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. He reinstated the repechage places a couple of years later.

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.