Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Moderator: James Robinson
- Stewart Holden
- Series 51 Champion
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:53 am
- Location: Northern Ireland
- Contact:
Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Good to see Charlie getting in another plug
Last edited by Stewart Holden on Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
I'm not sure I dare point it out...
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
6/3 = 2
7 - 2 = 5
100 - 8 = 92
5 x 92 = 460
460 + 9 = 469
7 - 2 = 5
100 - 8 = 92
5 x 92 = 460
460 + 9 = 469
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Applauds Ben. I was still figuring something with the 7 x table...
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
(100-3x9-6)x7=469
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
THAT's where I was heading Peter. Well done.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Interestingly, I did exactly the same thing as Charlie, thought I'd got 471 when I'd actually got 467 doing the same as him.
Most odd. Great minds think alike etc. etc.
Most odd. Great minds think alike etc. etc.
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Ist numbers game:
I knew that 469 = 67 x 7, so I made the 67 by
subtracting (8+3) x (9-6) from 100.
(100 - ((8 + 3) x (9 - 6))) - 7
Also equalled panel with RAMEKIN in previous word game
Is MARONITE (a Christian sect) always capitalised ?
I knew that 469 = 67 x 7, so I made the 67 by
subtracting (8+3) x (9-6) from 100.
(100 - ((8 + 3) x (9 - 6))) - 7
Also equalled panel with RAMEKIN in previous word game
Is MARONITE (a Christian sect) always capitalised ?
- Stewart Holden
- Series 51 Champion
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:53 am
- Location: Northern Ireland
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
SAVOURS! Wow, can't believe they both missed it.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:04 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Does SAVOROUS (8) exist? (It's in Webster.)
Last edited by John Douglas on Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
No MARONITE in this dictionary, sorry.Mark Kudlowski wrote:Ist numbers game:
I knew that 469 = 67 x 7, so I made the 67 by
subtracting (8+3) x (9-6) from 100.
(100 - ((8 + 3) x (9 - 6))) - 7
Also equalled panel with RAMEKIN in previous word game
Is MARONITE (a Christian sect) always capitalised ?
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Mike Brailsford
- Acolyte
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:41 pm
- Location: Blackpool, England
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.
Last edited by Mike Brailsford on Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959
(25 + 1) x ((9 x 4) + 1)
= 26 x 37 = 962
- 2 = 960 (1 away)
(25 + 1) x ((9 x 4) + 1)
= 26 x 37 = 962
- 2 = 960 (1 away)
- Callum Laddiman
- Rookie
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere in East Sussex
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
If Peter had taken the extra 1 away from 963 then he would of only got 3 away!
Oh, don't you just love pets..... Ahhhhhhh......
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
I'm sure that's good, was that what Charlie didn't risk then? If it isn't good it's a real glaring omission from the ODE. Well done Charlie, a good game even if the scores didn't reflect it. The last numbers game in particular was nightmare (I got 952)mikebuk wrote:HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959
alternate for 960, leaving the 2 left over:
(25 -1) x (4 x (9 + 1) = 24 x 40 = 960
alternate for 960, leaving the 2 left over:
(25 -1) x (4 x (9 + 1) = 24 x 40 = 960
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Yeah, I guess they edited that out. HARD-WIRED is in (but hyphenated); nothing else similar.Martin Gardner wrote:I'm sure that's good, was that what Charlie didn't risk then? If it isn't good it's a real glaring omission from the ODE. Well done Charlie, a good game even if the scores didn't reflect it.mikebuk wrote:HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.
-
- Series 62 Champion
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:13 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Is it just me, or did I hear someone coughing when Charlie said good afternoon to Rachel before his first letters selection?
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I had FOAMING and then FLAMING but for some reason never thought to add the O...
Well done Charlie, great performance, looking forward to seeing you play Junaid.
Well done Charlie, great performance, looking forward to seeing you play Junaid.
-
- Series 59 Champion
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?
-
- Series 59 Champion
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I can assure you it was genuine...he made quite a few offerings through the whole championship (BEDTIME in my game). Not hugely surprising as he is a long time viewer of the show and does seem quite sharp.Matt Morrison wrote:I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I got FLAMING and somehow turned it into MAGNOLIA... Can't wait for the rematch on Friday!Rich Priest wrote:I had FOAMING and then FLAMING but for some reason never thought to add the O...
Well done Charlie, great performance, looking forward to seeing you play Junaid.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
I did it this way! Great minds think alike. I was pleased with SIDEBURN and BURNSIDE and then Jeff stole my thunder but well done for spotting it Jeff! I was pleased with LATEENS and ANGIOMA but missed DESOLATE and FLAMINGO respectively so well done to Charlie for those (I did catch up with SAVOURS, SIDEBURN and CAROTENE though!). TELEOST was a great seven in round 6 too.Matt Morrison wrote:25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959
(25 + 1) x ((9 x 4) + 1)
= 26 x 37 = 962
- 2 = 960 (1 away)
Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I'm starting to be quite impressed with Jeff's ability at the letters. Am being increasingly underwhelmed by Rachel's numbers (and yes, obviously she is presumably really very good and it's much much harder in her position etc. etc. but still). Thought I saw MONIKER in there somewhere, which is a word I always find myself seeing when it's almost there but never actually comes out. The conundrum spot was superb.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Heh, I got that too! Though I effed-up in virtually every other roundStewart Holden wrote:SAVOURS! Wow, can't believe they both missed it.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
BTW, loved Rachel's "taking the P" comment! Well, I love Rachel full-stop
Great win Charlie, looking forward to the grudge-match
Great win Charlie, looking forward to the grudge-match
- Matthew Green
- Devotee
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Was PANPIPE valid?
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I wondered this so I looked it up. Only pan pipes is in, and as two words, so I'm guessing not.Matthew Green wrote:Was PANPIPE valid?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Hmm. I can't find it either...Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:10 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
A different solution to 469 out of 100 9 8 7 6 3
((8x6 - 7) x 9) + 100
((8x6 - 7) x 9) + 100
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??Charlie Reams wrote:Hmm. I can't find it either...Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Just FTR, HARD-WIRE (vb.) is also listed.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, I guess they edited that out. HARD-WIRED is in (but hyphenated); nothing else similar.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
- Location: South Yorkshire
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Today's highlight for me was Susie saying, smilingly, to Charlie
that "sexily" was a lovely (or was it "nice"?) word.
that "sexily" was a lovely (or was it "nice"?) word.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
I believe they have an electronic wordlist that they use to check if the conundrums are unique etc. Someone (in case they get sued) passed me a copy of this list and it's very dodgy, it seems to be based on SOED or something. I guess they normally cross-check them manually but this time forgot. So it looks like I lost on a conundrum that isn't even validMike Brown wrote:It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
It's just as well that the conundrum wasn't crucial isn't it.Mike Brown wrote:It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??
However, against me, it certainly was crucial, and with that conundrum Peter beat me by 2. So I now claim victory over Peter. Having already built up a good lead over Peter, I threw most of it away by cocking up a couple of rounds, discarding LOOSES, thinking it too risky, and going for a mis-spelt SOILY rather than LOOSE. And then inexplicably going for BUDGIER instead of BUDGIES.
BTW, you could have comfortably got 470, only 1 away, in the first numbers round, Charlie. Having decided to start with 100x(8-3), and thus being 31 off your target, you could have subtracted 6 from the 100 to make it 94x5.
Really looking forward to the repeat of the S59 final on Friday. I'm glad it's being shown before COLIN.
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Lost being a relative term...Charlie Reams wrote:So it looks like I lost on a conundrum that isn't even valid
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
- Location: Farnborough, Hampshire
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Er, don't forget Jeff has an earpiece. Des O C definitely used to get words piped down to him from above so why not Jeff?Junaid Mubeen wrote:I can assure you it was genuine...he made quite a few offerings through the whole championship (BEDTIME in my game). Not hugely surprising as he is a long time viewer of the show and does seem quite sharp.Matt Morrison wrote:I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
It didn't seem to me like he was lying. He looked too proud of it. Also most things that go through Jeff's earpiece also go through Susie's, and she looked genuinely surprised by SIDEBURN, so I think he probably did get it. It could all be a ruse, of course.
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
It's not in CorbyDic, which suggests it's not in, hidden or otherwise.... SCANDAL !Charlie Reams wrote:Hmm. I can't find it either...Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 6)
Collins (& Chambers) list it as an alternative, so it's OK in Scrabble.Charlie Reams wrote:Hmm. I can't find it either...Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:02 am
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Another solution for 469 from 100, 7, 8, 9, 3, 6:
(6X9)+100=154 X3=462 +7=469
Penny
(6X9)+100=154 X3=462 +7=469
Penny
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:04 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
Except that:John Douglas wrote:FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).
1) The dictionary lists irregular plurals explicitly, so the plural of FETTUCINE would be FETTUCINES unless it says otherwise.
2) FETTUCINE isn't in the dictionary anyway.
If you mean "should" as in an addition to some future edition, I agree.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13330
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but they showed the conundrum answer for a ridiculously short time. I don't know if they always do that but I hadn't noticed it before,
- Mike Brown
- Legend
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: King's Lynn
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 20th Jan 2009 (CoC Heat 7)
FETTUCCINE is in fact the plural of FETTUCCINA. Not sure where the alternative FETTUCINI comes from - presumably some kind of corrupted version, but I'm not an expert in Italian. Do we have any on the forum?John Douglas wrote:FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).