Spoilers for Thursday 19th June

[Michael Wallace]

Will today's semi-final be as nail-bitingly pants-wettingly exciting as yesterday?

Let's hope so.

[Matt Coates]

Round 6: WONDERER

[Michael Wallace]

Round 6: WONDERER

I was just about to ask about that one - it sounds all wrong though, like BANTERER or BARTERER.

[Dan Vanniasingham]

AERATED? I thought that round would have plenty of 7's but couldn't see any (others).

Hmm, I think I got the letters wrong come to think of it...

[Michael Wallace]

I'm surprised they both missed HEAVE when it came up yesterday in a similarly awful roung.

[Craig Beevers]

8*5 - (9-7) = 38
38 * 7 = 266
266 + 1 = 267

[Matt Coates]

(7X9)=63-7-1=55
55X5=275
275-8 = 267

[Matt Coates]

Round 12: RENAMES and SEAMERS

[Joseph Bolas]

AMASSER too I think.

[Michael Wallace]

wow, awesome conundrum spot, there

[Martin Gardner]

I got AERATED as my only 7 but went for WONDER in the ENDOWER/WONDERER round. A great game today not as close, thanks to the nine. I just have one question, I think Peter did say 6 - 3 = 2 so perhaps he shouldn't have got the ten points there. Did anyone else hear the same thing I did? Oh and finally, 6/6 for my predictions with just one to go, which is DOD to win tomorrow although that certainly looks in doubt now. But I'll stick with David, but Richard winning wouldn't suprise me either.

Martin

[Malcolm James]

Was I the only one to mis-hear Peter, or did he really say 6 - 3 = 2, as Carol wrote? Doubtless that was a slip of the tongue, but technically it was a mis-declaration, if I heard him correctly. Also Richard was very generous to correct Carol for the error, but by then he could afford to be generous and the production team could afford to overlook any possible mis-declaration. What would have happened if the game had beenn tight?

[Malcolm James]

To answer my own question, I presume Peter had it written down correctly anyway, so it would have been OK.

[Joe Denniss]

Very good game again today.

I thought I was on to something with ALTERIOR, but I obviously don't know my English well enough.

Anyone else notice Richard's cheeky wink during the round he spotted the nine?

[Richard Priest]

Was I the only one to mis-hear Peter, or did he really say 6 - 3 = 2, as Carol wrote? Doubtless that was a slip of the tongue, but technically it was a mis-declaration, if I heard him correctly. Also Richard was very generous to correct Carol for the error, but by then he could afford to be generous and the production team could afford to overlook any possible mis-declaration. What would have happened if the game had beenn tight?

I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to stop Peter getting the points. I apologise if that's the way it seemed to him or anyone else. I didn't quite catch what he said to Carol but I thought maybe she had written it on the board wrong because she made a couple of mistakes in the David v Jonathan semi which ended up on the cutting room floor so I thought she was perhaps having an off day. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut but if I hadn't flagged it up somebody else would have.

[Richard Priest]

Very good game again today.

I thought I was on to something with ALTERIOR, but I obviously don't know my English well enough.

Anyone else notice Richard's cheeky wink during the round he spotted the nine?

I was winking at one of my mates in the audience. I knew if I remained unbeaten on that round I was home and dry and having spotted the 9 I definitely was, so I thought it would be nice to let them know something special was coming up. A bit naughty but put it down to euphoria.

[Richard Priest]

To answer my own question, I presume Peter had it written down correctly anyway, so it would have been OK.

Not sure about that one actually, Malcolm. I watched Neil Sneddon v Tony Gilgun the day before my games and on one round Neil offered STUPID, after which Tony mistakenly declared STUPID too when he had meant to say DISPUTE. It was simple human error and he did have DISPUTE written down but after much debate it was decreed that Tony had to stick with STUPID and didn't get the points because he'd declared 7 not 6.

[Matthew Green]

Well done Richard, solid performances all series.

Oh and, ((7x7) +1) x 5 = 250. +8 +9.

[Julian Fell]

Well done Richard, great performance. And it looked like the game was played in a good atmosphere - I liked Richard's and Peter's Henman-esque fist pumps towards the end there! Re the correcting-Carol thing, I did something similar in one of my games Richard, because I thought the same as you, that if I didn't do it, somebody else (maybe the viewers!) would have to... but similarly it might have appeared a bit arrogant, so I know what you mean.

About the misdeclaration thing, I'd hope if the round had been crucial, they'd've checked whether Peter had written it down right, and given him the points if he had. It's a bit different from the example where a contestant has a seven written down but declares six - it's well established that you can't have the points in that instance; it's tough, but them's the rules.

I missed WONDERER and the second numbers game... been having a bit of a mare on the numbers this week and last to be honest...

[Malcolm James]

They generally seem to give more leeway on the numbers than the letters when it comes to declaration errors, so if Peter's solution had been correctly written down, he may well have got the points.

Malcolm

[Howard Somerset]

Catching up with games I missed while I was away, and as this one was on at 5am this morning, this is the first I've managed to see.

Very enjoyable game. Well done to both, with Rich getting his deserved place in the final.

Peter is clearly a player I fit well with, as up to now I think he's the only contestant I've ever beaten more than twice when playing from home. Didn't beat him this time, but did tie with him. And I think I could claim moral victory, due to the round 14 declaration. I'm sure that fact that the game was already decided was the reason that nothing further was said on this round.

Pleased to beat Carol in round 10, coming up with the same solution as Craig posted.

Had hoped in vain for WOODENER, and was sorry that MINGES was beaten by a few sevens.

Bit annoyed I didn't see the conundrum solution, as that was the solution to the conundrum in one of the games I hosted at the first COLIN I attended. I'd picked a different scrambled selection, though.

Now looking forward to watching repeat of final tonight, before catching the rest of the games I missed, on 4oD.