Spoilers For Monday October 14th 2013

[James Robinson]

So, we head into yet another week where yet another Apterite could become an octochamp.

After the controversy of last Tuesday's double conundrum, Abdirizak Hirsi has probably turned most of his haters into praisees following his 3 magnificent performances since then.

It's fair to say he could definitely become octochamp #5 on Thursday, although there is the potential danger of Mark Hartnett (Mark James to you Apterites out there) tomorrow, should he win today's match. (There's also the interesting return of Series 56 contestant Bradley Cates on Friday, but Abdi won't be playing him, as he'll be gone by then, one way or the other................)

Kate Adie continues in DC for today and tomorrow, before Arlene Phillips dances her way in on Wednesday.

Graeme will be recapping for you all later.

[John Garcia]

HIDEOUTS for 8 in R4

[Callum Todd]

Good performance from the challenger, she was unlucky to fall behind so late on in the game. I was disappointed to see Abdi try cheat on the conundrum again, I'd thought he'd risen above that in the past few games.

[James S Roper]

FLORUITS in R1.

Shame to see Abdi 'cheat' again. Does anyone wonder if he knows what he's doing is wrong? Apparently Hansford hadn't a clue but I'm interested to see what people's brief views are on this, without trying to clutter the thread up of solely that.

[Andy Platt]

FLORUITS.

I think this might well be still valid on apterous, but following some debate after Wilson-Travers in the 30BC, it's now disallowed (as per the new contestant guidelines)

[Zarte Siempre]

Refusing to comment on the performance as it's entirely overshadowed by cheating. Not impressed.

[Innis Carson]

I'm not convinced it's entirely the same situation as Hansford. With Abdi it comes across like he buzzes believing he has the answer but realises straight away that he's wrong, and then flounders around trying to save face. Jeffrey would buzz in immediately, before he could possibly have even seen the scramble, making it clear that it was all premeditated. If Abdi was trying to do the same, why would he wait so long before buzzing, and why would he do it in this game but not the previous 3? Obviously neither of these are in the spirit of the game and it's absolutely right to cut Abdi off when he hesitates, but I find it easier to understand Abdi's actions as questionable decision-making in the heat of the moment, rather than anything malicious.

[Callum Todd]

I'm not convinced it's entirely the same situation as Hansford. With Abdi it comes across like he buzzes believing he has the answer but realises straight away that he's wrong, and then flounders around trying to save face. Jeffrey would buzz in immediately, before he could possibly have even seen the scramble, making it clear that it was all premeditated. If Abdi was trying to do the same, why would he wait so long before buzzing, and why would he do it in this game but not the previous 3? Obviously neither of these are in the spirit of the game and it's absolutely right to cut Abdi off when he hesitates, but I find it easier to understand Abdi's actions as questionable decision-making in the heat of the moment, rather than anything malicious.

I don't think he does have the answer when he buzzes. This is because he continues to look at the monitor. Not only does he buzz faster on the "erm, is it, I think, erm..." conundrums, but his body language is radically different. I mean immediately after buzzing. He does it when he needs to. He did it in his first game because the conundrums were crucial. He did it today because he knows he has a tough game tomorrow and needs a very high score to overtake Zarte in the seeds if he loses tomorrow.

He's a very good player, but this is not the first time he has shown blatant cheating. I don't think there's any doubt here that he was cheating again, but if there was it'd come down to giving him the benefit of the doubt, and why should we do that for an already proven cheat? Nick was a bit quicker and much less sympathetic with his denial this time though, which I'm pleased with.

I won't talk about Abdi again now; I feel I've said everything there is to be said on the topic.

[Innis Carson]

He did it today because he knows he has a tough game tomorrow and needs a very high score to overtake Zarte in the seeds if he loses tomorrow.

Come on, don't you think that's a little bit contrived? I find it far easier to believe that he made a cock-up than that he planned his every action as meticulously as this. And if he did, and he believed Hansfording to be a more effective way of scoring points than buzzing honestly, why wouldn't he do it in every game to maximise his points total?

I agree that Abdi's actions haven't been within the spirit of the game, but they can be understood without turning Abdi into some kind of criminal mastermind. He buzzes in prematurely (it's very easy to think you've got it when you don't, as has been shown time and time again on the show and even moreso on apterous) and when he realises his mistake, he tries desperately to salvage the situation and avoid embarrassing himself. Again, if it was premeditated and he wanted to buzz before his opponent had a chance to, why wait as long as he did?

The only other instance of "blatant cheating" I'm aware of was that numbers round in your game with him, and as far as I'm concerned that's much the same thing. Several times in my TV appearances I was in the situation where I realised whilst giving a numbers solution that I'd gone wrong or forgotten my method, and believe me, it's not easy just to go "Oh silly me! I've gone wrong!" straight away, especially when the game is still very much at stake (as mine was with Adam G). I (and probably many people in the same situation) only looked as calm as I did in these instances because they would reshoot the scene and tell me what to say.

Abdi's behaviour has been far from perfect, but at times I feel we're losing sight of the human element in this debacle.

[Gavin Chipper]

This "blatant cheating" sounds like bollocks to me. What do the contestant guidelines/rules actually say about buzzing in? From the previous discussions, my understanding was that when you buzz in, you have to answer immediately or you'll be timed out, so nothing is specifically said about having to know the answer already. But if you can't get it straight away you lose the chance to get the points. People don't, on the whole, like this behaviour but unless it's explicit in the rules, it's not blatant cheating.

Also, the thing about Hansfording it today because he's got a tough game tomorrow just sounds ridiculous, as Innis says. Unless there is further evidence for this.

[Gavin Chipper]

FLORUITS.

I think this might well be still valid on apterous, but following some debate after Wilson-Travers in the 30BC, it's now disallowed (as per the new contestant guidelines)

What do they say about this? It sounds like the guidelines would have to be very specific.

Edit - ODO recognises it when you search for it, but it doesn't recognise FLORUITED.

[Jennifer Steadman]

Does anyone ever have the instant reaction to the letters in a conundrum scramble of "They look 'familiar', this conundrum must be easy!"? Certainly that was what I thought when seeing the scramble today. Perhaps that's what happened here - unfortunately for Abdi, 'familiar' letters can be misleadingly difficult. (Yeah, I know this isn't the most articulate explanation. Does anyone else feel like this about conundrums sometimes?) Whereas I'd imagine in the game v Callum, on the second conundrum at least, he'd isolated the suffix when he buzzed but used the post-buzz time to unscramble the remaining letters, which is similar but not the same. Either way, both are cheating.

Vis-a-vis FLORUIT: "Lastly, in the past, we accepted extended forms of FLORUIT and EXEUNT, both listed as verbs. However, extended forms of these 2 forms will no longer be accepted, as they have been deemed to be technically incorrect."

[Jack Worsley]

FLORUIT is listed as a noun as well as a verb, so surely you could add the S just like most other count nouns.

I have to agree with Innis about Abdi's actions. He's covered pretty much everything so I have nothing more to add.

FRAENUM in round 10.

[Graeme Cole]

This "blatant cheating" sounds like bollocks to me. What do the contestant guidelines/rules actually say about buzzing in?

In the rules I have, the relevant bit is "The first contestant to identify the nine-letter word will indicate that they have done so by pressing their buzzer". Not sure what to conclude from that. It suggests you should know the answer before you buzz, but does that mean any buzz with the wrong answer should be considered cheating?

From the previous discussions, my understanding was that when you buzz in, you have to answer immediately or you'll be timed out, so nothing is specifically said about having to know the answer already. But if you can't get it straight away you lose the chance to get the points. People don't, on the whole, like this behaviour but unless it's explicit in the rules, it's not blatant cheating.

I think the reason nothing's specifically said about having to know the answer already is that it's so difficult to prove someone didn't have the answer when they buzzed. The best you can do is say that you have to answer immediately when Nick calls your name, or you'll be disqualified from the round.

On this subject, wouldn't it be better if Nick said just "Fred?" when someone buzzed? Embellishing it with "wow, Fred, astonishing, how could you get it so fast, remarkable..." gives the contestant an extra three or four seconds fudge-time, which makes it harder to spot when someone's winging it. It sounds pernickety, but those few seconds make a big difference. A quick gander at the database tells me that 35% of all correct buzzes are within the first three seconds.

(Obviously I mean Nick should say only the contestant's name, as soon as possible after the buzz, to minimise the fudge-time, not that Nick should call every contestant Fred.)

Also, the thing about Hansfording it today because he's got a tough game tomorrow just sounds ridiculous, as Innis says. Unless there is further evidence for this.

I agree that seems far fetched. Today, Abdi seemed to think the answer was OUTRACED. He'd obviously realised there was something wrong with that answer, like it didn't use the N, or didn't have enough letters, or whatever. As Innis says, it's natural to do a double-take and hesitate for a moment when you realise this - you wouldn't immediately throw away your answer in case you realise just afterwards that it was right all along. To me Abdi seemed to be making a bit of a meal of it, though, and was well past the point where he should have either given the answer he had, or said "no, I've not got it", when Nick timed him out.

[Ryan Taylor]

Does anyone ever have the instant reaction to the letters in a conundrum scramble of "They look 'familiar', this conundrum must be easy!"

Yes! I read the recap for today's show before reading the spoilers and for that conundrum my reaction was that I'd got the conundrum only then for my brain to take a couple of seconds to go from "It's OUT...no...UNDERCOAT". I think it's highly likely that Abdi did the same thing today, especially in front of cameras and with a buzzer at his tips.

[Dave Preece]

He's a cheat, simple as that IMHO.

[Dave Preece]

For the second time in a week or so, I was embarrassed watching Countdown, at least Hansford got nearly all his conundrums correct!

[Dave Preece]

I can't wait to see this guy get destroyed by a top 3 seed in the semis; be very satisfying that!

[Mark Deeks]

On this subject, wouldn't it be better if Nick said just "Fred?" when someone buzzed?

Infinitely

[Matt Morrison]

On this subject, wouldn't it be better if Nick said just "Fred?" when someone buzzed?

Infinitely

I'm 99% sure everyone here already thinks this but it is too obvious to mention.
The fact Graeme even finds it necessary to put into words (i.e. that Nick still isn't doing this) is absolutely beyond me.

[Matt Morrison]

Also, the thing about Hansfording it today because he's got a tough game tomorrow just sounds ridiculous, as Innis says. Unless there is further evidence for this.

I agree that seems far fetched. Today, Abdi seemed to think the answer was OUTRACED. He'd obviously realised there was something wrong with that answer, like it didn't use the N, or didn't have enough letters, or whatever. As Innis says, it's natural to do a double-take and hesitate for a moment when you realise this - you wouldn't immediately throw away your answer in case you realise just afterwards that it was right all along. To me Abdi seemed to be making a bit of a meal of it, though, and was well past the point where he should have either given the answer he had, or said "no, I've not got it", when Nick timed him out.

I watched it twice (but only for the lolz and not to try and read into it), and what I got from it was that Abdi had buzzed thinking that either he had solved it or that he could instantly solve it (as you say elsewhere, we can't really know) - the hesitation then came from realising he was wrong - and the stumbled effort he made at it was OUTRANCED in my ears. Using all the letters but just stabbing at it, i.e. definitely not what he buzzed in with (which could well have been OUTRACED as you posit). If I heard correctly, everything before OUTRANCED was forgivable (if feeling generous) but anything from guessing OUTRANCED onwards was not. That's all if I heard it right, but hey.

I hope he loses today and scores just the right amount of points that yesterday's conundrum 10 would have made all the difference to his ranking. He'll look like a motherfucking criminal genius.

[Jon Corby]

On this subject, wouldn't it be better if Nick said just "Fred?" when someone buzzed?

Infinitely

I'm 99% sure everyone here already thinks this but it is too obvious to mention.
The fact Graeme even finds it necessary to put into words (i.e. that Nick still isn't doing this) is absolutely beyond me.

Every host has always done this, it's not just Nick. Of course, 99% of the time it isn't an issue, because the contestant is looking to the host waiting to be asked for their answer, rather than continuing to solve/check. If only the monitors shut off blah blah blah

[Philip Wilson]

A few rounds from the end when the conundrum could still have been crucial, I was getting excited because there would be a chance to see what Abdi would do when in the same situation as with Callum again. So when it became clear that the crucial wasn't going to happen I was disappointed - but then he does it anyway!
I guess Nick was a lot stricter this time too because it would only have been the next day [?] when recording, so even more in people's minds, than almost a week later to the viewers.