Your father's golf game is not a spreadsheet problem. It's a thinking problem, and Excel is the perfect place to prove it. The real issue isn't the numbers in columns A and B, or the duplicates, or even the constraints about rows and columns. The issue is that he's reaching for nested IFs when he should be reaching for a simpler mental model: this is a combinatorial puzzle, and Excel has tools that match that structure naturally.
Here's what we mean. The challenge is to pick three numbers, each from a different row, with at least one from column A, and find the smallest possible sum. That's not a job for a giant logical knot. It's a job for building all the valid combinations and then asking Excel to find the minimum. The fact that he's tried CHOOSE, INDEX, and MAKEARRAY shows he's on the right track, but he's forcing the functions to do the thinking for him instead of letting them do the calculating. The elegant path is to generate the combinations explicitly, then filter for the row and column rules, then sum and take the minimum. That's not a hack. That's how you design a solution that's both transparent and repeatable.
What does this mean for him, and for you? It means the answer isn't a longer formula. It's a better structure. He can use LET to define the four rows, then use SEQUENCE or MAKEARRAY to create every possible triple, then use FILTER to enforce the "different rows" and "one in column A" conditions, and finally use MIN on the sums. That approach is readable, debuggable, and adaptable. If he changes the numbers, the formula updates. If he adds a fifth row, the logic scales. A nested IF might work for this exact grid, but it's a dead end for anything else. He's not looking for a solution; he's looking for a method.
So here's the concrete point: stop treating Excel like a calculator with a bad attitude. Treat it like a logic engine that rewards clear thinking. His assumption that there's a better way is correct, but the better way isn't a secret function or a clever trick. It's the willingness to break the problem into pieces, let each piece be explicit, and trust the grid to do what it does best. If he builds the combination table, the answer appears. And if he wants to impress his father, he'll show him that the real win isn't the lowest sum. It's the cleanest path to it.