listener 3974: Lots by Viking

[midazolam]

This weeks listener is out

A relief to have a preamble that makes sense

[cruciverbali]

Thanks midazolam - the words down answers are entered normally are music to my ears !

[midazolam]

yes and because of this it did not captivate me long!

[bobbycollins]

Had a good idea what was happening, and the appearance of the NAME confirmed it.

Definitely recommended for newcomers.

As you guys say,a sensible preamble is a blessed relief. I certainly wouldn't torture myself with puzzles as difficult as 3973 week in, week out.

[midazolam]

i agree - i am still pondering over the one description in 3973

are the intersecting words "real" with the one description like with the other three? cos if so then this should be easier to get than completing the rest of the grid.

will keep pondering while awaiting the next ev

[bobbycollins]

Yes they are,and the final (real) word is arguably an amalgam of the first three. Hasten to repeat that I didn't get it - had to ask my pal.

Bon chance!

[midazolam]

bobby collins - i just cannot stop picking it up

can i ask 2 things - which should in no way rile anyone

1. are all the intersecting letters in the final description different from the original 3 - as stated in the preamble (but which none of them originally produced)

2. is the final description in chambers

p.s. i put all the possible letters left into excel and (as my mind works) i came up with a very rude three word solution!

[bobbycollins]

midazolam,

1) two letters from one of the answers and one from a second reappear at 24a (hope I've remembered correctly since my copy is at the office)

2) In Chambers as two words

go for it!!!

[Mysterons]

Of the nine intersecting words, six are new, one was provided by the second collaborator and two by the third.

[midazolam]

that changes things then

so the part (but which none of them originally produced) is very misleading as i thought it meant they all had to be different

i thought of something ages ago but dismissed it because of the above

[Scorpius]

In 3973 the preamble states: "....with enough information to present the correct description cumulatively that satisfies them all (but which none of them originally produced).

I cannot see anything misleading about this. The preamble tells us that none of the collaborators entered the final description. Anything else they might have got right is irrelevant (and I'm carefully avoiding saying whether any got anything else right and if so how much); too much has been made explicit already.

[midazolam]

well i think it is - there is no need to put those bracketed words in the preamble. It is obvious there needs to be a 4th description, but now it sounds like the letters in it need to be completely different from the first 3

i often feel that sorting out the preamble is the most difficult part

[Scorpius]

If this sounds patronising, I apologise in advance; it's not meant to be. Many Listener preambles merit very close scrutiny, especially those of the more complex puzzles. I have been doing The Listener crossword for about 4 years now, and in that time I've learnt to treat the wording of the preambles with the utmost respect. It's true that occasionally they are unintentionally misleading or ambiguous; in most cases they are well thought out and may contain key phrasing that can get you to the correct solution or help you to avoid an incorrect one. In this case the parenthetical clause refers to the 'correct description', not to the correct answers to the other unclued entries. If one has worked through even a small part of the puzzle one knows where this 'description' is entered. I must confess that at first I expected all the individual answers to the unclued entries to be different from the final collective solution, but when I re-read the preamble I realised that there was nothing there to imply this was the case.

I do not know whether my solution is correct, but the wording of the preamble helped me to resolve a perceived ambiguity that has nothing to do with any of the above.

[midazolam]

yes and i take heed of your wise words

but all i am saying is sometimes more explanation in the preamble can be a hindrance

[cluelessJoe]

Scorpius - your musings on the importance of the (any)preamble are spot on.
I note however that you go on to say "I do not know whether my solution is correct" ... I too submitted a solution of which I was not originally absolutely certain.
However, I stuck with the puzzle even after submitting my answer and re-read the preamble quite a few times - and eventually found the instruction in there which convinced me beyond any doubt that my answer was correct.
The preamble wording on this occasion is literally essential to achieving that most satisfactory complete solution.