You Are The Ref

All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:06 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:28 pm
Noel Mc wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:10 pm
Sorry, in this case you only have two options, say MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. You know your gonna pick one of them, by decide to wing it when asked. They declare first, saying MAWSONITE and getbapproving looks from dictionary corner.

What would you do in that instance? Purposely pick the wrong one or the right one?
I would say, "I'm sorry - I've cheated" and request to forfeit the round.
You have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops.
This has gone very Corby. Regardless of the rest of it, you definitely don't have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops. You can declare your length based on what length your opponent has declared, for example.

Regardless of that, you're saying that for each specific length of word you have to have one "locked in" option at the end of the time? Let's say you're declaring second. At the end of the time, it's fine to be unsure between A, AN, ANT, ANTS, TONES, ATONES, ATONIES, AMNIOTE, AMNIOTES and MAWSONITE. But it's not fine to be unsure between MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. It seems a bit ad hoc and arbitrary.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up before actually (if it hasn't) because I've thought about it before. You can pick length based on what your opponent picks, but you can't pick a word of a specific length based on what they pick? So to the forum as a whole, is it:

a) Fine
b) Probably against the spirit of the game but not actually cheating
c) Cheating

And why?

Edit - Another situation where you might want to do this is where both words are dodgy, but you're, say, 11 points behind, so you want to pick the opposite of your opponent. Is this better because you're anti-copying rather than copying? Is it really any different from picking 7 when they pick 8 or vice versa?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:11 pm

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:57 am
It's the final letters game. C1 declares 8, and C2 declares 9. C1 says their word is NEMATOID, C2 says their word is MONRADITE. Points to C2.

Later on, as the contestants shake hands for the crucial conundrum, C1 catches coronavirus. What do you do?
Disqualify them both for not adhering to social distancing rules.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4277
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Jon O'Neill » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:06 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:28 pm
Noel Mc wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:10 pm
Sorry, in this case you only have two options, say MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. You know your gonna pick one of them, by decide to wing it when asked. They declare first, saying MAWSONITE and getbapproving looks from dictionary corner.

What would you do in that instance? Purposely pick the wrong one or the right one?
I would say, "I'm sorry - I've cheated" and request to forfeit the round.
You have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops.
This has gone very Corby. Regardless of the rest of it, you definitely don't have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops. You can declare your length based on what length your opponent has declared, for example.

Regardless of that, you're saying that for each specific length of word you have to have one "locked in" option at the end of the time? Let's say you're declaring second. At the end of the time, it's fine to be unsure between A, AN, ANT, ANTS, TONES, ATONES, ATONIES, AMNIOTE, AMNIOTES and MAWSONITE. But it's not fine to be unsure between MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. It seems a bit ad hoc and arbitrary.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up before actually (if it hasn't) because I've thought about it before. You can pick length based on what your opponent picks, but you can't pick a word of a specific length based on what they pick? So to the forum as a whole, is it:

a) Fine
b) Probably against the spirit of the game but not actually cheating
c) Cheating

And why?

Edit - Another situation where you might want to do this is where both words are dodgy, but you're, say, 11 points behind, so you want to pick the opposite of your opponent. Is this better because you're anti-copying rather than copying? Is it really any different from picking 7 when they pick 8 or vice versa?
Fair point. I think you have to have made your decision on what word you're going to offer when you declare your length. I would prefer a situation where someone who had the ability to write down every combination of letters on their paper in 30 seconds couldn't draw every letters round that they declare second in (how many letters would need to be written down for this to work?)

I guess the reason it's never been clarified is because it's such a marginal case with very limited potential to gain an advantage.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:18 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:36 pm

Fair point. I think you have to have made your decision on what word you're going to offer when you declare your length. I would prefer a situation where someone who had the ability to write down every combination of letters on their paper in 30 seconds couldn't draw every letters round that they declare second in (how many letters would need to be written down for this to work?)

I guess the reason it's never been clarified is because it's such a marginal case with very limited potential to gain an advantage.
I think there is something to be said for Nick going to the opposite person to declare their word first if they have the same length. I tend to do this hosting CO-event games.

Also, intuitively I think it feels worse if players use this tactic to copy their opponent's word rather than go for something different deliberately, though is that logical? I'm not sure. Does it depend on the reason? It seems more cheaty if you're doing it because you think their word is more likely to be valid now that they've said it rather than for the purely tactical reason of going same/opposite based on the points situation. But you can't make a rule based on that.

But I think it's probably fine if you've got two definite words and you use it as a way of not having to pass your paper across.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fiona T » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:34 pm

A good example is re- and -er

If I had for example noted lacquerer and relacquer without being sure of either, and my opponent went for one, I'd go for the same one every time. Never occurred to me that that could be considered cheating. In fact I'm sure someone advised me to declare the same word as my opponent to minimise the possibility that I'd used phantom letters etc.

I don't think Maggie hadn't made up her mind in our qf game at the point she said '7' -

https://dai.ly/x7c2zeo (9:30 in)

Pretty sure she was just deciding between that and the more prosaic 'COPIERS' :)
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Rookie
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:54 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:34 pm
If I had for example noted lacquerer and relacquer without being sure of either, and my opponent went for one, I'd go for the same one every time.
Note that, as Gevin has been alluding to, if it's at the end of the game and you're more than 20 behind, declaring the one that your opponent didn't declare might be your only chance of winning.

David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by David Williams » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:54 pm

I think the one thing you mustn't do is hesitate. When you're asked for a word, you give it. I once had UNCLAD and UNCOOL written down, both 99.9% certain, saw UNTOLD too late to write it down but that was the one I gave.

The thing I've never been totally happy with is people who have RELACQUER and LACQUERER written down and, when asked to declare spend a bit of time deciding whether to declare a nine or not, and then have another think about which to use. You've got 30 seconds to think of the words, and possibly think of your tactics, plus the time till Nick calls your name. And not a second more.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1676
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:54 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:06 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:28 pm
Noel Mc wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:10 pm
Sorry, in this case you only have two options, say MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. You know your gonna pick one of them, by decide to wing it when asked. They declare first, saying MAWSONITE and getbapproving looks from dictionary corner.

What would you do in that instance? Purposely pick the wrong one or the right one?
I would say, "I'm sorry - I've cheated" and request to forfeit the round.
You have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops.
This has gone very Corby. Regardless of the rest of it, you definitely don't have to have made your decision at the moment the music stops. You can declare your length based on what length your opponent has declared, for example.

Regardless of that, you're saying that for each specific length of word you have to have one "locked in" option at the end of the time? Let's say you're declaring second. At the end of the time, it's fine to be unsure between A, AN, ANT, ANTS, TONES, ATONES, ATONIES, AMNIOTE, AMNIOTES and MAWSONITE. But it's not fine to be unsure between MAWSONITE and AWMSONITE. It seems a bit ad hoc and arbitrary.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up before actually (if it hasn't) because I've thought about it before. You can pick length based on what your opponent picks, but you can't pick a word of a specific length based on what they pick? So to the forum as a whole, is it:

a) Fine
b) Probably against the spirit of the game but not actually cheating
c) Cheating

And why?

Edit - Another situation where you might want to do this is where both words are dodgy, but you're, say, 11 points behind, so you want to pick the opposite of your opponent. Is this better because you're anti-copying rather than copying? Is it really any different from picking 7 when they pick 8 or vice versa?
(a) It's fine, for all the reasons you said. If you're declaring second, then deciding whether to go with your safe eight or risky nine depending on what your opponent declares is already part of the game. That's why the players take turns to declare first. So I don't see why that shouldn't also be true for the actual word.

That said, I don't think it's codified in the rules which player gets asked for their word first if the length declarations are the same. Nowadays I think the person who declared first is usually asked for their word first, but I'm sure in the past they sometimes asked the second declarer for their word first (perhaps because it saved someone pressing a button to switch cameras?). So if the player who declared second gets asked for their word first arbitrarily by the host, they don't have any cause for complaint - they can't say "I want to hear their word first".

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1676
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Graeme Cole » Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:23 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:36 pm
Fair point. I think you have to have made your decision on what word you're going to offer when you declare your length. I would prefer a situation where someone who had the ability to write down every combination of letters on their paper in 30 seconds couldn't draw every letters round that they declare second in (how many letters would need to be written down for this to work?)

I guess the reason it's never been clarified is because it's such a marginal case with very limited potential to gain an advantage.
You've found a loophole in Countdown. All you have to do to exploit it is be able to write 3,628,799 letters* in 30 seconds. Assuming you write really small so each letter is, say, 2mm by 2mm, that would take up about 14.5m², which would be about 464 sheets of that A5 notepaper they give you.

You could optimise this. If you wrote it all out without spaces, additional combinations would naturally occur in the overlaps, so for example if you wrote ABCDEFGHI and ABCDEFGIH next to each other, that would also give you BCDEFGHIA, CDEFGHIAB, DEFGHIABC etc even though you've only written down 18 letters. James Grime did a video about a similar problem involving a combination lock. It would just be a case of pointing to the appropriate position in a continuous stream of letters.

* This is calculated by 9!*9 + 8!*8 + 7!*7 + ... + 1!*1, and it assumes all the letters in the selection are distinct. If some are repeated there will be fewer letters to write down.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Callum Todd » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:51 am

Noel Mc wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:28 am
Letters round, selection is MNTSWAOIE.

You are declaring second and know there is a 9. Unsure what it is, you write down a few random ones.
WAMNIOTES
MAWSONITE
AWMNIOTES

Player 1 declares a 9, you also declare a 9. Wait for them to declare MAWSONITE.

You then say 'Yep, same word' and point to the correct one. Is that ok?
Absolutely okay. It's just part of the advantage of declaring second. I have done this a couple of times before at co:events (not made up random words, but written a couple of dodgy ones and opted for the one my opponent went with to minimise risk).
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4277
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Jon O'Neill » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:21 am

Graeme Cole wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:23 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:36 pm
Fair point. I think you have to have made your decision on what word you're going to offer when you declare your length. I would prefer a situation where someone who had the ability to write down every combination of letters on their paper in 30 seconds couldn't draw every letters round that they declare second in (how many letters would need to be written down for this to work?)

I guess the reason it's never been clarified is because it's such a marginal case with very limited potential to gain an advantage.
You've found a loophole in Countdown. All you have to do to exploit it is be able to write 3,628,799 letters* in 30 seconds. Assuming you write really small so each letter is, say, 2mm by 2mm, that would take up about 14.5m², which would be about 464 sheets of that A5 notepaper they give you.

You could optimise this. If you wrote it all out without spaces, additional combinations would naturally occur in the overlaps, so for example if you wrote ABCDEFGHI and ABCDEFGIH next to each other, that would also give you BCDEFGHIA, CDEFGHIAB, DEFGHIABC etc even though you've only written down 18 letters. James Grime did a video about a similar problem involving a combination lock. It would just be a case of pointing to the appropriate position in a continuous stream of letters.

* This is calculated by 9!*9 + 8!*8 + 7!*7 + ... + 1!*1, and it assumes all the letters in the selection are distinct. If some are repeated there will be fewer letters to write down.
That's what I'm getting at. Filter out the overlaps and filter down (or at least order by) the most common patterns of vowels and consonants and suddenly you're looking at being able to cover off a significant chunk of the possibilities. A strategy for this would actually be an interesting programming task.

Or, more realistically, if you see a 7 but not an 8 but suspect there might be one, you could use your intuition to write down 10 potential 8s and you've got 10 chances at matching your opponent's word, instead of 1.

This could be fixed to a great extent if the person who declares their length second has to declare their word first in the case of the same length. But I much prefer the apterous implementation where you don't get this advantage.

David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by David Williams » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:42 am

Graeme Cole wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:23 pm
It would just be a case of pointing to the appropriate position in a continuous stream of letters.
Player needs to draw the last letters game. He writes down MAUVES. His opponent declares five, so he declares five as well. Opponent says MAUVE, player says "Same" and shows him the piece of paper.
You are the ref.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Callum Todd » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:55 am

David Williams wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:42 am
Graeme Cole wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:23 pm
It would just be a case of pointing to the appropriate position in a continuous stream of letters.
Player needs to draw the last letters game. He writes down MAUVES. His opponent declares five, so he declares five as well. Opponent says MAUVE, player says "Same" and shows him the piece of paper.
You are the ref.
Fine again. It says mauve on his paper. I sometimes write down things like 'MAUVE(S)?' for dodgy plurals but I think just MAUVES is fine to be used as evidence of both singular and plural.

For these You Are The Ref things, it's quite important to phrase them in terms of what actual evidence would be visible to the ref when making the decision. Some of the phrasing of recent questions in here tells us what the player was thinking/doing while writing down the evidence ("writes down MAUVES" above instead of 'shows his paper which appears to say MAUVES'). This tells us what the player's intentions and actions leading to the evidence were, which will naturally influence) often heavily) your decision. But 'the ref' wouldn't have access to this information, unless he/she can read the player's mind, so neither should we.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:54 pm

What if he's written SMAUVE?

David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by David Williams » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:34 pm

Or MAUVES when there is no S in the selection?

Or declares SPECIE when he has SPECIES written down (two completely different meanings, and SPECIE is a mass noun)?

Personally, for MAUVE I'd allow MAUVE(S), and disallow MAUVES, and probably disallow MAUVES? as well.

Just as an aside, in the whole history of Countdown has anyone ever queried a word or numbers solution after examining what was written down? If you think of the number of times people are unable to complete a numbers solution despite having written it out, an awful lot of gobbledegook must be slid across and blithely accepted as OK. Or does it happen and get edited out?

Fred Mumford
Enthusiast
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fred Mumford » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:52 pm

David Williams wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:34 pm
has anyone ever queried a word or numbers solution after examining what was written down?
I've seen it done jokingly, albeit deadpan. I think it might have been Liam Moloney (not certain about that) who examined his opponent's paper and I think shook his head and said "ooh I don't know about that".

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Callum Todd » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:54 pm

David Williams wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:34 pm
Just as an aside, in the whole history of Countdown has anyone ever queried a word or numbers solution after examining what was written down? If you think of the number of times people are unable to complete a numbers solution despite having written it out, an awful lot of gobbledegook must be slid across and blithely accepted as OK. Or does it happen and get edited out?
Philip Aston vs Jonathan Wynn in the latest CoC. Both had the same word (AELUROIDS I think) but Philip noticed that Jonathan had spelt it wrong. Not sure if that was broadcast or not but it happened in the studio.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fiona T » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:25 pm

6:15 here

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70wdke

Doesn't show the checking, but Suzie asks for spelling which she doesn't usually do.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:43 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:25 pm
6:15 here

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70wdke

Doesn't show the checking, but Suzie asks for spelling which she doesn't usually do.
I think that was because Philip noticed and that bit was "scripted".

Noel Mc
Acolyte
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Noel Mc » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:11 pm

The AELUROIDS episode was actually what prompted the question.

I wonder how many declarations down the years have been spelt wrong? I know sometimes Susie aske how it's being spelt, but not always.

Jonathan Wynn
Series 73 Champion
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Jonathan Wynn » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:43 pm

I was always asked for spellings when I was on unless it was like 'rabbit' or something. I know because in one of my games I spelt senhora as senorha x and it was noted in the wiki as a mistake, although luckily it didn't matter as my opponent had punted 'onshored' anyway, which turned out to be valid.

Interesting, there was a game recently where both OUTWARN and OUTWORN were possible. OUTWARN isn't valid, but the contestant wasn't asked for the spelling, which I thought was interesting....

JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Leics

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by JackHurst » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:02 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:21 am
Graeme Cole wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:23 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:36 pm
Fair point. I think you have to have made your decision on what word you're going to offer when you declare your length. I would prefer a situation where someone who had the ability to write down every combination of letters on their paper in 30 seconds couldn't draw every letters round that they declare second in (how many letters would need to be written down for this to work?)

I guess the reason it's never been clarified is because it's such a marginal case with very limited potential to gain an advantage.
You've found a loophole in Countdown. All you have to do to exploit it is be able to write 3,628,799 letters* in 30 seconds. Assuming you write really small so each letter is, say, 2mm by 2mm, that would take up about 14.5m², which would be about 464 sheets of that A5 notepaper they give you.

You could optimise this. If you wrote it all out without spaces, additional combinations would naturally occur in the overlaps, so for example if you wrote ABCDEFGHI and ABCDEFGIH next to each other, that would also give you BCDEFGHIA, CDEFGHIAB, DEFGHIABC etc even though you've only written down 18 letters. James Grime did a video about a similar problem involving a combination lock. It would just be a case of pointing to the appropriate position in a continuous stream of letters.

* This is calculated by 9!*9 + 8!*8 + 7!*7 + ... + 1!*1, and it assumes all the letters in the selection are distinct. If some are repeated there will be fewer letters to write down.
That's what I'm getting at. Filter out the overlaps and filter down (or at least order by) the most common patterns of vowels and consonants and suddenly you're looking at being able to cover off a significant chunk of the possibilities. A strategy for this would actually be an interesting programming task.

Or, more realistically, if you see a 7 but not an 8 but suspect there might be one, you could use your intuition to write down 10 potential 8s and you've got 10 chances at matching your opponent's word, instead of 1.

This could be fixed to a great extent if the person who declares their length second has to declare their word first in the case of the same length. But I much prefer the apterous implementation where you don't get this advantage.
If you have a word written down on your paper then you have used your own brain to spot it in the selection, so you have every right to declare it. It doesn't matter how you came about writing it down. Intention would be hard to define precisely and impossible to prove anyway.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4277
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Jon O'Neill » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:22 pm

For those that think it's fine, when declaring your word second, to have written down 10-15 plausible words and then just point to the one your opponent says... would you prefer if apterous was coded in this way, instead of the perfectly logical way it's coded now?

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Conor » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:35 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:22 pm
For those that think it's fine, when declaring your word second, to have written down 10-15 plausible words and then just point to the one your opponent says... would you prefer if apterous was coded in this way, instead of the perfectly logical way it's coded now?
It would be stone cold mental to prefer that. But if it's not explicitly stated as not allowed in the rules, I think players can do it. Personally I think if a really outlandish situation with 10-15 plausible words happened there might be a ruling against it. And I'd prefer it that you have to mark which word written down of a certain length you're going to declare.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Fiona T » Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:13 am

Conor wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:35 pm
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:22 pm
For those that think it's fine, when declaring your word second, to have written down 10-15 plausible words and then just point to the one your opponent says... would you prefer if apterous was coded in this way, instead of the perfectly logical way it's coded now?
It would be stone cold mental to prefer that. But if it's not explicitly stated as not allowed in the rules, I think players can do it. Personally I think if a really outlandish situation with 10-15 plausible words happened there might be a ruling against it. And I'd prefer it that you have to mark which word written down of a certain length you're going to declare.
Agree with Conor that having half a dozen plausible words written down is very "edge case".

Going back to re- vs -er, which is probably a realistic example, as Sam says it could equally give you an 18 pt advantage over your opponent. In my case I'd probably assume my opponent's dictionary knowledge was better than mine and follow suit.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Conor » Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:25 am

All things being equal, I think most players are inclined to copy their opponent’s word just because of an instinctive loss aversion.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:22 am

David Williams wrote:
Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:40 am
C1 trails by 21 points going into the last letters round.

Both contestants offer seven, C1's not written down. He declares a voracious tropical fish.

C2 says "Same", and shows his paper to C1. On it are written the words PIRANHA and PIRAHNA.

C1, who needs to win the round, asks which spelling C2 is using.

C2 declines to answer. He says he definitely meant one of them, which he is 90% sure is correct, but whichever he chooses C1 will pick the other, giving him some chance to get back in the game when none should have existed. Nor does he think it satisfactory that C1 should now be allowed to write something down, as there is no way of knowing whether he actually intended PIRHANA, for example.

You are the ref.
This is a post from a while ago in the thread and I think it's relevant. Do people's opinions change in the light of what's been said? Certainly I don't think that C1 should be allowed to not spell their word, whereas C2 has to. Also the below:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:36 pm
Dave Nicholson wrote:I'd be interested in opinions on this, perhaps it's along the lines of the debate centring around the numbers in the last game...

10/ Early in the game and C1 is playing a nervous C2. C1 is asked to declare by Nick and takes a notably long pause before slowly and unsurely saying "I'll try a risky 7..." C2 declares a 6 but hasn't written it down.

C2 is asked to declare their word first and declares "SCARER"

Nick then asks C1 who declares "SCARIER" which is obviously valid and nervous C2 has missed the I to make their word a letter longer.

The issue here then is that C1 made a point of saying their word was risky and was clearly debating internally whether or not to declare it but having heard C2's has declared a very similar word that was pretty much 100% safely valid.

For all intents and purposes it seems unlikely that SCARIER had been spotted by C1 when declaring initially, but is there any precedent of asking to show proof when the second word is very similar but different? Supposed C1 had declared a risky 6 and after SCARER was announced had preceded to declare SCORER which was again obviously fine?

For Nick (or a member of the prod team) to ask C1 to prove this word was written down in the first place would be flat out accusing them of cheating really, but should it be done? What if the declaration of SCARIER was verbalised something like "Oh... Scarier!" in a way that sounded like they'd just spotted it? Where would the line be?
If C1 declared first, then it should be written down because they didn't know C2 didn't also have a 7 when declaring the length. But as you say, asking to see it does seem to amount to an accusation of cheating. It's a judgement call, but I think the host should always have the right to ask to see someone's paper in a case where it should be written down.

There are other cases where you could decide what word to pick on the basis of what the other contestant says. C1 might need to beat C2 in the final letters round to have a chance of winning. C1 has two risky 7s. Both declare 7. C2 goes first and picks one of C1's words. C1 might then just pick the other word because a drawn round is no good to him. They're both written down anyway, so is that fine? I'd say so. Similarly C2 might also have both words written down. C1 is asked to say his word first so C2 just says the same word. A drawn round wins it for C2.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:54 pm

A very silly one:

Throughout the game, there have been some very strange decisions by Dictionary Corner, with C1 offering RETOURNEE, ARRETEZ, and VOUS, all allowed. C1 wins the game by 5 points, 107-102. In all three cases, C2 had a valid but shorter English word. It turns out that Susie's (and the upstairs') computer(s) was/were hacked, and have had the French words included in the English dictionary. Just before Nick says "you be sure of it" (eugh), this is discovered by the security team. Do you:

a) play the whole game again?
b) disallow C1's French words and award the game to C2 78-119?
c) rule that the game finished with the conundrum and therefore cannot be changed retrospectively?
d) allow C1 to keep the win, but ask C2 back at a later date?
e) some other solution I've omitted?
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9663
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:03 pm

I would suspect C1 of hacking the computer and subject him to an appropriate interrogation technique, perhaps involving embarquement sur l'eau.

Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Elliott Mellor » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:14 pm

Wonder how C2 could only get a 3 from a selection, and also how absolutely nobody noticed the words weren't English before.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Rookie
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:30 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:14 pm
Wonder how C2 could only get a 3 from a selection
Can you find a 3 from CUCUCUCUA?

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: You Are The Ref

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:29 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:14 pm
Wonder how C2 could only get a 3 from a selection, and also how absolutely nobody noticed the words weren't English before.
Well you know what ODO is like these days... certainly SONDAGE(S) has made it in since I was on the show.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests