FYI -- The jurors should be thankful that they didn't meet Archimedes's end. June 10, 2008, 4:40 pm Game Over: Sudoku Spoils a Trial in Australia By Mike Nizza Say what you will about the performance of the airline industry ­ it was first to identify a threat in sudoku. In one of the first major signs that the game had grown into a phenomenon, British Airways told its 13,000-strong force of flight attendants in 2006 that they were forbidden to play sudoku during takeoffs and landings. Two years later, the number puzzle, which has its own section on NYTimes.com, has succeeded in spoiling a federal criminal case in Australia, wasting almost $1 million in the process. Judge Peter Zahra made the decision to abort the trial and discharge the jury after the forewoman admitted to a prodigious amount of puzzle solving during the proceedings, according to The Sydney Morning Herald: She said four or five jurors had brought in the sudoku sheets and photocopied them to play during the trial and then compare their results during meal breaks. She admitted to having spent more than half of her time in court playing the game. The judge was apparently less than persuaded by her assurances that “it helps me keep my mind busy paying more attention.” After all, “some of the evidence is rather drawn out and I find it difficult to maintain my attention the whole time,” she explained, according to The Associated Press. Some jurors worked crossword puzzles as well, she added. To be sure, the trial was a complicated one, the product of what was apparently a lengthy, complex investigation that yielded drug and conspiracy charges against two men. The court heard evidence in the case for 66 days, including testimony from more than 100 witnesses, 20 of them police officers. At the same time, the game can be more engrossing than the juror acknowledged. Back in 2006, Edward Rothstein of The New York Times offered a much different characterization of Sodoku’s power to command attention: When it comes to sudoku, there is no escape. The grids of these puzzles seem to shut down the mental apparatus, enclosing one’s faculties in a tightly constrained universe ­ a 9 by 9 array that must be carefully filled up with the numbers 1 to 9, following certain rules. That enclosure is hypnotic. Not so the testimony in the Australian drug case, it would seem. The jury forewoman said the sodoku-playing commenced early on in the trial, “probably when the surveillance evidence was on.” But something other than boredom may account for the puzzle-mad Australian jury. In an essay on sodoku that seemed especially relevant to today’s news, Will Shortz, The New York Times’s crossword editor, wondered whether it was all really about control: Most of life’s challenges don’t have black-and-white solutions, and many have no resolution at all. We jump into the middle of problems and muddle through as best we can. With sudoku ­ or any other human-made puzzle ­ carrying it through from start to finish, and finding the perfect solution in the end, can produce a feeling of great pride. Is the no-sodoku-in-court rule one of those black-and-white solutions? The jurors didn’t violate Australian law, media reports said. But the next panel selected to try the case, which is supposed to begin anew within weeks, would be wise to avoid being seen writing vertically ­ the telltale sign that gave away the last crew.