COOT Round 2 - Howe vs Corby

[Charlie Reams]

Played Tuesday 1st July 2008. Host was Jason Cullen.

For a short digestable version of this recap, see the wiki. To "play along at home", read on...

C1: Challenger Paul Howe.
C2: Challenger Jon Corby.

These two kids are real good.

R01: C P T N E A O L A
R02: T G S I A O C G V
R03: T J M N U E I D R
R04: N Y B I O E S D A
R05: 25, 6, 8, 9, 3, 5. Target: 809.
TTT: HIPERISH - "A flying cruise liner for Prince Charles perhaps!"
R06: L S S E E I R I U
R07: X N Q K U I E O A
R08: T L T E A E N R L
R09: N F G S O I A S A
R10: 75, 50, 25, 8, 10, 5. Target: 286.
TTT: REBETIKA - "A tightly-contested tennis match in Thailand perhaps!"
R11: R T M D E E U E N
R12: S W Z A O I R A P
R13: D C R B E I U O A
R14: 75, 100, 50, 5, 10, 1. Target: 991.
R15: M O N E Y L I S T (conundrum)


SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Round 1: C P T N E A O L A
C1: PLACENTA (8)
C2: PLACENTA (8)
Score: 8–8 (max 8)

Round 2: T G S I A O C G V
C1: COATS (5)
C2: COATIS (6)
DC: AGOGICS (7)
Score: 8–14 (max 15)

Round 3: T J M N U E I D R
C1: RUDIMENT (8)
C2: RUDIMENT (8)
Score: 16–22 (max 23)

Round 4: N Y B I O E S D A
C1: BIASED (6)
C2: anybodies (unlucky!)
DC: ANODISE (7) BANDIES (7) DISOBEY (7)
Score: 22–22 (max 30)

Round 5: 25, 6, 8, 9, 3, 5. Target: 809.
C1: 809.Mistake in working.
C2: 809.(6-5+3)x8x25+9 (10)
Score: 22–32 (max 40)

Teatime teaser: HIPERISH -> HEIRSHIP

Round 6: L S S E E I R I U
C1: LEISURE (7)
C2: LEISURE (7)
DC: REISSUE (7) RESILES (7)
Score: 29–39 (max 47)

Round 7: X N Q K U I E O A
C1: EQUINOX (7)
C2: EQUINOX (7)
Score: 36–46 (max 54)

Round 8: T L T E A E N R L
C1: ETERNAL (7)
C2: ETERNAL (7)
DC: ENTREAT (7)
Score: 43–53 (max 61)

Round 9: N F G S O I A S A
C1: SAIGAS (6)
C2: assing
DC: ASSIGN (6) AGNOSIA (7)
Score: 49–53 (max 68)

Round 10: 75, 50, 25, 8, 10, 5. Target: 286.
C1: 285.(75-10-8)*5 (7)
C2: 285.8x50-75-25-10-5 (7)
CV: 286. 8x(25+(75+10)/5)-50 (10)
Score: 56–60 (max 78)

Teatime teaser: REBETIKA -> TIEBREAK

Round 11: R T M D E E U E N
C1: UNMETERED (18)
C2: UNMETERED (18)
Score: 74–78 (max 96)

Round 12: S W Z A O I R A P
C1: APORIAS (7)
C2: WARPS (5)
Score: 81–78 (max 103)

Round 13: D C R B E I U O A
C1: AEROBIC (7)
C2: BROCADE (7)
DC: CARIBOU (7) CARBIDE (7) (no barcode)
Score: 88–85 (max 110)

Round 14: 75, 100, 50, 5, 10, 1. Target: 991.
C1: 991.50/5x100-10+1 (10)
C2: 991.100x10-50/5+1 (10)
Score: 98–95 (max 120)

Round 15: M O N E Y L I S T
C1 buzzes on 9 seconds to say SOLEMNITY which is correct.
Score: 108–95 (max 130)

Awesome game, I imagine Corby will kick some ass in the Plate. Unlucky for me...

[Joseph Bolas]

Round 6: L S S E E I R I U
C1: LEISURE (7)
C2: LEISURE (7)
DC: REISSUE (7) RESILES (7)
Score: 29–39 (max 47)

I think this may have been discussed before in a Countdown episode (though the search ain't brining up any instances of it), but would'nt LEISURES be allowed?

[Julian Fell]

Can't really see anything in the definition to justify allowing a plural, Joseph, although there's no knowing really, these things do seem to depend largely on what side of bed Susie/Damian got out that morning...

UNMETERED was a fantastic spot guys... I got the impression you missed a few more maxima than usual, but you'd still have beaten me! Too good. Corby and Pugh to meet again in the Plate final... and Corby I really hope you maintain this form in front of the TV cameras at CofC!

[Richard Brittain]

Oh dear.

[James Hurrell]

I got the impression you missed a few more maxima than usual!

Really??? This standard is more than good enough. That numbers game was near impossible and with the exception of ANODISE the other 'misses' were extremely obscure words imo.

Amazingly high quality game. I'd have been so far behind it would have been embarrassing.

[Jon Corby]

I got the impression you missed a few more maxima than usual!

Really??? This standard is more than good enough.

I actually thought it was a pretty disappointing game. TBH I wasn't as focussed as I could/should have been. ANYBODIES was a stupid risk, particularly as I had a few safe sevens, which as it turned out, would have won the round, and going for ASSING without realising ASSIGN is dumb beyond belief. UNMETERED was a risk which I probably wouldn't have gone for had Paul not declared first (I'd seen METERED already before the last letter, and was actually hoping it wouldn't be an 'N' to avoid the dilemma!)

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to say "I should have won" or that I'm taking anything away from Paul - he definitely deserved the victory for a great conundrum spot which I would never have got - I just think we're both capable of a higher standard than was shown in this game.

[Paul Howe]

Well I thought it was a quality game. We both messed up a couple of rounds (I tend to make at least one major balls up per game anyway, so I don't think this was unusual for me), but there were some fine spots as well (COATIS, PLACENTA, EQUINOX, UNMETERED). In short, I think you're being a bit hard on yourself.

[Damian E]

Can't really see anything in the definition to justify allowing a plural, Joseph, although there's no knowing really, these things do seem to depend largely on what side of bed Susie/Damian got out that morning...

Common sense always gets out of the same side of the bed, Julian. And for what its worth, being father to 4 boys at home, i dont get out of bed in the morning, its usually the middle of the bloody night.

LEISURES would be a 'no' on the show, just as GAMBIERS was. Let it go mate. LET IT GO .............

[Julian Fell]

Glad somebody apart from me is noting the amazingly high standard of play shown by the likes of Corby and Paul H these days - it seemed that people on here were becoming numbed to this level of performance (because it happened so often) so never said anything. Either that or they were too scared!

Anyway Damian I'm not specifically arguing about GAMBIERS - I never have, although I may jokingly have referred to it from time to time; I just don't like the mass nouns rule in general, with the uncertainty and inconsistency it creates... is it "common sense" to allow TURMOILS or PENURIES or BROMINES etc.? That's the kind of thing I was referring to... and also the more recent thing of DC going back on their previous decisions about CARMINES, MILEAGES etc. To be fair, a lot of people in that thread did agree with me that this kind of thing was undesirable. And you yourself said that there are some mass nouns where you can read the definition one day and allow the plural, yet on another day you'll feel differently and disallow it. Which is not that far away from what I was saying...

Damian I know better than to get into a proper argument with you ( ), I know there are more important things in life than the mass nouns rule, I can live with it but I don't have to like it.

Okey-doke

[Julian Fell]

I got the impression you missed a few more maxima than usual!

Really???

(Just to clarify - I meant a few more maxima than Corby / Paul H are used to missing, not players in general!)

[Damian E]

Glad somebody apart from me is noting the amazingly high standard of play shown by the likes of Corby and Paul H these days - it seemed that people on here were becoming numbed to this level of performance (because it happened so often) so never said anything. Either that or they were too scared!

Anyway Damian I'm not specifically arguing about GAMBIERS - I never have, although I may jokingly have referred to it from time to time; I just don't like the mass nouns rule in general, with the uncertainty and inconsistency it creates... is it "common sense" to allow TURMOILS or PENURIES or BROMINES etc.? That's the kind of thing I was referring to... and also the more recent thing of DC going back on their previous decisions about CARMINES, MILEAGES etc. To be fair, a lot of people in that thread did agree with me that this kind of thing was undesirable. And you yourself said that there are some mass nouns where you can read the definition one day and allow the plural, yet on another day you'll feel differently and disallow it. Which is not that far away from what I was saying...

Damian I know better than to get into a proper argument with you ( ), I know there are more important things in life than the mass nouns rule, I can live with it but I don't have to like it.

Okey-doke

One small problem we have is actually REMEMBERING what decision was made last time around. Hence sometimes the inconsistency. I'm with you on it all the way. MASS NOUNS, since they appeared in the OED, have been a pain in the arse and i just wish the dicionary was written in a different way. We just have to try and make the best of the situation. The only other option is too have a definitive list of ALL mass nouns in the dictionary, then work through them one at a time to decide on whether or not the plural is acceptable, then use that as a separate reference throughout the series.

Sadly, there isnt the time for this and ODE don't write the dictionary with us in mind - so there's nothing anyone can really do except wait and see what the next version of their dictionary holds, then go from there and make a clear-cut decision once and for all prior to using it on the programme.

Thankfully, its extremely rare that the result of a show has hinged on something like this. Except of course, yours.

[Julian Fell]

Damian I completely agree / sympathize with the point about it being hard to remember previous decisions on mass nouns... would you consider having a spreadsheet or similar with past mass-noun decisions on it? Then you could either have it running in the gallery while you're officiating on the letters rounds, or just use it to refresh your memory at the start of each recording block (before the list got too long, anyway...). And each time a 'new' mass noun plural was allowed / disallowed you could add it to the list, it'd only take you 2 mins at the end of every second or third game probably?

Again without wanting to blow my own trumpet too much ( ) I think a few other people on here were favourable to that sort of idea when it was mentioned before. Even easier, you could just get Susie to quickly mark the relevant dictionary entry whenever a mass noun plural is allowed / disallowed - though that would only last for as long as you kept using the same copy of the dictionary, and I understand you change them quite often when they get dog-eared... so that'd maybe not be ideal.

And is there anything I can do to persuade you to go back to the old mass-noun rule when the next dictionary comes out...? (which doesn't involve being naked on a webcam... )

[Damian E]

When the new dictionary comes out, we'll definitely think about how to rectify the problem.

Other than that it'll be business as usual. Can't get Susie to mark dictionary due to the frequent changes as you mentioned, and the other idea about spreadsheets and making notes etc, there are so many notes made during a single recording, whether they be comments that need to be cut out, notes about references to parts of previous shows that were cut out, re-take notes etc, its just not possible.

As i said, it doesnt rear its ugly head too much, but we do tend to slant the decisions towards the risk-taker anyway.

Not perfect i know.

[Julian Fell]

but we do tend to slant the decisions towards the risk-taker anyway.

I can think of at least one occasion when you didn't