Many thanks to Mark for running the previous contest.

For ASCWC 266, please submit up to three cryptic clues for:

WITCH (5)

The deadline is just before midnight, your time, Friday, October 29.

Luciano

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 12:47:50 UTC-5, Luciano Ward wrote:
> Many thanks to Mark for running the previous contest.
>
> For ASCWC 266, please submit up to three cryptic clues for:
>
> WITCH (5)
>
> The deadline is just before midnight, your time, Friday, October 29.
>
> Luciano

I realise you've all probably been too busy thinking up and then sewing together your Halloween costumes, so I'm going to extend this deadline to just before MIDNIGHT, your time, Halloween.

Boo!ciano

WITCH (5)

Woman working her magic saw it change a bit (5)

Jerk takes top off weird sister (5)

Mean lady will start to wail before long (5)

On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 12:18:41 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 12:47:50 UTC-5, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > Many thanks to Mark for running the previous contest.
> >
> > For ASCWC 266, please submit up to three cryptic clues for:
> >
> > WITCH (5)

She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's

Stevil =>: ^ )

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 11:30:23 am UTC+11, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 12:18:41 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 12:47:50 UTC-5, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > > Many thanks to Mark for running the previous contest.
> > >
> > > For ASCWC 266, please submit up to three cryptic clues for:
> > >
> > > WITCH (5)
> She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's

Stevil's clue is faulty.

She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)

.... would be fine. Yes, I realise the deadline has now passed, so rip the original clue to shreads, please.

Normal Steve = : ^ )

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 8:16:33 am UTC+11, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
.... so rip the original clue to shreads, please.
>
> Normal Steve = : ^ )

Normal, but still faulty: "shreds", of course.

Steve = : ^ |

Many thanks to the two who entered clues for WITCH. The clues are below, with my interpretations. Please comment if necessary.

Luciano

----------

Duke:

Woman working her magic saw it change a bit (5)
Hidden in SAW IT CHANGE; def = woman working her magic

Jerk takes top off weird sister (5)
(t)WITCH; def = weird sister

Mean lady will start to wail before long (5)
W(ail) + ITCH; def = mean lady

----------

Steve:

She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells

or, in a brilliant twist:

She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> Steve:
> She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> (t)WITCH; def = she spells
>
> or, in a brilliant twist:
>
> She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
> TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells

As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 20:03:03 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
>
> > Steve:
> > She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> > (t)WITCH; def = she spells
> >
> > or, in a brilliant twist:
> >
> > She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
> > TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
> As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?

Not sure that *and then* is applicable, here.

'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's

in my mind can equate to:

'make an anagram of TWITCH, without one of the Ts'

which equates to: 'make an anagram of TWICH'

And believe me, I was attributing the brilliance not to me.

Luciano

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 7:09:49 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 20:03:03 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> >
> > > Steve:
> > > She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> > > (t)WITCH; def = she spells
> > >
> > > or, in a brilliant twist:
> > >
> > > She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
> > > TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
> > As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?
> Not sure that *and then* is applicable, here.
> 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's
> in my mind can equate to:
>
> 'make an anagram of TWITCH, without one of the Ts'
>
> which equates to: 'make an anagram of TWICH'

On further reflection, I agree—but getting there was a joint effort, thanks.

Steve = : ^ )

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 21:14:02 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 7:09:49 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 20:03:03 UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 1:21:39 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steve:
> > > > She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> > > > (t)WITCH; def = she spells
> > > >
> > > > or, in a brilliant twist:
> > > >
> > > > She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
> > > > TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly')); def = she spells
> > > As far as I can see, the way the clue is worded, it can only be parsed as an anagram of 'twitch; *and then* a 't' removed. Your brilliant twist requires "She spells twitch without one of the 't's, incorrectly", doesn't it?
> > Not sure that *and then* is applicable, here.
> > 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's
> > in my mind can equate to:
> >
> > 'make an anagram of TWITCH, without one of the Ts'
> >
> > which equates to: 'make an anagram of TWICH'
> On further reflection, I agree—but getting there was a joint effort, thanks.
>
> Steve = : ^ )

Result will soon be posted.

In the meantime, occupy yourselves with this, if you you please: https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2021/11/06/AZ_2578_(7th_Nov).pdf

Repeated thanks to the two who entered clues for WITCH. My opinions are below, with the result nethermost.

Luciano

----------

Duke:

Woman working her magic saw it change a bit (5)
Hidden in SAW IT CHANGE; def = woman working her magic
-- ‘a bit’ on its own doesn’t do it for me as hidden word indicator. ‘a bit of’ (preceding the fodder) would certainly work, but fitting that into this clue would be somewhat difficult.

Jerk takes top off weird sister (5)
(t)WITCH; def = weird sister
-- I like this one, even if the surface is a little troubling. The idea of TWITCH taking its own top off is reasonable enough to me.

Mean lady will start to wail before long (5)
W(ail) + ITCH; def = mean lady
-- My main objection to this clue is ‘will’. It doesn’t seem to be doing anything. Otherwise, good.

----------

Steve:

She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
(t)WITCH; def = she spells
-- Pretty good (the ‘spelling’ business is clever), though perhaps a bit too obvious with ‘twitch’ staring us in the face.

or, in a…twist:

She spells 'twitch' incorrectly, without one of the 't's (5)
TWI(t)CH anag ('incorrectly'); def = she spells
-- See previous comment.

-----------

The winner is Duke with his weird sister clue.

> Steve:
>
> She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> (t)WITCH; def = she spells
> -- Pretty good (the ‘spelling’ business is clever), though perhaps a bit too obvious with ‘twitch’ staring us in the face.

Maybe how about...

She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)

On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 10:51:09 am UTC+11, Mark Iredell wrote:
> > Steve:
> >
> > She spells 'twitch' without one of the 't's (5)
> > (t)WITCH; def = she spells
> > -- Pretty good (the ‘spelling’ business is clever), though perhaps a bit too obvious with ‘twitch’ staring us in the face.
> Maybe how about...
>
> She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)

I think somewhere that indirect anagrams were welcome—I can't think where that is for the moment—it would be good.

I knew the "She spells <something> incorrectly" was a good idea. I just needed an anagram of "witch" or perhaps "witch" plus another letter. Sadly only SWITCH and TWITCH fit the bill and both have WITCH en clair. On the basis that every puzzle needs an easy clue, I figured I'd submit anyway, but Luciano's right in that it's just *too* easy.

Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.

I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn, mathematical loons and the like.

All that said: any opinions, ideas?

Thanks,

Luciano

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 8:24:32 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
>
> I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn, mathematical loons and the like.
>
> All that said: any opinions, ideas?

I first posted here in April 2004 and remember the glory days. I struggle a bit to find the time—even to enter, let alone moderate—these days, but I expect that to change eventually. I would miss it if it died..

I'm philosophical about it: nothing stays the same for ever; everything evolves. These might be r.p.c.'s death throes, or it might just be a near-death experience from which the forum recovers with a new lease on life.

There's only one way to find out.

Steve = : ^ )

> > Maybe how about...
> >
> > She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)

> I think somewhere that indirect anagrams were welcome—I can't think where that is for the moment—it would be good.

But it's just a deletion not an anagram.

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:46:52 PM UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 8:24:32 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
> >
> > I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn, mathematical loons and the like.
> >
> > All that said: any opinions, ideas?
> I first posted here in April 2004 and remember the glory days. I struggle a bit to find the time—even to enter, let alone moderate—these days, but I expect that to change eventually. I would miss it if it died.
>
> I'm philosophical about it: nothing stays the same for ever; everything evolves. These might be r.p.c.'s death throes, or it might just be a near-death experience from which the forum recovers with a new lease on life.
>
> There's only one way to find out.
>
> Steve = : ^ )

I got here just before that in late 2002. Soon after I arrived, Theresa Gies, a Canadian woman who was leaving the group, shared with me her list of indicators. It was pretty nice, but I thought I had lost her file many years ago in moving to a new computer, but recently I found it in a random backup folder. I think it's okay to put it on the cloud now so it's never lost again, so here it is
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BIAvE056LhmfxlCJyzpZLgAmlxl5SlrmhFJvkDl4mQQ
Make good use of it!

Anyway, it has been a good run here, but I don't have much hope of a revival.
Cheers!
Mark

On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 9:13:55 am UTC+11, Mark Iredell wrote:
> > > Maybe how about...
> > >
> > > She spells 'swap' without the 's' (5)
>
> > I think somewhere that indirect anagrams were welcome—I can't think where that is for the moment—it would be good.
> But it's just a deletion not an anagram.

Good point, and on second thoughts, I think it's good. I wish I'd thought of it.

Steve = : ^ )

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:20:47 PM UTC-5, Mark Iredell wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:46:52 PM UTC-5, Steve = : ^ ) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 8:24:32 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> > > Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
> > >
> > > I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn, mathematical loons and the like.
> > >
> > > All that said: any opinions, ideas?
> > I first posted here in April 2004 and remember the glory days. I struggle a bit to find the time—even to enter, let alone moderate—these days, but I expect that to change eventually. I would miss it if it died.
> >
> > I'm philosophical about it: nothing stays the same for ever; everything evolves. These might be r.p.c.'s death throes, or it might just be a near-death experience from which the forum recovers with a new lease on life.
> >
> > There's only one way to find out.
> >
> > Steve = : ^ )
> I got here just before that in late 2002. Soon after I arrived, Theresa Gies, a Canadian woman who was leaving the group, shared with me her list of indicators. It was pretty nice, but I thought I had lost her file many years ago in moving to a new computer, but recently I found it in a random backup folder. I think it's okay to put it on the cloud now so it's never lost again, so here it is
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BIAvE056LhmfxlCJyzpZLgAmlxl5SlrmhFJvkDl4mQQ
> Make good use of it!
>
> Anyway, it has been a good run here, but I don't have much hope of a revival.
> Cheers!
> Mark

Oops, I thought I had shared the indicators spreadsheet linked above for viewing. Now done.
Mark

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:24:32 PM UTC-8, Luciano Ward wrote:
> Can I ask how we're feeling about these competitions? I'd be sad to see them go, but having just two people enter seems a bit -- for want of a better word -- sad. I've been competing in rec.puzzles.crosswords for a substantial chunk of my life, and there were times when 15-20 people were entering competitions. These days you feel like three entrants is a success.
>
> I do have other outlets for clues, such as CCCWC, the AZED competition and The Sunday Times Clue Writing Contest, all of which I enjoy, but I'd still feel a bit despondent if rec.puzzles.crosswords went belly-up, and became a depository for porn, mathematical loons and the like.
>
> All that said: any opinions, ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luciano

I don't have anything wise to say. I've been here since the mid-1990s, on and off, and I'm hoping that this dry spell is just a temporary glitch in a long-term source of fun. But I recognize that all things are temporary and that maybe these competitions have run their course.

Still, let's keep going, and let's all also try to lure in fellow crossword enthusiasts. Thanks to Luciano and prepare for the next ASCWC!

Duke

By the way, many thanks to Teresa Gies and Mark Iredell for the spreadsheet of indicators!!

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 17:07:22 UTC-6, Duke wrote:
> By the way, many thanks to Teresa Gies and Mark Iredell for the spreadsheet of indicators!!

Agreed.

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 10:29:25 am UTC+11, Luciano Ward wrote:
> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 17:07:22 UTC-6, Duke wrote:
> > By the way, many thanks to Teresa Gies and Mark Iredell for the spreadsheet of indicators!!
> Agreed.

Agreed agreed.