Instead, we'll have 2 new challengers eager to try and match the early high standards set by Oliver.
By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retire
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
Moderator: James Robinson
COUNTDOWN IN CRISISKirk Bevins wrote:They really need to shuffle this pack. Those 3 Ns have stayed together for a few shows now.
Surely.James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.
Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.
I thought that was Marc Almonds.Jon Corby wrote:Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.![]()
Edit: get rid of that Coors bit out of your post again
Sorry Jon.Jon Corby wrote:Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.![]()
Edit: get rid of that Coors bit out of your post again
I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.Michael Wallace wrote:Surely.James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.
You need to take into account that there are 15 rounds per show.Matt Morrison wrote:I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.Michael Wallace wrote:Surely.James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.
Good question. At least 5 and probably higher.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
Jon Corby wrote:COUNTDOWN IN CRISISKirk Bevins wrote:They really need to shuffle this pack. Those 3 Ns have stayed together for a few shows now.
Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
Amazing! My favourite is Pat Rawlings' HEMEROID (never thought I'd say that), which is a misspelling of a US spelling. Not the worst error per se, but her delight at declaring an 8 followed by the embarrassment of such a total fuck-up was hilarity and pathos incarnate.D Eadie wrote:Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
Must have been a dodgy Chinese.D Eadie wrote:Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
Marc Meakin wrote:Must have been a dodgy Chinese.D Eadie wrote:Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
I can find two sixes from recent-ish times:Charlie Reams wrote:Good question. At least 5 and probably higher.Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?
It wasn't much of a treaty.Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!
lolD Eadie wrote:It was. I spoke to him after and he said that's what came to him as he was trying to work out what he'd eaten to make him feel so poorly. So that was the first word that came out of his mouth. Coincidentally enough, he declared hot and sour soup for his second round and guessed at banana fritters for the conundrum.Marc Meakin wrote:Must have been a dodgy Chinese.
I did ((50+6)x100+75)/25-5 actually and it's quite simple if you learn the rules.Gavin Chipper wrote:
Also after the 222 round (which I got Rachel's way) I noticed you could do (75*6*25+100)/50-5. But I imagine that this is the sort of thing that people who are good at 4-large do routinely but at the moment it's a big gap in my numbers ability. I hope you enjoyed that story.
Indeed - I thought DC were bound to get it ... though maybe put off by the fact that it's sometimes (more often?) spelt ARTIFACT.Kirk Bevins wrote:ARTEFAT was in order....surprised they missed ARTEFACT!
ARTIFACT is the US spelling. Not that that contradicts what you said, but I'm sure those on Countdown are far too pure of English blood to be distracted by such monstrous imports.Brian Moore wrote:Indeed - I thought DC were bound to get it ... though maybe put off by the fact that it's sometimes (more often?) spelt ARTIFACT.Kirk Bevins wrote:ARTEFAT was in order....surprised they missed ARTEFACT!
Andrew Hulme and his opponent got a 9 in the first round of his first game I think?Chris Corby wrote:Is this the only game ever where at the end of Round 2, both players have 18 points?
Here follows a complimentary joke in the form of an open letter from SADACT (Society for the Advancement of Derekesque Alternative Comedy Talent)Marc Meakin wrote:It wasn't much of a treaty.Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!
Oh Alec, you are like Susan Boyle sitting on Krusty the Clown.Alec Rivers wrote:Here follows a complimentary joke in the form of an open letter from SADACT (Society for the Advancement of Derekesque Alternative Comedy Talent)Marc Meakin wrote:It wasn't much of a treaty.Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!
Dear Mr Meakin,
I am pleased to inform you that you have passed the SHIT (Search for Hazell Immitator Test) and hereby invite you to commence full groaner production duties with immediate effect. Welcome aboard.
Yours
Wilma Joaksby-Lafftat
.... and not to contradict what you said ... but though I see ARTIFACT more often in US texts, both the OED and Chambers list both without comment in the main heading, though the OED notes in the etymology section "In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use." Given that less-than-absolute differentiation, I'm surprised it's not in ODE as an alternative (if less etymologically justifiable) spelling.Charlie Reams wrote:ARTIFACT is the US spelling. Not that that contradicts what you said, but I'm sure those on Countdown are far too pure of English blood to be distracted by such monstrous imports.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your quote, it sounds like ARTEFACT is an alternative US spelling, not that ARTIFACT is an alternative UK spelling.Brian Moore wrote:"In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use."
I read it that both are occasionally (though unusually) used in the alternative spelling in both countries. I'm not going to lose sleep over it though. Well, I hope not.Charlie Reams wrote:Unless I'm misunderstanding your quote, it sounds like ARTEFACT is an alternative US spelling, not that ARTIFACT is an alternative UK spelling.Brian Moore wrote:"In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use."
You might want to weight the average based on the proportion of each type of round. Just a thought.Matt Morrison wrote:I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.
And add to that the fact that Letters rounds score 0 to 9 or 18, Numbers 0,5,7,10, and the Conundrum 0 or 10.Gavin Chipper wrote:You might want to weight the average based on the proportion of each type of round. Just a thought.Matt Morrison wrote:I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.
I think it's because there used to be four shows a week, so a retiring champion would have completed exactly two weeks' worth of shows.James Robinson wrote:By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retireSurely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters. Just a thought.
That actually doesn't sound like a bad reason at all. Thanks, Mike.Mike Brown wrote:I think it's because there used to be four shows a week, so a retiring champion would have completed exactly two weeks' worth of shows.James Robinson wrote:By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retireSurely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters. Just a thought.