Spoilers for Monday 13th April

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:25 pm

Epic. It's finally here. The battle of the genders - representing the whole of womankind is c4c forummer Clare Sudbery.

Can she depose MALE champion Shane Roberts?

She may have a good chance, after all...

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:28 pm

She's a decent player but Shane is mighty.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:28 pm

Anyone else think Shane looks a bit like Kate Richardson?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:31 pm

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:37 pm

Ooh, the MAN has taken the lead.

Still,

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:39 pm

Oh noes, WOMANKIND has taken the lead. Plus it could get even worse for MANKIND here...

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:44 pm

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:52 pm

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Who's on today??

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:56 pm

CALAMITY.

What?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:56 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Who's on today??

It says in the OP.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:57 pm

What does OP mean?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:58 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:What does OP mean?

Original Post (first post in the thread). It can also mean "Original Poster" (threadstarter), it's usually clear from the context which is being abbreviated.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:59 pm

Ok, so who's on today then?

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:59 pm

That is all.

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:02 pm

fidgeter

Andy Wilson · Post by **Andy Wilson** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Takes one to spot one.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:03 pm

UNTWINES

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:07 pm

Maybe she forgot where the buzzer was!!

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:07 pm

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:09 pm

Jon Corby wrote:

Read my mind

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:10 pm

OK, the cat is out, I lost. Feel free to say I told you so. Here's a mini post mortem. I've written a series of blog posts too, which will culminate in a full autopsy on Wednesday.

Round 2. D O R S E A L N I
Doh. I tried to learn 52 common 7-to-8 stems (totalling approx 600 words). They crop up in a lot of games (I'd be v. interested to know the proportion). Three of them appeared here (ISLANDER, ANEROIDS, AILERONS), and I missed them all.

Round 4. H I M E A S S T E
SEAMIEST was as good as my game got. Still I'm vaguely proud of knowing (from real-world experience, rather than swotting) a word that Susie didn't.

Round 5. 8, 10, 5, 8, 5, 7 -> 105
Oh dear. I panicked and got obsessed with multiplying by 10 (I got (10x(5+5))+7-(8/8)=106).

Round 6. I W N N U S I E T
I declared TINNIES. I also had WINIEST, which I thought dodgy but is valid. Have since found UNTWINES (via Lexpert / Apterous).

Round 9. S I N E T H O E F
Can't believe I missed FETISH! Have since found HISTONE (via Apterous).

Round 10. 5, 6, 3, 10, 7, 75 -> 863
Argh. Did it again. Totally missed the 10 (I got ((7+5)x(75-3))=864). I am a dunderbrain.

Round 11. R I E A P D R A S
I got PARADISE, but was very unsure. I had Brainmelt Syndrome re spelling (because it's not pronounced "paradize").

Round 12. T E G D A E R F I
Ironically Lexpert (Scrabble dictionary) allows my dodgy DRIFTAGE, but not Shane's dodgy FIDGETER.

Round 13. N O P I R O S A L
I declared PRISON. I also had PRONAILS, but was right not to declare it.

Round 14. 10, 3, 4, 5, 3, 25 -> 424
I was 1 away yet again (I got (10+3+4)x25=425), and v. annoyed. Luckily this time Shane got the same.

So... I fucked up. Mainly by fluffing the numbers and missing ISLANDER/AILERONS/ANEROIDS. Even if I hadn't I wouldn't have won (but the score would have been a healthier 84 to 98). Shane was a great player, much better than me, and he beat me hands down. As for preparation... I shouldn't have focused on word lists. But I'm glad I swotted up 6 small and 4 large, even if I did still bugger it up. I should have guessed before auditioning how competitive / obsessive I'd get. By the time I started swotting, it was a bit late (though I may never have got much better).

I've written up all the tips from the How-To thread and elsewhere, and stuck them here. I've called it The Loser's Guide to Countdown.

I have notes if anyone wants them for the recap.

PS That teatime teaser: CALAMITY. Ha! [hollow laugh]

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:14 pm

Jon Corby wrote:

Touché - and all the other posts. Very funny - well done Corby.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:15 pm

MEN FTW

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:17 pm

Bad luck Clare, hope you enjoyed it all the same.It looked as though you did.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:17 pm

Clare Sudbery wrote:
Round 5. 8, 10, 5, 8, 5, 7 -> 105
Oh dear. I panicked and got obsessed with multiplying by 10 (I got (10x(5+5))+7-(8/8)=106).

Yeah, you could have got obsessed with the 10:
(8+7-5)x10+5
or if you want to come from 110 back down:
(8+8-5)x10-5

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:18 pm

Great performance from Shane to be fair. Now, I'm off to power spray my garden fence, shouldn't take long.

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:23 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Clare Sudbery wrote:
Round 5. 8, 10, 5, 8, 5, 7 -> 105
Oh dear. I panicked and got obsessed with multiplying by 10 (I got (10x(5+5))+7-(8/8)=106).

Yeah, you could have got obsessed with the 10:
(8+7-5)x10+5
or if you want to come from 110 back down:
(8+8-5)x10-5

What can I say? I fucked up in all directions, I can't deny it.

Paul Howe wrote:Great performance from Shane to be fair.

Absolutely. He's dead good, and much better than me!

Rich Priest wrote:Bad luck Clare, hope you enjoyed it all the same.It looked as though you did.

Wish I could say I did. I'm sure a lot of losing contestants do enjoy the experience, but it does tend to be those who won at least one game who say what a wonderful time they had. Nobody's fault but my own though, and it'll be a tale I'll be telling for many years to come.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:49 pm

I thought you came across very well even though it sounds as if (from reading your blog) you spent most of the time worrying what the nation will think of you and how you say "consonant" or "vowel". I was naturally excited and happy but when it was down to the game I was serious and concentrated. I remember people commenting afterwards about how I had too many buttons undone on my shirt but so what - I was there to win a game of Countdown not to be picked for Mr York.

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:53 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:worrying what the nation will think of you

Worrying about whether I would win, yes.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:07 pm

No mention of ORDINALS yet? Or was I imagining it?

Also, wrt Rachel saying 'there must be a more straightforward way' for the 424, I ended up doing 28*15 + 4, which I'm not really convinced is more straightforward (tbh, I think doing 106*4 is a pretty intuitive way to do it, I was trying to do that at first, but couldn't make it work). Also, this doesn't count as an uninteresting alt solution because I put text around it, so nyer.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:31 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:No mention of ORDINALS yet? Or was I imagining it?

Also, wrt Rachel saying 'there must be a more straightforward way' for the 424, I ended up doing 28*15 + 4, which I'm not really convinced is more straightforward (tbh, I think doing 106*4 is a pretty intuitive way to do it, I was trying to do that at first, but couldn't make it work). Also, this doesn't count as an uninteresting alt solution because I put text around it, so nyer.

Ha, ditto. I had ORDINALS amongst the others too. I also tried 106x4 and failed and ended up doing 28*15 + 4. We are so alike --- when are you next free?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:35 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Ha, ditto. I had ORDINALS amongst the others too. I also tried 106x4 and failed and ended up doing 28*15 + 4. We are so alike --- when are you next free?

Well I should be at the finals, you can join me in the audience for the afternoon session? <3

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:38 pm

Michael Wallace wrote: Well I should be at the finals, you can join me in the audience for the afternoon session? <3

And not play? Sounds like a fun deal to me..

John Bosley · Post by **John Bosley** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:54 pm

Wife had 'ordinals' as well - and Susie didn't - but then she can't do everything.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:08 pm

Commiserations Clare. To be honest I thought neither of you was in for a spectacular score after missing all the 8s in round 2 (I got ORDINALS, as well as PENTODE in round 1), but Shane is one of those players (like Cate Henderson) who seem to get stronger game by game and you were unlucky to have to face him.

Well done too for misleading everyone who thought you were posting spoilers by referring to your "first" appearance etc - but why did you have to go and undo all that good work with this post?

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:56 pm

Was good to see you today Clare, espec as we've followed your excitement since you joined the forum.

I thought you came across really well and lovely, and well if you had to lose, at least (IMO) it was to a vegan!

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:04 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:why did you have to go and undo all that good work with this post?

Because I'm an idiot? I got carried away with the relief of no longer having to be cagey about all this. I've never been much good at keeping secrets. I've edited it now, but I'm truly sorry for those who got there before I did so.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Was good to see you today Clare, espec as we've followed your excitement since you joined the forum. I thought you came across really well and lovely, and well if you had to lose, at least (IMO) it was to a vegan!

Aw thanks Lesley, I really appreciate it.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:Also, wrt Rachel saying 'there must be a more straightforward way' for the 424, I ended up doing 28*15 + 4, which I'm not really convinced is more straightforward (tbh, I think doing 106*4 is a pretty intuitive way to do it, I was trying to do that at first, but couldn't make it work). Also, this doesn't count as an uninteresting alt solution because I put text around it, so nyer.

Maybe (25*3 + 10) *5 - (4-3) ? That'd possibly fit RR's normal solving method, perhaps?

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:45 am

Claire - Bad luck in coming against a good champ at the top of his form.

You came across as very pleasant person with a bubbly personality (as you do on here) and were a good contestant.

From your blog it sounds like you really enjoyed your time at CD and it was a shame that the coveted Teapot eluded you.

Best wishes and commiserations.

Adam Dexter · Post by **Adam Dexter** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:16 am

Lesley Jeavons wrote: at least (IMO) it was to a vegan!

Hold the phone, he's a vegan? Can see the lettuce diet works for him *snigger snigger*. Sorry if this has been commented on before!

Philip Jarvis · Post by **Philip Jarvis** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:42 am

Clare

Just read the memoires of your Countdown Experience on your website - very entertaining. The things you describe very much remind me of how I felt when I appeared (01/02/02). Because of all the various "distractions" in the studio and the sudden realisation that you are in the hot seat, I found that my brain did not seem to function in the normal way. It's certainly a lot easier when you're sat at home.

Sorry you didn't get the teapot, but Shane looks a decent player.

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:56 am

Philip Jarvis wrote:It's certainly a lot easier when you're sat at home.

Isn't it just!

Philip Jarvis wrote:Sorry you didn't get the teapot, but Shane looks a decent player.

Absolutely. There's no doubt that he was the better player.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:58 am

Paul Howe wrote:Great performance from Shane to be fair. Now, I'm off to power spray my garden fence, shouldn't take long.

Umm... is this a guy thing?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:59 pm

Rosemary Roberts wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:Great performance from Shane to be fair. Now, I'm off to power spray my garden fence, shouldn't take long.
Umm... is this a guy thing?

Yeah. Like Countdown.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:03 pm

Shane is my favourite contestant form this series. I hope he wins 8 games.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:04 pm

JackHurst wrote:Shane is my favourite contestant form this series. I hope he wins 8 games.

Haha, take that Kirk!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:15 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
JackHurst wrote:Shane is my favourite contestant form this series. I hope he wins 8 games.
Haha, take that Kirk!

Haha, my life is in turmoil now that I'm not Mr Hurst's favourite. I do like Shane though; he has a quiet voice, has a specific method of choosing vowels and consonants and seems a pleasant chap. He's my new favourite too.

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:08 pm

Adam Dexter wrote:
Lesley Jeavons wrote: at least (IMO) it was to a vegan!
Hold the phone, he's a vegan? Can see the lettuce diet works for him *snigger snigger*. Sorry if this has been commented on before!

I know! But some of us vegans have allowed ourselves to get a bit porky in our time, just to prove we're not wasting away! Curse you vegan doughnuts, chips, Pringles and Linda McCartney Pies!

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:14 pm

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I know! But some of us vegans have allowed ourselves to get a bit porky in our time, just to prove we're not wasting away! Curse you vegan doughnuts, chips, Pringles and Linda McCartney Pies!

Are doughnuts not normally vegan? (I'll admit I don't really know what goes into them, other than that they are presumably vegetarian (I hope...))

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:19 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:Are doughnuts not normally vegan? (I'll admit I don't really know what goes into them, other than that they are presumably vegetarian (I hope...))

Well doughnuts are fried, so I suppose they could be non vegan in the same way that roast potatoes cooked in the fat of choice, goose fat, would not be vegetarian.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:34 pm

Doughnuts have milk & eggs in. Not a problem for vegetarians, but vegans are a little more picky.

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:05 pm

Yeah doughnuts are / aren't vegan depending on if they have eggs and / or milk in them. Unfortunatley for me the Coop ones are vegan again.

I would guess that most doughnuts sold in the UK would be veggie, as cooking in animal fat has declined. Mind you, it depends on what you define as 'veggie' because if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition. (But the good news is, most supermarket own brands have / are phasing out non FR eggs in their products.)

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:14 pm

Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.

That sucks, I'm not sure the Vegetarian Society has (or should claim to have) jurisdiction over the definition of what 'vegetarianism' is.
I'm sure they're doing it for the right reasons, but it doesn't mean they should hold people's beliefs to ransom like that.
It can be hard enough explaining to some people that a fish is an animal, no further complications of definition are required.

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:16 pm

Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.

Why is Quorn approved then? That doesn't use free range eggs I don't think.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:18 pm

Lesley Jeavons wrote:I would guess that most doughnuts sold in the UK would be veggie, as cooking in animal fat has declined. Mind you, it depends on what you define as 'veggie' because if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition. (But the good news is, most supermarket own brands have / are phasing out non FR eggs in their products.)

I didn't realise doughnuts tended to have eggs in - supermarket bakery ones tend not to have ingredient lists, and so I was relying on my mother telling me that they don't.

The free range egg thing is really irritating, because you have to assume they're not free range unless they say they are (and this doesn't seem too unreasonable - if you look at Sainsbury's Taste the Difference stuff, and Tesco's Finest products, they specify they're free range, which implies to me that ones that don't aren't), and you end up looking really picky when you tell people you won't eat something because it's made with battery farmed eggs (even though often said people insist on buying free range eggs 'loose' - the moment it's in some other product that's apparently 'too much effort', or something).

(I can't stand people who are inconsistent about that sort of thing, can you tell?)

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.
Why is Quorn approved then? That doesn't use free range eggs I don't think.

Have you actually checked? I haven't come across any Quorn product that doesn't (and if I could be bothered to check I suspect they'll say somewhere on their site that they only use free range).

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:18 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.
Why is Quorn approved then? That doesn't use free range eggs I don't think.

£
something tells me the privilege of sticking "approved by the Vegetarian Society" on your packaging doesn't come for free...

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Oops sorry other folks as we've gone way off topic, but at least our current winning contestant won't mind.

Matt Morrison wrote:
Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.
That sucks, I'm not sure the Vegetarian Society has (or should claim to have) jurisdiction over the definition of what 'vegetarianism' is.
I'm sure they're doing it for the right reasons, but it doesn't mean they should hold people's beliefs to ransom like that.
It can be hard enough explaining to some people that a fish is an animal, no further complications of definition are required.

Well the definition has to come from somewhere, so what better authority? I think it's more they won't APPROVE a product if it contains battery eggs, though I'm sure that they know that although most veggies will seek out to buy actual free range eggs, they are less vigilant when it comes to what's in products or in meals when dining out or at friend's houses.
It is a bit of a weird one as Veg Soc are accepting that you can have degrees of cruelty in egg production but they don't, for example, only approve milk products from small scale organic dairy farms.
Oh don't get me started on 'veggies'

who eat fish - they really get my goat! This is one of the main reasons that Veg Soc are so keen to get a legal definition, as there's such a wide variety of what people think is acceptable. Like Nana on The Royal Family thinking Anthony's girlfriend could eat wafer thin ham.

If you eat flesh and like it, then just admit it, and don't pretend to be something you're not!

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Lesley Jeavons wrote:if a doughnut contains non free range eggs that's not classed as veggie, by Veg Soc definition.
Why is Quorn approved then? That doesn't use free range eggs I don't think.

Quorn stopped using battery eggs a few years back and since then their entire range has been Veg Soc approved.

Michael Wallace wrote:I didn't realise doughnuts tended to have eggs in - supermarket bakery ones tend not to have ingredient lists, and so I was relying on my mother telling me that they don't.
The free range egg thing is really irritating, because you have to assume they're not free range unless they say they are (and this doesn't seem too unreasonable - if you look at Sainsbury's Taste the Difference stuff, and Tesco's Finest products, they specify they're free range, which implies to me that ones that don't aren't), and you end up looking really picky when you tell people you won't eat something because it's made with battery farmed eggs (even though often said people insist on buying free range eggs 'loose' - the moment it's in some other product that's apparently 'too much effort', or something).
(I can't stand people who are inconsistent about that sort of thing, can you tell?)

Yup, if the eggs used are free range then they'll DEF be listed as such as it's a selling point (and an excuse to charge more money). And if it just says 'eggs' then assume battery.

And people will battle with you whatever you choose to do about eating battery eggs or not - if you do eat them you're a hypocrite and if you don't you're going too far.

I couldn't be arsed with the whole 'where's the rennet from?', 'are the eggs battery?' etc, and what with the whole bird phobia I have, I just found it simpler to go vegan. (And make plenty of my own cakes!

)

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:04 am

And then again, the official government definition of "free range" eggs includes (unless they've changed it recently) a giant chicken house with only one small door, so half the chickens don't even know they can get out. As opposed to the little farm where the chickens run around wherever they want, which is the idealised version of what we would like "free range" to mean.

I'm not particularly keen on organic farming generally, it seems wasteful to use an inefficient farming method when half the world's starving. (I don't like biofuels for the same reason, only worse.) But what I've never understood, is why vegans are in favour of organic farms. I thought they were opposed to farming of animals generally - and yet, they're in favour of using cow muck on farms instead of artificial fertiliser? It doesn't seem to make sense.