Subject:      PCWC 41: all the scores (LONG)
From:         jbergman@spchp31.BBN.COM (Jacob Bergmann)
Date:         1995/05/01
Message-Id:   <JBERGMAN.95May1113643@spchp31.BBN.COM>
Newsgroups:   rec.puzzles.crosswords
[More Headers]

People's Clue Writing Contest # 41 ran from April 12 to 29, and
asked readers to write a clue for the word "PROPONENT".

-------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTERS' COMMENTS ON THE CONTEST AS A WHOLE:

Good word.  Not too many obvious anagrams, which made it a
bit more of a challenge.

Interesting word. Limited definition though. The obvious charades
were used often.

I usually give 90% for "solid" clues, 100% for the truly remarkable and
50-80% for flawed clues.  Nothing remarkable, and only three solid
clues this time.  Tough word, I guess.

contest had promise, but i'm afraid none of the entries impressed me much.
if my newsfeed wasn't lost in the twilight zone i would have entered.
rules for judging contest could be drastically simplified to make them 
more readable...just a suggestion.
  >> Moderator's response -- can you be more specific about <<
  >> what you'd cut?  Please feel free to follow up to the  <<
  >> newsgroup when your newsfeed is feeling up to it.      <<

To anyone who finds voting in the PCWC very time-consuming, here is
my quick-and-dirty system:
Step 1: Type out only scores, no comments, according to the rule that
0 means the clue is unsound, unfair or has a tortuous 
surface;
1 means the clue is sound, fair and not too rough;
2 means you really like it.
Step 2: Select the winner from your 2's and mark it up to 10.
This ensures that your vote has some punch to it.
Step 3: If you feel expansive and have plenty of time, fill in some
comments.
Step 4: If you said you could moderate, but don't really want to,
mark your own clue down to 0.
Thanks to James Lundon for his mailing list: it's A Dream Come True!
At last I don't miss half the competitions!    

SCORING RESULTS AND VOTERS' COMMENTS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

1st place (score 78.06%) - clue 10
From Evan Whitney <evan@scd.hp.com>

    Support a single Windows operating system - anyone in favor?  (9)

Votes (normalized): 14 38 50 56 63 75 82 83 92 96 100 100 100 100 100 100

Another "support echo", mitigated somewhat by the fact that "support"
and the definition are at opposite ends of the clue.  Nice surface,
and a timely cryptic use of "NT".  But I don't see what's "punny"
about the definition, so the question mark seems unnecessary, except
in order to work with way the clue's surface is structured.

Now there's a frightening thought! :-)  I like this one.

Count me in. I'm sick of having to upgrade every 6 months.

A good clue. Strong surface. My only beef is the repeated root.

<hee hee> I *like* this one, especially since I'm dealing
with software testing right now.

nice surface, strange definition, but the only good entry, IMHO

really well constructed

-------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd place (score 67.74%) - clue 6
From Simon Morton <lmcsimo@lmc.ericsson.se>

    Rugby player, on upsetting ten, becomes champion. (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 25 56 60 65 67 68 70 71 75 78 85 87 100 100

Sorry, but you lost me on the "rugby player" part; this kind of 
parochial knowledge often impresses half the audience, but I'm not
in that half.  Otherwise, the clue is okay.

I'll have to take your word for it, not being a rugby follower.

It might be helpful to indicate which side of the ocean the author of a
clue is from. The definition for Prop here may be common in the UK, but
I'll bet only 1 in a 100 people on this side would know what it is.
The surface is a little weak, but otherwise OK.

obscure reference

An econmical clue.  I'm not familiar with rugby, so I'll stipulate to 
the "prop" position.  The surface is a little elusive, but maybe the
rugby fans out there understand.

but who's the ten he's upsetting (don't know much about Rugby)?!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

3rd place (score 67.49%) - clue 3
From Don Monson <dmonson@direct.ca>

    Advocate to support a part of the Bible (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 18 30 60 63 67 75 75 78 78 80 81 86 86 95 100

The use of "support" is an "echo" of the straight definition; 
although there is no "etymology violation" here, I favored clues
which didn't use this form.  Surface is okay.

Not sure that "part of the Bible" is fair enough to derive NT.
This is an indirect abbreviation.

Smooth surface and wordplay, except one thing which appeared in a lot
of clues. Generally, it's a bad idea to repeat the basic meaning of the
word being clued in the wordplay.

"To" is extraneous.  Fairly simple, but elegant.

A good, modest charade

boring clue

Clear and simple

-------------------------------------------------------------------

4th place (score 67.46%) - clue 15
From msb@sq.com

    He argues for turning pen to porn (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 13 18 50 53 57 67 70 75 83 92 93 100 100 100 100

Very clean, I thought, and a clear surface impression; no wasted
words.  The only flaw --- and a minor one at that --- is that
"turning" seems a little weak as an anagram indicator.

Okay, but not great.

Short and simple, one of the better clues 

Very good.

"turning" isn't that good an anagram indicator; more like a reversal.

A devilishly clever definition, which leaves the clue with no wasted 
words.  I'm confused by the surface, although it reminds me of a 
laddergram (turn PEN to PORN in six steps, e.g.)

clumsy clue

-------------------------------------------------------------------

5th place (score 66.60%) - clue 21
From Chris Cleary <ecc4g@dayhoff.med.virginia.edu>

    Police chief led by expert on otolaryngology?  He's for it! (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 4 45 50 67 71 75 76 79 80 80 83 88 100 100

The surface, in my opinion, is okay; the cryptic is solid.  I 
don't really like the question/exclamation form of the clue --- 
I prefer to reserve exclamation points for &lit clues.

I like it!

Wow. I learned a new word today. I like the word play part, but the
surface is strained a bit - why is the cop so thrilled about this?
Better than most, though.

Another good clue!  Possibly the best one.

The exclamation point shouldn't be there, and the surface is a little
choppy.  Overall though, origianl

An average clue, but I'll hand it to the cluer for coming up with
"otolaryngology."  That took ear, nose, throat, and balls!

nice clue (although wouldn't it be the norm to say 'head of Police'
to indicate 1st letter? )

-------------------------------------------------------------------

6th place (score 64.32%) - clue 11
From Deanhoward@aol.com

    Champion could show support for balanced opening bid (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 29 33 43 50 53 60 67 79 83 83 86 88 88 88 92

The best of the "bridge" clues:  "balanced opening bid" properly
translates to "one no-trump" without actually spelling it out;
"champion" in the surface is used as "best player" and so avoids
sounding too obviously like its actual surface definition.

Not bad, though the surface meaning is defective; one "has support
for" a suit; one does not "show support for" NT.  Cf. #8

A bit wordy.

A good clue for the bridge set.

"Could show" misleads incorrectly.

I like "balanced opening bid" for ONE NT.  While esoteric, I think it's
the best of the indicators in the bridge clues.  I'm not as happy with
"could show" as linking words.

well constructed but boring (Bridge again!)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

7th place (score 62.67%) - clue 4
From Susan Meyers <susanm@u.washington.edu>

    Champion propeller comes up short on final half of ascent (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 29 38 50 53 53 57 58 68 73 80 81 84 88 89 92

Nice doubled use of "champion" as noun and adjective; very clear
surface imagery, with all the parts contributing to the meaning.

Poor surface with "champion propeller"

I believe "comes up short" as a curtailment indicator usually means
only the last letter is dropped, not the last 5. But this is a just
a nit pick. Actually, the clue doesn't need it at all because "prop"
already  means "propeller", informally.  What is a Champion propeller?

"Final half of ascent" is a pretty good clue for "ent"; but the prop
indicator doesn't work, nor does the surface

"Champion propellor"?  I suppose so, if you're reading _Consumer
Reports_, but it just doesn't scan well to me.  And "comes up short"
gives *much* too much leeway from which to get PROP.

nice surface, honorable mention.

I'm not sure how to interpret "Champion" on the surface.  Do the noted
tire makers also dabble in plane parts?  I understand the "propeller
comes up short = PROP" reference, but it just doesn't seem very sharp.

A champion propeller?  I take it that the propeller
is a person; champion seems to be an awkward modifier
for a mechanical propeller.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

8th place (score 61.56%) - clue 8
From "Laurie, DP" <WSKDPL@puknet.puk.ac.za>

    I favour the idea to support one no-trump (9)

Votes (normalized): 14 18 20 38 53 57 60 67 71 75 75 81 83 89 90 94

Here's the "support echo" again.  Clue is nice in its theme, but is
perhaps too straightforward in spelling out "one no-trump"; I preferred
the "balanced bid" approach in clue 11.

Not bad, though the surface meaning is defective; one "has support
for" a suit; one does not "support" NT.  Cf. #11

Rather dull surface, but adequate.

Basic, to the point, okay surface. Repeated root though
(support/supporter).

Defn. is not correct: should be in 3rd person, not 1st.

I dunno--this sounds like table talk to me :)

no substance

Reading makes little sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

9th place (score 60.06%) - clue 23
From Clayton Colwell <eris@bga.com>

    Support a heartless Newt supporter (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 18 29 50 50 67 67 70 78 81 83 86 89 95 100

Two "supports" in one clue seems redundant, especially since 
that's the nature of the word being clued.  The "heartless
Newt" was a nice, timely touch, although I wonder whether the 
surface reading is as readily understood overseas as in the U.S.
(not a problem with me, though).

Surface is strange: support a supporter?

Good construction but surface is a bit weak.

Again, defining PROP as "support" is too close to the main word
"PROPONENT"

what's a heartless newt supporter when he's at home?

I don't like the repetition of "support."
Isn't someone who supports Newt by definition heartless?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

10th place (score 58.54%) - clue 17

    One who favours extra support on specialized hospital ward (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 30 33 36 38 43 50 57 63 75 75 79 83 87 88 100

Okay definition and surface, but I'm not thrilled with the cryptic
"ent" --- I'll agree that it's a specialized field of medicine,
but I can't say as I realistically have encountered a hospital
floor devoted to it.

Very good.  The "on" in the surface meaning is a flaw.

Getting from "specialized hospital ward" to "ENT" is quite a pole vault.

I can't say I've ever heard of an Ear, Nose and Throat ward.
Otherwise good.

"extra" is superfluous, "support" is a repeated root

As much as others dislike the indirect anagram, I dislike the indirect
acronym.  There were several of these in this competition, illustrated
by this clue: specialized hospital ward -> ear nose & throat -> ENT.
There are just too many hospital acronyms to have any hope of getting
this without other help.

obscure references

Since "support" alone can clearly indicate PROP, "extra" seems to be, er,
extra.  Also, I might buy that ENT = "specialized field of medicine," but
not "specialized hospital ward."  Am I missing something?

couldn't have done better myself!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

11th place (score 57.60%) - clue 22

    Advocate to support singular new testament (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 10 14 18 50 53 57 70 75 75 78 83 83 84 84 88

Smooth, yes; misleading, no.  And not smooth enough that my 
first impression of "new testament" isn't Biblical.  An okay
but not spectacular clue; maybe I just don't dote on "legal
clues".

Well, you're welcome to your opinion about the surface, but whenever
I hear "new testament," I think of the Bible, not probate, and I
don't even go to church. 

Again, defining PROP as "support" is too close to the main word
"PROPONENT"

Yes, the surface reading is smooth, but I like the similar clue #3
better.

what exactly is a singular new testament?! 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

12th place (score 55.00%) - clue 1

    One introduces a suit, having support with this opening bid (9)

Votes (normalized): 10 20 22 25 29 40 60 63 68 68 71 71 75 75 83 100

Cryptic translation of "one no-trump" a little vague; I 
preferred the other "bridge" clues in this respect.  Reasonably 
nice theme, nonetheless, and its use of "support" doesn't "echo"
the straight definition as is the case with some other clues.

A game try [groan?], but it doesn't work for me.  For instance,
there's nothing to suggest that "this opening bid" would be 1NT
rather than a different bid.  Also, the surface reading is
defective bridge-wise, since it suggests that the suit is being
introduced and supported by the same person!

Defn is weak, and too much filler required to smooth out surface.

Somewhat smooth, but I dislike the bridge reference

At first I didn't like this one, but then I realized that some
opening bids do indicate support (namely, opening no trumps).
The "having" is nicely deceptive.  "Opening bid" may be a tad *too*
general. 

obscure references

Shouldn't the definition be "One WHO introduces a suit"?  It looks like
it might have been a typo.  Also, "opening bid = ONE NT" is a bit of a
long shot.  Others who used the bridge motif found clearer ways of 
indicating it.

don't know anything about Bridge but it's a well-constructed clue

-------------------------------------------------------------------

13th place (score 54.82%) - clue 18

    Bill Clinton, about to sign a bill for example, needs to
    order pen, pronto (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 14 25 39 56 56 58 60 70 71 75 83 88 92 92

Kind of lengthy, particularly the definition.  Otherwise good.

Amusing!

Better than most, but rather wordy.

I dislike the definition

I don't care for the definition, as the President will often
(cynicism: usually) bills for other reasons than that he supports them.
I do like the cryptic, though.

poor definition

This clue is a bit long-winded but it has a real pert spirit, and it's
the best anagram clue in the competition, IMHO.

definition too vague and long winded - could have spent more time 
on the clue

Definition is lengthy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

14th place (score 53.71%) - clue 16

    One who argues for eating cornbread, curtailing fast (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 14 18 20 29 33 40 58 69 75 79 83 88 100 100

Pretty good surface and definition.  But the cryptic inclusion is
a little torturous --- I can see what you're trying to do, but it
still seems a little backwards to me; I would have much preferred 
"...for curtailing fast eats cornbread".

Container part doesn't work for me.

Pretty good.

Well, the cryptic, to be understood, requires one to have
the grasp on grammar of Yoda, the Jedi Master.

Gotta love the 'cornbread'.  I was unable to make that line work
when I was clueing the word.

I like the PRO(PONE)NT construction idea, which was underemployed in
this competition.  I wish the cluer could have got a little more 
sense out of the surface.

clumsy clue

My favorite.  I especially like the "fast" pun.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

15th place (score 51.59%) - clue 19

    Advocate, rugby-player, single, not short (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 13 33 36 40 42 43 44 57 58 60 71 76 79 85 88

Another clue making that rugby reference which, to me, means 
nothing; sorry.  Okay surface.  The use of "advocate" doesn't
differ sufficiently between surface and straight definition.
Using "short" to mean "contract" rather than "remove the first or
last letter" is unconventional, but legal, I guess.

I think NOT -> N'T -> NT is insufficiently obvious.  Even after
reading the explanation I didn't see it until I saw the explanation
of #20, where it is explicit.  My first thought was that this was
another bridge clue -- you're not short in any suit, so you can bid NT!

I don't like "not short" for NT?  "Not shy of love" seems more fitting.

Surface is pretty good, and the charade is also decent, although the
rugby player def is a little obscure for me

The cluer's lonely-hearts column explanation allowed me to understand the
surface, but clue explanantions are not a luxury present in the field.
I also don't care for "not short = NT."

nice clue (although it's Rugby again!)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

16th place (score 46.83%) - clue 9

    Advocate no pet porn screwing (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 8 10 13 30 47 50 53 56 57 58 63 80 83 94

An amusing surface impression, with "advocate" used in its verb form.
A slight downgrading, though, since "no pet porn" is just awkward-
sounding enough to fairly scream "anagram me".

It was tempting to give this one a 69 (I'm using a 100-point scale),
but I don't like it that much.  Poor surface and poor anagram indicator,
"screwing" being the awkward word in both cases.

Awkward surface, but extra points for having the brass to submit this.

The surface is a little broken.

Uh, does one not advocate the screwing of pet *porn*, or just
plain *pets*?  Close, but not quite.

Well, this clue illustrates why anagrams were in the minority for this
competition.  The surface is somewhat clunky (maybe that's an 
understatement) 

good anagram - obviously a sensationalist!

Reading doesn't make sense.  "Screwing pet porn" maybe?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

17th place (score 46.62%) - clue 7

    Media opportunity with a new Trek lead and supporting character (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 14 25 35 40 41 56 58 58 60 75 78 78 80

I think I'd like "op" used as an abbreviated "opportunity" more if
it were actually coupled with its type, such as the "photo op" that
you cited.  "Media" isn't particularly synonymous with "public relations", 
in my book.  The surface is good, but I think "character" weakens
the straight definition.

I like "supporting character" for definition, but the rest of the
clue is a real stretch, especially how you get from "Media" to "PR".

Cute surface reading.  Does "new" really -> N?

ok, but i'm bothered by a=ONE

I'm troubled with "Media = P/R"; it needs to be more specific.  The
definition is kind of clever.

(do you have to be a Star Trek fan to appreciate it?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

18th place (score 44.65%) - clue 2

    A lobbyist has an advertising rival with fewer pages. (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 13 14 26 33 40 43 50 53 53 58 68 75 88 100

The "fewer pages" cryptic part is fairly unique, but its plural
form borders on the unfair; I'd have been much more inclined to
like this clue if "one less page" had been used here.  Surface-wise, 
I interpreted "pages" to mean "requests to call the home office" rather 
than "aides" --- who are employed by Congress, not lobbyists.

"Page" seems strained in the surface..

Bleah! Don't quit your day job.

Can't say I really buy in to the surface

Surface is below average, and the wordplay is inaccurate, since you
are only removing one p, and wordplay suggests removal of more than
one p.

"Has" deceives unfairly, and "Fewer pages", according to your
analysis, should be removing more than one P.

The main problem, IMHO, is the use of "opponent" (an etymological relative
of "proponent") in the construction.  The cluer may want to note that 
articles (a, an, the) not necessary to the construction are usually
omitted.

"Fewer pages" indicator clever but page/aide
pun muddies the surface reading

-------------------------------------------------------------------

19th place (score 39.07%) - clue 12

    Support atop headless gent is champion (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 17 20 23 29 29 30 40 50 53 58 58 59 78 81

Cryptically, the pieces all add up, and "champion" is a valid
definition.  But the surface really makes very little sense at
all to me, so I don't particularly like this clue.

No surface reading.

Surface makes no sense (to me).

Surface a bit weak 

The surface meaning escapes me.

Huh?

clumsy clue

Reading doesn't make sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

20th place (score 34.50%) - clue 13

    He's in favour of taking work off the rival (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 0 13 20 20 22 27 33 63 73 75 84 88

I almost didn't realize that "op" = "opus" = "work", since that
wasn't explicitly explained.  I don't think the doubled-up use
of "pro" is on solid ground, though:  isn't that just a shortened
version of "proponent" in the sense that you're using it?  And 
clues which make double use of the parts don't appeal to me unless
they're true &lits, which this is not (everything after "of" is
superfluous to straight definition).

Nice surface reading, but I don't like the overlapping definition
and cryptic, both using PRO- in what is essentially the same way.

Huh? A bit too much mind reading required for my tastes.

Overlapping the definition with part of the charade is not
acceptable IMO.  Also, work = OP is a bit suspect, too.

I don't personally like the wordplay, but it works and it's original

Making the defn. do duble duty as part of the cryptic
[other than a &lit.] leaves me cold.

Double duty and use of identical morphemes (proponent and opponent) make
a very inelegant clue.  Maybe it's an Atlantic barrier, but how does
work = OP?

clever clue which reads coherently

Taking work off is clever as indicator, but "in favour
of" shouldn't be doing double duty.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

21st place (score 31.02%) - clue 20

    Support me, not a pusher (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 0 1 6 22 30 31 33 40 45 53 58 88 88

I don't think "one" corresponds strongly enough to "me" for my
taste; "not" is contracted to "nt" with no indication to do so, 
which doesn't sit well with me.  Surface and definition are okay
if unspectacular.

Very good, but as in #19, I think NOT -> N'T -> NT is insufficiently
obvious.

I don't think "me not" is a fair charade for  "ONE NT".

ONE is not "me".  Also there ought to be an indication that
"not" should have the 'o' removed.

Me is not one.

"Me = ONE" is curious and "not = NT" is similar to the problem in clue 
#19.  

not very interesting and technically not very sound

-------------------------------------------------------------------

22nd place (score 26.92%) - clue 14

    Toneless tenor muddled on very soft note needs supporter (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 0 0 8 10 14 22 25 40 42 47 50 78 94

The surface seemed rather, well, muddled to me --- it's not clear
what exactly a supporter is going to do for that tenor.  There's
no indication that "r" is supposed to be inserted into the 
anagrammed "on pp note" (unless "muddled" is supposed to flag 
the inclusion --- but I don't like that, either).  I'm not fond
of "toneless tenor = r" either, as there's no indication that
the letters t, o, n, and e are to removed from tenor in an
arbitrary order.

This starts out very nicely with "toneless tenor", but fades a bit
by the end.  In particular, why "needs"?

Ugh. Indirect anagrams up the wazoo.

Anagram indicator embedded within anagram fodder is not
acceptable in my book.  A bit too complicated, really. 

While the surface is good, but the indicator is in the wrong position.

Indirect (among other things)!

what's the point of removing TONE if it is only to be put back again 
as NOTE?

clever clue - quite poetic

Clever, but I prefer the indicator not be buried.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

23rd place (score 2.89%) - clue 5

    Yes man? (9)

Votes (normalized): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 14

Okay, I see the straight definition.  But an &lit requires a cryptic
part as well, and, since you didn't bother to provide an explanation,
I'll assume the worst --- that there isn't one.

I see the lit, but where's the & ?

This is not an &lit, but almost a straight definition, and not punny
enough to be a cryptic clue of the single-definition kind.

No, sir.

Perhaps I'm just unsophisticated, but I don't get these &lit
clues.  I'll refrain from voting, however.

Usually, clues like this indicate the person didn't understand what a
cryptic clue is. But saying it's an &lit contradicts that. A poor clue.

This is *not* a &lit..  A punnish definition, perhaps, but not a &lit.,
and not a full-fledged cryptic.

I'm clearly too stupid to figure this one out from the terse explanation.

makes no sense

No, man.

deserves something for trying it on!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON THE BONUS CLUES:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mrs. Malaprop, on entering, finds a supporter within. (9)

Modesty forbids comment here, but I am surprised that nobody
else came up with a hidden-word clue.

This is pretty good. The only container clue in the bunch.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supporter of wild X-rated movies is pent-up. (9)

The idea is interesting, but doesn't work overall.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pop eats right on, followed by every other peanut promoter (9)

Weak surface

-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jake Bergmann                    jbergmann@bbn.com
Bolt Beranek & Newman Software Products Corporation
Cambridge MA USA                 617-873-2872