He's not even being that bad! When Derek took out £750 yesterday, that was clearly bad for the board and everyone was clapping. Noel wasn't standing there going "Waaaaaaaah no NO no NO that's not good enough why'd you no deal now we HAVE to see the two lowest numbers or this is an absolute DISASTER!"

So Bash turned down £14,300 because he wanted to help all his brothers back in Iraq. So now he can send them his £1, which they will appreciate more, obviously.

Noel said "That's highly commendable" - to turn down all that money and risk it all knowing that there are desperately poor people you want to help back home.

So, that's just about as 'uncommendable' an action that it's possible to take.

However, he had no choice but to go on. After all it was only the 2nd offer. We all would have gone on too if we were in his shoes.

I am just criticising Noel's choice of words, not Bash.

So sorry you didn't win more Bash, I had high hopes after the awful game yesterday. Good luck with everything.

Eh, some people always find something to complain about...

However, Noel is supposed to be neutral... as he said in the early days he's not allowed to sway the player's choice or help them make their mind up...

But wasn't as bad as he usually is, which was a nice change. Maybe it wasn't wise for Bash to have gambled if he is trying to gain some money to sort out his finances...

And there was me thinking that playing the perfect game meant getting the most money out of it...Admittedly, that was the second offer (which people tend not to consider), but any of the offers can turn out to be the highest of the game.

You're right that the boxes didn't fall right for him, though.

and they call this a "fan" site/forum for Deal or No Deal fans/ex-contestants/supporters. Sorry, my cynical side kicking in again.

Noel oversells everything for entertainment value. Understandable, but still in my opinion wrong.

Not something that can be said for any of Bash's decisions today - I'd have probably settled for twenty grand or maybe a bit less at 14-box today but £14k was just a tad short, and from then on the only dealable offer in my book was three grand.

What a long winded and tedious introduction. I knitted 2 scarves and learn't Swahili during it. But I suppose we should be grateful there were no tears though the target in the book was ominous and the later revelation of his fiancee made any chance of him taking much of a risk pretty slim.

But that was before the game collapsed. After the £14k 2nd offer (which no-one would have taken with the top 3 still on the board Noel!!!!) he was more or less forced on to the end. I can't really fault the way he played the game in the circumstances. The boxes were just dead unlucky. The 'Derek' offer was pretty desperate and the £3k at 5 box was not worth bothering with so it was just lousy fortune to end up with £1.

And although Bash was clearly disappointed at least he took his bad luck with some dignity, which is something many players (winners and losers) don't leave with.

Another bad luck game. If only Bash had kept that £75,000 for one more box then he would of no doubt got an offer of £15,000+ and depending on his target may of dealt.

Other than that it was an alright game and I liked how the Banker thought of Bash as evil, like accusing him of taunting newbies etc... and even offering him a job. I'd work for the Banker, depending on the pay

The banker is becoming a right pantomime villian at the moment with the "money for Derek" offer and the phone call right before he picked the 75k, and the later offers being Derek-themed. And why was it "Derek BROWN" all the time, why not just Derek? It obviously wasn't going to be one of the other Dereks who got 30k and 12k OPWs!

Anyway, I really liked Bash and his sense of humour, and good on him for not falling for the banker's tricks. I even liked all the funny exchanges with the newbie Allan - shame he didn't go the whole hog and swap at the end (even though we never saw one get offered) .

And I agree that Noel has gone too far the other way since this time last year. Can you imagine what he'd have been like last April if someone had dealt for 14k at the 2nd ofer with the top 3 still there?

Now you know what it was like when most of the forum (including me) got irritated with Noel's gambling ways last spring!

Amazingly, Noel got it right when he said that the offer for another person thingy has only happened once before... and that was with Wine Richard in February 2007. However, there was more faffing around and psychological stuff with Richard, as the banker first offered £5,000 for Andrew, and then offered a "£5,000 blank cheque" at the next offer... which started the whole "Should Richard give Andrew the money?" debate.

So today's "money for another person" offer wasn't as bad... although I hope it's not the start of Endemol introducing silly twists to try and liven up this run of rather average games... Bash was ok and it's a shame we got another game of bad luck. Let's hope tomorrow's is better.

''Cookie Crumbles'' comes to mind,,,

But you played the game Bash,,

Aitch,

Rachel? Eunice? Derek? I'm not sure that I'd be using the phrase "rather average" to describe the current run of games myself...

I think it's time to get a new, less critical host, and some contestants whose luck is a bit better. 'Nuff said. Let's hope this pattern doesn't continue...

True, but I was more referring to the fairly average wins we've had overall in the past six months... what with there being very few high wins etc.

Yes but some average wins as you call produced some memorable moments and contestants. Clive for starters. Same with Millionaire, many five figure winners were also classed as memorable on the show, such as the likes of Fiona Wheeler (£32,000). You can't do much with a show featuring a random format and unpredictible outcomes that has to be aired in order. Golden Balls is the same but the format is produced that no two shows which resulted the same are aired together.

Good point from Travis. When the shows are in a set order and the outcomes are unpredictable you get peaks and troughs. A non-trivial part of the fun is how the Banker-producer rolls with this - the post-Laura offer inflation, the response to the three third-offer Deals in five games in March 2007, and now this.

The spectacular 'big games' have been somewhat lacking. If anything, though, everything else seems to have improved, and perhaps that is reflected in a ratings rally in recent months. If people just watched for the big wins the show would be in a major trough. In fact it's now doing better than it was this time last year, when it was being overtaken by Weakest Link...

There have been some crackers of shows in past few months - the two main ones being Clive's and Eunice's. However, some of the games themselves have left little to be desired... although that is indeed what happens in a random game.

The last 6 months have, in the main been lustreless. There have been a few exceptions but in my opinion the show is well past its prime now. There is no air of excitement at the beginning of a show because we all know if the boxes are good the player will cut and run and if they are bad then they just get forced on to a blue win.

The absolute nadir was the period before Christmas with the relentless ghastly sob-stories to compound our misery. And give me Noel's gambling ways anyday. The last thing this lot needs is encouragement to deal.

I think what would be good is if we could go back and do some "re-jigging". Noel's gambling ways of March 2007 would've been useful in the past couple of months (in moderation), and likewise Noel's (apparent) current mood of being cautious would've been useful in January 2007 in the "post-Laura" era. But Noel's moods and attitudes (and the banker's, for that matter) seem to be as random as the boxes - very random.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we could have done with some contestant swaps.

We need Noel to basically emphasise things like 'every game is different, we've had some (lucky/unlucky) games of late but that doesn't mean today will be the same - play your own game, the boxes have no memories'. That might allow the phrase 'be true to yourself' to be released from its Wakeyist baggage too... if you're a gambler, then gambling is probably being true to yourself, but someone like Dot would have been 'true to herself' if she'd taken the second offer rather than letting the audience drag her on... and won four times as much, as it turned out!

Contestants can definitely be influenced by external factors such as Noel and the audience... going against the grain takes courage, regardless of whether it's fiscal courage or fiscal cowardice. Dot would have been courageous to play to her utility curve and take the second offer, even though it'd have been a very conservative move in terms of the money!