Sorted. She just chose to ignore it

No, they're trying to say that Rachel isn't as tuned in as Carol was and, like Nick, doesn't always respond well to what's happening. Carol wouldn't have missed something so obvious like that which Rachel obviously did, despite the feeble attempts to claim that she didn't.

of course, some men might feel intimidated by someone like Rachel, and HAVE to pick faults...

I find the decision whether to go to Susie to explain the teatime teaser very hit and miss. Sometimes they go to her for very easy words but today Nick completely glossed over "noonmeat" as if it was obvious - I had to go away and look it up as it completely baffled me, her indoors and the others I asked.

It's a forum? That's what we do. Surely I'm allowed to say I think it's a non-issue? Your logic isn't quite working there.

Also: 'Trying to fool myself'? What are you even talking about? Also, 'feeble attempt'.

All I'm saying is I disagree that she missed it and that I therefore think the whole thing is a non-issue. Jeez, some people need to accept that people can read things differently. It doesn't mean they 'don't get the point' or 'didn't even see it' or are 'fooling themselves' or are making 'feeble attempts' to defend her. Blimey.

Sometimes she does, sometimes she doesn't. Carol was phoning it in for about the last 5-10 years of her stint, she probably wouldn't have even solved it

It's probably only worth pointing out how the contestants could do it if they're going to understand and appreciate it. I don't think yesterday's contestants would.

Did anyone watch an episode last week where Rachel was wearing a tight dress with black seams that ran down each side of her back?

Every time she wrote on the wall her bum seemed to shimmy from side to side, mde me laugh.

Can't believe Rachel didn't get that numbers round - it was easy

7 , 3 , 9 , 3 , 6 , 75 to get 829



6 / 3 = 2

9 + 2 = 11

11 × 75 = 825

7 - 3 = 4

825 + 4 = 829

Just came on to say the exact same thing! Your solution is how I did it also. How on earth did she miss that!

I'm very good at the numbers - I often get ones that Rachel can't (sitting at home of course) - but I also failed to get it until after the time was up. That was the first doable numbers game that I haven't got in time this year I think and I've seen them all.

I'm much better at the numbers than my wife but she got this easily enough. I think if you are looking for the absolute easiest way to get there (i.e. not quite so good at the numbers) then you try the solution given above, presumably Rachel was trying different things as was I.

In the end I got it (75 +9*7)*6 + 3/3 but out of time.

For me that was the most difficult numbers game so far this year because the percentage ways of getting it didn't work.

I certainly could not have got it. It would never have occurred to me to divide two numbers BEFORE multiplying by 75, - but Maths was never my strong point.

Yes, I can understand that as my approach is always to look for the most simplistic way possible which is probably why I didn't find that one tricky at all. Whereas, should finding the solution involve something along the lines of, for example, having to multiple 9 x say 24, then I'm quickly lost!

My way of doing the numbers is always to look at the target (in this case 829) and see what the large number is, (in this case 75), then think, right, so I need an 11 and a 4 and it's done. Hence coming up with the solution above.

As you say, I can only assume Rachel looked for too complicated a solution to that one. The fact she didn't get it would suggest that she doesn't have additional help via an earpiece as has been suggested elsewhere as I'm sure someone else would have seen it and told her how to do if she did.

I noticed that too Clip > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevCkFsDGcg

my guess is, someone 'upstairs' types the numbers in a program, and simply tells Rachel if it is possible or not. She often says confidently that it isn't possible, and sometimes she doesn't say that, and I think someone in her ear piece tells her it is possible....that's all the info she gets, I reckon.

I'm watching the early morning repeat of this and cant believe she didn't get it. The solution (the same as yours) jumped out at me straight away, I had to check it several times to make sure id got it right! Cant believe she described it as tricky

Because sometimes you don't see them, there may be some numbers games you haven't got that she sees.

As I said above the better you are at numbers the harder this round was. If you jump in trying to get the closest multiplier and then see what is left to add/subtract then this was easy however that is not the percentage method to get an answer it just worked in this case. The mistake Rachel (and I) made was to not try an easy method when the usual ones failed - actually in my case I was also too slow as I got it slightly out of time by the method I posted above not by the method so many have seen.

Rachel's cleverer than that. Nobody likes a clever ****. By not showing an easy answer she has avoided embarrassing the contestants and made armchair warriors fell better about themselves. Win-win.

I did it the same way too and also checked several times to make sure! So chuffed.

When you have 3,6 and 9 to make 11 it doesn't necessarily jump out. She obviously didn't think 11 was possible and moved on to other methods.

Hello Natalie!

She did the same again today in the last numbers round!! Just had to do one correction to what the contestant did to get the answer, instead she totally ignored it (even when the contestant himself had spotted his error) and went off on her own complicated way. She may be good at sums but she's not great as a TV presenter.

9 plus 6 over 3 isn't obvious?

yes, I got that numbers round; you just needed to get the one by dividing 9 by 9, but I don't think Rachel saw it, as she was surprised when the new guy said that he just saw it.
As I said before, she probably has her mind on her own solution, and bugger anyone else's

You go by the percentages and just going straight for the most obvious answer only works if it happens as in this case to fit. When you have to use up lots of numbers to get close then usually other methods are better, it's all about the 30 seconds and it's inevitable that every so often Rachel will miss a numbers game that many others not so good will get.

If you consistently do better than Rachel at the numbers then your comment is fair otherwise I'd say her way is better. I didn't get it either and I (from the comfort and no pressure of my sofa) do better than Rachel and get ones she doesn't.

Susie Dent looks rather good today with her hair differently arranged