c4countdown

Tricia Pay has been a strong competitor so far in two wins. Is a third in the cards to end the week?

Join Anthony for the recap later.

Not to detract from Tricia Pay's superb performance but Jeff Clayton (from Colchester Essex) will have his third game against Bernadette (from Belgium) on Des Chiffres et des Lettres on France-3. Bernadette won the first game on Wednesday, Jeff won yesterday's game to make it 1-1. Today is the decider.

You may wish to record the last five rounds of Countdown to catch the start of Des Chiffres Des Lettres at around 3.10pm our time (Turn on your computer and go to: www.filmon.com/tv/france-3) to see if Jeff Clayton can get the decisive win.

Mauro

Alt first numbers (25*4+6)*8 - (9-7) = 846

That teatime teaser was a bit of a dig at our wheelchair-bound contestant! Plus Anton earlier saying he was numb from the waist down! (Or maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there.)

Edit - Her Wiki page says she lost both her legs in a game of Scrabble.

Sean Fletcher wrote:Alt first numbers (25*4+6)*8 - (9-7) = 846

Standard method was (6×7-8)×25-4.

Tricia's clothes more than make up for yesterday, she look fab.

Tricia's clothes more than make up for yesterday, she look fab.

I fail to see why Tricia's clothes have any relevance or why you didn't learn anything from the negative responses you received yesterday, Rhys

Continuity announcer fail: "For one week only, Countdown will be at the earlier time of 10 past 3...."

KIRTANS (out of time) for a beater in round 7.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Continuity announcer fail: "For one week only, Countdown will be at the earlier time of 10 past 3...."

True: Monday's Countdown will be at 3.10pm.... but then it's the ONLY one of the week

Horse Racing again Tuesday to Friday. As someone once commented: "Why do they never pull Deal or No Deal?"

Shame France-3 couldn't have scheduled Jeff Clayton on DCDL for the coming week

Mauro

FOREWARN in Rachel's IRONWARE round

SIRTAKI for a 7 in round 7 and PATRONNE in round 10 for me - my first max game in ages!!!

Sean Fletcher wrote:Alt first numbers (25*4+6)*8 - (9-7) = 846

((25 x 4) - 6) x 9

(Spotted the multiple of 9 in 846.)

It is only 707 games since the teaser ABITSOON=BONIATOS was used - I remember as it was my first show (5257) v Jennifer Strachen. I would have thought with new words from ODO they didn't need to run repeats.

Tricia was clearly cheating on the second and fourth numbers games. In the second game After Tom declared his first answer, which ended by adding the one, she just changed it to adding 9 over 9. This conveniently meant that she didn't have to show her paper (i mean WTF adds 9 over 9 when theres a one in the selection)

In the last numbers game Tom said he timesed by 7 then 4, she just said she timesed by 4 then 7. Again this meant she did not have to show her paper (she even had it in her hand as she claimed this and it was obvious from her face she did not really have it.

This is blatant cheating.

Jordan Leckonby wrote:Tricia was clearly cheating on the second and fourth numbers games. In the second game After Tom declared his first answer, which ended by adding the one, she just changed it to adding 9 over 9. This conveniently meant that she didn't have to show her paper (i mean WTF adds 9 over 9 when theres a one in the selection)

In the last numbers game Tom said he timesed by 7 then 4, she just said she timesed by 4 then 7. Again this meant she did not have to show her paper (she even had it in her hand as she claimed this and it was obvious from her face she did not really have it.

This is blatant cheating.

I was wondering about this. It's, essentially, exactly the same method so surely you should have to show the other contestant your method

Jury's out for me on whether she did actually cheat (body language during/after the clock didn't really suggest a fudge) but yeah she should have definitely offered her paper. I'm not surprised she didn't though, she comes across as really fucking rude.

Jon Corby wrote:Jury's out for me on whether she did actually cheat (body language during/after the clock didn't really suggest a fudge) but yeah she should have definitely offered her paper. I'm not surprised she didn't though, she comes across as really fucking rude.

Ooh, the gloves are off now. I noticed at the time about the lack of paper-showing but didn't specifically think she was cheating. She could have just as easily been asked for her solution first so it would have been a bit risky, but she should have offered the paper anyway. And indeed been asked to show it. Corby, what in particular do you think she's done that's been rude? Maybe they've come to that conclusion on set as well, explaining the digs (that I definitely didn't imagine) I mentioned earlier.

I thought she was cheating. It especially seemed obvious on the last numbers game.

Tricia certainly comes across as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly,I don't believe she's cheating, but she could have cleared up any doubt by offering to show her paper to Tom on both occasions.

If she is trying to cheat by this way then it's a pretty risky strategy, not to mention fantastically unsubtle. So much that it makes it hard to believe. Will be interesting to see if it continues though.

I think I'd be more inclined to give Tricia the benefit of the doubt if she didn't grab and pore over the paperwork of her challenger when they declare the same word as her. Her behaviour today smacked of double standards.

I thought that doing 9/9 for the second numbers game instead of just saying 1 was a bit odd. It could be just down to studio pressure, which can do some strange things to you. I think Nick should have asked her to show her paper to Tom, though as the methods were similar and I don't see what harm it would do. If she was cheating today, then I wonder why she didn't try it for the third numbers game against Jason when he declared the exact target and she declared nothing, surely it's not something she's suddenly just thought of in between. Although there are some question marks over this, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt for now and I really hope the allegations aren't true.

I thought it was more blatant in the 2nd numbers with the 9/9 than in the 4th, but concluded that she may have not written it down and forgotten to say so, so she just changed it slightly. When she was on the first time you didn't have to write it down I don't think? Either way she should definitely have had to show her paper as it was so close to the same method and the 'adjustments' - especially the first time, were just unbelievable. I didn't like the way she really examined Tom's words when they matched either.
Luckily the dodgy 20 points she gained didn't affect the outcome of the game, but I wonder if it would have been avoided if Nick went to the second player to declare first, like Jeff used to.

On the horsey subject, wasn't there a two-week break during the summer in Jeff's time, which doesn't happen now, so maybe having horse breaks doesn't affect so many episodes as it seems.

I've no knowledge of how good or otherwise Tricia's eyesight is, but suppose she can only read things up close? That could explain why she takes a little longer over reading her opponent's paper.

When Tricia said (10+3+3)*4*7 after Tom had said (10+3+3)*7*4, perhaps Tricia's paper was examined but we didn't see it? It would seem odd for someone to deliver a solution to which Rachel says "that's the same" and it not be a paper-passing situation.

Using 9/9 instead of 1 was very odd, though. The only legitimate explanation I can think of is that in haste she simply saw the two 9s and missed the 1.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that their solution was slightly different, but to all intents and purposes the same, and offering their paper to their opponent. It's far more frequent for someone to say they have the same solution but still have to be prompted by Nick to show their workings. I've also seen plenty of occasions when even Rachel has gone round the houses to reach a solution. I've never seen a contestant feel the need to show their opponent the proof that they've over-elaborated.

And she looks hard at her opponent's solutions. And she's rude (not when I've been watching). She's also older than most of you, and a woman, so clearly not to be trusted. Frankly this is all a lot more unsavoury than what Rhys had to say.

David Williams wrote:I don't recall anyone ever saying that their solution was slightly different, but to all intents and purposes the same, and offering their paper to their opponent. It's far more frequent for someone to say they have the same solution but still have to be prompted by Nick to show their workings. I've also seen plenty of occasions when even Rachel has gone round the houses to reach a solution. I've never seen a contestant feel the need to show their opponent the proof that they've over-elaborated.

And she looks hard at her opponent's solutions. And she's rude (not when I've been watching). She's also older than most of you, and a woman, so clearly not to be trusted. Frankly this is all a lot more unsavoury than what Rhys had to say.

I'd agree that it's essentially Nick's job to ask them to show their paper. Not initiating it yourself isn't cheating (although it could be used to hide cheating). I often look at the contestants during the numbers rounds to see if I think they've got it, and I specifically remember in one of them (I think it was the 9/9 round), I thought she did have it.

But yeah, Rhys is definitely off the hook now. And if you were wondering, it was a car accident in 1975.

Gavin Chipper wrote: And if you were wondering, it was a car accident in 1975.

Wow, that makes what Anton said really dodgy, and perhaps it's debatable whether it should have stayed in!

Philip Wilson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: And if you were wondering, it was a car accident in 1975.

Wow, that makes what Anton said really dodgy, and perhaps it's debatable whether it should have stayed in!

You say that but Nick said something much worse (about something else) in the intros, which he begged Damian to keep out of the cut, which he did, and I will not divulge into (as it's not really for me to mention), but it's fair to say it sent shockwaves round the studio................

You pretty much did just mention it.

This is all getting rather interesting. Was Anton's comment deliberate? Was the teatime teaser a coincidence? Was this some bet that they all made to get things in, or did it result from some genuine hostility?

Andy McGurn wrote:I thought she was cheating. It especially seemed obvious on the last numbers game.

http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5222
Which one of the contestants here declared first in Round 5? Did the other one show his solution, or just read it out?

James Robinson wrote:

Philip Wilson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: And if you were wondering, it was a car accident in 1975.

Wow, that makes what Anton said really dodgy, and perhaps it's debatable whether it should have stayed in!

You say that but Nick said something much worse (about something else) in the intros, which he begged Damian to keep out of the cut, which he did, and I will not divulge into (as it's not really for me to mention), but it's fair to say it sent shockwaves round the studio................

He said it in front of however many people are in the studio audience. He has no right to silence from this, and as you love to document history (from your many recaps), this is your moment!

Gavin Chipper wrote:This is all getting rather interesting. Was Anton's comment deliberate? Was the teatime teaser a coincidence?

If it was anything other than an innocuous coincidence then I'll eat someone else's hat.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Was this some bet that they all made to get things in, or did it result from some genuine hostility?

Srsly?

Graeme Cole wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:This is all getting rather interesting. Was Anton's comment deliberate? Was the teatime teaser a coincidence?

If it was anything other than an innocuous coincidence then I'll eat someone else's hat.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Was this some bet that they all made to get things in, or did it result from some genuine hostility?

Srsly?

I dunno - I was kind of shit-stirring to start with, but when James said what he said it made me wonder. He said it was about something else, but it might still have been about her. And who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:This is all getting rather interesting. Was Anton's comment deliberate? Was the teatime teaser a coincidence?

If it was anything other than an innocuous coincidence then I'll eat someone else's hat.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Was this some bet that they all made to get things in, or did it result from some genuine hostility?

Srsly?

I dunno - I was kind of shit-stirring to start with, but when James said what he said it made me wonder. He said it was about something else, but it might still have been about her. And who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory?

I'll just say it was nothing to do with Tricia just to end that discussion, but I'm still gonna keep schtum on here.

(P.S. I hate so much that "srsly" is now in the dictionary.............. )

James Robinson wrote:[(P.S. I hate so much that "srsly" is now in the dictionary.............. )

Srsly it's in the dictionary? Actually I'm not surprised. It was clearly added for publicity reasons as so often happens with the Oxford dictionaries.

What on earth did Nick say that sent shockwaves through a Countdown audience?
Was it, he can't wait till Jenny Eclair & Jo Brand our back in DC?
At home, he fast forward's Susie's definition of words? (only joking Susie!)
What's wrong with American spellings, why can't we have them?
By the way, what was the allegedly offensive teatime teaser? (I was checking a racing result and missed it!)

Graeme Cole wrote:Using 9/9 instead of 1 was very odd, though. The only legitimate explanation I can think of is that in haste she simply saw the two 9s and missed the 1.

She solved it comfortably with several seconds to go. Just after the 30 seconds had finished, too late to amend her paper, she realised that she'd inadvertently written -1 at the end instead of +1. With great presence of mind and an admirable poker-face, she retrieved the situation by substituting 9/9 for the 1, this being accepted as a substantive difference, luckily for her.

Whether such a move is truly legitimate is doubtful at best, but it's hardly the blatant cheating that some have assumed.

How do you know that Clive?

If that is what happened, she simply declares her solution "not written down". No need for any dodginess whatsoever.

Jon Corby wrote:How do you know that Clive?

If that is what happened, she simply declares her solution "not written down". No need for any dodginess whatsoever.

The explanation is my invention, an attempt to find a totally plausible explanation for using 9/9.

BIB - not if she didn't notice her error until after she'd declared.

Ah, okay. You can continue to tailor it then as holes get poked in it, but the simple fact is that if she doesn't have it correctly written down and doesn't declare it as such, it's tough shit.

I actually don't think it's that rare to go round the houses with a numbers solution instead of a more direct way, even if it's not normally quite as obvious as that. If you're at "full stretch" when finding a solution, sometimes you just see something and it works and you don't then notice you could have done it much more simply.

If there was any suspicion, Nick should have asked her to show the paper. If I'd done a solution very similar to someone else's like that I would have probably shown my paper anyway, but the ultimate responsibility for this is not the contestant's.

The first numbers: She definitely had the body language that she had solved it before time was up and I am sure she would not have declared she had the second numbers if she didn't have it.6 small numbers is tricky enough anyway and I know from experience, it is easy to go around the houses in the short time..She is doing brilliantly on the show and a shame that some of the speculation on this website is so negative about her clothing, attitude, or otherwise.. There may even have been edits after the numbers that we don't know about.. Having met Tricia at Scrabble tournaments previously, I have never had an impression of her being rude.

Mark Murray wrote:The first numbers: She definitely had the body language that she had solved it before time was up and I am sure she would not have declared she had the second numbers if she didn't have it.6 small numbers is tricky enough anyway and I know from experience, it is easy to go around the houses in the short time..She is doing brilliantly on the show and a shame that some of the speculation on this website is so negative about her clothing, attitude, or otherwise.. There may even have been edits after the numbers that we don't know about.. Having met Tricia at Scrabble tournaments previously, I have never had an impression of her being rude.

On the rudeness thing, I think Corby just decided to post that because he thought he could sneak it in with everything else that was being said. He's a bad man.

Although I didn't take to her at first, the more we learn of Tricia the more I like her. The 9/9 thing was so odd I still feel there must be a story behind it.

Weirdly, in her previous game there was another 6 small game where her solution was "different but really the same". And she would have declared second. But perhaps more excitingly, because neither GAWKERS nor CLODDIER appear to be supported by the COD8 (the comparative and superlative of CLODDY are not specified but I'm not sure how consistent DC's approach was in those days) she may have lost out to a previously unknown max game.

Clive Brooker wrote:Although I didn't take to her at first, the more we learn of Tricia the more I like her. The 9/9 thing was so odd I still feel there must be a story behind it.

Weirdly, in her previous game there was another 6 small game where her solution was "different but really the same". And she would have declared second. But perhaps more excitingly, because neither GAWKERS nor CLODDIER appear to be supported by the COD8 (the comparative and superlative of CLODDY are not specified but I'm not sure how consistent DC's approach was in those days) she may have lost out to a previously unknown max game.

That's quite interesting. I would suggest that it probably would count as a max. Were there specific rules on comparatives and superlatives at the time? Did they tend to just go with the dictionary?

Thanks to "Numbergate", tomorrow's show is going to be one of the most closely scrutinized episodes in Countdown history.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Game 1636 could be a max for Chris Rogers (summarised).

That's quite interesting. I would suggest that it probably would count as a max. Were there specific rules on comparatives and superlatives at the time? Did they tend to just go with the dictionary?

I'm trying to be cautious. The section on inflexion has remained pretty constant from the COD8 onwards, the NODE and subsequent revisions taking it on largely unchanged, and this seems to form the basis for most of Countdown's rules on derived words. The COD8 was, however, a big change from the COD7 which, for example, listed a number of categories of two-syllable adjectives where the comparative and superlative could be assumed. On the assumption that until 1990 DC based it's approach on the COD7 (which I think would have given CLODDIER the green light - when I have a moment I'll dig out a COD7 to check), I don't know how quickly they adapted to the new approach of the COD8, or whether they did so consistently. Having multiple lexicographers can't have helped. But taking the ruling dictionary of the day at face value, CLODDIER looks doubtful.

Would you like me to reproduce the relevant section of both books here? I can't promise to do so quickly, but I've always found it to be an interesting comparison.

Go for it!

“Numbergate”? Srsly?

Clive Brooker wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Game 1636 could be a max for Chris Rogers (summarised).

That's quite interesting. I would suggest that it probably would count as a max. Were there specific rules on comparatives and superlatives at the time? Did they tend to just go with the dictionary?

I'm trying to be cautious. The section on inflexion has remained pretty constant from the COD8 onwards, the NODE and subsequent revisions taking it on largely unchanged, and this seems to form the basis for most of Countdown's rules on derived words. The COD8 was, however, a big change from the COD7 which, for example, listed a number of categories of two-syllable adjectives where the comparative and superlative could be assumed. On the assumption that until 1990 DC based it's approach on the COD7 (which I think would have given CLODDIER the green light - when I have a moment I'll dig out a COD7 to check), I don't know how quickly they adapted to the new approach of the COD8, or whether they did so consistently. Having multiple lexicographers can't have helped. But taking the ruling dictionary of the day at face value, CLODDIER looks doubtful.

Would you like me to reproduce the relevant section of both books here? I can't promise to do so quickly, but I've always found it to be an interesting comparison.

http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2795
I remember this one in particular. I'm pretty sure DROSSIER was a desperation play, and that it wasn't specified in the dictionary of the day, but it decided a semi-final.

David Williams wrote:http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2795
I remember this one in particular. I'm pretty sure DROSSIER was a desperation play, and that it wasn't specified in the dictionary of the day, but it decided a semi-final.

All the evidence I've looked at suggests that this decision was consistent with the working rule during the COD8/9/10 period, and therefore correct. Unfortunately this also means that Chris Rogers didn't get a max - sorry for causing unnecessary excitement.

Clive Brooker wrote:

David Williams wrote:http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2795
I remember this one in particular. I'm pretty sure DROSSIER was a desperation play, and that it wasn't specified in the dictionary of the day, but it decided a semi-final.

All the evidence I've looked at suggests that this decision was consistent with the working rule during the COD8/9/10 period, and therefore correct. Unfortunately this also means that Chris Rogers didn't get a max - sorry for causing unnecessary excitement.

Well, it could mean that there's no answer because with possibly vague and inconsistent rulings we can't say. Are there any instances where someone offered the comparative or superlative of a -Y adjective and it wasn't allowed?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:

David Williams wrote:http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2795
I remember this one in particular. I'm pretty sure DROSSIER was a desperation play, and that it wasn't specified in the dictionary of the day, but it decided a semi-final.

All the evidence I've looked at suggests that this decision was consistent with the working rule during the COD8/9/10 period, and therefore correct. Unfortunately this also means that Chris Rogers didn't get a max - sorry for causing unnecessary excitement.

Well, it could mean that there's no answer because with possibly vague and inconsistent rulings we can't say. Are there any instances where someone offered the comparative or superlative of a -Y adjective and it wasn't allowed?

Until today I hadn't really tried to check this out. I pulled out a list of all -IER and -IEST words offered during the COD8/9/10 era. Amongst the disallowed ones, I couldn't find any that fell into the important category, where the -y adjective is specified but the -ier and -iest inflections are not (except for cases where the player had used phantom letters of course). I thought I might have found one with pacier x, but PACY turns out to be a new entry in the COD9. But there are many, including David's example above, where these have been allowed.

So, somewhat to my surprise, DC seems to have been admirably consistent. My best theory at the moment is that the original rules on inflexions and derived words were derived pretty much verbatim from the COD7, but for whatever reason weren't changed until the NODE started to be used. If the will were there, I think there should be enough evidence from the rulings actually given to test this theory.

Something I forgot to ask David - do you still have your contestant guidelines from that time? We're they as helpful as the set I got which told me to use the dictionary two editions before the current one?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Are there any instances where someone offered the comparative or superlative of a -Y adjective and it wasn't allowed?

Clive Brooker wrote:Something I forgot to ask David - do you still have your contestant guidelines from that time? We're they as helpful as the set I got which told me to use the dictionary two editions before the current one?

http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2829 There was a definite change when the NODE came in for Series 43. Mine was actually filmed a couple of days before the DROSSIER one was screened, which is why I particularly remembered that. I don't have the rules, but the ones I got for 30BC were essentially the same, updated. The rules I was given then must have just been changed for the NODE, because that brought in mass nouns, but I think the bulk of them was unchanged from previously.

As regards this - if it's not in the dictionary you can't have it. But clearly this wasn't hard and fast. For example, ANODIZE (alternative spelling ANODISE) (derivative ANODIZER). So ANODISER wasn't specified, but they still let you have it - that may still be the case. And, as the general practice in the dictionary was to give no further information about derivatives, they used to let you have LARDIEST (LARDY being only a derivative of LARD), probably because words like HARDIEST and TARDIEST were specified, as HARDY and TARDY had their own entries. Until they didn't.

I remember I actually had a copy of the previous dictionary (COD9?), and I know that the entry for LARD, and the stuff at the front about comparatives and superlatives, was unchanged in the NODE. I can only conclude that they just decided to tighten up the application of the rules when the NODE came in, and didn't think it worth mentioning to contestants. Maybe DROSSIER was the spur, though I know it wasn't because David Ballheimer made a fuss. I mentioned it to him at CoC, and he didn't even realise there was an issue.

Things weren't taken quite so seriously then (except, possibly, by me!).

Having seen the fuss that this episode kicked up I thought I better watch the two numbers rounds in question. What a waste of time it was waiting for the 4OD adverts to finish to then see 2 perfectly fine numbers solves in which Tricia is obviously confident of her solution, putting her pen down before the clock ends both times.

I agree!

I too agree with Ryan, I'd expect somebody fudging on the spur of the moment to still be working, and to look flustered as the time was up. I'd expect them to be exasperated on hearing their opponent declare the exact target, as they fumbled for a few more seconds before drawing out a strained "I...think....I've....got...it...but.....not....quite.....written...down" response.

That's what I'd expect of somebody fudging on the spur of the moment.

However, I'd expect a confident cheat to place their pen down before time, and look relaxed, calmly delivering a declaration identical to their opponent's, safe in the knowledge that they'll be asked first for their method. I'd expect them to silently study that method, spotting the points where they can tweak it - exchange the operands in a mutable sum, pointlessly use 9/9 instead of a 1 - so that they don't feel forced to show their paper.

That's what I'd expect a cheat to do. Somebody who has probably studied the protocol of the show, looking for the flaws to exploit to give themselves the maximum advantage.

Oh, and I'm so sorry you have to sit through 45 seconds of adverts in order to have high quality on-demand programming streamed completely free to your device. BOO FUCKING HOO.

Jesus, you people make me sick.

Just feel I have to make the following points:

1) Tricia is a bit brusque, but not rude. I think she is the kind of no-nonsense woman of a certain age who comes across that way. This isn't the kind of person to cheat on a game show.

2) numbers aren't her strongest point so she well may have seen the less obvious 9/9 in the second game.

3) in the fourth numbers, I think it would be unlikely that having failed to get a solution in 30 seconds she would have the presence of mind to reverse the multiplication in the few seconds available.

4) Perhaps she should have shown the solution but it's up to Nick, or whoever speaks in his ear, to ask her to do this.

5) She must have known she could have been asked to show the workings. Would she have risked the total humiliation of being caught cheating? Abrupt she may be, but stupid she isn't.

6) THIS is what I really want to get across: to go on an open forum and accuse someone of cheating on such flimsy evidence is, to use someone else's description, bloody rude.

There. Got that off my chest!