Page 1 of 1

Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:22 pm
by Phil Reynolds
No spoilers today? Can I start a thread for them anyway?

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:33 pm
by Ben Wilson
Phil Reynolds wrote:No spoilers today? Can I start a thread for them anyway?
I'm assuming that question was rhetorical then... :?

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:23 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Another really nervous challenger today - I thought poor Stephen was going to shake his chair off its base.

It made no difference as Shane had an 8, but in round 6 I noticed Stephen declared NATION which wasn't in the selection.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:12 pm
by Hannah O
I thought the chair looked as if it was moving- I expected the 4 large round (the last numbers round) to stump Shane as he'd consistently gone for 6 small, but I was taken aback when he solved the round spot on!

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:17 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Hannah O wrote:I expected the 4 large round (the last numbers round) to stump Shane as he'd consistently gone for 6 small, but I was taken aback when he solved the round spot on!
It was pretty easy to be fair; Shane did it an unnecessarily complicated way - he made 10 by doing (100/50)x5 when he could have just done 50/5.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:48 pm
by Kirk Bevins
Wow, am I the only one to post a DC beater then? DUALIST in round 7.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:46 pm
by Neil Zussman
Am I the only one who noticed that in one numbers round the column of two was in a different place to usual? The bottom row was a row of 6 instead of the second row. Good job I wasn't on that day, would've messed everything up.
Candidate for the most inane observation ever?

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Hannah O wrote:I expected the 4 large round (the last numbers round) to stump Shane as he'd consistently gone for 6 small, but I was taken aback when he solved the round spot on!
It was pretty easy to be fair; Shane did it an unnecessarily complicated way - he made 10 by doing (100/50)x5 when he could have just done 50/5.
I must admit, I hadn't noticed til I read your post. I also made the ten by taking 100/50 and multiplying by 5. Although admittedly if I was on the show, I'd've been tempted to be awkward and make Rachel calculate 5*79*100 and then to divide that by 50.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:51 pm
by Charlie Reams
Neil Zussman wrote:Candidate for the most inane observation ever?
You must be new here.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:15 pm
by Richard Priest
I noticed on one round Shane declared what I thought sounded like SEAMAN when there was only one A. It may have been SEAMEN but it didn't sound like it so I was surprised he wasn't asked to spell it.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:27 pm
by Phil Reynolds
Rich Priest wrote:I noticed on one round Shane declared what I thought sounded like SEAMAN when there was only one A. It may have been SEAMEN but it didn't sound like it so I was surprised he wasn't asked to spell it.
He did quite distinctly enunciate "sea-men", stressing both syllables, thereby averting multiple sources of confusion.

Re: Spoilers for Thursday April 16th

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:38 pm
by Neil Zussman
Charlie Reams wrote:
Neil Zussman wrote:Candidate for the most inane observation ever?
You must be new here.
You're kidding, Charlie!
;)