Listener No. 4376: Trapped By 'eck

[AHearer]

Many thanks to 'Eck for a fair and pleasing puzzle with a very tidy end-game.

[tilbee]

The hidden messages took me far longer to decipher than they should have, but then a very nice denouement. Thanks to 'Eck.

[jim360]

After a struggle through the grid-fill (although an enjoyable one to be sure!) the final changes came surprisingly quickly. Still, I'm not complaining -- a minor niggle about the gaps in my removed letters meaning that I've not fully worked out the message there. Hope it's not too important.

Also I was a bit puzzled by 1dn, which seems to use an archaic spelling of the first meaning of the relevant headword in C. but uses the definition in the second headword. Or maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, that minor gripe aside it was a fine puzzle and some super and amusing clues, thanks 'Eck!

[Vagans]

Agreed, a very tidy puzzle. The non-alphanumeric character works very well (despite being Seldom Seen). But I'm not sure the plural form of one of the final words is actually in use.

[upsetter]

This was a thoroughly good Listener in which we had to work hard to solve most of the clues. Still a bit confused about some of the extra letters.

[starwalker]

I thought that this was a worthy Listener with some tricky clues that I made a meal of, and then added to the difficulties by mishandling some of the extra/missing letters. Got everything sorted now, though I share Jim's concern re 1down. Thanks 'Eck for another solid workout.

[perseverer]

Finally managed to resolve all the wordplays. Was held up by one perfectly plausible (to me) removal which should have been an addition, and for not the first time, being misled by a message.

[s_pugh]

Full grid, spotted something which I don't know is an impediment or an entrapment. Two hours of grid staring and I'm admitting defeat. Great puzzle 'Eck, but a poor and ambiguous preamble. 1dn is a duffer too.

[icynorth]

A fine puzzle with many impressive clues, including some obligatory schoolboy humour in one.

I'm not 100% sure I've changed all the cells I needed to change (a cell count for this part would put my mind at rest) but the result I have looks neat. Thanks Eck!

[perseverer]

If you are able to check the quote in the ODQ there is no ambiguity.

[Scorpius]

A very nice puzzle with some more challenging clues than we’ve had of late. It’s a pity about the error at 1d. Ambiguities in the extra/missing letters certainly made it difficult to see a coherent message if you picked the wrong ones as I did (at least three, including 1d, and the one probably meant by perseverer). That’s not an uncommon consequence of those particular clue gimmicks, but I feel one of them should have been spotted and eliminated.
I don’t really see any ambiguity in the preamble or the final grid. After studying the ‘relevant location’ on the internet it took me a minute or two to find the impediment. I’m usually hopeless when it comes to searching grids, but this jumped out at me. Finding what to highlight took a little bit longer because there were several potential candidates that might have been disposed in various ways, but once spotted, it seemed the obvious choice.
One clue took me ages to solve and I began to think there was a clash or I had a wrong answer. I think people will know which one I mean.

[upsetter]

Re 1D agree re BRB, but it is well worth a visit to Wordnik, a site mainly devoted to improbable neologisms.
Perhaps 'eck didn't check on the grounds that as any fule kno...

http://tinyurl.com/z5q33rj

[icynorth]

Thanks perseverer - yes, the ODQ makes it obvious.

The online OED doesn't seem to like 1D, but it does list an example from 1720.

[UglyUncle]

Excellent puzzle. The non-alphanumeric character occurred to me in one of those flashes of insight that only happen after a long period of complete mystification. Although ODQ is helpfully cited as a source of reassurance, I do wonder to what extent the exigencies of grid design were the prime motivation for the novelty of the approach used.

Some challenging clues (I blundered briefly over the letter derived from 3, and only solved the final two or three by working back from the only letter possible), but 1dn was a weakness. Still, a very pleasing solve.

[Philoctetes]

A very decent workout, with clever clues and (for me) massive red herrings. I have one query, which has wrankled over several lifetimes. Is it correct to assume that a noun, listed in the BRB, that does not have a plural listed may be pluralised simply by adding an "s", even when a plural does not really make sense? I do not wish to specify the word in the puzzle that troubles me. Consider, as a surrogate, "contre-jour" - could that be pluralised to "contre-jours"?

[perseverer]

If I type sheeps into the Chambers ipad app, it does not recognise it, but if I am looking at the same word as Vagans and Philoctetes, then the app does accept it with s added. Contre-jours is also accepted. What about a sentence along the lines of "the word sheep appeared twice on the poster, but the two sheeps were printed in different colours?"

[emcee]

Great puzzle but was held up for a long time with the error in 1D. Only when seeing this thread was I relieved that it wasn't me being dense (for once).

The endgame was neat and without ambiguity.

[Flocker14]

Excellent puzzle - just what a Listener should be IMHO

[doctormatt]

Very enjoyable and cleverly constructed!

[olichant]

Fantastic puzzle. Thanks, 'Eck. Some really good, tricky clues.

[Scorpius]

In response to Philoctetes' query about plurals, Listener puzzles do occasionally have plurals that one would never expect to use or see in print, though they are technically legitimate. I use the Chambers CD Rom search facility or the more up-to-date Chambers Word Wizard to see if a plural is sanctioned, like perseverer with his ip app.
I'm not sure that I'd be happy to see 'sheeps' as the plural of the word 'sheep'. It would be quite awkward to clue, for a start - it would have to be something like 'more than one instance of word for woolly beasts.'