Wall Street Journal hint grid: March 1, 2014

Having trouble with the variety puzzle in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal?  A lot of solvers have some trepidation when faced with a puzzle where you have to figure out where the answers go.  To help you get over the initial hurdle, I’ve got some hints for you.

First is the enumerations of the words in each “belt” in the order they’re clued.  They’re in white font so click and drag to see the contents of the table.  The vertical table also has starting location (in terms of the crossing horizontal) and direction of the first word in each belt.

Then below the fold is a full hint grid (printable) with the start and end of words marked.  Have at it!

Horizontal	Enumeration
1	4, 4	5	8	5	4
2	6	5	8	6	5
3	7	7	4	7	5
4	2, 4	4,5	4	11	–
5	4	8	4-5	4	5
6	4	10	7	5	4
7	7	10	5, 3	5	–

Vertical	Enumeration					Start	Dir.
A	4	6	7	6	7	6 (lower)	up
B	5	6	4	6	9	6 (lower)	down
C	4	10	4	8	4	2 (lower)	up
D	5	6	6	6	7	5 (upper)	up
E	5	5-5	9	6	–	2 (upper)	down
F	8	4, 7	6	5	–	2 (lower)	down
G	6	7	7	6	4	4 (lower)	up

Wall Street Journal solution: March 1, 2014

Below the fold is the solution to this weekend’s Wall Street Journal variety puzzle: “Belt Line” by Patrick Berry.

When you’re through with this one, join us for Sunday brunch, won’t you?

Solve like Sondheim

Double issue last week, no new puzzle this week, so let’s go to the archives.

Last Friday’s Wall Street Journal included a feature on Sheldon Harnick, the lyricist for “Fiddler on the Roof.”  While showing the reporter around his New York apartment and talking about where and how he writes, he mentioned that the Blackwing pencils he used to use came on the recommendation of Stephen Sondheim.

I wonder how many Blackwings Sondheim went through creating his cryptics.  Do any of you use them for solving?

Fumble!!! (Solution No. 3,315)

The solution and annotation to The Nation puzzle No. 3,315 is below the fold.  

I told my partner about five minutes into yesterday’s game that I couldn’t tell whether it was a good game or a bad one.  Turned out I was right on the money.  Now that it’s getting late in the season, the players have gotten better.  But they’re still pee-wees.  Every time something happened to get me thinking they were playing well, something else happened to make me think it was a bad game.  The kids are skating better than they did in November.  They’d set up in the zone and start looking like a hockey team, but then there’d be a turnover and an odd-man rush the other way.

I wasn’t immune either.  I skated well, made some good calls, and was on top of stuff like the directive from the league that teams have a coach or other official in the penalty box when one of their players is there.  But I had a few flubs too. 

My right hand is my whistle hand because of my bad shoulder (can’t raise that arm above my head for signals), but I also need to use that hand to hand off the puck to my partner when he’s facing off, or to receive it when I’m facing off.  But having a puck slapped into your hand and onto the fingerclamp of your whistle hurts, so I take off my whistle and put it in my pocket before the pass, them put it back on for the draw.

In the second period, I had to switch whistles because the one I started with froze up.  I switched to my Acme, which I hadn’t used in a few months.  The fingerclamp of that one is a little tight, and when there was an offside and I retrieved the puck for my partner, the whistle popped out of my hand and skittered along the ice towards the bench.  So everyone else had a good laugh at my expense.

Closing ceremonies (Sunday brunch: February 23, 2014)

With the Olympics winding down, it’s time to look back on the past two weeks’ action.  The hockey was fabulous (aside from the USA letdown in the bronze medal game), but at times the officiating didn’t match it, particularly in the women’s games.  I agreed with the penalty shot no-call that Canada fans complained about, but there were several other plays that got me yelling at the TV.

There’s a linesman who’s probably pretty glad that shot at the end of the game went off the post of the empty Canadian net, since if it went in, it could have been argued that her elementary positioning mistake ended up deciding the game.  The correct position for the linesman is on the determining edge of the blue line: that’s the edge away from the puck.  Reason one is that the rules say that the blue line, which is a foot wide, is considered part of the zone the puck is in.  So if the play is in the neutral zone, the puck is in the neutral zone and offsides isn’t determined until the entire puck crosses the entire line.  And if the puck is in the attacking zone, the play stays on-side until the entire puck goes outside the line.  Reason two for being on the opposite side of the line from the puck is to make sure you don’t interfere with play by stopping the puck from going in or out of the zone.

But at the end of the game, the USA winger brought the puck up along the boards to where the Canadian defender was pinching in on the blue line.  As she backed up towards the line, she backed into the linesman, who was still inside the zone instead of outside.  As she stumbled from the unexpected collision, the American was freed up enough to get a shot on goal, which as we know slid tantalizingly close to sealing a gold medal, and then bounced off the goalpost.

I think what happened there was the linesman was too wrapped up in the tension and excitement of the biggest moment of the biggest game she ever worked in her career, and she became a spectator rather than maintaining concentration on the job.  It happens to me too a couple of times a season, but the stakes are a lot lower.  The root cause is that the women’s officials don’t have enough experience with games like this.  While the number of good female officials is growing and they keep getting better and better, the guys working professional hockey get 60 or 70 big games a year plus playoffs: for every one of them almost twenty thousand in the stands and many thousands more watching on TV.  The Olympics are a novelty to them like State Games was to me, but once the puck is dropped, it’s another game with the same NHL players they see all season.  The top women might get one or two of those international games or an international tournament, but that’s it for their big games in a season.  Maybe the answer is to give the top women officials some AHL or NHL pre-season games or European league games, or perhaps bring in the best officials regardless of sex until we have some women with that much experience.

Meanwhile the ISU and the figure skating judges deserve all the grief they got over the judging in the women’s competition.  I don’t think they blew the call--as some of the commentators said, the Russian skater took better advantage of the IJS point system and won the event with what The Other Doctor Mitchell and I thought was a less impressive program.  But when the ISU not only reinstates one of the judges involved in the 2002 scandal but also lets her judge the most important competition in the sport, it makes clear that their leadership puts taking care of their friends ahead of the integrity of the sport. That is my pick for the worst officiating call of these Olympics.

This weekend also brings the end of Olympic-theme puzzles for another two years, but the Wall Street Journal has an appropriately themed cryptic by Hex (printable version).  It has ten unclued answers and no numbers in the grid, so some of you may find it hard to get a toehold on.  If you are one of those people, I have hints posted.  Then when you’re done, you can check against the solution post.

Hex also have their straight cryptic in the National Post, blogged by Falcon.   I don’t see a theme in it even though it’s been an excellent Olympics for Canada: winning both men’s and women’s curling and women’s hockey, and facing off with Sweden for the men’s hockey gold.  Fraser Simpson’s weekly Brit-style cryptic is in the Globe and Mail (Java, printable).  I haven’t solved it yet, but I don’t think he does themed puzzles

The New York Times puzzle (behind the paywall) is an acrostic.

Kevin Wald has a new (and difficult) variety cryptic up, and LizR has a new Brit cryptic too.  She thinks Araucaria would have liked it.  I think Araucaria would be happy just to know that there are plenty of constructors still taking inspiration from him.

News from the Cryptic All-Stars project is that their print books have shipped, and those of us who contributed to the Kickstarter have also received a PDF of the puzzles.  I think some of the grids are too small, but with the PDF, it’s easy to clip out the grid and print an enlarged copy.

Wall Street Journal hint grid: February 22, 2014

This weekend’s Wall Street Journal variety puzzle is a cryptic by Hex.  Some solvers might find it a little intimidating because the grid is unnumbered and you have to figure out where all the answers go. For those of you who fall into the “how do I start this” category, I’ve given you the locations of all the answers below the fold.

But before you click down there (actually it won’t be a spoiler since the key stuff is in white text and you have to drag over it to read it), here’s a tactical hint to solving that first problem yourself.

Step 1: write down the enumerations of the across answers in each row (how many letters are between the heavy lines).  Put that information on the left side of the respective row.  So for the first row, you would write “6, 6” since there are two six-letter spaces.

Step 2: write down the enumerations of the down answers that start in each row, starting with the top row.  That row will be “6, 5, 7, 5, 7, 6, 4, 7.”  Write that information to the right of the row.

Step 3: look at the sequence of enumerations on the acrosses you just wrote down and the enumerations of the across clues.  The clues start “4, 2 (total 6), 6, 6, 4, 5.”  Since there are three 6s to start this list, and four 6s in the first two rows of the grid, you know one of those four must be one of the unclued theme answers.

Step 4: Now after those 6s comes a 4 (clue d).  Where’s the first 4 in the grid enumeration?  That’s where answer d goes.  And conveniently d is not a real hard clue.

So now you’ve got your first answer in the grid.  Now keep looking for unique patterns in the enumerations and match the clues to the list you wrote down.  OK?  Now if you still can’t figure it out or you want to check your guess, look below the fold and drag over the letter of each clue to see where it goes in the grid.  

Wall Street Journal solution: February 22, 2014

Below the fold is the solution to this weekend’s Wall Street Journal variety puzzle: a cryptic by Cox and Rathon called Feature Event.

Once you’re done with that puzzle, join us for lots more served up at Sunday brunch.

I wouldn’t have called interference (Puzzle No. 3,315)

Link to puzzle: http://www.thenation.com/article/178434/puzzle-no-3315

Degree of difficulty (by standards of this weekly puzzle): hard.  I got off to a roaring start with the 3, 3, 3, 3 and most of the other outside answers, and then found myself challenged by much of the rest and struggling with the top in particular.  

Hozom’s comment: “Hobgoblins,” in which Hot and Trazom add their tuppence on a blog [snow]storm having to do with how consistent themed puzzles have to be.  I think the title of the post hints at Hot and Trazom’s view.
 
[the puzzle note is up here this week because of an animated GIF I wanted to keep below the fold.] 

The video clip below the fold went viral, and I of course looked at this with a different eye from the million or so other people who clicked the link.  Whoever first posted on this tagged it as “butt check” when it’s really a hip check and not butt-ending, which I don’t remember ever having to call in my career (I’ve had spearing and kneeing, though).

One of the officials though (it was either Kelly Sutherland of the NHL or the good German ref Lars Brueggemann) blew this down as interference.  By the letter of the IIHF rule, this is interference, which is defined as deliberately impeding the movement of a player not in possession of the puck.

Now the goalie clearly took out the opponent on his way to the puck, but notice he had possession of the puck first.  While he no longer has control, he still is counted as having possession.  I think he has the right to keep an opponent away from the puck.  If that was interference, then why wouldn’t it be interference when two players are jostling at each other as they skate towards a loose puck in the corner, or if a player controlling the puck on his stick pushing a player who’s trying to take the puck away?

If the goalie had dumped the puck off to a defenseman and then took out the forechecker, then that would have been a classic case of interference.  In this case, I think it was a call that was just too good to pass up.  We don’t see goalies taking someone out in open ice very often, and this is as beautiful a hip-check as you’ll ever see.  Perhaps the referee was thinking he would show how clearly he understood the rule and how consistently he could apply it even in an unusual situation.

Why call this out in a crossword blog?  Because one of the things I was taught in my second year of officiating was that trying to apply a 100 percent consistent book rule standard would ruin the flow of the game.  Rules are more than just suggestions, but they have to be applied with the wisdom and perspective.  Otherwise we could simply program computers to do all the work of hockey referees and crossword constructors.

I love women’s hockey (Solution No. 3,314)

The solution to The Nation puzzle #3,314 is below the fold.

That was an excellent hockey game this morning in Sochi.  Team USA put on a clinic, at least for the first two periods, after which both teams called off the dogs and started thinking about their respective next games (gold for USA and bronze for Sweden).

It was not short on physical play either: the moment I thought exemplified that aspect of the women’s game came when one of the Americans was bringing the puck into the offensive corner and her Swedish opponent tried to squeeze her off the play.  If you’ve played hockey, you’d recognize the lower body strength both players were exerting to try and push the other off the line to the puck.  Eventually both players tumbled down to the ice; call it a stalemate. 

That game was the manifestation of how much women’s hockey has improved in the last decade.  The girls who played pee-wee with the boys and skated stride for stride with them back then are now in college and some of them accomplished their dream of pulling on a Team USA sweater.  

Tune in at noon Thursday for the next installment of the USA/Canada grudge match, where USA tries to avenge their preliminary-round loss and win the gold.

I hate shootouts (Sunday brunch: February 16, 2014)

Game winner by T.J. Oshie.

Why’d they have to mess with a perfectly good  tie game?  After finally getting out of Boston where I had been stranded at the airport, I got to watch the end of the USA-Russia game.  Appropriately enough, it was at the rink, where Bangle and The Other Doctor Mitchell were practicing.  USA adapted well to the larger surface, especially in the forecheck, but couldn’t get the gamewinner, despite a power play at the end of the third period.   

They played a mostly-cautious overtime (only five minutes—it will be ten minutes in the playoff rounds), and then went to a shootout.  (“game winning shots” in IIHF parlance).  Cue my refrain: “I hate shootouts.”  I hate them in soccer as well as hockey, even though the team I coached won one on the way to our championship. It’s a team game, so it should be decided by the same skills and teamwork the rest of the game entails.  And when two teams have played evenly for 60 minutes or more, they deserve recognition.

I reminded the skating parents and other onlookers that IIHF rules for shootouts are different from NHL rules: particularly in letting shooters go again if the game is not decided on the first three attempts.  T.J. Oshie kept shooting for USA, which I think was a great coaching call, since Sergei Bobrovsky’s greatest weakness is not his glove hand or his ability to butterfly, but between his ears.  Sending the same shooter who beat him earlier may have helped shake his confidence, and sending Oshie back even after missing a couple of attempts send “Bob” a message that Coach Bylsma thought Oshie would get the job done.  

When it went to a shootout, and then to sudden-death, I was figuring Russia to win, with talent like Alex Ovechkin, Ilya Kovalchuk, and Pavel Datsyuk.  But Jonathan Quick was just good enough to give Oshie another opportunity to win the game.  Great outcome, but I would have been just as happy with a well-earned tie.  

This weekend’s puzzles definitely will have you working overtime: especially the Wall Street Journal, where they’ve brought us something new by Patrick Berry.  It’s called “Way Stations.”  Don’t feel bad if you have to print out another copy after messing up the first.  If you’ve done the Pathfinders by Nathan Curtis, you’ll have a leg up here.

Speaking of Nathan, he’s back with a new Snake Charmer, and with news of his recent activities, which include creating a puzzle hunt for the National Museum of Math and constructing for a new print magazine of variety puzzles edited by the ubiquitous Will Shortz.  19 bucks for six issues with 50 puzzles each.  With Nathan, Patrick, BEQ and Trip Payne in the lineup, the quality of the puzzles ought to be great. 

More news on big puzzle projects: the Cryptic All-Stars have put their book to bed and sent out PDFs of the print edition, along with a note that they’re still working on the e-book edition.  At the rate new puzzles are coming out, I’m gonna need a bigger clipboard.  Congratulations, everyone; I’ll post a review next week.  

The New York Times puzzle this weekend (behind the paywall) is a diagramless by Fred Piscop.  Deb says it’s easy, and she’s not a big fan of variety crosswords, so this might be a good one for those of you who’ve never tried a diagramless before.  Blizzard permitting, I’ll post the solution here tomorrow: note it will be bumped under this post, so scroll down to find it.  

Meanwhile, cryptic solvers can go one-on-one with Hex (National Post) and with Fraser Simpson (Globe and Mail: Java/print).  Falcon reports that Hex constructed a Valentine’s theme; we’ll hope Emily and Henry were cluing sweet nothings to each other as they worked on the puzzle.    

New York Times solution: February 16, 2014

[blizzard delay]

below the fold is the solution to this weekend’s New York Times variety puzzle: a diagramless by Fred Piscop.  I agree with Deb it was easy.

Skating words (Puzzle No. 3,314)

Link to puzzle: http://www.thenation.com/article/178329/puzzle-no-3314

Degree of difficulty (by standards of this weekly puzzle): hard.  I found the bottom easier than the top.

Hozom’s comment: “Contraindication” in which Hot and Trazom discuss the kinds of clues that don’t have an explicit indicator--double definitions, charades (both very common), and rebus clues (the kind I call “inverted” (hope it won’t spoil things if I let you know Hot and Trazom put one of those in this week’s puzzle).

What do crossword constructors and solvers do during the Olympics?  They look out for new and useful words.  Figure skating has plenty of them. 

“Axel” is probably the most frequently seen skating word in puzzles.  It’s handy with the common letters where they are.  Now here’s a way to impress your friends—call a figure skating jump before the TV commentators do.  The axel is the only jump that takes off forwards.  That makes it harder than all the rest because it requires an extra half revolution; a single axel is one and a half times around. 

“Lutz jump” is another good one, especially if you’re working on a puzzle that requires all the letters of the alphabet.  The lutz is a toe jump, meaning the toe of the inside foot is tapped down into the ice as a pivot point before the skater goes in the air. 

“Flutz” is a beauty for crosswords, though in skating it’ll cost you points.  A flutz happens when you have planned to do a lutz but you anticipate the jump by changing from the outside edge of your skate and leaning in on the inside edge before takeoff.

“Toe loop” uses lots of common letters, so it’s easy for crosswords as well as for skating.  Skate forward, pivot into a three-turn, tap your opposite foot into the ice, and lift up and around with your free leg.  Up, around, and land on the same skate: outside edge taking off and landing. 

“Twizzle” is another fun word, though with the Zs, you’re not likely to see it outside of a themed puzzle.  Twizzles are frequently seen in pairs and ice dance: they’re the move where skaters spin around on one foot while they’re gliding down the ice, and when two skaters do them in unison, they look great. 

More jumps: Mazurka (a half jump where the legs are kicked in the air), Salchow, Walley

Spins: layback, Biellmann (two hands reaching back to hold the skate blade), catch-camel, attitude spin, death drop (kind of jumping into a spin), scratch spin (one leg crossed over the other)

Other moves: Ina Bauer (gliding with one skate facing forward and the other back), Walley, waltz jump (effectively a half-axel), hydroblade (gliding crouched down over one skate with the other held out to the side—Bangle had one of these in her surfer program at State Games in 2009), shoot the duck (like a sit-spin, but gliding along the ice)

Watching Figure Skating (Solution No. 3,313)

The solution to The Nation cryptic crossword #3,313 is below the fold.

With two skaters and a hockey ref in the family, there’s more than a little interest in the figure skating competion in Sochi.  While the TV coverage can be maddening at times with all the cutaways and “human interest” features, they get it right when the music starts and all eyes are on the skaters. 

Our eyes are often on the skate blades: are the edges deep and turns sharp?  Is there good balance?  Did they fully rotate the jumps?  Are the spins staying in one place on the ice?  In ice dance, are the couple’s skates close to each other while their bodies are, especially in the intricate parts?  Those are the skills it takes a lot of practice to get right, and what the judges are looking for in grading the execution.

We’ve watched (and done) enough skating to see a fall waiting to happen--usually the skater will be too far forward or back in the air, or will have come in too slow.  We cringe at the skaters when they bail out of a jump (the term is “pop” it) and turn a triple into a double or single, or when they spend too long loading up a jump.  And we admire the skaters who do the opposite and make the jumps look easy, and the ones who do something novel in their program.

The Other Doctor Mitchell also notices where the skaters are looking.  Many skaters are looking at the ice when they are jumping or executing a footwork sequence. The best are looking at the audience and the judges.  She’s also paying attention to details like the position of the hands, since her coach is always paying attention to them.

I look for the skaters trying to sell the program to the judges.  Most importantly, do they look like they’re having fun out there, or is it a chore?  In that respect, we might be using our parents’ eye.

And we definitely second-guess the judges (follow along with the scoring here).

What are you looking at?  Leave a comment.

IJS (Sunday brunch: February 9, 2014)

It’s that time again when millions of people tune in to figure skating on the TV, which is soon followed by the time when millions of people wonder how in the dickens they keep score.  That’s why you read this blog. 

OK, so you read this blog to learn about the intricacies of breaking up a hockey fight?

No?  You said “puzzles?”  All right.  Here are the weekend’s new cryptics and other puzzles of interest.  Jump down below the fold to continue with the skating.

It’s a two-acrostic weekend.  Mike Shenk in the Wall Street Journal and Hex (behind the paywall) in the New York Times. Deb Amlen thinks the latter will be hard unless you recognize the quote. 

For cryptics (as well as for some of the contenders in figure skating), look north to Canada: Hex in the National Post and Fraser Simpson in the Globe and Mail (PDF or Java). 

Aries has added a new wrinkle to his bi-weekly Rows Gardens (available by subscription: name your price): two new less difficult versions of each puzzle where the enumerations of the rows are provided (like I do with the WSJ hint posts). 

(continued below the fold)

What makes a puzzle hard–V (Puzzle No. 3,313)

We didn’t plan it that way, but Hot and Trazom and I are looking at the same topic this week.  I recently added the weekend Globe and Mail puzzles to our Sunday brunch menu and to my regular solving routine.  They’re harder than the The Nation puzzles, and definitely harder than the Hex cryptics in the Globe and Mail’s competition: the National Post.  Why?  Because constructor Fraser Simpson sets clues that are more in the British style.

One of the main distinctions of those puzzles is Simpson's being less strict about indicators than most North American constructors are.  The main place this is apparent is with anagrams, where the indicator may be murky or absent altogether.  If you do the Puns and Anagrams puzzles from the New York Times, where anagrams are assumed and other clue types are rare, this won’t bother you so much.  So when you’re stuck, look for a word or phrase with the same number of letters as the answer, and then try anagramming it.  

Link to puzzle: http://www.thenation.com/article/178234/puzzle-no-3313

Degree of difficulty (by standards of this weekly puzzle): hard, but much easier once you get the theme.

Hozom’s comment: In the Indicative Mood, in which Hot and Trazom muse on hiding the indicator of a clue's type.  They also have a cluing challenge for us.

Back with the solution on Monday—join us this weekend for Sunday brunch for more cryptics and other interesting puzzles, and an explanation of one of the few things even more puzzling than a cryptic: the point system for judging Olympic figure skating!

Good luck, Ian! (Solution No. 3,312)

The solution to puzzle no. 3,312 is below the fold.

The NHL takes its Olympic break this week, and play in Sochi starts next Wednesday.  Philly’s own Ian Walsh has been picked by the IIHF to be one of the referees who will work the Olympics; there is no greater honor for us officials.  Ian’s a good and conscientious ref (see my October 2012 post) and a great representative of our district and officiating program.

I worked some bantam games with Ian a decade ago as he was on his way up: I doubt he remembers any of them—nor do I.  But seeing how far Ian has made it keeps me motivated, even though the peak of my on-ice career is long past.  I work with a lot of young officials over the course of a season, and with hard work and a little luck, one or two of them could end up where Ian is.  So I try and set a positive example for them, and help them improve their work every game.  Good luck, Ian, and take pride in what you’ve accomplished!

New York Times solution: February 2, 2014

Boy, that was a chore.  Patrick Blindauer had a great concept here: a straight crossword where you had to anagram each answer before entering it in the grid, but the solving experience is ruined by some really crummy fill.  There are some nice anagrams, particularly the big one in the middle, but its the bad parts that stay in your mind.

I had to hit Google a few times to check whether the entries I was arriving at were real words or phrases (note the words “other crossword entry” in the instructions.  Now I see why Deb Amlen was stumped: the anagrams were more work than play.  Over at Wordplay, several commenters had even stronger reactions, but Patrick stuck up for his puzzle, reminding people that all but one of the entries in the puzzle, even the ones people were complaining about, had previously appeared in NYT puzzles.

Anyway, here’s the solution.  Click and drag over any of the spaces in the table to see the original clue answer or the anagram that goes in the grid.  Look below the fold for the completed grid.

	ACROSS	ANAGRAM		DOWN	ANAGRAM
1a	CHIT	ITCH	1d	aMIASMA	I AM SAM
5a	PERPS	PREPS	2d	GAITER	TRIAGE
10a	LOSE	SLOE	3d	SCRAPE	CASPER
14a	BARA	ARAB	4d	HOB	HBO
15a	LEASE	EASEL	5d	ROPED	PEDRO
16a	SITE	IEST	6d	TRAIT	RAITT
17a	I’M SO	MISO	7d	SEES	ESSE
18a	DEDUCTIONS	DISCOUNTED	8d	SPEC	PECS
20a	ASP	SAP	9d	LOS	SLO
21a	TREES	ERTES	10d	NIXES	SINEX
22a	SET	TES	11d	INSOLENT	LETS IN ON
23a	POSTAGE	AGE SPOT	12d	EOS	SOE
25a	EXISTS	SEXIST	13d	TED	ETD
28a	CRIME	MERCI	19d	TUES	UTES
29a	HANS	NAHS	21d	SPICE	EPICS
31a	SAN	NAS	24d	CREWS	SCREW
32a	COMRADE	RCA DOME	25d	HIRES	SHERI
35a	POEM	MOPE	26d	PASS	SAPS
36a	BRITNEY SPEARS	PRESBYTERIAN	27d	EST	TSE
39a	WIVE	VIEW	29d	STONE	TONES
40a	REELING	LEERING	30d	REAM	AMER
41a	TAN	ANT	33d	BLARE	ABLER
42a	DEWS	WEDS	34d	EDDY	DYED
43a	GORGE	GEORG	35d	GAMES	MAGES
47a	CRATER	CARTER	36d	PAIN	PINA
49a	ENDEARS	ED ASNER	37d	TERRACES	RETRACES
51a	TIA	AIT	38d	GAINS	INGAS
52a	SALLY	ALLYS	39d	CAV	VAC
54a	TEE	ETE	42d	STEW	WETS
55a	RESISTANCE	ANCESTRIES	44d	POUNCE	ONE CUP
58a	CAAN	NCAA	45d	GREATS	RETAGS
59a	PERE	PEER	46d	AGREES	GREASE
60a	OVALS	SALVO	48d	RITES	TIERS
61a	GUSH	HUGS	49d	LEVEE	ELEVE
62a	SOTS	TOSS	50d	SYNOD	DYSON
63a	NOELS	OLSEN	52d	LARA	ARAL
64a	PEAS	APSE	53d	SILL	LILS
			55d	PAT	APT
			56d	EON	NEO
			57d	TOS	TSO
			58d	AHN	NHA