Listener 4304 Ozzie Warning

[Ruthrobin]

We just had our penny drop moment and, with an almost full grid, have to make sure that we enter the correct bars - quite a task, and quite a feat, Ozzie, thanks. This has been most enjoyable.

[olichant]

Wonderful stuff. And what great clues - I loved 12d, for one. Really enjoyable, and more accessible than I thought it would be when I first read the preamble.

[jim360]

For a long time I was losing my faith in my clue-solving abilities, before the penny finally dropped. An utterly superb puzzle, I think, from start to finish. Thank you Ozzie!

[jockie]

I'm in full agreement ... but I can't get the necessary bars down to 73. 75 I can do, so I'm missing something and I'm pretty sure I know where. But what?

[Ruthrobin]

Read the preamble carefully Jockie - I think it will resolve your dilemma.

[Scorpius]

Jockie, I suspect you need to find a couple more entries (thus removing bars) and then you may need to do something else to satisfy the penultimate sentence of the preamble. I had to think hard at the end because what appeared to be an obvious down entry in the upper half didn't have a symmetrical partner that was a word.

I agree with the enthusiastic comments above, Some of the clues were brilliant, especially 17a, 19a and all the thematic ones.

[IainGrace]

Cracked the tampering theme and solved about half the clues. Thematic clues are cunningly devised. Good to know that more pleasure lies ahead.

[BobHWW]

Just back from my hols and find an early Magpie, new edition of the BRB and a nice puzzle from Ozzie. I have to say this latter was good fun and a fairly tough solve, but a nice PDM and all made sense when I shifted my wrongly positioned end of the warning. Many thanks Ozzie.

Regards the BRB I am very disappointed that they have seen fit to remove all the highlighted entries from the 12th Edition (daddock, pilgarlick etc). I presume this was deliberate but it seems very odd considering Chambers has always prided itself on listing old and obscure words.

[jockie]

But one of the joys, surely BHWW, was finding them serendipitously. Calling attention to them as BRB11 did is a bit like laughing at one's own jokes.

Anyway, I have heeded Ruthrobin and Scorpius (although my heeding came between their posts) - to whom thanks - and done exactly what I have been told to do, satisfying all the conditions I can identify ... but I'm not convinced my solution is unique. This is a rare problem - one can be wrong, either through carelessness or just simply getting it wrong, but "I've done everything and I'm still not sure it's right" is a rare reaction. Have others encountered a second, apparently equally valid, solution?

[s_pugh]

Like Jockie I initially had 75 bars but having heeded the advice of Ruthrobin regarding the preamble I am now down to 73 and with what seem to be the right number of specific types. But I have one letter which cannot be incorporated into any word! I'm assuming that must be something to do with the penultimate sentence but to say it is ambiguously worded would be an understatement. Baffled. Anyone else encountered this?

[Scorpius]

Jockie, following your query, I've tried to produce a different grid from the one I first produced. It is possible to bar things differently with 44 entries, but then one of the personal names disappears. Does this help?

[tilbee]

Seems to be a common theme this - my first pass had requisite number of words, two singularities, but 75 bars. Now resolved by identifying an additional "personal name" and recategorising one I had allocated to this set very loosely. Clever puzzle, with some excellent clues, my nomination going to 19a. Thanks to Ozzie.

New Magpie now beckons....

[Cagey]

Finally pdm. Bit slow today. Grid to finish now, then the last bit. Based on comments still suspect a long way to go.

[contendo]

I have 44 words, but 81 bars and two letters that are isolated by bars, so it seems I still have some way to go.

[Cruncher]

Masterful feat of construction indeed, but confess I'm finding the barring exercise rather tedious. Can appreciate that we are trying to identify a unique solution, hence all the parameters, but personally am less excited about this than the rest of the grid fill

[EAChaplin]

I agree with Cruncher that it's an enjoyable solve up to a point, but the end game leaves me baffled. Are the personal names to be first or surnames or both? There's at least one answer which could be one of those or a place name.
What have any of them to do with getting off a train? As for the singularities, apart from being obvious, where do they fit in the scheme of things.
Finally a warning. The stats show that puzzles where bars must be added always reduce the number of all corrects.

[Scorpius]

EAChaplin, in my grid I do have an entry that could be a place name or a personal name, but if I identify it as a personal name, I don't have a second place name, so I don't see a particular problem in that ambiguity.

I didn't find the barring too tedious. Some hidden words jumped out immediately, so it was only the last few bars that took a little bit of time to sort out.

[emcee]

First chance to report here for a while.

I also thought this puzzle was "OK" -- up to a point. I didn't like the 'personal names' definition in the rubric and thought it was weak to bother including them (obviously grid constraints meant they had to be included). In fact, the personal names were far from satisfactory, and could be a way of getting the current number of 'all corrects' reduced significantly -- myself probably included!

I think there may have been a different endgame here originally. Take a look at the two words near the centre of the grid.

[me99]

I have an apparently valid solution including a common surname as one of my "personal names". Should I be looking for three first names?

[petefoxes]

Getting quite frustrated with the endgame after an enjoyable theme and good 'tampering' clues. I am at the 75/44 stage and struggling to see what to do next, nor how the specified parameter words fit with the 'warning' message. Perhaps there's another PDM involved.

[Cruncher]

Worryingly unsure that my solution is the "correct" one. I could argue that it fulfils all the requirements but requires some licence in the application of the final sentence. Oh well, will find out in due course