Listener Crossword No 4597 Bunch Of Fives By Brock

[Hagen]

That was HARD! Satisfying though, with just enough grid feedback not to make this a serious case of stubborn sticky label peeling syndrome. A worthy challenge, indeed. Thank you Brock.

[Scorpius]

Yes, very tough, though not as tough as Sabre or Quinapalus, which is some relief. The second instruction helped me fill one blank cell that was part of an unsolved clue that had been baffling me for ages, partly because the cryptic syntax seems a bit clunky and out of keeping with normal Listener syntax. Perhaps I've misunderstood it.

Given the constraints of the sets and the twin messages, the clues were a really excellent set, though some indirect or cryptic definitions made solving difficult in places. The grid is also a magnificent achievement, with very few unchecked cells.

[emcee]

Tough(ish) but very enjoyable. I like puzzles best which can't be done in one sitting. Those which you can return to, make a bit of progress and put down again. This puzzle was just that, and consequently for me, just right.

I agree that some definitions assumed you had an inkling of the particular theme for a set; a slight weakness, I thought.

The construction was excellent and, mercifully, not as tough as Sabre's similar offering.

Great, Brock. Another like this please.

[pushmi-pullyu]

Still struggling with an almost complete grid and no idea what to do next. Is anyone else trying to solve Cain's Jawbone?

[upsetter]

Tough but rewarding - an elegant construction with an unambiguous finish.

Thanks Brock.

[Philoctetes]

Tough clues for the most part, but, as soon as I saw the answer the parsing always became obvious. The groups were nicely connected, and the messages unambiguous.

[IainGrace]

Not quite there yet. Are we correct in assuming that the fact that cell 20 uniquely neither starts nor finishes a word is an irrelevance?

[upsetter]

@IainGrace - good spot.

We finished the solve without noticing that.
I guess that it is just an artefact that was necessary to keep the numbering sequence making sense.

[icynorth]

That was most enjoyable - thanks, Brock!

I spotted the extra clue number at the outset, and it threw me for a while in interpreting the messages. It has to be an error, surely? Should there have been a clue 20-4?

[IainGrace]

Thanks both. Our view is that it is probably an unavoidable inconsistency which is needed to allow the whole thing to hang together.

[perseverer]

Given that the puzzle is crammed in to the available space in both the on-line and paper versions, is it that they just sacrificed an 'unnecessary' clue to get everything in?

[PhilipW]

I really enjoyed the puzzle this week...good to have such a tough one and I only managed to parse the last couple of clues by today. I suspect the 20 absence is a late edit to remove a clue (possibly 20-4) without realising that it left a hanging 20 of no use...the other clue numbers could have been adjusted trivially...I guess it just slipped through the net during the final tweaking - didn't affect my enjoyment of a great puzzle