c4countdown

Apterite Jonny Rye's gotten two solid wins so far. Will he get number three? Another hurdle is in his way today, in the form of apterite George Pryn. It'll keep the apterite winning streak alive regardless, let's see which one will succeed.

Join James for the recap later.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

THERE ARE NO LOVEY FACE SMILIES WHAT DO I DO ...........

DEUTERON for a beater in r1
VALERATE in r4

Round 6 = this

#teamgeorge

WASHDAY and HEADWAY (ul) very strong - beat me there!

PERCOIDS for beater in r 12 (I think)

Paul Erdunast wrote:PERCOIDS for beater in r 12 (I think)

Yeah PERCOIDS is fine.



I do wish the dictionary was clearer on pluralisation though, can see HEADWAYS^ kicking up a fuss here...

Brutal way for Jonny to lose. I can't complain about George winning as he did have excellent spots, but assuming both would've gotten final number, it was the difference. Very unlucky to Jonny, I feel like I should look more into HEADWAYS to get a sense of it's sense as a mass noun or not.

Round 7 alt 7 - "guardo Countdown nel mio SALOTTO". Unusually not in CSW but OK in Oxford

Mauro

I KNOW I MISSED LOADS BUT WAS SUCH A GREAT GAME YAY

true headways was a shame, but then I did play it safe in the numbers round and wasn't even looking in the conundrum as too happy, so although it may be controversial I don't think you can firmly say that if it was allowed Jonny would've won, because that's a different universe

Re: George's Point, It's tough because it was early enough where you could've picked 4L instead of 1L to sway the score in your favor, but at the same time we never know if you both would've gotten the 4L or not. Not an easy call to make in a case like this on whether Jonny should be brought back. Me, as Jordan F, would say if there is a major doubt based on HEADWAYS, I would play it safe and bring Jonny back in a future series, but to me it all depends on how clear or unclear the definition is. I don't really know enough about Countdown's exact rules, or lexicography/linguistics to say for sure.

HEADWAYS should be in, get a new dictionary!

Jonny has to be given another go.

Anyway good game, well done George.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:DEUTERON for a beater in r1
VALERATE in r4

Round 6 = this

#teamgeorge

lmao that video!!!!!!!! thx jen!!!!!!!!! thx everyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would say that disallowing HEADWAYS was definitely an error. The second definition is not listed as a mass noun, nor could be interpreted as a mass noun from the definition. Basically it says:

NOUN

1. Mass noun - DEFINITION

2. DEFINITION

The mass noun label only applies to the first definition. That and the fact that it finds HEADWAYS if you use the search bar all point to an error. So when you look at the score difference, I would definitely say that Jonny should be allowed back. But that's not to take anything away from George's performance. He played very well and as said the last numbers might have been different in a closer game.

Gavin Chipper wrote:the fact that it finds HEADWAYS if you use the search bar

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I can't see it in the search bar.

Anyway, a fine game, and the controversy is no reflection on George's performance - still a deserving winner, even if Jonny is an undeserving loser.

Disallowing HEADWAYS looks controversial to me. The ODO gives the second definition as:

2. The average interval between trains or buses on a regular service:
a six-minute headway

As well as not having a mass noun tag, it also sounds like you can have different headways for different trains and buses. Very unlucky, Jonny.

Still, as others have said, we can't be sure if it would have changed the outcome due to other factors. Very good debut performance, George! Loved the four large solve.

Ooh, that reminds me - is anyone else having trouble with the Crossword Tools solver site? It just seems to freeze when trying to solve anything. Bit like me, actually.

THANKS EVERYONE SO LOVELY ALL OF YOU ESPECIALLY ME

Fred Mumford wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:the fact that it finds HEADWAYS if you use the search bar

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I can't see it in the search bar.

It doesn't come up as a suggestion for you to click on, but if you type it in and press enter, it will find the entry for HEADWAY. That's a bit weird actually. It seems that we have yet another tier of existence. We have headwords, derivative words that are explicitly listed in the entry, derivative words that come up as a clickable link when you type them in, and derivative words that don't come up as a clickable link but where it still finds the relevant entry when you press enter.

Jack Worsley wrote:Disallowing HEADWAYS looks controversial to me.

Controversial, otherwise known as wrong.

What to do in the HEADWAYS round is a variant on question 4 in Graeme's You Are The Ref thread. And judging by the answers given by seemingly most people, including all of the first five respondents, picking one-large and then having an earlier round overturned should not void the one-large selection. So by this logic, George should have his win taken from him! (I didn't answer that way though.) It would be interesting to know what these people think should happen if they decided it was an error immediately after the game finished - so before George played his second game. Logically, they should answer that Jonny should carry on as champion and George should go home as the loser.

Appendix I - Question 4

4. C2 is 15 points behind going into the last numbers round. He asks for 6 small in the hope of getting a difficult round on which he can beat C1. The round is difficult, but C1 gets it spot on and C2 doesn't. C2 is now 25 behind. Then, just before you go into the conundrum, DC informs you that a mistake has been discovered in an earlier round in which C1 offered an eight and C2 offered a nine. C2's nine was disallowed, but on closer inspection of the dictionary the word has been found to be acceptable. The scores are corrected: C1 has 8 points taken away, and C2 is given 18 points. C2 is now one point ahead. C2 now complains that had he known he was 11 ahead going into the last numbers, he would have picked 1 large, not 6 small, and claims the numbers round should be replayed. C1, who is now behind going into a conundrum when he thought he was unassailably ahead, says C2 is pushing his luck. What do you do?

this is all very silly, jonny would probably be invited back anyway and you cannot definitively say that if headways was allowed he would have won, it's a completely different situation.

I couldve had an adrenaline run and got the conundrum

I couldve broken down and had a fit and died

I couldve picked 4 L and then go blank

we will never know, because it didn't happen.

Unlucky to Jonny of course, but it's happened now and everyone gets invited back at some point so there's no need for all of this uproar, if anyone's to blame, it's the ODO not susie, as headways isn't found in the searchbar and even though it directs you headways isn't in a single example sentence. A paper dictionary would've been much clearer on the matter.

Now, back to the positivty, YAY ME

Have to agree that disallowing HEADWAYS was a bad call. In other cases, if a mass noun tag is intended to apply to an entire entry, it appears before the first definition and not within it. Hope to see Jonny invited back. Though of course that shouldn't take anything away from George's victory - a very calm and solid performance that bodes well for future game(s).

Innis Carson wrote: In other cases, if a mass noun tag is intended to apply to an entire entry, it appears before the first definition and not within it.

Can you give an example where this is the case? I should be able to think of a few myself but for some reason, I can't.

Jack Worsley wrote:

Innis Carson wrote: In other cases, if a mass noun tag is intended to apply to an entire entry, it appears before the first definition and not within it.

Can you give an example where this is the case? I should be able to think of a few myself but for some reason, I can't.

I had a go at finding some and I've found PUNK, ROCK and RHYTHM as examples.

are you sure headways is even a word? trains and buses have different headway? I'm struggling to see when headways would be used...

Definition 2 of POVERTY seems to be covered by the [mass noun] label at the top of the entry - the search bar doesn't recognise 'poverties' and no other plural is suggested.

The fact that they put a [count noun] tag on definition 2 of FIRE suggests that they think it would otherwise be covered by the [mass noun] tag at the top of the entry.

RUBBER is an analogous situation to HEADWAY, with the [mass noun] tag appearing within definition 1, but nobody would suggest that definitions 2 and 4 are mass nouns too.

it's like pluralising mean in the average-sense

George Pryn wrote:it's like pluralising mean in the average-sense

That's more clear cut though as MEAN doesn't have a mass noun sense.

Jack Worsley wrote:

George Pryn wrote:it's like pluralising mean in the average-sense

That's more clear cut though as MEAN doesn't have a mass noun sense.

actually means in that sense is weird because if you search for mean you get the average meaning as another type without a mass noun label but if you searh means there is no mention of the average anywhere

Congratulations on the win, George!

Gavin Chipper wrote:It seems that we have yet another tier of existence.

This is no time for philosophy.

But FWIW, I agree with the posts so far: by my reading of the dictionary, HEADWAYS should have been allowed.

If the [MASS NOUN] tag is supposed to apply to every item in the numbered list, it looks like this, the [MASS NOUN] tag comes before the first number.

If the [MASS NOUN] tag appears after a number, it only applies to that number. For example, consider the entry for rubber. Just because sense 1 of the noun (the material) is marked as a mass noun and sense 2 (the eraser) isn't marked as a count noun, that doesn't mean you can't have two rubbers in your pencil case. (Dammit Innis you've made exactly the same point in the time it took me to find better examples but I'm buggered if I'm rejigging this post now.)

It's not by any means certain that Jonny would definitely have won had HEADWAYS been allowed, so it would be unfair to reverse the result, but it's certainly possible, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him turn up again next year.

I think we're largely in agreement in this thread, and I think this discussion just goes to show that in general, if someone needs any dispute resolved, then they should seek out a C4Cer.

Graeme Cole wrote:It's not by any means certain that Jonny would definitely have won had HEADWAYS been allowed, so it would be unfair to reverse the result

Yes. This is consistent with what you said in the You Are the Ref thread. However, Jack and Innis are on shakier ground if they agree with you! Well, obviously in reality the game wasn't actually played today so other games have been recorded since, but as I said earlier, it would be possible for them to have noticed the mistake immediately after the game finished. Would reversing the incorrect decision in such a case be any different from doing so just before the conundrum? Take this example:

In some early round C1 has a nine incorrectly disallowed and C2 scores with his seven. Going into the conundrum, C2 has an 11-point lead. So the game is effectively over. C2 is guaranteed to win. But then the mistake is realised, and the scores are adjusted accordingly. C1 now has a 14-point lead and is guaranteed to win! What should happen now? In a case like this, is reversing the decision before the conundrum any different from reversing it after the conundrum?

1. What should have happened with today's game if the mistake was noticed immediately after the conundrum?
2. What should have happened with today's game if the mistake had been noticed earlier? Does it matter at what point earlier?
3. What should happen in my hypothetical example above? Do the scores make a difference to what should happen?
4. Does any of this affect your answer to question 4 here?

But just in case there is any doubt, YAY GEORGE, YAY GEORGE! WELL DONE ON YOUR WIN!!!

Jonny posted some comments on Apterous that he wanted to be posted on his behalf on the forum:

"I’d just like to say that I feel no “sense of injustice” in my defeat, that game was there for the taking and I would have put myself in a much better position to win if I hadn’t blanked a round, or missed words like RELEVANT, POTATOES, or INFUSERS. If I had spotted one or more of those I may not have had to have taken a risk on headways. Also, with the game in the balance, George almost certainly goes 4L in R14 and with his far superior numbers skills would probably beat me to the target, but that of course is purely hypothetical…

It's like when a football team is losing 3-1 and they have a penalty denied by the ref, only to score in the 90th minute and end-up losing 3-2, then feeling reaaly angry at the ref that he cost them the game when they completely forgot they let 3 goals in in the first place

Anyway, I've made my peace,if those comments could make themsleves onto the forum that would be great

peace x"

Great guy, thanks for that!

Rye via Steadman wrote:"I’d just like to say that I feel no “sense of injustice” in my defeat

But what about your mum?

Rye via Steadman wrote:far superior numbers skills

Laudably modest - maxed every numbers game didn't you? Very impressive for someone who didn't know 7 x 5 =35.

Lets just congratulate George on a well played game. You can only play to the conditions on the day. It's not like he objected to the word being allowed. Jonny has said he holds no grudge.

mark b davies wrote:Lets just congratulate George on a well played game. You can only play to the conditions on the day. It's not like he objected to the word being allowed. Jonny has said he holds no grudge.

Yes, there's no doubt that both players played very well, and both performances would have won against most contestants, and also that Jonny has taken this very well. And that's all very good and everything, but this sort of discussion isn't intended to be in any way "nasty" or to detract from anyone's performance. I think when "controversial" incidents happen, they tend to lead to the most interesting discussion that this forum has. As can be seen by Graeme's thread.

Gavin I have no problem with the discussion on here. That is great and the right forum for it but the players on the day have no influence over how Susie interprets things. I hope Jonny gets another chance as he seemed an excellent player and George goes on from here.

mark b davies wrote:Gavin I have no problem with the discussion on here. That is great and the right forum for it but the players on the day have no influence over how Susie interprets things. I hope Jonny gets another chance as he seemed an excellent player and George goes on from here.

With no definitive wordlist available it's all down to Susie's interpretation of the definition. Sadly this varies from series to series. I do find the ODO definitions very ambigous and open to misinterpretaion.

The word BABYCINO appeared in a teatime teaser recently. Other than ODO can't find it anywhere

Mauro

szodiac wrote:

mark b davies wrote:Gavin I have no problem with the discussion on here. That is great and the right forum for it but the players on the day have no influence over how Susie interprets things. I hope Jonny gets another chance as he seemed an excellent player and George goes on from here.

With no definitive wordlist available it's all down to Susie's interpretation of the definition. Sadly this varies from series to series. I do find the ODO definitions very ambigous and open to misinterpretaion.

The word BABYCINO appeared in a teatime teaser recently. Other than ODO can't find it anywhere

Mauro

The ODO is trying to be hip and trendy but is coming across as being bloody ridiculous but WHATEV.

Jojo Apollo wrote:

szodiac wrote:

mark b davies wrote:Gavin I have no problem with the discussion on here. That is great and the right forum for it but the players on the day have no influence over how Susie interprets things. I hope Jonny gets another chance as he seemed an excellent player and George goes on from here.

With no definitive wordlist available it's all down to Susie's interpretation of the definition. Sadly this varies from series to series. I do find the ODO definitions very ambigous and open to misinterpretaion.

The word BABYCINO appeared in a teatime teaser recently. Other than ODO can't find it anywhere

Mauro

The ODO is trying to be hip and trendy but is coming across as being bloody ridiculous but WHATEV.

hahaha Jojo

Apparently Jonny will be invited back next series. (link for those of you who can read the apterous chat logs)

Innis Carson wrote:Apparently Jonny will be invited back next series. (link for those of you who can read the apterous chat logs)

It's interesting that he says he'll start again rather than carry anything forward (either one or even two wins).

Innis Carson wrote:Apparently Jonny will be invited back next series. (link for those of you who can read the apterous chat logs)

AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was Susie's plan all along, she loved us both so dearly that she couldn't bear to watch one of us have our Countdown careers come to an end

Will be great to watch you again in Series 72 Jonny!!!! You'll be some tough finals competition for Tracey!!!!

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's interesting that he says he'll start again rather than carry anything forward (either one or even two wins).

John said he would've won so will start again, so it is SLIGHTLY unclear as to if he'll start with 0, 2 or 3 wins... As it's seen as a mistake I guess the mistake would stand for that game, so he'd start on 2 wins rather than the moral 3. I think this happened before (?) where a contestant was invited back because of SAUTEE being allowed at some point to his opponent, and if that didn't happen he would've won, so he started on the wins he'd achieved prior to that game, rather than including it, OR I'VE imagined this and he started again on 0 wins.

They could easily start him again on 0, but my guess is that he'll continue from the 2 that he had already won.

Either way, good luck Jonny

Right yes. I probably meant two or three wins rather than one or two.

I just had a look at the Ask Graeme thread, and it seems that some people have been allowed to continue their runs rather than start again. But I don't think there's "proof" in terms of someone that came back to continue their run in a later series and made the knockout stages with a seeding based on both parts of the run.