c4countdown

John Hardie has had an overall impressive three wins so far. Can he get number four today? It will be his greatest test so far though, as he faces James...R. Not Robinson, but a man who's had several last names on apterous, currently Rowan. You've also seen him as James Roper and James Raper. So while I'm not sure what his true last name is, I am sure he's a strong apterite, and it could be a great clash against him and John. I'm excited for this one.

Join Tracey for the recap later.

1st numbers alt: (100+5) x (75/25) x 3

Mark Kudlowski wrote:1st numbers alt: (100+5) x (75/25) x 3

Exactly what I did. A case where knowing 4-large methods is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. Surprised James only got 942 though! Come on James!

2nd numbers :
((50 + 10) x 8 + 1) x (6 - 4)
Solved that one in the studio, but RR was still working that one out at the end of the show and didn't want to see the answer !

The BATTENS FATTENS NOTATES round came up in a game from series 22 on Challenge the other day.

3rd numbers: (100 x 25 - 50 + 6) / 4 = 614. I actually saw that method before I saw the standard method.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark Kudlowski wrote:1st numbers alt: (100+5) x (75/25) x 3

Exactly what I did. A case where knowing 4-large methods is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. Surprised James only got 942 though! Come on James!

Why hindrance? (75*25+3*5)*50/100 no?

George Pryn wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark Kudlowski wrote:1st numbers alt: (100+5) x (75/25) x 3

Exactly what I did. A case where knowing 4-large methods is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. Surprised James only got 942 though! Come on James!

Why hindrance? (75*25+3*5)*50/100 no?

Yeah I suppose but multiplying numbers to add to the 1875 counts as advanced methods rather than standard methods.

Great game. Amazing conundrum. Unlucky James.

We must campaign for a special for James against Adam Curran!

hopefully james and adam are both allowed to have a second chance in the not too distant future, they were both superb on the show. Quite a tough way for James to lose today though, i wouldnt be 100% convinced that John knew the answer when he buzzed.

Tony Atkins wrote:We must campaign for a special for James against Adam Curran!

The Series 73 wiki page is saying that Len Goodman is in DC for only 4 shows so maybe the 5th show of the filming day will be a special. I'm only speculating though.

Ridiculous standard of a game. I'm surprised it ended up as relatively low scoring as it was (I imagine both had a 110+ raw), but I guess that was due to the back and forth. At this point I propose a 3 game mini tournament between James, Adam, Ciaran McCarthy, and Peter Steggle to happen at some time.

Also, because I imagine this will get brought up eventually today, if you look at this blog post from Kris (the guy John beat yesterday), you'll get an interesting story about this game: http://kjisnotinbrazilfortheworldcup.bl ... nt-on.html . WARNING: This link spoils Monday's result as well.

Having seen your performances on apterous and co-events, James, I can't recall a stronger player (at the time) to have been beaten on their first game. Terribly unlucky - you'd have been an entirely plausible series champion. But there's no shame in losing to John there, he played brilliantly. As others have said, hopefully this won't be the last we see of you.

Great game, very unlucky, James. You played very well and were unlucky to run into John. Like others have said, hopefully you'll get another chance in the near future.

Can't wait for Judge Jon Corby's verdict.

Really enjoyed that.

Cheers guys for the comments and commiserations

Chickening MAGNESIA in R1 proved costly D:

Just going to say that the blog post that Kris wrote is exaggerated/embellished slightly - notably the bits beforehand before the game and shortly after - my monitor hadn't necessarily 'blanked' but rather nothing had shown when John buzzed. There's nothing against this though so it's not worth really discussing.

I could have been a bit less of a sore loser at the end though. As for reapplying I may do some day! If my interest hasn't completely waned due post-the 10-year reapplication rule, that is

Had lots of fun (albeit my expression didn't really show it!) and really enjoyed the experience - massive thanks to Damian, Jay, and everyone else who makes the filming of the show possible!

Kris's blog was obviously written before seeing how it would come across on TV. As he described the episode it sounded as though John must have buzzed Hansford-style and stared at the letters whilst waiting to answer. Maybe at first sight it looked that way.

But unless there's been some clever editing it's very clear he saw and buzzed pretty well simultaneously and then looked straight at Nick, which is fair enough. Could be interesting if he gets to play Tom Carey....

I thought James looked pretty fed up in the final shots, but so do a lot of people when they lose, especially so closely. I know that if I'd been as livid as Kris claims James was then I certainly wouldn't have applauded the winner, let alone shake his hand. I think he must have exaggerated the situation a fair bit as it was clearly more interesting than his own game.

It was an excellent game though, and demonstrated how much harder it is under pressure than at home in the armchair. I was surprised the 945 went begging, and also had 962 in the time by (((50-10) x 4)-1)x6) +8. Hope I've got the brackets right it's a very long time since I did maths, but basically 159x6 +8. Would I have got that in the studio? In the audience maybe, but very unlikely as a contestant.

Well played both guys, shame as ever that you met in the heats and not later on. Get the feeling John may have taken them a bit by surprise.

In the interests of fairness, it's only right that we make these comments.


There was no editing of the conundrum, and at the time, as live, we checked back on the hard-drive (formally known as the tape), and made sure that the 'reveal' of the conundrum was fully exposed before the winner buzzed in. Had that not been the case, we'd have disqualified him from the round.

Yes it was fast, yes it was maybe a gamble, but we're satisfied that everything was above board, and whatever appeared on John's screen, also simultaneously appeared on James' screen. The feed to the monitors is exactly the same, so on the day, John was that little bit faster. No technical errors or hitches, all was checked and double-checked.

That was an absolutely amazing game. made great tv and you were really unlucky there James. You could have won 8 games and been one of the ones to watch in the finals so very unlucky to have come across such a player on your first show. As some of the others have said, it would be great if the likes of yourself, Adam, Ciaran, Pete etc get another chance to go back on soon.

James S Roper wrote:As for reapplying I may do some day! If my interest hasn't completely waned due post-the 10-year reapplication rule, that is

Given that Dan McColm and Tom Cappleman's times between reapplying added together come to less than 10 years, surely the 10 year application rule is long gone? (See also: JWynn, Kirk.) I know there have been exceptions made in the past for young players (Bradley, JR), and you're younger than Dan and Kirk were on their first attempts. So I think we'll see you prior to 2025.

Countdown Team wrote:In the interests of fairness, it's only right that we make these comments.


There was no editing of the conundrum, and at the time, as live, we checked back on the hard-drive (formally known as the tape), and made sure that the 'reveal' of the conundrum was fully exposed before the winner buzzed in. Had that not been the case, we'd have disqualified him from the round.

Yes it was fast, yes it was maybe a gamble, but we're satisfied that everything was above board, and whatever appeared on John's screen, also simultaneously appeared on James' screen. The feed to the monitors is exactly the same, so on the day, John was that little bit faster. No technical errors or hitches, all was checked and double-checked.

When you say the reveal of the conundrum was fully exposed, that's different from it coming up on the contestant' monitors. The board may have flipped over with the monitors fractionally behind. Has this been ruled out? Do you have cameras on the monitors?

Cracking game, well done chaps.

Superb game with an unbelievable ending. Well played both.

I hope James gets another chance in a few years time.

That blog post is pretty badly written; the guy who wrote it apparently works as a newspaper subeditor

I really hope James gets another bite at the cherry before too long.

Superb conundrum! Bad luck James, came up against a really strong champion in John.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Can't wait for Judge Jon Corby's verdict.

Where the hell is he? It's been over 24 hours and no peep from him. Must be some serious deliberation going on.

James S Roper wrote:Just going to say that the blog post that Kris wrote is exaggerated/embellished slightly - notably the bits beforehand before the game and shortly after - my monitor hadn't necessarily 'blanked' but rather nothing had shown when John buzzed. There's nothing against this though so it's not worth really discussing.

How does the monitor work? What do you mean by nothing had shown? Is it just a blank screen until the conundrum is revealed? Or does it show the pre-flipped board?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

James S Roper wrote:Just going to say that the blog post that Kris wrote is exaggerated/embellished slightly - notably the bits beforehand before the game and shortly after - my monitor hadn't necessarily 'blanked' but rather nothing had shown when John buzzed. There's nothing against this though so it's not worth really discussing.

How does the monitor work? What do you mean by nothing had shown? Is it just a blank screen until the conundrum is revealed? Or does it show the pre-flipped board?

It shows the pre-flipped conundrum board.

James S Roper wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

James S Roper wrote:Just going to say that the blog post that Kris wrote is exaggerated/embellished slightly - notably the bits beforehand before the game and shortly after - my monitor hadn't necessarily 'blanked' but rather nothing had shown when John buzzed. There's nothing against this though so it's not worth really discussing.

How does the monitor work? What do you mean by nothing had shown? Is it just a blank screen until the conundrum is revealed? Or does it show the pre-flipped board?

It shows the pre-flipped conundrum board.

So it's a live display of what's going on? But I suppose there could be some sort of inadvertent delay between real life and what the monitor shows.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Can't wait for Judge Jon Corby's verdict.

Where the hell is he? It's been over 24 hours and no peep from him. Must be some serious deliberation going on.

Sorry, was away last week so caught up late with the shows. Not much deliberation needed really, he's blatantly Hansforded it. If I watch it back and react just to the letters being displayed, I still can't beat him to the buzzer. It's no doubt a very quick spot and he does look away from the monitor quickly, but it's AFTER buzzing, NOT at the point he buzzes. There's no way on earth he's solved at the moment he buzzes.

Am I wrong in assuming John is on apterous? Has he said anything there?

Anyway, it seems the sensible thing to do would be to disqualify John and reinstate whoever it was he beat (can't remember offhand) and continue from there.

There's a simple solution to cut out "split-second buzzing", players write down the Conundrum (spelt correctly) then buzz and reveal their answer.

Steven M. McCann wrote:There's a simple solution to cut out "split-second buzzing", players write down the Conundrum (spelt correctly) then buzz and reveal their answer.

That's a horrible solution. I prefer cut the monitor on buzzing, AND you don't wait for Nick to prompt. It would be a nice touch if the buzzer said your name, and then you gave your answer. Absolutely no hesitation.

That said, there's nothing wrong with the normal mechanics for the vast majority of the time, and you don't want to be screeching at some grandma that she's taking half a second too long to answer when she's buzzed in on 20 seconds. It's the few utter fucknuts that take advantage of it that are the real problem. Contemptible twats.

Mark Murray wrote:That was an absolutely amazing game. made great tv and you were really unlucky there James. You could have won 8 games and been one of the ones to watch in the finals so very unlucky to have come across such a player on your first show. As some of the others have said, it would be great if the likes of yourself, Adam, Ciaran, Pete etc get another chance to go back on soon.

I can only agree with what everybody has said, I think James deserves another go on the show as do a few others that were very unlucky that came against really good players on their debuts, James could of octo'd and I was looking forward to seeing him in the finals.

I agree with Jon that there is nothing wrong with the normal mechanics of conundrums for the vast majority of the time. That leaves a few cases where a contestant exploits the system by buzzing before solving the conundrum, as I think happened in this game and have yet to be persuaded otherwise.

Can such exploitation of the system be prevented in future? Players writing down the conundrum would not be a practical solution because some people write more quickly than others, a contestant's writing may not be legible, etc. I imagine it would be possible to cut the monitors on buzzing, but the conundrum would still be displayed on the board. If there is no wait for Nick to prompt one contestant, both contestant might give an answer at the same time. A distinctive buzzer sound could be part of a solution, as could some form of light-up buzzer, maybe.

Sadly, I don't see how a contestant can be disqualified if their actions, no matter how contemptible, have been within the rules of the game.

I don't see it's a problem if someone risks pressing a split second before they've solved - and it clearly is only a split second - providing they answer promptly when called upon. He certainly took that risk but was quick enough to get away with it. He seems very likely to be in the finals so it will be interesting to see if he risks it again when presumably the conundrums will be harder.

I could only see there being a problem if there really is a disparity between what the two contestants see. I doubt if there is. What I do know from playing on Apterous is that the letters register in the brain quicker for some than others. I've certainly known occasions when an opponent (not a bot) has clicked before I've een taken in the scramble. For me an "instant" easy answer is at best around 2 seconds; how others get 0.7 secs regularly is beyond me, but they do.

Keith Bennett wrote:I don't see it's a problem if someone risks pressing a split second before they've solved - and it clearly is only a split second

The problem is that he's not "pressing a split second before he's solved", he's got no idea when he is going to solve it. He's freezing his opponent out of the game and is going to push it as far as he needs and is allowed. (If you're going to allege that he might genuinely just allow himself a split second after buzzing, then why not just use that split second before buzzing anyway?)

Jon Corby wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote:I don't see it's a problem if someone risks pressing a split second before they've solved - and it clearly is only a split second

The problem is that he's not "pressing a split second before he's solved", he's got no idea when he is going to solve it. He's freezing his opponent out of the game and is going to push it as far as he needs and is allowed. (If you're going to allege that he might genuinely just allow himself a split second after buzzing, then why not just use that split second before buzzing anyway?)

I agree he doesn't know how long he's going to take to solve it, but if he hesitates then of course Nick should disqualify him - I only caught a couple of Hansford's episodes but if I remember rightly part of the problem was that Des O'C let him get away with it too much. If he gets it wrong the opponent has actually had extra time to think about it, as it's still displayed in the studio (not sure what happens on the desk monitors).

But I know you won't forgive the lad for beating Le Tiss

Keith Bennett wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote:I don't see it's a problem if someone risks pressing a split second before they've solved - and it clearly is only a split second

The problem is that he's not "pressing a split second before he's solved", he's got no idea when he is going to solve it. He's freezing his opponent out of the game and is going to push it as far as he needs and is allowed. (If you're going to allege that he might genuinely just allow himself a split second after buzzing, then why not just use that split second before buzzing anyway?)

I agree he doesn't know how long he's going to take to solve it, but if he hesitates then of course Nick should disqualify him - I only caught a couple of Hansford's episodes but if I remember rightly part of the problem was that Des O'C let him get away with it too much. If he gets it wrong the opponent has actually had extra time to think about it, as it's still displayed in the studio (not sure what happens on the desk monitors).

But I know you won't forgive the lad for beating Le Tiss

Yeah, but he doesn't need to hesitate. As you've already said some people can solve some conundrums in under a second (I think in general on apterous an 'instant' solve tends to show as around 0.7 seconds). If he buzzes instantly, then way more than 0.7 seconds will still have passed between the letters appearing and him needing to give his answer. I agree it's a risky tactic because he might not solve quickly enough, but that doesn't mean I agree it should be a legitimate one, it turns the conundrum from an anagramming race to playing the odds.

Thinking about it, I now change my proposal slightly to: conundrums continue as normal, except for crucial ones. Because the game is at stake, we have to be a little more precise. So now when you buzz, the conundrum disappears from your monitor, which instead displays "SAY YOUR ANSWER NOW!" and you give your answer immediately without any prompt from Nick. The slightest pause and you get timed out. (This obviously also requires the conundrum board itself not being visible to the contestants. And allow for the feed to the monitors to be split.)

I'm changing my solution slightly too (small acknowledgement to Jon!) only on CRUCIAL conundrums, players must write down their answer (spelt correctly) then buzz and reveal.

it would be good if the monitors were touchscreen because then to buzz you would have to press a letter of the conundrum as your buzz, but the rule is you can't then change your starting letter, like on apterous

Jon Corby wrote:This obviously also requires the conundrum board itself not being visible to the contestants.

It isn't, generally. At least not to the challenger - it's obscured by a massive studio camera.

James S Roper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:This obviously also requires the conundrum board itself not being visible to the contestants.

It isn't, generally. At least not to the challenger - it's obscured by a massive studio camera.

I didn't think it particularly was, but when I brought this up before I was told that was an issue *shrugs*

It at least used to be visible to contestants, although maybe it's moved a bit in Media City.

Jon Corby wrote:Thinking about it, I now change my proposal slightly to: conundrums continue as normal, except for crucial ones. Because the game is at stake, we have to be a little more precise. So now when you buzz, the conundrum disappears from your monitor, which instead displays "SAY YOUR ANSWER NOW!" and you give your answer immediately without any prompt from Nick. The slightest pause and you get timed out. (This obviously also requires the conundrum board itself not being visible to the contestants. And allow for the feed to the monitors to be split.)

Why are you backtracking? It might be worse for crucial conundrums, but even for non-crucial conundrums, surely it's still better if someone solves it first rather than freezing their opponent out of the game while they solve it. If you're going to the effort of setting it up for stricter conundrums, you might as well always use it. There was a previous suggestion of a disembodied voice like on The Chase that says your name as soon as you buzz. No faffing about from Nick. The voice is instant, the monitor is instantly blanked, you can't see the real board anyway, and you have to answer instantly. For all conundrums. Why not?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Why are you backtracking?

Because I'm weak and lack conviction.

Nah, I just think that the vast majority of games are played in the correct relaxed and fair spirit. Ultimately it's a gentle daytime gameshow, and that ethos is worth preserving. But at the moment there are a handful of wankers who take advantage of the current protocols, and it sucks, so we need to adapt very slightly to counter it.

(That said, I do still think not-written-down word declarations shouldn't be allowed.)

The way the conundrum was answered on the 15th October it looked as if the monitor could have changed from displaying the scramble to displaying *look at Nick" when the player buzzed! Doubtful but it might work.