c4countdown

It's the final quarter-final today, and in an interesting sub-plot, we'll also find out who the true champion of 2014 is, as the champions of both those series go head-to-head today for the right to play Jen Steadman in Thursday's 2nd semi-final.

Representing Series 71 is Dan McColm, and representing Series 70 is Mark Murray. Who will win out of these 2 giants of Countdown

Statistics Corner:

Firstly, Series 71 Champion Dan "The Kineton Kolossus" McColm - 12 Games, 12 Wins, 1,397 Points. (Average: 116.42)
Highest Score: 137 vs. Harry Jarrett (6th Game)
Lowest Score: 92 vs. Ben Hodgson (2nd Game)
9's Achieved: 5/6
Total Points/Max/%: 1397/1521 (92%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 864/927 (93%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 433/474 (91%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 100/120 (83%)

Secondly, Series 70 Champion Mark "The Bristol Bombardier" Murray - 12 Games, 12 Wins, 1,316 Points. (Average: 109.67)
Highest Score: 125 vs. Antoinette Ryan (CoC Preliminary)
Lowest Score: 89 vs. Neil Green (Semi-Final)
9's Achieved: 9/11
Total Points/Max/%: 1316/1589 (83%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 830/995 (83%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 406/474 (86%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 80/120 (67%)

Join Jen for the recap later.

R3: ((75 - (50 / 25)) x 8) + (100 x 3)

You'd think Rachel could put the words on the letters board right!

What are WIERDOS?!

Zarte Siempre wrote:You'd think Rachel could put the words on the letters board right!

What are WIERDOS?!

Heh noticed that too.

Well done chaps, good spirited game.

I'm really tired with lack of sleep so very up and down with numbers games today. I did get 884 in the end for R3 after having another look later on...

100*3*75=22,500
50*8=400
22,500-400=22,100
22,100/25=884

Excellent solve from RR in R14, even though it was late. Very hard to get in 30 seconds. Would have taken me at least 2 mins.

I got my first nine in the time in R7 today too!


Well done to Mark and Dan! Excellent close game there.

Another precisely (clue AND scramble) repeated Teatime Teaser today -- the second one was used before. I thought it seemed oddly familiar.

I saw REPOURING and decided it was bollocks. When Dan declared 9, I instantly knew it would be good though, and decided he was DEFINITELY trying to throw Mark off declaring it too by being all "ooh, I really don't know, it's so risky" shit. Anyone else get that?

Jon Corby wrote:I saw REPOURING and decided it was bollocks. When Dan declared 9, I instantly knew it would be good though, and decided he was DEFINITELY trying to throw Mark off declaring it too by being all "ooh, I really don't know, it's so risky" shit. Anyone else get that?

Dunno, but I did think of you when this came up. Is this acceptable: someone sees REPOURING and dismisses it so doesn't write it down. Then their opponent declares nine, so they decide to declare a nine not written down. I know you think they should always be written down, but here while they haven't written it down, it's not because they didn't have enough time or because they saw it afterwards. They saw it in the time, dismissed it, but then changed their mind after the time based on their opponent's declaration.

I also saw it and decided it was probably bollocks but wrote it down anyway so I gave myself the points without the need for a Corby ruling.

Jon Corby wrote:I saw REPOURING and decided it was bollocks. When Dan declared 9, I instantly knew it would be good though, and decided he was DEFINITELY trying to throw Mark off declaring it too by being all "ooh, I really don't know, it's so risky" shit. Anyone else get that?

I knew that there were loads of RE- words added in the new update, was only about 70% sure of REPOURING. Was a last second decision to go for it as well.

REPOURING is a new entry to the dictionary which is why Dan and Mark weren't sure. It was a good risk though - those sort of silly but half-reasonable words are mostly now in...

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I saw REPOURING and decided it was bollocks. When Dan declared 9, I instantly knew it would be good though, and decided he was DEFINITELY trying to throw Mark off declaring it too by being all "ooh, I really don't know, it's so risky" shit. Anyone else get that?

Dunno, but I did think of you when this came up. Is this acceptable: someone sees REPOURING and dismisses it so doesn't write it down. Then their opponent declares nine, so they decide to declare a nine not written down. I know you think they should always be written down, but here while they haven't written it down, it's not because they didn't have enough time or because they saw it afterwards. They saw it in the time, dismissed it, but then changed their mind after the time based on their opponent's declaration.

I also saw it and decided it was probably bollocks but wrote it down anyway so I gave myself the points without the need for a Corby ruling.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. It shouldn't be okay, but only because you should write all words down. And if that was the ruling, you probably would write it down anyway, just in case. But yeah, it's obviously fine to go for a nine you've spotted in the time, even if you didn't fancy it until you heard your opponent declare nine.

Dan McColm wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I saw REPOURING and decided it was bollocks. When Dan declared 9, I instantly knew it would be good though, and decided he was DEFINITELY trying to throw Mark off declaring it too by being all "ooh, I really don't know, it's so risky" shit. Anyone else get that?

I knew that there were loads of RE- words added in the new update, was only about 70% sure of REPOURING. Was a last second decision to go for it as well.

Fair enough