c4countdown

Please post your bits and bobs for Friday 28th November on here today please

Was BARTERED there in round 1?

BARTERED, yes, beat DC.

R5 alt: (3 x 100) + (5 x 4) + 1.

John Douglas wrote:R5 alt: (3 x 100) + (5 x 4) + 1.

I don't mean to be rude, but numbers games like this really don't warrant "alternate" solutions given how patently simple they are. The number of numbers alternates showing up along these lines (admittedly usually on slightly trickier games) is getting a little tiresome, although I appreciate newer members wish to contribute.

I missed the clue for the TTT and didn't solve it, having got stuck on GAYWEEDS...

Colin was so awesome, I'm sad to see him go

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:

John Douglas wrote:R5 alt: (3 x 100) + (5 x 4) + 1.

I don't mean to be rude, but numbers games like this really don't warrant "alternate" solutions given how patently simple they are. The number of numbers alternates showing up along these lines (admittedly usually on slightly trickier games) is getting a little tiresome, although I appreciate newer members wish to contribute.

I would agree if both contestants had solved the numbers.
In this case one contestant failed both to notice the 107x3 solution and the 300+20+1 solution, so it is a valid alternative posting.

David Gunn wrote:

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:

John Douglas wrote:R5 alt: (3 x 100) + (5 x 4) + 1.

I don't mean to be rude, but numbers games like this really don't warrant "alternate" solutions given how patently simple they are. The number of numbers alternates showing up along these lines (admittedly usually on slightly trickier games) is getting a little tiresome, although I appreciate newer members wish to contribute.

I would agree if both contestants had solved the numbers.
In this case one contestant failed both to notice the 107x3 solution and the 300+20+1 solution, so it is a valid alternative posting.

If one contestant gets an 8, and the other a 6, does that mean we should post every available 7 then?

Also, who is to say the contestant achieving the target didn't see any other solutions?

The numbers are different to the letters, in that Carol isn't asked "Did you get ??? any other way?" if either contestant has scored 10 points. This is (probably) because it's boring and unnecessary. If there's a tidy method involving a useful trick, such as spotting the target is divisible by x or is something squared etc, then I'm all for sharing it. Otherwise, I just don't see the point - especially for something so rudimentary that my mum solved it.*^

* Not verified, but I'm going out on a limb here
^ No offence is meant towards the contestant who failed to solve it

Dan Vanniasingham wrote: If one contestant gets an 8, and the other a 6, does that mean we should post every available 7 then?

Also, who is to say the contestant achieving the target didn't see any other solutions?

The numbers are different to the letters, in that Carol isn't asked "Did you get ??? any other way?" if either contestant has scored 10 points. This is (probably) because it's boring and unnecessary. If there's a tidy method involving a useful trick, such as spotting the target is divisible by x or is something squared etc, then I'm all for sharing it. Otherwise, I just don't see the point - especially for something so rudimentary that my mum solved it.*^

* Not verified, but I'm going out on a limb here
^ No offence is meant towards the contestant who failed to solve it

I do agree with your original point, Dan, however every "rule" has it's exceptions. Certainly it is pointless posting multiple solutions to numbers puzzles that have already been solved, there was one posted recently with 4-3 to achieve the final 1, where the contestant had used 3-2 (or vice-versa*).
As you say, letters and numbers games are different so the same rules can not be applied; I just feel that one alternative using a basic method^ is not an overkill.

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:

John Douglas wrote:R5 alt: (3 x 100) + (5 x 4) + 1.

I don't mean to be rude, but numbers games like this really don't warrant "alternate" solutions given how patently simple they are. The number of numbers alternates showing up along these lines (admittedly usually on slightly trickier games) is getting a little tiresome, although I appreciate newer members wish to contribute.

I must admit, I too am responsible for posting alts in a round where everyone got the target (because after missing 246, I am just pleased to get the answer).

Maybe solutions should only be posted if none of the contestants and Carol/Rachel solve them, or if in the case of 4 large, you can do something like 75 x 50 etc to get the answer.

Just while you're discussing numbers here (and I don't know where else to post this, so sorry as it's off topic)...

In the past if Carol didn't get the target in the 30 seconds we'd come back to her after the break for the solution if she'd got it by then, but nowadays (from what I've seen - though I have missed the odd episode) if she hasn't got it in the 30 seconds then that's it. I used to like it when we'd come back after the break and she'd been working on it still. When / why did this change? I work away with a tricky numbers game until I get a solution (though I do admit defeat eventually, or sooner when the numbers to work with have limitations i.e. two '1's) and I always got the impression that Carol did too.

I'm quite sure I've seen a case within the last week, Lesley, when we've gone back to Carol when she's found a solution later. Can't say just when though.