to Susie's subjective opinion of whether a particular word is liable to be misspelt. Maybe it would sound a bit insulting if players were asked to spell a word like FRIEND, but many people do get it wrong. It seems a bit odd that checking of spelling is sometimes thought unimportant enough to be omitted from the broadcast programme, since if Susie felt there could be a doubt isn't likely that viewers are going to think the same and will be left feeling that Susie hasn't done her job?

I'm inclined to think that the default position should be that spelling is checked. Nothing will ever change, of course, but one way to tighten up without disturbing the flow would be to insist that NWD contributions are always spelt, and to check papers during the breaks. That might also discourage some of the sharp practices which cause such lively debate here from time to time.

Of WORSER, "According to the rules of Countdown, we'd allow it, because WORSE is a single syllable."

So the rules now say you can put the -ER on any single-syllable word? And so a lot of these agent nouns that have been rejected in the past are now valid?

Even if she meant only single-syllable adjectives, I would have thought it would be only base-form adjectives. What next - Susie tells us WENTS, WENTING and WENTED are all valid words?

This also isn't the first time I've heard "taxi" explained as short for "taximeter cab", leaving the listener wondering where on earth "taximeter" comes from if not from "taxi". (That said, I have looked it up before - apparently it means "charge meter" and is related to "tax".)