You Are The Ref

[Andres Sanchez]

You are running a co event, and observe the following

Host reveals crucial conundrum: HRRAAEIOD
C1 "Diarrhoea" (pronounced correctly)
C2 "Spell it"
C1 "D I A H R R O E A"
H "I'm afraid that's not the right spelling"
C2 "Diarrhoea D I A R R H O E A"
H "Correct. 10 pts to C2"

I would overturn the conundrum and award to C1. AFAIK, on the tv show they never ask contestants to spell conundrum guesses. It should be obvious if they are right or wrong. If you have to ask then it's a sign that you picked a bad conundrum.

Would it be safe to say that if they mispronounce it but spell it correctly, you give them the points?

[Gavin Chipper]

You are running a co event, and observe the following

Host reveals crucial conundrum: HRRAAEIOD
C1 "Diarrhoea" (pronounced correctly)
C2 "Spell it"
C1 "D I A H R R O E A"
H "I'm afraid that's not the right spelling"
C2 "Diarrhoea D I A R R H O E A"
H "Correct. 10 pts to C2"

I would overturn the conundrum and award to C1. AFAIK, on the tv show they never ask contestants to spell conundrum guesses. It should be obvious if they are right or wrong. If you have to ask then it's a sign that you picked a bad conundrum.

Would it be safe to say that if they mispronounce it but spell it correctly, you give them the points?

Yeah, as long as it's obviously the word, rather than an attempt to have two bites at the cherry. Like "CAKEBREAD. Er, but I'm spelling it B-R-E-A-D-C-A-K-E".

[Fiona T]

yeah the only reason to ask a contestant to spell a conundrum would be if there's confusion about whether they've said the right word.

[JackHurst]

yeah the only reason to ask a contestant to spell a conundrum would be if there's confusion about whether they've said the right word.

Agreed. Ideally the setter picks something that would be very difficult to pronounce ambiguously.

[Paul Anderson]

You only have to spell a word if it could be spelled otherwise, eg in a letters round.
Why would you ask someone to spell a conundrum?

[Paul Anderson]

We (famously) disallowed Ben's conundrum attempt on SPORTCAST, as we had agreed to disallow the pronunciation sportscast. We were actively listening for that

[Fiona T]

Hypothetical situation -

You're entering tournament scores into atropine in a Lincoln style tournament

The selection and declarations have been recorded on the score sheet.

The R2 selection was FRIGLITES

c1 declared girliest x
c2 declared GRISTLE


You notice that GIRLIEST had been incorrectly allowed, and the 8 points awarded to C1, who had gone on to win the game by 10 points.

What would you do? Believing they were ahead may have affected the choice of numbers and safety of declarations for remaining rounds. Do you reverse the score (a 15 points net swing) and award C2 the win, or decide that a submitted scoresheet is the score agreed by all players and the error stands?

[Rhys Benjamin]

You're entering tournament scores into atropine in a Lincoln style tournament
[...]
a submitted scoresheet is the score agreed by all players and the error stands?

This, basically - the game is over when the conundrum is finished and the score is agreed by all. A televised equivalent would be Damian spotting a R12 mistake when the credits are rolling; too late, sorry.

[Graeme Cole]

Hypothetical situation -

You're entering tournament scores into atropine in a Lincoln style tournament

The selection and declarations have been recorded on the score sheet.

The R2 selection was FRIGLITES

c1 declared girliest x
c2 declared GRISTLE


You notice that GIRLIEST had been incorrectly allowed, and the 8 points awarded to C1, who had gone on to win the game by 10 points.

What would you do? Believing they were ahead may have affected the choice of numbers and safety of declarations for remaining rounds. Do you reverse the score (a 15 points net swing) and award C2 the win, or decide that a submitted scoresheet is the score agreed by all players and the error stands?

Something similar has been discussed in this thread before. In chess and Scrabble, submitting the scoresheet is (sort of) a point of no return - if the result has been agreed by both players, it can't be changed after that unless the tournament director agrees.

This just raises another question: when should the tournament director agree to change it?

In the case you describe, where C2 didn't challenge GIRLIEST^, I would let the submitted result stand. If you correct it, reversing the win, C1 has a good reason to feel hard done by because the rest of the game might have gone differently. C2 could easily have asked to look up the word but didn't.

Other situations, with my attempt at an opinion:

• Any mistake which is the organiser/director's fault (they misread or mistyped the score), should obviously be corrected.
• If the mistake is something minor like an illegal number of vowels in a round or three sixes in a numbers game because one of the cards was upside down, let the result stand. Any complaint along these lines is almost certainly the loser of the game trying their luck after the fact.
• If the mistake is something which benefits both players, such as the accidental allowing of a word they both gave, correct it.
• On the same lines, if they've done something obviously absurd to try to gain an advantage, correct it.
• If the problem is with the conundrum, it's easier to correct it, especially as the mistake couldn't have affected any later rounds unless you're playing the weird 14R format with the conundrum in the middle. This covers things like the scramble not being an anagram of the solution, a disallowed solution turning out to be a valid alternative, or the solution not being a valid word*. (Declaration of interest: at events I have benefited from corrections to the first two of these mistakes.)

I guess it's difficult to come up with a definitive set of rulings as to when it should or shouldn't be corrected. Whatever rules you write, someone will find a loophole to exploit. So that might be why Scrabble and chess leave it up to the director to decide what's fairest.

* Not the mere presence of an alternative solution, though. Some people will tell you that if there was a second correct answer nobody spotted, then the conundrum was invalid and you have to replay it. This is not a thing. It sounds more like a made-up rule invented by someone who lost.

[Adam S Latchford]

Player 1 buzzes
Player 2 buzzes just (but very clearly) after and says the word.
Player 1 says they had the word and they're reputable.

Do you:
Allow Player 1 to have the conundrum
Use another conundrum

Happened at Lincoln twice from what I gather. One game allowed Player 1 to have it. One game had a second conundrum.

[Rhys Benjamin]

IMO, either is acceptable. Player Two’s given the conundrum away by yelling it out before coming to them; a more magnanimous Player One might say (“oh, that’s not what I had”).

[Ben Wilson]

Player 1 buzzes
Player 2 buzzes just (but very clearly) after and says the word.
Player 1 says they had the word and they're reputable.

Do you:
Allow Player 1 to have the conundrum
Use another conundrum

Happened at Lincoln twice from what I gather. One game allowed Player 1 to have it. One game had a second conundrum.

In those circumstances my policy is always to redo the conundrum.

[Callum Todd]

Meh, I think it's fine to award it to P1. Otherwise P2 could just force a redraw on a conundrum they've lost by doing this deliberately. If you say the answer uninvited after a close buzz without waiting for the host, you've forfeited the conundrum. Tough luck.

[Graeme Cole]

Player 1 buzzes
Player 2 buzzes just (but very clearly) after and says the word.
Player 1 says they had the word and they're reputable.

Do you:
Allow Player 1 to have the conundrum
Use another conundrum

Happened at Lincoln twice from what I gather. One game allowed Player 1 to have it. One game had a second conundrum.

In those circumstances my policy is always to redo the conundrum.

I would say the opposite. 10 points to player 1, assuming they give the correct answer. Nobody forced player 2 to blurt out the answer prematurely.

If the policy is to redo it, then when a player has solved the conundrum but been narrowly beaten to the buzzer, their best strategy is to quickly shout out the answer before their opponent does.

[Dan Byrom]

I was in this spot. I had the word and buzzed first but my opponent said the word first. The host opted to redo the conundrum.

I can understand why, and was happy to go with the host's judgement in the moment and since it's just fun and friendly competition and best kept without tension I had no real issues with this.

But had this been a more serious match e.g. with a final spot on the line, then I would have probably insisted that the points were mine.

Put yourself in these shoes. You have the answer and buzz first, and then your opponent blunders. You would rightly feel quite hard done by to not get the points!

[Adam S Latchford]

I was in this spot. I had the word and buzzed first but my opponent said the word first. The host opted to redo the conundrum.

I can understand why, and was happy to go with the host's judgement in the moment and since it's just fun and friendly competition and best kept without tension I had no real issues with this.

But had this been a more serious match e.g. with a final spot on the line, then I would have probably insisted that the points were mine.

Put yourself in these shoes. You have the answer and buzz first, and then your opponent blunders. You would rightly feel quite hard done by to not get the points!

Yeah mine was the other game. I'd already lost at the point so was fine with doing another but host and opponent ruled it was fine for me to take it.

I think for rugby i'll specify if this situation comes up - that player 1 gets the con. Player 2 at best has made a mistake but at worse has found a novel way of cheating (not that either of these cases were that!!)

[David Williams]

If the decision is anything other than Player 1 wins, then the logical thing for all players to do is shout out the answer as soon as they see it, while also pressing the buzzer. Can't lose, might just gain.

A variant is if Player 2 shouts out, say, CAFETERIA. Player 1 says "Yes, CAFETERIA", which turns out to be incorrect. If Player 2's response was inadmissible, and by now he has seen his mistake, can he now immediately offer CAFETIERE?

[Adam S Latchford]

I think if player 2 has done anything like this they shouldn't get a second chance at it.

[Fiona T]

I doubt most people do it deliberately - they're getting carried away in the tension of the game. Perhaps a reminder from the event host at the beginning that you tap the table and offer the answer after the game host has asked you for it?

But yep in this case, if the game host believes player 1 tapped first, they should be awarded the points if they have the correct answer (which may or may not be the one player 2 shouted out)

[Fiona T]

This happened on ZoomDown - at the time we did a second conundrum but just for player 1. In hindsight we should probably have given player 1 the points, but as they solved the new one no harm done! Should add it was definitely a case of over exuberance, not foul play, and became a classic ZoomDown moment

[Thomas Cappleman]

Another interesting one from the weekend:

A player declared a word in one game, but misspelled it so got no points. The next game the same word turned up in a selection (though this time the singular rather than plural). The player declared it, and stated that they'd checked with the previous game notes that they'd spelt it correctly this time. After a bit of discussion the table checked with Ben, who ruled to replay the round.

Given that no external notes are allowed into the game, this feels the right call. (Arguably you could just deny them the points for breaking the rules, but given that you'd only know they looked if they admit it, a redo is fairer).

It's then an interesting thing to enforce at co-events. Some players (me included) are concise with game notes, in some cases having all previous games visible by the end of the day. And in Lincoln style with manual shuffling, there's a non-trivial chance of getting very similar selections across games. So it should probably be stated that nothing written before that game may be visible while playing.

[JackHurst]

Player 1 buzzes
Player 2 buzzes just (but very clearly) after and says the word.
Player 1 says they had the word and they're reputable.

Do you:
Allow Player 1 to have the conundrum
Use another conundrum

Happened at Lincoln twice from what I gather. One game allowed Player 1 to have it. One game had a second conundrum.

In those circumstances my policy is always to redo the conundrum.

Strongly disagree with this. Anything other than awarding to P1 is incredibly unfair. I'd be cheesed off if I'm P1 knowing I've already won one conundrum yet I'm having to sit through a redo because P2 has bad manners.

Whether it's deliberate or not from P2, it's poor etiquette to shout your answer on a conundrum before being asked to declare if the buzz was close.

If P1 was honestly going to buzz in with something invalid and they say this, then fine to award to P2 and credit to P1 for their honesty. If P1 uses the same answer and takes the points, then P2 has absolutely no right to complain. P2 you blundered and now your blunder gets penalised. You'll swiftly learn not to be a dick next time.

[JackHurst]

Another interesting one from the weekend:

A player declared a word in one game, but misspelled it so got no points. The next game the same word turned up in a selection (though this time the singular rather than plural). The player declared it, and stated that they'd checked with the previous game notes that they'd spelt it correctly this time. After a bit of discussion the table checked with Ben, who ruled to replay the round.

Given that no external notes are allowed into the game, this feels the right call. (Arguably you could just deny them the points for breaking the rules, but given that you'd only know they looked if they admit it, a redo is fairer).

It's then an interesting thing to enforce at co-events. Some players (me included) are concise with game notes, in some cases having all previous games visible by the end of the day. And in Lincoln style with manual shuffling, there's a non-trivial chance of getting very similar selections across games. So it should probably be stated that nothing written before that game may be visible while playing.

This should be such an extreme edge case, but it's not because people really underestimate how thoroughly letter decks need shuffling

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't think notes from the day's games should really count as external notes. Allow the word.

[Fiona T]

Yeah I'm adopting the Jack Hurst Shuffle going forward.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

Yeah I'm adopting the Jack Hurst Shuffle going forward.

I opened this thread at the latest message without having read the previous half dozen or so, and I choose to believe that this is a dance move.

[Mark Deeks]

Yeah I'm adopting the Jack Hurst Shuffle going forward.

I opened this thread at the latest message without having read the previous half dozen or so, and I choose to believe that this is a dance move.

[Gavin Chipper]

C2 leads C1 by 15 points going into the last letters game. C1 declares a 9. C2 then declares a risky 9. C1's word is just the letters spelt out as they are in the selection and disallowed. C2's word is a valid 8 with an S on the end - plausible but disallowed. The lead remains at 15 points. C1 then wins the number and conundrum to win the game by 5 points. C2 complains that C1 made no effort to play properly in round 13 and suckered C2 into declaring a 9, and says that C1 likely didn't have any word worth speaking of. In other competitions not playing to the best of your ability is a disqualifyable offence.

You are the ref.

[Fiona T]

C2 leads C1 by 15 points going into the last letters game. C1 declares a 9. C2 then declares a risky 9. C1's word is just the letters spelt out as they are in the selection and disallowed. C2's word is a valid 8 with an S on the end - plausible but disallowed. The lead remains at 15 points. C1 then wins the number and conundrum to win the game by 5 points. C2 complains that C1 made no effort to play properly in round 13 and suckered C2 into declaring a 9, and says that C1 likely didn't have any word worth speaking of. In other competitions not playing to the best of your ability is a disqualifyable offence.

You are the ref.

Suck it up.

Apart from anything else, playing the game to the best of your ability can include trying to lure your opponent into making a mistake when you have bugger all.

[Graeme Cole]

C2 leads C1 by 15 points going into the last letters game. C1 declares a 9. C2 then declares a risky 9. C1's word is just the letters spelt out as they are in the selection and disallowed. C2's word is a valid 8 with an S on the end - plausible but disallowed. The lead remains at 15 points. C1 then wins the number and conundrum to win the game by 5 points. C2 complains that C1 made no effort to play properly in round 13 and suckered C2 into declaring a 9, and says that C1 likely didn't have any word worth speaking of. In other competitions not playing to the best of your ability is a disqualifyable offence.

You are the ref.

Agree with Fiona. C1 wins, nothing to be done here.

I don't think there's much danger of anyone successfully trying C1's R13 tactic anyway. If C1 is trying to draw the round, offering a nonsense 9 seems less effective to me than just playing normally. Clearly C1 didn't see the invalid but plausible 8+S, or they'd have offered that, so they probably didn't see the 8 either. In this situation it would be strange to bank on your opponent having spotted a plausible 9 you don't even know is there and that 9 being invalid, with all other outcomes losing you the game there and then.

(Edit to add: let's say "all other likely outcomes" - C2 would win by offering a valid word of 6 or more.)

[Jon O'Neill]

Totally fine. Games where "not playing to the best of your ability" is an offence are a joke.

[David Williams]

If C1 had any sense he'd just say "I've used a letter twice" and that would be an end of it. I agree with the others that the result stands, but I doubt if we would think it was acceptable. Suppose it was a promising set of letters, C1 immediately sees a 9 letter word and sits back. Just before he declares he sees that he has indeed used a letter twice. Declare nothing and you lose. Declare the 6 letter word that is staring you in the face and you lose. But if you declare a nine you might just be in luck. It's your only hope, but is it right?

[Rhys Benjamin]

As per David, really. Bizarre tactics from C1, but really it's C2's fault for not playing the safe 8, which is the best choice in this circumstance.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm guessing they would re-edit round 13 so it's moot

[Fiona T]

It's is plausible. Selection is RUDVATISE

You look at it, think you know there's a 9 but brain can't dredge it up.

You declare '9 nwd' to buy yourself an extra few seconds.
Your opponent feels they have to match you so declares the 9 they weren't sure of.


You don't have it so declare RUDVATISE. Your opponent declares DURATIVES... nil points each

[JackHurst]

You declare '9 nwd' to buy yourself an extra few seconds.

I know you're not saying you approve of this behaviour, nor that you would ever try it yourself (I am sure you wouldn't).

Just a good time to point out to people for when they host games. If a player has a NWD and it seems like they could be buying time, then a good host should move things along very quickly to get to that declaration and have a pretty low threshold for hesitation when the word gets declared.

I've hosted games at co-events where it's been clear that the player had nothing and was trying to buy extra time with an NWD. There's nothing against this in the rules, but it's obviously dodge, but a bit of robust hosting can help restore the balance.

[Fiona T]

You declare '9 nwd' to buy yourself an extra few seconds.

I know you're not saying you approve of this behaviour, nor that you would ever try it yourself (I am sure you wouldn't).

Just a good time to point out to people for when they host games. If a player has a NWD and it seems like they could be buying time, then a good host should move things along very quickly to get to that declaration and have a pretty low threshold for hesitation when the word gets declared.

I've hosted games at co-events where it's been clear that the player had nothing and was trying to buy extra time with an NWD. There's nothing against this in the rules, but it's obviously dodge, but a bit of robust hosting can help restore the balance.

Agreed! One of the problems with Lincoln events is inexperienced hosts. I know I made a hosting error when I was fairly new to it, but fortunately resolved amicably. Of course with Bristol there is no game host to adjudicate this sort of stuff!

[Callum Todd]

You're at a co:event. This is a co:event. It's not Countdown. It's not apterous. It's a co:event.

So you're at a co:event and it's Bristol style. Conundrum time. It's a crucial conundrum. Pretty important game in the context of the day too. Both players buzz at around about the same time, although initial impressions suggest P1 seemed to have just got there first. Thankfully someone is filming their hands to adjudicate on buzzer races but well come back to that later. Or maybe we won't as it might not be relevant but anyway: they buzz at more or less the same time so they both go to write their answer down.

Not wanting to disturb the rest of the room still playing the conundrum, they keep quiet like good Countdowners until the clock runs out. At the end of the round they compare paper. P1, who probably just won the buzzer race (the video evidence is being verified as we speak but the crowd gathering round the pitchside monitor haven't yet been able to determine that for certain - it's so damn close and P2 annoyingly started with his hand on the table so the frame by frame analysis makes it difficult to tell if his hand is ok the table pre- or post- buzz), reveals his paper and finds to his horror he has only written the first letter of the answer down and not the full word. P1 is a player of high repute and skill and it's very obvious to everyone who knows him and observed the conundrum that he very clearly had the answer when he buzzed, but just had a bit of a brainfart when writing it down and didn't complete his writing down.

P2 has clearly written the answer in full, and as they buzzed so close and went to do their writing at the same time it's clear that neither player was influenced by or even saw what the other was writing.

The video evidence is still being reviewed to be certain but the initial impression remains that P1 probably just buzzed first.

You are the ref. Does it even matter who buzzed first here or has P2 won anyway?

P.s. this is a co:event. It is not Countdown. It is not apterous. It is a co:event.

[Adam S Latchford]

You're at a co:event. This is a co:event. It's not Countdown. It's not apterous. It's a co:event.

So you're at a co:event and it's Bristol style. Conundrum time. It's a crucial conundrum. Pretty important game in the context of the day too. Both players buzz at around about the same time, although initial impressions suggest P1 seemed to have just got there first. Thankfully someone is filming their hands to adjudicate on buzzer races but well come back to that later. Or maybe we won't as it might not be relevant but anyway: they buzz at more or less the same time so they both go to write their answer down.

Not wanting to disturb the rest of the room still playing the conundrum, they keep quiet like good Countdowners until the clock runs out. At the end of the round they compare paper. P1, who probably just won the buzzer race (the video evidence is being verified as we speak but the crowd gathering round the pitchside monitor haven't yet been able to determine that for certain - it's so damn close and P2 annoyingly started with his hand on the table so the frame by frame analysis makes it difficult to tell if his hand is ok the table pre- or post- buzz), reveals his paper and finds to his horror he has only written the first letter of the answer down and not the full word. P1 is a player of high repute and skill and it's very obvious to everyone who knows him and observed the conundrum that he very clearly had the answer when he buzzed, but just had a bit of a brainfart when writing it down and didn't complete his writing down.

P2 has clearly written the answer in full, and as they buzzed so close and went to do their writing at the same time it's clear that neither player was influenced by or even saw what the other was writing.

The video evidence is still being reviewed to be certain but the initial impression remains that P1 probably just buzzed first.

You are the ref. Does it even matter who buzzed first here or has P2 won anyway?

P.s. this is a co:event. It is not Countdown. It is not apterous. It is a co:event.

p2 wins
p1 has been an idiot

[Graeme Cole]

You're at a co:event. This is a co:event. It's not Countdown. It's not apterous. It's a co:event.

So you're at a co:event and it's Bristol style. Conundrum time. It's a crucial conundrum. Pretty important game in the context of the day too. Both players buzz at around about the same time, although initial impressions suggest P1 seemed to have just got there first. Thankfully someone is filming their hands to adjudicate on buzzer races but well come back to that later. Or maybe we won't as it might not be relevant but anyway: they buzz at more or less the same time so they both go to write their answer down.

Not wanting to disturb the rest of the room still playing the conundrum, they keep quiet like good Countdowners until the clock runs out. At the end of the round they compare paper. P1, who probably just won the buzzer race (the video evidence is being verified as we speak but the crowd gathering round the pitchside monitor haven't yet been able to determine that for certain - it's so damn close and P2 annoyingly started with his hand on the table so the frame by frame analysis makes it difficult to tell if his hand is ok the table pre- or post- buzz), reveals his paper and finds to his horror he has only written the first letter of the answer down and not the full word. P1 is a player of high repute and skill and it's very obvious to everyone who knows him and observed the conundrum that he very clearly had the answer when he buzzed, but just had a bit of a brainfart when writing it down and didn't complete his writing down.

P2 has clearly written the answer in full, and as they buzzed so close and went to do their writing at the same time it's clear that neither player was influenced by or even saw what the other was writing.

The video evidence is still being reviewed to be certain but the initial impression remains that P1 probably just buzzed first.

You are the ref. Does it even matter who buzzed first here or has P2 won anyway?

P.s. this is a co:event. It is not Countdown. It is not apterous. It is a co:event.

10 points to P2. You can't get points if you didn't give the answer. It's the classroom-style co-event equivalent of buzzing in and saying the first letter of the answer and nothing else.

[Gavin Chipper]

This is a perfect example of why Nick should swap the order when asking for the words. If C1 is asked for their length first, and they're the same length, C2 should be asked for their word first.

This is the system my wife and I use when we play against each other at home. We can't be bothered with writing anything down so we had to come up with a system that didn't depend on that, and mutual trust clearly wasn't good enough for us, so we started using the reverse order thing.

What is it they say? Necessity is the mother of invention? Maybe we need to manufacture the situation from one of the other questions in this thread and get two contestants with broken arms to play each other. That should be enough to get them using the right system.

By the way, at CO-events, when I'm hosting I always swap the declaration order. However, I always feel like I'm going against the grain by doing this and people often seem programmed to give their words in the same order as they give the lengths in. Should I continue? It's clearly The Right Way, but if I'm the only one doing it and it's creating a small amount of tension, is there any point?

[Adam S Latchford]

How do you ref the following 3 invalid conundrums:

There is a letter incorrect but the contestant still somehow solves it

There is more than one solution (contestant says the other solution)

There is more than one option (for goatdown specifically). For example the scramble is CAROMING where there are 4 possible answers, contestant says one that is not the one written down.

Obviously it's on event organisers to ensure conundrums are correct, but shit happens, so if shit does indeed happen, how would you ref these spots?

[Fiona T]

There is a letter incorrect but the contestant still somehow solves it

Re-do - if the solution doesn't match the scramble then it's not 'solved' and the other player may have already dismissed the supposedly correct solution.

There is more than one solution (contestant says the other solution)

The player has solved the conundrum with a valid solution. Give them the points (this happened to me on telly).

There is more than one option (for goatdown specifically). For example the scramble is CAROMING where there are 4 possible answers, contestant says one that is not the one written down.

As above. If the player gives a valid answer, they have solved the conundrum.

[JackHurst]

100% Agree with Fiona.

I think it's a good practise for event organisers to point this out at the start of the day for any event using Goatnundrums: "We've tried our hardest to make sure that the Goatnundrums have a unique solution, however if you spot one that doesn't have a unique solution, but a player solves it anyway, then that solve stands."

[Adam S Latchford]

For the record I also agree with those rulings for those scenarios so good to see same page.

As long as the goatnundrum first 8 letters aren't "ANGRIEST" ! (maybe there's an 8 with more stems but if there is I don't know it)

[JackHurst]

Bristol style: ASREOTINY

P1: 8
P2: 8 not written down. After a couple of seconds of hesitation

Adjacent table audibly declare NOTARISE before P2 says their word. P2 declares NOTARISE.

Similar situation arises 2 more times during the game when P1 declares first. At this point P1 kicks up a fuss that P2 is deliberately waiting to hear words from the other table.

[Fiona T]

Bristol style: ASREOTINY

P1: 8
P2: 8 not written down. After a couple of seconds of hesitation

Adjacent table audibly declare NOTARISE before P2 says their word. P2 declares NOTARISE.

Similar situation arises 2 more times during the game when P1 declares first. At this point P1 kicks up a fuss that P2 is deliberately waiting to hear words from the other table.

Not really answering the question about what I'd do, but perhaps a case for a new convention that if you're declaring 2nd and it's NWD you say 7 Notarise nwd in one breath

[Adam Dexter]

Not really answering the question about what I'd do, but perhaps a case for a new convention that if you're declaring 2nd and it's NWD you say 7 Notarise nwd in one breath

And deservedly get no score as it's an 8

[Adam S Latchford]

Bristol style: ASREOTINY

P1: 8
P2: 8 not written down. After a couple of seconds of hesitation

Adjacent table audibly declare NOTARISE before P2 says their word. P2 declares NOTARISE.

Similar situation arises 2 more times during the game when P1 declares first. At this point P1 kicks up a fuss that P2 is deliberately waiting to hear words from the other table.

This is full blown cheating at this point so an initial warning to player, and any attempt to do it again just DQ them from the event. Hard to rule harsher in that first initial game as it's most likely he said she said

[JackHurst]

Not really answering the question about what I'd do, but perhaps a case for a new convention that if you're declaring 2nd and it's NWD you say 7 Notarise nwd in one breath

This is a great suggestion. I think if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd do it this way. I think on TV the host can almost enforce this anyway with how quickly they press for a word, but in the realm of co-events where people are used to behaving in a certain way, I think this would be difficult to change/enforce.

This is full blown cheating at this point so an initial warning to player, and any attempt to do it again just DQ them from the event. Hard to rule harsher in that first initial game as it's most likely he said she said

Brutal. Can't recall anybody ever being DQed from an event!

[Jon Corby]

This is a great suggestion. I think if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd do it this way.

No, if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd never allow NWD on letters games. If you're writing as the time ends you're allowed to finish, otherwise it's tough shit, you spotted it after the time.

[JackHurst]

This is a great suggestion. I think if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd do it this way.

No, if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd never allow NWD on letters games. If you're writing as the time ends you're allowed to finish, otherwise it's tough shit, you spotted it after the time.

Also a good point. If you were to do it this way for letters would you also do the same for numbers? If not, why not?

[Jon Corby]

This is a great suggestion. I think if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd do it this way.

No, if you were doing Countdown from day 1 you'd never allow NWD on letters games. If you're writing as the time ends you're allowed to finish, otherwise it's tough shit, you spotted it after the time.

Also a good point. If you were to do it this way for letters would you also do the same for numbers? If not, why not?

Yeah numbers games are a little different. With a word, you've definitely either got it or you haven't, and writing it takes seconds. With numbers, you can't be sure - you split the multiplication and had a 3 and 4 left over, and I think adding the 4 for before the multiplication and subtracting the 3 gets you there... or was it subtracting the 4 and then adding the 3? Even writing down a solution can take a while, and sometimes you're not that sure you've got it. It's rarely an issue with numbers games though - you go first, you're on the spot, you've got to go straight through your method so you can't even really be thinking while you're doing that. It's way more difficult to fudge, and I just don't think you often see occasions where somebody copies their opponent's numbers declarations and backs themselves to suddenly spot it.

[Marc Meakin]

I've said it before that a tablet should be used by each player in Countdown so that answers are visible to the audience like say in The Weakest Link.
I think if you winged it with the numbers then a partial completion of workings out would sway Colin to accept the answer.
Or maybe do away with NWD but allow 35 seconds.
Which might make the clock look a little weird
Maybe the 35 seconds would work better at a Co event

[JackHurst]

I've said it before that a tablet should be used by each player in Countdown so that answers are visible to the audience like say in The Weakest Link.
I think if you winged it with the numbers then a partial completion of workings out would sway Colin to accept the answer.
Or maybe do away with NWD but allow 35 seconds.
Which might make the clock look a little weird
Maybe the 35 seconds would work better at a Co event

If the software on the tablet goes haywire you've ballsed up production until you can get an expert in to fix it. Whereas if a pen/paper breaks, it's very easy to source a replacement

Also, having gone from playing apterous to later designing my own interface for a game, you face an tricky compromise building an interface for numbers input. You have to go for something which is hard to learn but that is perceived "fairer" because its hard to cheat. Or you make something that is easy to pick up but can be exploited because it works a bit like a calculator

[Rhys Benjamin]

2. Early in a game, C1 offers UPVOTE. DC looks it up on ODO and it's not in, so it's disallowed. Later on in the same game, C2 also offers UPVOTE. To everyone's surprise, the word is now valid on ODO. After some investigation, it transpires that ODO's three-monthly update happened in the middle of this game, and UPVOTE, being a common word all over the internet nowadays, was one of the new words added. C2 insists that it should now be allowed, but that the earlier ruling against C1's offering should stand because the word wasn't valid at the time. C1 says this is crazy. Do you allow it for one player and not for the other? Disallow both? Allow both?

Given the Great ODO Purge of 2024, and the fact this has now come in handy, what are the lottery numbers for 2034, Graeme?

[JackHurst]

It's the end of a Colin style co-event and there is one table left to finish up. All other games are finished, and the outcome of this crucial conundrum determines who makes the final.

Alice is 5 ahead of Bob. If Alice wins this game, she makes the final. If Bob wins the game he will stop Alice making the final, and Charlie will be in the final instead of Alice.

Alice and Bob are playing the conundrum. Alice has already buzzed and has it wrong. Charlie can audibly be heard whispering the answer to another spectator while they are in the crowd watching to see the result of this table. Bob buzzes in with the answer, but admits he heard Charlie whispering it.

WWYD?

Answer stands - Bobs wins and Charlie gets the spot in the final
Re-do a completely fresh conundrum with Alice allowed to buzz in again
Re-do a conundrum with only bob allowed to buzz in
No redo, give Bob the win in the game, but disqualify Charlie from the final and put Alice in in his place
Other (pls explain)



Not sure of my own opinion on this one. I would definitely want to avoid a situation where Charlie makes the final. Either it's deliberate foul play to try and help themself get in the final, or its a level of ignorance so high that they need to learn a lesson

[Gavin Chipper]

I think if a conundrum gets voided for any reason, it should generally be completely redone.

But separately from that, if foul play / poor behaviour is suspected it should still be dealt with. Players can have points deducted / be disqualified etc.

[Rhys Benjamin]

This happened to me on the show.

Colin (in DC) was frantically whispering to Susie at around 15-20 seconds “I’ve got it, I’ve got it, it’s JA…” before tailing off. But then I knew it started with the J and that’s how JAILBAKER^ came about.

Had it been crucial I might have made a fuss, but it wasn’t so I simply didn’t say anything. And the fact I’d got it wrong and my opponent had then corrected me, it would have sounded like sore losing.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

This happened to me on the show.

Colin (in DC) was frantically whispering to Susie at around 15-20 seconds “I’ve got it, I’ve got it, it’s JA…” before tailing off. But then I knew it started with the J and that’s how JAILBAKER^ came about.

Had it been crucial I might have made a fuss, but it wasn’t so I simply didn’t say anything. And the fact I’d got it wrong and my opponent had then corrected me, it would have sounded like sore losing.

In that case Colin should have paid a penalty!