On Tuesday 19th October I posted about the question as to whether runner up semi final slots in Mastermind would be open to third or fourth placed contenders. I made an appeal at the end of the post for Jon Kelly, the Producer of the show to maybe drop me a line to clear it up, knowing that he reads the blog from time to time. Lo and behold, being the all round good egg that he is, Jon emailed me tonight, and told me this ,
"I read your post on LAM about highest scoring runners up. The rule is that you have to have finished second in your heat to qualify. This is just the simplest and fairest way to enforce this rule."
So that's the definitive answer to this question - thanks Jon. All of which means that the six runner up slots are currently occupied by : -
Hamish Cameron – 30 – 2
Anne Skillen - 30 -7
James Collenette - 29 – 2
Duncan Byrne – 27 - 2
Ian Packham - 27 – 7
Chris Harrison - 26 – 1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hmmm... "The rule is that you have to have finished second in your heat to qualify. This is just the simplest and fairest way to enforce this rule."
So the fairest way of implementing a system whereby people with otherwise excellent scores are not penalised for having the misfortune to be drawn against people with even more excellent scores, is... to penalise people with otherwise excellent scores for having the misfortune to be drawn against people with even more excellent scores.
As you might guess, I'm not convinced.
Hi Jennifer
I know where you're coming from, but I'd like to play Devil's Advocate if I may, for a moment. If we start saying that we go back to the Magnusson era repechage system of the highest scoring losers, whether 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, then why don't we just go the whole hog and say, OK, well lets use something like the Sports Mastermind system. You could have your 24 heats, but who wins each show would be irrelevent, only the 24 highest scores would go through to the semis, and then in the semis, only the 6 highest scores would go through to the final.
Mastermind is a knockout tournament, and I for one would hate to see it changed from this. As I see it the runner up spots in the semis are a safety net to prevent excellent competitors producing a top performance and not getting through. If people manage to get one of these slots without producing something outstanding, well, good luck to them. Lets take last year. John Cooper came second in his heat scoring 29, an outstanding performance. The next best runner up score was 26. That's a very good score, but not one where you'd have to say that it should guarantee you a place in the semis.
I'll be honest, if we take the last three series, back to the 2007 SOBM, I can only think of one time when the third place managed what should have guaranteed them a place in the semi. In the 22nd heat of my series, my friends Howard Pizzey and Chris Jones both scored 29 points to Alan Frith's 31. These scores were in the top 10 highest scores of the whole round. Of course there were no runner up slots then, so both of them were hard done by.
On the whole though, I think that the system is pretty much right as it is.
Dave
I don't really have a problem with the rule, I just think Jon Kelly should have said "it might be a bit unfair, but that's the way it is" rather than calling it the "fairest" way.
Sorry for the confusion Dave, I could have sworn the researcher told me otherwise. Anyway I hold my hands up and wish the 'second placers' the best of luck
I wonder if Jon's comments meant 'in retrospect, once the situation arose'? I was conscious when I read the contestants' guidance last year that this was a bit ambiguous (but said runners up which probably meant second places only) but the situation didn't arise in practice. Just speculating that it might have done this year and then the production team had to decide who to give the places to! Suspect this year's notes will be worded less ambiguously. (thinks, never going to find out unless I get off my backside and apply!)
Hi Paul and Lisa
Paul, no need to apologise at all. Brian P. emailed me after I made this posting and said that you were definitely told that 3rd and 4th placers were eligible. One suspects that it perhaps was a case of right hand , left hand, and an assistant answering off the top of the head without checking.
Lisa - go for it !
Dave
I AM going for it - just need to think up some new specialist subjects as 2 of the ones I had last time are no longer options (someone apparently did Jane Austen in the semis this year!)
Also, having started wading through my semi-final subject (Angela Brazil) just in case and got lost in treacle, I am not sure I can bear months of rereading them!
I always fancied going for the novels of Emily Bronte and seeing if they spotted what I was doing !
Dave
Post a Comment