c4countdown

Michael Taiwo got another one yesterday, taking him up to two wins. Can he get his third of the week today? Pam Ayres is still rhyming her way in dictionary corner, and...eh...there've been better and there've been worse. That's my thoughts.

Join James for a recap later, possibly all in rhyme but probably not.

Michael was clearly trying to do a "Carl Williams" in the last numbers round. Good to see Nick stop him as he was blatantly trying to wing it.

Poetic justice that the challenger managed to win on the condundrum. Well done.

GOSPEL as a DC beater in rd 11.

Philip Jarvis wrote:Michael was clearly trying to do a "Carl Williams" in the last numbers round. Good to see Nick stop him as he was blatantly trying to wing it.

Poetic justice that the challenger managed to win on the condundrum. Well done.

GOSPEL as a DC beater in rd 11.

Yeah that was blatant!
Ironic that a maths teacher was tumbled by the numbers games.

INBREED alternative 7 in R13

Quite a good performance by the challenger I thought, even if she was a little inconsistent.

CHESTIER in round 1, TANGOES in round 4 and AUNTIE in round 8.

2nd numbers: (25+3)x7-6 = 190

Not watching much any more but just had to have a peek at the numbers bodge. My god. My god!
Corby - if you haven't seen it, get on it.

Heh. R14 was pretty funny. Nick was right to time him out, though. Whether he dithered over it by accident or design, it wouldn't have helped him anyway - according to the solver you can't get 771 from those numbers.

Michael's been a strong player, but I'm glad Gerri pulled it back with that conundrum - she seems much more happy to be there.

I do feel a bit sorry for Michael, but I had a feeling that when he said 771, I just thought, "something's amiss here"........... Sad to see him go, although after that, I had a feeling that Gerri would get the conundrum.

WRETCHES and CHEWIEST in round 1, TANGOES/ONSTAGE in round 4, MITOGEN in round 9 and BEMIRED in round 13.

Philip Jarvis wrote:Poetic justice that the challenger managed to win on the condundrum. Well done.

You say that, but if you listen carefully, Gerri looks like she's saying CASTIGATES...............

James Robinson wrote: You say that, but if you listen carefully, Gerri looks like she's saying CASTIGATES...............

Well heard! She does say CASTIGATES. Still glad she won though!

Sounds more like a sustained 't' to me, which sounds similar to an 's'. Only fair to give her the benefit of the doubt either way.

I managed 2 away the other way ie 762: (((9+1)x25) +4)x(2+1)

Innis Carson wrote:Sounds more like a sustained 't' to me, which sounds similar to an 's'. Only fair to give her the benefit of the doubt either way.

Good point. It's not 100% definitive.

My daughter Jessica definitely heard Gerri mispronounce CASTIGATES at the time. I wasn't too aware at the time but later, following a post on Facebook by Chris Hawkins I rewatched it on 4OD to be sure... and there is no mistaking the S sound at the end! It was pretty clear and recognisable.

Shame we now have to wait for Monday if there's a reaction.

Mauro

John Garcia wrote:

James Robinson wrote: You say that, but if you listen carefully, Gerri looks like she's saying CASTIGATES...............

Well heard! She does say CASTIGATES. Still glad she won though!

szodiac wrote:My daughter Jessica definitely heard Gerri mispronounce CASTIGATES at the time. I wasn't too aware at the time but later, following a post on Facebook by Chris Hawkins I rewatched it on 4OD to be sure... and there is no mistaking the S sound at the end! It was pretty clear and recognisable.

Shame we now have to wait for Monday if there's a reaction.

Mauro

John Garcia wrote:

James Robinson wrote: You say that, but if you listen carefully, Gerri looks like she's saying CASTIGATES...............

Well heard! She does say CASTIGATES. Still glad she won though!

Wow, it looks like I've started something here. Well, strictly speaking, I have zero credit on this, as it was my dad who spotted it. Missed it the first and second time.

Matt Morrison wrote:Not watching much any more but just had to have a peek at the numbers bodge. My god. My god!
Corby - if you haven't seen it, get on it.

Ha! I like how Rachel carries on so politely as if there's nothing wrong even though she is probably thinking "he's fucking fudging it the cheaty little fuck".

Personally I don't think the hate is justified this time. I don't doubt that Michael genuinely thought he'd seen 771 whilst looking for something better. Why shouldn't he carry on trying to remember what he'd done until asked to stop? I thought Nick was far too slow in calling a halt which may have made it look worse.

Also from that round, I can't remember Rachel ever making it quite so obvious that she sometimes gets external "assistance". I don't mean help in finding solutions, of course, but it's surely ammunition for anyone looking for it.

Matt Morrison wrote:Not watching much any more but just had to have a peek at the numbers bodge. My god. My god!
Corby - if you haven't seen it, get on it.

Heh, just saw this in Robbo's recap, I'll try and remember to check it out tonight.

Clive Brooker wrote:Personally I don't think the hate is justified this time. I don't doubt that Michael genuinely thought he'd seen 771 whilst looking for something better. Why shouldn't he carry on trying to remember what he'd done until asked to stop? I thought Nick was far too slow in calling a halt which may have made it look worse.

I don't doubt that he thought he'd seen 771 (otherwise it would be a strange declaration) - but I really don't understand this attitude of "it's completely fine to try and get away with anything until somebody catches you out". It comes up time and time again in these sorts of discussions. Am I the only one who would just be completely embarrassed to try and wing it, knowing that it makes me look like a cheating dickhead, knowing that it puts everybody in an awkward position having to decide whether to step in or not?

(Caveat - I haven't watched it yet, so maybe you're right though!)

It's clearly a subject on which there's genuine disagreement, so I'm not surprised it gets discussed whenever there's an incident.

As a general point, I think those that are fiercely critical are asking a bit too much of someone who's in a totally unfamiliar situation and trying to make the most of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. An important numbers round where you're not quite sure how you made what you think you've got is going to make some players do something a bit desperate which they may regret afterwards.

It's not unusual for someone to declare a target "not written down", and then have a go at it. If they can reel it off, fair enough. But if they can't solve it then normally, as soon as they realise they've gone wrong, they stop without being told. Michael didn't, he tried to amend it twice, and it didn't look good. A bit like getting bowled middle stump but waiting for the umpire to confirm you are out.

I noticed when the crucial conundrum came up he didn't actually put his finger on the buzzer, even at the start. His body language suggested to me he'd taken the hump - he was probably fed up with being told to smile too!

It's possible that he had the straightforward 754, and realised that there was nothing to lose and all to gain by declaring something closer and winging it. If he'd gone for 773 he might have got away with it. (9-1)x4-1=31. But he went for 771, which had to be harder. I'd be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He looked like someone who thought he'd solved it and couldn't quite believe it wasn't working. Maybe he'd used three 1's.

I do think that if you hesitate at all, or try to correct yourself, Nick should call a halt immediately if you haven't got it written down.

Keith Bennett wrote:I noticed when the crucial conundrum came up he didn't actually put his finger on the buzzer, even at the start. His body language suggested to me he'd taken the hump - he was probably fed up with being told to smile too!

To be fair, Michael did exactly the same thing the previous day, so I don't think anything can be read into his actions on the conundrum.

Just watched this. I don't think he's fudged in the normal sense. I think it was more like, in apterous terms, he thought he could do it but misclicked twice, which obviously you cant do so Nick was right to stop him. Having said that, I'm interested to know what most people think about fudging, either on the show or on apterous. I know it's helped me lots of times on apterous and yet I still think that the patience bar is probably too generous. However, if I were to ever go on the show I'm pretty sure I would try to use Rachel the way I use the apterous calculator, where I have a fair idea of the product of two numbers but using the calculator to see exactly how close I was and then seeing if I can use the remaining numbers to get the exact required solution. I reckon I could do this without an inordinate amount of hesitation (actually less than what the patience bar on apterous allows, most of the time). Would people consider this cheating or is it part of the game? Should written solutions just be mandatory?

There have been players who seemed to be trying to use every available second in quite a calculated way. In the Apterous interpretation I assume this is dealt with to everyone's satisfaction by the patience bar, but on the show it often seems to be putting undue pressure on the production team, and they don't have any real defence. I suppose you could argue that they've had 30 years to sort it out so they've only themselves to blame.

FWIW, if you go on the show intending to push the limits as far as you can, I think this is bad for the show but I still wouldn't call it cheating. Maybe there should be a clear warning to contestants that undue hesitation is not acceptable; you may be asked to explain why you found it necessary to think further (choosing between safe and dodgy would be the most common reason) and if you can't, based on what you already have written down, you may forfeit the round. So if your opponent declares 6 and you think for a bit before accepting that you've only got 5, when the 6 is disallowed you've risked not getting your 5 points.

I think in the numbers rounds particularly, sometimes it feels at though the 30 seconds has ended in a cloud of dust and you're desperately trying to remember what you saw 10 seconds earlier. At that stage self-preservation tends to take over and I'm sure many players would do almost anything to rescue the situation. Personally I think this is perfectly OK, but I can't easily see how you can distinguish this situation from the rather ugly Carl Williams 900 fudge (or whatever it was).

Clive Brooker wrote: I think in the numbers rounds particularly, sometimes it feels at though the 30 seconds has ended in a cloud of dust and you're desperately trying to remember what you saw 10 seconds earlier. At that stage self-preservation tends to take over and I'm sure many players would do almost anything to rescue the situation. Personally I think this is perfectly OK, but I can't easily see how you can distinguish this situation from the rather ugly Carl Williams 900 fudge (or whatever it was).

I agree. Reading body language isn't an exact science, and you can't know what's going on in someone else's mind. So it wouldn't be fair to penalise those who've got their target, but not written it down, just to stop others possibly winging it. What the Countdown team do, i.e. stopping someone if they backtrack more than once, seems to me to be the fairest solution.

If Countdown were to go more high tech like "Des Chiffres Et Des Lettres" where the players input their answers into computers, this would solve the problem. I can't see it happening any time soon, though, as Countdown has a much more informal "cuddly" image than DCEDL, with DC guests, banter, etc.

Mark James wrote:Just watched this. I don't think he's fudged in the normal sense. I think it was more like, in apterous terms, he thought he could do it but misclicked twice, which obviously you cant do so Nick was right to stop him. Having said that, I'm interested to know what most people think about fudging, either on the show or on apterous. I know it's helped me lots of times on apterous and yet I still think that the patience bar is probably too generous. However, if I were to ever go on the show I'm pretty sure I would try to use Rachel the way I use the apterous calculator, where I have a fair idea of the product of two numbers but using the calculator to see exactly how close I was and then seeing if I can use the remaining numbers to get the exact required solution. I reckon I could do this without an inordinate amount of hesitation (actually less than what the patience bar on apterous allows, most of the time). Would people consider this cheating or is it part of the game? Should written solutions just be mandatory?

I wouldn't be comfortable with multiplying numbers together speculatively. Doing something like "I think 63 * 14 is 882 but I'm not sure, so I'll declare that and hope it's right" is fine, as you've still come up with the solution yourself - it's much the same as offering a risky word you're not sure is in the dictionary. But "I think 63 * 14 is somewhere near the target, I'll declare that, hear the answer from Rachel and wing it from there if I can" is different.

I wouldn't agree with making it mandatory to write down your working, either. Sometimes you do spot the solution in the last second with no chance to write it down. Even if the rule was "if you've started to write down your solution when the time's up you can finish it", it can sometimes legitimately take 5-10 seconds to write it down if it's a pretty complicated solution, so you'd be giving the contestant extra blag time anyway. All it would achieve is to move the problem from the solution-offering stage being blaggable to the solution-writing-down stage being blaggable. And I think the latter would make it easier to use a bit of extra time without it being obvious.

Clive Brooker wrote:There have been players who seemed to be trying to use every available second in quite a calculated way. In the Apterous interpretation I assume this is dealt with to everyone's satisfaction by the patience bar, but on the show it often seems to be putting undue pressure on the production team, and they don't have any real defence. I suppose you could argue that they've had 30 years to sort it out so they've only themselves to blame.

FWIW, if you go on the show intending to push the limits as far as you can, I think this is bad for the show but I still wouldn't call it cheating. Maybe there should be a clear warning to contestants that undue hesitation is not acceptable; you may be asked to explain why you found it necessary to think further (choosing between safe and dodgy would be the most common reason) and if you can't, based on what you already have written down, you may forfeit the round. So if your opponent declares 6 and you think for a bit before accepting that you've only got 5, when the 6 is disallowed you've risked not getting your 5 points.

I think in the numbers rounds particularly, sometimes it feels at though the 30 seconds has ended in a cloud of dust and you're desperately trying to remember what you saw 10 seconds earlier. At that stage self-preservation tends to take over and I'm sure many players would do almost anything to rescue the situation. Personally I think this is perfectly OK, but I can't easily see how you can distinguish this situation from the rather ugly Carl Williams 900 fudge (or whatever it was).

If you half-remember a solution you thought of 10 seconds ago I think it's fine to have a stab at it hoping it'll come back to you, as you still thought of it within the time. I think I'd do that if it were me, but if in delivering the solution I found I couldn't recall the next stage of the calculation after a couple of seconds of silence I'd probably give up and say I'd forgotten it rather than adding or multiplying random numbers to buy time.

I think the apterous model is quite fair, up to a point. You can change the last token you've entered, which is the equivalent of saying "seven times six - sorry, seven times eight", the kind of slip of the tongue that can happen to anyone. But more substantial corrections than that aren't allowed. So if you were to say "six plus seven - no, six times seven" that would be rightly accepted on the show as long as you corrected yourself immediately, but on apterous I think it would put 6 + 7 * on the commit button (provided there are still numbers left to use) and you'd have messed it up.

I don't think there's any need for Countdown to introduce rules like "if you take more than X seconds on a stage of a calculation or to declare your word you will be asked to explain yourself or be disallowed" - this sort of thing is fine for apterous where there's no human arbiter to decide if someone's taking the mickey, but in the studio they can use their common sense about it. What if you have a seven written down, but near the end of the time you spot a risky eight and don't have it written down? Your opponent declares seven - obviously you might hesitate for a second or two. (I had this exact experience in one of my games.) I wouldn't think it's fair to disallow their word because they hesitated over it and didn't have a longer word written down.

Mark James wrote:I know it's helped me lots of times on apterous and yet I still think that the patience bar is probably too generous.

I'm sure it's easier than it used to be as well. Recently I've done a few bullet hyper numbers attacks, but in reality it's nothing of the sort.