XWord Muggles Forum

Relic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:39 am Celebrating a successful submission with a Blackbox cabernet. I procrastinated the solution 2days before submitting.

The NE, central, and SW 3x5 answers were solid, but the NW and SE 3X5s concerned me because the 17A and 57A answers were 9 letters not 5,

I am often too literal for the Meta. I couldn’t find a quintet of 3x5 because two of the 5 constructions were too long.

I spent some time looking at the 3 letter words adjacent to 5 letter words but realized the rabbit hole for what I made it. Once I looked again and saw Toker, it was a short trip to the rest of the cards. Even after arriving at GRIFT, I wanted another step but finally got confirmed that I was there.

Have a good week, Muggles.

Doh! (Palm to forehead)

The unbroken streak extends.

Robertson Davies, “World of Wonders” (1975):

Willard was an accomplished card-sharp. He never bothered with any of the mechanical aids some crooks use – hold-outs, sleeve pockets, and such things – because he thought them crude and likely to be discovered, as they often are. he always played with his coat off and his sleeves rolled up, which had an honest look: he depended on his ability as a shuffler and dealer, and of course he used marked cards. Sometimes the Rubes brought their own cards … If they were marked he knew it at once, and after a game or two he would say, in a quiet but firm voice, that he thought a change of deck would be pleasant, and produced a new deck fresh from a sealed package, calling attention to the fact that the cards were not marked and could not be.

They did not remain unmarked for long, however. Willard had a left thumbnail which soon put the little bumps in the tops and sides of the cards that told him all he needed to know. He let the Rubes win for an hour or so, and then their luck changed, and sometimes big money came into Willard’s hands at the end of the game.

He was the best marker of cards I have ever known except myself. Some gamblers hack their cards so that you could almost see the marks across a room, but Willard had sensitive hands and he nicked them so cleverly that a man with a magnifying glass might have missed it. Not was he a flashy dealer; he left that to the Rubes who wanted to show off. He dealt rather slowly, but I never saw him deal from the bottom of the deck, although he certainly did so in every game.

I saw the central three by five 'card' right away and looked at the corners where numbers usually appear on cards. There was 'SEED', and with the adjacent 23 down answer of 'SEEDS' I knew I was on to the solution. There were precisely 5 groups of triple-stacked five-letter answers so I ignored the NW and SE corners and came up with a lot of nonsense before finally seeing QUEEG.

Congrats to those who solved. I missed it.
However, when looking at information on cheating, I was amazed at how pervasive it appears to be. (Not here but in other aspects of society.)
Monday downer!

Initially thought that 3x5 referred to an "index" card and that the quintet was fingers (index finger)
Saw "little" finger and "amid" could be a "middle" finger. Also, the bit of marking could be 38A/39A, where it spells "finger" with the G marked out.
I'm glad my daughter pulled me out of that rabbit hole.

skidly wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:00 pm Initially thought that 3x5 referred to an "index" card and that the quintet was fingers (index finger)
Saw "little" finger and "amid" could be a "middle" finger. Also, the bit of marking could be 38A/39A, where it spells "finger" with the G marked out.
I'm glad my daughter pulled me out of that rabbit hole.

With her fingers?

"QUEEG" was a bit of a "HEY! LOOK AT ME!" in a meta named MARKED DECK.

The contest answer is GRIFT. As hinted at by the clue for 7-Down, find an answer that’s one letter off from a playing card in each of the five 3-by-5 areas of the grid: QUEEG/QUEEN, SEVER/SEVEN, DEICE/DEUCE, FIGHT/EIGHT, TOKER/JOKER. The pre-change letters of those five answers spell the contest answer.

A very elegant construction this week, with a hidden word that clicked with a lot of solvers. We had 1,647 entries, with about 94% correct, well above our usual rate around 75%. Other submissions included COUNT CARDS (12), LIE (6), and STACK THE DECK (5).

Congrats to this week's winner: Stephanie Golowacz of Wheaton, Ill.!

I had a momentary shock this morning when I glanced at my email and saw one from mikemiller ( unfortunately from the local pest control company not the wsj!!)

Ah, damn. I was *not* considering UNDERGIRD and TASTEBUDS as potential part of "3x5 cards" as those are not 5 letter answers, and there ARE five sets of three clues with 5 letters each right next to each other. IDAHO/GUMUP/UNITS and CARAT/AMIGO/PECAN should take the place of the upper left and lower right cards. I probably would have noted QUEEG as an odd answer that required a more closer look, but again- that was not part of a legit 3x5 card in my eyes, so I ignored that answer.

I'm usually not one to complain about inconsistent mechanisms, but this one stands out to me as something that feels like it could have been done better. Oh well. Still enjoyed attempting to solve it!

Another mug-less week, Muggle? Not surprising, given the overwhelming number of successful solvers who found the solution to Mr. Gaffney’s “Marked Deck” puzzle. So instead of posting yet another analysis or a Carmen Miranda video, your Rabbit has chosen to use this space to shamelessly promote The Golden Rabbit Hole Award where every six months you have a far greater chance of going home with a piece of crockery.

What is the Golden Rabbit Hole Award?
The X-Word Rabbit was created in August 2022. Every six months since then he nominates the best of your rabbit hole stories in your attempts to solve the weekly WSJ puzzle and nominates those he feels are particularly notable for the erroneous paths taken, their uniqueness and humor.

Over time the X-Word Rabbit’s criteria for evaluating stories seems to have evolved. Does he have any advice to those Muggles who want a better chance of winning a finalist Rabbit Hole mug?
Absolutely! The X-Word Rabbit has become less enthusiastic about LITFTATT* responses.
(*That’s LOST IN THE FOREST, TOUCHING ALL THE TREES.) Difficult puzzles are particularly susceptible to this, especially those constructions that have no apparent anchor words. Without a clear route to take, Muggles often jump from entry to entry, trying to draw some meta-meaning from them. More often than not, they have no connection to one another.

Should my story be long or short?
Length doesn’t matter. One of the dangers of LITFTATT responses is that they usually result in a long story, but little sustained logic. Ultimately, your Rabbit is looking for a tale of leaving the road but continuing in the same course and direction, eventually arriving at a ludicrous destination.

Do you have any additional words of wisdom?
You bet – lots! Some puzzles are just not designed for rabbit holes – and that’s the way it is. Generally, metas with too obvious a Step #1 are not rabbit hole-friendly. An early guidepost generally means a Muggle stampede in the same direction. That’s not particularly conducive to “uniqueness of method” which continues to be a critical part of what your Rabbit is looking for.

Don’t confuse telling a rabbit hole story with analyzing a meta.
Some Muggles choose to editorialize over the construction of a puzzle, and that’s fine, but it’s not Rabbit food. It’s only when a writer waffles between analyzing and struggling to solve that things get fuzzy. In such cases your Rabbit has to make a judgement call, and more often than not, he takes a pass.

Stick the Landing.
Increasingly, your Rabbit is drawn to stories that end with a completely wrong answer, but one that is logical given the meandering route taken. Of course, the more preposterous, the better.

A reminder of what your Rabbit has said from the very beginning --
It is no secret that The Rabbit Hole Awards are subjective. They were intended from the start to open up another way Muggles might be recognized – one that was not based on the speed or consistency of the solver. Your Rabbit pays no attention to how long a Muggle has been a member of this site. There is no specific number of how many Muggles he names each week nor the number of finalists he chooses every six months. His best advice is to read his responses to previous puzzles. Although he is always looking for the humor in solving, he takes his work seriously. After all, these are just crossword puzzles. The object is to be challenged and have fun. Until next week, then …

This is my only real world knowledge of marked cards:

@BarbaraK

Same for me exactly!

I don’t know why I had so much trouble with this one! It seems so easy in retrospect. I am chalking it up to too much fun last weekend.

Nlobb wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:25 pm I had a momentary shock this morning when I glanced at my email and saw one from mikemiller ( unfortunately from the local pest control company not the wsj!!)

Did he tell you that you won a mug?

BarbaraK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:13 pm This is my only real world knowledge of marked cards:

@BarbaraK We will have to teach you about marked cards and shaved cards and palmed cards and dealing from the bottom of the deck. Usually not in your friendly poker game but always keep an eye out.

Did you know that if you play bridge or poker with the same deck, you can tell the high cards because the backs are worn? Most right handed players especially bridge players arrange the cards by suits so that the high cards are on the left and the low cards are to the right. So the back of the high cards gets worn from the sweat on your hands over time. One reason to change decks and very good bridge players do not arrange their cards.

The XWord Rabbit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:30 pm Over time the X-Word Rabbit’s criteria for evaluating stories seems to have evolved. Does he have any advice to those Muggles who want a better chance of winning a finalist Rabbit Hole mug?
Absolutely! The X-Word Rabbit has become less enthusiastic about LITFTATT* responses.
(*That’s LOST IN THE FOREST, TOUCHING ALL THE TREES.) Difficult puzzles are particularly susceptible to this, especially those constructions that have no apparent anchor words. Without a clear route to take, Muggles often jump from entry to entry, trying to draw some meta-meaning from them. More often than not, they have no connection to one another.
......

Yes, your entire post all makes sense. And while I have coveted the X-Word Rabbit's glorious mug, I have noticed that the winners of the mug do exactly what I try to avoid doing, and have spent years trying to teach myself to avoid: Going far down empty rabbit holes that don't use a metanism likely to be the kind devised by the clever constructors. While they are an ingenious bunch of puzzle-makers, they are generally not cruel. It used to be harder to abandon paths that seem to have so much potential but require great feats of mental contortion. But now I often change tack and try something else, before getting hopelessly stuck in a deep warren.

So when I post my struggles to solve, they have all, thankfully, but unfortunately, been LITFTATT's.

But I do appreciate your words of advice.

HunterX wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 11:26 am

The XWord Rabbit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:30 pm Over time the X-Word Rabbit’s criteria for evaluating stories seems to have evolved. Does he have any advice to those Muggles who want a better chance of winning a finalist Rabbit Hole mug?
Absolutely! The X-Word Rabbit has become less enthusiastic about LITFTATT* responses.
(*That’s LOST IN THE FOREST, TOUCHING ALL THE TREES.) Difficult puzzles are particularly susceptible to this, especially those constructions that have no apparent anchor words. Without a clear route to take, Muggles often jump from entry to entry, trying to draw some meta-meaning from them. More often than not, they have no connection to one another.
......

Yes, your entire post all makes sense. And while I have coveted the X-Word Rabbit's glorious mug, I have noticed that the winners of the mug do exactly what I try to avoid doing, and have spent years trying to teach myself to avoid: Going far down empty rabbit holes that don't use a metanism likely to be the kind devised by the clever constructors. While they are an ingenious bunch of puzzle-makers, they are generally not cruel. It used to be harder to abandon paths that seem to have so much potential but require great feats of mental contortion. But now I often change tack and try something else, before getting hopelessly stuck in a deep warren.

So when I post my struggles to solve, they have all, thankfully, but unfortunately, been LITFTATT's.

But I do appreciate your words of advice.

The downside of being a more experienced solver is that you become savvier in identifying rabbit holes and less inclined to waste time on them. That means a lesser chance of getting a Rabbit Hole Award, of course, but life is all about tradeoffs. Thanks for your insight.