Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Briers vs Wainwright
Last edited by Ben Hunter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
(100-25+8)*9+1
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:06 am
- Location: Lincolnshire
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Don't you mean Wednesday in the title?
- Ray Folwell
- Acolyte
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
UNTHREAD in R3?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
I got that as well (except 50+25), but in the time unlike Rachel. So I'm actually leading the contestants into the second "half". I thought I'd mention that because there's no chance it will last.Paul Howe wrote:(100-25+8)*9+1
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Surprised no-one got the numbers in the time. Using 9x8 = 72 + 1 is the standout way of getting that 2.
Had no idea what EXACTA was, although I'm sure Nick did.
Had no idea what EXACTA was, although I'm sure Nick did.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Yeah, that's fine, nice one.rayfolwell wrote:UNTHREAD in R3?
- Adam Dexter
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
- Location: Kidderminster
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII
I got unthread as well I'm just behind having struggled to a 5 on the first round.rayfolwell wrote:UNTHREAD in R3?
ADAM DEXTER: MAXED DATER
We're off to button moon
We're off to button moon
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
eugenics in that round.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
2nd numbers alt:
(10 x 9 x 8) + ((10 + 3) x 2)
(10 x 9 x 8) + ((10 + 3) x 2)
- Adam Dexter
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
- Location: Kidderminster
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII
What's wrong with trailed in Round 12?
Edit: Round 12
Edit: Round 12
ADAM DEXTER: MAXED DATER
We're off to button moon
We're off to button moon
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII
I got that and was shocked Nick didn't. Cost him the game!Adam Dexter wrote:What's wrong with trailed in Round 12?
Edit: Round 12
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII
I had LARIATED for 8 in that round, but it seems not to be in Countmax. Maybe it's Scrabble only? I seem to think we've had that on Countdown before.Adam Dexter wrote:What's wrong with trailed in Round 12?
Edit: Round 12
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
-
- Series 56 Champion
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:11 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Annoyingly I had GARFISH written down in round 7 and would've risked it had I been declaring second and I still can't work out how I missed the straightforward 7s in round 12.
In any case, the better player won - well played Steve - he was definitely the more deserving finalist, especially after his earlier two performances, and I can have no complaints with being a losing semi-finalist given the quality of some of the players eliminated earlier in the competition.
In any case, the better player won - well played Steve - he was definitely the more deserving finalist, especially after his earlier two performances, and I can have no complaints with being a losing semi-finalist given the quality of some of the players eliminated earlier in the competition.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:06 am
- Location: Lincolnshire
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
MY RESULTS:
Letters 1 - ENACTS
Letters 2 - GUITARS
Letters 3 - HEADER
Letters 4 - AVOWS, MIST, MOIST
Numbers 1 - 749 ( 1 OFF )
Tea Time Teaser 1 - got GUESSING
Letters 5 - PINS
Letters 6 - FAIRS
Letters 7 - POLITE
Letters 8 - USABLE
Numbers 2 - Nowhere near.
Tea Time Teaser 2 - got OBEDIENT
Letters 9 - PARKED
Letters 10 - TRAILED
Letters 11 - SNAILED
Numbers 3 - Brain went to sleep!
Conundrum - Totally, utterly lost!
Letters 1 - ENACTS
Letters 2 - GUITARS
Letters 3 - HEADER
Letters 4 - AVOWS, MIST, MOIST
Numbers 1 - 749 ( 1 OFF )
Tea Time Teaser 1 - got GUESSING
Letters 5 - PINS
Letters 6 - FAIRS
Letters 7 - POLITE
Letters 8 - USABLE
Numbers 2 - Nowhere near.
Tea Time Teaser 2 - got OBEDIENT
Letters 9 - PARKED
Letters 10 - TRAILED
Letters 11 - SNAILED
Numbers 3 - Brain went to sleep!
Conundrum - Totally, utterly lost!
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Oh and was a great game. I didn't think Nick could hold Steve to a crucial conundrum, but he did. Still, I think he did as well as he could have and I think the best player won. I did feel the rounds were a bit flat as well, although annoyingly I turned the TV on just after round one.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Well done on a very good game because I think based on the previous rounds people thought it might be a bit one-sided. Not that you were anything less than very good, but Steven looked like possible champion material from the outset.Nick Wainwright wrote:Annoyingly I had GARFISH written down in round 7 and would've risked it had I been declaring second and I still can't work out how I missed the straightforward 7s in round 12.
In any case, the better player won - well played Steve - he was definitely the more deserving finalist, especially after his earlier two performances, and I can have no complaints with being a losing semi-finalist given the quality of some of the players eliminated earlier in the competition.
- Harry Whitehouse
- Rookie
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 pm
- Location: Scarborough
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
I also had LARIATED, but although LASSO is also a verb, my Chambers gives LARIAT only as a noun.
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
- Kai Laddiman
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: My bedroom
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Wooo!!! I got the conundrum again!
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Amusingly I had two 6s - GARISH and OAFISH - each of which could be extended by one letter to the name of a fish, GARFISH and OARFISH. Actually, it wasn't amusing at all, sorry.Nick Wainwright wrote:Annoyingly I had GARFISH written down in round 7
- Kai Laddiman
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: My bedroom
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Someone canNick Wainwright wrote:I can have no complaints with being a losing semi-finalist given the quality of some of the players eliminated earlier in the competition
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
- Neil Zussman
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Unpieces is not a word is it? (round 6 I think). It sounds like it should be, but maybe I'm confusing it with something else. No idea what, mind you.
Numbers rounds today were weird; I got the first two, more difficult ones, but messed up the third, easier one.
Oh wait, hang on, that makes me weird...
Numbers rounds today were weird; I got the first two, more difficult ones, but messed up the third, easier one.
Oh wait, hang on, that makes me weird...
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
- Location: Farnborough, Hampshire
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
A good and speedy recap Kai
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Possibly you're thinking of UNPICKS.Neil Zussman wrote:Unpieces is not a word is it? (round 6 I think). It sounds like it should be, but maybe I'm confusing it with something else. No idea what, mind you.
- jeff wharton
- Rookie
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:28 am
- Location: Leicester.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Would exacts have been ok in round one?No one has mentioned it thats why I am doubting it.
I was surprised Nick missed trailed in round twelve.Also I thought he would have gone for six
small in the final numbers game after coming out the winner in the previous numbers with six
small.
Another close game.I havn,t kept count,but I wonder how many of the finals games have
gone down to a crucial conundrum?
I was surprised Nick missed trailed in round twelve.Also I thought he would have gone for six
small in the final numbers game after coming out the winner in the previous numbers with six
small.
Another close game.I havn,t kept count,but I wonder how many of the finals games have
gone down to a crucial conundrum?
- Joseph Bolas
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 am
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
I was hoping for an 'E' to come out in round 2 for SIGNATURE, but an 'I' came out instead. Also after Steve got MANGANESE and Nick got DAVENPORT, in previous games, I thought one of them might've spotted VARIFOCAL.
It was another brilliant game though and well done to Steve for getting into the Final on Friday and commiserations to Nick.
It was another brilliant game though and well done to Steve for getting into the Final on Friday and commiserations to Nick.
- Kai Laddiman
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: My bedroom
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
7 CofC XIII games have gone to a crucial conundrum.
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
- Neil Zussman
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Possibly. I guess a detective is more likely to unpick evidence than unpiece it...Phil Reynolds wrote:Possibly you're thinking of UNPICKS.Neil Zussman wrote:Unpieces is not a word is it? (round 6 I think). It sounds like it should be, but maybe I'm confusing it with something else. No idea what, mind you.
That's obviously planned in advance to give us all more entertainmentKai Laddiman wrote:7 CofC XIII games have gone to a crucial conundrum.
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
It would have been absolutely fine, since exact is a verb as well as an adjective. Presumably no one has mentioned it because it's shorter than any of the words that were given.jeff wharton wrote:Would exacts have been ok in round one?No one has mentioned it thats why I am doubting it.
- jeff wharton
- Rookie
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:28 am
- Location: Leicester.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Thanks Kai I couldn,t be bothered to check back myself.Kai Laddiman wrote:7 CofC XIII games have gone to a crucial conundrum.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
I had RADIATE in round 12 but missed OARFISH and GARFISH despite having a list prior to CoC of words ending in FISH.
Well done Steve, commiserations Nick.Must have been a tough one to lose.
Well done Steve, commiserations Nick.Must have been a tough one to lose.
- Steven Tew
- Rookie
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:35 pm
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
The weekend is coming quicker than I thought
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Bisley, Surrey
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Well done, both Steven & Nick.jeff wharton wrote:Also I thought he would have gone for six small in the final numbers game after coming out the winner in the previous numbers with six
small.
Like Jeff, I expected Nick to go for 6small in the final numbers. Although 1large was most likely to produce an even result and therefore a crucial conundrum, 6small may have put Nick in the lead for a crucial conundrum, which would have resulted in a victory when neither contestant got the conundrum.
(Hindsight is a wonderful thing!)
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
I didn't get it (I only had a 6) but after Steven said PARKED in round 11 I saw PARKADE for a beater. RAGFISH is also OK in round 7 and I had BASCULE for an equaller in round 9. I'm pleased that Steven offered LAZARET over TRAILED though
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 28th January (CofC XIII SF1)
Hmm yes it occurred to me afterwards that maybe he should have gone for six small ones - but mainly because of the result. The standard play given the scores is to go for one large, because if he gets beaten on the numbers, his opponent avoids a crucial conundrum, but if he beats his opponent on the numbers, it's still a crucial conundrum, albeit with him in the lead, not Steven. Jono might have something to say about that, actually...
The other reason is that remarkably few conundrums have been solved - possibly a reason to try and be ahead going into the conundrum, because I think less than half of the conundrums have been solved, so far. Someone will check this I reckon.
The other reason is that remarkably few conundrums have been solved - possibly a reason to try and be ahead going into the conundrum, because I think less than half of the conundrums have been solved, so far. Someone will check this I reckon.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Only just realised I put Thursday instead of Wednesday in the title.
- Steven Briers
- Rookie
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:02 pm
- Location: Southampton
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
For some reason this was the game where I felt the most nervous, although I was nervous for all of them. Risking TOP-LINE was rather foolish as I was literally 50-50 as to whether it was hyphenated or not, but the temptation got the better of me.
The conundrum was 30 seconds of complete torture for me as Nick had up until that point been notoriously good with the other conundrums in the tournament, so I was expecting to hear his buzzer go off at any point. Nick, like all the others, was a great person as well.
The conundrum was 30 seconds of complete torture for me as Nick had up until that point been notoriously good with the other conundrums in the tournament, so I was expecting to hear his buzzer go off at any point. Nick, like all the others, was a great person as well.
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Well done Steven, commiserations Nick.
Is it me or are conundrums selected for the final stages of a series intentionally more difficult to get? Being relatively thick I generally get about 1-in-4 conundrums in normal games, but during finals rounds I can barely be bothered trying.
Is it me or are conundrums selected for the final stages of a series intentionally more difficult to get? Being relatively thick I generally get about 1-in-4 conundrums in normal games, but during finals rounds I can barely be bothered trying.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Yes Vikash, Damian does pick more difficult conundrums for the series finals and CoC. They certainly don't have any obvious endings (e.g. -ED or -ING) and can be quite obscure words too.Vikash Shah wrote:Is it me or are conundrums selected for the final stages of a series intentionally more difficult to get? Being relatively thick I generally get about 1-in-4 conundrums in normal games, but during finals rounds I can barely be bothered trying.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday 28th January CofC XIII SF1
Well there's a question with its own answer if ever I saw one.Vikash Shah wrote:Is it me or are conundrums selected for the final stages of a series intentionally more difficult to get? Being relatively thick