Listener 4196 Here and There by Hedge-Sparrow

[midazolam]

Sorry for all those that replied to the last thread, but here is another

The crux of this one is not to get flustered with all those letters as I did, but it does work out in the end

midazolamcrosswords (at) gmail (dot) com

[Zabadak]

So what happened? Cock-up or conspiracy?

[midazolam]

No conspiracy Z

[Ruthrobin]

Yes, I, too was daunted by what seemed to be a very fiddly task with the obligation to solve the wordplay in the entire crossword before I could work out the last part - but, indeed, it does give a sense of satisfaction in the end (and, as Midazolam says, does work out).

For the speedy gang who are looking at a long crossword-free week after completing this, the Crossword centre http://www.crossword.org.uk/ has a double offering for July (both Ferret and Brimstone, one of them, joy of joys, giving us a bonus numerical!) The June one is still open too, and you stand a far better chance of winning one of these if you still need crossword books on your shelf, as there are nowhere near so many entries as for the Listener.

[sunny-dave]

All done - lots of fiddly cross checking - but a clear answer

[Zabadak]

I ended up with AN answer which satisfies (for me) all the conditions - though I'm not sure about how the letter mix matches all the letters involved, since there are around twice as many of the latter. A way of sorting this (not clearly sanctioned by the rubric) gives me an unused letter, and resolves (sort of) two ambiguous answers. The final entry? Well, I've got A solution which I could support, but I'm not sure it's right, and if not sure, it's probably wrong. That puts me in the territory of having an answer that works, and no incentive to go further, especially since I don't enter. But it's not satisfactory, as I'm sure I could justify other solutions if I could be bothered. Impressive construction, though.

[tilbee]

Last few entries took me much longer than I anticipated, due the amount of cross-checking involved, but as already stated does all come together nicely. Thanks to hedge-sparrow.

[TheBear69]

Well, I think the instructions could have been fairer about the duality and the added ambiguity, but I think Hedge-sparrow is to be commended for a tough, interesting challenge with some really devious clues. Often I would think "There's no amendment in this answer only to discover I was looking at the wordplay all wrong.". I'm still struggling with one wordplay but I know I have a valid grid fill with the ambiguity solved

[trux]

I echo much of above, in commending Hedge-Sparrow for a very well constructed puzzle, with unambiguous resolution if you buy into his logic (which would better have been made more specific in the pre-ramble). Several great clues, some not following tradition (e.g. 27a), some just making you smile (e.g. 7d), some just plain Machiavellian. Many thanks, H-S.

[Texasetes]

A preamble has to strike a balance between giving the game away and being too opaque to allow the puzzle to be solved at all. I routinely regard the preamble as part of the puzzle, and don't worry too much if it seems not to make much sense at first - much like a clue, really.

This one had me stroking my beard for a while, and as my grid filled I had worries similar to Zabadak's, but after a preamble PDM and subsequent (rather tedious) analysis everything fell into place. Although I'm sure that my grid is correct the wordplay of one or two clues eludes me, but I'll keep at it. Thank you, Hedge-sparrow.

[I suspect the earlier thread was deleted because someone gave away a little too much]

[jockie]

I'm confused - does the LM part include one example of each letter involved in the amendment process, or every occurrence? If the latter I'm well and truly up a gum tree as no clue contains all the letters I've discovered.

[Walterloo]

Nearly finished, only a few cells to fill to resolve ambiguities. Unsure yet of the one in question in the preamble and all a bit of a slog. Excellent construction and some clever clues but not one of my favourites. A couple in the new Magpie though are world class.

[silversolver]

Another tough one, and I agree that the preamble could have been a little more explicit (although as Ruthrobin says above, it is necessary to solve everything anyway before the end game can be completed, by which time things are relatively clear). As others have said, some excellent (and devious) clues, an ingenious construction and overall a very good workout - thanks, Hedge-sparrow!

[contendo]

I share Jockie's confusion. There 's really only one candidate for the clue containing the letter mixture. "All the letter involved" surely means what it says, yet I have a letter which appears more often in the amendments than in the clue.

[perseverer]

Another outstanding example of grid construction, one of many this year, though I did take a while to figure out what the preamble actually meant.

[Mesnilpat]

No danger of me joining the Friday night club with this one. The penny has finally dropped but, like others, I am finding the last part a bit of a slog and am unsure about the mysterious, ambiguous clue. Another look later today may yield a further pdm. I fell at the final hurdle last week and am determined not to make it two in a row.

[IainGrace]

Finding this remarkably easy so far. Must be heading for a fall.

[s_pugh]

Rapidly got all the answers and sussed the additional info very early on, but like others despite this am flummoxed by an apparent imbalance between the letters in the LM and the amendments. The preamble is also vague - when it refers to separate definitions of two (different) words does it mean either might produce the SAME entry or (two) different entries? Bit of a let down after 4195.

[perseverer]

s_pugh - don't want to say anything specific on here but if you want a bit of a nudge you can contact me at perseverer49 (at) yahoo (dot)co(dot)uk Think when you figure out what is going on you may have a better opinion of this puzzle.

[Charpy]

Well I’ve wasted far too much time on this one. I solved the clues fairly quickly with only the special clue remaining. Having sorted out the two definitions, one of which would be very iffy were it not for the fact that, according to the rubric, it has to bear a certain resemblance to the other clue. It then became fairly obvious what HS should have said about the letter mixture.

So then I was left with three unfilled cells and three letters to go in them. Unfortunately these letters did not resolve the ambiguity. I was left with two possible final grids. Not wishing to flip a coin, I turned to this thread to see if anyone else had the same problem. Not a bit of it! “Clear” and “Comes together nicely” were not comments I’d expected to read.

Not a problem. It just meant that I’d made a mistake somewhere – not the first time, nor the last. So I spent a joyless weekend trying to find my mistake.

As an afterthought I considered the possibility that this last stage might have been subjected to more of the dunnock’s weasel words. I finally concluded it had and now have a finished grid. But it’s twisted logic in my view and I’m not happy with it.

I apologise to HS in advance if an error I’ve made invalidates these comments, but for me:

-clues terrific with clever surface reading
-grid entries a bit unfair (too many proper nouns, given that no grid entry is clued)
-rubric unfair
-grid construction terrific

[Zabadak]

Charpy - as may already be apparent, I'm with you on this. In most cases, unchecked amended letters have no alternatives, but there are two that do, making final resolution awkward. It took me three goes through the letter mix to arrive at some kind of result still a bit dubious because of the smaller number of down clues. The odd letter that emerged gave me a solution to the outstanding clue that may only satisfy me.