c4countdown

For the 5th time this series, we have ourselves a coronation day possibly (and once again on a Tuesday). Callum Todd is on the verge of becoming octochamp number 5, though it appears win or lose he'll be in the fifth seed for now. Can he do it? As I'm aware, there will be one more big hurdle in his way, by the name of apterite Abdirizak Hirsi. Will this stop Callum from reaching the promised land, or will he beat his second apterite of this run?

Join Jack for the recap later.

Just like on one of my shows I missed SOLANDER, but this time got the alt of LARDOONS.

Alt 1st numbers ((7+1)x9+(5x3))x4

ZOOIDAL in round 7. If anyone's thinking about TRUANCIES, it's still OK on apterous but it's a mass noun and in my opinion, should be taken out.

Alt 3rd numbers ((7x8)+4-1)x6

Jack Worsley wrote:ZOOIDAL in round 7. If anyone's thinking about TRUANCIES, it's still OK on apterous but it's a mass noun and in my opinion, should be taken out.

Agreed - I had URINATES.

Ah, a Hansforder.

That's gotta be rough if you're Callum, but very well done to Abdirizak, Hansfording aside he did have the lead for most of the match so I can't say it wasn't deserved.

Exciting game that, well played lads.

Congrats on making the quarters, Callum.

Wow, very exciting game, even if I was expecting it to go to a tiebreak with the gap at ten and based on what I'd heard! Well done to Abdirizak for a great performance to defeat a very good champion.

Seriously unlucky to just miss out on octochamp status like that though, Callum! You've come a long way in such a short space of time and you did very well to force a tiebreak after the difficult start to this match. I think you have one of the highest ever heptochamp totals though, if that's any consolation to you. Hopefully you'll still make the finals though.

ROTIFERS for an equaller in round 13.

Didn't Rachel say that Callum would be in the quarter finals, on today's show?

Jojo Apollo wrote:Didn't Rachel say that Callum would be in the quarter finals, on today's show?

Perhaps she has looked at the list of forthcoming contestants and thinks they are all rubbish?

Hi guys, thanks for all your comments; I hope you enjoyed the episode. Despite it being my losing one, it was the game I enjoyed the most. While Abdi may have attempts a few fudges ad Hansfords, ultimately he won because he had that little extra bit of quality over me throughout most of the game. I'm glad he got the chance to sit in the champion's chair and am looking forward to seeing just how far he gets.

As for the quarter finals, I do know for certain whether or not I will be playing in them. Can I reveal that here or would it be classed as spoilers to say 'yes' or 'no'?

No don't reveal, Callum. That would be a future spoiler, I must have misheard/misintrepeted what Rachel said on today's show.

Rachel deffo said he makes the finals!

I think she might have been wise to use the word probable?

PS

Good player or not, and Abdi might be a lovely guy and all that, but he was cheating like Hansford on crack! Two conundrums and a numbers game (at least)!

Dave Preece wrote:PS
Good player or not, and Abdi might be a lovely guy and all that, but he was cheating like Hansford on crack! Two conundrums and a numbers game (at least)!

I totally agree. The 1st numbers game was a blatant attempt to wing it. The 1st conundrum was just as bad. Even after a stern warning from Nick, after buzzing on the 2nd conundrum Abdi continued to look at the monitor for 2 to 3 secs saying "Erm.. is it" before finally declaring the answer. Very controversial - he must have come close to being declared "out of time". For me, Abdi's attempt to win by cheating spoiled what was potentially the best game of the series so far.

Congratulations to Callum on playing extremely well throughout the 8 games. I hope you get through to the finals as I look forward to seeing more of the same.

Callum Todd wrote:Hi guys, thanks for all your comments; I hope you enjoyed the episode. Despite it being my losing one, it was the game I enjoyed the most. While Abdi may have attempts a few fudges ad Hansfords, ultimately he won because he had that little extra bit of quality over me throughout most of the game. I'm glad he got the chance to sit in the champion's chair and am looking forward to seeing just how far he gets.

As for the quarter finals, I do know for certain whether or not I will be playing in them. Can I reveal that here or would it be classed as spoilers to say 'yes' or 'no'?

Fair play to Callum for taking defeat so graciously, when many wouldn't have done due to the manner of the defeat (fudging, Hansfording)

Philip Jarvis wrote:For me, Abdi's attempt to win by cheating spoiled what was potentially the best game of the series so far.

Those conundrums were disgusting to be honest, and certainly not in the spirit of the game.

I'm rather surprised that the production team let the second one stand after the antics on the first one and the warning from Nick. The round should have been replayed.

ABSOLVED in round 1, NUGGET in round 5, SOIGNEE in round 10 and FORTRESS in round 13.

1st Numbers Alt.: ((((9 + 3) x 4) + 1) x 7) + 5 = 348
2nd Numbers Alt.: (((50 x 2) - 3 - 2) x 9) + 3 = 858

Dave Preece wrote:Rachel deffo said he makes the finals!

Well, based on the theory I'm currently using, only Dylan and Jen have qualified so far. (That's on the assumption that there are still 48 prelims to go, using bog-standard methods, although that would also mean the final will be shown on Christmas Eve, which I'm slightly sceptical about, especially as it's a Tuesday, although it has been done before............... )

Corby?

Matt Morrison wrote:Corby?

Didn't see anything wrong with it myself.

Nah, hmm... I don't think I'll be saying anything that hasn't already been covered...

Callum behaved impeccably and was very gracious in what must have been a pretty gutting defeat, but nothing that I didn't expect from watching him over the past week-and-a-bit. Perfect contestant. I did notice that Abdi applauded Callum's first conundrum solve quite heartily though, so I don't believe what transpired was necessarily borne of a "win-at-all-costs" piece of gamesmanship, more just overexcitedness and not really understanding how to behave as per societal norms. Same could possibly said of Hansford, although there was far worse from him left on the cutting room floor apparently. (BTW I'm glad Hansford did it first, because referring to it as Abdirizak-ing or Hirsi-ing doesn't work quite as well.)

Nonetheless, it can't be allowed to happen because it simply isn't fair on guys like Callum or Steve Baines before him. The conundrum should be out of view, the monitor should shut off on buzzing, and Nick needs to be fairly strict in getting an immediate answer. This shouldn't arise. Oh also, I was pretty disappointed that a fairly easy -ING conundrum was used for the second crucial as well, it deserved better. It blatantly opened itself up for a fast buzz. (I didn't think all this in the time before Abdi buzzed btw, I always pause conundrums to get a clear run at them because I'm so damn slow.)

Jon Corby wrote:the monitor should shut off on buzzing

That's a seriously good suggestion, apterous follows similarly. I'd suggest emailing Damian about that one.

James S Roper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:the monitor should shut off on buzzing

That's a seriously good suggestion, apterous follows similarly. I'd suggest emailing Damian about that one.

That is one of the best ideas I've read on here!

James S Roper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:the monitor should shut off on buzzing

That's a seriously good suggestion, apterous follows similarly. I'd suggest emailing Damian about that one.

I've mentioned it directly to him on here several times, and it was my prolonged campaigning that got Charlie to adopt it in apterous. Well, Charlie was obviously smart enough to see that it was a good idea, but not everybody was behind it because it was different to TV.

Jack Worsley wrote:ZOOIDAL in round 7. If anyone's thinking about TRUANCIES, it's still OK on apterous but it's a mass noun and in my opinion, should be taken out.

Just looked at the dictionary, and "truancy" is described as an "action" so there might be a case for pluralising it ("the headmaster dealt with five truancies this term"), but things like SEDATIONS have been disallowed in the past, so TRUANCIES probably would be too.

Callum Todd wrote:Hi guys, thanks for all your comments; I hope you enjoyed the episode. Despite it being my losing one, it was the game I enjoyed the most. While Abdi may have attempts a few fudges ad Hansfords, ultimately he won because he had that little extra bit of quality over me throughout most of the game. I'm glad he got the chance to sit in the champion's chair and am looking forward to seeing just how far he gets.

Flicking back in the dictionary, I stumbled on the entry for "gracious loser". It's just a copy of this post.

Fair play to Nick for hurrying Abdi along on his first buzz when he clearly hadn't got the answer, and for the "he who hits the bell first has got to come out with the answer immediately" warning before the second conundrum. I know I've half-joked before that sometimes it seems like Nick's in a world of his own and doesn't really pay attention to what's going on, but today showed that's not really a fair assessment.

That was a fine run Callum, especially as I believe you hadn't used apterous, or had used it very little, when you recorded. I'm glad we'll be seeing you in the finals, and I'm sure everyone else here is too.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Jack Worsley wrote:ZOOIDAL in round 7. If anyone's thinking about TRUANCIES, it's still OK on apterous but it's a mass noun and in my opinion, should be taken out.

Just looked at the dictionary, and "truancy" is described as an "action" so there might be a case for pluralising it ("the headmaster dealt with five truancies this term"), but things like SEDATIONS have been disallowed in the past, so TRUANCIES probably would be too.

This came up in a discussion on Apterous recently. Wouldn't the plural be given if the dictionary thought it was pluralisable (because it ends in a Y)? Is it given (I don't have the dictionary)? Presumably there are cases where the plural is given for something listed as a mass noun? I seem to remember BRANDIES has been mentioned in the past.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:Hi guys, thanks for all your comments; I hope you enjoyed the episode. Despite it being my losing one, it was the game I enjoyed the most. While Abdi may have attempts a few fudges ad Hansfords, ultimately he won because he had that little extra bit of quality over me throughout most of the game. I'm glad he got the chance to sit in the champion's chair and am looking forward to seeing just how far he gets.

Flicking back in the dictionary, I stumbled on the entry for "gracious loser". It's just a copy of this post.

Fair play to Nick for hurrying Abdi along on his first buzz when he clearly hadn't got the answer, and for the "he who hits the bell first has got to come out with the answer immediately" warning before the second conundrum. I know I've half-joked before that sometimes it seems like Nick's in a world of his own and doesn't really pay attention to what's going on, but today showed that's not really a fair assessment.

That was a fine run Callum, especially as I believe you hadn't used apterous, or had used it very little, when you recorded. I'm glad we'll be seeing you in the finals, and I'm sure everyone else here is too.

Thank you Graeme. I had never heard of apterous when I first went to the studio and played my first 3 games. It was then that Adam Dexter told me about the site.I didn't go back to the studio to film games 4-8 for another 12 days. I signed up to apterous during that time period, but there was a lot of downtime as that was juts before the big crash. So from game 4 onwards I had been on apterous for a couple of days.

Today, many viewers were convinced that Abdi had Hansforded the crucial conundrum TENPACCIG. So much so, they all wrote to their MPs demanding that it be disallowed.

I think they misunderstood.

Graeme Cole wrote:Today, many viewers were convinced that Abdi had Hansforded the crucial conundrum TENPACCIG. So much so, they all wrote to their MPs demanding that it be disallowed.

I think they misunderstood.

Haha, great spot.

Graeme Cole wrote:Today, many viewers were convinced that Abdi had Hansforded the crucial conundrum TENPACCIG. So much so, they all wrote to their MPs demanding that it be disallowed.

I think they misunderstood.

Callum Todd - 'The Moral Octochamp'

Like

Chris Marshall wrote:Callum Todd - 'The Moral Octochamp'

If Abdi becomes an Octo will he be labelled "The Immoral Octochamp"?

Andy McGurn wrote:

Chris Marshall wrote:Callum Todd - 'The Moral Octochamp'

If Abdi becomes an Octo will he be labelled "The Immoral Octochamp"?

Not by me. It will probably all be forgotten about by then. 'The front page on Tuesday is fish and chip wrappers the following Thursday' to Countdownise another cliche.

After playing so well against someone in his 8th game, I'd feel sorry for a good challenger if he lost. The heptochamp will [probably] return in the finals anyway, [notwithstanding how he feels being denied octochampdom of course] but it would be cruel to deny the challenger a chance to continue after playing so well. However all this is lost when someone cheats.
Nick's warning was a yellow card and if he does it again that's a red in my book.
Great idea to shut off the monitor after buzzing. Would this apply to the other contestant's screen too? The way it is now they would have about 35 seconds to solve a conundrum when someone has buzzed incorrectly. Not that that would change the result.
It hasn't yet been ascertained, though, whether Callum solved 'Accepting' between Abdi's buzzing and Abdi's answering. If not, then it wouldn't have made any difference

Philip Wilson wrote:It hasn't yet been ascertained, though, whether Callum solved 'Accepting' between Abdi's buzzing and Abdi's answering. If not, then it wouldn't have made any difference

I hadn't. I turned my attention to Abdi when he buzzed because I wanted to see if he was cheating again. I had isolated the -ING before he buzzed though, so I'd like to think I could have rearranged TEPACC into ACCEPT in the remaining 29 seconds, had I been given the rest of the time

Callum Todd wrote:

Philip Wilson wrote:It hasn't yet been ascertained, though, whether Callum solved 'Accepting' between Abdi's buzzing and Abdi's answering. If not, then it wouldn't have made any difference

I hadn't. I turned my attention to Abdi when he buzzed because I wanted to see if he was cheating again. I had isolated the -ING before he buzzed though, so I'd like to think I could have rearranged TEPACC into ACCEPT in the remaining 29 seconds, had I been given the rest of the time

Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

Jon Corby wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:

Philip Wilson wrote:It hasn't yet been ascertained, though, whether Callum solved 'Accepting' between Abdi's buzzing and Abdi's answering. If not, then it wouldn't have made any difference

I hadn't. I turned my attention to Abdi when he buzzed because I wanted to see if he was cheating again. I had isolated the -ING before he buzzed though, so I'd like to think I could have rearranged TEPACC into ACCEPT in the remaining 29 seconds, had I been given the rest of the time

Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

... are you being serious there?

Callum Todd wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

... are you being serious there?

Don't worry, when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Graeme Cole wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

... are you being serious there?

Don't worry, when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Graeme Cole wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

... are you being serious there?

Don't worry, when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Ha, thanks Graeme

Graeme Cole wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Wow, sore loser. Get over it, mate.

... are you being serious there?

Don't worry, when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Haha. Although I'm as serious as cancer in the Series 70 thread

Funny!

Jon Corby wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Haha. Although I'm as serious as cancer in the Series 70 thread

Have you said there that rhythm is a dancer?

Callum Todd wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:when you read the forum for long enough you learn that the flowchart for deciding "are they being serious?" includes the step "Is it Corby? Then no."

Haha. Although I'm as serious as cancer in the Series 70 thread

Have you said there that rhythm is a dancer?

*crying with laughter*