Listener No 4236 Oh No! Not Another Playfair, By Mordred

[Ruthrobin]

I usually hate playfairs, so what a joy to have this one with a difference. Thank you so much Mordred (for a nice easy solve, too, that will be perfect to welcome newcomers). Great fun!

[aldanna]

Last week was too full of other stuff for crosswords (it looked pretty hard anyway). I did find this week's a bit unsatisfying, but who am I to criticise when I could never compile it anyway.

[Anapice]

In plain English I'm exactly as described by Mordred in the preamble, so thankful not to be spending today, and likely tomorrow, trying to resolve a playfair code.
Likewise I shall not be decoding the above. As to difficulty I found the solving somewhat easier only because there were no misprints, extra words and so on. What a refreshing change to have normal clues. Many thanks Mordred.

[AHearer]

Qwbnqwbn, ouycsesoso: qaz yc rbf brzwszso wddaoyq xa qs ovqwefo sdwq qaxc peyc.

[Monkmonk]

Zvhk aqalafo, GBfyoso

[perseverer]

Thanks - AHearer it is so obvious!

[Texasetes]

Some people don't like numerical puzzles, but nevertheless they're scheduled to appear four times a year, as regular as clockwork. Others don't like Playfairs, yet the most recent seems to have been No. 4147, 'OZ and WR by Theod', dated July 22, 2011. Surely the next is way overdue.

My fingers are crossed that 4236 is a taster for something more substantial soon to come.

[olichant]

Nice clues. Buffalo Bill, in particular, made me chuckle.

[Staurologist]

Some very good clues here, and I appreciate the compositional problems to which others have referred. However, at the end I still felt a bit flat. Since we were given instructions on how to encode using the square, I expected the code phrase to give some sort of instruction about encoding other elements in the grid. When that didn't happen I wondered, as others have, whether I was missing something, but it seems not. Or does it?

Incidentally, for those who have been posting encoded text, the problem of encoding a pair of repeated letters is usually solved by interposing an X between the two before encoding. For an entertaining description of Playfair and many other codes, I recommend "The Code Book" by Simon Singh.

[jim360]

I wonder if the playfair explanation was inserted almost by default - also it does clarify how the square is supposed to appear in case you didn't know. I'm certainly not familiar enough with Playfair to be able to work out what was meant by a playfair square without googling it.

[cluelessJoe]

Can't be bothered to decipher any of the encrypted comments here, but those defending this puzzle because it was difficult to set surely miss the point. Something which is a challenge to compile is not by default a good puzzle - that's determined by the enjoyment of the solve. Sadly this was a damp squib, the more so because it seemed to promise so much more than it delivered. Sorry Mordred - congratulations on a decent compiling feat (apart from the 2/5's which would have automatically excluded you from one particular publication), but this was definitely not one for me.

[jim360]

I'm probably missing something obvious - but which 2/5's are you meaning?

[Ruthrobin]

jim360, Clueless Joe is referring to the 'unching'. The Ximenean rules (the crossword compiling rules set down by one of the original masters) lay down how many unchecked lights we are allowed and one of the most important is not to exceed one unchecked cell in a 3, 4, or 5-letter word. 2 are allowed in a 6 or 7-letter word etc. Mordred has 2 in 9, 15, 24 and 30 down. It's a question of fairness to the solver. He probably got away with them because the clues for those were fairly transparent.

[Monkmonk]

EV1065
Igtu tu r qmeb dliila racgncu

[AHearer]

If your appetite for Playfairs has been whetted, try this week's EV.

[jim360]

ah yes - I did notice that and wondered about it. Just not used to the shorthand form of saying it. Maybe the fact that there were a couple of 6's and 7's with no unchecked letters at all offset the fives. Weird grid design anyway.

[Philoctetes]

Underwhelmed. Three answers where entry is obvious but cannot understand the clue enough to justify an unch or two. But really riled by what I consider to be a technical error in 12 - that sort of thing would not be let slip when referring to a scientist :(

[the_heisman]

I was similarly unimpressed. Sorry Mordred I am sure I have enjoyed your previous crosswords a lot more. Is there really anything wrong with 12? I thought it was ok.

[Cruncher]

cr la iw kp mi fo ca xc yp rs xc os fo ro bl cv ov py ct av yo vb pe fx ke zs bl na sq re yq yu sg tl fs gv wb xc vo rd pw ay gy cl kg cm ft?

[Monkmonk]

Cruncher
ZYQVF SZEYAE CA SZEYAF T