c4countdown

Jon O'Neill wrote:I always got the impression he would only have competed if he was at the top of his game and had a realistic chance of winning. I'm guessing he was asked and said no.

Also he did come to one CO-event.

The others I'm sad not to see competing are Scott Mearns and Graham Nash - these are heroes of my childhood.

However, I'm excited to see that you're in Tom.

That's a fair comment and I wondered the same - maybe in terms of being out of practice and/or risking a reputation. I'm the same in guessing that he probably declined. For me it doesn't matter how I do, I'm there to enjoy the experience more than anything and if I put a win or 2 together then even better.

Scott and Graham - great shouts Jon and I too would have loved to have seen them there - never met Scott but Graham seemed to disappear fairly quickly after he appeared and I've never heard from him since.

Thanks for your comment Jon O, good to see you're in it too..... but glad I didn't get you

Giles wrote:So when will tickets be available and what is the email address for them? That Sunday means I might actually be able to go!

shantelle.gaston-hird@itv.com handles all audience queries and the website listed 0161 952 0408


Also I kind of agree with the calls for predictions that'd be cool but I'm not convinced that participants want to see if we think they'll lose so maybe a new thread?

This looks great - can't wait to see it!

Series 68 is going to be shorter than a regular series, so will it have Viscounts? Or no quarter-finals, Series 45-style?

Anyway, it's awesome to see the list of entrants. Goes right back to the beginning. I discovered Countdown early in Series 61, so I just missed what I assumed was going to be the last CoC ever. Had no idea anyone would ever go through with something this awesome. (And I can't actually legally watch the show in my country, only read the recaps, and I'm still psyched.) Kudos to the Countdown Team for making this come true!!

Johnny Canuck wrote:Series 68 is going to be shorter than a regular series, so will it have Viscounts? Or no quarter-finals, Series 45-style?

Anyway, it's awesome to see the list of entrants. Goes right back to the beginning. I discovered Countdown early in Series 61, so I just missed what I assumed was going to be the last CoC ever. Had no idea anyone would ever go through with something this awesome. (And I can't actually legally watch the show in my country, only read the recaps, and I'm still psyched.) Kudos to the Countdown Team for making this come true!!

I assume that Series 68 will still have octochamps, don't forget, most of the original series only had 3 months at a time, and they had plenty of octochamps.

I assume that Series 68 will begin on March 4 (based on the assumption that the 30th Championship will start on January 7), that would easily give enough time for plenty of octochamps before the series ends on June 28 (presumably).

Yeah and hopefully there's enough time for me and Giles to avoid each other if we both get on.

(Hopefully, and no disrespect - he's just been playing awesome lately - it pushes Martin Long into S69 )


Anyway back on topic, who's going to try and go to the November dates? I've emailed already to try and get mine in.
Would be good to go out afterwards

I hope I'm wrong, but I wonder if a lot of the games in this championship will be like watching a boxer making an ill-advised comeback. We remember how good they used to be and wince when they can't do it any more. Maybe quite a few potential contestants will decline for this reason.

Malcolm James wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but I wonder if a lot of the games in this championship will be like watching a boxer making an ill-advised comeback. We remember how good they used to be and wince when they can't do it any more. Maybe quite a few potential contestants will decline for this reason.

I reckon most and probably all of the Scrabblers are better at word finding now than they were when they appeared on the show. The problem's going to be judging what's likely to be ODE valid - even after all my Apterousing, I'm still ducking out of things that are perfectly OK and going for things which aren't - in matches where 10-max isn't going to contend and 12-max probably won't win, that's going to be a problem.

Games 6 and 7 could be unexpected vintage though, both Scrabbler vs. Scrabbler so the dictionary issue hits both sides equally. It'll be as much poker as it is Countdown. Really looking forward to those!

Nick Deller wrote:

Malcolm James wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but I wonder if a lot of the games in this championship will be like watching a boxer making an ill-advised comeback. We remember how good they used to be and wince when they can't do it any more. Maybe quite a few potential contestants will decline for this reason.

I reckon most and probably all of the Scrabblers are better at word finding now than they were when they appeared on the show. The problem's going to be judging what's likely to be ODE valid - even after all my Apterousing, I'm still ducking out of things that are perfectly OK and going for things which aren't - in matches where 10-max isn't going to contend and 12-max probably won't win, that's going to be a problem.

Games 6 and 7 could be unexpected vintage though, both Scrabbler vs. Scrabbler so the dictionary issue hits both sides equally. It'll be as much poker as it is Countdown. Really looking forward to those!

I don't think the analogy of having a boxer make an ill-advised comeback is an entirely accurate way of putting it as everyone who competes in my mind will have a natural aptitude to some extent which can be enhanced by Apterous or a couple of other methods so you can always potentially relive your glory days. I have probably only watched 20 episodes in the last 9 years but already have noticed a minor improvement in my game from playing Apterous for nearly a week.

Though I don't play Scrabble, having played Apterous for the last week I'm also ducking out of OK words and have gone for invalid words at times. Though I'm sure the degree of variance between the ODE and Scrabble dictionary is far greater than the ODE now and from 10 years back, it is sometimes tricky for me to decide whether to go for a certain word and I also agree about maxes in that a 12-max probably wouldn't win and that itself justifies how the standard is and how Apterous has raised the bar.

What will be the prize for the winner btw?

Jojo Apollo wrote:What will be the prize for the winner btw?

A limited edition version of The Very Hungry Caterpillar signed by Susie Dent, a one-way plane ticket to Eritrea, and a can of Irn Bru.

Nah but presumably just pride & prestige, otherwise I imagine Damian would have mentioned something in greater detail.

Andy Platt wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:What will be the prize for the winner btw?

A limited edition version of The Very Hungry Caterpillar signed by Susie Dent, a one-way plane ticket to Eritrea, and a can of Irn Bru.

Nah but presumably just pride & prestige, otherwise I imagine Damian would have mentioned something in greater detail.

I think last time everyone got a trophy for taking part and the winner something bigger? Or was it everyone got nothing and the winner got a small trophy? I think the former.
Have any stattos out there produced some interesting statistics for this? E.g. Any undefeated players in the mix? Who has lost the most number of games? Who was last on the longest time ago?

I think I might hold a record in that I'll have been on with 3 different presenters in 3 different studio locations (Whiteley in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for the special and Hewer in Salford).

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Andy Platt wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:What will be the prize for the winner btw?

I think I might hold a record in that I'll have been on with 3 different presenters in 3 different studio locations (Whiteley in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for the special and Hewer in Salford).

Presumably you share that with Nick Wainwright and DO'D at least? (Deso in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for CoC and now Hewer in Salford?)

Kirk Bevins wrote:Who was last on the longest time ago?

Looks like Robert Richland. His last 'proper' episode was 26 June 1984, and even his two Countdown Masters appearances in 1989 and 1990 seem to predate any other contestant's last appearance. I reckon the next in line are David Webb on 25 September 1991, me on 8 September 1994 and Chris Hawkins on 23 September 1994 - I can't see anyone else who predates the Supreme Championship but didn't play in it.

[Edit] Actually, add Sandie Simonis (proper appearance on 19 February 1986, broadcast Masters in 1989 and an unshown one in 1990), and Mike Whiteoak (proper appearance on 27 August 1987, Masters in January 1990).

Michael Wallace wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think I might hold a record in that I'll have been on with 3 different presenters in 3 different studio locations (Whiteley in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for the special and Hewer in Salford).

Presumably you share that with Nick Wainwright and DO'D at least? (Deso in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for CoC and now Hewer in Salford?)

CoC was in Leeds.

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think I might hold a record in that I'll have been on with 3 different presenters in 3 different studio locations (Whiteley in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for the special and Hewer in Salford).

Presumably you share that with Nick Wainwright and DO'D at least? (Deso in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for CoC and now Hewer in Salford?)

CoC was in Leeds.

Ah, wondered if I'd got one of the locations wrong - I guess I assumed that new blue set = Manchester.

Andy Platt wrote:Yeah and hopefully there's enough time for me and Giles to avoid each other if we both get on.

(Hopefully, and no disrespect - he's just been playing awesome lately - it pushes Martin Long into S69 )

I think both you and Giles would beat me. Giles is awesome at the letters rounds and his knowledge of words dwarf mine, he is also far better than him at conundrums and his strengths would negate my advantage at the numbers rounds.

Against you, my numbers advantage is less as you are better than me at 4-large whilst I am better at 6-small and 1-large. I still think you are slightly better than me at the letters rounds as you know more obscure words than me and if it comes down to a crucial conundrum, I would definitely have you as the favourite to win at that point.

It will be a while before I get round to applying (definitely won't be this year) as my life has been quite hectic lately.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think last time everyone got a trophy for taking part and the winner something bigger?

I seem to recall the winner of the Supreme Championship got a flight to Paris to see the final of "Des Chiffres et des Lettres".

Johnny Canuck wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think last time everyone got a trophy for taking part and the winner something bigger?

I seem to recall the winner of the Supreme Championship got a flight to Paris to see the final of "Des Chiffres et des Lettres".

Shame Australian Countdown isn't still running...

Martin Long wrote:

Andy Platt wrote:Yeah and hopefully there's enough time for me and Giles to avoid each other if we both get on.

(Hopefully, and no disrespect - he's just been playing awesome lately - it pushes Martin Long into S69 )

I think both you and Giles would beat me. Giles is awesome at the letters rounds and his knowledge of words dwarf mine, he is also far better than him at conundrums and his strengths would negate my advantage at the numbers rounds.

Against you, my numbers advantage is less as you are better than me at 4-large whilst I am better at 6-small and 1-large. I still think you are slightly better than me at the letters rounds as you know more obscure words than me and if it comes down to a crucial conundrum, I would definitely have you as the favourite to win at that point.

It will be a while before I get round to applying (definitely won't be this year) as my life has been quite hectic lately.

Heh ok, I thought you said you were applying in January or some such. I'd say you've overtaken me at letters and you could easily outscore me at numbers if it's two tricky 6S and one easy 4L, or one tricky 6S and two easy 4L. I've always thought me vs Giles would be an good potential final as well because he's a letters player and conundrum demon and I will four large the hell out of him guaranteed. But yeah, whatever - this debate isn't for this thread.


Anyone heard anything back off the audience organiser? I've heard nothing - they must be very busy right now.

Andy Platt wrote:Anyone heard anything back off the audience organiser? I've heard nothing - they must be very busy right now.

Nope. Applied for Tuesday 22 January 2013 (the last day). Don't know how much space there'll be, presuming there'll be a lot allocated to contestants and their guests; the studio might be smaller than the one at Granada too.

Kirk Bevins wrote:
I think I might hold a record in that I'll have been on with 3 different presenters in 3 different studio locations (Whiteley in Leeds, Stelling in Manchester for the special and Hewer in Salford).

Snap! (apart from the special part)

Adam Gillard wrote:

Andy Platt wrote:Anyone heard anything back off the audience organiser? I've heard nothing - they must be very busy right now.

Nope. Applied for Tuesday 22 January 2013 (the last day). Don't know how much space there'll be, presuming there'll be a lot allocated to contestants and their guests; the studio might be smaller than the one at Granada too.

You'd think they'd have a larger audience if anything with how quickly the tickets go these days- not sure if some old peoples groups are hogging them or what the deal is but they are absolute gold dust right now.

Since ticket sales seem likely to be a sell out they could consider charging for entry. Then give the winner the prize fund.

Supply and demand and all that.

Seems fair, would also stop large groups robbing all the tickets as the finances would become trickier than for, say, a group of 3

Despite retiring from all Countdown activities several years ago I was tempted to apply for this "just for fun", but in the end a combination of having two children under the age of 3, a major Scrabble project currently taking up most of my time and a likely (now confirmed) house move in early January meant I wouldn't have been able to commit to filming and certainly wouldn't have had any time for any much-needed revising or practice. I'm also of the type that Tom mentioned earlier in that I'd only really want to take part in something if I felt I was at the top of my game and that certainly wouldn't be the case right now.

Good luck to all those taking part! It's an exciting prospect and I will certainly be watching as many of the shows as I can. Do we know yet when they will be broadcast?

Stewart Holden wrote:Good luck to all those taking part! It's an exciting prospect and I will certainly be watching as many of the shows as I can. Do we know yet when they will be broadcast?

Using logic and recent history, it'll probably be January 7 when it starts, meaning that it would finish on March 1.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Have any stattos out there produced some interesting statistics for this? E.g. Any undefeated players in the mix? Who has lost the most number of games? Who was last on the longest time ago?

Combining a bit of Python with our fine wiki, I've produced this: Table of 30th anniversary championship contestants. It's ordered by percentage of max, i.e. 100 * points scored / potential points.

Here's the CSV file with summary information for all the relevant games, if anyone can think of any more stats to get out of it (if you do that, note that Steven Briers changed to Steve Briers at some point to annoy you). I haven't made any attempt to process the round-by-round details of the games, just the summary information found on each contestant's article.

The contestant with the earliest broadcast date is Christine Hunt, who first appeared on 9 April 1984. The contestant who's been away from Countdown the longest is Sandie Simonis, whose last appearance was in a Masters game in September 1989. Sandie did play again in another Masters game in 1991, but that wasn't broadcast. I haven't counted unbroadcast games anywhere.

Chris Wills has appeared 17 times before, which is the most previous appearances of any participant. Chris Wills also has the joint highest number of previous wins (14), alongside Mark Tournoff and Conor Travers.

Of the 41 players, three are undefeated: Jack Hurst, Edward McCullagh and Jack Worsley.

I love you so much Graeme.

Graeme Cole wrote: I've produced this: Table of 30th anniversary championship contestants.

Epic

So good, thanks Graeme.

This is more mental than even I can dream of!!!!

Superb work, Graeme.

Now, who's going to win (I've already made my predictions, if what I hypothesise is true, we've got a cracking tournament coming our way.)

James Robinson wrote:This is more mental than even I can dream of!!!!

Superb work, Graeme.

Now, who's going to win (I've already made my predictions, if what I hypothesise is true, we've got a cracking tournament coming our way.)

Based purely from what I'd seen on the show, I'd say that Jack Hurst was favourite and then Edward McCullagh, but based on what I've also seen on Apterous, Innis is probably current favourite. Having said that, his number one pro rank position will probably come under a lot of pressure as all those top players go into full training.

Conor Travers, Kirk Bevins and Chris Davies are also three obvious picks.

Graeme <3

Graeme - you are a legend! I could hardly bear to look at the table but I'm really looking forward to taking part in this and looking foward to seeing you again and some other real giants of Countdown in January.

Must say that I really feel for Eoin though as he was such a wonderful contestant and would give anyone a run for their money.

All the best

Paul

Graeme Cole wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Have any stattos out there produced some interesting statistics for this? E.g. Any undefeated players in the mix? Who has lost the most number of games? Who was last on the longest time ago?

Combining a bit of Python with our fine wiki, I've produced this: Table of 30th anniversary championship contestants. It's ordered by percentage of max, i.e. 100 * points scored / potential points.

Here's the CSV file with summary information for all the relevant games, if anyone can think of any more stats to get out of it (if you do that, note that Steven Briers changed to Steve Briers at some point to annoy you). I haven't made any attempt to process the round-by-round details of the games, just the summary information found on each contestant's article.

The contestant with the earliest broadcast date is Christine Hunt, who first appeared on 9 April 1984. The contestant who's been away from Countdown the longest is Sandie Simonis, whose last appearance was in a Masters game in September 1989. Sandie did play again in another Masters game in 1991, but that wasn't broadcast. I haven't counted unbroadcast games anywhere.

Chris Wills has appeared 17 times before, which is the most previous appearances of any participant. Chris Wills also has the joint highest number of previous wins (14), alongside Mark Tournoff and Conor Travers.

Of the 41 players, three are undefeated: Jack Hurst, Edward McCullagh and Jack Worsley.

well that just makes my draw look even better doesnt it.

Can anyone recommend any good bars near the hotel? Sure there will be plenty with it being in Manchester. Was also told Rusholme is great for curries so gonna head over there in the evening before recording if I get time.

Will probably get to the hotel around 5/6 ish on the 19th (long trip from Reading and I wanna get there nice and early) I'll probably be at the hotel bar sometime in the evening so if anyone recognises me do say hi

T

In reply to a question I asked in e-mail, Damian's told me a piece of information that I don't recall seeing anywhere and think it only fair to share:

"Gameplay - there won't be a toss. The draw will determine who sits where, so contestant camera left, next to DC guest, will be the left side of the draw, and camera right, next to Nick, will be the right side of the draw."

So there you go. First-named in each match gets the champion's chair.

Tom wrote:Can anyone recommend any good bars near the hotel? Sure there will be plenty with it being in Manchester. Was also told Rusholme is great for curries so gonna head over there in the evening before recording if I get time.

Will probably get to the hotel around 5/6 ish on the 19th (long trip from Reading and I wanna get there nice and early) I'll probably be at the hotel bar sometime in the evening so if anyone recognises me do say hi

T

When we go out in Manchester after Countdown recordings it's typically at the Walkabout (the one just up the road from the (soon ex-) recording studios or at the wetherspoons called Paramount which is a further 5-10 minutes walk or so up the road in the direction of the universities or Oxford Rd station

Some very juicy draws

Nick Deller wrote:In reply to a question I asked in e-mail, Damian's told me a piece of information that I don't recall seeing anywhere and think it only fair to share:

"Gameplay - there won't be a toss. The draw will determine who sits where, so contestant camera left, next to DC guest, will be the left side of the draw, and camera right, next to Nick, will be the right side of the draw."

So there you go. First-named in each match gets the champion's chair.

Oh, that's interesting. Perhaps it's because it's easier for the crew if they know who's sitting where in advance?

Countdown Team wrote: LAST 16

game 26 Winner Game 10 V Winner Game 25
game 27 Winner Game 11 V Winner Game 24
game 28 Winner Game 12 V Winner Game 23
game 29 Winner Game 13 V Winner Game 22
game 30 Winner Game 14 V Winner Game 21
game 31 Winner Game 15 V Winner Game 20
game 32 Winner Game 16 V Winner Game 19
game 33 Winner Game 18 V Winner Game 17

Any reason why game 33 is the other way round to all the others? I noticed this at the time but assumed it didn't matter.

Also,

Countdown Team wrote:game 19 GRAEME COLE V JACK WORSLEY

Piss.

Graeme Cole wrote: Any reason why game 33 is the other way round to all the others? I noticed this at the time but assumed it didn't matter.

I suspect he just copied from a seeded bracket---lots of them put the #2 seed on the bottom despite all the other higher seeds being on the top.
(Except it doesn't continue the pattern, so who knows. Maybe just to confuse us.)

Nick Deller wrote:In reply to a question I asked in e-mail, Damian's told me a piece of information that I don't recall seeing anywhere and think it only fair to share:

"Gameplay - there won't be a toss. The draw will determine who sits where, so contestant camera left, next to DC guest, will be the left side of the draw, and camera right, next to Nick, will be the right side of the draw."

So there you go. First-named in each match gets the champion's chair.

Unlucky Peter Lee; lucky Kirk Bevins.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Nick Deller wrote:In reply to a question I asked in e-mail, Damian's told me a piece of information that I don't recall seeing anywhere and think it only fair to share:

"Gameplay - there won't be a toss. The draw will determine who sits where, so contestant camera left, next to DC guest, will be the left side of the draw, and camera right, next to Nick, will be the right side of the draw."

So there you go. First-named in each match gets the champion's chair.

Unlucky Peter Lee; lucky Kirk Bevins.

That's a good point actually. I've often thought that round 14 should be a random pick of 6 of the 24 numbers tiles.

Graeme Cole wrote: I've often thought that round 14 should be a random pick of 6 of the 24 numbers tiles.

Brilliant suggestion, and one we've rather stupidly, never ever thought of.

Consider it incorporated.

Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

Okay, as from 2013, Rd 14 , the 3rd numbers game will be selected by Rachel. That's for all shows from 2013 onwards.
Thanks Graeme. Really clever idea.

Countdown Team wrote:Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

So, what about the extra letters pick that the champion gets for round 13

James Robinson wrote:

Countdown Team wrote:Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

So, what about the extra letters pick that the champion gets for round 13

Barely any advantage.

Pretty cool, well done Graeme.

As if I couldn't love Graeme enough, he's just changed the course of history as we will one day know it.

Y'all back off my boy now, you hear me?

Countdown Team wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote: I've often thought that round 14 should be a random pick of 6 of the 24 numbers tiles.

Brilliant suggestion, and one we've rather stupidly, never ever thought of.

Consider it incorporated.

Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

Okay, as from 2013, Rd 14 , the 3rd numbers game will be selected by Rachel. That's for all shows from 2013 onwards.
Thanks Graeme. Really clever idea.

I may be being a bit dim here, but are you saying that Rachel makes a random pick from the 24, or that Rachel decides it's "three large", or whatever? I'm definitely being dim in that I can't remember the maths, but I think the trouble with a random pick is that it will be one large most of the time, six small quite often, and four large almost never. Alternatively Rachel could make a selection, but it has to be different to what either contestant has picked in the earlier rounds. In particular, where both contestants have gone for a nice, safe, one large, they'd be forced to try something more interesting.

'Selected by Rachel' implies to me that it's going to be one or two large each time for fairness unless they actually change the ordering of the tiles pre-pick.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Nick Deller wrote:In reply to a question I asked in e-mail, Damian's told me a piece of information that I don't recall seeing anywhere and think it only fair to share:

"Gameplay - there won't be a toss. The draw will determine who sits where, so contestant camera left, next to DC guest, will be the left side of the draw, and camera right, next to Nick, will be the right side of the draw."

So there you go. First-named in each match gets the champion's chair.

Unlucky Peter Lee; lucky Kirk Bevins.

That's a good point actually. I've often thought that round 14 should be a random pick of 6 of the 24 numbers tiles.

This is a good idea in the sense that it's better than what we have now, but why not the more obvious solution of four numbers rounds? I know we've covered this before (two numbers rounds in one part would make the world explode, basically), but it reminds me of DRS in Formula One. They could easily have changed the regulations regarding wings etc. to make cars able to overtake, but after not doing anything for nearly two decades they come up this this ugly solution instead.

Edit - Would Apterous get this tweak?

Edit 2 - I don't think some sort of random pick would be too bad, but Rachel picking would not be good as far as I'm concerned.

David Williams wrote:

Countdown Team wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote: I've often thought that round 14 should be a random pick of 6 of the 24 numbers tiles.

Brilliant suggestion, and one we've rather stupidly, never ever thought of.

Consider it incorporated.

Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

Okay, as from 2013, Rd 14 , the 3rd numbers game will be selected by Rachel. That's for all shows from 2013 onwards.
Thanks Graeme. Really clever idea.

I may be being a bit dim here, but are you saying that Rachel makes a random pick from the 24, or that Rachel decides it's "three large", or whatever? I'm definitely being dim in that I can't remember the maths, but I think the trouble with a random pick is that it will be one large most of the time, six small quite often, and four large almost never. Alternatively Rachel could make a selection, but it has to be different to what either contestant has picked in the earlier rounds. In particular, where both contestants have gone for a nice, safe, one large, they'd be forced to try something more interesting.

Surely the most obvious "random pick", is a 1 in 5 chance of each selection.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Has the Countdown team contacted people individually (specifically those not part of the C4C/Apterous community) or is this just relying on contestants contacting Countdown?

To guess an answer at my own question, given that (I think) most of the contestants from the more distant past are from the Scrabble community, I think the Countdown team relied on contacting groups (such as Scrabble and C4C) rather than individuals. Possibly a bit of a shame because we might have got more past champions, but I can understand that contacting individuals would have been a lot of hard work.

I guess I don't see what problem this solves. I mean obviously one person picking twice to the other's once seems like a problem, but that person picking twice is either

(a) the challenger, who, in the implicit gameshow rules of making things fair and dramatic, could use a little tiny fraction-of-a-percentage advantages,

(b) the higher seed, who, despite this running in complete contrast to (a) above, earned it,

(c) losing by a lot so it doesn't matter anyway, or

(d) deservedly ahead and in my view should be allowed to consolidate this advantage by whatever they think is the best pick to do so.

Take Graeme v Carl, for example. That round 14 numbers pick can be VITAL. Not a big deal either way I suppose, but I just don't see the value in changing it. But if it is changed, then rather than have Rachel pick it, have it either randomly generated by computer, or just mix the large in with the small and take 6 random tiles.

The thing about mixing the tiles together and having 6 from the 24 is that the big numbers still need to be on the left when they're up on the board! I suppose Rachel could look at them first and shuffle them around.

James Robinson wrote:

Countdown Team wrote:Rd 14 - Rachel's pick - it alleviates the need for tossing, which, when considering the shortage of qualified optometrists in the UK, cannot be a bad thing.

So, what about the extra letters pick that the champion gets for round 13

You could start the show with R1 as the challenger's pick so that over the course of the game the challenger (by Mark's first bit of logic, typically the weaker player in heats) gets the microadvantage of +1 letters selections

Firstly, my reaction at Mr Team's response to my suggestion:



Glad you found it useful. Opinion seems to be much more mixed than I thought it would be, though.

Mark Deeks wrote:I guess I don't see what problem this solves. I mean obviously one person picking twice to the other's once seems like a problem, but that person picking twice is either

(a) the challenger, who, in the implicit gameshow rules of making things fair and dramatic, could use a little tiny fraction-of-a-percentage advantages,

I agree that if you're going to say to the established champion "the challenger is getting two numbers picks, so you have to work harder to stay in that chair", then that's fair if it's the same for everyone, but knockouts are different.

Mark Deeks wrote: (b) the higher seed, who, despite this running in complete contrast to (a) above, earned it,

You might take that view, but I don't see why they should be given an artificial advantage like two numbers picks. The higher seeds are already rewarded by being put against the lower seeds in the knockout stages, but only because there isn't really a fairer way of doing it.

Mark Deeks wrote: (c) losing by a lot so it doesn't matter anyway, or

Fair.

Mark Deeks wrote: (d) deservedly ahead and in my view should be allowed to consolidate this advantage by whatever they think is the best pick to do so.

An equally valid viewpoint is that the person ahead shouldn't be able to coast home on an easy one-large game, they should potentially have to work to keep their lead. It's not like it gives the player who's behind any real advantage over the player who's ahead - both players are getting the same numbers.

Mark Deeks wrote: Take Graeme v Carl, for example. That round 14 numbers pick can be VITAL.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention that. Yeah, that's a game I effectively won on a coin flip. As long as the change isn't applied retrospectively.

Mark Deeks wrote: Not a big deal either way I suppose, but I just don't see the value in changing it. But if it is changed, then rather than have Rachel pick it, have it either randomly generated by computer, or just mix the large in with the small and take 6 random tiles.

The way I envisaged it working was by picking 6 random tiles from the 24, without knowing which ones are large and which are small. Incidentally, this means you'll get 6 small 28% of the time, not sure about the probabilities of other selections. Some might think that's too much. You can mess about with the probabilities, make the chance of each selection 20% each or whatever else, but as long as it's random I can't see how it isn't fairer than how it works at the moment.

Andy Platt wrote:You could start the show with R1 as the challenger's pick so that over the course of the game the challenger (by Mark's first bit of logic, typically the weaker player in heats) gets the microadvantage of +1 letters selections

IMHO, picking an extra letters round isn't a significant advantage. It's quite rare that I pick vowel or consonant fishing for a particular word. Don't know if that's the same for other players though. Anyway, nowadays the person who picks the round also declares first, and there's a slight disadvantage to declaring first.

Er, I think (hope) 'Countdown Team' was being playfully sarcastic. It's an awful idea.

The numbers selection idea initially looked to solve the imbalance between 1 person picking once and the other picking twice, but it's clear now that it could actually create other issues. Thanks Graeme, but we'll stick to the current method. I'd not considered how it might put Rachel in an extremely awkward position with really close games.