c4countdown

Andy Platt successfully became the first champion in the "New 15" format. Now he has a chance to become the first multiple winner in this format. Can he do it, and get his 6th win overall?

Join Jack for the recap later.

Yesterday there were problems with the sound for some. Today they are not letting us watch the adverts
if watching live online!

Alt in R5 TOADIES

Not allowing plurals of normal nouns now - whatever next?

Thought this would be more hotly debated - maybe nobody's had a chance to watch it yet, or maybe nobody cares as much as I expected (shame on you fuckers) - but I thought that Susie was objectively wrong to disallow DOTAGES. Coincidentally it was allowed one year ago to the day. Not sure how much made it into the TV broadcast yet (I'm currently at work and got a quiet moment), but something to do with the dictionary being wrong and Susie having told the higher powers at ODE about it, but they haven't acted on it yet, I'm not really sure. Something similar to that. But if it's not yet listed as a mass noun, I think you have to still allow it now. Bit harsh on Alex, but happened late enough in the episode to not have a major impact on the game.

BUSHIDO as a great alt in the HUSBAND/ABOUNDS round.

p.s. I'm guessing Andy was fishing for OUTSTAGED in the dotages/outages round? In which case bad-luck with the final letter.

John Garcia wrote:BUSHIDO as a great alt in the HUSBAND/ABOUNDS round.

p.s. I'm guessing Andy was fishing for OUTSTAGED in the dotages/outages round? In which case bad-luck with the final letter.

BUSHIDO is very nice

OUTSTAGED is invalid in the ODE as far as I know, and after a bit of research with Lexplorer on apterous, the only 9 pick would have been S for OUTGASSED... I honestly can't remember whether or not I saw the 9 stem at the time. If I pick vowel there's a good chance of landing GODETIAS, would have been a nice guaranteed 8 points, but I most probably wasn't looking for anything in particular.

It should be renamed the Hokey Cokey dictionary, in out, in out, shake it all about. How is the average viewer supposed to keep up with what is allowed or disallowed when the experts themselves cannot decide on a fixed rule.

I don't think disallowing DOTAGES is necessarily wrong. If the Countdown team asked OUP about it, and they replied that you can only talk about people in their dotage, and there's no usage case for "dotages", it shouldn't be allowed.

I wonder, though, how often OUP gives specific guidance to Countdown on this sort of thing, and whether it's practical to include in the contestant guidelines a list of which words have been clarified by OUP and what the ruling would be. I think there's been a debate along these lines on here before - if you had to make a list of every word whose validity is not 100% clear from the dictionary, that'd be quite a long list. You'd have to include most mass nouns and indicate whether they can take a plural.

Nevertheless, while we're accustomed to the fact that if something says "mass noun" or "in singular" you need to consider the definition to decide whether to pluralise it, in the case of DOTAGES (and FLORUITED and EXEUNTED, I suppose) there's nothing in the dictionary to suggest it might be dodgy. If it's going to be disallowed because of new information from OUP that isn't in the book, I think that's fine, but I also think that information ought to be communicated to the contestants beforehand. (I assume the latest contestant guidelines don't include such information, or I expect Andy would have mentioned it.)

Am i the only one whose getting sick of seeing apterites gobble up so many opponents, surely the countdown producers should be putting apterites up against each other in the heats rather than keeping them separate, otherwise its just completely predictable as you know the likes of Andy Platt are gonna become octochamps before they even start.

A better approach would have been:

Tuesday 19th March- Andy Platt debuts
Wednesday 20th March - Dylan Taylor debuts
two shows later: Giles Hutchings debuts
show after that Jen Steadman debuts.

All this gobbling up is DULL, DULL, DULL

They have done it this way before, both Peter Lee and Andy McGurn faced 4 apterites, Marcus Hares faced 3 apterites, Ryan Taylor and Ned Pendleton both faced 2 apterites, and these shows were far more interesting than what we are seeing right now.

Ned Pendleton vs Dan Mccolm was a real showdown, we need heats like this not this mowing down garbage.

I can see what point you're getting at here. However, when it comes to events such as the finals, if there's only one or two apterites in the finals, along with all the other finalists, then the majority of the matches become far too predictable. Knowing who's going to make the finals rather than who's going to win the finals is a better prospect.

Jordan Leckonby wrote:Am i the only one whose getting sick of seeing apterites gobble up so many opponents, surely the countdown producers should be putting apterites up against each other in the heats rather than keeping them separate, otherwise its just completely predictable as you know the likes of Andy Platt are gonna become octochamps before they even start.

A better approach would have been:

Tuesday 19th March- Andy Platt debuts
Wednesday 20th March - Dylan Taylor debuts
two shows later: Giles Hutchings debuts
show after that Jen Steadman debuts.

All this gobbling up is DULL, DULL, DULL

They have done it this way before, both Peter Lee and Andy McGurn faced 4 apterites, Marcus Hares faced 3 apterites, Ryan Taylor and Ned Pendleton both faced 2 apterites, and these shows were far more interesting than what we are seeing right now.

Ned Pendleton vs Dan Mccolm was a real showdown, we need heats like this not this mowing down garbage.

Just you I think, it's good to see people who have worked hard getting rewarded for their hard work

Jordan Leckonby wrote:a vitriolic rant

Have you considered that perhaps there aren't many Apterites in the offing for this series? There's a bunch waiting for dates/auditions for the next series, so you'll get your competitive bloodbath then. Apterites shouldn't be kept apart per se (although if you want the best quality series final/finals, it makes sense to isolate the best upcoming contestants from each other...), but they shouldn't be forced together either. It should be random based on filming availability, etc.

Also, referring to non-Apterites as 'garbage' is incredibly rude and unnecessary.

David Barnard wrote:Just you I think, it's good to see people who have worked hard getting rewarded for their hard work

I don't agree with this either, though. Spending your life on Apterous doesn't give you a God-given right to become an octochamp. When you apply you have to accept the possibility that you'll end up playing someone better than you at some point, whether it's in your first game or your eleventh. Apterous shouldn't be considered hard work, no matter how much effort you put into it. It's only a game, after all. (Sorry, is that blasphemous?)

Jordan Leckonby wrote:Am i the only one whose getting sick of seeing apterites gobble up so many opponents, surely the countdown producers should be putting apterites up against each other in the heats rather than keeping them separate, otherwise its just completely predictable as you know the likes of Andy Platt are gonna become octochamps before they even start.

A better approach would have been:

Tuesday 19th March- Andy Platt debuts
Wednesday 20th March - Dylan Taylor debuts
two shows later: Giles Hutchings debuts
show after that Jen Steadman debuts.

All this gobbling up is DULL, DULL, DULL

They have done it this way before, both Peter Lee and Andy McGurn faced 4 apterites, Marcus Hares faced 3 apterites, Ryan Taylor and Ned Pendleton both faced 2 apterites, and these shows were far more interesting than what we are seeing right now.

Ned Pendleton vs Dan Mccolm was a real showdown, we need heats like this not this mowing down garbage.

Why should the best players all be deliberately put on in the same week? Sure, you'd have three or four memorable matches, but the standard in the finals won't be as high as it could have been. At the same time, promising players shouldn't be entitled to have eight mediocre opponents carefully lined up for them either.

When a contestant passes their audition they're invited for a recording date. I don't know how they decide which slot you get, but it's probably some boring system like giving you the next one that happens to be available. I can only go by my own experience - I did a telephone audition, passed that, and was offered a recording date there and then - there didn't seem to be much plotting and scheming. It's more likely that the running order is more or less random, and the thing about randomness is that occasionally you get clumps of apterites together, and then you might get a few weeks with no apterous players at all. And every time one of these things happens, someone gets out their tinfoil hat and decides it's all a conspiracy.

Without wishing any disrespect to Ned or Dan, I wouldn't call their game a "showdown" - I think there's a bit of selective memory at work there. It didn't even go to a crucial. Dan would be the first to accept that he didn't play nearly as well as he's capable of playing now.

I don't think the expression "gobbling up" is fair on today's challenger, either. 80 points is pretty good, especially against a player like Andy.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Also, referring to non-Apterites as 'garbage' is incredibly rude and unnecessary.

Interesting. Its hard to convey tone, i didn't actually mean the non apterites were garbage, i meant the "mowing down" itself was garbage. so to rephrase- this "mowing down" garbage.

James Roper wrote:I can see what point you're getting at here. However, when it comes to events such as the finals, if there's only one or two apterites in the finals, along with all the other finalists, then the majority of the matches become far too predictable. Knowing who's going to make the finals rather than who's going to win the finals is a better prospect.

Fully agree!

Saying that Apterites should be put against each other is a bit like saying that in the quarter finals it should be seed 1 v seed 2, 3 v 4 etc.

James Roper wrote:I can see what point you're getting at here. However, when it comes to events such as the finals, if there's only one or two apterites in the finals, along with all the other finalists, then the majority of the matches become far too predictable. Knowing who's going to make the finals rather than who's going to win the finals is a better prospect.

Well, even when they do put apterites up against each other theres still several apterites in the finals but theres also room for non-apterites as well. If they had kept all the apterites separate in series 64 and 66 (the two series in which an octochamp had beaten 4 other apterites) then all the finalists would have been apterites which seems a bit unfair on the non-apterite good players. Remember Mary Aidie

Graeme Cole wrote:I don't think disallowing DOTAGES is necessarily wrong. If the Countdown team asked OUP about it, and they replied that you can only talk about people in their dotage, and there's no usage case for "dotages", it shouldn't be allowed.

I wonder, though, how often OUP gives specific guidance to Countdown on this sort of thing, and whether it's practical to include in the contestant guidelines a list of which words have been clarified by OUP and what the ruling would be. I think there's been a debate along these lines on here before - if you had to make a list of every word whose validity is not 100% clear from the dictionary, that'd be quite a long list. You'd have to include most mass nouns and indicate whether they can take a plural.

Nevertheless, while we're accustomed to the fact that if something says "mass noun" or "in singular" you need to consider the definition to decide whether to pluralise it, in the case of DOTAGES (and FLORUITED and EXEUNTED, I suppose) there's nothing in the dictionary to suggest it might be dodgy. If it's going to be disallowed because of new information from OUP that isn't in the book, I think that's fine, but I also think that information ought to be communicated to the contestants beforehand. (I assume the latest contestant guidelines don't include such information, or I expect Andy would have mentioned it.)

I disagree with the strength of "but I also think that information ought to be communicated to the contestants beforehand." You say right at the beginning that it would be fine to disallow it if OUP say so, and then say it again, before adding this almost as an afterthought. In my view, it is absolutely essential to convey this information beforehand, or it's just another case of arbitrary unknowable rules.

It doesn't matter what OUP say after the event. Their dictionary is their dictionary and that is the book we go by. It's the same if they bring out a new edition and change a few things in that but Countdown stick with the old edition until the end of the series. The old edition applies until Countdown decides it doesn't. OUP don't make up the rules for Countdown. They make a dictionary. That's the beginning and end of their role.

Jordan Leckonby wrote:If they had kept all the apterites separate in series 64 and 66 (the two series in which an octochamp had beaten 4 other apterites) then all the finalists would have been apterites which seems a bit unfair on the non-apterite good players.

It's curious that you describe that as 'unfair': it's not like apterous is some super secret club that only lets certain people in (and nor is it the only way to get good at the game).

As for the general discussion, I seem to remember hearing that they used to try to spread out the players who were obviously outstanding from their auditions, to avoid endless runs of mediocre players (and presumably the uninteresting finals), but that might have been back in the day when there were far fewer such players. As has been noted, the problem is the balance between boring heat games or boring finals, which is perhaps a matter of opinion. However, if it became well known that very good players would be more likely to get grouped together in the heats, then it wouldn't strike me as too difficult to underperform a bit in the audition so you don't stand out as an exceptional player.

If today's challenger (haven't see the show so apologies for not knowing the name) Googles his/her own name some day soon, finds this thread, and sees a discussion about quite when and to whom they should have been served up as mere fodder, they're prolly going to be disrespected.

I thought it might be useful to make a note of exactly what Susie did say:

Susie Dent wrote:DOTAGES - very bad luck. There was very big debate about this a long time ago on Countdown. and I did a lot of research into it with with the OUP. Unfortunately you can't have DOTAGES. You would talk about more than one person who were in their dotage so I can't allow it with the S.

Mark Deeks wrote:If today's challenger (haven't see the show so apologies for not knowing the name) Googles his/her own name some day soon, finds this thread, and sees a discussion about quite when and to whom they should have been served up as mere fodder, they're prolly going to be disrespected.

Not that I disagree with the point, but I don't think c4c threads get crawled by Google.

R2: SERRATING

Good tv Andy, looking much more relaxed now. Looking forward to seeing the next one or two.

Keep the Countdown draw random. Simples.

Gavin Chipper wrote: I disagree with the strength of "but I also think that information ought to be communicated to the contestants beforehand." You say right at the beginning that it would be fine to disallow it if OUP say so, and then say it again, before adding this almost as an afterthought. In my view, it is absolutely essential to convey this information beforehand, or it's just another case of arbitrary unknowable rules.

It doesn't matter what OUP say after the event. Their dictionary is their dictionary and that is the book we go by. It's the same if they bring out a new edition and change a few things in that but Countdown stick with the old edition until the end of the series. The old edition applies until Countdown decides it doesn't. OUP don't make up the rules for Countdown. They make a dictionary. That's the beginning and end of their role.

I agree. And the reason OUP even need to be consulted on these issues is often due to their screw ups when making the dictionary in the first place. Disallowing words that the dictionary deems valid is quite a precedent, and one I'm not comfortable with at all. Some people may feel the dictionary is too accepting, others may feel it's too stringent but what almost everyone wants is some consistency. I'd much prefer Susie say 'floruited may sound like a strange one, being in past tense in Latin, but it's just listed as a verb in the dictionary so we're going to allow it' than disallow it, and not just because it got me out of a tight spot. Some oddities being allowed due to an imperfect dictionary has been part of the game for years: one-syllable superlatives like VOIDEST, stonewall mass noun derivatives like VEGANISMS, the agent noun DOMINATER back in the Series 8 final. These obviously aren't ideal, but I think the best solution is for OUP to make a better dictionary than a retrospective unpublished list of invalid valid words. People might write in and complain, but I reckon more people complained about LOSINGEST than FLORUITED.

On a more cheerful note, I'm enjoying Andy's run and especially today's game. Best performance from Andy and the best performance from an opponent, great stuff. Also, I liked how Alex could try and get back in the game by choosing six small in round six, whereas under the old format he'd have to wait until round 10 and it'd have felt too late by then. I'm liking the new format, especially since it didn't come in a couple of months earlier.

LOSINGEST is a word actually used in American sport.

Yeah, no doubt it's a word used enough, but I'm sure a lot of people complained just because they didn't like it.

It is freaking ridiculous, to be fair. But yeah.

Is it just me that's hoping Dan's first opponent when he gets back on is Jordan...?

Jordan Leckonby wrote:Well, even when they do put apterites up against each other theres still several apterites in the finals but theres also room for non-apterites as well. If they had kept all the apterites separate in series 64 and 66 (the two series in which an octochamp had beaten 4 other apterites) then all the finalists would have been apterites which seems a bit unfair on the non-apterite good players. Remember Mary Aidie

Doesn't the fact that Mary beat an apterite kind of undermine your point here? If she can beat Tom Barnes, who are these other apterites who she'd have had no chance at all of beating in the heats?

I played a game on Apterous yesterday and was told "you could have had DOTAGES" (although I wouldn't have tried it, having just watched Countdown). As a poet, I would say dotages should be a word, poem on application, but give me ten minutes to write one!

Chris Marshall wrote:R2: SERRATING
Good tv Andy, looking much more relaxed now. Looking forward to seeing the next one or two.

SERRATING^ is not valid unfortunately, but I agree that I'm more relaxed now. Almost look like I'm enjoying it now!

Conor wrote:On a more cheerful note, I'm enjoying Andy's run and especially today's game. Best performance from Andy and the best performance from an opponent, great stuff. Also, I liked how Alex could try and get back in the game by choosing six small in round six, whereas under the old format he'd have to wait until round 10 and it'd have felt too late by then. I'm liking the new format, especially since it didn't come in a couple of months earlier.

Thanks Conor, I think it was a good game too, probably the most enjoyable in my opinion and that probably came across on TV. Alex was a good guy and a good player. Your on-topic comments are also enjoyably refreshing.


- Dotages. Long story short, I think the safest compromise is if Susie turned round with something like "I've discussed this at length with experts and the publishers of the dictionary and DOTAGE really should be listed as a mass noun, but because the dictionary is still being written without it being listed as a mass noun, then I'll reluctantly have to accept it until it does" - problem solved imo, fewer complaints and Alex gets the points he deserved.

- Jordan's post. Jen and others have made some really good points. I'm not sure why this debate is in this thread - I think the timing of the post was Jordan's post was poor and undermines any point he was trying to make when considering that my opponent for this game, Alex, put in 9 maxes (would have been 10 including DOTAGES), especially compared to Jordan's 8 maxes per game. Not trying to snobbishly rip into Jordan or anything, but as statistics go that could be construed as hypocritical. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that it wasn't Tuesday's game that provoked this response, and if perhaps it was more motivated by the performance of my previous opponents who hadn't scored as highly as Alex, well, for a start, Damian himself said that Carl's audition was very impressive, but unfortunately he didn't play anything like it on the day... John, my 2nd opponent, beat me on a couple of rounds while watching Sam v Ricky from the green room, including the conundrum... and Daniel Davies said he was just about keeping up with Conor and Jack in the final including a cheeky spot of VENDACES, and he also beat me to a conundrum from the green room (there was a test conundrum, NINNYCLUG or something was the scramble), so they really aren't bad players, it was just unfortunate that they didn't play to their potential on the day. I think mismatches in preliminaries are unfortunate, but large margins of victory happen as well with two non-apterous players so it's a largely invalid criticism to say this is just about apterous or just about a few certain players. Putting all the best players against each other in the preliminaries would also be illogical - the finals of the competition need to be competitive, rather than in Jordan's suggestion, a player that won one "super week" of countdown coming back for a couple of exhibition games. That super week should be the last one of the series and anything else is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.

As Nick would say: "Bravo".

I agree wholeheartedly with Jen's comment that spending your life on Apterous doesn't give you a God-given right to become an octochamp". There are many, many people who have done well on Countdown over the years without Apterous (Series 67 quarter-finalist Liam Shaw is one recent example of a successful non-Apterite). It is completely up to the Countdown team to decide which contestants appear when, according to their production requirements. Let's not rain on Andy's parade; he has prepared extremely thoroughly and deserves to do well in this series.

I agree with the general consensus that either deliberately keeping people apart or deliberately pitting certain contestants against each other would be the wrong thing to do. The info for contestants that the Countdown team sends out suggests that it's pretty much random who gets drawn against who.

There might be an argument (although not one I would agree with) for keeping potential octochamps apart in the preliminaries, but only based on how people perform in their audition, rather than any Apterous rankings. To do otherwise would be grossly unfair on non-Apterites.

Just like to echo what Andy said about Alex - he was a really strong player (especially on the numbers) and on another day, could easily have gone on to win a few games and wouldn't have been out of place in the series finals, so is a bit harsh to be talking about mismatches on this particular thread. Had it not been for that 9 earlier on, it would have been even closer. It also says a lot that Andy decided to divert from his usual 4L pick on his second numbers pick, presumably to avert any chance of a comeback and out of respect for Alex's strength on the numbers.