Obviously today's last offer was going to cause a bit of a debate as any change in format would, but surely this is a good thing changing things keeps the show fresh and going and I bet more people are going to remember today show now than if it hadn't happened...

Butttt any change in format can be seen as low and gimmicky and like the shows producers are desperate for ideas.

I loved it and variety is the spice of life!

Add a third option Tom, coz I for one am largely undecided. I agree with what SrWilson said in Phyllis' thread, if the 1p is in play at the end, anything goes now! and yet it was a new idea, and it has been used in other versions of the game, but like with the non-monetary offers, it should be used sparingly!

I'm sorta for it, it made really exciting TV, would dilute it a bit if it happened every show though. I would really like to see it used at least once more before the end of the year, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was!

Against it.

It makes a mockery of the show's "deal" element if he can now make an offer to undeal. And he shouldn't be making in-play offers when the player's dealt.

It has the potential to put a total dampner on a game as it did today, as it made it look as though she could've won £50,000 due to the fact she could've undealt and then swapped and won it.

It's clearly just another tactic of Endemol to try and force no deals. They've tried making Noel a Wakeyist and are now moving on to other tactics.

It's also another psychological twist that Endemol are famous for - they produce Big Brother - and to use it on an old and emotional lady is below the belt in my opinion. It gave her a big dilemma and potentially made her unhappy with the result... is that fair on a lady who was crying about going home to an empty house because she no longer had her husband? These are REAL people, not robots or guinea pigs. She'll have life after DOND and she has probably been made to feel worse knowing that "if only she'd have taken the banker's offer to undeal"... when normally, she could think "Oh well I dealt and there was nothing I could do about it...".

This could actually backfire on them because it could encourage people to be cautious and deal early, with the thought in the back of their mind that they might be able to undeal later on.

To those people who say "The banker can do what he wants" - well in that case, why doesn't he just offer six swaps in a game or offer boxes of chocolate - i.e. go the full hog and make the show a complete farce? There aren't "rules" as such, but there must be a set of guidelines somewhere so the banker knows what he's doing in a game which is why the 550 or so shows there have been all follow the same rough format. The reason the show works on the same format is because the boxes are random, the banker is unpredictable to a certain extent, and there is a variety in contestants.

Yes it does add something new to the show. But in my opinion, VARIETY in the CONTESTANTS makes the show. As well as the unpredictability of the normal gameplay. Yes, it is boring if we have a run of low wins but that's the way the game goes... don't try and faff with the format in order to generate some interesting or big wins!

Only if the 1p is in the final two it should happen sometimes its like a second chance at the big sum left but Its all or nothing. And thats good tv.

Totally and utterly against it, mostly for all of the reasons that H has already stated.

You'd expect me to be in favor of this tactic because it allows people who have already dealt the chance to no-deal again. But I'm NOT!

If Endemol use it too much it will encourage people to deal earlier and then hope they get another chance.

Plus the squillions of reasons H has outlined above.

Ugh... I'm totally for it as long as it's kept once a month or so. If the show was kept as it is without any add-ons it would be boring.

ONLY as a once in a blue-moon thing, and only to a player who will probably end up undealing - but I can't see them doing it again until someone is left with a £250k/blue last pair having dealt at 5-box with some other significant red saftey nets whiich were removed in the intervening round - say Danielle's last 5, then left the ultimate all-or-peanuts last pair!

Against it.

It wasn’t fair on Phyllis and it wasn't fair on all those other many contestants that dealt too early who didn't get the same opportunity to undeal.

I’m not going to lie and say it wasn’t exciting because it was, but I wouldn’t like to see that tactic used ever again. I wish Endemol would stop messing about with the format. It is fine as it is and always has been or otherwise, it wouldn't still be on the telly and it wouldn't have had such a big hit that it has had.

I agree with that but I actually found it very interesting! I would hope to see more.

Well, I can't say I particularly liked it as a tactic and certainly wouldn't want to see it happen regularly - but having said that I don't think it is really any worse than the Banker phoning back to change the offer when it becomes obvious what the player is going to do, which happens quite frequently. As others have said though, Phyllis probably wasn't the right contestant to try it on.

It's nowhere near in the league of PJ's swap offer, "blank cheque" Richard, the mind games used to make Kelsie deal an insulting offer or the £1,000.52 joke offer Irene got with £75k still on the board, in terms of the Banker's worst moments!

I think we have to get used to the fact that they will continue to throw in twists, to get people talking about it. Tom and Brenda's non-cash deals were another recent example of this. Endemol are known for "shock and surprise" TV and after getting on for 600 shows the producers probably feel the need to liven it up for themselves by doing something a bit different from time to time!

They will only ever use it very sparingly, any fool can tell that.

It's a terrific, brilliant piece of entertainment with no downside. It can instantly rescue a poor game. A clear vote of support here. A vote against is an admission of utter dullness.

i think if it was a one-off it wasnt a bad idea but i dont think they should do it again.
I don't think that they should have done it on Phyllis though, who was quite obviously emotional, and it made her unhappy to think that she could have one more

I completely agree with this!

I'm against it. Once a player has dealt, they've dealt, no going back. I like to see how the proveout goes for the player. There's no denying that it was an interesting little twist, but I don't think I'd like to see it cropping up again.

I think Power5's 'we've seen worse' is about right. I don't mind the idea in itself, but it sounds like it was misplaced as an out-of-the-blue trick, and especially with this player. It could probably be used better, and I suspect it will get more criticism than PJ's final swap offer even though I considered that a far worse trick in general.

No question PJ's final swap was about as despicable a trick as I've seen and this no way compares to that.

But its all so pointless. Nobody would gamble £50k v 1p let alone Phyllis.
Would they have offered this to crying Donna or lame Kelsie to redeem their games? I think not.

What a load of twaddle.

against, it's pointless. Non cautious people would have no dealt to Phyliss's 2 box position anyway.

I don't think so, when the contestant has obviously dealt too soon and the pair is above the offer. 'Here undo the cautious deal and have your dream finish back'. That would be extreme cheating. They already created enough 'emotional drama'.

Not that today's wasn't pointless. they try and create mind games but it's just pointless. If she dealt the 10K offer earlier why would she risk it then?