AZED CROSSWORD 229

METRICATE

1.  C. O. Butcher: To me losing inches is far from simple: we must, if we must (me + (in)tricate).

2.  C. J. Morse: Switch to Olympic distances satisfied – i.e. track shortened and remade (met + anag. less k).

3.  D. F. Manley: Make English treat 1 cm as new unit? (anag. + E, I, & lit.).

VHC

C. Allen Baker: To base one’s workings on X can get one in a list of merit, etc. (a in anag.; X = ten, Ximenes; list⁴).

M. J. Balfour: Convert to cm, litre et al. but not to pounds (anag. less to l, l & lit.).

Mrs K. Bissett: What we must do to lose inches? That for me becomes difficult (me + (in)tricate).

Rev C. M. Broun: Re mile; act this way, with it having to end up as a kilometre (anag. incl. m with final e, & lit.).

C. A. Clarke: Order mile to be in French (one badly drafted Act involved) (anag. in m être, & lit.).

R. M. S. Cork: To convert the acres into hectares, I must have the tractor in the yard converted (I cat in metre).

B. Franco: Change system for one abolishing bob? I react wildly (met(hod) + anag.).

D. V. Harry: Get rid of unwanted inches; set a limit to fat meat and rice (anag. incl. (fa)t; set = arrange).

D. Hawson: Carte: item given in order to get feet under French table (anag.).

W. Jackson: How to standardise EEC Mart? It’s chaotic (anag.).

J. R. Kirby: Start to mimic the French and heartlessly insist acre is abandoned (m + et + anag. incl. i, t, & lit.).

A. Lawrie: —— and make every transaction really involved, causing all to err initially (initial letters & lit.).

L. May: Impose some outlandish measure about one foregoing ounce, for example (I cat in metre, & lit.; forego, 2 mngs.).

D. P. M. Michael: Change the system. Following Monsieur, create it anew (M. + anag.).

F. R. Palmer: Get rid of pounds? Tea-time’s out and beginnings of calorie regulation are in! (anag. incl. c r).

R. J. Palmer: To bring in new measures, Foot etc. going for irregular act re time (anag.; ref. Michael F., guillotine bills).

M. L. Perkins: Create a lot of time for change then scrap Imperialism? (anag. incl. tim(e); i.e. Imperial measures).

D. C. Pleece: Go dotty – bound to involve confusion of semi-articulate (anag. of artic(ulate) in mete, & lit.; dot = decimal point).

H. L. Rhodes: Cite a term contrived to convert the acres to hectares (anag.).

A. Rivlin: Create introductions of measurements in tenths for a change (anag. incl. m i t, & lit.).

W. K. M. Slimmings: In team game, English nearly all cheat: surely that’s ‘to cast stones etc. …’? (E tric(k) in anag.; game = crippled).

F. B. Stubbs: Tartar emetic (salt is out) drunk to get rid of the stone, perhaps (anag. less tar).

P. C. Thornton: I act drastically in matter of feet – abolish them completely (anag. in metre).

D. C. Williamson: Base answer around ten, and you’ll have ‘mile’ to remove, perhaps (m + e(X)tricate, & lit.).

HC

Mrs E. A. Anderson, J. C. Barnes, A. G. Bogie, Mrs A. Boyes, E. J. Burge, D. A. H. Byatt, R. S. Caffyn, E. Chalkley, D. P. Chappell, D. Clandfield, D. L. L. Clarke, M. Coates, A. E. Crow, P. Drummond, Mrs W. Fearon, D. A. Ginger, J. E. Green, R. B. Harling, Mrs E. J. Holmes, R. J. Hooper, E. M. Hornby, D. Hoyle, W. Islip, H. W. Jenkins, G. Jones, A. D. Legge, H. S. Mason, J. D. Moore, F. E. Newlove, C. Oliver, Mrs E. M. Phair, C. P. Rea, A. J. Redstone, E. W. Richart, Rear Adm W. T. C. Ridley, J. Samuels, H. R. Sanders, Mrs E. J. Shields, D. A. Smith, J. C. P. Taylor, G. A. Tomlinson, Rev C. D. Westbrook, M. Woolf.
 

COMMENTS
O lackaday, the worst large-scale disaster since JANNOCK/BANNOCK. Out of an entry approaching 350 over half had RESTS for RUSTS, and many who got it right weren’t sure why. Perhaps my definition was a little vague and could have fitted both words, but only RUSTS would fit the rest of the clue, with t (an abbreviation for time which has now worked its way into the standard repertoire) approaching the end of TRUSS (= pack up). Yet again I profess innocence of any intended ambiguity. I deplore clues which leave the solver vainly resorting to guesswork and can only urge those in two minds to think long and hard before tossing the coin. LIMP and TEMES also gave some difficulty, I gather, but no one actually got them wrong. In fact I rather liked imp = limb (of Satan) as an aid to the ‘& lit.’-ness of the clue.
 
One solver also pointed to the evident rustiness of my knowledge of hymenoptera in my clue to BUMMAREE. It should have been ‘’er mate’ not ‘’is mate’ since all worker bees are female. I plead ignorance, not male chauvinism.
 
Once I’d thinned the entry down to those with correct solutions (a gloomy chore) 1 was on the look-out for more wit and/or passion than I found. Perhaps Azed feels more strongly than his solvers about this iniquitous novelty which threatens our very pint. Not that I am an anti-marketeer, just an opponent of standardization for its own sake. But have no fear. Mine may be an X-word but the norm will remain 12 squares by 12.
 
One brief comment on Mr. Baker’s clue, which I liked very much: I was just a little unhappy about his anagram indication. At first I thought he intended list to mean ‘inclination’ or ‘heeling over’ but then I decided he had the sense of ‘enumeration’ in mind with ‘can’ supplying the necessary anagram element. Either way I think it’s border-line and as such not quite in the first rank. I hope he agrees with my thinking.
 
As to the Barnard clue (‘No adequate description of father’s cuemanship’ (4) ), the plot thickens. I’ve now received further suggestions, some of them very confident, that the answer is ANON, LINE, SKEW, UNCH, HINT, THIN, NOOK, POMP, MACE and FAIR, the latter apparently having the author’s own blessing. Poor man, I owe him an apology for having said, quite wrongly I understand, that he was dead. I still await a satisfactory explanation, however. Fair it may be, but unfair too I suspect.
 
Azed No. 250 is now in sight, on Boxing Day if the Observer is to appear then. Some form of get-together of solvers has been suggested to mark the occasion and I think it’s a fine idea. I don’t know that we can expect any financial support from the Observer in their present mood of parsimony but if guests would be prepared to share the cost something on a modest scale might well be possible, probably in London in the first fortnight in January 1977. As a first step in assessing numbers and cost would all those who could and would attend such a gathering please write as soon as possible to Mr. L. May, to tell him so, and whether or not they would wish to bring husbands or wives as appropriate.