Mastermind 2026 Round One Heat 23

So, heat 23. Was it worth the wait? Well, that’s not really the fairest of questions considering how bloody long that wait has been. Well, let’s see how it all went.

First up was Angus Burns, offering what I thought would be my banker subject, the London 2012 Olympic Games. I didn’t do too badly either, with 5. Angus looked extremely assured at the start, but as the difficulty level ramped up from the middle of the round he struggled to add many more points to his score, levelling off with 7. Not actually by any means a bad performance considering the width and breadth of the subject, but it looked likely to leave him adrift by half time.

Kim Mackenzie hardly put a foot wrong in her own round on the architect Frank Gehry. She answered all of the questions she was asked correctly, and it was only a longish hesitation before answering one which seemed to prevent her from achieving a score in the teens. As it was, 12 looked highly competitive.

As much as the 2012 Olympic Games was a broad and wide subject, so was Mark Pagan’s, British waterfowl and wading birds. As with Kim before him, Mark seemed very much in control of his subject, despite a couple of wrong answers. Following Kim’s round it looked pretty much as if only double figure rounds would do in tonight’s heat and that’s exactly what he produced, with 10.

Thus far I’d scored 5,1 and 1 in the specialist rounds and Pete Simmonds’ round on the BBC House of Cards trilogy offered the chance to get a double figure aggregate. I watched and enjoyed the trilogy, all those years ago and this brought me 4 points for an aggregate of 11. Pete did considerably better. As had Kim, Pete answered each of his questions correctly. However Pete did not hesitate as he did so, and this brought him a total of 13 and meant that when he returned to the chair he would know exactly what he needed to do.

I think that it was a case of what might have been for Angus Burns when he returned for his GK round. He’d built up a decent head of steam by mid round and this meant that he scored a good 12 to finish with 19. Had he had a little more luck with his specialist round, then this GK performance would have put his opposition under considerably more pressure.

As it was, though, Mark Pagan showed precious few nerves as he set off on his own General Knowledge odyssey. He didn’t quite match Angus’ score, but then he didn’t have to. A good 11 put him 2 points ahead with 21, and was enough to at least give the remaining two contenders a little food for thought.

Kim Mackenzie had been so effective in her specialist round that it was something of a shock to see her actually getting questions wrong in her GK round. I’m glad that she still seemed to be enjoying the experience. On another show, in another heat her 7 for 19 might just have brought her the win, but it wasn’t going to happen in this company.

So Pete Simmonds walked back to the chair knowing that a round of 9 points would bring him the win outright. Well, he did quite a lot better than that. His 14 was one of the best GK performances we’ve seen this series and an overall score of 17 will put him well amongst the top scorers in my unofficial table to semi finalists which is something we can all look forward to after next week’s show.

So was it worth the wait, then? Well, it was certainly a good show and frankly beat all of those Sleb shows all hands down. Word to the wise, Auntie Beeb, word to the wise.

The Details

Angus Burns	London 2012 Olympics	7	0	12	3	19	3
Kim Mackenzie	Frank Gehry	12	0	7	0	19	0
Mark Pagan	British waterfowl and wading birds	10	0	11	2	21	2
Pete Simmonds	The BBC’s House of Cards Trilogy	13	0	14	1	27	1

Tomorrow Evening's Mastermind

Well, at long last I get to write about the next heat of real Mastermind. Tomorrow night’s 23^rd heat will have these specialist subjects:-

London 2012 Olympics

Frank Gehry

British Waterfowl and Wading Birds

The British House of Cards Trilogy

I don’t think I’ll get 0 but I don’t think I’ll get a record high score either.

As regards Celebrity Mastermind. .. . look, in my opinion, compared with real Mastermind it’s not that watchable a show. Sorry, but . . .

A lot of the celebrities, if they do fit that description at all, only do so in the widest possible application of the term

The average celebrity is not, frankly, very good at general knowledge, and does not put on a very good performance. I don’t blame them so much for this – they’re doing it for charity, but watching ‘celebrities’ squirm their way through relatively gentle GK roundss does not a great evening’s entertainment make.

I don’t really care much more for Clive’s inter-round chats than I did for John Humphrys’.

Just my opinion of course. But please BBC, next year, when you don’t have to accommodate the Winter Olympics, for heaven’s sake please don’t make us wait for weeks and weeks between heats of the first round again.

New Show - Time is Money

You know, in 2025 there were very few new TV shows I got to review, and not all of those were even quiz shows either. So in one way at least it’s nice to have new shows to review in the opening months of the year. Last month I reviewed Rob Brydon’s The Floor. Now it’s the turn of Sara Davies’ Time is Money.

This daytime show began on 1^st January and typically I’d manage to miss it until this week. Since returning from the cruise at the start of November this has been the first time that I’ve taken a week off work. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking with it.

So how does it work? Well, the twist is that all 5 contestants are given money at the start of the first round, and the idea is to keep it by answering questions on the buzzer. Answer questions correctly and your opponents’ timers start to leak cash at the rate of £10 a second. Keep answering correctly and the rate speeds up. Answer incorrectly and you lose money. Once your cash has leaked away, you’re out. Unless two of you lose your last tenner at the same time, in which case there’s a tie break. At the end of each round, however money you have left is banked. You’ll only get to take it away if you win the final.

So the rounds continue. Each remaining contestant’s timer is topped up with a higher amount than the previous round until four contestants have lost their cash and only one remains to play in the final. So the finalist will have saved some cash in each of five rounds. They are shown five columns, each with the money they saved in that round. To take away any cash they have to answer a question correctly in each column. If all of that column’s money runs out, then the contestant gets nowt. If they answer all five, then however much money is left is what they get to take away.

A few observations, then. The timer gimmick isn’t that unique. Both 'Five Minutes to a Fortune' and 'Take On The Twisters' used something similar. Remember them? No, I’m not surprised, and the fact that these earlier shows didn’t make it to a second series does cast a doubt over this one’s future. But let’s consider the show on its own merits.

I think that the game play is quite clever. The idea of essentially restarting the game with all the remaining contestants starting with the same amount of money each round is effective. It means that you might have absolutely aced the last round, but if the category of this one doesn’t suit you could still be out. It avoids the problem you can get on a lot of shows when one contestant is so much faster on the buzzer than the others that the result looks like a foregone conclusion from early doors – so well done for that.

You do get a lot of questions for your money – I’ve seen it said that there’s up to 150 asked in each 50 minute show. They’re not especially difficult – it relies on having round categories to give the contestants potential problems – and in fact as the rounds go on there are more clues offered in the questions. Essentially the show bets the house on the buzzer races being tense and exciting. If that's not what you like, well then this is not the show for you

Cards on the table, I found the show seemed to be flagging a bit in the middle rounds. Some of them seemed a lot shorter than others. Also, for a 50 minute show there was no real variation in the game play until the last five minutes with the final. Now, considering that host Sara Davies makes a point of saying (several times if truth be told) that this is the fastest quiz on telly, there’s quite a bit of ‘talking to the contestants’ padding. To be fair, they don’t do a lot of it at the start which is something I approve of. But it really doesn’t let up much from the end of the first round onwards, every time there’s a break in the questions. If you’ve followed the blog for any great length of time you’ll know that this is just something I don’t care for at all.

I’ve already mentioned host Sara Davies. I’m not entirely sure why Sara is hosting the show. Actually I think I know the answer to that – she’s hosting the show because she was offered the chance to do so. Why she accepted the offer, well, that’s a harder question to answer. Sara is already a very well known figure from several seasons as a dragon on BBC’s popular Dragon’s Den. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about her personal finances, but I know enough to say that she is a very successful and wealthy entrepreneur. So it’s probably fair to say that she’s not doing it for the money. Does she aim to carve a career as an all-round TV personality? Or is she doing it because she thought it would be fun? Answers on a postcard please.

What I can say is that she plays this role pretty well for someone who has not built a career entertaining audiences through her personality. For one thing she has bags of confidence and never appeared mechanical or wooden in the shows I watched. That’s important. If I think of other TV personalities who chanced their arm with the quiz game show genre, Alex Scott never quite convinced in “The Tournament”. While she seemed genuinely warm and likeable you always suspected that if the autocue went on the blink she’d falter. As for Gordon Ramsey and Jeremy Kyle, I think that they both suffered from the perception that the viewers had of their TV personae – it just seemed insincere when they were in chummy game show host mode. As I said, I’d like to see less chat, but that’s a personal preference. It’s not that I don’t like the way that Sara Davies does it.

I think that this is watchable fare as it is. However I think that the producers have missed a trick since it could have been a real winner. Had the show cut a lot of the chat, and had maybe four contestants rather than 5 so it could come in at a lean and mean 30 minutes then I think it would have been something a bit special. Alternatively, in the format that it is, then they needed something extra. I’ve praised Sara Davies and she does the job that she is required to do professionally and well. But the show as it is really needs a host who provides a significant proportion of entertainment value. Could you really imagine The Chase without Bradley Walsh, for example? Well, for me, “Time is Money” needs a host with the wit and comedic chops as host to elevate it above the herd.

Well, in the past I’ve seen some shows that I thought were oven-ready turkeys go on to success while others that I’ve thought had potential go on to disappear after one series, so it’s hard to say whether “Time is Money” will run and run. I would watch it again, but I wouldn't go out of my way to record it.

The Shriek

As I write this on Friday morning, my ears are still ringing from the quiz in the club last night. Now, okay, I have always suffered from tinnitus, so to an extent my ears are always ringing. But suffered isn’t necessarily the best term for it. For as long as I can remember I have always had a noise in the background of my hearing that is a high pitched whine. It’s a bit like the sound of tuning an old fashioned radio with a large dial, or a really high pitched voice going EEEEEEEEEEE. I’m not asking for sympathy because it has never held me back as far as I can tell, and much of the time I never even notice that it’s there.

However, there are certain things which do seem to make it worse. One of which is having a question master in the club who just doesn’t get how to get the best out of using a microphone. I’ve been acting as question master quite regularly in the club for more than 30 years now. Using a microphone is a strangely counter-intuitive activity. Now I’ve finished with teaching, but I was a teacher for so long that when confronted by a large, open space with quite a few people in it listening, my instinct is to take a deep breath and then use my ‘teacher voice’. Which is just the wrong thing to do with a microphone. I find I get best results when I don’t speak above my normal conversational volume and when I pitch my voice just a tiny bit lower.

Okay. Now, the QM last night was one of our semi-regular setters. As a person, I like her. As a QM, well last night was one of her better quizzes, which meant it crept up to being average. For the first 6 out of 8 rounds she split each between 5 questions on one theme and five on another. What can I say? I just wish that the average setter for the club would set their sights on using the best gimmick of all – well phrased general knowledge questions that provide something for the rank amateur, something for the seasoned quizzer and something for all points in between. Learn how to make a good basic quiz before you try pushing the envelope. But as I said, for a themed quiz it wasn’t so bad. Even if she did confuse her John Collins and Tom Collins cocktails, and even if she did fall into the trap of the impromptu bonus. In this care she asked name the two actors from ‘It Ain’t Half Hot Mum” had a number 1 single in 1975. Then, as an afterthought she added words to the effect of – I’ll give you a bonus if you can name the song. . . I think I remember what it was.- Gawd help us. Thankfully she had it right, but you just shouldn’t ask a question when you haven’t checked the answer first. Thankfully she was right with her answer of Whispering Grass.

I’m getting away from the point here, which is my ringing ears. The big problem with this QM is that she shouts into the microphone. In fact it’s almost a shriek. I, and a couple of others, have started putting our fingers in our ears when she starts, but she carries on, bellowing it out. I’m sorry, but the older I get the more of a wuss I become about loud noises. It’s not really like physical pain, but nonetheless it is painful. Now, whichever way I look at it, I cannot think of a way to broach the subject with the setter in a way which would not come across as unkind, or, let’s face it, downright rude. Which is why I’m sitting here on a Friday morning with my ears ringing.

University Challenge Quarter Final - Imperial v Warwick

The Teams

Imperial

Rahim Dina

Eugenia Tong

Oscar O’Flanagan (Capt)

Justin Keung

Warwick

Josh Howarth

Antoni Kluzowski

Chris Levesley

Lucy Dennett

As you’ll see I didn’t know that V for Vendetta began as a strip in Warrior in 1982. However I guessed it from the description and so did Lucy Dennett, getting Warwick off the mark. One quarter of the Labours of Heracles brought Warwick a full house, as indeed they should. Oscar O’Flanagan opened his and Imperial’s account with physiology. People born in the UK who have played in the NBA brought two correct answers.I don’t know owt about the video game Rogue but Chris Levesley did for the next starter. Theoretical physics, which brought Warwick 1 bonus, also brought me an unlikely lap of honour for guessing the Higgs boson for the last. For the picture starter none of us recognised the logo of Historic England. Rahim Dina knew that Freetown is the capital city of Sierra Leone and earned Imperial the picture bonuses. Other national cultural organisation logos brought, well, nowt. Justin Keung knew that Reubens was a mate of the Brueghels for the next. 2 bonuses on the Indus Valley Script meant that the score stood at 50-35 in Imperial’s favour at just past ten minutes.

The next starter, with all of its talk of isotopes and such sounded difficult until Amol mentioned Cassiterite. Well, I knew it was tin, even if neither team did. Various clues gave Antoni Kluzowski the word urchin. Film awards in non Anglophone countries brought Warwick two bonuses. Eugenia Tong knew where the Drakensburgs are and the bonuses on Musical modes yielded two correct answers. This was followed by the music starter and eventually Justin Keung identified the work of Prokofiev. Two bonuses on composers of marches were taken. Chris Levesley came in very quickly with Andy Warhol’s Darling to earn bonuses on chess engines. 2 bonuses followed and narrowed the gap. An incredibly long astronomy question fell to Oscar O’ Flanagan. Literary works with similar titles brought them one correct answer. The Imperial skipper showed imperious form, knowing that Lord George Murray was associated with the most famous man to be named after 3 sheepdogs , Bonnie Prince Charlie. Holy Roman Emperors provided a pair of answers and this meant that Imperial led by 120 – 75 as hit the 20 minute mark.

For the second picture starter Antoni Kluzowski identified a gorgeous painting of what looked like Niagara by Frederic ‘Broad’ Church. Pictures featuring rainbows by British artists brought two bonuses. Lucy Dennett recognised words and concepts linked to Aristotle. Phylogenic classification – altogether now, gesundheit – brought one bonus but took Warwick into triple figures. Nobody quite got the next starter which simply required the answer of architecture. Neither did anyone get linear programming for the next. Oscar O’Flanagan knew various occurrences of the 1840s to get the contest moving again. The Amazon and its tributaries brought one bonus. The Imperial skipper was making his run for home now and knew Poke from Norwegian Cuisine, not to be confused with puke which is a term from LAM Towers’ cuisine. Two bonuses on disguise in Shakespeare meant that it was now or never for Warwick. They couldn’t take the next starter after an Imperial miscue. Oscar O took the next starter with 108 stars of destiny – no, me neither. The Kroll process might mean bugger all to me – and indeed it does – but it brought Imperial a rare full house. The irrepressible Imperial skipper struck again with the Continental System for the next starter. Depictions of Pontius Pilate didn’t trouble the scorer, but what did Imperial care. They had won to all intents and purposes. There was time enough for Oscar O’Flanagan to take his 8^th starter with Edward III, but no more. Imperial ran out winners by 190 to 105.

Well, the lasting impression of this game was that it was settled by Oscar O’Flanagan’s onslaught on the buzzer in the last few minutes. For the record Imperial’s BCR was 48% while Warwick’s was 61% off fewer starters.

Amol Watch

Amol, you’re at your absolute best when you show your mastery of the fine art of getting the hell on with it, just as you did in this show.

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

Seminal graphic novel V for Vendetta actually began as a comic strip in Warrior in 1982.

Baby Elephant Walk Moment

Which astronomical observatory located on the Cerro Pachon ridge in Chile, contains a 3,200 megapixel camera, said to be the largest digital camera ever built which will be used to create an ultra-high-definition time lapse record of the universe over a period of ten years? Formerly known as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, it was renamed in 2019, after an American astronomer whose work on galactic rotation helped evidence the existence  - and thank God at this point Oscar O’Flanagan buzzed in with the answer at this point. He’s certainly not dum de dumdum dum dum dum dum dumdum.