c4countdown

So, new week, new month, new contestants, and new DC guest. Quite a lot to cram in today

As you might've seen, Tracey has become the 2nd octochamp of the series, following her win over Wendy Cooke on Friday, which I'm sure Wendy will be delighted is being remembered more for Tracey's achievement, rather than anything else.........

So, we have 2 new players today, and also a new DC guest in former Chelsea, Southampton, Blackburn Rovers and England left-back turned pundit, Graeme Le Saux.

Join Andy for the recap later.

Also (sadly) new time, seeing as C4 are pushing Countdown even earlier in the schedules

I know it's highly unlikely to ever happen, but wouldn't it be great if Susie was able to solve a numbers game Rachel failed to get!

Surprised Graeme missed the GOALIE in round 7

Alt second numbers (75+(10/5))x9+3. Also beaters in R1 and R8 - I'll leave JR to tell those.

1st numbers alt:

(50-1) x (25-((9+6)/3))

Graeme also missed what fans of other clubs call Rachel's team in R8.........MANURE!

Rachel is so polite when they make 31 from 1 5 and 6 and not 36. I did it the way she showed.

4th numbers: (75+3)x(6+5+1)

Round 8 MAUNERSVE there was an 8 available that both DC and the contestants missed USERNAME

Could have had MANEUVERS for 9 without the American spelling rule.

Tony Atkins wrote:Alt second numbers (75+(10/5))x9+3. Also beaters in R1 and R8 - I'll leave JR to tell those.

BOURNE (ironically after Rod's BORNE) in round 1, and USERNAME as Tracey said in R8.

2nd Numbers Alt.: (75 x 10) - 50 - 9 + 5 = 696

Mark Kudlowski
1st numbers alt: (50-1) x (25-((9+6)/3))

Mark Kudlowski
4th numbers: (75+3)x(6+5+1)

James Robinson
2nd Numbers Alt.: (75 x 10) - 50 - 9 + 5 = 696

Damn!! All my methods! I will really have to start trying to be here when the programme's actually on

Tony Atkins wrote:Rachel is so polite when they make 31 from 1 5 and 6 and not 36. I did it the way she showed.

Hmmm, sorry Tony but I just find that really annoying when she doesn't do that. Who would actually be offended if she did?
From the post above, I didn't do it that way (with 6 squared anyway), but would still have mentioned it if I'd been RR - which I'm not, ha ha

TBF it may be that she doesn't see it because she's not sitting there comfortably analysing it all like we are. She's writing up their method, checking calculations, checking they haven't used all the numbers, while chatting and presenting to camera as well. It just may be that if she hasn't gone that way herself, she's not going to spot it because she's got too much else going on.

Or, it may not, I have no idea, she may actually just not want to draw attention to their misses. But I think people shouldn't underestimate the effort in presenting.

Jon Corby wrote:TBF it may be that she doesn't see it because she's not sitting there comfortably analysing it all like we are. She's writing up their method, checking calculations, checking they haven't used all the numbers, while chatting and presenting to camera as well. It just may be that if she hasn't gone that way herself, she's not going to spot it because she's got too much else going on.

Or, it may not, I have no idea, she may actually just not want to draw attention to their misses. But I think people shouldn't underestimate the effort in presenting.

Point proven on Thursday 5th when she said she didn't see an easy solution involving a 75 x (7 + 3). I won't be annoyed anymore then