c4countdown

Countdown recap for Friday 21 January 2000.

C1: Champion John Snedden (1 win, 48 points.)
C2: Challenger Amey Deshpande.
DC: Susie Dent and Joan Bakewell.
CV: Carol Vorderman.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: G R T A I U G O V
R02: L X E I M E G P U
R03: S T Z M O E A S H
R04: 75, 6, 2, 8, 2, 7. Target: 591.
R05: T O G R I Y L E A
R06: S F D E U E T L R
R07: T L R O A N S I E
R08: 75, 3, 1, 4, 10, 7. Target: 143.
R09: G N A T E F F I C (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: G R T A I U G O V

C1: RAGOUT (6)
C2: GRIT (4)
OT: AGOUTI (6) GIAOUR (6) GUITAR (6) VIGOUR (6) VIRAGO (6)
Score: 6–0 (max 6)

Round 2: L X E I M E G P U

C1: EXILE (5)
C2: PLUME (5)
DC: MEGILP (6)
OT: GUIMPE (6) LEGUME (6)
Score: 11–5 (max 12)

Round 3: S T Z M O E A S H

C1: STEAMS (6)
C2: MASHES (6)
OT: MATZOHS (7)
Score: 17–11 (max 19)

Round 4: 75, 6, 2, 8, 2, 7. Target: 591.

C1: 591. (75 x 8) - (7 + 2) (10)
C2: 591. (75 x 8) - (7 + 2) (10)
Score: 27–21 (max 29)

Round 5: T O G R I Y L E A

C1: GREATLY (7)
C2: GREATLY (7)
DC: TRILOGY (7) REGALITY (8)
Score: 34–28 (max 37)

Round 6: S F D E U E T L R

C1: FLUSTERED (18)
C2: DUSTER (6)
Score: 52–28 (max 55)

Round 7: T L R O A N S I E

C1: RELATIONS (18)
C2: LATRINES (8)
DC: ORIENTALS (18)
OT: TENSORIAL (18)
Score: 70–28 (max 73)

Round 8: 75, 3, 1, 4, 10, 7. Target: 143.

C1: 143. 75 x (3 - 1) - 7 (10)
C2: 143. 75 x (3 - 1) - 7 (10)
Score: 80–38 (max 83)

Round 9: G N A T E F F I C

C2 buzzes on 6 seconds to say EFFACTING which is incorrect.
C1 does not buzz.
The answer was AFFECTING.
Score: 80–38 (max 93)
Nearly highest score ever

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=42

Robert Baxter wrote:Round 9: G N A T E F F I C

C2 buzzes on 6 seconds to say EFFACTING which is incorrect.
C1 does not buzz.
The answer was AFFECTING.
Score: 80–38 (max 93)
Nearly highest score ever

A rather remarkable error by Amey, IMHO - good sportsmanship from John in choosing not to profit from it, regardless whether or not he had any idea at the time that 90 points would have broken the 9-round record.

Grumble Amey grumble grumble.

Arthur Bennett wrote:

Robert Baxter wrote:Round 9: G N A T E F F I C

C2 buzzes on 6 seconds to say EFFACTING which is incorrect.
C1 does not buzz.
The answer was AFFECTING.
Score: 80–38 (max 93)
Nearly highest score ever

A rather remarkable error by Amey, IMHO - good sportsmanship from John in choosing not to profit from it, regardless whether or not he had any idea at the time that 90 points would have broken the 9-round record.

Good sportsmanship? Unforgiveable waste of a record chance more like.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Good sportsmanship? Unforgiveable waste of a record chance more like.

Ah, but to take this chance after your 10-year-old opponent manages to get the E and the A the wrong way round?

Would have left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth, IMHO...

Arthur Bennett wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Good sportsmanship? Unforgiveable waste of a record chance more like.

Ah, but to take this chance after your 10-year-old opponent manages to get the E and the A the wrong way round?

Would have left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth, IMHO...

Don't see why. He's not stealing anything from his opponent since he's out of the round. And he probably would hsve got it anyway so to deny yourself the record in that way is mental.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Don't see why. He's not stealing anything from his opponent since he's out of the round. And he probably would hsve got it anyway so to deny yourself the record in that way is mental.

What I was trying to say there is that it wouldn't be absolutely satisfying to see the record go after your opponent, who's still in primary school, manages to get such an easy conundrum wrong (and pretty much gives you the answer in the process, regardless whether or not you already know it).

If John had been up against an adult or a teenager, then the taste of him claiming the record would have been less sour. It would only have been perfectly sweet, though, if he had buzzed first, or if his opponent - regardless of age - had buzzed but failed to come up with an answer of any sort.

That's just my POV, anyway. Feel free to disagree with it.

I'd quite like to know Mike Brown's take on this, though.

Arthur Bennett wrote:That's just my POV, anyway. Feel free to disagree with it.

I'd quite like to know Mike Brown's take on this, though.

Tricky one, I think. I'm inclined to agree with you, Arthur, and I guess that's the reason why John didn't buzz. Having said that, as Gev said, if he did see it, it was a bit of a wasted opportunity. I'm sure at the time I was disappointed that John didn't break the record, but it wouldn't have been the nicest of ways to have achieved it.

Or perhaps John misheard Amey's answer as AFFECTING and thought that was wrong?

I remember watching this. As I recall it, Richard Whiteley's reaction to Amey's effort made it (to me anyway) blindingly obvious that it was close. He may even have asked him to repeat what he said. That was followed by 24 seconds of mounting disbelief, as John certainly gave the impression of someone trying very hard to get the answer and failing.

The only time I might ever feel any "guilt" is if the correct answer was inadvertently given away at the time of the incorrect response and I thought that I probably wouldn't have got it otherwise. Unless both parts of this apply, I think you're just trying (and failing badly) to be some sort of moral hero by not answering. Even then if someone guesses something that's close which gives it away, I'd see it as tough shit. It's only really a problem if the presenter's reaction gives it away. Bob Holness used to do this all the time on Blockbusters, apparently oblivious to how he was ruining the question.

Mike Brown wrote:Tricky one, I think. I'm inclined to agree with you, Arthur, and I guess that's the reason why John didn't buzz. Having said that, as Gev said, if he did see it, it was a bit of a wasted opportunity. I'm sure at the time I was disappointed that John didn't break the record, but it wouldn't have been the nicest of ways to have achieved it.

Cheers Mike.

David Williams wrote:I remember watching this. As I recall it, Richard Whiteley's reaction to Amey's effort made it (to me anyway) blindingly obvious that it was close. He may even have asked him to repeat what he said. That was followed by 24 seconds of mounting disbelief, as John certainly gave the impression of someone trying very hard to get the answer and failing.

Thanks for that bit of additional info, David.

TBH, I'd be extremely surprised if it turned out that John didn't see AFFECTING at any stage in the 40 seconds or thereabouts (including the time between Amey buzzing and Richard restarting the clock).

But I guess the only way to know for sure why he didn't buzz is for the man himself to give his side of the story...