Skip to main content

Being a lifeline

I see Who Wants to be a Millionaire is back on the TV. Leaving aside the obvious appeal of winning a million, the most interesting aspect of this show, making it subtly different from a straight general knowledge quiz, is the ability to play lifelines - 50:50 (dropping two wrong answers), ask the audience and phone a friend. That third option particularly causes some interest. What's going on at the other end of the line? Is that person locked in a room away from the internet to avoid cheating?

I can reveal all - I have been a phone-a-friend.

I have to admit it's a stressful thing to do, in some ways more stressful than appearing on the show itself. You receive a call from the studios telling you that your friend is going into the chair. You are asked not to use anything to look things up - but that's as far as the security goes. In practice, I was seated in front of a computer because I was using the phone in my office, but I had no intention of using it. And you are asked to sound surprised when Chris Tarrant calls. A bit hokey, that bit, but hey.

You are then asked to wait for a call. If the phone rings, to leave it for a set number of rings before answering. And the waiting begins. It really was one of the most tense 20 minutes of my life. Eventually, the phone rang. I left it the requisite number of rings. 'Here we go,' I thought. But instead of Chris Tarrant's voice, it was the producer. 'It's okay, they've finished,' he said. 'You can stand down.'

It was, perhaps, strangest of all to watch Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire about six weeks later and see the period of time I was hanging on the phone. They did phone a friend - but not me. It wasn't a science question, which I suspect I was being held for. The sad thing is, the person they rang didn't know the right answer (it was about the meaning of palindrome) and I did. But such is life.

Comments

  1. Excellent - thanks Brian; I must say that I've wondered about this, and only the other night said to Harriet that one could quite easily use the Interweb to answer the question.

    H thought there might not be enough time though [slow typist!]

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did seriously consider it, but thought both timing and the sound of the keyboard could be a problem.

    As it happens, the phone a friend question was not one that would have worked as a look-up, as it wasn't a straight fact.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I always suspected the friends were all together in a big room backstage! (Mostly because they're always in, and always available to speak, when the phone rings. No-one's ever out, or in the middle of dinner).

    Thanks for spilling the beans!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope