c4countdown

Well, Heather has been deposed as the champ. I think that was a bit of a surprise, but we now have Barney as our champ. How far will he go as a Countdown champ

I've not got much else to say today, which is probably a relief for most of you, so that'll do.

Today is Tuesday and after having a women occupying the challengers chair for what seems like an unheard of amount of time these days normal service is resumed in the shape of Barney Maunder-Taylor who with 19 letters in his name takes over from Garner fodder Troy Ramsey-Axelsson in the race to see which contestant has the longest name of the series Interestingly (I think) he is the first non apteroid champion since Mark Abbit right at the start of the month

Will Barney make it two out of two or will he become extinct Will we see yet another apteroid in the challengers chair

I wasn't in the studio so I don't know yet, however I do know that Huddersfield Town are away at Tranmere tonight but I can't go because I have a job.

Deary me, Douglas. You seem to be very obsessed with me, don't you.

Douglas Wilson wrote:I do know that Huddersfield Town are away at Tranmere tonight but I can't go because I have a job.

When has people having a job meant that you can't go to a Tuesday night football match I'm not going because it might be frozen off, which it could easily be, but I have been to every Tuesday night home match for as long as I can remember, with or without a job.

James Robinson wrote:

Douglas Wilson wrote:I do know that Huddersfield Town are away at Tranmere tonight but I can't go because I have a job.

When has people having a job meant that you can't go to a Tuesday night football match

Presumably when people has a job that involves working on a Tuesday night?

Matt Morrison wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Douglas Wilson wrote:I do know that Huddersfield Town are away at Tranmere tonight but I can't go because I have a job.

When has people having a job meant that you can't go to a Tuesday night football match

Presumably when people has a job that involves working on a Tuesday night?

More to do with getting to Tranmere from Yorkshire after a day at work would require considerable effort, much more so than getting to Huddersfield.

Douglas Wilson wrote:More to do with getting to Tranmere from Yorkshire after a day at work would require considerable effort, much more so than getting to Huddersfield.

Maybe so, but compared to nearly every other team in League One, it's a doddle. Next Tuesday, for example, Town are away at Southampton

Oestriol round one

RAVAGES as a beater rd 8

FOLIATE in round 9.

RIOTOUS in the round with the Q to equal DC

Sue Sanders wrote:RIOTOUS in the round with the Q to equal DC

I think I got UNROOTS in that round. That's allowed isn't it?

That Barney can't be too bad if he watches 18 Bond films in 36 hours

DENARIUS as an equaller in round 6.

Interesting that during Guess The Origins, Rachel said that Susie's clues sounded like stuff on QI, because if she watched Episode 9 of Series B, she would've seen the definition of butterflies given by Susie on that episode.

What was with the camera shot of Rachel working it out? She couldn't stop laughing! Also Jay's facial expression made me laugh when they went to the audience. Good contest, I really liked Barney!

TOURNOIS as a beater in round 12. I was on a max game until I missed the 6 small in round 14, grrr. 14 maxes will have to do. Nice scramble of COINSPATH turning into CASHPOINT. I like those kind of scrambles. Great contest and it was good to see Barney juggling at the beginning.

A couple of different camera shots - one of Rachel working out the numbers in Round 10 (but not Round 14?) and at the end of Round 10 we were treated to a high shot of the studio, rather than a zooming into the clock ending or a still of it ending. I'm turning into a geek I think.

Kirk Bevins wrote:... turning ...

Alec Rivers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:... turning ...

This

Small tactical point.

The challenger led by eleven points going into the last letters game. Both declared dodgy sixes, MAIMER and RAMMER. Possibly both players will have both words written down, also others like RIMMER. If the challenger gives his word first, the champion can give a different one, to give himself a chance of getting the margin below ten. If the champion goes first, the challenger can give the same word, ensuring he stays eleven ahead. In the event, Jeff asked the champion, the challenger gave a different word and lost the round.

David Williams wrote:Small tactical point.

The challenger led by eleven points going into the last letters game. Both declared dodgy sixes, MAIMER and RAMMER. Possibly both players will have both words written down, also others like RIMMER. If the challenger gives his word first, the champion can give a different one, to give himself a chance of getting the margin below ten. If the champion goes first, the challenger can give the same word, ensuring he stays eleven ahead. In the event, Jeff asked the champion, the challenger gave a different word and lost the round.

Unfortunately, RIMMER would've also been a waste of time as it's not in either. Only RAMMER & ARRIVE were available in that round as valid 6's.

David Williams wrote:Small tactical point.

The challenger led by eleven points going into the last letters game. Both declared dodgy sixes, MAIMER and RAMMER. Possibly both players will have both words written down, also others like RIMMER. If the challenger gives his word first, the champion can give a different one, to give himself a chance of getting the margin below ten. If the champion goes first, the challenger can give the same word, ensuring he stays eleven ahead. In the event, Jeff asked the champion, the challenger gave a different word and lost the round.

Interesting, had never thought of this. One solution to this would be to make players indicate on their paper which is their "primary" word, which seems a bit of a pain for such an infrequent occurrence.

Charlie Reams wrote:Interesting, had never thought of this.

Really? I've bitched about this before I'm sure.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David Williams wrote:Small tactical point.

The challenger led by eleven points going into the last letters game. Both declared dodgy sixes, MAIMER and RAMMER. Possibly both players will have both words written down, also others like RIMMER. If the challenger gives his word first, the champion can give a different one, to give himself a chance of getting the margin below ten. If the champion goes first, the challenger can give the same word, ensuring he stays eleven ahead. In the event, Jeff asked the champion, the challenger gave a different word and lost the round.

Interesting, had never thought of this. One solution to this would be to make players indicate on their paper which is their "primary" word, which seems a bit of a pain for such an infrequent occurrence.

I knew I'd seen this before. See R13 of the series final in Craig Beevers' blow by blow accoount.

I'm pretty sure Jeff will always go to the player who sounded less confident first, so the sharp play would be to sound completely certain and either duplicate your opponent's word if you can (as Craig did), or, if you desperately need the points, choose your best hope amongst the rest.

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm pretty sure Jeff will always go to the player who sounded less confident first, so the sharp play would be to sound completely certain and either duplicate your opponent's word if you can (as Craig did), or, if you desperately need the points, choose your best hope amongst the rest.

There's an ethical issue here. Suppose you've got a word like RECASTING, which sounds dodgy, but isn't. Your opponent has almost certainly seen it, but may not know it's OK. Declare "nine" confidently and he'll risk his nine. Declare a "dodgy nine", and he might go for a "safe eight". And no-one will ever know.

I think that tips over into cheating, whereas the original idea of copying or not copying your opponent depending on the score is OK. I do seem to recall a discussion about ethics years back, where a surprising (to me) number thought any variation from your original intention was wrong. So if you had a target of 106, with numbers 100 6 2 3 x x, your opponent says 100+6, and you realise you forgot to say you hadn't written it down, there are some who think saying 100+(2x3) is wrong.

David Williams wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm pretty sure Jeff will always go to the player who sounded less confident first, so the sharp play would be to sound completely certain and either duplicate your opponent's word if you can (as Craig did), or, if you desperately need the points, choose your best hope amongst the rest.

There's an ethical issue here. Suppose you've got a word like RECASTING, which sounds dodgy, but isn't. Your opponent has almost certainly seen it, but may not know it's OK. Declare "nine" confidently and he'll risk his nine. Declare a "dodgy nine", and he might go for a "safe eight". And no-one will ever know.

I think that tips over into cheating, whereas the original idea of copying or not copying your opponent depending on the score is OK. I do seem to recall a discussion about ethics years back, where a surprising (to me) number thought any variation from your original intention was wrong. So if you had a target of 106, with numbers 100 6 2 3 x x, your opponent says 100+6, and you realise you forgot to say you hadn't written it down, there are some who think saying 100+(2x3) is wrong.

I disagree that the first example was cheating. I actually used to pretend that I wasn't sure of words I knew were fine, but that was more with not wanting to appear to have read the dictionary than misleading my opponent.

I'd probably agree that your numbers example was wrong, but I'm not sure if you've used a 'simple' example to make the point or because you're illustrating a simple round where somebody won't have bothered to write it down because it's so ludicrously easy? Say you had a 6 small game which involved multiplying by 7, doing something else, then multiplying by 7 again (ie, it's tricky, not like doing 100+6). Only there's only one 7 in the selection, so you have to make another one by doing 3+4 or something. Are you saying it's okay to forget to say you've written it down provided you interchange those two 7's from your opponent's working? We're assuming of course that you genuinely did have it, but just forgot to say it was written down, rather than cribbing it. That should never be allowed, surely?

One possible solution would be to use a board, like they do in TWL this would do away with a lot of controversy and Susie would not need to ask contestants to spell words either.
Also this would do away with having to show your opponent your answer when you declare the same word/solution.

Jon Corby wrote:

David Williams wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm pretty sure Jeff will always go to the player who sounded less confident first, so the sharp play would be to sound completely certain and either duplicate your opponent's word if you can (as Craig did), or, if you desperately need the points, choose your best hope amongst the rest.

There's an ethical issue here. Suppose you've got a word like RECASTING, which sounds dodgy, but isn't. Your opponent has almost certainly seen it, but may not know it's OK. Declare "nine" confidently and he'll risk his nine. Declare a "dodgy nine", and he might go for a "safe eight". And no-one will ever know.

I think that tips over into cheating, whereas the original idea of copying or not copying your opponent depending on the score is OK. I do seem to recall a discussion about ethics years back, where a surprising (to me) number thought any variation from your original intention was wrong. So if you had a target of 106, with numbers 100 6 2 3 x x, your opponent says 100+6, and you realise you forgot to say you hadn't written it down, there are some who think saying 100+(2x3) is wrong.

I disagree that the first example was cheating. I actually used to pretend that I wasn't sure of words I knew were fine, but that was more with not wanting to appear to have read the dictionary than misleading my opponent.

I'd probably agree that your numbers example was wrong, but I'm not sure if you've used a 'simple' example to make the point or because you're illustrating a simple round where somebody won't have bothered to write it down because it's so ludicrously easy? Say you had a 6 small game which involved multiplying by 7, doing something else, then multiplying by 7 again (ie, it's tricky, not like doing 100+6). Only there's only one 7 in the selection, so you have to make another one by doing 3+4 or something. Are you saying it's okay to forget to say you've written it down provided you interchange those two 7's from your opponent's working? We're assuming of course that you genuinely did have it, but just forgot to say it was written down, rather than cribbing it. That should never be allowed, surely?

Cheating is too strong a word, but I see the first as an attempt to mislead your opponent. Whether that is your motivation is not the point. However, in the parallel situation, where you are eleven points ahead, with a mass noun you want to pluralise, I wouldn't say "dodgy eight" and give my opponent a free run at the safe seven. I'd just say "eight" as confidently as I could, and hope that he'd think I'd got some other eight, so going for the safe seven would just lose for him.

On the numbers, it was a simple example to make the point. Another contestant told me once that he forgot to say he'd not written down a solution, so while his opponent was giving the same solution as he'd intended, he thought up a completely different one. So long as he was able to deliver it without hesitation I don't see anything wrong with this. But if I realised I'd made a mistake, but I could make a cosmetic change to my opponent's solution? Not right, but I confess I'd be tempted.

I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong, by the way. It's just interesting to see how different people think about borderline issues.

IMO, I think that the clock should be extended by 5 seconds per round at the expense of ANY not written down solutions being valid.
This would remove any doubt about cheating.

RIMMER/RAMMER - the look on his face suggested to me he had RIMMER but didn't want to say it. Luckily, as it happens.

Does it count as "cheating" or misleading your opponent if you know the best word in an 8 (say in ORANGIEST) and you sit back and obviously twiddle your thumbs to make him declare a nine?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Does it count as "cheating" or misleading your opponent if you know the best word in an 8 (say in ORANGIEST) and you sit back and obviously twiddle your thumbs to make him declare a nine?

No, twiddling your thumbs is genuine. Concentrating like hell, then shouting "Yippee" after 25 seconds, would be cheating.