Any Justification For Not Showing That 4 Of The Two Word Answers Were Two Words?

[Pipsqueak65]

To me that was just cheating!

[Mamyalynne]

No

[JJ109]

We were told there were 7 and as only 3 were obvious (marked as such in error I believe) we should have been aware of it!

[jno]

that sounds highly improper to me, but setters seem to make up their own rules as they go along these days.

[dannyk13]

A bad fault in the Daily Mail crosswords, quite often they will show 11 letters when in fact it should be 3, 4, 4 etc.

[Mamyalynne]

My answer was general because no mention of a particular crossword was made - if the instructions made it clear then that's different.

[Old_Geezer]

?!?

Aren't all two word answers, two words ?

[Arrods]

I get a 'kick' out of working out the errors in the D Mail crosswords!

[JJ109]

I'm assuming it was the Guardian Prize crossword by Maskarade. I feel that there was a mistake in the proof-reading in that 3 answers were listed as two words when the pre-amble suggested that they should only have been listed by the total number of letters.

The fact that some were listed one way and some the other just confused matters.

[mirandamoon]

It was confusing - but I suppose the setter just about covered himself as he did say 'thirty-three solutions in total consist of two parts' - 26 letter clues + 2 two-word clues, so 5 other clues must also be two-word clues. But it was hard enough without that!
And I suspect I wasn't alone in never having heard of a fair number of the alphebetical clues...

[mirandamoon]

Alphabetical - oops