Friday 9 September 2011 (Series 65, Prelim 50)

[Mike Brown]

Countdown recap for Friday 9 September 2011 (Series 65, Prelim 50).

C1: Champion Carl Williams (3 wins, 284 points.)
C2: Challenger Stefan Clarke.
DC: Susie Dent and Gloria Hunniford.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

Would you believe it’s the end of the week again already and it’s time for another recap from the wilds of Norfolk? Carl Williams has won three games so far, including a slightly controversial last-gasp victory on Wednesday against Jeff Probst. Can he make it four against Stefan Clarke, who hails from Worle, which is on the outskirts of Weston-super-Mare? Shall we see?

R01: S Q N L H O A E P
R02: T U N A C O R E K
R03: T C S A I E T D R
R04: V O I W G N A R W
R05: 1, 10, 9, 7, 2, 4. Target: 320.
TTT: TEENPINT - "Very resourceful - in a cheap wigwam, perhaps."
R06: M E Z F O I S Y R
R07: L T G E O I D S R
R08: H A S P I J U P A
R09: L R E O A B N B L
R10: 25, 3, 2, 7, 6, 9. Target: 819.
TTT: NESTDIRT - "They're not Britney's spears, they're Britannia's."
R11: S R N V I E E U D
R12: G E T I R A L E T
R13: M N D C U E O S G
R14: 50, 100, 25, 75, 5, 3. Target: 370.
R15: S L A Y E R H I T (conundrum)

Countdown is sponsored by Vitabiotics Wellkid.

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

According to Jeff at the top of today’s show, teenagers now expect to be earning £60,000 per annum by the time they’re 35. As he pointed out, this might be a little ambitious, although perhaps not quite as much as you might initially think, when you take into account the effect of inflation. This moves on to a discussion with Rachel, in which she notes once again that she’s “not a morning person” – I’m with you on that one, Rach.

Round 1: S Q N L H O A E P

C1: PHONES (6)
C2: shapen
DC: SHOAL (5) PHENOLS (7)
OT: NOPALES (7)
Score: 6–0 (max 7)

Not a good start for Stefan, while Carl PHONES home for a six. A good pen-cam spot for DC; NOPALES are fleshy edible cactus pads, as used in Mexican cuisine – I wonder what they taste like?

Round 2: T U N A C O R E K

C1: COUNTER (7)
C2: ROCKET (6)
DC: COURANTE (8)
Score: 13–0 (max 15)

Another event to set off the Corby-ometer – Carl declares a “risky” seven and then offers the decidedly un-risky COUNTER, before explaining that he was going to offer RECOUNT. Surely if he had COUNTER written down, he’d have offered it, and the conspiracy theorists will wonder what he had written on his pad. In his defence, nerves can make you do funny things, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Round 3: T C S A I E T D R

C1: SCATTIER (8)
C2: SCATTIER (8)
DC: DISTRACT (8)
OT: CITRATES (8) CRISTATE (8) DETRACTS (8) DICTATES (8) STRIATED (8) TARDIEST (8)
Score: 21–8 (max 23)

A bunch of eights available. For the record, CRISTATE means ‘ridged’ in anatomical and zoological circles.

Round 4: V O I W G N A R W

C1: VOWING (6)
C2: ROWING (6)
DC: AVOWING (7) VIRAGO (6)
Score: 27–14 (max 30)

Susie notes that you can add the ‘A’ to VOWING for a darrenic seven.

Round 5: 1, 10, 9, 7, 2, 4. Target: 320.

Carl asks Rachel for “any six of your choice”. She resists the chance to take some from the top row and selects his preferred option of six small numbers.

C1: 320. (9-1)x4x10 (10)
C2: 320. ((((9-1)/2)x7)+4)x10 (10)
Score: 37–24 (max 40)

Stefan goes amusingly round the houses to get his ten points, but the end result is the same.

Gloria reads out a poem about learning, with a nod to the upcoming tenth anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11.

Teatime teaser: TEENPINT -> PENITENT

Round 6: M E Z F O I S Y R

C1: FROZE (5)
C2: FROZE (5)
DC: MISERY (6)
OT: ISOZYME (7)
Score: 42–29 (max 47)

Jeff calls MISERY “definitely the only six hidden away in there”. It isn’t (there’s also FORMES, FOYERS and ISOMER), but I’m sure we can forgive him for that assumption. An ISOZYME is another term for an ISOENZYME, which is a term from biochemistry.

Round 7: L T G E O I D S R

C1: gristled
C2: SOLDIER (7)
DC: STODGIER (8)
OT: GODLIEST (8)
Score: 42–36 (max 55)

A bad risk from Carl means Stefan recovers some ground, but is it the start of a comeback?

Round 8: H A S P I J U P A

C1: PAPAS (5)
C2: PAPAS (5)
DC: UPPISH (6)
OT: HAPPIS (6) HIPPUS (6)
Score: 47–41 (max 61)

Stefan’s not sure about PAPAS, but unlike PUPAS^, it’s fine. HAPPIS are loose Japanese coats, while HIPPUS is a medical condition affecting the pupil of the eye.

Round 9: L R E O A B N B L

C1: LOANER (6)
C2: LOANER (6)
DC: LOANER (6) NOBBLER (7)
OT: BARBELL (7) LLANERO (7)
Score: 53–47 (max 68)

DC offer the amusing word NOBBLER, which, as you might suspect, is someone or something that nobbles. Nice to see LLANERO coming up again, even if Susie didn’t mention it this time around.

OoW: Susie discusses the etymological origins of various foodstuffs, ranging from the cantaloupe melon to lager.

Round 10: 25, 3, 2, 7, 6, 9. Target: 819.

C1: 816. Mistake in working.
C2: -
RR: 819. (25-(2x6))x7x9 (10)
Score: 53–47 (max 78)

Carl blobs, while Stefan has nothing to declare. Clever girl that she is, Rachel spots the target is divisible by 9 and manages to make 91 from the other numbers.

Teatime teaser: NESTDIRT -> TRIDENTS

Round 11: S R N V I E E U D

C1: UNIVERSE (8)
C2: RUINED (6)
DC: UNREVISED (18)
Score: 61–47 (max 96)

I was pleased with UNIVERSE (as was Carl, I expect), but Susie and Gloria hit the jackpot with a great niner. UNSERVED and UNVERSED were also lurking in that fruitful selection.

Round 12: G E T I R A L E T

C1: GLITTER (7)
C2: RATTLE (6)
DC: LITERATE (8)
OT: AIGRETTE (8) LATERITE (8) LITREAGE (8)
Score: 68–47 (max 104)

An AIGRETTE is a kind of headdress, often made using an egret’s feathers (hence its name); while LATERITE is a reddish, clayey material (which derives from later, the Latin for brick, if you were wondering).

Round 13: M N D C U E O S G

C1: DUNCES (6)
C2: condems
DC: CONSUMED (8)
Score: 74–47 (max 112)

Stefan’s misspelling of CONDEMNS means it’s all over for the lad from the West Country, while DC have evidently eaten the dictionary as they offer up CONSUMED for eight.

Round 14: 50, 100, 25, 75, 5, 3. Target: 370.

C1: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
C2: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
Score: 84–57 (max 122)

(Almost) everyone in the world gets 370...

Round 15: S L A Y E R H I T

No one buzzes. The answer was HAIRSTYLE.
Final Score: 84–57 (max 132)

... but almost no one in the world (and certainly no one in the studio) gets HAIRSTYLE.

Well done to Carl for winning another game and commiserations to Stefan, who took his defeat with good grace and said how much he’d enjoyed it. On Monday, Mr Paul Zenon will be back in the Corner for the first time since April Fool’s Day, while Ryan will be back on Recap Duty. And I’ll see you next week!

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=65

[James Robinson]

Round 14: 50, 100, 25, 75, 5, 3. Target: 370.

C1: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
C2: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
Score: 84–57 (max 122)

(Almost) everyone in the world gets 375...

Maybe so, Mike, but 370 was the target.......

[Peter Mabey]

R2: I guess Carl wrote down the slightly risky RECOUNT (possibly hyphenated?). and just as he was about to declare, saw that COUNTER wasn't a risk at all

[JimBentley]

R2: I guess Carl wrote down the slightly risky RECOUNT (possibly hyphenated?). and just as he was about to declare, saw that COUNTER wasn't a risk at all

Or maybe he did what I quite often do, i.e. think of a perfectly common word, but think of it in a completely different sense and not realise the more common uses. So in this round, Carl could have been thinking in terms of bowls or curling; a wood or stone could be thought of as a counter if it ends up counting towards the score, but it's not at all certain whether this would be allowed as a valid usage. It doesn't matter of course, as counter has plenty of other valid meanings, but the brain can do this sometimes.

[Matt Morrison]

Good reasoning Jim. Regardless, there's no mystery considering Carl quite clearly said "I was wondering about RECOUNT" immediately afterwards.

In a way I was surprised this wasn't picked up by Corby in the spoilers thread after the recent cheating allegations. It didn't come across very smoothly on screen - I know it's perfectly ok to not have to declare your word until you actually audibly declare it, but it still made it quite obvious that Carl often likes to work beyond the clock.

[Mike Brown]

R2: I guess Carl wrote down the slightly risky RECOUNT (possibly hyphenated?). and just as he was about to declare, saw that COUNTER wasn't a risk at all

Although, of course, if he hadn't got COUNTER written down, he should have declared "seven, not written down". People have been punished severely before for that - it's all good borderline stuff!

[Mike Brown]

Round 14: 50, 100, 25, 75, 5, 3. Target: 370.

C1: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
C2: 370. (3x100)+75-5 (10)
Score: 84–57 (max 122)

(Almost) everyone in the world gets 375...

Maybe so, Mike, but 370 was the target.......

I'll get my own back soon, Robinson...

[Jon Corby]

R2: I guess Carl wrote down the slightly risky RECOUNT (possibly hyphenated?). and just as he was about to declare, saw that COUNTER wasn't a risk at all

Although, of course, if he hadn't got COUNTER written down, he should have declared "seven, not written down". People have been punished severely before for that - it's all good borderline stuff!

I really don't see why you're allowed to declare stuff you haven't got written down (in letters rounds). If you're writing a word as the clock goes, fine, finish off but from then on it's pens down. It's such a simple thing to introduce, and does away with all the fudgery (particularly based on your opponent's declaration, which is the worst).

[Adam Gillard]

I really don't see why you're allowed to declare stuff you haven't got written down (in letters rounds). If you're writing a word as the clock goes, fine, finish off but from then on it's pens down.

Otherwise you'd have problems with people who scribble something illegible in tiny handwriting like @~n3§{1£§ and say "same word" (AMNESTIES in this case). You'd have people with genuine scrawly handwriting and people who could scribble any old nonsense and pass it off as the same word as their opponent declared.

[David Williams]

I really don't see why you're allowed to declare stuff you haven't got written down (in letters rounds). If you're writing a word as the clock goes, fine, finish off but from then on it's pens down.

Otherwise you'd have problems with people who scribble something illegible in tiny handwriting like @~n3§{1£§ and say "same word" (AMNESTIES in this case). You'd have people with genuine scrawly handwriting and people who could scribble any old nonsense and pass it off as the same word as their opponent declared.

I Googled @~n3§{1£§. 61,000,000 hits, but it appears to be a bus route from Clapham Junction to Camden Town, so should be disallowed.

I did think this was so blatant that he obviously didn't think he was doing anything wrong. And if he'd just declared seven, whether written down or not, and come up with COUNTER, no-one would have known. But I do agree with Jon on this one.

[Jon Corby]

I did think this was so blatant that he obviously didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

Yeah, I totally agree that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. I remember Ryan doing similar stuff when he was on, and when we spoke about it he was of a similar "I thought you're allowed to just wing it as much you like" attitude. If you've watched other people doing similar, and nobody's telling you otherwise, and maybe you haven't really thought about it much yourself, then I guess you would just go for it.

I could also point out here that despite my digs in the spoilers threads, I don't really have anything against Carl. He clearly just thinks all the fudgy stuff is fair game, and you can hardly blame him.

It's worth pointing out that, in addition to all the main oft-discussed benefits of this little rule change, I really do think it's chiefly to the advantage of the "underdog". If Apterite#207 has a nine and Edna Goodwife has a six and Apterite#207 declares first, she'll probably shake her head or chuckle in defeat while delivering her declaration. Turn the tables though, and he'll instead think "if she's found a 9, I should be able to see it!" and there's a reasonable chance he probably will in the extra few seconds he can generate for himself.

(We saw it even with Carl, where he saw an opponent declare a number and clearly thought "well if she can get that, I should be able to!")

Such a little change, so much to gain, nothing to lose.

[David Williams]

If Apterite#207 has a nine and Edna Goodwife has a six and Apterite#207 declares first, she'll probably shake her head or chuckle in defeat while delivering her declaration. Turn the tables though, and he'll instead think "if she's found a 9, I should be able to see it!" and there's a reasonable chance he probably will in the extra few seconds he can generate for himself.

When I'm watching at home and a contestant declares more than I've got, I reckon I see it almost instantly at least half the time. And under the rules as they stand I don't see anything wrong with this. In my book anything that can get past the Corby vigilance is OK. So, never hesitate, never declare a "dodgy 7" (in case you see a 7 that's not dodgy), and no-one will ever know. I think this is fine, others see it as cheating. All the more reason to level the playing field.

[Jon Corby]

When I'm watching at home and a contestant declares more than I've got, I reckon I see it almost instantly at least half the time. And under the rules as they stand I don't see anything wrong with this. In my book anything that can get past the Corby vigilance is OK. So, never hesitate, never declare a "dodgy 7" (in case you see a 7 that's not dodgy), and no-one will ever know. I think this is fine, others see it as cheating. All the more reason to level the playing field.

Yeah, the opponent of somebody at this kind of standard has enough of an uphill battle on their hands as it is, without having a rare "genuine" round victory taken away from them with this tactic. DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL