c4countdown

So, we have entered the 7th week of Series 66, but will it be a lucky week for our aptochamp Chris Butler...........

After 3 impressive wins with scores in the 90's, he'll be a hard man to push.

Now here's a question that you might like to answer, what connects the birthplace of our last host, Jeff Stelling with the loser of Episode 3181 in Series 47

The answer is the identity of today's challenger, another Apterite (and part-time forumite) Peter Lee. Yes, that is the same Peter Lee who was on the show just over 10 years ago, making a RETURN to the show, which must be music to Philip Jarvis' and other past contestants ears. How well will he do in this battle of the Apterites

Returning to DC after an absence of nearly 4 years is the now retired MP, turned dancer (of sorts), the Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe.

Join Graeme later for the recap.

James Robinson wrote:The answer is the identity of today's challenger, another Apterite (and part-time forumite) Peter Lee. Yes, that is the same Peter Lee who was on the show just over 10 years ago, making a RETURN to the show, which must be music to Philip Jarvis' and other past contestants ears. How well will he do in this battle of the Apterites

Really? I knew Peter had applied to go on the show but I didn't realise he'd be on this quick. Peter actually appeared in the episode following mine in Feb 2002. We have also had several good games and chats on Apterous in recent years. I'd therefore like to wish him good luck.

As far as either myself or others reappearing, that would be at the total discretion of the Countdown production team. Surely you knew that James? For the record, I don't expect to be appearing on Countdown any time soon. Due to work commitments, I have no current inclination to send in an application.

I'm on next Thursday btw.

Not too much often, Ann! Only 3 more shows than Nick.

What kind of geek knows that sort of stuff

BRAZENS as an alternative in round 1.

BRAVOES and OVERSEA in round 2.

DARKIES, RADICES and SIDECAR in round 3.

1st Numbers Alt.: ((10 + 7 + 6) x 7) + 2 = 163

INDIUM as a beater in round 12.

MIDIRON in the MOUND round

Final numbers: (100+9*7)*(8/4)+4

Shame that Chris lost his 100% record on the numbers with that stinker of a last one.

A very high standard game that was. Very well done to both.

Well done, Peter, good ton debut.

James Robinson wrote:DARKIES, RADICES and SIDECAR in round 3.

Too many 7s: DICKIES, DICKIER and AIRSIDE were my 3 but there are lots more.

Great game to watch. Well done Peter on an impressive debut and unlucky Chris as you played so well throughout your four games and could easily have gone on to be an octochamp if you'd avoided the stronger players.

James Robinson wrote:Now here's a question that you might like to answer, what connects the birthplace of our last host, Jeff Stelling with the loser of Episode 3181 in Series 47

The answer is the identity of today's challenger, another Apterite (and part-time forumite) Peter Lee.

What do you mean by this?

Congrats Peter, a great win, keep it up! Unlucky Chris you had a very good run.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Now here's a question that you might like to answer, what connects the birthplace of our last host, Jeff Stelling with the loser of Episode 3181 in Series 47

The answer is the identity of today's challenger, another Apterite (and part-time forumite) Peter Lee.

What do you mean by this?

Simple, Jeff was born in Peterlee, County Durham.
The person who lost Episode 3181 as you can see here was Peter Lee.

That's the connection, it's the same thing.

Bit of an easy question as I gave you the answer as well.

Congratulations Peter - very well played indeed.

Well played also to Chris - some very capable performances, particularly on the numbers.

Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

Philip Jarvis wrote:Congratulations Peter - very well played indeed.

Well played also to Chris - some very capable performances, particularly on the numbers.

Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

Highly doubt this is the case Phil. For a start Chris and Matt were fairly new to apterous when they filmed (certainly when they applied) and I think part of the reason Peter was on at the start of the recording block was so that there was no risk of him having to make two trips from Ireland if he won a few.

As some of you will have seen on the other thread, I'm the challenger on Thursday's show so had the pleasure of meeting both players and they are both top blokes. I didn't get to watch the game recorded live as was single handedly drinking the green room out of tea; so enjoyed watching it today!

Jon Corby wrote:I'm on next Thursday btw.

"The curse", eh?

Philip Jarvis wrote:Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

It seems this is indeed the case. The standard of opponent that Victoria had was comparatively quite low, yet only one of Chris, Matt, Peter, and Niall will get the chance to get up to octochamp? Very harsh. Again, yeah, of course I understand the logic in giving the average player a better chance but it's a little unfair to punish people for being enthusiastic enough to practice before going on.

Anyway.


Well played today gents. Gutted for you Chris; coming up against not only an apterous player but someone who's been on the show before (when some of us aren't even allowed on once ), a very harsh draw. I'd be fuming in your position, but that's just me.

BORANES in R1 and OIDIUM in R12 for the record.

Niall Seymour wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

Highly doubt this is the case Phil. For a start Chris and Matt were fairly new to apterous when they filmed (certainly when they applied) and I think part of the reason Peter was on at the start of the recording block was so that there was no risk of him having to make two trips from Ireland if he won a few.

I remember Damian in one of his more constructive posts explaining that the audition rounds aren't always what they seem. If he wants to know who has used Apterous at all seriously, I imagine it would be pretty easy to construct selections that would give him the evidence.

Jon Corby wrote:I'm on next Thursday btw.

See you next Thursday.

James Robinson wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Now here's a question that you might like to answer, what connects the birthplace of our last host, Jeff Stelling with the loser of Episode 3181 in Series 47

The answer is the identity of today's challenger, another Apterite (and part-time forumite) Peter Lee.

What do you mean by this?

Simple, Jeff was born in Peterlee, County Durham.
The person who lost Episode 3181 as you can see here was Peter Lee.

That's the connection, it's the same thing.

Bit of an easy question as I gave you the answer as well.

Ha, I knew it was Peter Lee, just didn't know that's the name of Jeff's birthplace - I actually looked it up on Wikipedia and it doesn't say!

Glad I watched the show today. Loved Peter, so suave, so composed, so good. Loved everything about that performance. Hard luck to Chris too on meeting a very worthy opponent.

Don't think there's any substance in this putting apterites up against each other business and about all this crap of having comparatively lower opposition against this other woman. It's just the running order. If you wanna win you gotta beat whoever's in front of you and if it is an apterous player then you step up to the mark.

Andy Platt wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

It seems this is indeed the case. The standard of opponent that Victoria had was comparatively quite low, yet only one of Chris, Matt, Peter, and Niall will get the chance to get up to octochamp? Very harsh. Again, yeah, of course I understand the logic in giving the average player a better chance but it's a little unfair to punish people for being enthusiastic enough to practice before going on.

Anyway.


Well played today gents. Gutted for you Chris; coming up against not only an apterous player but someone who's been on the show before (when some of us aren't even allowed on once ), a very harsh draw. I'd be fuming in your position, but that's just me.

BORANES in R1 and OIDIUM in R12 for the record.

Cheers Andy.

As I sort of said in first post I genuinely think it was coincidence that so many apterites (is that the right word) ended up in quick succession. After I passed my audition I was basically asked if I was free to film on Feb 6th which was the first filming date they needed players for.

Also to be fair whilst we're all solid players, none of us are Kirk or Innis standard and I think all of us would be more than capable of losing to a non-apterite in a one off game under studio conditions!

Bad luck Chris, but there's no shame in losing to Peter. It was a good game and you both played well.

Andy Platt wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:Are the Countdown team now intentionally pitching Apterous players against each other to reduce the number of potential Octochamps?

It seems this is indeed the case. The standard of opponent that Victoria had was comparatively quite low, yet only one of Chris, Matt, Peter, and Niall will get the chance to get up to octochamp? Very harsh. Again, yeah, of course I understand the logic in giving the average player a better chance but it's a little unfair to punish people for being enthusiastic enough to practice before going on.

Do you know for sure that it's intentional? I think it's perfectly adequately explained by coincidence. Battles of the apterites are nothing new.

Marcus Hares, who himself had been on 14 years previously, played three apterites - James Bradley, David Hilton and Oli Moore (who I think, it's only fitting, should get a second chance in 2024). Andy McGurn played Michelle Nevitt (although I don't think she'd found apterous then), Adam Fleetwood, and James Hall.

Incidentally, I watched Andy McGurn v James Hall on what I now realise was the day I had my phone audition, and kept score against them at home. I don't remember whether James or I would have won, but I do remember that it was very close, and I noticed he was a good 6 small player and thought "thank goodness I missed him".

And I was up against Liam Herringshaw, who briefly appeared on apterous but who was naturally skilled at the game, and James Hall on his reprise. Matt Croy, Drew Halliburton, James Wilson and Barry Evans all had their games shown within a few days of each other. I don't think it's fair to expect that just because someone's of a certain standard, eight mediocre opponents should be lined up for them.

Sure, you could argue that just because it's happened quite a few times in the last couple of years doesn't mean they were all by chance. I don't know for sure that there isn't some manual intervention going on with the running order, but I find it easier to believe it's just chance. If you assign contestants' recording days randomly it's expected you might get clusters of two or three in the same fortnight, and four doesn't seem completely improbable. You get what, perhaps a dozen apterites in a 110-episode series? I think it's unlikely that every one should just happen to be nicely spaced out from the others. Someone with a greater grasp of statistics and probability distributions could perhaps give a more concrete analysis, but I don't see anything particularly untoward.

Very well played Peter, a tough opponent well fought off. I'm reluctant to say "it's hard to imagine you losing if you keep that standard up", given what happened to the last guy I said it about, but it's true.

Well played Peter, nice to see a player taking risks as well (although they didn't always come off), very good player though

Yeah, no way anyone can say for certain obviously, it's just the way it seems - like a low period after Jack (well, Sri was quality for 2-3 shows, one of Mark's performances was really good, and Victoria was quite sharp on letters). 4 apterous players on in a matter of about a week or two seems either very unlucky or not coincidental.

I guess that it won't really affect the overall results of the series, as the cream will always rise to the top, so to speak, but it's not cool to players like Chris who are improving quickly and are enthusiastic about attending events etc in order to improve and get experience, only to be cut down after 4 games by an even better/more experienced player and almost certainly not make finals now. Matt could have octo'd with a good draw but it just seems a lot of players who play online get deliberately tough draws to weed out the numbers a bit.

Maybe I'm letting emotions take over logic as I get on with these guys pretty well and want to see them succeed/at least make finals (especially if I plan to spectate myself).

Incidentally, I watched Andy McGurn v James Hall on what I now realise was the day I had my phone audition, and kept score against them at home. I don't remember whether James or I would have won, but I do remember that it was very close, and I noticed he was a good 6 small player and thought "thank goodness I missed him".

Thanks for the info Graeme, if I ever turn up in a co event (which I plan to do very soon) and end up playing you, then 6 small will be automatically requested when it's my turn to pick the numbers

Thanks for the info Graeme, if I ever turn up in a co event (which I plan to do very soon) and end up playing you, then 6 small will be automatically requested when it's my turn to pick the numbers

Agreed, Graeme's 6S is awful

Andy Platt wrote:

Thanks for the info Graeme, if I ever turn up in a co event (which I plan to do very soon) and end up playing you, then 6 small will be automatically requested when it's my turn to pick the numbers

Agreed, Graeme's 6S is crap

I have got my countdown cards out now and practising , actually 6 small isn't too bad as long as the target number can be divisible by one of the numbers in the 6 small selection 994 divided by 7 for example, it only gets tricky when you can't find a number to divide it by. 4 large is IMO more difficult and out of the 2 toughies I would choose 6 small rather than 4 large.

FWIW, my least favourite selection is 2 large.