| Comments on the competition |
|---|
| 1. |
|---|
| I didn't think there was a single outstanding clue, but feel that 40 works very smoothly and give it 5 points. 27 earns four points for neat use of 'bunk', narrowly ahead of 37 where I felt that the plural 'disagreements' was rather awkward. 39 is a neat little &lit., earning 2 points, and I gave a point to 21 for a brave rock reference. |
| 2. |
|---|
| Good to see many competitors keeping their clues short this time, even if the explanations are getting ever longer, 5 being the ultimate example of both. With so many definitions and so few letters, a BONES clue didn't need to be fancy. 13 and 27 stood out as simple ideas well handled to make satsifying clues, then 43 as a misleading definition and 32 and 39 as neatly worded & lits. 21's B(rian J)ones and 16's b(l)on(d)es both had the potential for a brilliant clue, but the cryptic elements didn't work for me. 23's definition 'hide inside' was too tenuous to carry an otherwise good idea. I also had my doubts about the promising-looking 36: for an & lit. 'remains of' must mean 'a part of' which it doesn't; otherwise 'of' must mean 'in', which it also doesn't. |
| 3. |
|---|
| Many of the clues were clunky and uninteresting. A number were unsound: e.g.42 where 'essentials' is doing double duty in the D and the SI (as I still prefer to call it), and 5 which is too clever by half, taking the concept of an inverted charade to a ludicrous extreme. In the end the honours went to 39 ( a very neat & lit),48(a nice double context), 6 (simple but effective), 11 (clever reminder of family parties in the 50s!), and 43 (for the juxtaposition of the two types of clothing). No. 2 just missed out. |
| 4. |
|---|
| I thought 32 potentially the best but why PARTIAL? Seems a redundant word.Otherwise much of a muchness this month. Probably because not enough letters to play with |
| 5. |
|---|
Clues awarded marks;
Clues 33 and 39, (5 & 4 points) are both excellent & lits. and hard to separate. I awarded top marks to 33 only because I think the origin of ‘bones’ lies in the field of surgery, rather than general practice. The clue could, however, have done without the exclamation mark. I think 2 (1 point), would be better as ‘A large number’ and perhaps ‘core’ instead of ‘heart’. 28,1 point) could have been improved with a ? and full stop after McCoy, and a dash between nurse and one. 32 ( 1 point), is a competent enough hidden & lit, but a little pedestrian. 46, (3 points), is an excellent clue, but relies on specialist knowledge which is not generally available.
Clues to which I nearly gave marks are as follows;
24 ‘I may come’ isn’t quite right. It does come. Suggest a better wording would be ‘One included in designation etc….?’ or ‘One defined by “Bachelor of Surgery ?” 27 ‘bunk beds’ is a great ruse, but I don’t think ‘one’ = ‘married’ is justified. 36 ‘a’ is redundant and ‘Remains’ does not indicate hidden – ‘bits’ would have put this clue in the scoring range..
47 Nearly very good, but the solver is left asking what is being defined. Suggest the following wording would have improved; “ These, incorporating calcium primarily, can form skulls”. 48 I’m not quite convinced that ‘bonuses’ equate to ‘tips’. 51 The clue started well but lost its way. It would have been better expressed as “ You may find a number in rubbish”.
There are several clues which rely solely on multiple definitions without wordplay. These are okay for a compiler to include in a puzzle as fillers, but they are rarely going to win clue competitions, where something special is required. A couple of competitors have described 'bones' as 'essentials'. They are taking liberties with 'bare bones' – definitions should not be stretched to suit wordplay.
As a first time entrant to this competition, I’m very impressed by the hidden voting system, which makes absolutely sure that there’s no elitism. |
| 6. |
|---|
| 32was potentially a lovely clue. If it had omitted the word partial, I'd have given it 5 points not 1. |
| 7. |
|---|
| This was an easy word to clue, but much less so to clue in an elegant and original way and so that the answer was not too obvious. Five clues, however, well achieved those goals (39 – 4 points; 43, 46], 47 – 3 points each; 2 – 2 points – though all of them arguably deserved to score even more highly). It was especially pleasing to see a clutch of genuine and accomplished &lits (eg, 2, 39, 46, 47), even if there are a few competitors (eg, 21, 51) who still seem not to understand that for a clue to be genuinely &lit, EVERY word in the clue must make a valid contribution to BOTH definition AND subsidiary indication. (Where 30 and 35 are concerned, I am left wondering whether there is some meaning of “bones” that I am missing. ) In most months, there might well have been points for 19, 24, 32, 34 and 36. 50 has a nicely misleading surface, but the definition is spoiled by the fact that “marrow” in the sense of bone marrow surely has no plural; “marrow” (singular) would have met the demands of both definition and surface. I havered about 5, but concluded that it was just too devious. 14 reads very well, but the “I presume?” seems to make no valid contribution other than to the surface. The surface of 38 is seriously spoiled by the capital letters, I can only suppose because the author decided, on the basis of the Chambers entry, that only Bachelor with a capital B could be represented by B; that seems over-punctilious to me. |
| 8. |
|---|
| I don't like # 12,too vulgar! |
| 9. |
|---|
| 33 and 40 would have been my top choices but 33 has an unnecessary exclam and lacks a question mark instead, and in 40 it isn't so much the key that opens as the door. So we need a transitive sense of 'opens', which weakens the surface. |
