CCCWC Christmas Special competition voters’ comments
Clue no. 29: See King and Queen guzzling tipsy cake, a savoury biscuit, fine wine, a slice of venison, tea, gin, nuts…
Back to competitor’s clues |
All the comments |
Other competitions
A clue to CRACKER / VINTAGE (Right & Left).
2 comments refer to this clue (from 2 competitors, 0 others)
Move your mouse pointer over any bold clue number to see the clue.
Here is the text
| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
Clue 29 appealed because it is beautifully concise but I was not sure about the naming of two crackers counting as double definition, or about the use of party as an anagram indicator.
The link in clue 11 is so smooth – obviously the touch of a master's hand. |
| 2. |
|---|
This was a disappointing collection. Most of the clues with convincing surfaces contained serious flaws, while most of the sound clues had unconvincing or weak surfaces.
21 offers the best surface, the most interesting anagram and some ingenious wordplay, but is undone by the use of “batting” as an a.i. The word can indeed mean “fluttering”, but only as a transitive verb, which makes a nonsense of the use intended for it here; “bat” (imper.) might just have worked. 3 was also let down by it’s a.i. – “clotted” just doesn’t cut the mustard – and “cream, perhaps” for CRACKER is a bit iffy too. 23 is admirably economical and has an original and suitably misleading golfing surface, but “wedge” as a definition of CRACKER without even a “perhaps” or equivalent is, surely, not on. In 25, another concise clue with a good surface, VINTAGE simply doesn’t mean “of long standing”. In 24, otherwise a very good clue, “red” is used for R, which is not an accepted abbreviation.
My votes as follows:
4 points: 17 (I know too little of jazz to tell whether Van (??Morrison) is appropriate in the context, but this is otherwise concise and skillfully done).
3 points: 7 (spoiled by slightly iffy “Explosive” as definition of CRACKER, but an interesting and original surface and “Period” is excellent).
2 points each: 1 (a pretty weak surface, but pithy and the wordplay works); 6 (rather contorted syntax, but the clue is sound – as long as one ignores “in this case, following” in the explanation!), 29 (postulated menu hardly convincing &, personally, I like neither C = see nor the “slice of” device, though both are widely accepted).
1 point each (despite flaws): 21, 23 |
