Listener 4201, Translation by Sabre

[upsetter]

Have grasped the theme but the clues seem to be extremely opaque this week (apart from the easy ones) - is anyone faring better?

[Scorpius]

Much the same experience as others. I still have two clues to solve (29, 38), but I'm more puzzled by the fact 21 dn appears to have no clashes, which means a misprint would have be manufactured, which seems unsatisfactory. And the correct letter in the clash in 14 cannot be moved because there's no corresponding letter following the rules.

I do have one or two possibile thematic entries, but I'm beginning to lose interest

[upsetter]

Socrpio, if the14 clash letter is used to 'manufacture' the misprint, it is possible to comply with the preamble, and in fact whole of the top of the puzzle works. Our problems in SW corner

[Scorpius]

Thanks, upsetter. I had considered that approach, but it seemed out of keeping with the rest, so I didn't pursue it seriously. If I'm right about one of the possible thematic items I'll have to manufacture a misprint elsewhere as well.

I said I had 2 clues still to solve; actually it's 3. So far defeated by 4, 29, 38.

[Scorpius]

I now have 4 dn, though don't understand the need for, or relevance of the last 3 words of the clue.
As you say, upsetter, everything works in the top half (including row 7 for me)

[Scorpius]

I seem to be posting rather frequently, but am making progress. Having got 29, which I had before but rejected, I think the definition is extremely unfair, being only a partial definition. I have to say that brilliant as he is, Sabre gets away with things that would be disallowed in other setters.

[upsetter]

finally finished - Nice one Cyrill.

Many thanks to Waterloo for the invaluable advice.

[teuchter2]

Have just logged in for the first time since yesterday's posting and have already got the one's folk suggested were easiest! That leaves me in that corner with 3 and 4 d plus 11 and 13 a. I realise that I haven't actually got 32 or 35d either. I made a very stupid mistake with 4198, but such is life. I'll keep chipping away at this one.

[IainGrace]

Making quick headway early on, but chastened by posts suggesting difficulties ahead. Teuchter2, our team's slip up notwithstanding, some signs that a Rangers-free league may yet offer more competitive interest than in the days of the old duopoly. (And you've presumably picked up the fact that Aberdeenshire currently has won more Olympic golds than Australia.)

[TheBear69]

I agree with Scorpius about 29d - terrible definition. I also think 1a is flawed; if I am right, the wordplay is not justified. I think it is somehow trying to refer to the answer as a cryptic indicator for a word in the clue.

On the other hand, I think the concept of the puzzle is first rate and it's a superb construction.

[Cruncher]

Trying to sort this out with only the BRB app for company. Still a few answers short and somewhat hampered by some odd omissions - eg the needed spelling of the Turkish commander in 6 down. Have a very obvious answer for 37ac using a familiar connection for jack but the app only gives the whole word with a doubled last letter and regards the definition as too offensive to let me see it. Am I hopelessly wrong?

[Scorpius]

Cruncher, I think you probably have the right answer for 37ac from the straightforward wordplay. Chambers identifies both the answer and the clue's definition as slang rather than vulgar or offensive

[turast]

TheBear69. In 29 down the definition is one of the words listed in the BRB for the solution word, and under the rules of engagement it is perfectly legitimate. In 1 Across, I suggest you re-examine the possible meaning(s) of "in".

[olichant]

Some ever so smutty clueing throughout, I thought. Endgame was great fun once I'd realised that my "intelligent" guess at 34ac was way off the mark - and, annoyingly, the appropriate volume of the OED was missing from my local library. Not submitting this week (and am very grateful for assistance on two of the clues) but mightily glad it is done and dusted.

For what it's worth, I think that 29d is technically fair (as noted above) although it perhaps exposes the idosyncracies inherent in relying on the BRB as an arbiter of these things. I'm not convinced the definition would be a perfect equivalence in the absence of the BRB.

[olichant]

(sorry - I meant ever so SLIGHTLY smutty. Prudishness threshold not even close to being engaged).

[jockie]

Well and truly stuck with this despite having solved all clues but one. The theme eludes me so far, but I can find a small number (far fewer than the required 6) of entries to do with being/doing knightishness. Am I on the right tracks I wonder. I can get 3 - any 3 - quarters to work but the 4th just stibbornly refuses. Ah me.

[Scorpius]

Turast, I don't accept your defence of the definition in 29dn. There are significant qualifiers in Chambers which the clue doesn't even hint at. Under your "rules of engagement" I could use the same definition for 'altar', 'abrasion', 'larder' and 1001 other words.

When a setter finds an obscure definition in tbe BRB to fool or perplex us, that's fine (as is the case with 1 ac), but to resort to vagueness is not (not in my view, anyway).

[Cruncher]

Thanks Scorpius. Still have 4 clues to solve and suspect the endgame will be impenetrable without a full set of answers. Did anyone manage with less than a full set? Can make a reasonable stab at an almost full set of thematics. Guess that might help.

[teuchter2]

Have continued to chip away at this and now have them all bar the most south-easterly of the ones I said I didn't have. I am working on the endgame and have got most of the top half sorted out, I think, but came to a bit of an impasse, so have taken a break. Yes, IainGrace, I had pondered on the astonishing contribution of Aberdeenshire to the medals tally.

[Texasetes]

I found this quite a struggle, for a few reasons:
- tough (but fair) clueing, which had me reaching for the BRB (and LRB) more often than usual
- an incorrect guess at the theme (two suspected thematic answers did turn out to be so, but my assumed theme was wrong)
- the brevity of the preamble, which seemed too vague and kept me asking 'but what if ... ?'
- the endgame

For too long I was daunted by a near-complete intermediate grid and I wasn't sure quite what to do or how to get started on the endgame, so I guessed at two theme words and gritted my teeth. Once underway the process proved to be quite logical. Three more theme words showed themselves, but I was halted in the final stages by uncertainty surrounding one answer whose clue's wordplay I still don't fully understand (this clue has already been mentioned, so at least I know I'm not alone). I was also missing the sixth theme word, which seems slightly questionable now that I've found it.

So even with an almost complete final grid, just one unsolved clue made finishing difficult. The puzzle might be rendered unsolvable without a near-full set of clue answers, especially when the mechanics of the endgame aren't understood.

Anyone who polished this off by Saturday has my admiration. My head hurts.

[olichant]

Cruncher - from (bitter, painful) experience, it is possible - indeed, I located two wrong answers by trying to construct a final grid with 90% of the clues. So it has to be worth a go. But it is very hard - there is a great deal of interdependence as between clues. Which makes the construction all the more impressive.

I am not happy with one of the thematic answers - to my mind it is not strictly right - but I can't say more without giving it away. And, given the cunningness of the construction, I'm probably wrong (unless I'm thinking about the same entry as Texasetes).