c4countdown

Well, can Oliver win his 9th show today? No, because he had to retire yesterday, so we won't be seeing him today.

Instead, we'll have 2 new challengers eager to try and match the early high standards set by Oliver.

By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retire Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters. Just a thought.

They really need to shuffle this pack. Those 3 Ns have stayed together for a few shows now.

Kirk Bevins wrote:They really need to shuffle this pack. Those 3 Ns have stayed together for a few shows now.

COUNTDOWN IN CRISIS

James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.

Surely.

John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.

Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.

Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?

Edit: get rid of that Coors bit out of your post again

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.

Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?

Edit: get rid of that Coors bit out of your post again

I thought that was Marc Almonds.

Jon Corby wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:John Stapleton's nicked Donna Air(head)'s anecdote.

Not the one about drinking the contents of a condom?

Edit: get rid of that Coors bit out of your post again

Sorry Jon.

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.

Surely.

I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.

What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters.

Surely.

I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.

You need to take into account that there are 15 rounds per show.

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Good question. At least 5 and probably higher.

(25*7+9)*4+7*5, round 10.

If you make the 31 by saying (9x5-7-7) then times 25, you have a 4 left to subtract.

Jon Corby wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:They really need to shuffle this pack. Those 3 Ns have stayed together for a few shows now.

COUNTDOWN IN CRISIS

We've all resigned.

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.

D Eadie wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.

Amazing! My favourite is Pat Rawlings' HEMEROID (never thought I'd say that), which is a misspelling of a US spelling. Not the worst error per se, but her delight at declaring an 8 followed by the embarrassment of such a total fuck-up was hilarity and pathos incarnate.

ARTEFAT was in order....surprised they missed ARTEFACT!

D Eadie wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.

Must have been a dodgy Chinese.

Marc Meakin wrote:

D Eadie wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Not sure, but the worst round i remember was when a chap offered a 6, the word he offered was CHINESE, which is capitalised and a 7, and the THREE of the letters were not in the selection. Bless him, i think he was nervous and had food-poisoning IIRC. Needless to say, i think RW seized the opportunity to correct him on every one of the errors, much to the audiences delight. Happy days.

Must have been a dodgy Chinese.

It was. I spoke to him after and he said that's what came to him as he was trying to work out what he'd eaten to make him feel so poorly. So that was the first word that came out of his mouth. Coincidentally enough, he declared hot and sour soup for his second round and guessed at banana fritters for the conundrum.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:What is the most disallowed words by one player, in one game?

Good question. At least 5 and probably higher.

I can find two sixes from recent-ish times:

Omair Azam against Andy Laycock, from Series 55;
Crispin Salfarlie against Raj Kailasam, from Series 56 (Crispin also misdeclared the conundrum but still only lost by 3 points!)

Pretty sure I've done more than 6 on apterous, though. Sometimes I get onto such a roll of declaring shite that I just can't stop. Much like my posts on here LOLZZZZZZ!!!!!eleven

Thanks for the research, Jim.

I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!

It wasn't much of a treaty.

ROUTINES in round 12 and DETRACT in round 13.

The LISBON contestant was a bit like Richard Brittain in his game against Corby I thought.

Also after the 222 round (which I got Rachel's way) I noticed you could do (75*6*25+100)/50-5. But I imagine that this is the sort of thing that people who are good at 4-large do routinely but at the moment it's a big gap in my numbers ability. I hope you enjoyed that story.

D Eadie wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Must have been a dodgy Chinese.

It was. I spoke to him after and he said that's what came to him as he was trying to work out what he'd eaten to make him feel so poorly. So that was the first word that came out of his mouth. Coincidentally enough, he declared hot and sour soup for his second round and guessed at banana fritters for the conundrum.

lol

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Also after the 222 round (which I got Rachel's way) I noticed you could do (75*6*25+100)/50-5. But I imagine that this is the sort of thing that people who are good at 4-large do routinely but at the moment it's a big gap in my numbers ability. I hope you enjoyed that story.

I did ((50+6)x100+75)/25-5 actually and it's quite simple if you learn the rules.

Is this the only game ever where at the end of Round 2, both players have 18 points?

Chris Corby wrote:Is this the only game ever where at the end of Round 2, both players have 18 points?

Rather obscure thought, but probably not.

Kirk Bevins wrote:ARTEFAT was in order....surprised they missed ARTEFACT!

Indeed - I thought DC were bound to get it ... though maybe put off by the fact that it's sometimes (more often?) spelt ARTIFACT.

Brian Moore wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:ARTEFAT was in order....surprised they missed ARTEFACT!

Indeed - I thought DC were bound to get it ... though maybe put off by the fact that it's sometimes (more often?) spelt ARTIFACT.

ARTIFACT is the US spelling. Not that that contradicts what you said, but I'm sure those on Countdown are far too pure of English blood to be distracted by such monstrous imports.

Chris Corby wrote:Is this the only game ever where at the end of Round 2, both players have 18 points?

Andrew Hulme and his opponent got a 9 in the first round of his first game I think?

Crap, just re-read that. Sorry, ignore my idiocy please.

Marc Meakin wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!

It wasn't much of a treaty.

Here follows a complimentary joke in the form of an open letter from SADACT (Society for the Advancement of Derekesque Alternative Comedy Talent)

Dear Mr Meakin,

I am pleased to inform you that you have passed the SHIT (Search for Hazell Immitator Test) and hereby invite you to commence full groaner production duties with immediate effect. Welcome aboard.

Yours

Wilma Joaksby-Lafftat

Alec Rivers wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I turned on the telly at the end of round 1 expecting a bit of an anti-climax following Oliver's departure but when I saw the scoreline 18-18 I thought I might be in for a surprise. Alas I wasn't. LISBON? Honestly!

It wasn't much of a treaty.

Here follows a complimentary joke in the form of an open letter from SADACT (Society for the Advancement of Derekesque Alternative Comedy Talent)

Dear Mr Meakin,

I am pleased to inform you that you have passed the SHIT (Search for Hazell Immitator Test) and hereby invite you to commence full groaner production duties with immediate effect. Welcome aboard.

Yours

Wilma Joaksby-Lafftat

Oh Alec, you are like Susan Boyle sitting on Krusty the Clown.
Virgin on the ridiculous.

Charlie Reams wrote:ARTIFACT is the US spelling. Not that that contradicts what you said, but I'm sure those on Countdown are far too pure of English blood to be distracted by such monstrous imports.

.... and not to contradict what you said ... but though I see ARTIFACT more often in US texts, both the OED and Chambers list both without comment in the main heading, though the OED notes in the etymology section "In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use." Given that less-than-absolute differentiation, I'm surprised it's not in ODE as an alternative (if less etymologically justifiable) spelling.

Brian Moore wrote:"In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use."

Unless I'm misunderstanding your quote, it sounds like ARTEFACT is an alternative US spelling, not that ARTIFACT is an alternative UK spelling.

That was pretty cringe-worthy to watch. I can only assume Mr. Roy (can't remember his first name off by hand, sorry) was nervous - he was probably the reserve contestant who was only in because Oliver became an Octochamp, and the dramatic finish to the previous game half-an-hour earlier will have left his mind running all over the place. Presumably you have to be a lot better than that in the audition to pass.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:"In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets, etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use."

Unless I'm misunderstanding your quote, it sounds like ARTEFACT is an alternative US spelling, not that ARTIFACT is an alternative UK spelling.

I read it that both are occasionally (though unusually) used in the alternative spelling in both countries. I'm not going to lose sleep over it though. Well, I hope not.

Actually I think the winner was the reserve contestant, because he was local to the studio. the loser came from London.

Matt Morrison wrote:I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.

You might want to weight the average based on the proportion of each type of round. Just a thought.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I think considering there are 6 numbers but 9 letters, the middle ground of 7.5 wins should be required. In the 8th game, they should stop the clock 15 seconds into the 8th round, and check what words the two contestants have. With these 'precursor' scores added to their totals, if the 7-time-winner is ahead overall after 7 and a half rounds of the 8th game, he becomes a septodemichamp. Following a small ceremony, the next contestant is then brought in. But because they are new, they have to sit in the challenger's chair, and the person who was challenging the newly-crowned septodemichamp now moves into the freshly-vacated champion's chair. Of course, they cannot take their notes with them, so the new challenger is allowed to use the old challenger's notes so that they begin with whatever word they had at the 15 second mark. The septodemichamp takes their notes with them though of course, so the new 'champion' has to work from scratch and find a word in 15 seconds!!!!!!! Of course, there will be no winner crowned until after seven and a half rounds of the next show, but don't worry - next time there is a septodemichamp things will be back to normal and the programme will start at the start again!!!!! I think this is the only fair way to do it.

You might want to weight the average based on the proportion of each type of round. Just a thought.

And add to that the fact that Letters rounds score 0 to 9 or 18, Numbers 0,5,7,10, and the Conundrum 0 or 10.

James Robinson wrote:By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retire Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters. Just a thought.

I think it's because there used to be four shows a week, so a retiring champion would have completed exactly two weeks' worth of shows.

Mike Brown wrote:

James Robinson wrote:By the way, why is it 8 shows then you have to retire Surely, it would make logical sense for it to be 9 wins, since the main part of the game revolves around 9 letters. Just a thought.

I think it's because there used to be four shows a week, so a retiring champion would have completed exactly two weeks' worth of shows.

That actually doesn't sound like a bad reason at all. Thanks, Mike.