Listener No 4422: Buried Treasure By Poat

[AHearer]

Sod's law dictated that the last couple of clues that resisted my attack included clashes, so I had to resort to reverse logic from a guess at the instruction to nail those. It took me a while to get into Poat's mind in some of the clues, but overall a very pleasant experience. Many thanks, Poat.

[Hagen]

I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but just in case...

So the hare was in the preamble, after all! Is that what we all settled on in the end? Pray tell...

[AngryUncle]

Couldn't resist sticking my head round the door after seeing the 'solution'. I didn't settle on anything, but then I don't submit and had nothing to lose apart from several days of wasted self-torment.

I've also looked at LWO, where one of our number has posted an analysis at odds with the semblance of success conveyed to us at the time. I'm glad there were three winners - fair play to them - but I'm still Angry. The preamble was unfairly worded; the puzzle was the worst kind of GWIT; and one's success if submitting a solution was entirely dependent on one's ability to have plumped correctly for one of numerous entirely plausible options. Call that a test of skill? Pah!

[Hagen]

You're not alone in being angry - already there's quite a bit of muttering going on in various places. On reflection I'm prepared to concede that the highlighting in the preamble is one logical solution to the instruction therein; it's also a novel idea and the Listener's all about innovation, BUT:

It's hardly surprising that so many solvers dismissed the appearance of HARE in the preamble as a coincidence and an unlikely solution, not least because of grid sending issues. No doubt the feeling of "there must be something more than this" was strengthened by so many red herrings in the grid, such as SEARCH AREA in the grid and several near-appearances of HARE and other thematic stuff. I always thought that one of the requirements of the Listener is that there should be no doubt about the endgame, as there obviously was here. I am surprised that the editors didn't suggest putting something in that somehow confirmed the preamble highlighting, as it was so unusual. Sadly for Poat, an otherwise excellent puzzle has turned sour for a much higher number of solvers than average.

I always laugh when people say "it's always in the last place you look" - well of course it is as you don't carry on looking for something once you've found it, right? Here, though, many of us have done just that.

OK, I've said my bit and I'll shut up now.

[starwalker]

There is indeed a great deal of muttering and even more cursing. In the past, when an unusual method of entry was required, it was flagged quite deliberately. Sending a postcard, rather than a completed grid, is one that springs to mind. If one sticks to the rules of submission, it is not possible to show that one has the correct solution.

[AHearer]

I have to admit that I got this one wrong. I reasoned that 'close by Ampthill' did not lead us right to the end of the hunt, so looked for something more vague than the hare itself. I settled on the AREA at the end of SEARCHAREA in the grid -- and was convinced it was right because the fact that two of the letters shared a square justified the specification that four letters rather than four squares should be highlighted. And I thought I was being so clever....
And the fact that this week's is a numerical doesn't move me any closer to being gruntled.

[borealis]

Well, I saw the solution and rejected it for an alternative. I don't think I've done that in the years I've been solving the Listener. Enjoyed the crossword, though, much more than the original puzzle, which could have been just as hard but much fairer!

[petefoxes]

So much ambiguity - I'm surprised this made it past the editors. I really wanted to open the paper and be amazed by a solution I just hadn't seen. Instead, it's nothing more than a weak trick.

[Scorpius]

I wonder what darkenergy had in mind when he said that a bit of persistence and logic would lead to the solution that is "completely valid, fair and unequivocal."
I assumed he meant a solution other than the one that people were complaining about, but perhaps not.

[icynorth]

I spent a long time pondering the location, before correctly plumping for the preamble. I agree it wasn't cast iron, but my reasoning was that the phrase 'search area' was either undefined or meaningless otherwise.

[olichant]

I definitely got it wrong. I'm not surprised, because I wasn't wholly convinced by my guess - which is never a good sign - but I discounted the preamble highlighting very early on. There was so much cunningness and misdirection going on, I was sure I had missed something sneakier.

[Philoctetes]

I dismissed the preamble for all the reasons given here. Though I liked the puzzle as a puzzle, I also thought it sailed close to the rules in its theme - a transitory piece of popular culture that soon faded from the memory. How would a younger entrant be expected to have the foggiest idea without using the internet ?

[AHearer]

I'd have agreed with you, icynorth, had there not been a slightly rambling SEARCHAREA in the grid -- in the absence of clear indications to the contrary I assumed that we should be looking there.

[Ruthrobin]

I originally chose the HARE that was in four consecutive but not touching (contiguous) letters and felt that the LIFT could be 'lifted' but it didn't feel quite right. My entry, rather doubtfully highlighted the preamble HARE. My LWO blog is possibly the one referred to where I concluded that I was flummoxed. I believe one of the other bloggers got it 'right' and the other 'wrong'. He has written a most amusing comment on it this week.

Living overseas, we usually solve on Friday and mail on Saturday - and did the same with this, but followed and understood the distress of friends on the thread. I did think it was a pity that this thread became so explicit as we do aim to have the pleasure here of reacting to a puzzle while it is still fresh in our minds without giving any hints.