Two-Way Crosswords

Bi-gridding.

Is it possible to construct a 100% Schrödinger puzzle, in which every clue has more than one legitimate answer? This question has vexed constructors—even before Schrödingers started showing up in American newspapers.

In 1970, Dmitri Borgmann published Curious Crosswords, featuring notable early experiments. Two of these were “Two in One,” a design by Leigh Mercer (grids), Borgmann, and Darryl Francis (clues), and “A Recrudescence” by Francis.

In both, solvers were given two identical diagrams and told to solve clues using two entirely different sets of answers. 1-Across in the clue below, for instance, was “Instruments emitting musical tones” (CONCERTINAS and TUNING FORKS), crossing 1-Down, “A group of persons living in one locality” (COMMUNITY and TOWNSFOLK). The second puzzle got more specific with the definitions but more obscure with the language.

Francis reports he also experimented with a 100%-Schrödinger cryptic crossword, unpublished and now otherwise lost to history.

Puzzle design has changed since 1970— it’s hard to imagine a modern grid featuring ALUMINOSILICATE or SILICOALUMINATE, or using “A North American Indian tribe” with no further context for COOS or CROW. Fifty-one years later, The New York Times’ variety puzzle section showed another “two-for-one” crossword, this one by Derrick Niederman.

“1970s bandmade of Nash and Young” yields CROSBY or STILLS, “___ of the litter” yields RUNT or PICK, and “Word helping to complete the phrase ‘save the ___ for ___’” yields BEST or LAST.

The British-style grids seemed to be a necessity for puzzles like this. The difficulties of constructing a pure-Schrödinger American-style puzzle, with its more tightly interwoven grid, seemed insurmountable.

Until this year’s “Two For the Price of One,” by Will Nediger.

“High school math subject, casually” is CALC, but also TRIG. “Video-providing tech” is CAM or TVS. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse voice actor” is either Mahershala ALI or Issa RAE. And we’re off.

A few of Nediger’s clues involve more stretching than you’d see in ordinary clues, but they’re redeemed by his sense of humor. “Andy Murray’s head?,” for instance, clues AND and LOO, because A-N-D are the first three letters in ANDY and Andy Murray is a noted British tennis player. “They don’t use modern technology, but you can still count on them to get stuff done” clues ABACI and AMISH. A single audio clue works as “Waist concealer” for GIRDLE and “Waste concealer” for LITTER.

Like the URL/URN and BAD DATA/BAD DATE clues I described yesterday, these features may draw a grumble here and there but strike other people (like me) as brilliant highlights. In any case, they’re well within the body of the puzzle, so for a solver who’s already got some momentum going, they shouldn’t be deal-breakers.

All in all, the puzzle and Nediger’s writeup of it are a master class in the art of construction. If we see any other works of great ambiguity in crossword design, it’ll be in part because this one showed what could be done.

Tomorrow: a quick wrap-up of some similar ideas that didn’t quite fit any categories I’ve used so far. Because some people can’t just leave Schrödinger’s cat inside the box.