Spoilers for Thursday 14th May - Jimmy Gough Mania

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:04 pm

Jimmy Gough is back in the topic title by popular demand.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:32 pm

I wanna gough around the clock tonight, I wanna gough gough gough, around the (Countdown) clock

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:37 pm

That old lady was ace. Her mate was sat next to me in the audience and a phone started going off in her bag, and loads of people were looking at me, but it turned out the phone was the challenger's. And she was talking about penises before filming began.

Chris Davies · Post by **Chris Davies** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:37 pm

MONILIA for round 4.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu May 14, 2009 2:56 pm

ISOLATES in r8

James Doohan · Post by **James Doohan** » Thu May 14, 2009 3:10 pm

GEISHA R11

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu May 14, 2009 3:15 pm

Interesting that Jimy Gough chooses not to support the tennis player that looks exactly like him.

Also BAIZES - I would have thought that that would have been acceptable. And I don't think in the past Susie has simply allowed/disallowed words listed as mass nouns purely on the basis of whether it specifies a count noun use in the dictionary. I think she was trying to make it look like such decisions are not arbitrary.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:31 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Interesting that Jimy Gough chooses not to support the tennis player that looks exactly like him.

Also BAIZES - I would have thought that that would have been acceptable. And I don't think in the past Susie has simply allowed/disallowed words listed as mass nouns purely on the basis of whether it specifies a count noun use in the dictionary. I think she was trying to make it look like such decisions are not arbitrary.

I thought she handled it quite well and told the viewers about consistency. I think she's been reading this forum

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:36 pm

Well played Jimmy, another ton.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Just watching this now on Catch-Up and can't believe no one got OBITUARY in round 2.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:39 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Just watching this now on Catch-Up and can't believe no one got OBITUARY in round 2.

Ah yeah, quality spot. Reminds me of getting MORTUARY in my audition.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu May 14, 2009 5:27 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Interesting that Jimy Gough chooses not to support the tennis player that looks exactly like him.

Also BAIZES - I would have thought that that would have been acceptable. And I don't think in the past Susie has simply allowed/disallowed words listed as mass nouns purely on the basis of whether it specifies a count noun use in the dictionary. I think she was trying to make it look like such decisions are not arbitrary.
I thought she handled it quite well and told the viewers about consistency. I think she's been reading this forum

Yeah maybe - we'll have to see what happens in the future. We know in the past things have seemed fairly arbitrary so maybe things will be cleaned up.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Just watching this now on Catch-Up and can't believe no one got OBITUARY in round 2.

Just watched up to round too, also got it, but out of time. Nice spot.

Edit: Yes, i did just get too and two mixed up, and i thought id leave it here for you all to laugh at.

Edit: Managed to beat Jimmy with isolates and paeons. Another good performance form him though. In the round with isolates and violates, i wanted the last letter to be an r for valorises, shame.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu May 14, 2009 7:07 pm

Another very good performance.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu May 14, 2009 7:15 pm

Yeah, I enjoyed Jimmy offering some obscure words today or at least different words like MONIAL that make Susie go wow. It's good TV.

Keith Bevins · Post by **Keith Bevins** » Thu May 14, 2009 7:27 pm

Managed to pip Jimmy today for the first time, primarily due to obituary in R2.

Lee Simmonds · Post by **Lee Simmonds** » Thu May 14, 2009 10:18 pm

Jimmy, had you possibly not spotted mediocre in rd 3, you seemed to raise your eyebrows in surprise when Sue declared an 8 and as you did not have it written down, I thought that you may have seen it in the few seconds before Jeff came to you.

I demand an answer!

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Thu May 14, 2009 10:41 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Interesting that Jimy Gough chooses not to support the tennis player that looks exactly like him.

Also BAIZES - I would have thought that that would have been acceptable. And I don't think in the past Susie has simply allowed/disallowed words listed as mass nouns purely on the basis of whether it specifies a count noun use in the dictionary. I think she was trying to make it look like such decisions are not arbitrary.
I thought she handled it quite well and told the viewers about consistency. I think she's been reading this forum
Yeah maybe - we'll have to see what happens in the future. We know in the past things have seemed fairly arbitrary so maybe things will be cleaned up.

I vaguely remember BAIZES being allowed many years ago by Della Thompson, her rationale being that if you could have 'wools' and 'cottons' then you could have 'baizes'. Tough judgment call for whoever happens to be in DC though.

Another great performance Jimmy, well done.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Fri May 15, 2009 8:17 am

Lee Simmonds wrote:Jimmy, had you possibly not spotted mediocre in rd 3, you seemed to raise your eyebrows in surprise when Sue declared an 8 and as you did not have it written down, I thought that you may have seen it in the few seconds before Jeff came to you.

I demand an answer!

I had the same impression. Does anyone think this is not a legitimate tactic?

IIRC the contestant rules/guidelines don't specifically mention this situation, and there is nothing in the conduct of the game that can prevent the tactic being used if a case arises.

It's similar to the "to walk or not to walk" question in cricket.

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Fri May 15, 2009 9:50 am

Lee Simmonds wrote:Jimmy, had you possibly not spotted mediocre in rd 3, you seemed to raise your eyebrows in surprise when Sue declared an 8 and as you did not have it written down, I thought that you may have seen it in the few seconds before Jeff came to you.

I demand an answer!

Yeah, that's exactly right, I don't think I even saw a 7. I suppose it was a little bad of me but it's not exactly cheating, right?

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Fri May 15, 2009 9:54 am

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Lee Simmonds wrote:Jimmy, had you possibly not spotted mediocre in rd 3, you seemed to raise your eyebrows in surprise when Sue declared an 8 and as you did not have it written down, I thought that you may have seen it in the few seconds before Jeff came to you.

I demand an answer!

Yeah, that's exactly right, I don't think I even saw a 7. I suppose it was a little bad of me but it's not exactly cheating, right?

It certainly isn't cheating, seems like fair tactics to me, like you may have had a safe six and a risky seven and decided on the latter after Sue's declaration.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri May 15, 2009 12:17 pm

I'm sure this has been discussed before (at length, no doubt). I take the view that pretty much anything goes so long as you don't hesitate and don't lie ("PROMATE." "Did you say PRONATE?" "Yes."). I was surprised by how many people thought that you should stick with what you had after 30 seconds no matter what.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Fri May 15, 2009 12:58 pm

David Williams wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed before (at length, no doubt).

Agreed, but I couldn't think of an obvious search (and still can't).

Lee Simmonds · Post by **Lee Simmonds** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:13 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Lee Simmonds wrote:Jimmy, had you possibly not spotted mediocre in rd 3, you seemed to raise your eyebrows in surprise when Sue declared an 8 and as you did not have it written down, I thought that you may have seen it in the few seconds before Jeff came to you.

I demand an answer!

Yeah, that's exactly right, I don't think I even saw a 7. I suppose it was a little bad of me but it's not exactly cheating, right?

FWIW, I think it's totally legitimate and well done to you to see the 8 that Sue had spotted in the short time available. I actually meant to edit my post to say that I wasn't suggesting cheating, I just merely thought that was the case and am glad to know I was right!

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:51 pm

It's been an acceptable tactic on the show for as long as I've been watching so I wouldn't think less of anyone who did it, but I'd prefer it if you could only declare words that you've written down. It seems unfair that one player gets an extra 5-10 seconds to spot words, especially when your opponent's declaration can clue you in on the existence of a longer word.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:55 pm

It's amazing how simply knowing there's a longer word in the selection can sometimes make you see it instantly

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Fri May 15, 2009 2:26 pm

I see no problem whatever with this. And it's the reason why each person declares first on half the rounds, and so makes it fair to both.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri May 15, 2009 2:33 pm

Paul Howe wrote:It's been an acceptable tactic on the show for as long as I've been watching so I wouldn't think less of anyone who did it, but I'd prefer it if you could only declare words that you've written down. It seems unfair that one player gets an extra 5-10 seconds to spot words, especially when your opponent's declaration can clue you in on the existence of a longer word.

If you could only declare words that you'd written down, then there'd need to be a judge checking that writing stopped on the instant of 30 seconds. As it is now, it doesn't matter if someone writes for a second or so longer.

And then there's the judgement call of whether a 9-letter word scribbled down in 1.5 seconds at the end of the round is really legible. I don't think it'd work unless they went the high-tech French route.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Fri May 15, 2009 3:03 pm

David Roe wrote: If you could only declare words that you'd written down, then there'd need to be a judge checking that writing stopped on the instant of 30 seconds. As it is now, it doesn't matter if someone writes for a second or so longer.

And then there's the judgement call of whether a 9-letter word scribbled down in 1.5 seconds at the end of the round is really legible. I don't think it'd work unless they went the high-tech French route.

There's 2-3 seconds between the clock stopping and having to make a declaration, which should be plenty of time to legibly record a word you thought of within the time. I never suggested people should stop writing the instant the clock stops, and I don't think the level of pedantry you're suggesting is really necessary to make things work.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Fri May 15, 2009 3:17 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:I see no problem whatever with this. And it's the reason why each person declares first on half the rounds, and so makes it fair to both.

That's true, but it definitely gives an extra leg up to the stronger player who's much more likely to make instant spots. That's not a reason to be against it in itself, as skill should be rewarded, but I think the stronger players already have sufficient advantages without tipping the scales a bit further. It just seems neater to me that you should only declare words found within the 30 seconds, but since its not mentioned in the rules it was a bit harsh of me to call it unfair.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri May 15, 2009 7:19 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:It's amazing how simply knowing there's a longer word in the selection can sometimes make you see it instantly

Yeah. This is a well documented fact and I used this policy a lot on my run. I told myself "there's a 9 here" and treated it as a conundrum and more often than not the 9 just jumped out. It's hard to tell yourself "there's a 9 there" if you don't know there's one but you have to force yourself to pretend. If you can't find the 9, you offer your 8 and find out later that you did indeed max the round.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Fri May 15, 2009 8:17 pm

Paul Howe wrote:There's 2-3 seconds between the clock stopping and having to make a declaration, which should be plenty of time to legibly record a word you thought of within the time. I never suggested people should stop writing the instant the clock stops, and I don't think the level of pedantry you're suggesting is really necessary to make things work.

I would have thought that level of pedantry would be entirely necessary. Otherwise, if both players get the 9 after 29 seconds, the points would go to the one who writes longest after the bell. There would have to be a strictly simultaneous cut-off point where both players stop writing, because an extra second writing time could be crucial.

Ken MacKenzie · Post by **Ken MacKenzie** » Sat May 16, 2009 9:06 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:It's amazing how simply knowing there's a longer word in the selection can sometimes make you see it instantly
Yeah. This is a well documented fact and I used this policy a lot on my run. I told myself "there's a 9 here" and treated it as a conundrum and more often than not the 9 just jumped out. It's hard to tell yourself "there's a 9 there" if you don't know there's one but you have to force yourself to pretend. If you can't find the 9, you offer your 8 and find out later that you did indeed max the round.

This has been an interesting discussion. With my recording getting ever closer, I'm trying to "cram" as much information as I can. (which isn't easy at my age) I often get a 6 or 7 myself then as soon as a contestant declares 8 or 9 I can see the longer word. Interestingly my best performance on Apterous Daily Duel so far has been on the "blind" round. Maybe I need to shut my eyes after the letters have been revealed I'll try that next week and, if appropriate I'll use that tactic in the studio.

Really enjoying Jimmy's run - just glad I'm not up against him.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Sat May 16, 2009 9:57 am

Ken MacKenzie wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:It's amazing how simply knowing there's a longer word in the selection can sometimes make you see it instantly
Yeah. This is a well documented fact and I used this policy a lot on my run. I told myself "there's a 9 here" and treated it as a conundrum and more often than not the 9 just jumped out. It's hard to tell yourself "there's a 9 there" if you don't know there's one but you have to force yourself to pretend. If you can't find the 9, you offer your 8 and find out later that you did indeed max the round.
This has been an interesting discussion. With my recording getting ever closer, I'm trying to "cram" as much information as I can. (which isn't easy at my age) I often get a 6 or 7 myself then as soon as a contestant declares 8 or 9 I can see the longer word. Interestingly my best performance on Apterous Daily Duel so far has been on the "blind" round. Maybe I need to shut my eyes after the letters have been revealed I'll try that next week and, if appropriate I'll use that tactic in the studio.

Really enjoying Jimmy's run - just glad I'm not up against him.

From one of your earlier posts I have seen that you are filming on June 16th? I'm filming the last episode on the 17th so might play you if you win lots of games.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat May 16, 2009 12:16 pm

Ken MacKenzie wrote: Interestingly my best performance on Apterous Daily Duel so far has been on the "blind" round. Maybe I need to shut my eyes after the letters have been revealed I'll try that next week and, if appropriate I'll use that tactic in the studio.

Really enjoying Jimmy's run - just glad I'm not up against him.

You may have seen when I was on TV that I would often look away from the screen and stare into space, or close my eyes. This is what you describe. I sometimes feel the anagramming goes on far quicker/easier without looking at the letters as you are not forcing your brain into any word formation and just letting it do the work itself.

Ken MacKenzie · Post by **Ken MacKenzie** » Sat May 16, 2009 12:27 pm

Darren Carter wrote:From one of your earlier posts I have seen that you are filming on June 16th? I'm filming the last episode on the 17th so might play you if you win lots of games.

Hey Darren, looking forward to it. Whatever happens, I'll be hanging round till the 17th as I have to travel back to Ireland and have to book flights in advance. Look forward to meeting you and who knows I might even win enough to be up against you - here's hoping.

Neil Zussman · Post by **Neil Zussman** » Sat May 16, 2009 5:00 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Ken MacKenzie wrote: Interestingly my best performance on Apterous Daily Duel so far has been on the "blind" round. Maybe I need to shut my eyes after the letters have been revealed I'll try that next week and, if appropriate I'll use that tactic in the studio.

Really enjoying Jimmy's run - just glad I'm not up against him.
You may have seen when I was on TV that I would often look away from the screen and stare into space, or close my eyes. This is what you describe. I sometimes feel the anagramming goes on far quicker/easier without looking at the letters as you are not forcing your brain into any word formation and just letting it do the work itself.

IAWTP. I didn't notice it much before I went on the show, but Kate Humble (DC guest at the time) pointed it out- in fact she was quite amazed that I solved the conundrums, because apparently I didn't seem to be looking at them at all!

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Sun May 17, 2009 9:58 pm

Ken MacKenzie wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:From one of your earlier posts I have seen that you are filming on June 16th? I'm filming the last episode on the 17th so might play you if you win lots of games.
Hey Darren, looking forward to it. Whatever happens, I'll be hanging round till the 17th as I have to travel back to Ireland and have to book flights in advance. Look forward to meeting you and who knows I might even win enough to be up against you - here's hoping.

Myself and Rich are going to watch on the 16th, this time with added Howard-ness so I'll look forward to seeing you in action

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:30 pm

David Williams wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed before (at length, no doubt). I take the view that pretty much anything goes so long as you don't hesitate and don't lie ("PROMATE." "Did you say PRONATE?" "Yes."). I was surprised by how many people thought that you should stick with what you had after 30 seconds no matter what.

Yeah, they may as well do away with the clock altogether really.

FWIW, I personally don't think it's on to declare a word which you've only spotted as a result of your opponent's declaration. I wouldn't do it and I would find it extremely annoying to have it done to me. Obviously with the mechanics as they are, it's impossible to know whether that actually is the case unless they own up (as Jimmy has here), so I don't see what the issue is with Paul's suggestion that only words written down are allowed. If you are writing as the 30 seconds are up, you get reasonable grace to finish writing your word. Of course the only key thing in this scenario are that the pens are down BEFORE either player gives their declaration. Would Jimmy have tried to gain an extra few seconds by pretending to write something down had he not known about his opponent's declaration? Probably not.