You Are The Ref

[JackHurst]

I think if a conundrum gets voided for any reason, it should generally be completely redone.

What do you mean by voided?

Here's a scenario for you. I think if it came up at an event most hosts would be inclined to say "redo" because it's perceived as the fairest thing to do, but imo that can sometimes be too lenient.

Scenario:
Bristol Style
P1 Buzzes very quickly. But they continue looking at the screen for a couple of seconds before they write something down
P2 Also solves it. Buzz was after P1.

In my opinion P1 should be timed out and P2 gets the 10 points. As soon as you buzz you gotta start writing. If you are still looking at the screen for a couple of seconds what could you possibly be doing that's not cheating? If you buzz you already should have an answer that you have to stick to.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think if a conundrum gets voided for any reason, it should generally be completely redone.

What do you mean by voided?

Here's a scenario for you. I think if it came up at an event most hosts would be inclined to say "redo" because it's perceived as the fairest thing to do, but imo that can sometimes be too lenient.

Scenario:
Bristol Style
P1 Buzzes very quickly. But they continue looking at the screen for a couple of seconds before they write something down
P2 Also solves it. Buzz was after P1.

In my opinion P1 should be timed out and P2 gets the 10 points. As soon as you buzz you gotta start writing. If you are still looking at the screen for a couple of seconds what could you possibly be doing that's not cheating? If you buzz you already should have an answer that you have to stick to.

If it has to be redone because something happened not caused by the players I could count that as voided in a neutral sense.

This example here isn't really a voided scenario - just a general judgement question on how long is too long and whether you should count someone out.

If you ask someone for their not-written-down numbers solution, and they delay a bit, you make a judgement call on whether it was too long. Allow or not allow. Voiding the round and playing it again wouldn't be a consideration. I think the same applies here.

The slightly more edge case would be in Edinburgh/Lincoln when they buzz, then pause and say the answer out loud just as you're timing them out.

But your example that started this was a proper void and a redo round job I would say.

[JackHurst]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

[Fiona T]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

5) Tell the host that as you are in a group chat with Player A where conundrums are often shared, you're not impartial and ask them to ask someone else

[Martin Hurst]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

5) Tell them to go with X, then head down the bookies.

I imagine most would instinctively say option 1, which I think most involved would expect to happen.

[Matt Rutherford]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

Rugby this year, was picking final conundrums, asked for help. Wasn't quite the same as 'they saw it in a group chat', but people who I asked said 'player X will insta-buzz, player Y will know that.' From a host's view, knowing it would be better-option 1,3 or 5. On the other hand, for whilst Player A may have seen in a group chat, Player B could have had it in his flashcards or his ascension run the day before. No clear way to deal with it, but it happens.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think this shows the problem with hand-picked conundrums and inevitable bias. I don't think "stalking" a player is the best way of going about it. I think if a conundrum is being hand-picked, it should be done without any reference to the players involved. If someone happens to have seen a conundrum in the last few days, then good luck to them. I think 5 (Fiona's) is a good option.

[Callum Todd]

I think 2) is fine here. most conundrum skill, especially at high level, is about recalling previously seen/practised conundrums. How/where/when the player last saw the conundrum is entirely irrelevant (unless obviously something dodgy like a list of tournament Conundrums to be used had been left lying around and they saw it there). Often conundrums will come down to whoever had the best luck of seeing that particular conundrum most recently anyway.

If anything, I consider that controlling against the good luck of one player (who saw that conundrum recently) is more unfair and manipulative than saying nothing, as you're only controlling for their conundrum practise and not their opponent's.

So just pick a good conundrum. If one of the players saw/practised it recently, that's a legitimate way for them to win.

[Gavin Chipper]

The problem with 2 is that your view of it as a conundrum might be biased by previously seeing it as a conundrum that player A got. So 4 or Fiona's 5 is better.

[Philip A]

The final conundrum should be set before knowing who the finalists are going to be, no? And yeah, just say nothing, otherwise you’ll influence the player(s) pre-conundrum and that wouldn’t be fair. It’s like telling someone on Millionaire that we have no history questions for you because you recently did a history degree.

[Adam S Latchford]

The final conundrum should be set before knowing who the finalists are going to be, no? And yeah, just say nothing, otherwise you’ll influence the player(s) pre-conundrum and that wouldn’t be fair. It’s like telling someone on Millionaire that we have no history questions for you because you recently did a history degree.

Sure, things should be done, but hosts will often ask people for help.
Its quite hard tailoring a good con (solveable but not insta solved) when we're talking about the calibre of opponents, and some hosts have got it violently wrong (either never ever solvable or the equivalent of squeezing) so asking is common. Can hardly ask before hand as you don't know who's in the final

[David Harrison]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

I would do 3 and then recuse myself.

[James Laverty]

Maybe not a You Are the Ref, but an event I’m helping oversee atm could be done very similarly in this manner.

Contestant A appears on the show, winning their first two games, but losing the third on a crucial conundrum. Shortly after the last game, it is found their opponent, Contestant B had a word wrongly allowed. Having already started a show with Contestant B as the new champion, it is decided to carry on, and Contestant A is invited back on the next series.

This time Contestant A wins 4 games, before losing again. His 4 wins leaves him just outside a finals place, however if you include his two wins from the previous series, he would be in the finals. Do you include add the previous points total to his existing score, or is it tough luck and this series only?

[Ben Wilson]

Maybe not a You Are the Ref, but an event I’m helping oversee atm could be done very similarly in this manner.

Contestant A appears on the show, winning their first two games, but losing the third on a crucial conundrum. Shortly after the last game, it is found their opponent, Contestant B had a word wrongly allowed. Having already started a show with Contestant B as the new champion, it is decided to carry on, and Contestant A is invited back on the next series.

This time Contestant A wins 4 games, before losing again. His 4 wins leaves him just outside a finals place, however if you include his two wins from the previous series, he would be in the finals. Do you include add the previous points total to his existing score, or is it tough luck and this series only?

https://wiki.apterous.org/Chris_Williams season 31 says no, but https://wiki.apterous.org/Helen_Wrigglesworth season 42 says yes.

https://wiki.apterous.org/Returning_con ... ive_errors

No one from the Eadie era has won enough games in either appearance for this to be an issue yet.

[Thomas Cappleman]

Ben beat me to the specific examples. (Related, Martin May had 2 games in one series, withdrew for personal reasons, then carried on with that count next series)

Was surprised with Helen's case to see that they specifically overturned the dodgy result and included it in her count, rather than just writing it off entirely

[Gavin Chipper]

Having looked at the wiki, Chris Williams lost because he had two words disallowed that were added to the next dictionary, so it wasn't a mistake. In that case you definitely wouldn't include his old games anyway.

[Fiona T]

It possibly doesn't matter as long as it's clear before you start the second go - otherwise if they won 4 in the first appearance, then 5 in the second, you couldn't decide after to only count 8 games.

[Gavin Chipper]

Letters round, selection is MNTSWAOIE.

You are declaring second and know there is a 9. Unsure what it is, you write down a few random ones.
WAMNIOTES
MAWSONITE
AWMNIOTES

Player 1 declares a 9, you also declare a 9. Wait for them to declare MAWSONITE.

You then say 'Yep, same word' and point to the correct one. Is that ok?

There was a lot of discussion about this, but you can take this sort of thing further.

I sometimes write down things like 'MAUVE(S)?' for dodgy plurals

Let's say the selection is RDINGIAOS. C2 wonders about RIDING, RADING and RODING and also wonders about putting an S on the end. But instead of writing them all out, He puts R(A)DING(S) and then writes the I and the O underneath the A in the same long bracket. C1 declares 7, so C2 does as well. C2 then copies C1's RIDINGS.

How far can you take this? What if someone writes all nine letters in 9 columns and puts long brackets around each column?

[Philip A]

Sorry if we’ve had this before but:

Both players score 6 points for FEISTY and is accepted without asking for spelling. However, after the game has finished someone takes both players’ notepads and notices than one has misspelled it ‘fiesty’, which would otherwise have swung the outcome of the match, let alone the round, the other way. What then?

Other examples would include American spellings such as ‘diopter’ and ‘centers’.

[Conor]

Letters round, selection is MNTSWAOIE.

You are declaring second and know there is a 9. Unsure what it is, you write down a few random ones.
WAMNIOTES
MAWSONITE
AWMNIOTES

Player 1 declares a 9, you also declare a 9. Wait for them to declare MAWSONITE.

You then say 'Yep, same word' and point to the correct one. Is that ok?

There was a lot of discussion about this, but you can take this sort of thing further.

I sometimes write down things like 'MAUVE(S)?' for dodgy plurals

Let's say the selection is RDINGIAOS. C2 wonders about RIDING, RADING and RODING and also wonders about putting an S on the end. But instead of writing them all out, He puts R(A)DING(S) and then writes the I and the O underneath the A in the same long bracket. C1 declares 7, so C2 does as well. C2 then copies C1's RIDINGS.

How far can you take this? What if someone writes all nine letters in 9 columns and puts long brackets around each column?

I know this isn't generally taken to be the rule, but I think it should be that only 1 word of each length can be designated on your notepad. Countdown is already a game of such tight margins that we shouldn't be additionally rewarding defensive chicken play.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sorry if we’ve had this before but:

Both players score 6 points for FEISTY and is accepted without asking for spelling. However, after the game has finished someone takes both players’ notepads and notices than one has misspelled it ‘fiesty’, which would otherwise have swung the outcome of the match, let alone the round, the other way. What then?

Other examples would include American spellings such as ‘diopter’ and ‘centers’.

Well this is more about how far back in time you can go rather than the specific nature of the error (wrong spelling, US spelling etc.) I think this has been discussed. I might check later when I'm at home on my laptop.

[Fiona T]

Sorry if we’ve had this before but:

Both players score 6 points for FEISTY and is accepted without asking for spelling. However, after the game has finished someone takes both players’ notepads and notices than one has misspelled it ‘fiesty’, which would otherwise have swung the outcome of the match, let alone the round, the other way. What then?

Other examples would include American spellings such as ‘diopter’ and ‘centers’.

Well this is more about how far back in time you can go rather than the specific nature of the error (wrong spelling, US spelling etc.) I think this has been discussed. I might check later when I'm at home on my laptop.

IMO if the spelling isn't checked at the time, i.e. at the end of the round, then tough titties, the points stand. Part of the round scoring is checking each other's notepads (or asking them to spell it if NWD and you think they might get it wrong)

[Gavin Chipper]

There was a lot of discussion about this, but you can take this sort of thing further.

I sometimes write down things like 'MAUVE(S)?' for dodgy plurals

Let's say the selection is RDINGIAOS. C2 wonders about RIDING, RADING and RODING and also wonders about putting an S on the end. But instead of writing them all out, He puts R(A)DING(S) and then writes the I and the O underneath the A in the same long bracket. C1 declares 7, so C2 does as well. C2 then copies C1's RIDINGS.

How far can you take this? What if someone writes all nine letters in 9 columns and puts long brackets around each column?

I know this isn't generally taken to be the rule, but I think it should be that only 1 word of each length can be designated on your notepad. Countdown is already a game of such tight margins that we shouldn't be additionally rewarding defensive chicken play.

It would make what you write on your paper a bit more complicated (you'd potentially have to mark or cross out several words). But as said before, the main thing would be to swap the declaration order for words of the same length. It doesn't completely solve everything but it's better than what happens now.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sorry if we’ve had this before but:

Both players score 6 points for FEISTY and is accepted without asking for spelling. However, after the game has finished someone takes both players’ notepads and notices than one has misspelled it ‘fiesty’, which would otherwise have swung the outcome of the match, let alone the round, the other way. What then?

Other examples would include American spellings such as ‘diopter’ and ‘centers’.

Well this is more about how far back in time you can go rather than the specific nature of the error (wrong spelling, US spelling etc.) I think this has been discussed. I might check later when I'm at home on my laptop.

IMO if the spelling isn't checked at the time, i.e. at the end of the round, then tough titties, the points stand. Part of the round scoring is checking each other's notepads (or asking them to spell it if NWD and you think they might get it wrong)

This has also come up before, but I think it's too much of a burden on contestants to have to check each other's paper. It would be socially awkward to be seen scrutinising what's there, and with a numbers game where essentially the same solution might be written in a different way it might take a bit of time to process it, so a lot of people under the pressure would just accept it.

[Fiona T]

So Philip's question is what happens when you've accepted (or not checked) diopter and someone later notices?

Really at co-events there's no excuse. Lincoln has a host who should be checking declarations (and often diligently recording them on the scoresheet) and Bristol now mostly displays the words on the screen so a player should notice they've spelled it wrong and hopefully be honest enough to own up!

[Gavin Chipper]

For those that think it's fine, when declaring your word second, to have written down 10-15 plausible words and then just point to the one your opponent says... would you prefer if apterous was coded in this way, instead of the perfectly logical way it's coded now?

It would be stone cold mental to prefer that. But if it's not explicitly stated as not allowed in the rules, I think players can do it. Personally I think if a really outlandish situation with 10-15 plausible words happened there might be a ruling against it. And I'd prefer it that you have to mark which word written down of a certain length you're going to declare.

I see there has been no change to Conor's opinion then!

[Gavin Chipper]

So Philip's question is what happens when you've accepted (or not checked) diopter and someone later notices?

Really at co-events there's no excuse. Lincoln has a host who should be checking declarations (and often diligently recording them on the scoresheet) and Bristol now mostly displays the words on the screen so a player should notice they've spelled it wrong and hopefully be honest enough to own up!

4. C2 is 15 points behind going into the last numbers round. He asks for 6 small in the hope of getting a difficult round on which he can beat C1. The round is difficult, but C1 gets it spot on and C2 doesn't. C2 is now 25 behind. Then, just before you go into the conundrum, DC informs you that a mistake has been discovered in an earlier round in which C1 offered an eight and C2 offered a nine. C2's nine was disallowed, but on closer inspection of the dictionary the word has been found to be acceptable. The scores are corrected: C1 has 8 points taken away, and C2 is given 18 points. C2 is now one point ahead. C2 now complains that had he known he was 11 ahead going into the last numbers, he would have picked 1 large, not 6 small, and claims the numbers round should be replayed. C1, who is now behind going into a conundrum when he thought he was unassailably ahead, says C2 is pushing his luck. What do you do?

Number 4 in Graeme's original question set generated quite a bit of discussion about discovering errors later in the game. Maybe at CO-events it's different from on the show because individual players have more power to question words and decisions. But it's complex anyway. People might play differently based on the score (risking or not risking, also their numbers picks), and I think there's no easy answer that covers all cases.