Counting clues are where accurate players lose grids. Not because the clue is hard to understand — it never is — but because counting eleven letters under mild time pressure is genuinely error-prone.
The five counting clues
- Exactly N letters — the whole joined name.
- The first name has exactly N letters — one half only.
- Exactly N vowels — a, e, i, o, u across the whole name. Y never counts.
- No, one or two double letters — identical letters side by side, as in Bakker.
- No letter appears twice anywhere — a much stronger claim than having no doubles.
Plus three comparisons between the halves: the first name and the surname have the same number of letters, the surname is longer, or one has more vowels than the other.
Count in halves, then add
The single best habit for these clues: never count a full name in one sweep. Count the first name, hold that number, count the surname, add. Two counts of five are far more reliable than one count of eleven, and comparison clues need the halves separately anyway.
For vowel clues, tap each vowel rather than reading the word. You are looking for five shapes, not for meaning.
Doubles are not repeats
This is the most common misreading in the game. A double letter means two identical letters adjacent to each other: the kk in Bakker, the nn in Sanne. A letter appearing twice means anywhere at all — the two s's in Visser are a double, but the two e's in Peters are a repeat without being a double.
“No letter appears twice” is a strict clue and usually a sharp one, because most full names repeat something. When you see it, apply it early: it often removes three-quarters of a grid.
Where the mistakes come from
- Counting the middle initial. It is not part of the name for any counting clue.
- Forgetting that a particle is part of the surname. Van der Meer counts every letter of all three words — spaces are not letters, but the letters between them are.
- Treating Y as a vowel. It is not, here.
- Counting under pressure. A number you are not sure about is worse than no number: check it before you cross anything out.
Use them late, not first
Counting clues are excellent finishers. On a field of six names, counting vowels four times is quick and decisive; on a field of a hundred it is a hundred opportunities to slip. Cut the field with letter, surname or position clues first, then let the counting clue decide the last few. See clue order for the reasoning.
The extreme track deliberately builds its chains from counting clues, which is why a thirty-name extreme grid can be harder than a hundred-name easy one.
Counting is where people slip, and there is a reason
Humans read small quantities instantly and larger ones slowly. Up to about four items we subitize — the number is simply there, with no counting involved. Past four, accuracy depends on deliberate counting, and deliberate counting is exactly what a scanning eye skips when it is in a hurry.
Every counting clue in this game sits in that dangerous zone. Five vowels, seven letters, two doubled letters: all just past the point where your eye stops knowing and starts estimating.
The fix is mechanical rather than clever. Split the name, count each half, add. It takes two seconds longer per name and removes almost every counting mistake — which matters more than speed, as being fast without being wrong argues.
Related reading
- How to read letter clues quickly and correctly — What counts as a letter, what the puzzle ignores, and the scanning habits that make clues about first letters, missing letters and endings almost instant.
- Speed comes from accuracy, not from hurrying — How the clock actually works, what the two help tools cost, and the habits that make a run fast: fewer passes over the grid, not faster ones.
- The order you apply clues in changes everything — Clues are numbered for reference, not for sequence. How to spot the clue that halves the field, and why applying the same clues in a different order can nearly double your work.
- Do brain games actually make you smarter? — The evidence on brain training, without the marketing: what transfers, what does not, why the 2014 scientist letter mattered, and the honest case for playing a daily puzzle anyway.