c4countdown

Countdown recap for Thursday 10 September 2009.

C1: Champion Bob De Caux (1 win, 86 points.)
C2: Challenger Christopher Harris.
DC: Susie Dent and Kate Humble.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: S D T L E O E A E
R02: M S K O E I H T S
R03: D S P T E U A E S
R04: C N Y I O E N T N
R05: 7, 9, 10, 9, 1, 1. Target: 588.
TTT: AIMMERIT - "Say "I do" to the herb at sea, perhaps"
R06: T W Z U E R I X E
R07: T V L B O A I E N
R08: P R D J O I A R T
R09: H L S R E I A N I
R10: 25, 100, 9, 7, 9, 1. Target: 839.
TTT: THYCLAIM - "It's definitely a claim, but it's not really true"
R11: T C R D E I O E S
R12: L Q S C I E O P G
R13: R F G P U A O I D
R14: 75, 8, 10, 10, 5, 6. Target: 964.
R15: S H A R E D V E T (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: S D T L E O E A E

C1: LEASED (6)
C2: SLEETED (7)
DC: DESOLATE (8)
OT: TEASELED (8)
Score: 0–7 (max 8)

Round 2: M S K O E I H T S

C1: eskimos
C2: eskimos
DC: SMOKIEST (8)
Score: 0–7 (max 16)

Round 3: D S P T E U A E S

C1: PAUSED (6)
C2: SPADES (6)
DC: UPDATES (7) PESETAS (7) DEPUTES (7) SAUTEED (7)
OT: STEUPSED (8)
Score: 6–13 (max 24)

Round 4: C N Y I O E N T N

C1: NOTICE (6)
C2: TINNY (5)
DC: INNOCENT (8)
Score: 12–13 (max 32)

Round 5: 7, 9, 10, 9, 1, 1. Target: 588.

C1: 585. (9*7+1+1)*9 (7)
C2: 590. Mistake in working.
RR: 588. (7-1)*(9*10+9-1) (10)
Score: 19–13 (max 42)

Teatime teaser: AIMMERIT -> MARITIME

Round 6: T W Z U E R I X E

C1: WRITE (5)
C2: WRITE (5)
DC: EXERT (5)
OT: RETIE (5) TWEER (5) UTERI (5)
Score: 24–18 (max 47)

Round 7: T V L B O A I E N

C1: NOTABLE (7)
C2: BLOAT (5)
DC: BIVALENT (8)
OT: BLOVIATE (8)
Score: 31–18 (max 55)

Round 8: P R D J O I A R T

C1: RATIO (5)
C2: PAROTID (7)
OT: AIRDROP (7) AIRPORT (7)
Score: 31–25 (max 62)

Round 9: H L S R E I A N I

C1: HAIRLINES (18)
C2: HAIRLINES (18)
Score: 49–43 (max 80)

Round 10: 25, 100, 9, 7, 9, 1. Target: 839.

C1: 838. (100-7)*9+1 (7)
C2: 839. Mistake in working.
Score: 56–43 (max 87)

Teatime teaser: THYCLAIM -> MYTHICAL

Round 11: T C R D E I O E S

C1: CORSETED (8)
C2: CORSETED (8)
DC: RECITED (7) DISCREET (8)
OT: ESCORTED (8) COTERIES (8) ESOTERIC (8) DISCRETE (8)
Score: 64–51 (max 95)

Round 12: L Q S C I E O P G

C1: POLICES (7)
C2: COPIES (6)
Score: 71–51 (max 102)

Round 13: R F G P U A O I D

C1: GOPURA (6)
C2: GOURD (5)
DC: GIAOUR (6)
OT: FIGURA (6)
Score: 77–51 (max 108)

Round 14: 75, 8, 10, 10, 5, 6. Target: 964.

C1: 965. (8+5)*75-10 (7)
C2: -
OT: 964. (10+(10/5))*(75+6)-8 (10)
Score: 84–51 (max 118)

Round 15: S H A R E D V E T

C2 buzzes on 4 seconds to say HARVESTED which is correct.
Score: 84–61 (max 128)


Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=61

Note to Clive: first numbers game was late from Rachel.

I love Corby's subtle humour in these.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Note to Clive: first numbers game was late from Rachel.

A lost cause, I think, like my grammar.

I've just watched R5 again and it's a typical example of one of Rachel's biggest failings (IMO). When Rachel gives a late solution she stands there soaking up the applause as though she's done something good, whereas in the same situation Carol usually made it clear that the "achievement" had no merit and didn't deserve applause.

I think I've helped to demonstrate that, contrary to what many uninformed people have said outside this forum, Rachel's arithmetic is plenty good enough, but I don't see the point in using these summaries to make her look better than she really is.

Clive Brooker wrote:I don't see the point in using these summaries to make her look better than she really is.

ITYF that people just use the recap writer which doesn't offer any easy way to mark a solution as late, and that people generally don't care enough to add it manually. I'm not aware of a grand conspiracy to make Rachel look better than she is. Also,

Clive Brooker wrote:Carol usually made it clear that the "achievement" had no merit

What?

Thanks for taking the time, Charlie. As your know I did have a perfectly valid reason for wanting to know this information, but that's had its day and I don't really care any more.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Carol usually made it clear that the "achievement" had no merit

What?

Clumsily expressed, I admit. Typically, Carol would give her (late) solution, and as the applause started she would wave her arms saying "Out of time, no applause". I'm sure there'll be an instance somewhere in Countdowngoofs's collection but these things are remarkably hard to find when you're looking for them.

Clive Brooker wrote: Clumsily expressed, I admit. Typically, Carol would give her (late) solution, and as the applause started she would wave her arms saying "Out of time, no applause". I'm sure there'll be an instance somewhere in Countdowngoofs's collection but these things are remarkably hard to find when you're looking for them.

I know what you're referring to, I just don't agree that getting a solution late is necessarily worthless. I've seen both Carol and Rachel come up with solutions in the few minutes of adverts that would've taken me hours, and I think that's worthy of applause. Contestants can get applause for similar feats (e.g. Junaid in the Series 59 final) so it seems quite reasonable.

2nd Note to Clive: commiserations for falling out of the seedings for the finals.

Derek Hazell wrote:2nd Note to Clive: commiserations for falling out of the seedings for the finals.

You say that, but he was No.10, so he'd have still needed 2 more people to somehow not be there anyway.

Still, commiserations Clive.

Kieran Child wrote:I love Corby's subtle humour in these.

lol

Clive Brooker wrote:I've just watched R5 again and it's a typical example of one of Rachel's biggest failings (IMO). When Rachel gives a late solution she stands there soaking up the applause as though she's done something good, whereas in the same situation Carol usually made it clear that the "achievement" had no merit and didn't deserve applause.

I think Carol had been soaking up the late applause for 20 years before asking the audience to desist...