c4countdown

The break is finally over .

PANEER as an equaller in round 3 (though they didn't even ask DC!)

Surprised they didn't get SLANTED in round 4.

DAINTIER

Did Jeremy say FOGGIEST? As it would have been an ok word but no-one mentioned that there was only one G.Or did I mishear him.

Rich Priest wrote:Did Jeremy say FOGGIEST? As it would have been an ok word but no-one mentioned that there was only one G.Or did I mishear him.

It sounded like FOGGIEST but I think he was playing for FOGIEST as in, most fogey like, or something (they discussed that a bit, at least).

Alternative, and surely easier answer that CV's numbers round 2 :- 100 + 75 - 5 + 1 x 2 (50 / 25).

Michael Simmonds wrote:Alternative, and surely easier answer that CV's numbers round 2 :- 100 + 75 - 5 + 1 x 2 (50 / 25).

Carol's made sense and was quite logical - I'm not sure yours is any "easier".

Nah, I'd say that 171x2 is a much more straightforward route than Carol's (mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

Words are not usually my greatest forte, but DESCALER in round 8 was surely there? Although not mentioned by DC.

Michael Wallace wrote:Nah, I'd say that 171x2 is a much more straightforward route than Carol's (mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

Thanks for the vote of confidence Michael. Perhaps I should apply for Carol's job after all! Out of interest, is anyone else on the forum applying?

Joseph Bolas wrote:DAINTIER

DIATRIBE in that round as well

Michael Wallace wrote:(mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

I went that way too. Just seemed to leap out at me.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Rich Priest wrote:Did Jeremy say FOGGIEST? As it would have been an ok word but no-one mentioned that there was only one G.Or did I mishear him.

It sounded like FOGGIEST but I think he was playing for FOGIEST as in, most fogey like, or something (they discussed that a bit, at least).

He declared 8. I thought he said FROGIEST which is both invalid and misspelt.

Wasn't the last numbers game a shambles? Carol has an unfortunate habit of not bothering to listen to the contestant once she thinks she knows what they're going to say. It seemed to dawn on her that something wasn't quite right, but as the solution was pretty obvious she made a big point of saying that the contestant had got it. But he hadn't. What he said before she interrupted was heading for 248, not 252. I hope he'd got it written down correctly.

David

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:(mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

I went that way too. Just seemed to leap out at me.

And me.

David Williams wrote:Wasn't the last numbers game a shambles? Carol has an unfortunate habit of not bothering to listen to the contestant once she thinks she knows what they're going to say. It seemed to dawn on her that something wasn't quite right, but as the solution was pretty obvious she made a big point of saying that the contestant had got it. But he hadn't. What he said before she interrupted was heading for 248, not 252. I hope he'd got it written down correctly.

David

Is that definitely right? I didn't notice exactly what he said but he did say "minus" which surprised me a bit, but Carol seemed to suggest that he took away four and then added six, but I didn't pay enough attention to what he said.

I agree that Carol (presumably having been thinking of that solution) did seem to correct what had been said, so I hope contestant had written down a correct method. I'd have been really unhappy if the game had turned on the result of the round.
BTW, my method (out of time) was (75+1)x(100+5x25)/50=342

Michael Simmonds wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Nah, I'd say that 171x2 is a much more straightforward route than Carol's (mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

Thanks for the vote of confidence Michael. Perhaps I should apply for Carol's job after all! Out of interest, is anyone else on the forum applying?

Don't think I was knocking you, Michael - please feel free to post beaters etc - I just didn't see that 171x2 was easier to spot (even though it's an easier calculation).

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Simmonds wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Nah, I'd say that 171x2 is a much more straightforward route than Carol's (mine was similarly complicated, going for ((50-1)*5)+100-(75/25)).

Thanks for the vote of confidence Michael. Perhaps I should apply for Carol's job after all! Out of interest, is anyone else on the forum applying?

Don't think I was knocking you, Michael - please feel free to post beaters etc - I just didn't see that 171x2 was easier to spot (even though it's an easier calculation).

I certainly didn't take offence Kirk. Life is all about opinions, and it would be very boring if we all thought the same. The forum is here for us to debate and share our alternatives, and I find it very interesting to see all the different calculations posted - keep them coming!

BTW, my method (out of time) was (75+1)x(100+5x25)/50=342

I got RADIUS in round 2 and DENTALS in round 4 that weren't mentioned in DC.
Although I couldn't count DENTALS as I didn't risk it, going for the safe STOLEN.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

David Williams wrote:Wasn't the last numbers game a shambles? Carol has an unfortunate habit of not bothering to listen to the contestant once she thinks she knows what they're going to say. It seemed to dawn on her that something wasn't quite right, but as the solution was pretty obvious she made a big point of saying that the contestant had got it. But he hadn't. What he said before she interrupted was heading for 248, not 252. I hope he'd got it written down correctly.

David

Is that definitely right? I didn't notice exactly what he said but he did say "minus" which surprised me a bit, but Carol seemed to suggest that he took away four and then added six, but I didn't pay enough attention to what he said.

Yes, Gavin. David was absolutely correct in what he said. Carol certainly wasn't listening, and she was wrong in saying that Jeremy had got it correct. Jeremy's solution definitely gave 248 and not 252.

It's strange that on the one time that Carol makes a big thing of mentioning that she's written down a solution in the way she wants and not in the way that the contestant says it, she's wrong in saying that the two are equivalent. There are numerous other times when she writes a solution down in a different manner, but says nothing.

And btw, I went for Carol's method in round 10, rather than any of the others already mentioned in this thread.

Still slowly catching up with programmes I missed while away - only one to go now, and then I'll be up to date (for series 59, at any rate).