Spoilers for Wednesday 6th August 2025 - Series 92, Heat 28

[Philip A]

It’s Brett’s 8th heat game of this series, and he has tonned every heat game so far since his return. A score of 92 or above today will see him join the 900 club. Aiming to undo his remarkable work is Apterite and long-serving Co:eventer, Phil Stanton.

[Steve Hyde]

If Phil wins, Brett will become the first non-Octochamp member of the 800 club. Should be a good match!

[Philip A]

Very unfortunate Round 1. Good job Colin checked for spelling though, re-filmed or not, but that's really unlucky for Phil.

[Gavin Chipper]

3rd numbers - (25-3)×5×7+9-6 = 773

[Philip A]

Commiserations, Phil. Fantastic work to both Countdown and charity though.

Very good run, congratulations Brett on 900+ points and the max game from earlier too.

[Gavin Chipper]

Could also have done (50+75+4)×7-25 = 878 in the last numbers, so essentially Brett added the 4 in the wrong place.

Great run though. Good game from Phil too. Unlucky with stupify and it's hard to come back. Could have been an octochamp himself on another occasion.

I wonder if EIGHTWINS would have still been used for the conundrum if the scores had been different...

[Phil Stanton]

I saw a solution to the last numbers round just a bit too late, sadly: (25 x 6 + 7) x 5 - 9 - 3 = 773

Thanks for your commiserations

[Brett Davids]

Now that conundrums are digital only, I guess they could be changed last minute if desired, but would doing so interfere with the integrity of competition?

I know someone on here/Facebook was bemoaning a simple conundrum for Angus’ third game a week or so back and the question would then become could you make it harder with a last second change - but if it’s gone to a crucial and I’m both accurate and quick with my solves, I’m wanting an outjumped and not to lose on an anchoveta.

Anyway, it’s been a frankly ridiculous couple of weeks as I’m sure no-one is more surprised to find me a member of the 900 club than myself, and commiserations once again to Phil who was an absolute gentleman both in front of the camera and behind the scenes - I genuinely hope to see him up there winning the teapot and more at some point in the future.

[Toby McDonald]

Congrats Brett, and unlucky Phil.

[Stewart Gordon]

Susie tells us that a midwife is "a woman who is with another during birth".

I was taught that, because it means "with woman", a man doing the same job would still be a midwife.

[Stewart Gordon]

Susie tells us that a midwife is "a woman who is with another during birth".

I was taught that, because it means "with woman", a man doing the same job would still be a midwife.

Further to this, the majority of OneLook hits are to the effect of "a person, usually a woman". Wiktionary states that the term is unisex, but nonetheless "midhusband" is sometimes used (though generally not in serious contexts). Some other dictionaries don't say anything about the gender of the person doing the job.

Yet others say it's specifically a woman. One of these gives the diametrically opposite etymology: "woman who is 'with' ". However, none of these dictionaries lists "midhusband" at all. Any idea what term those dictionaries have for a man doing the same job?

[Philip A]

Susie tells us that a midwife is "a woman who is with another during birth".

I was taught that, because it means "with woman", a man doing the same job would still be a midwife.

Further to this, the majority of OneLook hits are to the effect of "a person, usually a woman". Wiktionary states that the term is unisex, but nonetheless "midhusband" is sometimes used (though generally not in serious contexts). Some other dictionaries don't say anything about the gender of the person doing the job.

Yet others say it's specifically a woman. One of these gives the diametrically opposite etymology: "woman who is 'with' ". However, none of these dictionaries lists "midhusband" at all. Any idea what term those dictionaries have for a man doing the same job?

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Susie’s explanations.

[Stewart Gordon]

Yet others say it's specifically a woman. One of these gives the diametrically opposite etymology: "woman who is 'with' ". However, none of these dictionaries lists "midhusband" at all. Any idea what term those dictionaries have for a man doing the same job?

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Susie’s explanations.

What is this "bonnet about Susie's explanations" of which you speak? My question is about dictionaries, not the output from Susie's mouth.