Thursday 14th February 2013 (30th Champs, Round 2, Game 4)

[James Robinson]

Ah, love is in the air this Valentine's Day, and let me tell you, my love for Countdown has never been stronger, especially after the magic of yesterday's MAX GAME!!!!

Is it possible that we could have back-to-back MAX GAMES Well, I'm not the greedy type, but the way this series is going, we're almost bound to have another one.

Well, let's enjoy this lovely day.

Countdown recap for Thursday 14 February 2013.

C1: Series 47 Champion & CoC XI Runner-Up Chris Wills (17 Games, 15 Wins, 1,811 Points.) He works at Manchester Metroplitan University as a researcher.
C2: Series 63 Champion Jack Hurst (13 Games, 13 Wins, 1,527 Points.) An Apteforumite from Desford, Leicestershire, but is currently studying maths at Pembroke College, Cambridge.
DC: Susie Dent and Ken Bruce.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: S F G A I E D P N
R02: W P C D O I A E I
R03: L S M A O U Y N S
R04: R T M T E I U E I
R05: 75, 6, 6, 7, 8, 2. Target: 725.
TTT: ELBOWLID - "William was in debt and filled up with air"
R06: M D N T O A I O E
R07: H R V O I E F R N
R08: R P C G A U I E A
R09: N X L E I O C M T
R10: 75, 8, 7, 1, 4, 1. Target: 236.
TTT: DRABHOWL - "In the U.S., this is a bit of a bighead."
R11: H N B U E A R L S
R12: W E T A B O N R E
R13: Z S T I O E D L S
R14: 75, 6, 8, 1, 7, 4. Target: 542.
R15: B U D L L L E I A (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

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

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: S F G A I E D P N

C1: FEIGNS (6)
C2: SPAEING (7)
DC: SPADING (7)
OT: DEFANGS (7)
Score: 0–7 (max 7)

A lovely start for Jack with the least common of the trio of available 7's there.

Round 2: W P C D O I A E I

C1: COWPEA (6)
C2: COWPEA (6)
DC: cowpie
OT: COPIED (6)
Score: 6–13 (max 13)

Hmmm, you can have a COWPEA, but not a cowpie Back to the drawing board methinks.

Round 3: L S M A O U Y N S

C1: salmons
C2: SOLANUM (7)
OT: SOLANUMS (8)
Score: 6–20 (max 21)

CONTROVERSY ALERT!!!! CONTROVERSY ALERT!!!!

Well, with just about every Countdown counteracting each other in this round, it was almost inevitable that something would go amiss here, and even though Susie explains that SALMON is clearly specified as both the singular and the plural, despite the mass food rule, there do seem to be many more exceptions to this rule that have been overlooked, but I'm sure you can all debate it amongst yourselves at the water cooler tomorrow.

But, even more shockingly is after explaining the definition of SOLANUM, nobody thinks to stick the remaining S on the end to pluralise it (well, clearly Jack did, as he said "safe 7".) (That bit's my version of "Shock, Shock, Horror, Horror, Shock, Shock, Horror." )

Round 4: R T M T E I U E I

C1: TERMITE (7)
C2: TERMITE (7)
OT: EMITTER (7) TRITIUM (7)
Score: 13–27 (max 28)

Normality is resumed, that last round was starting to bug me you know.

TRITIUM is an isotope of hydrogen having an atomic weight of three.

Round 5: 75, 6, 6, 7, 8, 2. Target: 725.

C1: 730.
C2: 726. ((6 + 2 + 7 + 75) x 8) + 6 (7)
RR: 725. ((75 - (6 + 8)) x 2 x 6) - 7 (10)
Score: 13–34 (max 38)

Eeeeeeeeek, a nasty numbers comes out, an for the first time since the 1st numbers of his 2nd game, Jack hasn't got the perfect solution (Yes, my new signature tune. ) Although, Rachel also needs her extra time to solve it too.

Ken talks about his career beginnings in accountancy.

Teatime teaser: ELBOWLID -> BILLOWED

Round 6: M D N T O A I O E

C1: DOMINATE (8)
C2: DOMINATE (8)
DC: MOTIONED (8) DEMOTION (8)
Score: 21–42 (max 46)

Plenty of DOMINATE-ion here.

Round 7: H R V O I E F R N

C1: HORNIER (7)
C2: HORNIER (7)
DC: HEROIN (6)
Score: 28–49 (max 53)

Appropriately, on this romantic day, the whole studio has got considerably HORNIER.

Round 8: R P C G A U I E A

C1: AGARIC (6)
C2: PIRAGUA (7)
Score: 28–56 (max 60)

And now it's Jack's turn to turn the screw again with another awesome darren.

Round 9: N X L E I O C M T

C1: LEXICON (7)
C2: LEXICON (7)
DC: MOTILE (6)
OT: CENTIMO (7) EXCITON (7) LECTION (7)
Score: 35–63 (max 67)

WORD UP (See, this is why I'm never cool. ) But, at least they're on the ball with the brilliant word book here.

Susie's Origins Of Words talks about the origins of "Ken", which amazingly has 7 meanings in the dictionary.

Round 10: 75, 8, 7, 1, 4, 1. Target: 236.

C1: 236. (75 - (8 + 7 + 1)) x 4 (10)
C2: 236. ((75 + 1) x (4 - 1)) + 8 (10)
Score: 45–73 (max 77)

Definitely a much simpler numbers game this time, and Jack is still maintaining a strong lead, as we head into the final "half".

Teatime teaser: DRABHOWL -> BLOWHARD

Round 11: H N B U E A R L S

C1: BLUSHER (7)
C2: NEBULAS (7)
DC: UNLEASH (7)
OT: BRANLES (7) HAULERS (7) HERBALS (7) NEBULAR (7)
Score: 52–80 (max 84)

Seven 7's in this round. Clearly a magnificent 7 of sorts.

A BRANLE is a lively 16th and 17th Century round dance originating in France.

Round 12: W E T A B O N R E

C1: BEATER (6)
C2: BARONET (7)
Score: 52–87 (max 91)

Toff luck on Chris as BARONET is the BEATER in this one.

Round 13: Z S T I O E D L S

C1: SOLIDEST (8)
C2: SOLIDEST (8)
DC: DOZIEST (7)
Score: 60–95 (max 99)

The SOLIDEST answer seals the game in Jack's favour. No points dropped since round 5 for Jack. He's still on super top form it seems.

Round 14: 75, 6, 8, 1, 7, 4. Target: 542.

C1: 542. (7 x 75) + 6 + 8 + 4 - 1 (10)
C2: 542. (7 x 75) + 6 + 8 + 4 - 1 (10)
Score: 70–105 (max 109)

And that's 14 centuries out of 14 for Jack. Quite staggering I think only Julian Fell has done 14 consecutive tons, but I'm sure Graeme will prove me wrong shortly.

Round 15: B U D L L L E I A

C1 buzzes on 1 second to say "No, sorry, not it", which is incorrect.
C2 buzzes on 9 seconds to say LULLABIED which is correct.
Final Score: 70–115 (max 119)

WOAH!!! Chris buzzes in immediately Is Chris about to limit Jack to his lowest ever score Well.............., no, as it happens, as he admits to messing up, letting Jack use the extra time to work out the answer, which I think makes it his 2nd slowest conundrum solve after AUTHORESS in his 3rd game (27 seconds for those of you in the know )

So, another 13 maxer for Jack against a tough non-Apterite, but as we all know from his past games, Chris is a very tough competitor and gave Jack a good game, despite the SALMON/SALMONS controversy early on.

So, Jack will be back on the 26th in the final quarter-final, where he'll take on the winner of tomorrow's match between Series 61 champion Chris Davies and Series 58 champion David O'Donnell.

Heather will provide that brilliant recap for your enjoyment tomorrow.

I'll be back on Wednesday for the last Round 2 game which will see Dave Hoskisson play Neil Zussman for the right to play Jonathan Rawlinson the following day.

So, have a good weekend everybody. I know I will, as I'll be celebrating my 25th birthday on Monday, and it's not a bad present seeing Innis Carson take on Kirk Bevins on the telly either.

So, till next week, bye bye.

Statistics Corner

Chris:
Total score - 70
Raw score - 95
Total % of max - 59
Raw % of max - 80
Total average score per round - 4.7
Raw average score per round - 6.3
Number of maxes - 9

Jack:
Total score - 115
Raw score - 115
Total % of max - 97
Raw % of max - 97
Total average score per round - 7.7
Raw average score per round - 7.7
Number of maxes - 13

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=-16

[Charlie Reams]

Round 3: L S M A O U Y N S

C1: salmons
C2: SOLANUM (7)
OT: SOLANUMS (8)
Score: 6–20 (max 21)

CONTROVERSY ALERT!!!! CONTROVERSY ALERT!!!!

Well, with just about every Countdown counteracting each other in this round, it was almost inevitable that something would go amiss here, and even though Susie explains that SALMON is clearly specified as both the singular and the plural, despite the mass food rule, there do seem to be many more exceptions to this rule that have been overlooked, but I'm sure you can all debate it amongst yourselves at the water cooler tomorrow.

I think you're confusing the issue here. The rules about mass nouns (e.g. foods) are to decide whether they have a plural at all. But SALMON is a count noun (in at least one sense), so there's no need for a mass noun discussion; SALMON definitely has a plural. And the dictionary explicitly says "pl. same", so the plural is SALMON. There's no contradiction.

[Andy Platt]

Is it defined as a colour?

[David Williams]

The rules about mass nouns (e.g. foods) are to decide whether they have a plural at all. But SALMON is a count noun (in at least one sense), so there's no need for a mass noun discussion; SALMON definitely has a plural. And the dictionary explicitly says "pl. same", so the plural is SALMON. There's no contradiction.

No need for a mass noun discussion? Every need, surely. The count noun plural is out. The mass noun can be pluralised under Countdown rules. Is the plural of the Countdown 'portions of salmon' meaning necessarily the same as the plural of the dictionary count noun? BEEF, for example, has different plurals for different meanings. That's the discussion.

[Countdown Team]

Food for thought?

2 x the portions of the fish in a restaurant, would you ask for 2 salmons? If so, what if goose was on the menu? Would you ask for 2 gooses or use the plural and ask for 2 geese? If it's 2 x geese, then surely it has to be 2 x salmon?

[David Williams]

2 x the portions of the fish in a restaurant, would you ask for 2 salmons? If so, what if goose was on the menu? Would you ask for 2 gooses or use the plural and ask for 2 geese? If it's 2 x geese, then surely it has to be 2 x salmon?

I definitely wouldn't ask for two geese, because that means something quite different to what I want. I almost certainly wouldn't ask for two gooses, because it sounds ridiculous, though I have a sneaking suspicion I could persuade myself it was actually correct - a way of differentiating what I want from two whole birds. I'd find some other way - goose twice, maybe. I'd probably ask for two salmon even though I don't want two whole fish, but I just might ask for two salmons.

Food for thought indeed.

[Andy Platt]

I'm hungry now.

[Charlie Reams]

The rules about mass nouns (e.g. foods) are to decide whether they have a plural at all. But SALMON is a count noun (in at least one sense), so there's no need for a mass noun discussion; SALMON definitely has a plural. And the dictionary explicitly says "pl. same", so the plural is SALMON. There's no contradiction.

No need for a mass noun discussion? Every need, surely. The count noun plural is out. The mass noun can be pluralised under Countdown rules. Is the plural of the Countdown 'portions of salmon' meaning necessarily the same as the plural of the dictionary count noun? BEEF, for example, has different plurals for different meanings. That's the discussion.

The count noun plural is not "out", it's in and it's SALMON.

If the mass noun plural were allowed, which it may well be, it would be SALMON. The note "pl. same" is given before the individual senses, so it applies to all of them. So no SALMONS either way.

[Matt Morrison]

no SALMONS either way.

Then how come your word doesn't have a ^ by it?

[Gavin Chipper]

This discussion is already happening in the spoiler thread. Two thread is too much!

[Matt Morrison]

Two thread is too much!

Don't you mean THREADSES?

[Gavin Chipper]

Two thread is too much!

Don't you mean THREADSES?

THREADSESES

(My spelling was intentional by the way.)

[Matt Morrison]

I knowses.

[David Williams]

The count noun plural is not "out", it's in and it's SALMON.

What I meant was that it's "out" in the sense that it's not SALMONS.

If the mass noun plural were allowed, which it may well be, it would be SALMON. The note "pl. same" is given before the individual senses, so it applies to all of them. So no SALMONS either way.

It applies to all the senses in the dictionary, but none of them is the pluralisable mass noun we have become so familiar with. Discuss.

[Mike Brown]

If the mass noun plural were allowed, which it may well be, it would be SALMON. The note "pl. same" is given before the individual senses, so it applies to all of them. So no SALMONS either way.

This has an interesting implication in terms of the possibility of allowing the plural of the colour salmon. I'd have thought it would take an 's' in that context, if it was allowed by Susie (I suspect it might not be, despite the mass noun 'rules' implying it's OK - sometimes? - to pluralise colours). I would argue that the now-removed comment (from the NODE) about SALMONS being O.K. as an alternative plural, especially in the context of types of salmon, is still valid in the real world. Perhaps it was removed under the 'corpus uber alles' rules that define what is and isn't listed in the book.

[Charlie Reams]

Perhaps it was removed under the 'corpus uber alles' rules that define what is and isn't listed in the book.

FWIW I don't think that's the real principle, they just say that to excuse their bad editorial decisions.