Co-Event Suggestion Box

[Gavin Chipper]

Also, I think that some people suggested events that have fewer rounds could be worth fewer points, but I'm not sure how that really ties in with the "best of" thing. If someone does really well at a "half" event, then it could still be useless to them unless they find another half event to go to so that they end up with the right amount of events.

Here's how you do it
Event points: Same formula as now on a per event basis
Event weight: A proposed way to make some event's count more than others

Focal points = SUMOF(Event points * Event Weight) Only counting 8 weighting points of events.

This already describes the current model, everything has a weight of 1 right now. The proposal would be for events maybe like the handover to have a lower weight.

Dealing with fractions is relatively simple. You rank a players performances by "Event Points" and keep adding on the next event until you go over 8 worth of event weights. If there's a fraction addition, you scale down the final event you added on for that person.

Example

Code: Select all

Bob' events
Ev EvPts EvWt
A  900   1.0
B  900   1.0
C  900   0.5
D  800   1.0
E  800   1.0
F  800   1.0
G  800   1.0
H  800   1.0
I  800   1.0
J  700   1.0

So we do:

Code: Select all

Focal points = 1*(A+B+D+E+F+G+H) + 0.5*(C+I)

Half of event I is discarded

Aother way of thinking about it: He's been to 10 events, with a total weighting of 9.5, so we ned to discard 1.5 worh of events. We remove the least valuable chunk of events, Obvious the 1 weighted 700pts is first to go. We still need to discard a 0.5 worth of event weighting. Just because he has an event in there of weight 0.5, doesn't mean its what we have to discard. We can just take 0.5 of weight off his worst performaing remaining event from the list.

This is the most logical solution. It does however fail the "Should be easy to explain" to somebody test.

Actually that does make perfect sense.

[JackHurst]

Bucket of gunge for people who ask for all 9 of their letters up front at Bristol style events. "CV9 please"

Double bucket of gunge for the people who pick the first 7 letters like they care that they are picking, and then they just double up with their final pick. "And 2 more consonants to finish".


Do these people also order their pudding at the same time as their main when they go out for dinner?

[Fiona T]

Bucket of gunge for people who ask for all 9 of their letters up front at Bristol style events. "CV9 please"

Double bucket of gunge for the people who pick the first 7 letters like they care that they are picking, and then they just double up with their final pick. "And 2 more consonants to finish".


Do these people also order their pudding at the same time as their main when they go out for dinner?

Can you do this outside the venue please? I don't want to lose my deposit!

[David Harrison]

Has anyone identified the new football Champions League format as something that could be used at co-events. It would be hard to implement for Lincoln style events, however it could work for Bristol style events.

It could be implemented very simply, for example if you have 6 games (as with most events) you could divide the players into 6 pots and then draw each player against one from each pot, I’m sure it would be very easy to write a computer programme to be able to do this speedily.

[Thomas Carey]

Has anyone identified the new football Champions League format as something that could be used at co-events. It would be hard to implement for Lincoln style events, however it could work for Bristol style events.

It could be implemented very simply, for example if you have 6 games (as with most events) you could divide the players into 6 pots and then draw each player against one from each pot, I’m sure it would be very easy to write a computer programme to be able to do this speedily.

Been done before, it's not a good fit for co events - you want a lot of games against similar opposition, not the opposite. Someone at the top of the field shouldn't be walking all their games, and someone at the bottom should have close/winnable games.

[David Harrison]

Has anyone identified the new football Champions League format as something that could be used at co-events. It would be hard to implement for Lincoln style events, however it could work for Bristol style events.

It could be implemented very simply, for example if you have 6 games (as with most events) you could divide the players into 6 pots and then draw each player against one from each pot, I’m sure it would be very easy to write a computer programme to be able to do this speedily.

Been done before, it's not a good fit for co events - you want a lot of games against similar opposition, not the opposite. Someone at the top of the field shouldn't be walking all their games, and someone at the bottom should have close/winnable games.

Ah, you know which event? Would be intersting to crunch some numbers!

[Andy Platt]

The most chaotic/slow/overrunning event I can recall from past couple of years was Liverpool 2024 and that was 6 Lincoln games.

TBF it would have been even worse with 8 games. The Yorkshire trains arriving late and us having to wait for people, lots of slow newbies, etc. Hopefully smoother this year and I will try and get the overhead projector working as well.

[George Armstrong]

TBF it would have been even worse with 8 games. The Yorkshire trains arriving late and us having to wait for people, lots of slow newbies, etc. Hopefully smoother this year and I will try and get the overhead projector working as well.

And I kept messaging to tell you to start and wait for us to get there and we'd catch up when we arrived. But luckily I sat next to the buffet so got some early nibbles in so really worked out for me, just no one else.

[Andy Platt]

TBF it would have been even worse with 8 games. The Yorkshire trains arriving late and us having to wait for people, lots of slow newbies, etc. Hopefully smoother this year and I will try and get the overhead projector working as well.

And I kept messaging to tell you to start and wait for us to get there and we'd catch up when we arrived. But luckily I sat next to the buffet so got some early nibbles in so really worked out for me, just no one else.

Get one train earlier next year please you big nonce x

[Matt Rutherford]

Bucket of gunge for people who ask for all 9 of their letters up front at Bristol style events. "CV9 please"

Double bucket of gunge for the people who pick the first 7 letters like they care that they are picking, and then they just double up with their final pick. "And 2 more consonants to finish".


Do these people also order their pudding at the same time as their main when they go out for dinner?

Yes, sometimes. It's rather fun to do (both the pudding thing and picking letters in one go)

Hearing a groan after bellowing out 'six consonants please' during Bristol-style warms the very cockles of my heart-for the minor chaos that ensues. Sometimes you need a chaotic approach if your opponent is a monster*

(*Tried and tested at Durham. I got my arse handed to me even more than usual, so the universe has it's way of balancing)

[Gavin Chipper]

Do these people also order their pudding at the same time as their main when they go out for dinner?

I've done that in a pub sometimes to save on waiting time, but they still generally mess it up and I have to wait ages between the two. Bit I would never just ask for two consonants to finish in one go.

[David Harrison]

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

Furthermore, I have never got why the grand final of the whole circuit is a 9-rounder. I remember being taken aback by this when I was in the audience. I think it’s definitely at least worth a poll about making it a 15-rounder.

[Fiona T]

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

Furthermore, I have never got why the grand final of the whole circuit is a 9-rounder. I remember being taken aback by this when I was in the audience. I think it’s definitely at least worth a poll about making it a 15-rounder.

How did you find the audience experience?

[David Harrison]

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

Furthermore, I have never got why the grand final of the whole circuit is a 9-rounder. I remember being taken aback by this when I was in the audience. I think it’s definitely at least worth a poll about making it a 15-rounder.

How did you find the audience experience?

It was great to watch the final being played live but thought it was over as quick as it started. I fully get using 9-rounders for the heats as it allows the finalists to all play each other, something that would be impossible with 15-rounders in 1 day unless we started ridiculously early/finished ridiculously late. However I really don’t get why the final uses this format. Last year’s final took 18 minutes, if a 15-rounder was played at that rate it adds an extra 12 minutes (30 mins total) - I think this is absolutely worth it when it comes to crowning the overall champion.

[Gavin Chipper]

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

Furthermore, I have never got why the grand final of the whole circuit is a 9-rounder. I remember being taken aback by this when I was in the audience. I think it’s definitely at least worth a poll about making it a 15-rounder.

How did you find the audience experience?

It was great to watch the final being played live but thought it was over as quick as it started. I fully get using 9-rounders for the heats as it allows the finalists to all play each other, something that would be impossible with 15-rounders in 1 day unless we started ridiculously early/finished ridiculously late. However I really don’t get why the final uses this format. Last year’s final took 18 minutes, if a 15-rounder was played at that rate it adds an extra 12 minutes (30 mins total) - I think this is absolutely worth it when it comes to crowning the overall champion.

On the other hand, people are there primarily to play, and they can get a bit restless during the final where they're not involved. Having 15-round finals might be more accurate for picking the "better" player, but not having the final at all would probably be even more accurate in that sense as it would be decided over a league where everyone plays 7 games.

[David Harrison]

How did you find the audience experience?

It was great to watch the final being played live but thought it was over as quick as it started. I fully get using 9-rounders for the heats as it allows the finalists to all play each other, something that would be impossible with 15-rounders in 1 day unless we started ridiculously early/finished ridiculously late. However I really don’t get why the final uses this format. Last year’s final took 18 minutes, if a 15-rounder was played at that rate it adds an extra 12 minutes (30 mins total) - I think this is absolutely worth it when it comes to crowning the overall champion.

On the other hand, people are there primarily to play, and they can get a bit restless during the final where they're not involved. Having 15-round finals might be more accurate for picking the "better" player, but not having the final at all would probably be even more accurate in that sense as it would be decided over a league where everyone plays 7 games.

Some good points there Gev!

If we scrapped the final and just had an 8 way round robin to decide the winner, do you think it would be feasible to have all 7 games as 15-rounders?

[Marc Meakin]

Maybe 15 rounders and a 9 round final

[David Harrison]

Maybe 15 rounders and a 9 round final

This is definitely one of those cases where someone says something so fundamentally wrong you don’t know how to argue against it.

That would be the equivalent of holding a snooker championship where all games are first to 15 but the final is best of 17.

[Graeme Cole]

If we scrapped the final and just had an 8 way round robin to decide the winner, do you think it would be feasible to have all 7 games as 15-rounders?

No. You can't play seven 15-rounders in one day unless you start ridiculously early.

The general rule I would use for Bristol-style events is to allow one hour for a 15-round game. This is enough time to generate the fixtures, let everyone find their table numbers, play the game, hand in the scores, and allow a 5-10 minute break before the next game. Attempts to cut this down to squeeze in an extra game usually turn out to be wishful thinking.

You'll also want to allow an hour for lunch, and let's say another hour at the end for the final and prizegiving.

When you hire a venue for the day, you usually have to finish by about 6pm, so if an event opens at about 10.30am and you start playing round 1 at 11am, you've got enough time for five 15-rounders, lunch, and a final. Even six is difficult - that was the original plan for Reading this year, but part way through the day that got revised down to the usual five.

[David Harrison]

If we scrapped the final and just had an 8 way round robin to decide the winner, do you think it would be feasible to have all 7 games as 15-rounders?

No. You can't play seven 15-rounders in one day unless you start ridiculously early.

The general rule I would use for Bristol-style events is to allow one hour for a 15-round game. This is enough time to generate the fixtures, let everyone find their table numbers, play the game, hand in the scores, and allow a 5-10 minute break before the next game. Attempts to cut this down to squeeze in an extra game usually turn out to be wishful thinking.

You'll also want to allow an hour for lunch, and let's say another hour at the end for the final and prizegiving.

When you hire a venue for the day, you usually have to finish by about 6pm, so if an event opens at about 10.30am and you start playing round 1 at 11am, you've got enough time for five 15-rounders, lunch, and a final. Even six is difficult - that was the original plan for Reading this year, but part way through the day that got revised down to the usual five.

Well, Reading effectively played 6 games as the final takes the same amount of time.

I suspect you didn’t read my suggestion properly.

So just 7 games, no final.

[Graeme Cole]

If we scrapped the final and just had an 8 way round robin to decide the winner, do you think it would be feasible to have all 7 games as 15-rounders?

No. You can't play seven 15-rounders in one day unless you start ridiculously early.

The general rule I would use for Bristol-style events is to allow one hour for a 15-round game. This is enough time to generate the fixtures, let everyone find their table numbers, play the game, hand in the scores, and allow a 5-10 minute break before the next game. Attempts to cut this down to squeeze in an extra game usually turn out to be wishful thinking.

You'll also want to allow an hour for lunch, and let's say another hour at the end for the final and prizegiving.

When you hire a venue for the day, you usually have to finish by about 6pm, so if an event opens at about 10.30am and you start playing round 1 at 11am, you've got enough time for five 15-rounders, lunch, and a final. Even six is difficult - that was the original plan for Reading this year, but part way through the day that got revised down to the usual five.

Well, Reading effectively played 6 games as the final takes the same amount of time.

I suspect you didn’t read my suggestion properly.

So just 7 games, no final.

I still think it would be difficult or impossible, or at the very least undesirable. As I say, six plus a final was the original plan at Reading, which had about the same timings as the MK event. At lunchtime this idea was scrapped in favour of five plus a final. Fiona explains the reasoning here.

Unlike other events such as Reading, at the FOCAL Finals there's a seven-game round robin so the organisers don't have the option of changing their mind and dropping a game half way through the day. So you have to make them 9-rounders to be certain you can fit them all in without the event feeling like an intense rush.

[David Harrison]

No. You can't play seven 15-rounders in one day unless you start ridiculously early.

The general rule I would use for Bristol-style events is to allow one hour for a 15-round game. This is enough time to generate the fixtures, let everyone find their table numbers, play the game, hand in the scores, and allow a 5-10 minute break before the next game. Attempts to cut this down to squeeze in an extra game usually turn out to be wishful thinking.

You'll also want to allow an hour for lunch, and let's say another hour at the end for the final and prizegiving.

When you hire a venue for the day, you usually have to finish by about 6pm, so if an event opens at about 10.30am and you start playing round 1 at 11am, you've got enough time for five 15-rounders, lunch, and a final. Even six is difficult - that was the original plan for Reading this year, but part way through the day that got revised down to the usual five.

Well, Reading effectively played 6 games as the final takes the same amount of time.

I suspect you didn’t read my suggestion properly.

So just 7 games, no final.

I still think it would be difficult or impossible, or at the very least undesirable. As I say, six plus a final was the original plan at Reading, which had about the same timings as the MK event. At lunchtime this idea was scrapped in favour of five plus a final. Fiona explains the reasoning here.

Unlike other events such as Reading, at the FOCAL Finals there's a seven-game round robin so the organisers don't have the option of changing their mind and dropping a game half way through the day. So you have to make them 9-rounders to be certain you can fit them all in without the event feeling like an intense rush.

Braintree 2022 fit in 7 14-rounders which is only 7 rounds shorter.

Surely once a year starting an hour earlier or finishing an hour later wouldn’t be that much of an issue? It is a special occasion after all!

[Graeme Cole]

Well, Reading effectively played 6 games as the final takes the same amount of time.

It doesn't. Waiting for everyone in the room to finish their declarations/numbers method always takes longer than than waiting for two people to do it. Also, in the final you don't have to collect score slips and type them in (or, worse, go round each pair and ask them to read out their score).

The reason you still budget an hour for the final is to allow for the closing announcements and prizegiving, but you'd have to do those anyway even if there wasn't a final.

[Graeme Cole]

Braintree 2022 fit in 7 14-rounders which is only 7 rounds shorter.

Surely once a year starting an hour earlier or finishing an hour later wouldn’t be that much of an issue? It is a special occasion after all!

Opinions may differ on this, but these are mine. Pushing the start time earlier makes it harder for people to attend, and pushing the end time later, even if allowed by the venue, eats into dinner time. Either way, you're reducing people's travel options.

[Graeme Cole]

Bucket of gunge for people who ask for all 9 of their letters up front at Bristol style events. "CV9 please"

Double bucket of gunge for the people who pick the first 7 letters like they care that they are picking, and then they just double up with their final pick. "And 2 more consonants to finish".

I think I might do both of these at MK.

[David Harrison]

Braintree 2022 fit in 7 14-rounders which is only 7 rounds shorter.

Surely once a year starting an hour earlier or finishing an hour later wouldn’t be that much of an issue? It is a special occasion after all!

Opinions may differ on this, but these are mine. Pushing the start time earlier makes it harder for people to attend, and pushing the end time later, even if allowed by the venue, eats into dinner time. Either way, you're reducing people's travel options.

How did Braintree 2022 go down in terms of timing and format? I notice that it’s been cut down to 5 games each for last two years.

Edit: It started at 11:20 and finished at 6 according to https://focalcountdown.wordpress.com/up ... tree-2022/ - so the schedule doesn’t look too condensed. Did it overrun at all?

[Thomas Cappleman]

Braintree 2022 fit in 7 14-rounders which is only 7 rounds shorter.

Surely once a year starting an hour earlier or finishing an hour later wouldn’t be that much of an issue? It is a special occasion after all!

Opinions may differ on this, but these are mine. Pushing the start time earlier makes it harder for people to attend, and pushing the end time later, even if allowed by the venue, eats into dinner time. Either way, you're reducing people's travel options.

How did Braintree 2022 go down in terms of timing and format? I notice that it’s been cut down to 5 games each for last two years.

Edit: It started at 11:20 and finished at 6 according to https://focalcountdown.wordpress.com/up ... tree-2022/ - so the schedule doesn’t look too condensed. Did it overrun at all?

Yes, by about 45 minutes (and also included 4 rounds of quiz, but no final). And finishing at 6.45 does make a big difference if you're planning to go home before eating, for example, compared to say a 5.30 finish.

I suspect 7 14 rounders with no quiz probably would have finished closer to the intended time

[David Harrison]

Opinions may differ on this, but these are mine. Pushing the start time earlier makes it harder for people to attend, and pushing the end time later, even if allowed by the venue, eats into dinner time. Either way, you're reducing people's travel options.

How did Braintree 2022 go down in terms of timing and format? I notice that it’s been cut down to 5 games each for last two years.

Edit: It started at 11:20 and finished at 6 according to https://focalcountdown.wordpress.com/up ... tree-2022/ - so the schedule doesn’t look too condensed. Did it overrun at all?

Yes, by about 45 minutes (and also included 4 rounds of quiz, but no final). And finishing at 6.45 does make a big difference if you're planning to go home before eating, for example, compared to say a 5.30 finish.

I suspect 7 14 rounders with no quiz probably would have finished closer to the intended time

So 2022 had a quiz as well?

[Fiona T]

The recent innovations for Bristol events really work brilliantly well - the point at the length of declaration thing really makes a massive difference in not inadvertently influencing or being influenced by declarations around you, and the conundrum buzzer is great for both noise reduction and self adjudication - had a couple of buzzes yesterday where I really wouldn't have been sure which of us got it first (in both cases it wasn't me!). It's been a good year for progress!

[David Harrison]

The recent innovations for Bristol events really work brilliantly well - the point at the length of declaration thing really makes a massive difference in not inadvertently influencing or being influenced by declarations around you, and the conundrum buzzer is great for both noise reduction and self adjudication - had a couple of buzzes yesterday where I really wouldn't have been sure which of us got it first (in both cases it wasn't me!). It's been a good year for progress!

These sound like brilliant innovations. Do the silent declarations also work for numbers?

[Fiona T]

The recent innovations for Bristol events really work brilliantly well - the point at the length of declaration thing really makes a massive difference in not inadvertently influencing or being influenced by declarations around you, and the conundrum buzzer is great for both noise reduction and self adjudication - had a couple of buzzes yesterday where I really wouldn't have been sure which of us got it first (in both cases it wasn't me!). It's been a good year for progress!

These sound like brilliant innovations. Do the silent declarations also work for numbers?

No and it's not really needed for numbers rounds

[David Harrison]

The recent innovations for Bristol events really work brilliantly well - the point at the length of declaration thing really makes a massive difference in not inadvertently influencing or being influenced by declarations around you, and the conundrum buzzer is great for both noise reduction and self adjudication - had a couple of buzzes yesterday where I really wouldn't have been sure which of us got it first (in both cases it wasn't me!). It's been a good year for progress!

These sound like brilliant innovations. Do the silent declarations also work for numbers?

No and it's not really needed for numbers rounds

I’m 50/50 at the moment about MK (largely depends on travel and family) but I look forward to seeing these in action.

I haven’t attended a Bristol style event since these innovations including ‘RoboRiley” which I look forward to seeing in action for the first time, I hear it’s good - do these innovations reduce the time of a game noticeable, if so by how much?

[Matthew Brockwell]

In Reading (Bristol Style) we tried one conundrum for each half of the room, with one half adjudicating while the other solved. I liked this and think this slight variation may be even better:

1.One conundrum for every fixture number 6 or lower, i.e. not in the first 10 places, conducted as usual with buzzer apps and written solutions.
2. A separate conundrum for each of the top 5 fixtures, adjudicated by the event host and in front of everyone with answers called out.

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors. In an ideal world, I'd advocate for one distinct conundrum per game but that's too time-consuming. I think watching the tie-break solves is an underrated fun part of events and 5 conundrums on featured tables would add to that. The disadvantage is that event organisers will have to set 6 conundrums per round, but I don't think that's significantly time-consuming.

[George Armstrong]

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors.

I mean if you spell it wrong, it's wrong and you don't get the points. Ideally hosts of Bristol events could avoid using cons that can be easily misspelled, eg METER/METRE suffixes, but it's each to their own.

How someone is buzzing before the conundrum is revealed is beyond me...

[Graeme Cole]

In Reading (Bristol Style) we tried one conundrum for each half of the room, with one half adjudicating while the other solved. I liked this and think this slight variation may be even better:

1.One conundrum for every fixture number 6 or lower, i.e. not in the first 10 places, conducted as usual with buzzer apps and written solutions.
2. A separate conundrum for each of the top 5 fixtures, adjudicated by the event host and in front of everyone with answers called out.

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors. In an ideal world, I'd advocate for one distinct conundrum per game but that's too time-consuming. I think watching the tie-break solves is an underrated fun part of events and 5 conundrums on featured tables would add to that. The disadvantage is that event organisers will have to set 6 conundrums per round, but I don't think that's significantly time-consuming.

Setting six conundrums per round isn't the problem - organisers for Lincoln-style events already have to set a lot more than that. Wouldn't it make the game drag on a bit, though, with the conundrum taking up to six times as long as it usually does? Most of that time would be sitting around watching other people's conundrums.

Two conundrums, one for each "half" of the room, seems like a good compromise to me. The only change I'd make is instead of dividing it by the "left" and "right" half of the room, make it "odd" and "even" numbered tables. That way, everyone has someone right next to them who can adjudicate, and nobody has to get up and walk to the other side of the room.

[Graeme Cole]

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors.

I mean if you spell it wrong, it's wrong and you don't get the points. Ideally hosts of Bristol events could avoid using cons that can be easily misspelled, eg METER/METRE suffixes, but it's each to their own.

How someone is buzzing before the conundrum is revealed is beyond me...

This is confusing me as well. What kinds of dispute were there about premature buzzing and spelling errors that didn't have an obvious solution?

[Matthew Brockwell]

A player accidentally hit the buzzer before the time started and only noticed when they went to buzz in properly with the correct solution after the clock had started. Was clear they buzzed first, but they wanted to play another con for fairness. Yes for the event policy, wrong spelling = no points; this I guess is a point of difference between actual Countdown and co-events. Not really a problem (barring messy handwriting) - my point was that it really isn't set in stone as a formal rule.

The alternating odd/even split seems nicer logistically, but comes with the drawback that the host can't set a harder conundrum for the stronger tables which was seen as a benefit of that system. Top players are likely to solve conundrums quickly so shouldn't be too much of a drag in my opinion.

[Gavin Chipper]

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors.

I mean if you spell it wrong, it's wrong and you don't get the points. Ideally hosts of Bristol events could avoid using cons that can be easily misspelled, eg METER/METRE suffixes, but it's each to their own.

Should someone have to be able to spell their conundrum answer anyway? This is something that may have come up before. On the show you just say the word and that's that. One of the answers at Braintree was OBSEQUIOUS. If someone buzzes in knowing that that is the answer and they could pronounce it, then on normal Countdown, that would be enough. But it's a word that's awkward to spell even if you know how to spell it. I could quite imagine someone under the pressure getting a couple of the vowels the wrong way round, but that was never what conundrums were there to test. Maybe this was a source of disputes? I actually got this conundrum but I think my opponent initially thought I'd got it wrong (correct me if I'm wrong on this) because he read it incorrectly off my paper.

Bristol-style spelling of conundrums risks changing what the conundrums are about.

[Fiona T]

Yesterday there were clumsy conundrum disputes pertaining to premature buzzing and losing conundrums due to spelling errors.

I mean if you spell it wrong, it's wrong and you don't get the points. Ideally hosts of Bristol events could avoid using cons that can be easily misspelled, eg METER/METRE suffixes, but it's each to their own.

Should someone have to be able to spell their conundrum answer anyway? This is something that may have come up before. On the show you just say the word and that's that. One of the answers at Braintree was OBSEQUIOUS. If someone buzzes in knowing that that is the answer and they could pronounce it, then on normal Countdown, that would be enough. But it's a word that's awkward to spell even if you know how to spell it. I could quite imagine someone under the pressure getting a couple of the vowels the wrong way round, but that was never what conundrums were there to test. Maybe this was a source of disputes? I actually got this conundrum but I think my opponent initially thought I'd got it wrong (correct me if I'm wrong on this) because he read it incorrectly off my paper.

Bristol-style spelling of conundrums risks changing what the conundrums are about.

Yeah this happened between me and my opponent - he buzzed first but misspelled obsequious. It was pretty badly misspelled, but obvious he had the solution, and at a Lincoln event (or TV countdown) he'd have won; on apto he'd have lost. Felt a bit mean denying him the win, but we both agreed that it should be spelled correctly (no argument or dispute!) but we did discuss it. But inconsistency is an issue here - the tiebreak conundrums were called out, so you weren't required to spell those!

[JackHurst]

A player accidentally hit the buzzer before the time started and only noticed when they went to buzz in properly with the correct solution after the clock had started. Was clear they buzzed first, but they wanted to play another con for fairness. Yes for the event policy, wrong spelling = no points; this I guess is a point of difference between actual Countdown and co-events. Not really a problem (barring messy handwriting) - my point was that it really isn't set in stone as a formal rule.

The alternating odd/even split seems nicer logistically, but comes with the drawback that the host can't set a harder conundrum for the stronger tables which was seen as a benefit of that system. Top players are likely to solve conundrums quickly so shouldn't be too much of a drag in my opinion.

This was me. IMO the buzzer works great for Lincoln style where you have a referee and the conundrum is revealed within eyeline of the buzzer.

One problem with using them for Bristol is that you are looking up at a shared screen then the buzzer is completely out of sight so you are relying on memory for where it is. Also there no fixed point on the table that the buzzer would be every time, so you can't even have a feel for it.

So I was ready with my hand hovering over where I thought maus's phone was. Because we had to wait for all 14 tables to be ready, that was a long period of time. But because I didn't want to take my eyes off the screen I did not notice that the level of my hand was moving down ever so slightly, and at the exact point Jeff revealed the conundrum, my hand made contact. Has it been like 1s earlier then I would have been able to reset.

Another problem with the buzzers for Bristol is that it's a hansforders dream. A) Nobody will notice you buzzing a bit before the reveal (opponent won't be looking at the phone they will be too busy looking at the screen. Also it makes no noise so is completely inconspicuous) B) No referee or impartial person around.

Personally at Bristol events I am strongly in favour of dividing the room and having an impartial player referee cons. For conundrums between high level players at Bristol events, the buzzer causes more problems than it solves.

[David Harrison]

IIRC some of the early Readings and possibly Dublins? Had separate paper cons for each table.

[Adam S Latchford]

I think yesterday showed even with the buzzer app - just split the room for conundrums [[for bristol]] so people can judge them. There were multiple weird happenings that could have used an independent person to judge across the room. They all happened in games where players amicably sorted it out , but we know that sometimes, there could be huge disagreements here (there just didn't happen to be)

Split the room in all bristol events for conundrums every single time, adds about 1-2 minutes per game

[Graeme Cole]

IIRC some of the early Readings and possibly Dublins? Had separate paper cons for each table.

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

As someone who has attended a few events over the years but not attended/played well enough to get anywhere near the top 8

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

[Fiona T]

IIRC some of the early Readings and possibly Dublins? Had separate paper cons for each table.

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

As someone who has attended a few events over the years but not attended/played well enough to get anywhere near the top 8

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

Brinsworth 2019 I think?

[Gavin Chipper]

IIRC some of the early Readings and possibly Dublins? Had separate paper cons for each table.

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

As someone who has attended a few events over the years but not attended/played well enough to get anywhere near the top 8

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

Brinsworth 2019 I think?

Shots fired!

[David Harrison]

IIRC some of the early Readings and possibly Dublins? Had separate paper cons for each table.

I attended some of the early FOCAL finals, in these events only the people in the open could pick the letters and numbers meaning it was fair for all finalists, is this still the case? I’ve read some posts on this forum that suggests to the contrary.

As someone who has attended a few events over the years but not attended/played well enough to get anywhere near the top 8

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

No, I attended events under my real name which I’d rather not divulge in the public domain but I can say you and I have met at events in the past, though not for a while.

[Gavin Chipper]

Graeme is "triangulating" this as we speak.

[Graeme Cole]

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

No, I attended events under my real name which I’d rather not divulge in the public domain but I can say you and I have met at events in the past, though not for a while.

So you've played at co-events under your real name which presumably appeared publicly in the results, and you've met me, but you don't want anyone here knowing you're that person? Can you see how that seems a bit odd?

The reason I ask is that this forum has had problems with people (or, more accurately, a specific person) creating an account under a fake name, posting a load of lies, being generally annoying, eventually getting banned, then coming back under another name and repeating the cycle.

So, when someone joins C4C, makes claims that don't seem to add up, and posts an unusually high number of comments that have to be edited or deleted by moderators, you can see why we get a bit suspicious.

To ask the question that's been hinted at a few times... are you Ashton Hancock?

[David Harrison]

Do you mind if I ask who you are and which specific events you attended? I can't find any record of a David Harrison ever having played at a co-event.

No, I attended events under my real name which I’d rather not divulge in the public domain but I can say you and I have met at events in the past, though not for a while.

So you've played at co-events under your real name which presumably appeared publicly in the results, and you've met me, but you don't want anyone here knowing you're that person? Can you see how that seems a bit odd?

The reason I ask is that this forum has had problems with people (or, more accurately, a specific person) creating an account under a fake name, posting a load of lies, being generally annoying, eventually getting banned, then coming back under another name and repeating the cycle.

So, when someone joins C4C, makes claims that don't seem to add up, and posts an unusually high number of comments that have to be edited or deleted by moderators, you can see why we get a bit suspicious.

To ask the question that's been hinted at a few times... are you Ashton Hancock?

I’ll be honest. The reason I created this account was in the wake of the Blackpool incident so I could pass comment anonymously without being questioned on my views at future co-events or elsewhere online, partly because I can’t be arsed with the hassle, partly because my job involves safeguarding responsibilities.

So in short, no, I am not Ashton Hancock however for the reasons outlined I can understand why one may be suspicious.

[Jeff Clayton Quiz]

There are too many back seat drivers in this thread.

Some of you obviously come on here a lot to comment on what organisers should do. So, if you've never taken the reins before, here's a suggestion squarely and directly for you: put yourself forward to run an event in 2025. I had earmarked a June slot, but I am more than happy to give it to a willing bidder.

Some of the posts here serve to separate people who host and play from people who just play. Like an us-&-them culture. The worst cases show a pervading sense of entitlement, rather than of ambition. Focal is a voluntary effort where everybody can pitch in and where anybody can have a go. Its best feature is that it proudly allows organisers to run what they want, which means your circuit throughout the year, every year, is varied.

But it requires people, with conviction and strength of feeling such as has been displayed here, to put their time, effort and money where their mouth is, into what should be a fun project for a few months, building up to the day itself.

That is why you have not just a frequency of events, but also word and number solvers, apps, display event software and now a conundrum buzzer tool, all for the betterment of this tournament circuit.

I can honestly say I have had great fun over the years, trying new things which could appeal to new participants, and which would give returning players something new to look forward to.

I cannot, however, rationalise your intensity over things like how a silent buzzer is supposed to be used. The examples described were all amicably resolved in the room, either on the tables because I didn't need to be involved, or within seconds when I did need to be. Why do you dwell on these things? And why then do you also infer the organisers must do more to accommodate?

[Graeme Cole]

There are too many back seat drivers in this thread.

Some of you obviously come on here a lot to comment on what organisers should do.

To be fair, that's the whole point of this thread.

It's a place where people can post general feedback on co-events, without posting it under the thread of the most recent co-event where it looks like sniping at a particular event or organiser, as I say in the first post. Feedback is posted in the hope that organisers might read and consider it.

So, if you've never taken the reins before, here's a suggestion squarely and directly for you: put yourself forward to run an event in 2025. I had earmarked a June slot, but I am more than happy to give it to a willing bidder.

I'm one of these people. Someone who's never taken the reins before, that is, not a willing bidder. I know that organisers put a huge amount of work into their events, and with all the preparation, advertising, dealing with venues, taking people's money, and everything else, there's a lot more work involved than what players see on the day. That side of it is what puts me off organising an event, and I have great respect for those who do.

I'd like to think that in 13 years of coming to events, and over a decade of developing and maintaining the software that most organisers now use to run them, I've picked up some sense of what's been tried before and what hasn't, and what works and what doesn't, but this isn't really the point. The point is that all paying entrants at events, from the old hands to the newbies who've just returned from their first one, should feel welcome to make suggestions that might improve events for everyone.

Organisers, of course, are equally welcome to ignore them - they're suggestions, not instructions, and anyone is invited to disagree with something they don't like and point out why it's a bad idea. But surely we have to agree that co-events are run for the benefit of all players, whether or not they also run events?

I cannot, however, rationalise your intensity over things like how a silent buzzer is supposed to be used. The examples described were all amicably resolved in the room, either on the tables because I didn't need to be involved, or within seconds when I did need to be. Why do you dwell on these things? And why then do you also infer the organisers must do more to accommodate?

The posts I've seen on this subject express the opinion that a real observer is preferable to a silent buzzer app, especially if the players can't see the conundrum on the wall and the touchscreen buzzer on the table the same time. It's a reasonable thing to post about, and I don't think anyone meant it as a complaint about how you handled the conundrum mishaps.

[Fiona T]

I'm not at all precious about the buzzer thing from an ownership pov, but for me at a practical level it absolutely worked - I do think that there were two of my conundrums on Saturday that an adjudicator would have struggled to call. And the lack of tables being over enthusiastically thumped was a big plus. After the comments here, I tried adding a short vibrate which kinda worked, but figured that it's probably got more downsides than upsides - phones would need to be on vibrate not silent which is unlikely to be consistently done, and where more than one pair shares a table you may hear a vibrate from the other pair and think your opponent buzzed. In terms of the accidental buzz, Jeff gave us consistent warning of the reveal, so I guess that's the time to get your hover finger poised!

A/B conundrums did kinda work at Reading but it did add a fair bit of play time. When I did that, I did attempt to make the conundrums for the top half of the room slightly trickier, which wouldn't work if you were doing adjacent tables. Selecting suitable conundrums is actually pretty difficult, so adding a lot of extra conundrums increases the workload.

[Thomas Carey]

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but one I've felt fairly strongly about for a while. Not aimed at anyone specific, just a thing I've noticed a lot.

I really don't like capping sign ups to an event.

Yes, obviously, there's a limit to how many people you can fit in a room. But, when creating an event, you're probably going to be able to predict the amount of people who turn up to within about 10. Cater to the higher end. If you do get more sign ups than expected, I'm sure most people at the event would much rather a couple of tables are slightly cramped than people having to miss out on going. And the way it currently seems to be done is that generally, if a few more people than the cap want to sign up (and it is only even a few more, if you've put 45 you might get 50 but you won't get 80), generally these people talk to the host who says 'go on then' - but who knows how many newbies/less experienced event goers see that the event is 'full' and then go away? Not to mention the fact that there's usually someone dropping out on the day, so if you cap it at a nice round number you end up with a prune place that could have gone to someone who wanted to play. Feels discouraging to new people. So many events now have a load of effort put in to advertise them in various places, but then turn away a handful of potential sign ups. I don't get it. It's a niche hobby, there's only going to be so many people who want to and are able to go - at least let them all go. (I assume for legal/fire safety reasons you do need to provide some sort of cap, but I'd want it to be well above the amount of people who would ever be expected to go, at which point it's not worth mentioning to sign ups)

[Fiona T]

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but one I've felt fairly strongly about for a while. Not aimed at anyone specific, just a thing I've noticed a lot.

I really don't like capping sign ups to an event.

Yes, obviously, there's a limit to how many people you can fit in a room. But, when creating an event, you're probably going to be able to predict the amount of people who turn up to within about 10. Cater to the higher end. If you do get more sign ups than expected, I'm sure most people at the event would much rather a couple of tables are slightly cramped than people having to miss out on going. And the way it currently seems to be done is that generally, if a few more people than the cap want to sign up (and it is only even a few more, if you've put 45 you might get 50 but you won't get 80), generally these people talk to the host who says 'go on then' - but who knows how many newbies/less experienced event goers see that the event is 'full' and then go away? Not to mention the fact that there's usually someone dropping out on the day, so if you cap it at a nice round number you end up with a prune place that could have gone to someone who wanted to play. Feels discouraging to new people. So many events now have a load of effort put in to advertise them in various places, but then turn away a handful of potential sign ups. I don't get it. It's a niche hobby, there's only going to be so many people who want to and are able to go - at least let them all go. (I assume for legal/fire safety reasons you do need to provide some sort of cap, but I'd want it to be well above the amount of people who would ever be expected to go, at which point it's not worth mentioning to sign ups)

Finding venues is hard, and often expensive. Paying a lot more for a larger venue in case you get more signups than you anticipate is going to add to the cost for attendees. For Reading, I'd anticipated and planned for around 30 attendees. I got over 50, so yes, I did put a 'soft cap' on - I was concerned about there not being enough tables - it just about worked, but wasn't ideal with some people working off clipboards. It really wouldn't have worked if the event had been Lincoln format.

What would be really helpful is if people didn't leave it till the last week/fortnight to sign up - that way it would be apparent well in advance if more space/chairs/tables would be needed!

[George Armstrong]

As Fiona says, yes please sign up as soon as you know you're definitely going. It really helps organisers know how much money they'll have spare for prizes, customs pens and paper, the sort of thing we've got to order and have delivered.

Fwiw the cap on Sheffield is the very top of what I can put in the venue given the number of tables. Only 11 more on the number of entrants we had this year, so not totally unfeasible that that number could be reached. Given that I didn't imagine we'd get near that number this year I didn't feel the need to announce the cap, but if we might hit it then best it's out there imo. Linking back to Fiona's point, maybe announcing a cap subconsciously makes people sign up quicker - look how few spaces are left for the CO:Lin predrinks and hangover with over two months still to go!

[JackHurst]

I really don't like capping sign ups to an event.

I think you'll have to live with it. If hosts didn't need caps, they wouldn't have them. Fiona's post highlights that your assertion about it being easy to predict event attendance isn't right. George also makes a good point about scarcity driving demand - this probably actually increases event attendance.

Is the problem here that you can't make the early commitment and you are worried about losing your entry fee if you pay early? You have a good personal relationship with most hosts. I reckon if you asked for a refund at a weeks notice, most of them would oblige... They might not do it for everybody, but probably would for you

Also if you lose out on one or two entry fees throughout the year, consider is a charitable tax that helps fill the FOCAL coffers

[Thomas Carey]

I mean I usually sign up early enough, doesn't really affect me personally. This is less about finding a bigger venue - most co event venues are a good size, and you don't need a massive one as Fiona says. More about squeezing an extra 3 or 4 people in over turning people away

[JackHurst]

More about squeezing an extra 3 or 4 people in over turning people away

Channelling my inner Jeff Clayton here, what do you expect hosts to do about your suggestion?

Accept any number of players to their events, and if the room is horribly over crowded, then make attendees suffer for it?
Or always book a really large room that would fit in a record attendance and waste budget?
Advertise a cap of N, knowing that secretly it's always N+4?

All of these seem rubbish, but if you have a better idea let's have it!

[Thomas Carey]

The bottom one seems to be what's done at the moment! Option 1 would be my preference, with the knowledge that I don't think any event has had more than a handful of interested signups above the 'cap'.

Like, if event hosts were regularly having to turn away dozens of people then, obviously, limiting the amount would be necessary. But it's such a small number of people affected, I really don't think these hypothetical 4 people make a difference. Often there's that many people extra in the room to spectators, and nobody cares about that

[Adam Beach]

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but one I've felt fairly strongly about for a while. Not aimed at anyone specific, just a thing I've noticed a lot.

I really don't like capping sign ups to an event.

You know I love you — very much — however, we've discussed this in person and have agreed to disagree. Some venues simply can't cater for larger numbers. There's the argument that you could just find somewhere else suitable, but that would generally require digging deeper into your pocket. You'd also have to factor in the availability, location, wheelchair access, car parking, etc.

I'm sure most people at the event would much rather a couple of tables are slightly cramped than people having to miss out on going.

I wouldn't say 'most'. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but this year's Liverpool is the first thing that comes to mind here. When I saw the photos of the room we had, the thought of being confined to a bench with three other people (the opponent on my table, plus the two players on the next table, with the host on the bench opposite) was very off-putting if you want the truth — I wasn't the only one who felt that way. I (luckily) avoided that by getting two side tables to push together. There was a similar scenario at Durham: you, yourself, saw how tight that hall was (oo er), and that was just with 27 players in attendance; however, no bigger venue I looked at fit the criteria. Anyway, the cap was 30, but even having that spare tenth table out was a push. That was also with three players around the tables. Had there been two groups stationed around each — therefore doubling my cap to 60 and removing it outright — it wouldn't have been a fun experience, especially on the hot day that it was. After setting everything up on the morning, I was genuinely relieved that we had the three dropouts.

If an event has a cap, and someone is worried about having to potentially miss out because of it, they can check the Facebook page and/or C4C thread that practically all of these events now come with in order to find out how many spaces are left. I've ensured that all events, effective from this year's COLIN, have been advertised with links to the respective pages so that newbies can be signposted to them.

So many events now have a load of effort put in to advertise them in various places, but then turn away a handful of potential sign ups.

The increased advertising gives people a further opportunity to sign-up quicker to secure a space, yet many don't. Why? Perhaps because these are Countdown events, and the majority of people attending them have a life around them; they'd rather wait until their diaries are clear before all the expenses come out — these events aren't cheap, especially if you're staying over. Naturally, it would be a great benefit to hosts if most/all attendees signed up early, but it just doesn't happen. That's just the way it is, unfortunately.

Love you. Squeak x