Two refs (Sunday brunch: May 31, 2015)

It’s the season for soccer championships: the leagues decided last week, the Europa and a bunch of domestic cups this week, and the Champions League final next week.  So I’ve been watching some soccer when there isn’t hockey on.  The only thing I detest about soccer more than penalty kick shootouts is all the diving and playacting done to try and influence the referee.  Players react to a routine foul by falling and rolling around like they’ve got a broken ankle, then pop up and continue playing once the ref has shown the opponent a yellow card.  And there are plenty of cases where a foul is called on the player chasing the ballcarrier even when the ballcarrier is pushing and shoving just as much.

I think the answer is for big-time soccer to do what big-time hockey has done (NCAA and top-flight juniors as well as pro): use two referees instead of one.  Then the referees won’t have to cover as much ground, and they’ll be closer to the play.  More importantly, they’ll each have different angles on a play, which makes it a lot easier to see the retaliation and see what really caused a player to fall down.  That would then take away a lot of the incentive for diving.

The bad argument against a two-ref system is tradition.  The better argument is that the two officials can (and usually do) have two different standards of enforcement.  But hockey (where the same argument was heard) showed that two refs are better than one.  Of course it helps that lower-level games have been played with two referees for as long as I’ve been in the game: they just don’t have linesmen working with them like they do in the games that used to be one ref.  There was already some variability in how calls were made: the second ref didn’t add as much to it as feared.  And good communication between officials helps them adjust to each other and set a consistent standard.

Not a lot of new American puzzles this week: so I went for a couple of Financial Times puzzles, which I’ll comment on next Thursday.  Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal published acrostics this weekend (by Hex and Mike Shenk respectively).

Regular weekly cryptics:

• Stickler No. 84: http://www.australiancrosswords.com.au/WPblog/the-stickler-weekly-84/ 
• National Post (Hex, blogged by Falcon): http://natpostcryptic.blogspot.com/2015/05/saturday-may-30-2015-cox-rathvon.html 
• Globe and Mail (syndicated): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/puzzles-and-crosswords/cryptic-crossword/?L=print&D=300515&T=0&S=0

Care for a quickie? (Puzzle No. 3,365)

Will Shortz has persuaded the editors of the New York Times to give him the rest of the magazine section page that houses the variety puzzle.  Where there used to be a jump from one of the articles, every week there are now three more puzzles.  The first is a letter bank puzzle (Willz loves these) by Frank Longo, the second is a mini variety crossword by Patrick Berry, and the third is a logic puzzle by Wei-Hua Huang.

Patrick’s recent creations have included a miniature Rows Garden he called Hex Nuts and a version of his snowflake puzzles.  The logic puzzles will appeal to sudoku fans, and give them a different challenge just like variety crosswords do for straight crossword solvers.  If you remember the old Windows game Minesweeper, you’ll be interested in these.

It’s good to have puzzles that can be solved in a few minutes, while you’re waiting for the train or to take a break from some mindless task.  These little puzzles also can serve as an invitation to try out puzzles one doesn’t normally do.  How many cryptic solvers were born of the little 8 by 10s in the New Yorker?  And support for small formats can provide an entry point for new constructors; it’s a much less daunting task than filling a full-size grid.

Link to puzzle:  http://www.thenation.com/article/208233/puzzle-no-3365

Degree of difficulty (by standards of this weekly puzzle): hard

Agility factor:  low

This week’s cluing challenge (share your clues in the comments): TAPAS

Back with the solution and annotation on Monday: join us this weekend as usual for Sunday brunch.

Props to the laundryman (Solution No. 3,364)

The solution and annotation to The Nation puzzle #3,364 is below the fold.

If I counted right, I did 20 loads of laundry from Friday night to Monday night, about half of which were the choir robes from our church.  It was ideal drying weather: sunny with a light breeze in the evening that kept the dry cycle running after sunset, and with three clotheslines in the back yard and a big washer, I’m in a good position to do all the laundry.  Not to mention that my meager talent is put to better use behind the scenes than in the choir.

The prop also keeps afghans from dragging on the ground.
The house in back was Victoria’s.

The robes are long, so when they go out on the line, I need a couple of prized possessions: my laundry props.  They’re eight-foot aluminum poles with a wire loop at the end.  They hold the middle of the clothesline up nice and high so you can put long things on it without their dragging on the ground.  You can’t find them any more; even in my fairly traditional neighborhood, not many people dry their wash on the line.

Not long after we moved into our house, I found the hooks on the corners of the shed and on the back of the house, strung up clothes-lines, and put our wash on them.  The lady across the back fence (her name was Victoria, and she had literally had been born in that house and lived there her entire life) called me over to say how pleased she was to see a husband out sharing in the housework.  Some months later, when it became apparent that it wasn’t just that one time I was helping do the laundry, she called me over again, and seeing as how she wasn’t hanging out her wash much any more, gave me the props.  That was about twenty years ago.  Victoria died maybe ten years ago, but I’m sure she’d be pleased to know her props are still at work.

New York Times solution: May 24, 2015

Below the fold is the solution to this weekend’s New York Times variety puzzle: a diagramless by Paula Gamache.  Come back often for more discussions of cryptic and variety puzzles: we have the The Nation cryptic by Hot and Trazom on Thursdays and a roundup of puzzles around the net each weekend for Sunday brunch.

(backdated to keep the The Nation solution on top)

Trust the force, Luke (Sunday brunch: May 24, 2015

This weekend’s puzzles require a diverse set of solving skills, and a degree of confidence in your solving abilities.  Unlike straight crosswords, some of these make you figure out where some (or all) of the answers go.  If you hesitate at filling in a box because you aren’t sure about the answer, you’re going to run into a wall very quickly.  Get a pencil and an eraser, and trust your instincts.  They worked solving this week’s The Nation puzzle didn’t they?

We’ll start with a diagramless, in the New York Times, by Paula Gamache, blogged (with spoilers as usual) by Deb Amlen.

The Wall Street Journal puzzle is a Patrick Berry box creation called Chatter Boxes.  Hints are posted elsewhere on the blog, and so is the solution.

If you’re needing more structure in your puzzling life, solve the regular weekly cryptics:

• Hex in the National Post (Officers Make No Progress, says Falcon)
• Stickler (no. 83)
• Syndicated in the Globe and Mail 

Wall Street Journal hints (May 23, 2015)

This weekend’s Wall Street Journal variety puzzle, Chatter Boxes by Patrick Berry, is one where you have to cross row words with words contained in boxes, but you aren’t told where any of the boxes go or even what shape they are.  These puzzles are pretty hard: first you have to get a couple of row answers in rows atop one another, then you have to use that partial to place a box word, and then that might give you enough to solve the next row word.

If you have one of the row words wrong, you’re in a lot of trouble, since the puzzle depends so much on working back and forth.  That’s when a hint might be pretty valuable.  So click and drag to see the enumeration of each row answer.  The enumerations can confirm or rule out your guesses, and they can also tell you where to place the answers for the middle of the row.  If you need even more of a hint, look below the fold for a hint grid showing you the boxes (but not telling you which answers go in them).

Enumerations: click and drag to see them

row	first	middle	last
1	4	5	6
2	6	5	4
3	4	4-1	6
4	5	4	6
5	4	6	5
6	6	4	5
7	6	4	5
8	4,2	4	5
9	5	5	5
10	4	6	2,3
11	4	5	6
12	5	6	4
13	2,3	5	5
14	5	5	5
15	5	4	6

Wall Street Journal solution (May 23, 2015)

Below the fold is the solution to this weekend’s Wall Street Journal variety puzzle: Chatter Boxes by Patrick Berry.  Some hints are also posted, and that post also explains how to solve this kind of puzzle.