c4countdown

Very tricky first numbers there. Difficulty rating 15%.

Fafux Ache. forgotten to turn on TV again... I hate catching up on +1, means I can't take part in this thread... well not live anyway. boo.

APTEROUS!

I didn't even know it was a real word... have been meaning to ask that for ages.

Sorry, not much of a spot really since dic corner saw it, but I posted here before they said it, honest.

That last round... DEFLATOR?

edit: Yup, DEFLATOR is in.

In the 7th round (LREKNOYQI) I made YOLKER (as in double yolker) Is that allowed? (DC saw "YOLKIER")

APTEROUS!

And they didn't mention the site! Bitch.

Letters 1 – ABATE

Letters 2 – POSTED

Letters 3 – MATIER

Letters 4 – HOMIES

Numbers 1 – 844 (2 out)

Tea Time Teaser 1 – Nope!

Letters 5 – PLANES

Letters 6 – MANGOES

Letters 7 – ROLE

Letters 8 – BEDHEAD

Numbers 2 – 459 - GET THOSE 10 POINTS IN THERE, GIRL! YES!!!!!!

Tea Time Teaser 2 – got GARGLING

Letters 9 – SPROUTS (yeeks! Missed Apterous!)

Letters 10 – FLOATED

Letters 11 – COINED

Numbers 3 – 165!!!!!! ANOTHER ONE SOLVED!!!!!!! This can’t be happening!!!!!

Conundrum – Nope!

I don't know the exact figures, but it seemed like there were very few round today where both contestants scored? Anyone know what the record for that is? (I guess excluding one-sided games would be better, and yes I am thinking of DoD when I say that!)

Not really a record, just a poor game. I suppose that's why I stopped watching Countdown for quite a while - a lot of poor games, and the celebrity guests are usually tedious. Now that I watch on "Watch Online" that's less of a problem, because you don't even need to fastforward, it's just one click! So yeah, I wish Zoe had won yesterday, as she seemed better than those two.

Nothing particularly to add, apart from PODCAST - still only seven, but it's a recent word, and a "Jeff equaller" with HEADEND in the BEDHEAD round.

Brilliant!

I got NOPALES and DEFLATOR as DC beaters and made up the invalid SMUDGEON in one round. In the final numbers I thought it was a shame viewers would miss seeing the 33x5 solution and then Rachel stepped up. Class act, that one.

Nobody's mentioned MODEST in Round2; I was hoping one of the contestants would declare "a modest 6", but (I think) it was only a 4 & a 5.

Lisa's MARRIER was disallowed, but she could have had TARRIER.

I got the conundrum.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Awesome picture

I was hoping that they would go to the board when Susie said APTEROUS and they did

That should be Apterous's new logo

I'm upset with myself for not getting the easy 459
After the first numbers round included a 9 and a total divisible by 9 AND Rachel highlighted the fact I was too caught up in making 51 to multiply by the 9 to get the 459 in the same way. Totally ignored the conventional technique!

I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Another plug from Charlie without even appearing on the show!

What exactly did Roy declare in Rd2?

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Have you got up-to-date Java?

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Yeah that doesn't really make any sense. I don't know why you're having such problems but clearly lots of other people aren't.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Yeah that doesn't really make any sense. I don't know why you're having such problems but clearly lots of other people aren't.

Similarly, loads of people have their chat break in-game, but that has never happened to me. But it could be my computer, as the exclamation mark Java works better for me than the other one.

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Yeah that doesn't really make any sense. I don't know why you're having such problems but clearly lots of other people aren't.

Similarly, loads of people have their chat break in-game, but that has never happened to me. But it could be my computer, as the exclamation mark Java works better for me than the other one.

Chat has improved a lot lately, although it still has some wrinkles. I would now advise people to upgrade to Update 11 if they're having problems, I'm pretty sure I've fixed the teething difficulties now.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere. And as for Apterous - love to try it but over the last two weeks I've tried repeatedly from numerous different macs and PCs and have never once managed to get past the screen that counts down until it times out so it's probably just as well it didn't get a plug. Sorry Charlie.

Yeah that doesn't really make any sense. I don't know why you're having such problems but clearly lots of other people aren't.

I did have that problem once recently, but it was working again the next day.

Vikash Shah wrote:I'm upset with myself for not getting the easy 459
After the first numbers round included a 9 and a total divisible by 9 AND Rachel highlighted the fact I was too caught up in making 51 to multiply by the 9 to get the 459 in the same way. Totally ignored the conventional technique!

And you didn't see (6*7-25)*3 to make the 51? Pff.

Jon Corby wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I'm upset with myself for not getting the easy 459
After the first numbers round included a 9 and a total divisible by 9 AND Rachel highlighted the fact I was too caught up in making 51 to multiply by the 9 to get the 459 in the same way. Totally ignored the conventional technique!

And you didn't see (6*7-25)*3 to make the 51? Pff.

Nope I realised I wanted to do 17*3*9 but couldn't get the 17. If I were a proper contestant playing against you, I think I'd have been whitewashed.

Vikash Shah wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:And you didn't see (6*7-25)*3 to make the 51? Pff.

Nope I realised I wanted to do 17*3*9 but couldn't get the 17. If I were a proper contestant playing against you, I think I'd have been whitewashed.

Haha, not really. I too spotted that it was divisible by nine and set about finding the 51. It was only about a minute after the time (paused on Sky+) that I finally found it. I unpaused my box and was stunned when both players declared 459. "How can I have missed an easier way of making the 51?" I thought, until they gave their solutions. Oh

Jon Corby wrote:Haha, not really. I too spotted that it was divisible by nine and set about finding the 51. It was only about a minute after the time (paused on Sky+) that I finally found it. I unpaused my box and was stunned when both players declared 459. "How can I have missed an easier way of making the 51?" I thought, until they gave their solutions. Oh

Well if the great Jon Corby slipped up too, I will try to put it behind me and get on with my life

Jon Corby wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I'm upset with myself for not getting the easy 459
After the first numbers round included a 9 and a total divisible by 9 AND Rachel highlighted the fact I was too caught up in making 51 to multiply by the 9 to get the 459 in the same way. Totally ignored the conventional technique!

And you didn't see (6*7-25)*3 to make the 51? Pff.

This is probably the way Martin Bishop did it
... then was equally surprised when there was an easier solution

Just a little note, SIGH should have been disallowed in one round because he declared 5, and that's 4. In another round, he offered FATE for 4 when he could have FATED or FATES!

Martin Gardner wrote:Just a little note, SIGH should have been disallowed in one round because he declared 5, and that's 4. In another round, he offered FATE for 4 when he could have FATED or FATES!

Except that there wasn't an F in the selection!

Actually, he had made "Sighs" as there were 2 "S's"

AnnieHall wrote:Actually, he had made "Sighs" as there were 2 "S's"

He didn't say that though - he said SIGH and then even spelt it out.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Just a little note, SIGH should have been disallowed in one round because he declared 5, and that's 4. In another round, he offered FATE for 4 when he could have FATED or FATES!

Except that there wasn't an F in the selection!

Yeah we've been debating that on the recaps forum. It sounded like FATE to me, but if it wasn't that, what was it? Oh and in the SIGH round he said SIGH (with no S) and then spelt it out loud S-I-G-H.

He was funny.

Hi! My first time on this forum! It's been very interesting watching the comments here the last few days. I think I was quite lucky with who I've been up against. I didn't play very well. I know I can do better. I can't believe some of the words and numbers I missed but I was extremely nervous.

Lisa Thomson wrote:Hi! My first time on this forum! It's been very interesting watching the comments here the last few days. I think I was quite lucky with who I've been up against. I didn't play very well. I know I can do better. I can't believe some of the words and numbers I missed but I was extremely nervous.

Hi Lisa! I think you've been great and I look forward to recapping your game tonight

(Especially as I now know to avoid making certain comments in light of your presence here...)

Oh wow! Thanks. I get the feeling people think it's a bit dull, but that's because we've just been spoilt with cofc. Not all of us are "champion" status!!

Lisa Thomson wrote:Oh wow! Thanks. I get the feeling people think it's a bit dull, but that's because we've just been spoilt with cofc. Not all of us are "champion" status!!

I doubt it, I'd imagine the majority of viewers are pleased to get rid of the nerds and get some "normal" people back on, and words they've heard of.

Your opponent yesterday was a bit bananas, but obviously you can't help that.

(btw, I also don't deserve 'champion' status, as my workmates delight in pointing out to me )

Well, champion or not, I did have a fantastic time down in Leeds. Everyone there is so nice, and I felt really looked after.

Welcome Lisa! I am enjoying being able to watch the show as an avid viewer again, without knowing the result. I hope you go a long way, so far so good. I think everyone who's been on the show will admit to suffering from nerves at some point, especially in the beginning, so don't worry about that!

Heather Culpin wrote:I may have got the letters wrong again, but I think ENDGAMES was in there somewhere.

Missed first couple of rounds but if you're referring to round 6, letters were MGSNDUEOA so you got the wrong letters again! I had OSMUNDA which raised a few eyebrows when I blurted it out in the staff breakroom!

Irrelevant to this but as I mentioned Apterous earlier - I had the day off today and tried it from a PC this morning. It worked and I was able to get in and play a game, so maybe it's just a problem in the evenings when it's probably busier. Anyway it was very good, so thanks Charlie. Martin - yes, I've got the most up to date versions of Java on the two PCs and two Macs I've tried it on.

Heather Culpin wrote:Irrelevant to this but as I mentioned Apterous earlier - I had the day off today and tried it from a PC this morning. It worked and I was able to get in and play a game, so maybe it's just a problem in the evenings when it's probably busier. Anyway it was very good, so thanks Charlie. Martin - yes, I've got the most up to date versions of Java on the two PCs and two Macs I've tried it on.

My guess would be just that you happened to try logging in at some time when it was broken anyway.