Australian Crosswords

A couple of week’s ago a Stickler Weekly solver, Greg, noticed that my grid contained two clues that were fully checked, that is, the answers may be fully obtained from solving other answers potentially making the clues for these answers redundant. Take a look at the grid here. In a cryptic-style, blocked grid, where the black-square percentage is about 32, you won’t see too many designed this way. It was borne out of a need to maintain a minimum of half checked squares in every answer in the grid, something I firmly believe in. Noel Jessop impressed upon me the importance of having a grid that favoured solvers, and you would regularly see the crossover pattern in the centre of his grids. In this case it allows two 7-letter words to have four crossing letters, otherwise they would have three and be unacceptable.
It’s interesting to note that US non-cryptic grids tend to be fully checked, that is, if you solve all the across clues OR all of the down clues, then the crossword is completely solved.

A few weeks ago an avid solver pointed out an ambiguous clue in a Stickler Weekly. To be ambiguous two things must happen – first, there must be at least two answers to the clue that satisfy all the normal requirements, that is, from a definition and wordplay perspective. Second, all answers must fit with the cross-letters in the grid. So it may be possible that there are two valid answers to a clue, but both don’t satisfy letter requirements of crossing answers, making only one answer truly valid. (This happened in Stickler Weekly 21 in 21-across: Grenade exploded with all guns blazing (7), where the answer could be ENRAGED or ANGERED). Note that this scenario is not ideal and should be avoided by a setter.
The more recent clue, 21-down in Stickler Weekly 56:  King and ace set up gambler’s choice (4)*, passed both “tests” and is therefore truly ambiguous, and consequently a mistake. If a solver can’t be sure which one is right, then the fault is with the setter. (A simple change to the definition, making it less broad, would have solved the problem.) Note that sometimes multiple answers are possible using “creative” solving, perhaps via an obscure definition or foreign meaning, and there may be a claim of an alternative valid answer. IMO, a claim would be genuine only if a clue’s interpretation is in keeping with a setter’s normal approach and practice.

* K + (ONE reversed) = KENO (a gambling game); R(ex) + (ONE reversed) = RENO (a gambling centre)