Spoilers For Monday October 19th 2009

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:36 pm

Well, the weekend is over and a former Countdown champ becomes Scrabble champ (see Off-Topic for more info), us lot get to see if John Drinkwater can carry on his century grabbing form and defeat his opponent today. (It has been a long while since someone got a century before John got his on Friday. (I think the last one was Chris Davies on his last show!))

Lesley Garrett returns to DC after a 3 year gap as well.

Enjoy.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:43 pm

MENISCUS for an equaliser in R2

Chris Philpot · Post by **Chris Philpot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Is the challenger on for a max game so far? Either way, he's very good...!!

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:50 pm

DEXTROSE for an equalliser in whatever that round was!

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:51 pm

Chris Philpot wrote:Is the challenger on for a max game so far? Either way, he's very good...!!

Did he get an 8 in the PECULIAR round...or only 7?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:52 pm

Chris Philpot wrote:Is the challenger on for a max game so far?

No - he missed PECULIAR. This is certainly turning into a trouncing though - it took until round 9 for the champion to score in a letters round.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:54 pm

DEXTROSE for an equaliser in R8

+ Sue - It was only 7 in the PECULIAR Round - OOps! our posts crossed.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Is this challenger an apterous player?

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:57 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:Is this challenger an apterous player?

Don't recognise him Sue - He must be a Scrabbler.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:58 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:DEXTROSE for an equaliser in R8

+ Sue - It was only 7 in the PECULIAR Round - OOps! our posts crossed.

Hi Allan - so they did, and I'm glad someone can keep a tally on the simple matter of which round we're on!

Chris Philpot · Post by **Chris Philpot** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:59 pm

I was hoping for a final W in round 11 so that we might have had WANKERED.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:02 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:Is this challenger an apterous player?
Don't recognise him Sue - He must be a Scrabbler.

He could just be...God forbid....an ordinary Joe Bloke!

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:05 pm

Chris Philpot wrote:I was hoping for a final W in round 11 so that we might have had WANKERED.

Yes, it would be nice if we could all get WANKERED together!

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:06 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:Is this challenger an apterous player?
Don't recognise him Sue - He must be a Scrabbler.

Nope, don't recognise him.

R14 alt: (6*6+25)*10+4

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:13 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:
Chris Philpot wrote:I was hoping for a final W in round 11 so that we might have had WANKERED.
Yes, it would be nice if we could all get WANKERED together!

Haha - Good idea Sue. You can't beat it!

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:15 pm

Best game of countdown I have seen in a long time.

The challenger was awesome. I was playing along at hyome and manage to come from 13 behind in the last two rounds to win 109-102, I was well chuffed.

What was his name?

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:15 pm

Ben Wilson wrote:
Allan Harmer wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:Is this challenger an apterous player?
Don't recognise him Sue - He must be a Scrabbler.
Nope, don't recognise him.

R14 alt: (6*6+25)*10+4

In that case very well done - That was a fantastic performance for a 'Joe Public'

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:15 pm

Round 13 beater PRESEASON for 9. I was shouting for that final S too.

By round 12 we were drawing 94-94. I thought I'd go into the lead with EXTRADOS at one point but he got it too. Thanks to that 9, the last numbers (Rachel + Ben's way) and the conundrum I managed to win 132-94 but I was worried I'd lose yet another game this series watching from home. The challenger looks octochamp material - pure class.

Did anyone notice in round 13 he offered PERSONAE and Rachel displayed PERSONAS? (PERSONAS + PERSONAE = PRESEASON - it came up in one of Conor's games).

Can't wait to watch the rest of the week's shows now.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:16 pm

JackHurst wrote:
What was his name?

Brian Selway - not an apterite.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:21 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
JackHurst wrote:What was his name?
Brian Selway - not an apterite.

Or the first pseudonymous Apterite?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:22 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:Brian Selway - not an apterite.
Or the first pseudonymous Apterite?

Or the seventeenth.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:23 pm

Also, did anyone notice they were in a different studio today? The audience background was black and not white, as usual.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:09 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Also, did anyone notice they were in a different studio today? The audience background was black and not white, as usual.

There was also an odd view on the conundrum; the two pillary thingies were clearly visible.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:15 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote: There was also an odd view on the conundrum; the two pillary thingies were clearly visible.

I thought it looked odd but couldn't see what was different.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:26 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Round 13 beater PRESEASON for 9. I was shouting for that final S too.

I got PRESEASON but thought it might have been hyphenated - was very pleased when I checked that it wasn't.

I can't remember the last time I saw a player that good who wasn't an Apterous player.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:51 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Also, did anyone notice they were in a different studio today? The audience background was black and not white, as usual.

That's been the case the last several times they've gone to the audience for the conundrum. It doesn't necessarily mean they were in a different studio - it could just be that they've changed the lighting on the cyclorama.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:53 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
I can't remember the last time I saw a player that good who wasn't an Apterous player.

Actually I've just found out that Brian is on apterous under the pseudonym Scott Phillips.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Darren Carter wrote:I can't remember the last time I saw a player that good who wasn't an Apterous player.
Actually I've just found out that Brian is on apterous under the pseudonym Scott Phillips.

I don't like him already. What is this current penchant for playing under pseudonyms? I can more than understand it for Rachel, I can partially understand it for Damian, but I don't understand at all why someone called Brian Selway who none of us have ever heard of would play under another name none of us have ever heard of?

The only reason I can think of would be to stop Damian being able to do apterous-based research on you when you apply for the show, but quite how this would be an advantage I have no idea - if anything then Damian underestimating your ability is just going to mean you're more likely to get put up against an elite player in your potential octorun than you otherwise would?

This bewilders me, someone help.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:24 pm

Matt Morrison wrote: I don't like him already. What is this current penchant for playing under pseudonyms? I can more than understand it for Rachel, I can partially understand it for Damian, but I don't understand at all why someone called Brian Selway who none of us have ever heard of would play under another name none of us have ever heard of?

The only reason I can think of would be to stop Damian being able to do apterous-based research on you when you apply for the show, but quite how this would be an advantage I have no idea - if anything then Damian underestimating your ability is just going to mean you're more likely to get put up against an elite player in your potential octorun than you otherwise would?

This bewilders me, someone help.

a) I was joking.
b) Pseudonyms are good as your potential opponents won't find out about your strengths/weaknesses. Junaid Mubeen used a pseudonym to practise on apterous and nobody knew it was him. Suppose Brian signed up with his normal name then went on the show and aced it. Any potential player who is good and wanted to beat him could look back through his games and see which words he misses regularly, what his favourite numbers choice is and so on. Having a pseudonym right from the offset can be a good thing.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:41 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote: b) Pseudonyms are good as your potential opponents won't find out about your strengths/weaknesses. Junaid Mubeen used a pseudonym to practise on apterous and nobody knew it was him. Suppose Brian signed up with his normal name then went on the show and aced it. Any potential player who is good and wanted to beat him could look back through his games and see which words he misses regularly, what his favourite numbers choice is and so on. Having a pseudonym right from the offset can be a good thing.

I must admit, I did look at quite a few of Burgin's numbers games to see his weak points (seemed to be 6 small, so I practised them) as I knew there was a possibility we would have played each other. Not that it did any good mind.......!

Jeffrey Burgin · Post by **Jeffrey Burgin** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:53 pm

Darren Carter wrote: I must admit, I did look at quite a few of Burgin's numbers games to see his weak points (seemed to be 6 small, so I practised them) as I knew there was a possibility we would have played each other. Not that it did any good mind.......!

That, and the fact I explicitly told you I hated six small.

I thought the quarters would already be of an unbelievably high standard with Innis, Andrew, Chris and in all probability Oliver as well, but this fella looks like he could be a real wildcard. Some incredible spots today- would be an amazing achievement if he does go through the card and ends up at a standard similar to the aforementioned big guns.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Pseudonyms are good as your potential opponents won't find out about your strengths/weaknesses. Junaid Mubeen used a pseudonym to practise on apterous and nobody knew it was him. Suppose Brian signed up with his normal name then went on the show and aced it. Any potential player who is good and wanted to beat him could look back through his games and see which words he misses regularly, what his favourite numbers choice is and so on. Having a pseudonym right from the offset can be a good thing.

apterous has killed Countdown

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:03 pm

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
Darren Carter wrote: I thought the quarters would already be of an unbelievably high standard with Innis, Andrew, Chris and in all probability Oliver as well, but this fella looks like he could be a real wildcard. Some incredible spots today- would be an amazing achievement if he does go through the card and ends up at a standard similar to the aforementioned big guns.

Word on the grapevine is that Oliver might not be in this Series. By the way, I can honestly see this guy being your QF opponent at the finals.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:14 pm

I can partially understand it for Damian,

Well, i play for leisure, and to enjoy a challenge, i don't really play when at work and can't do the conundrums because i set them. That pleasure is often spoiled when i get an opponent who says things like, can i get tickets, who is in the corner next week, can i reapply, if not why not, did the current champ win 8 games, when are you coming to London, have u received my form...... etc etc etc. 10 mins later we get around to starting the game.

Plus i feel at liberty to tell someone to 'do one' without ramifications.

Easy really.

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:48 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
Darren Carter wrote: I thought the quarters would already be of an unbelievably high standard with Innis, Andrew, Chris and in all probability Oliver as well, but this fella looks like he could be a real wildcard. Some incredible spots today- would be an amazing achievement if he does go through the card and ends up at a standard similar to the aforementioned big guns.
Word on the grapevine is that Oliver might not be in this Series. By the way, I can honestly see this guy being your QF opponent at the finals.

Confirmed - Changed recording date to the 7th December.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:55 pm

Oliver Garner wrote: Confirmed - Changed recording date to the 7th December.

*Cue the 'seperating good players' debate again*

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:13 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Also, did anyone notice they were in a different studio today? The audience background was black and not white, as usual.

Kirk, the background was black last week!

Kai Laddiman wrote:There was also an odd view on the conundrum; the two pillary thingies were clearly visible.

I thought that was a slightly obvious clue for the conundrum, personally!

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:17 pm

NOUGATS for Round 12.

Alternative for 3rd numbers:

6 x 3 = 18

18 + 6 = 24

24 x 25 = 600

600 + 10 + 4 = 614

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:18 pm

Question for football fans. We were watching the Leeds vs Norwich game at the pub and after I noticed Jeff Stelling in some commentary/discussion studio with a couple of other blokes. As I don't follow football where is this recorded? Jeff has been recording Countdown today in Manchester then had to record this football thing in the evening and then is back recording Countdown tomorrow. That's one long day Jeff has had at work today. Did he have to travel to Leeds or is it recorded somewhere in Manchester. Someone suggested it's in London somewhere but that would mean he'd have had to sped down after recordings, record the football thing then come back up in the morning for more Countdown. Any suggestions?

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:47 pm

Where's my 4od

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:24 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:Question for football fans. We were watching the Leeds vs Norwich game at the pub and after I noticed Jeff Stelling in some commentary/discussion studio with a couple of other blokes. As I don't follow football where is this recorded? Jeff has been recording Countdown today in Manchester then had to record this football thing in the evening and then is back recording Countdown tomorrow. That's one long day Jeff has had at work today. Did he have to travel to Leeds or is it recorded somewhere in Manchester. Someone suggested it's in London somewhere but that would mean he'd have had to sped down after recordings, record the football thing then come back up in the morning for more Countdown. Any suggestions?

How many had you had?
The 'Times of our lives' show, after the football, is recorded and isn't connected to the Leeds v Norwich game. They bring back old players from classic teams down the years, then spend about 1hr talking over the glory days. It's incredibly watchable even though there are no football clips shown.

Edit it add, Kirk can't possibly reply to this today because he's in studio watching the recordings, sporting a new fuzzy hairdo.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:59 am

To add to the Jeff's Journeys theme, is he still living in Winchester?

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:06 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:Is this challenger an apterous player?
Don't recognise him Sue - He must be a Scrabbler.

Why? Hamish was neither - and scored 134 among others and made the playoffs.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:10 pm

Davy Affleck wrote:Why? Hamish was neither - and scored 134 among others and made the playoffs.

But this guy is good. Hamish was just flamboyant.

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:29 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Davy Affleck wrote:Why? Hamish was neither - and scored 134 among others and made the playoffs.
But this guy is good. Hamish was just flamboyant.

Do you need to be the equivalent of a scratch golfer on apterous or Scrabble to be good?

James Hurrell · Post by **James Hurrell** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:35 pm

James Robinson wrote:NOUGATS for Round 12.

Is NOUGATS in then? Was convinced it was mass noun. Means, for what it's worth, I scraped a draw. A long way to go, I know, but this could make the series finals even more interesting than it already is!

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:52 pm

James Hurrell wrote:
James Robinson wrote:NOUGATS for Round 12.
Is NOUGATS in then? Was convinced it was mass noun. Means, for what it's worth, I scraped a draw. A long way to go, I know, but this could make the series finals even more interesting than it already is!

I must admit I wasn't too sure, but I checked the recap to make sure and it's legit.

Rufus Frog · Post by **Rufus Frog** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:05 pm

(Watching a day behind at the moment)

A question for the geeky statistics-obsessed among you: Was this the biggest score drop ever from one show to the next?

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:18 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:Where's my 4od

Grrr, yes - today (Tuesday) it still seems to be running a day behind, so have just caught up with this show

But now I've seen it ... yes, quite a debut, despite his being a Dr Who nut. No Brian jokes please.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:22 pm

Brian Moore wrote:No Brian jokes please.

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:25 pm

I'm Brian and so's my wife .

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:02 am

And before anyone else gets there ...