c4countdown

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:34 am**

Marc Meakin wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
D Eadie wrote:JG is the same as every other guest, in that he's not universally popular, but we've never had a guest who is and never will, unless of course we book Raymond, as everyone loves him, apparently.
It'd be interesting if you booked Chris, becuase everyone hates him.
I rather like Mr Corby, senior.

Thanks Marc - I was booked to appear as DC guest for w/c 21 Dec but had a call from Damian to say the show was taking a Christmas/New Year break so I have been put on hold indefinitely

Of course we all have different opinions about what makes a good or bad guest in DC but I happened to be at the recordings when Jon Gaunt first appeared and one of the production team asked me what I thought of him. I said I didn't think he was a "Countdown person". "What does that mean?" was the retort. Well, having given it some thought, I think an ideal guest should:

(a) Understand that they have a big advantage over the contestants by having Susie alongside with a dictionary so not try and belittle ordinary contestants by saying things like, "Well we can beat that - we have a seven" or even worse, "There were loads of sevens there..." However it is appropriate that when someone like Kirk is playing to be jubilant if he is beaten - so it's knowing the difference.
(b) Be entertaining in their piece to camera so as to get a few laughs - not to use the minutes as a tirade against their pet hate of the moment;
(c) Interact with the players as much as possible - don't ignore them;
(d) When DC is involved after a round do not pretend that you have got all the words and give Susie the credit as often as possible.

When you take a universally popular guest like Dr Phil Hammond, I think he fulfils all of the above - Jon Gaunt does not.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:37 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Steve Durney wrote: But WHY is it before the numbers? Hasn't anyone on the production team ever suggested it being after instead? Wouldn't the contestants prefer it that way?
Because people switch off after Round 10 to make a cuppa, and Damian wants them to watch Origin of Words. This has been mentioned before but I can't find the relevant post, sorry.

Really? Hadn't heard that before, but if that's the case then fair enough. Thanks Charlie. But, as a contestant, would you (or anyone else) have preferred it the other way, or was it just not that big a deal?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:40 am**

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
D Eadie wrote: "Can i have an inverted J please Rachel"?
I take it my attempt at 'banter' when offering Rachel any 4 large of her choice, which seemed to confuse her a bit when she repeated it, was looked upon very dimly from the gallery then.

Not at all Jeffrey, that's pretty straight-forward really, when compared to Rachel having to select specific tiles to form specific shapes when she's viewing them upside down while taking into account that her left is the contestants right. Any 4 large of your choice was clever and witty, whereas picking shapes is just silly.

Charlie Reams wrote: Because people switch off after Round 10 to make a cuppa, and Damian wants them to watch Origin of Words.

That among other things, which i can't be bothered to explain. What you see is what you get.
All this makes for pretty negative reading when we're on the cusp of terrific finals and are celebrating our first year with the new team. Even the conundrums are too hard now . If the conundrums are not hard, then Innis, Chris, Andrew and the rest will buzz in after 1 second max and you won't get them at home because you'll be too slow. If they are hard, the chances are you'll get 10, 20, maybe even 30 seconds to tackle them. I was under the impression this was a game people enjoyed playing, as opposed to spectating. Time to go into 'ignore' mode i think.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:48 am**

D Eadie wrote:Even the conundrums are too hard now . If the conundrums are not hard, then Innis, Chris, Andrew and the rest will buzz in after 1 second max and you won't get them at home because you'll be too slow. If they are hard, the chances are you'll get 10, 20, maybe even 30 seconds to tackle them. I was under the impression this was a game people enjoyed playing, as opposed to spectating.

Apterous is killing Countdown!!!

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:57 am**

Michael Wallace wrote: Apterous is killing Countdown!!!

Negativity is killing this forum

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:04 pm**

D Eadie wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote: Apterous is killing Countdown!!!
Negativity is killing this forum

That's a very negative thing to say.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:07 pm**

Steve Durney wrote:Thanks Charlie. But, as a contestant, would you (or anyone else) have preferred it the other way, or was it just not that big a deal?

Thinking back now, I can't remember it invoking any particular feelings of annoyance or anything, it just didn't even register. So I would definitely say "no big deal". It did give me an opportunity to look over at Susie for a minute or so though, without her then saying afterwards "can you stop staring at me please?"

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:09 pm**

I wonder if a 'What do you most like about Countdown' poll would have more replies?
Only one way to find out.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:12 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
D Eadie wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote: Apterous is killing Countdown!!!
Negativity is killing this forum
That's a very negative thing to say.

It's getting more like Digital Spy here every week, which is VERY negative.

We still get stacks of letters and emails from viewers every week. Have yet to have anything negative about Jon Gaunt, mass nouns, the placing of Origins of Words, the difficulty of our conundrums, the standard of DC guest or suchlike. Draw your own conclusions, but this can't be a coincidence.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:15 pm**

Steve Durney wrote:But, as a contestant, would you (or anyone else) have preferred it the other way, or was it just not that big a deal?

Beforehand I felt like it would annoy me but in practice I really can't remember even noticing it, I tended to switch off during the opening banter/Teatime Teaser/guest/OoW (and some would argue the conundrum

) and just to try to focus myself. The only game where it made a difference was my 8th heat game where I was getting well beaten and used OoW to recompose myself and turned it around completely in the next 6 rounds. So yeah, I don't know if other contestants feel the same but for me it was fine.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:18 pm**

D Eadie wrote:the placing of Origins of Words

Would just like to make it clear that this isn't something I dislike about Countdown - far from it. Was just a question, thats all. There honestly isn't anything I dislike about Countdown at all - I love the programme!!

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:25 pm**

This is a site for Countdown lovers so I think this thread is a little inappropriate and negative.
Maybe the question should have been 'How can Countdown be improved' at least it would not send out a negative vibe.
I think the only improvement that could be made to the format would be equal rounds of letters and numbers during the elite games (Series finals and COC) as going second can be a slight advantage for maths wizards.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:27 pm**

Steve Durney wrote:
D Eadie wrote:the placing of Origins of Words
Would just like to make it clear that this isn't something I dislike about Countdown - far from it. Was just a question, thats all. There honestly isn't anything I dislike about Countdown at all - I love the programme!!

It's a perfectly valid question and one that's been asked a few times before. Origins takes a slightly newer shape in 2010, but it'll still be after Rd 9, if only to annoy as many forumites as possible.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:27 pm**

Steve Durney wrote:
D Eadie wrote:the placing of Origins of Words
Would just like to make it clear that this isn't something I dislike about Countdown - far from it. Was just a question, thats all. There honestly isn't anything I dislike about Countdown at all - I love the programme!!

Blame the title of the thread.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:36 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote:
Steve Durney wrote:
D Eadie wrote:the placing of Origins of Words
Would just like to make it clear that this isn't something I dislike about Countdown - far from it. Was just a question, thats all. There honestly isn't anything I dislike about Countdown at all - I love the programme!!
Blame the title of the thread.

Sensible feedback is always good, but personal gripes are hard to rectify because they are so varied.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:44 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: I think the only improvement that could be made to the format would be equal rounds of letters and numbers during the elite games (Series finals and COC) as going second can be a slight advantage for maths wizards.

No. Not this. When, for the finals, we tossed a coin to decide who sat where it was very interesting. If you choose the challenger's chair you get 2 numbers, which could matter but sometimes I chose to sit in the champion's chair. Why? Not only do you get 1 extra choice of letters you also get to declare second one more time. This can be crucial. "Do I stick with 7 or risk pluralising it for the 8? Oh no...what will he go for? Oh, he's declaring first and has a 6 - brill!"

That was one advantage of sitting in the champion's chair. Knowing your opponent helps with this tactic.

I think it's good now that Jeff has a format, e.g. if C1 chooses the letters he'll ask C2 first to declare. This is very consistent and helps if I want to risk something. I don't think DesO was very consistent with this but Jeff certainly is.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:47 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote: I don't think DesO was very consistent with this but Jeff certainly is.

DesO never quite got it, despite our best efforts.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:48 pm**

D Eadie wrote: DesO never quite got it, despite our best efforts.

True.

Oh, you were just talking about the declaration order

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:52 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
D Eadie wrote: DesO never quite got it, despite our best efforts.
True.

Oh, you were just talking about the declaration order

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:06 pm**

D Eadie wrote:If the conundrums are not hard, then Innis, Chris, Andrew and the rest will buzz in after 1 second max and you won't get them at home because you'll be too slow. If they are hard, the chances are you'll get 10, 20, maybe even 30 seconds to tackle them. I was under the impression this was a game people enjoyed playing, as opposed to spectating.

I agree. Where's the fun in having something like LEAVINGER every week?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:27 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote:Oh, he's declaring first and has a 6 - brill!"

That's only 5.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:54 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Oh, he's declaring first and has a 6 - brill!"
That's only 5.

I meant "superb" but typoed. I thought that was clear.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:09 pm**

Regarding the declaration order, if both declare a seven and one of them says it's risky, do they still always go to the risky one first (I think they used to)? I don't think it really makes sense to do this. Saying something is risky is just something extra they add. No-one needs to know and it shouldn't affect the order of anything.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:20 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:Regarding the declaration order, if both declare a seven and one of them says it's risky, do they still always go to the risky one first (I think they used to)? I don't think it really makes sense to do this. Saying something is risky is just something extra they add. No-one needs to know and it shouldn't affect the order of anything.

If they say it's risky then they should go to them first, yes. I might have two risky 8s, EARTHNUT and UNTHREAT. If they go to the safe 8 first and he says "EARTHNUT" then I'll stick with that. Coming to me first I may have said "UNTHREAT". It makes sense.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:23 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Regarding the declaration order, if both declare a seven and one of them says it's risky, do they still always go to the risky one first (I think they used to)? I don't think it really makes sense to do this. Saying something is risky is just something extra they add. No-one needs to know and it shouldn't affect the order of anything.
If they say it's risky then they should go to them first, yes. I might have two risky 8s, EARTHNUT and UNTHREAT. If they go to the safe 8 first and he says "EARTHNUT" then I'll stick with that. Coming to me first I may have said "UNTHREAT". It makes sense.

This whole thing rankles me slightly when people take advantage of it - the contestant's word should be set in stone before hearing their opponent's word. Personally, I'd never change my mind based on this, but I know some would, and I don't like it. Besides, I think most of the time when I said I wasn't sure of something, I usually was but just didn't want to appear like I'd nerdily read the dictionary

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:24 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:just didn't want to appear like I'd nerdily read the dictionary

As opposed to reading the dictionary unnerdily?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:26 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:just didn't want to appear like I'd nerdily read the dictionary
As opposed to reading the dictionary unnerdily?

Yeah, like browsing it with a bottle of Cristal in a hot tub with bunny girls.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:29 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:Regarding the declaration order, if both declare a seven and one of them says it's risky, do they still always go to the risky one first (I think they used to)? I don't think it really makes sense to do this. Saying something is risky is just something extra they add. No-one needs to know and it shouldn't affect the order of anything.

I know what you mean, but it buys DC time to check the risky one if we ask for it first. It's probably a face-saving mechanism. Declare it risky, then if it's not in, you look less foolish perhaps?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:32 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Regarding the declaration order, if both declare a seven and one of them says it's risky, do they still always go to the risky one first (I think they used to)? I don't think it really makes sense to do this. Saying something is risky is just something extra they add. No-one needs to know and it shouldn't affect the order of anything.
If they say it's risky then they should go to them first, yes. I might have two risky 8s, EARTHNUT and UNTHREAT. If they go to the safe 8 first and he says "EARTHNUT" then I'll stick with that. Coming to me first I may have said "UNTHREAT". It makes sense.
This whole thing rankles me slightly when people take advantage of it - the contestant's word should be set in stone before hearing their opponent's word. Personally, I'd never change my mind based on this, but I know some would, and I don't like it. Besides, I think most of the time when I said I wasn't sure of something, I usually was but just didn't want to appear like I'd nerdily read the dictionary

Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit? (with the exception for those who cannot write) or maybe words should be written on a pad The Weakest Link stylee
To stop players hedging.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:38 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote:Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit? (with the exception for those who cannot write) or maybe words should be written on a pad The Weakest Link stylee
To stop players hedging.

Yeah, we've had the discussion before, I'm absolutely in the "yes" camp. There's no reason not to. If you're clearly writing as the time ends, you're allowed to finish, otherwise pens down and that's that. Nobody would try and gain an extra second or two by "pretending" to be writing something down (I actually don't think I have the mental capacity to do this while simultaneously looking for a word!)

Ideally I'd also like you to "lock in" your word before your opponent says theirs, as you could actually have a whole page of 8s written down and then go with their one. But that's probably less important (and gets a bit fiddly as you'd need to do this AFTER hearing the length of your opponent's word if declaring second!)

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:49 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote:Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit?

If I were designing the game today I'd agree, but this change would affect the character of the game enormously and I'm sure would be regarded as too risky.

Declaring something as risky could work against the player. In the EARTHNUT/UNTHREAT example, a player who declares a deadpan 8 retains the possibily of being asked second. So why do it?

I think I'd like to see something in the guidance notes advising players to stick to straightforward declarations. I presume the production team has the right to inspect papers at the end of a round, and if there is evidence of gamesmanship, disallow a contestant's declaration. But then it's just a friendly parlour game.

Edit - I've just re-read this and I'm not sure I agree with my third point any more.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:54 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit? (with the exception for those who cannot write) or maybe words should be written on a pad The Weakest Link stylee
To stop players hedging.

Why should you stop people from hedging? The show is supposed to be entertainment , first and foremost.It's part of the fun, seeing people risk a last minute spot, (sometimes out of sheer desperation).

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:55 pm**

Two simple things they could do.

There should be no hint as to the acceptability of the first player's word until the second player has given his.

If neither player has written their word down, then both should be asked to do so.

(Quick edit. Would it be an idea to ask anyone who has not written their word down to do so?)

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:57 pm**

David Williams wrote:Two simple things they could do.

There should be no hint as to the acceptability of the first player's word until the second player has given his.

If neither player has written their word down, then both should be asked to do so.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:57 pm**

Liam Tiernan wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote: Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit? (with the exception for those who cannot write) or maybe words should be written on a pad The Weakest Link stylee
To stop players hedging.
Why should you stop people from hedging? The show is supposed to be entertainment , first and foremost.It's part of the fun, seeing people risk a last minute spot, (sometimes out of sheer desperation).

What's fun about seeing somebody stalling for time to search for an eight after hearing their opponent declare one?

Some people might consider it entertaining watching football players try and get away with handball, for example

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:58 pm**

David Williams wrote:Two simple things they could do.

There should be no hint as to the acceptability of the first player's word until the second player has given his.

If neither player has written their word down, then both should be asked to do so.

(Quick edit. Would it be an idea to ask anyone who has not written their word down to do so?)

IAWTP

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:01 pm**

David Williams wrote:Two simple things they could do.

There should be no hint as to the acceptability of the first player's word until the second player has given his.

If neither player has written their word down, then both should be asked to do so.

(Quick edit. Would it be an idea to ask anyone who has not written their word down to do so?)

There is normally no hint of the first players word until the second player has given it, certainly not if its obscure. It might be the norm for us to confirm a word before hearing the second, but only on everyday words, not something like earthnut for example.

If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock. You won't see them being asked to write down at home. And lastly, anyone who hasn't written their word down would almost always without exception go first.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:04 pm**

D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so. And lastly, anyone who hasn't written their word down would almost without exception go first.

99% of the time of course that works fine - occasionally though someone will declare an "n not written down" upon hearing their opponent's declaration of n, and then go looking for it. Which stinks. It can be a huge help knowing there's an n in the selection. Where n is the number of letters, not the letter n. Although selections with an n in are often useful as well.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:06 pm**

D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock.

Does this apply to numbers rounds as well? If so, when did you start?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:09 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so. And lastly, anyone who hasn't written their word down would almost without exception go first.
99% of the time of course that works fine - occasionally though someone will declare an "n not written down" upon hearing their opponent's declaration of n, and then go looking for it. Which stinks. It can be a huge help knowing there's an n in the selection. Where n is the number of letters, not the letter n. Although selections with an n in are often useful as well.

Surely the players have an equal advantage over the course of a game, because they take it in turn to declare first?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:09 pm**

Clive Brooker wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock.
Does this apply to numbers rounds as well? If so, when did you start?

Maybe always, not sure I can remember a round where neither play had it written down. Well I do have one kinda nagging at the back of my mind, but that's all. It's certainly a rarity.

I also think numbers have to be treated differently - writing a word down takes a second or two at the most. Writing down a legible numbers solution could conceivably take 10 seconds.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:12 pm**

Alec Rivers wrote:Surely the players have an equal advantage over the course of a game, because they take it in turn to declare first?

What an odd way to look at it. Why should anyone be allowed to cheat? What do you think the big clock is for?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:13 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock.
Does this apply to numbers rounds as well? If so, when did you start?
Maybe always, not sure I can remember a round where neither play had it written down. Well I do have one kinda nagging at the back of my mind, but that's all. It's certainly a rarity.

I also think numbers have to be treated differently - writing a word down takes a second or two at the most. Writing down a legible numbers solution could conceivably take 10 seconds.

Which is why it happens more often in numbers rounds.
Maybe a user friendly notepad for workings out.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:17 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock.
Does this apply to numbers rounds as well? If so, when did you start?
Maybe always, not sure I can remember a round where neither play had it written down. Well I do have one kinda nagging at the back of my mind, but that's all. It's certainly a rarity.

I also think numbers have to be treated differently - writing a word down takes a second or two at the most. Writing down a legible numbers solution could conceivably take 10 seconds.

The was one (a numbers round) in my game against Innis, and no-one was asked to write anything down. The way it was edited made it look as though I'd tried to cheat, whereas in real time it would have been clear I hadn't. So I'm interested to know what the current strategy is and whether it's been changed.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:18 pm**

Clive Brooker wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:I also think numbers have to be treated differently - writing a word down takes a second or two at the most. Writing down a legible numbers solution could conceivably take 10 seconds.
The was one (a numbers round) in my game against Innis, and no-one was asked to write anything down. The way it was edited made it look as though I'd tried to cheat, whereas in real time it would have been clear I hadn't. So I'm interested to know what the current strategy is and whether it's been changed.

Maybe that's the one I was thinking of. Without even knowing the incident though, I doubt it looks as though you had cheated because I would have been all over that

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:21 pm**

Clive Brooker wrote:
D Eadie wrote:If neither writes their word down, we do ask both to do so then we retake the round coming off the clock.
Does this apply to numbers rounds as well? If so, when did you start?

Yes numbers too. We started doing this once we'd figured out how to get around it. I think the first time it happened it caught us all by surprise and we weren't sharp enough to resolve it on the spot, but i think that was in the RW days. Every time now, we tell the players to quickly write it down, then we play the last 5 seconds of the clock to help the edit, and Jeff will carry on as normal, except this time you won't get the 'but i haven't written it down' bit, because they just have of course.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:27 pm**

Clive Brooker wrote:The was one (a numbers round) in my game against Innis, and no-one was asked to write anything down. The way it was edited made it look as though I'd tried to cheat, whereas in real time it would have been clear I hadn't. So I'm interested to know what the current strategy is and whether it's been changed.

To be fair, that was the first day of a new series after a bit of a break, so familiarisation with the rules etc all has to be taken into account.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:09 pm**

I vaguely remember a word round when a vicar was on the show when neither had it written down but both said the same word. I think Jeff mentioned something about being able to trust a vicar or something similar.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:16 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:What do you think the big clock is for?

The clock is there to add another thirty seconds to the already significant thinking time available during the selection process. In fact, I always laugh when Jeff says: "Here's your chance to catch up as it's your pick of the letters", because the person not picking usually has the advantage of not having to concentrate on making the decisions and relating them to Rachel. The only time this does not apply is when the person picking is super quick at anagramming and stemming on the fly and can thus pick V/C based on actual words already seen rather than just trying to obtain a useful distribution. I wonder what percentage of players this applies to.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:17 pm**

Alec Rivers wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:What do you think the big clock is for?
The clock is there to add another thirty seconds to the already significant thinking time available during the selection process. In fact, I always laugh when Jeff says: "Here's your chance to catch up as it's your pick of the letters", because the person not picking usually has the advantage of not having to concentrate on making the decisions and relating them to Rachel. The only time this does not apply is when the person picking is super quick at anagramming and stemming and can thus pick letters based on actual words already seen rather than just trying to obtain a useful distribution. I wonder what percentage of players this applies to.

Yes, I agree with all that, but I think you're just being obtuse. You surely get the point I was making?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:18 pm**

Darren Carter wrote:I vaguely remember a word round when a vicar was on the show when neither had it written down but both said the same word. I think Jeff mentioned something about being able to trust a vicar or something similar.

It rings a bell. (An Inspector Calls, by JB Priestley)

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:24 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:You surely get the point I was making?

Sorry, I do now, after a second reading. I had a number of thoughts in my mind after reading the whole thread and I think I was responding to the general issue of player advantage, rather than your post per se.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:26 pm**

D Eadie wrote:It rings a bell. (An Inspector Calls, by JB Priestley)

"Is that the doorbell, Jeeves?"
"It certainly gave that impression, sir."

(P G Wodehouse)

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:29 pm**

Alec Rivers wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:You surely get the point I was making?
Sorry, I do now, after a second reading. I had a number of thoughts in my mind after reading the whole thread and I think I was responding to the general issue of player advantage, rather than your post per se.

I retract my accusation of obtuseness then

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:36 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:You surely get the point I was making?
Sorry, I do now, after a second reading. I had a number of thoughts in my mind after reading the whole thread and I think I was responding to the general issue of player advantage, rather than your post per se.
I retract my accusation of obtuseness then

Ta.

p.s. I think obtusion should be a word.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:39 pm**

D Eadie wrote:
Steve Durney wrote:
D Eadie wrote:the placing of Origins of Words
Would just like to make it clear that this isn't something I dislike about Countdown - far from it. Was just a question, thats all. There honestly isn't anything I dislike about Countdown at all - I love the programme!!

It's a perfectly valid question and one that's been asked a few times before. Origins takes a slightly newer shape in 2010,but it'll still be after Rd 9, if only to annoy as many forumites as possible.

That's the ticket. As a trade-off, could you get the legendary Basil Brush as a dictionary corner guest?

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:43 pm**

I've always been quick at conundrums. Playing at home, if someone declares a nine I haven't got, it becomes a conundrum. I reckon I probably spot at least half before the second player declares. Never happened for real, but if it had I could have smoothly declared "nine, not written down", and no-one would ever know. Doesn't make it right, though.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:49 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Liam Tiernan wrote:
Marc Meakin wrote: Does anybody agree that all answers should be written down before the time is up to eradicate the 'not written down' gambit? (with the exception for those who cannot write) or maybe words should be written on a pad The Weakest Link stylee
To stop players hedging.
Why should you stop people from hedging? The show is supposed to be entertainment , first and foremost.It's part of the fun, seeing people risk a last minute spot, (sometimes out of sheer desperation).
What's fun about seeing somebody stalling for time to search for an eight after hearing their opponent declare one?

Some people might consider it entertaining watching football players try and get away with handball, for example

There's a big difference between bending the rules and breaking them. Anyway, maybe I wasn't clear about it, but in the early days of the show, when people tried this it worked against them more often than not. They would end up declaring a rubbish word, where playing safe would have got them the points.Happens a lot on Apterous too. Maybe the procedures Damian explained above is the reason we don't see it happen much anymore (Jimmy Gough's is the last one that I remember). It was fun to see the look on a guy's face when he sees his opponent declare an invalid word, and he's now stuck with an equally invalid one.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:57 pm**

The greatest example of this I can think of was my match against Darren, when I spotted CENTENARY after the clock had finished and then (pretty impressively) in the few seconds when Jeff was saying, "And Darren, what have you got?" he spotted it as well, leading to a retake as neither of us had written it down. Interestingly, though Darren also said he hadn't got it written down, Jeff asked me for my word and it was only after I asked if one of us should write it down that we went to a retake.

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:19 pm**

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:The greatest example of this I can think of was my match against Darren, when I spotted CENTENARY after the clock had finished and then (pretty impressively) in the few seconds when Jeff was saying, "And Darren, what have you got?" he spotted it as well, leading to a retake as neither of us had written it down. Interestingly, though Darren also said he hadn't got it written down, Jeff asked me for my word and it was only after I asked if one of us should write it down that we went to a retake.

We'd have tidied this up at the end, Jeffrey. As a rule we try to do all retakes at the end of the show, otherwise it loses its flow.

c4countdown

What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?

Re: What do you dislike most about Countdown?