Mastermind - Is it fair and Should it be Fair?

Claire Reynolds’ brilliant win in the second semi-final of the current series of Mastermind last Monday, after being brought in as a stand in has led to more calls for the reinstatement of semi-final repechage slots for highest scoring runners up in the heats. Those calling for the reinstatement point to Thomas Nelson’s runner up place in last year’s Grand Final, after he had been originally beaten in an exceptionally high scoring heat.

I have mixed feelings about the issue. There were no repechage slots between 2003 and 2010. I was a highest scoring loser in the first round in 2006. I went to the semis as a stand in and didn’t get used. And thank heavens for that! Even if I had found myself in one of the lower scoring semis and even if I had managed to sneak a win, I can categorically state that I would not have won the final. So I applied again in 2007, opening the door on one of the most amazing experiences in my life. On the other hand, at the time I did bemoan the lack of repechage places to producer Jon Kelly, as did a lot of people. His successor reinstated the repechage places.

But. It was the reintroduction of the repechage slots that led to the fist tinkering with the length of the rounds. I’m a bit of a purist myself. I always thought that the show was at its best with an even two minutes for both of the rounds. Just my opinion and feel free to disagree.

Of course, the best argument for repechage slots doesn’t apply now. For much of the twenty five year run of the original TV series contenders got only one shot. If you didn’t win you couldn’t come back for a later series. Now, if you’re not satisfied with how you did in the series you can apply again and again. I point to Mastermind legend Isabelle Heward, 3 times an unsuccessful semi-finalist then fourth time was the charm. If it matters that much to you then you swallow the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune and you apply again. Many do.

We all know that life isn’t fair and yet we expect our game shows and quiz shows to be. But, you know, tournament play often isn’t fair. Mastermind has no seeding according to ability. You can get into some heats and semis that are hugely more high-powered than others – it’s the luck of the draw. Well, the luck of which other specialist subjects the team feel your specialist subject would work well with. So the question is – should Mastermind take more strenuous efforts to spread the talent more evenly? I don’t know. There is an argument that if you want to win the series, you have to be prepared to meet anyone and to beat anyone. Harsh? Maybe. At least, though, the contender has the safety net of being at liberty to apply again and again.

After all, what are the alternatives? The way I look at it they boil down  to:-

We keep the series as it is now, top- and bottom- heavy heats and semis notwithstanding

The production team start seeding based on perceived ability. In my day – and for all I know still – part of the audition was a set of general knowledge questions to answer, which might give some basis for seeding the heats. How the audience would react to a show of four specialist rounds all about, for the sake of argument, contemporary drama TV series in the same show would be interesting to see. Would it guarantee a more even spread of talent? I have my doubts about just how effective it would be, for seeding is an inexact Science. Everyone who goes on Mastermind knows things. If a lot of those things come up in a one off GK round you can look like a world beater. There may only be 12 GK questions in the whole show that you don’t know, but if they come up in your round, you’re going to look a lot weaker as a player. Numbers and statistics tell a story, but it’s often not the whole story.

The production team could use something similar to the system that was used for Sport Mastermind, all those years ago. If you don’t remember it was a spin off series of 10 shows. Each heat had a winner, just like proper Mastermind. However there were no semi-finals. The top six highest scoring heat winners went through to the Grand Final. So for the parent show you could for example dispense with the semi-final round altogether and just have the 6 top scorers from the heats contest the final. I wouldn’t like this. It’s not Mastermind. I also think that in Mastermind, you should be able to progress until you get beaten. Likewise, if the twenty four semi-final slots were allotted to the twenty four highest scores of the heats, then we’d have some heat winners missing out and I wouldn’t like to see that.

So for all the fair comment about highest scoring runners up and stronger and weaker semi-finals I can’ help feeling that it wouldn’t necessarily make the series better if we did start changing things around again and could, if we weren’t careful, make it worse. Just my opinion and please feel free to disagree.

University Challenge 2025 Quarter Final Elimination Match - UCL v. The Open

The Teams

UCL

Calum Jack

Josh Mandel

Olivia Holtermann Entwistle (capt.)

Sanjay Prabhakar

Open

Nicky Maving

Tom Barber

Karie Westermann (capt.)

Hector Payne

Howdy pardners. Take your seats by the bar in the Last Chance Saloon, while UCL and the Open duke it out for continued existence in the competition, all for your viewing pleasure. Mind the spittoon.

Both teams are old hands now and knew the value of patience. The first starter ground on and on but nobody twitched until Amol mentioned Confessions of an English Opium Eater which saw Karie Westermann unleash her buzzer finger and give the correct answer of Thomas de Quincey – who was also the ventriloquist with Nookie Bear on his days off. Ask your parents. Rock songs with repeated titles – She said She said being one – brought just the one bonus with Louie Louie. None of us really got hold of the next starter which was looking for A – E – I – O – U. Fair enough. Sexual Dimorphism brought Sanjay Prabhakar UCL’s first starter. Octavia ‘I ‘ate you’ Butler brought UCL a welcome full house. Lee Miller gave The Open the next starter bringing up a set on cotton weaving terms, (as opposed to cotton-pickin’ varmints. Remember Deputy Dawg? No, alright, then.) For the picture starter we saw a diagram of the cross section of a leaf, that looked as if it was about to attack the Starship Enterprise. Nicky Maving took it with xylem. I’m sure I once met a guy called Billy ‘Spongy’ Mesophyl in 1985 in the Duke of Cambridge in Lewisham (since demolished to build a bus garage) but he wasn’t an acceptable answer anyway, so The Open took two bonuses on that set. Nobody knew that a group of wonderful and /or horrendous people were all alive in the 1610s. Olivia Holtermann Entwistle knew a group of works all linked by the word blue.  A timely full house on seaweed sadly did not include – if the answer is ‘because the seaweed’, what is the question? (Why did the lobster blush?) but meant that the score at just after 10 minutes was 60 – 50 to the Open.

The Orion Nebula allowed Sajay Prabhakar to level the scores. He was on good form last night and the most successful of either team. Video Games released in the year of 95 brought two correct answers to UCL – and I got one of them with Worms. Loved that game. Calum Jack knew that the Japanese culinary term katsu derived from the English cutlet. Lakes in the EU brought a brace of bonuses. For the next starter the unmistakeable opening bars of New Order’s Blue Monday set off a buzzer race won by Nicky Maving. Three tracks that ‘would never have been made without the Hacienda’ proved less well known. I had none while Open had the Chemical Brothers. When I hear the words ‘literary quarterly I usually answer Granta, and so did Karie Westermann, earning her team bonuses on the Majahapit Empire. Yeah, me neither. The Open still took 2. Josh Mandel was the first to recognise a set of clues relating to the word assumption. A science set about gawd only knows what brought UCL one more bonus than it brought me. Sanjay Prabhakar knew that Charles Lyell wrote ‘Principles of Geology’ and then Gabriel Garcia Marquez brought 2 bonuses. That man Prabhakar struck again on the next starter, recognising clues to the word ignorance. Famous pantomime performers brought me a full house, but only one correct answer to UCL. However they were starting to exert control on the match, leading at 20 minutes by 149 – 95.

For the second picture starter Karie Westermann recognised the work of costume designer Leon Bakst. More of Bakst’s designs for the Ballet Russes brought two correct answers. One full set separated the teams. Josh Mandel came in early to identify a funeral oration given for Pericles. A beautiful UC special set on football teams and patience gave three clubs who had to wait a long time between winning trophies. Next year if they ask the set they’ll be able to include Newcastle United. Two bonuses stretched the lead again. Sanjay Prabhakar stretched the lead further knowing Eightfold Path in Physics. Directors who have worked numerous times with Tilda Swinton brought UCL a full house. The gap was now more than two full houses and the sands of time were gathering on the bottom of the Open’s hourglass. LAM reader Hector Payne had a lash at the behavioural scientist needed for the next starter but none of us knew it. Calum Jack knew the Oscar Winning Twenty Days in Mariupol to pretty much seal the deal. Terms in graph theory only provided one bonus, but UCL were heading for the winner’s enclosure anyway. Josh Mandel knew the river on the banks of which stands Hanoi. This allowed UCL to take 2 of a relatively gentle set on the Labours of Heracles. Sanjay Prabhakar knew of augmented chords and US composer and supporting character in Porridge, Charles ‘Bee’ Ives, brought a well guessed full house. None of us knew karyotype. Nobody could get that Tennyson’s Sea King’s Daughter was Alexandra of Denmark before the contest was gonged. UCL won by 235 – 105.

The stats are pretty much all in favour of UCL. Across the whole show they outbuzzed the Open, and scored a BCR of 67, while the Open managed a BCR of 61. So hard lines to the Open, but hey, you are quarter finalists and nobody can take that away from you.

Amol Watch

Got a bit fussy with pronunciation with the lake set did our Amol. When Josh Mandel offered us the Ee – sel meer Amol accepted it but not without correcting him to Eye – sel – meer. I bet that wouldn’t pass muster in the Netherlands, Amol.

Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week

The Japanese culinary term katsu derived from the English cutlet.

Baby Elephant Walk Moment

A repulsive term scaled by the Debye Length is included in DVLO theory. This measures the stability of what type of mixtures where a small insoluble phase is suspended throughout another phase? Examples include gels, aerosols and foams.

Poetry, sheer poetry – although nowhere near as sonorous as dum de dumdum dum dum dum dum dumdum.