text:
Which Experts Seem to Interchange Trumps and Points in Bridge Bidding?
Most bridge players know that you can make a major suit game with combined partnership holdings of 26 points and eight trumps. (Plus the absence of "bad breaks" in trumps, finesses, etc.).
My observation is that one usually can also make such a game with 23 points and nine trumps and 20 points and ten trumps. Put another way, an extra trump is worth a king.
(Take 40 HCP divided by 13 tricks= 3 1/13 HCP per trick. One "long" trump is worth a trick, by definition.)
I believe this is the basis of Larry Cohen's "law of total tricks." What is (Larry Cohen's) the "Law of Total Tricks" In Bridge?. Which other experts have systems that seem to follow this principle.

For the second part of your question:
A common method for deciding whether to open a hand is called the "rule of 20"
http://www.bridgehands.com/R/Rule_of_20.htm
The hand shown just adds up to 18 (= 6 longest suit + 3 second longest suit + 9 points)
So most people would not open this hand, but it does have two nice things
1) The long suits are in the majors, making a game more likely, and making it more likely you'll win the auction.
2) Aces are good because they are useful even if partner or opponents don't end up playing in one of your suits.
Those things are not enough to tip this to an opener for most people, but it's not far off.
Many people would open this hand 2S, and many people who don't like preempting with 2 aces or without a singleton, or without spots in the trump suit, would pass and just overcall later.

Aargh.. rule of 20 :-)

Very few experts advocate, or use, the Rule of 20 as a primary guideline on bidding. Rather, it is used as a secondary measure to assist judgement on close calls, and to aid in discriminating between otherwise similar hands when making a call decision.
The reason for this is that it is rather indiscriminate, and lacks the precision and accuracy of other methods. It fails to consider other very important aspects of hand evaluation such as:

Distribution of the rest of the hand.
The degree of 'fit' in the 3rd and 4th suite.
Point location.
Point fit; how points reinforce each other in regards to the other information available from the bidding.

In this regards it is similar to the Losing-Trick Count. an essential member of the expert's tool-kit, but only one of the techniques regularly used for hand-evaluation.

When you have extra trumps, you are often short in at least one side suit.  Common wisdom lets you add points to your hand for distribution after you find a fit - 1 point for a doubleton, 3 points for a singleton, and 5 points for a void.  These extra points is how most people bid games with less than 25 HCP.  Remember that long trumps aren't always worth something by themselves - you need to have a short suit opposite your partner's length in order to realize their ruffing potential.
With your suggested opening hand, that would be an excellent 2 Spade preempt.  I would not recommend opening it, as partner would need some very strong matching cards to make game, and he can still bid game over your 2S.  However, 2 spades will disrupt the opponents (who will have the majority of strength the majority of time plus a long suit of their own) from finding their fit easily.

I don't think you should open Axxxxx,Axx,xx,Jx with 2S, especially when vul in the first seat. You have 2 defensive tricks (i.e. your hand is too defensive). From Eddie Kantar himself: http://www.kantarbridge.com/tips_bid.htm (search for two aces).


text:
In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?
In Axis and Allies (original version), the basically maritime powers, the US and UK have a problem coming to grips with the land-based Axis. One solution is for them to buy industrial complexes in strategic locations to launch military units later in the game.
Typically, the UK might build a "factory" in India or South Africa, and the US in Sinkiang, west of China. The Sinkiang Factory has a few disadvantages.

It can launch only two units per turn.
It is directed against Japan (the lesser evil).
It can be captured, making it an Axis asset.
It's unrealistic, because Sinkiang is a landlocked territory that consists of Tibet and the Taklamakan desert, which is not exactly prime industrial property, even today. I'd solve this problem by allowing factory builds only in coastal areas (e.g. India, South Africa, Brazil).

An American factory in Brazil seems to have it all over Sinkiang.

It can produce three units per turn
It is directed against the Germans (in Africa)
It won't be captured unless the U.S. player is extremely careless, not merely "unlucky."
An American transport in African waters can go offshore Brazil, pick up two infantry, back to Africa and unload the infantry all in one turn. (It takes two turns for a round trip from Africa to the U.S.) That's an average savings of one infantry per turn, which will pay for a factory in five turns.

In real life, the U.S. built the beginnings of an industrial complex in Brazil, and failed to build one in interior China.
As a US player, do you build factories at all? And whether you answered yes or no, is Brazil a better bet than Sinkiang? Or am I missing something?

You've asked some good A&A questions but you should really specify which A&A version you are referring to. The rules are different enough that advice for one version may be useless in another.

@juan2raid: I'm using the "original" version.

I can't imagine an instance where a US factory in Brazil makes much sense. Let's look at the supposed advantages one by one:

It can produce THREE units per turn - Yes, but the troops are not in a strategic position. The only territories to which you could move the units and not move your transports out the way is to: French West Africa; French Equatorial Africa; and Belgian Congo.

It is directed against the GERMANs (in Africa) - Yes, but unless Germany has some lucky dice rolls, you should have them hemmed into mainland Europe by turn 3 to 5. If you let Germany hold Africa for any significant amount of time, the Allies are fighting an uphill battle.

It won't be captured unless the U.S. player is extremely careless, not merely "unlucky." - True, that is a benefit over a factory in Sinkiang, whose sole purpose it seems is to help hold back Japan's march into Asia.

An American transport in African waters can go offshore Brazil, pick up two infantry, back to Africa and unload the infantry all in one turn. - True again: it only requires one turn to shuck troops from Brazil to Africa. However, it's also only one turn to shuck troops from Eastern Canada to Algeria (see the "shuck-shuck" from Don Rae's excellent essays on Allied strategy). The East Canada transport basing has the benefit of being able to attack Africa on turn 2 or 3 (just like best-case Brazil), but it also leaves the transports in position to support Finland or Western Europe instead. This is especially important because it allows the Allies to obfuscate their intended point of attack and/or change it on a whim based on Axis play. Once the shuck is set up troops hit the Europe or Africa every turn.

It seems to me that the sole advantage of a factory in Brazil is to take Africa from Germany. But it's a slow and costly way to do it.
My Approach to Claiming Ally Control of Africa
Here's my strategy to quickly secure Africa from Germany's grip:

On turn 1, the UK needs to sink as many German naval units as possible. If you're lucky, you'll have a sub, transport and/or battleship left that you can use to attack/as fodder, but even minus that you likely can use your Indian or UK fighters and UK bomber. The idea is to eliminate the German navy ASAP. This needs to be one of the Allies powers' early game goals.

Cede India and go into Africa hard. Depending on the Med. naval situation and how many troops are on the ground in Africa, as UK I'll typically reinforce (or retake) Egypt using my troop in Iraq and two in India.

Once the UK/USA navy has secured the Atlantic and are sitting in the UK sea zone, have UK move its transports into the Spain Sea zone and drop off at least four infantry. The US needs to follow suit on its turn to protect those transports from the German air force, dropping more troops into Algeria.

Everything hinges on eliminating that German navy sooner rather than later. If you let the German Med. navy sit around past the early game it can be difficult to combat Germany's growing industrial capabilities thanks to the extra 11 IPC they're getting per turn by holding Africa.
But What If the Allies Don't Take Africa Early?
But what if the Allies don't take Africa in the early game? What if the UK pulls her African corp to India? What then?
I still hold that a Brazilian factory is out of the way and not as logistically efficient as transports in the Spain Sea zone. For starters, you need to commit and move transports into the South Atlantic. This takes those transports out of the North Atlantic, where they can help protect the UK and USA navies that should be focusing on dumping wave after wave of infantry into Finland en route to Karelia.
US transports are ideally situated in the North Atlantic because it allows them the greatest range of options. From the UK sea zone the US can drop troops into:

Finland
Western Europe
UK

They can move to Spain Sea zone and still in one turn send troops to:

Western Europe
Spain
Algeria

The North Atlantic allows the most range of motion and allows the Allies to project their will into Europe and Africa. From Brazil, the Allies are limited to just Africa, albeit a with a wider choice of landing zones. But I argue it's best to keep the US/UK navies together in the Northern Atlantic so that they can project their will together and so that they present a less appealing target for the German air force.

Your answer has merit if everything goes the way you say. But suppose UK abandons Africa in favor of a factory in India. Then a factory in faraway Brazil is of more value than one in nearby Sinkiang. And suppose the UK gets the worst of the early naval air battles so Germany dominates the Med until the U.S. battle fleet arrives from the Pacific. Then you want to get an early start on Africa (turns 2-3) rather than a late start in Europe (turns 4-5). Perhaps the best answer is which factory to build depends on what happens elsewhere.

@Tom: I updated my answer to address some of your concerns. And building the factory in Brazil still chews up 15 IPC (or 5 troops) and requires two transports to shuttle troops over to Africa. I'd rather have those boats in the Northern Atlantic to help reinforce Russia and present a threat to a Western Europe landing.

@Scott: Maybe it's because I'm using the old game and map. It's a one way trip the first time. But then the  transport starts offshore Africa, one sea zone to Brazil, picks up 2 Brazilian infantry, back to Africa and unloads, all in one turn. A transport can go from offshore east coast U.S. TWO sea zones and unload in Algeria, but requires a whole turn to get back. Strangely enough, offshore Brazil is only two sea zones away from Spain or Algeria, just like the east coast US, meaning that it is easy to switch gears after the Germans are "out of Africa."

@Scott: +1 for the epic answer. I can't improve with my own answer so I'm just going to add a rebuttal to benefit #4 in your answer, which wasn't explicit in the original version of the question. I think that's an ideal place to mention Don Rae's famous shuck-shuck. I think this will segue nicely into your discussion of how you use shuck-shuck and land troops in Algeria at the end of your answer.

@adam: @scott: It was partly a bad question on my part. Scott made a GREAT case for not building a factory in either Sinkiang OR Brazil. As re-worded, the question is more like: "If you're the type of player who routinely builds a factory in Sinkiang, would you build it in Brazil instead?" (The Americans tried both in "real life.") Or, in present (distinguished) company, if you were giving a "handicap" (against your better judgment) of having to build a factory, would you build it in Sinkiang or BraziL?

@Tom: The US transport can sit in the UK sea zone or Spain Sea zone and pick up and drop off troops from Eastern or Western Canada in one turn. As @adam noted, see Don Rae's essay on "shuck-shuck" for more insight - http://draidin.com/websites/AAEssays/Index.html

In reference to abandoning Africa for India and the U.S. placement in Brazil: honestly, I don't think that the German player should be allowed reign in Africa and I also don't think that the Japanese player deserves reign in India. You need to use what you have to control both situations. In my opinion, a factory in Brazil is a waste of IPC's and a good way to slow down any chance you have of hurting Germany. As the U.S. I usually move troops straight into German controlled Africa ASAP and take that off the map. Then I use it to stage my later assaults. Just my thoughts...

The fact that it isn't in much danger of Brazil being taken is, in some sense a point against it. The very fact that Sinkiang is under threat is why building units there is useful. BTW, obfuscating moves doesn't really make sense, since there's no private information.

I've been exploring a Brazilian-based U.S. strategy. En route to Africa (initally)
On turn 1, head the two fighters toward South Africa (if the UK builds a factory there), landing in--Brazil. (The fighter from the West Coast will need to pay a 3 IPC penalty for violating Colombian-Venezuelan airspace.) Send the bomber to the UK (for strategic bombing missions).
Build a new bomber on the U.S. east coast and factory in Brazil, plus one infantry. (The remaining 3 IPCs pay for violating neutrality.)
On turn two, send the fighters to protect South Africa, and fly the newly built bomber from the East Coast to Brazil. Build a "package" of one transport and two infantry using Brazil's "allowance" of 3.
On turn three, use the infantry and transport for an amphibious attack on an occupied African territory, supported by the bomber in Brazil. Build another "package" for a similar attack on a more northerly African territory in turn 4. U.S. and U.K should have regained most of Africa by turn 5, especially after the U.S. lands the bomber somewhere in Africa.
Producing 14 IPC "packages" in Brazil turns 2-4 leaves room for similar packages sent to aid Russia further north, or maybe for more aircraft or ship builds for an assault in Europe. Plus the fact that "spare" transports from Brazil can be moved north as well.
By turn 7, the game should be well in hand.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
In Axis and Allies, could a house rule upgrading the German navy finally "balance" the 1942 game?
Because of the historical strength of the Allies, Axis and Allies is somewhat Allies favoring, despite numerous attempts to "balance" the game. I was wondering if curing the Axis' "achilles heel," the German navy, would complete the job.
Props to Scott Mitchell who inspired the "Tirpitz (house) rule":

Subdivide the UK sea zone at the 57th parallel (above Scotland) into the UK sea zone proper (south) and the Norwegian sea (north).
Place a German battleship unit there in the Norwegian Sea (the Tirpitz and the battle cruisers), while giving the UK a SECOND battleship in the new UK sea zone to compensate.
Move the German transport and sub from the Baltic to the Norwegian Sea to prevent "cheap" Allied attacks.

This looks "even" but it's not. Because of the ship synergy (and the first attack advantage) Germany comes out about 12 IPCs better than before, according to my simulations on the AA combat simulator.  Put another way, the "Tirpitz" cancels out not only the second UK battleship, but an additional Allied fighter. Together with the "no Russian first turn attack rule," it seems to erase the "consensus" estimate of a 22 IPC advantage for the Allies.
In his question, Adam Wuerl implied that Germany could use the help in the Mediterranean instead. Could this be the locale for the naval "fix?" Or could Germany be given another submarine somewhere with additional rules for their use?
In the game, the key issues are

whether the Allies can get reinforcements to Russia in time to save it from the Axis
whether Germany can hold onto Africa long enough for the Russians to be defeated. These issues appear to be decided in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Could naval units giving Germany a better shot in these waters (together with the no Russia first attack rule) induce players to finally be willing to play the Axis "straight up"? And could the "Tirpitz rule" (together with a house rule saving German fighters in Finland and the Ukraine) produce this result even if Russia is allowed to attack the first turn?

Interested in what you say here about the Allies having a slight edge. I assume you mean First Edition here.
My friend and I have been playing for years. We originally used to think that the Allies were slightly ahead. Usually this was due to US being able to afford a bomber or two that nails down German economy.
We have had the optional rule of fighter defense turned on for a long time. This makes it much harder for the Allies to strat bomb Germany.
This seemed to give the Axis a break and have been consistently winning 1942, but we are now trying new tactics as Allies that is making a difference.

I think you might be on to something here. I have often felt that the Germans were given the shaft on the game. There is no accounting for the effectiveness of the Uboats at the time.
I think you would need both the fix in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean in order to give this a more balanced game. In the past, I have tried to just defend one area and almost abandon the other in order to consolidate my forces and hope my opponent is unable to break through. The problem with that strategy is you have to relay on a weak opponent.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
When are good times/circumstances to build harbor settlements in Settlers of Catan?
According to this question, the opening phase is not the best time to do so, because you get too few resources.
Harbors are good for trade, so I would imagine that a good time would be when one has "many" resources, but not necessarily the right ones.
So would that be late in the game, or even in the middle game? Or could game "circumstances," rather than game "phases," be the critical factor?

That question doesn't say that the opening phase is not a good time to do so... it just says that it has both pros and cons. It can often be a good opening move.

"so I would imagine that a good time would be when one has "many" resources, but not necessarily the right ones." I really think that this is pretty much your answer. It's good to build when you don't have access to all resources, but you do have plenty of access to some. It's just as good early, middle, and late I think.

There are 2 types of Habour (or port) in the game, and they have different best times.

The 3:1 ports are always handy, more so in the late game. However, there are few reasons to have one early.
The 2:1 ports are worth building if, and only if, you have an excess of production in a particular resource.  This may just develop late game (especially with brick and wood once you've got no expansion), or you may purposefully give yourself an excess with initial placement.  This is most common with sheep.

However, rarely is it worth starting on a harbour unless it has excellent numbers (5-8, for example).  In general, you should be able to build on a 3-resource hex and have an uncontested build to the harbour for your first settlement, which should give you more resources early on before the trade would be useful.

If a specific resource is exceptionally difficult to obtain (for example, brick has numbers 2-3-10) it could be worth your time investing heavily in a different resource and a matching port. A surefire return on investment would be getting three different numbers in the 4-10 range of the same resource (4-5-10 would qualify, but obviously 5-6-8 is better).
Having multiple good numbers on the same resource is a prerequisite here, because otherwise you'll be robber bait.
If you can meet these requirements with your starting settlements and take a port as well, go for it. Otherwise try to get settled near the desired port and head there later on.
Once you have this port, you wouldn't have to focus on building near specific resources. Instead, you can focus on building near different numbers, and fill the gap in your available resources with your port.

My harbor strategy is to place one or both of my original placements near harbors ... with the plans of making my first new settlement in a harbor -- preferably in a spot that borders the harbor and two hexes.
In my experience you particularly need a better trading ratio early in the game, when resources (both yours and others) are scarce, but I agree with those that suggest not placing either of your original settlements on a harbor.
A secondary benefit of putting your original placements near a harbor is that it prevents you from being boxed in, as it is usually easy to continue expanding around the edges of the board, settling on places that didn't look good for your original settlement, but are not at all bad later in the game.
Whether I use 3-1 or 2-1 harbors depends of course on which hexes I place my original settlements on, and whether I can reach the 2-1 that is most beneficial.
Some of my best games have been when I am heavily invested in a certain resource, and have the 2-1 port in that resource. (Because if I'm getting most of the wood, I can often get 1-1 trades with wood-deprived competitors first, then fall back on the 2-1 when necessary.)

Stating with an harbor is doable when for example one settlement is on a resource with at least 1 red number and you have the matching 2:1 harbor. You try to make a city as soon as possible to draw 2 cards at a time which with the trade basically gives you 1 resource of any kind.
Else, you can play with the harbor master tile expansion which gives 2 VP when you have 3 point worth of settlement on the shore (1 pt per settlement, 2 point per city). Game is won at 11 VP since it's easier to get 2 VP tile.


text:
Is it right to refrain from making a takeout double in borderline situations?
In today's bridge column, this example was given:
North opened with one diamond. East doubled with (s) Qxx (h)AQxx (d) x (c) ATxxx.
This double technically met my 14 point requirement (12 for high card points, 2 for the singleton in the opposing suit). But I would have refrained from it for two reasons:
1) I have only Qxx in the spade suit. 2) My strongest suit is clubs, which partner would have to bid at the two level.
Upgrade the spade suit to Kxx, or Qxxx, and I would double. Or switch the diamonds and clubs, so that I was doubling with a singleton club and Axxxx in diamonds.
North and South bid to four spades. East West took the KA of clubs, and the ace of hearts. But then South's game depended on two "two way finesses" in spades and diamonds. From the double, he could infer that East did NOT have the Q of diamonds, and he DID have the Q of spades. Meaning that the double gave away crucial information (and the spade suit was too weak to withstand a finesse).
Here's another example of what I mean.
In Bridge, Do You Count Defensive Points In the Opponents' Suit When Making a Takeout Double?
In such cases, should one avoid making a takeout double using this level of "granularity"?

You state in your title question:

... in borderline situations

This is inaccurate. This hand is far from being a borderline takeout double for several reasons:

I would still Double with Heart Q replaced by Heart T, even Vulnerable against Not - but that would be a borderline double.
You have the short Diamonds. It is likely that partner has both too many diamonds and insufficient HCP to balance, so it is imperative you act to get your side into what is likely to be a competitive auction.
Qxx in Spades is not a deficient holding. It is quite sufficient, especially when you have a strong 4-card holding in Hearts.
With both majors Partner will bid Hearts before Spades, which is your preference. The heart suit is likely lost to your side if you fail to Double.

These points are all strong pluses to the given hand, suggesting action rather than inaction.

Interesting analysis. My response: 1) I would pass with ATxx in hearts in your example, but today, seven years later, I would double with AJxx in hearts. 2) I still consider Qxx in spades "deficient" (opposite e.g. xxxx) but the strength of the heart suit makes up for it. Change the hand to (s) AJxx (h) Qxx (d)x (c) ATxxx and I might pass. 3) Suits matter to me. I am uncomfortable with the fact that a disproportionate part of my strength is in clubs, and would therefore pass hands with X strength, that I would otherwise double with if strength were better distributed.

@TomAu: I strong side suit, which correctly describes the Club suit in this hand, is an asset in both trump and no-trump contracts. In the latter it provides an alternative means to retain control by potentially forcing out a late opposing boss trump. Absolutely do not deprecate a hand because that side suit is a minor.

Would you still double if the spade Q were replaced by the T or 8, vulnerable versus not? Or is either or both too "borderline" for you, given the weakness of the spade suit? (The hand is now (s) Txx (h)AQxx (d) x (c) ATxxx.)

This is in part a matter of style, but I would happily make a takeout double with that hand.  In my experience (which I think agrees with prevailing expert opinion), it is better to be aggressive in competitive bidding at low levels, and get more cautious when the bidding reaches the 3 level.
Advantages to bidding:

You have the opportunity to find a contract for your side
You interfere with the opponents' bidding, giving them a chance to make a mistake and making it harder for them to use their conventions (though this is not a big factor for takeout doubles)
You give partner information which may be useful on defense

Disadvantages:

You may end up in an impossible contract and go down badly (perhaps doubled)
You give the opponents information which they can use if they win the contract (as happened in this case)

If your partner is good, he is less likely to push you to a crazy contract.  On the other hand, experienced opponents are more likely to double if you end up somewhere bad.
The most important factor, though, is the possibility of finding a contract where you can make.  RHO (North) is potentially no stronger than you, so there is a good chance that you have half the points or more.  You should have a shot at making something.  However, if you pass and LHO bids, your partner will likely have trouble bidding unless he has a good enough hand and suit to overcall, and he will likely need to bid at the 2 level or possibly higher if South jumps.  You are probably the strong hand in this partnership, so if you pass now, there's a good chance you are giving up any opportunity to win the contract.
Naturally, there are no guarantees.  Sometimes you make the right bid and it ends up hurting you.  Bidding well and playing well are both a matters of percentages -- you should make the play that has the best expected outcome.

For me, the key point is the weak spade suit and strong club suit. Switch the two, and I would happily double. You might find a game at 4s but probably not (given North's strength) in 5C.

@Tom, you don't really have enough information yet to know if your hand will turn out to be good or bad in the play. I think it's much more important to communicate to partner that you might have a competitive balance of the points, than to play it safe because your hand is not as rock-solid in all situations as you'd like.

@thesunneversets: I don't mind competing for a game with ATxxx in spades. I do mind trying to do this with Qxx in spades, and the ATxxx in clubs. When I double, I'm promising an "average" of Axxx in each of the unbid suits, and in no event worse than Kxx or Qxxx in the majors. Qxx falls below that standard.

It's not all about game.  Part scores matter too, and are much more likely when RHO opens and you have 12 high card.  Also, by passing there is a good chance you are giving up finding a heart fit.  You can survive in spades, which for me is enough for a double.  But as I said, it is in part a matter of style.

@DanielGottesman: RHO has AT LEAST as many HCP as I do, possibly as many as 20. And if partner is FORCED to bid 1S with (s)xxxx (h)xxx (d)xxx (c)xxx, we're not going to be happy. Much better if my spades were ATxxx. Then we'd be missing KQJX and figure to drop an honor with the ace.

@TomAu: If your partner has that hand and you get passed out in 1S, your opponents are missing an easy 3NT.  Big win for you, except maybe at unfavorable vulnerability.  1S doubled is a bit worse, but that's rare, and even then you might end up winning.  This is not to say you can't find hands where double leads to a worse outcome -- again, it's a matter of percentages.


text:
With what kind of trump holdings is a 4-4 trump fit superior?
One poster has noted on other questions that a 4-4 trump fit was better almost a trick better than a 5-3 trump fit,and had a smaller premium over a 5-4 fit because of the ability to make either hand the master hand.
I could see that being the case where the two hands both had HHxx, where the "H's" are honor cards, and the x's are random small cards. But about "extreme" cases like AKQ6 opposite 5432, or JTxx opposite xxxx? How would the 4-4 advantage still hold? In the latter case for instance, I would welcome a fifth trump in either hand, because if it were a "spot," it would be a "long" trump after the opponents take their honors, and if it were a Queen or better, it would be a third honor?
In response to my Stayman question, the same poster (Pieter Geerkens) noted that one of the weaknesses of the four card heart suit was its lack of a ten (an honor) or nine (close enough). Could a lack of honors in "four card" major suit like 8632 dissuade one from using Stayman, or otherwise seeking a 4-4 fit?

The considerations which you describe affect the overall strength of the hand very much more than the playability of the suit. If you have two or three high card losers in your 4-4 fit, where are they going? If your combined holding with partner is sufficient for a play at game, J9xx vs T8xx has a legitimate chance for 2 or even 3 tricks with ruffs when the trump suit, but only a long-shot-con at 2 tricks if not the trump suit.
That being said, having the preponderance of your high cards in short suits makes a hand feel more balanced.  For example with
S - xxxx
H - ATx
D - K9x
C - QJx

a raise of partner's 1NT opening to 3NT looks like the most descriptive call even playing Puppet Stayman, whereas with
S - QJxx
H - ATx
D - K9x
C - xxx

a Stayman call starts looking more attractive.

OK, I see. In a NT contract, a 4-4 fit could be a "stopper"  in an otherwise weak suit (making 1 trick on length against a 3-2 split of opposing honors), while your high cards concentrated in short suits take the remaining eight tricks. Ditto for two tricks (one or both of them a ruff) in a ten-trick suit contract.

Sometimes a 4-4 fit plays better as trumps than the 5-3 fit with regards to using the long suit for discards, for example:
S: Axxx  | Kxxx
H: AQJxx | Kxx
D: Kxx   | Axx
C: x     | Axx

Here you can make 6 spades if trumps break 3-2 as you can draw 2 rounds of trumps, discard a diamond on one of the long hearts and then ruff a diamond.
Move one of the small clubs from East's hand into hearts and still you can make 6 spades but in neither hand can you make 6 hearts (even though with the adjustment you have a 5-4 fit now) as you have to lose a diamond and a spade.
The 5-3 trump fit is likely to work better when you have strong trumps and want to draw all the trumps then set up a trick elsewhere. If trumps break 4-1 you will still have a trump to stop another side suit. It can also work better if trumps break 4-1 and your opponent tries "drawing" all your trumps.
The scenario I think you were referring to is where they can only "force" in one suit and are going to do so twice.
S: KQxx  | Axxx
   H: QJxxx | KTx
   D: Kxx   | AQx
   C: x     | xxx
A weaker set of hands now but you don't need a diamond discard. If you are playing 4 spades and they start with 2 rounds of clubs, you ruff and play KQ of spades noting they break 4-1 then play on hearts. If they get a ruff it's with a natural trump trick for them anyway but if they take the ace and force with another club you have a trump to handle that. If hearts are 4-1 too they can only beat you if the long heart hand has the ace of clubs and they get two ruffs.
If hearts are trumps and they and are 4-1 you lose 2 trump tricks now as well as a club and a spade if they are also 4-1.
If spades are 3-2 you still risk losing control in hearts. They play 2 rounds of clubs and you ruff. Draw trumps but the defender with Axxx takes his ace on the 3rd round and leads another club. So when you find trumps are 4-1 you don't play a third one but play on the side suits and let your opponent ruff in. If he plays yet another club you ruff and continue on with the side suits.

OK, so the 5-4 heart suit is better as a long suit for a discard of the low diamond.

Yes, and note that on the hand posted above but without the jack of hearts, you can make 6 spades on a 3-2 trump break even if hearts are 4-1.


text:
Are there good ways to "handicap" Midway?
In the Q&A section of the "rulebook," questions were asked about how to "handicap" the game in favor of either the Japanese or American player. The answers were to increase the "search" capabilities of the Japanese player, and to allow the American player one or two "B-17" (special bomber) attacks a day. I found these changes unsatisfying, because neither Japanese search capabilities nor B-17 attacks seemed to play a part in the real battle.
My "handicaps" include the following:

In favor of the Japanese: Start the game on June 4th rather than June 3rd. This allows Japan to bring three "waves" (out of four) ships on the first turn, with the remaining wave of five ships arriving at 5:00 p.m. the same day, thereby eliminating the "first day" disadvantage encountered by Japan's first wave. This was a plausible scenario that would be an improvement on the plan that Yamamoto actually followed, and would have been a clear "handicap" in Japan's favor, compared to the game.
In favor of the Americans: Triple (or at least double) Midway's plane complement (to 6 torpedo and 18 dive bomber squadrons in the basic game, add 18 fighter squadrons in the advanced game). This reflects the (superior) airpower actually available to the Americans at the beginning of June 3rd. The game totals were actually available on June 4th, after a day of Japanese bombardment, and were intended to create a "play balance" of both sides having similar number of ships and planes on the first day. But a restoration of the actual status quo ante would have been a "handicap" in favor of the Americans (relative to the game).
Use both changes to create a "matchup" of more Japanese ships vs. more American planes.

Do my "handicaps" improve the game by

following history closely
creating more variety and/or
creating a "good imbalance" of ships versus planes?

Edit: In answer to another question, one poster noted that because of the difference in cultures, the Japanese were more likely to launch "suicide" attacks (one way air attacks that did not have enough fuel for the round trip) than the Americans. While the original rules allow both sides to do this, maybe only the Japanese should have this privilege. Would this be a viable "handicap" that is also historically accurate?

Depending on the edition (60s or 90s), you can handicap for the Japanese by:
60s:

allow Japanese player to start a day (or partial day) sooner than the American player

90s:

allow Japanese player to bring forces onto the board closer to Midway (ie, shorten the time available to sink them)

Handicapping for the American player really isn't needed in the 60s edition, since all you have to do is kill the Atago (iirc). You might be able to add an additional search zone, but that'd be pretty minimal, in my experience. The only other thing I could think of would be to force carrier battle groups to not combine / join-up (or force them to all sail together).
In the 90s edition, you could handicap for the Americans by:

shortening the Japanese search distance
adding a searchable zone to the American side

The basic rules (ie, no CAP, no funky optional rules, etc) make it more-or-less impossible for the Japanese player to guarantee victory, unless they hide their "flag ship" very well and don't attack until they're right atop Midway (don't even search - just go full steam ahead).
When you add CAP, optional rules, and other variants, any form of "handicapping" is going to be pretty hit-or-miss, in my experience.
If both players have read the rules, the Americans are handed a whopping big advantage in that they "know" where the fleet is coming from - and while a game has to make some changes to make it playable, the historical battle didn't provide that much information (which makes the 90s version better (plus it uses hexes instead of squares (which means planes can fly more "realistic" paths, instead of having to convert 5 diagonal squares into 7 straight ones (the distance being nearly equal) for out-bound and in-bound operations))).


text:
Does it make sense for a defender to occasionally adopt a slightly inferior line in order to "mix up" the play?
Here's the original question that inspired this one: It was about whether West should lead a short major instead of a long, weak minor when the opponents failed to find a fit using Stayman. A number of people weighed in with both statistical and experiential analysis of why the long weak suit was (somewhat) better. That result doesn't surprise me.
Even so, does it make sense to lead the spade one or two times out of ten in order to confuse declarers that are accustomed to West's leading long suits? Meaning that a declarer might be led to "finesse" into the East hand or make other misplays? Plus the fact that doubt is then cast on his ability to read West's hand in general.
Making the occasional "suboptimal" play is a staple of poker for "bluffing purposes." (If you are bluffing, you are making an inferior play and hoping to "get away" with it. And if you are "caught," your opponents can't be sure that you are playing "honestly" next time.) Is there anything that stands in the way of doing this in bridge?

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosvenor_gambit

When you bluff declarer, you are also bluffing your partner.
If you have never had the experience of playing with a partner who usually knows all your cards at trick 3 (or would, assuming you played correctly and opponents bid sensibly), I guess all I can say is that you're missing out.
Normally, you play with your partner much more than you play against any particular declarer, so bluffing causes your partner to misguess much more than it will cause declarer to misguess.
Of course, if declarer is a better player than your partner, then by all means go ahead.
There is also a second problem, which is that if you have any tells (including just playing more slowly because you're thinking about it) that you are bluffing, partner might pick up on them, and that causes partner ethical problems.  They will be ethically constrained to play as if your play was an honest play, and possibly even go out of the way to do so.
Let's go back to the hand you linked as an example.  If you lead the 6 of spades, then partner would probably assume you either did not have 5 diamonds or you lacked an entry.  (If you lead the 4, except in Poland where it is standard to lead low from small doubletons, partner will miscount the hand altogether.)  This could easily mean that partner won't lead a heart to you at trick 8 because he or she believes declarer has the ace of hearts (since, at that point, he or she already has count of the diamonds).  That is almost as likely to blow a trick (or two!) as failing to set up diamonds.  (Of course, partner is only going to misread the hand if declarer started with 15 points rather than 17, so that it is actually possible for declarer to have the A with you having the Q instead.)
In the long run, of course, this just means partner doesn't believe you'll make the best (or agreed upon) play, and he or she will start defending more randomly.  If your partner can't make the kind of read I just described, then it matters a lot less (especially if declarer can and so will actually be fooled).

Poker is not a team game; Bridge is. For this reason it is essential that  your plays be reliable at all times when partner has any decisions to be made, potentially or actually. The loss in partnership confidence from not adhering to this maxim is far more devastating than any small gain from mixing up your signals like this.
All too often on Defence the Defenders' knowledge is shared asymmetrically through most of the play. In these cases each Defender needs to trust that, if the situation remains unclear, at a minimum Partner's carding can be trusted to be an accurate guide to decision making. Your suggested strategy confounds this fundamental tenet of partnership confidence.
Further, there are complicating ethical questions about the mechanics of playing such a strategy ethically, Partner and opponents are not only both entitled to knowledge of the carding agreement in place, but Partner must be capable of fully explaining it's nuances, frequency, and constraints to the opponents at the table. Any failure to meet these ethical obligations is an ethics violation subject to the most sever penalties.
If you want to know how top players really bluff you could do worse than to look up a few stories by Randy (Racoon) Bennett

So we're supposed to make the statistically best move at all times if we can? Wow! You make me feel bad for playing an inferior move, not knowing that it is inferior.


text:
Can one use alternate evaluation methods, e.g. "K&R" to defend actions that appear to violate your convention card?
I'm playing in a tournament, and I fill out a convention card that says I will open with 13 or more points. I pick up a certain 14 "worst" point hand (per Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 count) and decide to pass. The tournament director calls me on it.
I found out yesterday that Kaplan and Rubens (K&R) (or some equally accepted authority) evaluates the hand as barely over 12 points. Is that an adequate defense for my apparent convention violation?
My convention card also says that I need 13 points for a takeout double. I do so with the following "11" point hand: KJT4-5-QJ98-AT93. But K&R evaluate it as 13. Am I OK?
Or is the best idea to write on the convention card: "I reserve the right to base my decisions on alternate hand valuations such as K&R?"
Finally, I make five or so of these decisions in a single tournament. Four out of five are on the money. In one case, I really didn't have my bid (per K&R), because I miscalculated. Would it be seen as such, or would people be thinking in terms of a violation?

What does "The tournament director calls me on it." actually mean?

@PieterGeerkens: Probably ask questions. I don't think most directors would impose penalties unless they are quite sure that there is a violation.

The "R" in "K&R" is Jeff Rubens. Kaplan and Rubens described their method in a 1982 issue of The Bridge World. You can find out more about it here: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/#software

@AdamWildavsky: Ok, fixed. Thanks for the heads up.

This issue was discussed on the Bridge Laws Mailing List a few months ago:
Do players have to describe what they play?
Cribbing from my own post there:

Edgar Kaplan (the "K" in K & R) wrote to the effect that the
  convention card is an understanding with partner, not an undertaking
  to the opponents.
HCP are an approximation of a hand's value. The laws do not mention
  them. Absent regulation to the contrary players must be allowed to
  evaluate their hands using their own judgement, promoting and demoting
  as they deem best. Some such regulations have been passed. While I
  consider them harmful to the spirit of the game they are lawful.

For what it's worth I use K&R evaluation at the table, as do some of my partners, but I don't do it on every deal. It is time consuming, so I use it only when I'm not confident how to evaluate the hand. I do not indicate this on my convention card, and I'm not sure how I would. It's a complex method that cannot be explained in a short paragraph.
=======
Update Jan 1, 2016
I think I let myself get sidetracked, missing the heart of the issue. The K&R evaluation method is merely an example. Tom does not use it at the table, nor I suspect is he likely to. More to the point, there is nothing magical about K&R. It was intended to reproduce the judgement of one particular expert, Edgar Kaplan. For instance he devalued a hand if it was 4333, as do most experts, so the algorithm does the same. Likewise for stray queens and a host of other factors.
The real point is that Tom, or any of us, can evaluate a hand as we please. If I list a range of "15-17" for 1NT on my convention card it does not mean that my partner, my opponents, or anyone can count on me to hold exactly that many points. Rather it's a shorthand for saying that I will open hands that I evaluate to be in that range. I might well hold an excellent 14 or an ugly 18. For me neither happen often enough that I would write "14+ to 18-" -- that would only be misleading. My partner plays me for 15-17 and he and my opponents are equally well informed.
Those who've read Victor Mollo will remember the Walrus, who blindly follows the point count no matter where it leads. Nothing in the rules or regulations of the game requires us to do likewise.

FWIW, I would just say that "K&R" is a widely accepted evaluation method supported by software"  and then attach a link to the software itself.

I just looked at the example hand and I'm fine with opening one spade with it. To me, AKxxxx is worth at least AKQxx. And I think most people would open 1S with something like AKQxx Kxxx T xxx. Yes it's only 10 hcp but AK, side K is better quality than Axxx Kxx Qxx Jxx. And the sixth spade and singleton easily make up the difference to 13.

Because the evaluation mechanism you have adopted is generating more variation than typical, I strongly recommend that you note its use on your (and partner's) convention card. I would also suggest typing a small summary of the mechanism to keep with your convention card for opponents to refer to.
Having done this, I see no reason for any concern; you are:

Not employing a technique that is intentionally destructive rather than constructive - which would be strongly discouraged when it could not be prevented.
Attempting to improve your bidding judgement through an algorithmic means, which is certainly allowed - it is the basis of all hand evaluation methods.

That being said, there may be places on your convention card where it would be appropriate to use K&RP instead of either Pts or HCP. You and partner should discuss this, and act on the agreement.

Pieter, I think you're remembering Law 16 B1(a). It's not relevant here -- it applies only when a player has received unauthorized information.

@AdamWildavsky: Perhaps you're right.

There are many ways to evaluate a hand, and you and your partner are at liberty to choose whichever you wish. But you are not entitled to insist that your opponents use the same system; if you tell them that you will open any hand with 13 points and then pass with 14 you have misled them, which is what the system is designed to prevent.
You also appear to be happy to mislead your partner; if one of the three possible evaluations allows this particular bid, you 'reserve the right' to make it? Are you playing with or against him?
If you think the K&R system (or any other) fits your needs, by all means use it and put it on your card (as Pieter says, a typed-up paragraph of explanation will avoid arguments). But then you have to use that evaluation every time; it is not reasonable to expect the other players to guess exactly what you mean by 'points'.


text:
Can a Diplomacy player pick and choose which unit to support?
This question brought back memories of a situation that occurred to me about 40 years ago. (I haven't played much Diplomacy since then.)
I was playing France, worried about England and Germany, and England made an "alliance" offer to me arguing, "You will have 5 supply centers at the end of 1901, Germany will have 5, and I should have 5, to preserve the balance of power. Will you support me into Belgium against Germany using the army that you moved into Burgundy in spring, 1901?"
I "temporized" by saying that I would support a British fleet into Belgium, but not an army. So in my Fall, 1901 orders, I wrote, "A Burgundy supports fleet only, N Sea to Belgium."
England's orders read, "A Yorkshire to Belgium, F N Sea convoys." This was against my express intent, and after an argument, we took the issue to the host/organizer (who was playing Turkey). The host ruled into favor of England, who argued, "The army went to Belgium via the fleet N. Sea, and the supporting French army couldn't know until after the fact whether it was the fleet or army that occupied Belgium."
To this day, I think that the host (and England) were wrong. Were they?

From the rules:

A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make.

The support order was: A Bur S English F Nrs - Bel
The move order was: A Yor - Bel (Possible because of F Nrs C A Yor - Bel)

There are two conflicts:
- The supported unit is a Fleet, the moved unit is an Army. This alone could have been a typo.
- The supported unit is the unit in Nrs, the moved unit is from Yor. And those are clearly two different units. There is no quesion that these do not match.
So the orders where conflicting, they should have failed.

I think it's worth explicitly noting, for future readers if not this OP, that the reasons for the support failure are both of A) that the wrong piece (F North Sea instead of A Yorkshire) was specified in the support order; and B) that the wrong move was specified (direct instead of convoy). This could have effect in circumstances when an army has two separate routes, land and sea, from starting location.to destination.


text:
What are good strategies for sealed deck?
In the same vein as my Drafting Strategies question, what strategies exist for a good sealed deck?  I want to know about general strategies regardless of the card pool being played.

Exactly the same as for draft, in terms of the BREAD rule.  Obviously that you don't have to worry about what to pick and pass: all that has been done for you, by the vagaries of random chance!  All that's left is to locate the most synergetic deck you can from whatever you've opened out of your boosters.
One thing I've seen the pros do, that I think is a great idea, is start off by checking your rares and mythics.  Oftentimes any truly busted bombs will be found here, and give you a good idea of what colours you want to find a way to include, if humanly possible.
Beyond that, the very intuitive thing holds true: separate your cards by colour and look for piles that contain lots of good creatures and efficient removal.  If you have two such piles, you're off to an excellent start!  Be careful though of possible mana curve issues: if you have two piles that are both stacked with great expensive cards, you may be better off going for a weaker colour that better complements your curve.
Don't get greedy and try to play a 4-colour deck, just because you have bombs in 4 colours: sometimes you just have to show some discipline.  Anything beyond two colours with a small splash of a third colour should set off some serious warning bells.  Having said that, don't panic that your deck doesn't seem as "bomby" as the decks you're used to drafting.  Sealed is typically a much slower format, with a bit more room to develop your position, and a bit more tolerance for the odd clunky card.  Though of course if you have the good fortune to be able to assemble a blazingly fast draft-quality deck out of your pool, you probably ought to go for it!

Most importantly, you can apply the same skills you use in Draft and come out with a good Sealed deck. The main thing is not to be disappointed when your deck feels a bit crappy compared to a good Draft deck.
In Sealed, you'll actually have a bigger set of cards you can put into your deck (60 cards vs. 45), but those cards won't be ones you've hand-picked out of a larger pool for synergy. Consequently:

You'll have less "depth" in any one color than you would in a draft pool, meaning that, on average, decks will play weaker and less synergistic cards.
Slower play means playing more lands and drawing more of your deck, so Bombs are more decisive.
More packs per player means more rares and mythic per player, so Bombs are more plentiful.
The volume of Bombs needing answers means Removal is more important as well.
That said, this isn't because the rest of "BREAD" is diminished, just that your card pool is weaker — speed and synergy are even more valuable, just harder to attain.

Equal access to several colors open up a strategy that's rather rare in Draft: "transformative" sideboarding.
Limited sideboarding differs from Constructed sideboarding in a number of ways:

In Limited, your "sideboard" consists of all the cards from your pool that you didn't put in your deck, plus an unlimited supply of basic lands, should you need them.
You don't have to "restore" your deck to any particular starting configuration for game 1 of each match. So there's no need to remember your starting configuration or undo a sideboard choice if you realized that it just runs better than your original 40-card list.

All of this allows you, if the card pool and deckbuilding time permit it, to make two decks from your card pool and switch between them between games. This is much easier to do in Sealed than in Draft because your pool isn't going to be as focused between certain colors. Don't waste time on this if your pool clearly leans in one direction, but if you've got the cards for two divergent so-so decks, you can squeak out some extra wins by playing one and then transitioning to the other when you run into an unfavorable matchup.

Is the unrestrictive sideboarding allowed at pre-releases and launch parties? I was under the impression that once you made your deck and sideboard you had to stick with it

@DForck42 By the straight-up tournament rules, yes (although you should be courteous about using basic lands from the shared pool, of course). Some organizers don't follow the tournament guidelines perfectly, though. IIRC, WotC's tournament document does allow organizers to force fixed decks in Limited, but says they should declare this specifically because it's non-standard procedure. I'll dig up the official text for you tonight.

ok, so the rule states that you can freeform the deck, but places can choose otherwise.  gotcha.  thanks!

DForck42, what question were you trying to ask originally, what do you mean by 'unrestrictive sideboard'?  The statement that 'everything not in your deck is your sideboard' is actually true at all levels of play; at high-level events and if explicitly indicated then you have to return to a 'base' main-deck configuration for the start of each match, but you're always allowed to sideboard the entire pool for games 2 and 3...

"You don't have to "restore" your deck to any particular starting configuration for game 1 of each match" -- This is normally correct. However, some Limited events may require decklists; if that is the case, you do need to restore your deck to its original configuration. (Requiring a decklist is unlikely at Regular REL, such as a prerelease.)


text:
What are the possible archetypes in Innistrad draft?
Assuming Innistrad-Innistrad-Innistrad in a booster draft, what are the potential archetypes a player could draft?
For a reference, see Alex P's answer to another quetion here

Disagree with vote-to-close: this question isn't really any more localized than "What are the strongest strategies in board game X with expansion Y?"

Yeah, I'd have to agree with @Alex P, I don't get how this is too localized.  Until the next set somes out draft will mostly be I-I-I.  And even after the next set comes out not all draft will use the new set.

This is almost a better question in StackExchange terms, since it is actually possible to define a single 'complete' answer that isn't expected to change constantly over time.  No?

In my Innistrad drafts so far, I've noticed the following as dominating archetypes:
Red-black vampires. This is a classic red aggro strategy, since there lots of small, fast vamps that get big to put a major hurt on your opponent, especially the Bloodcrazed Neonate and the Falkenrath Marauders. The bombs in this deck are the Bloodline Keeper or Olivia Voldaren -- if you see either of those in pack one or two, then jump into black-red vamps with both feet.
Green-red werewolves. This is another aggro deck, though it's slightly slower than the vamp deck since the werewolves are a little bit bigger and take a while longer to flip and become monsters. The Mayor of Avabruck is a good keystone card here, as are the Kessig Cagebreakers -- but really, all of the werewolves in this set are strong enough once flipped to win the game in a few turns. This is my favorite of the current archetypes.
Blue-white flyers (or "Things with Wings" as I like to call it). This deck runs lots of humans, spirits, and angels. In the early game it tends towards control rather than beat-down, since this deck will not win a race against werewolves or vampires, but towards the late game it'll amass a critical mass of flyers to hit for the win. Bombs include the Angel of Flight Alabaster, The Geist of Saint Traft, Geist-Honored Monk, and Intangible Virtue as a key enchantment. In my experience, this is one of the weakest archetypes, since there isn't enough good removal or cheap common flyers to build out a strong deck, and the good blue utility cards are heavily competed for by people playing the following archetype.
Blue-black zombie mill. This is a control deck, relying on removal and counterspells to clear out the early threats, then bring down the skaabs once there are plenty of creatures in the graveyard. The bombs in this deck include Grimgrin, Corpse-Born and the Skaab Goliath. This deck benefits the most from flashback -- conveniently, since blue has the most flashback of any color in Innistrad. There is also a pure mill variant of this deck which I had the misfortune to play against once, when my lucky opponent had managed to draft pretty much every mill card in the set, including 2x Nephalia Drownyard and 2x Curse of the Bloody Tome. This strategy can be very effective, but it's very hard to draft enough cards to make it viable.
Green-white humans should be mentioned to round out the color wheel, though in my experience the synergies among the humans in the set aren't strong enough to really call this a tournament archetype. If you're running green-white you're probably doing it to get the most value out of Travel Preparations, but in that case you'll probably want to construct your deck around white flyers or green werewolves instead, and splash to cover the off-color costs of Travel Preparations.

RE: GW Humans. There is some powerful equipment with human bonuses in the set…

I think you've flagged some of these as weak because these are the surface-level archetypes: the tribal color themes built into the overarching design of the set. There are deck styles that "slice" across the tribes that, in my view, generally work better.

I think you're substantially overrating the werewolves here - the rares (Mayor and Daybreak Ranger) are beasts, but most of the common and even many of the uncommon werewolves are overcosted for the unflipped half, and the tempo costs of the flipped side are too high - few things are as frustrating as burning a turn doing nothing to try and get your werewolves to flip next upkeep, and watching your opponent Think Twice during your end step or just running out a couple of 2-drops on their turn to flip them back.

@Steven, you could be right, though I think you've underestimated the werewolves' utility. In any case, I didn't say that wolves were the best archetype, just that they were my favorite.

Out of curiosity, can you say more about that?  'Utility' is exactly the thing I don't like about werewolves, because (again, aside from some excellent rares) even in their transformed forms they're just Big Dumb Guys, getting held off forever by a Manor Skeleton or killed by a Typhoid Rats, or blocked for long enough by Doomed Traveler plus his reincarnation while other air guys take big chunks out of your life total...

@Steven, Big Dumb Creatures can win you a lot of matches in Limited. Anyway, the difficulties with flipping them are why I like werewolves: they offer you the change to get a huge creature for under cost if you can finesse the play so that they flip at the right time. They offer interesting strategic choices to you, and even on the day side they put the pressure on your opponent to do something every turn, or two somethings if he's trying to flip them back.

Some tried-and-true picks...
Fast aggro: The basic idea here is to overwhelm your opponent with repeated attacks by low-cost aggressive creatures, backed up by some efficient removal to clear the way, and maybe a bit of burn to finish him off. Fundamentally we're describing a Red Deck Wins strategy, so it shouldn't be surprising that red-black and red-white tend to be the strongest colors for this approach; you can do without red but you really have to go all-in on good weenie creatures to do so. The bedrock of this archetype are cards like Diregraf Ghoul, Reckless Waif, Vampire Interloper, and Cloistered Youth. For the higher end of your curve, try to pick up creatures that can help you push through more damage, like Crossway Vampire, Instigator Gang, and Morkut Banshee; undercosted beaters like Galvanic Juggernaut are also good. Brimstone Volley absolutely rocks in this deck, but also keep an eye out for Geistflame, Dead Weight, Bonds of Faith. In play, be aggressive and try to win as fast as possible. Cards like Rally the Peasants and Nightbird's Clutches are also good, but don't short yourself on creatures in order to play them!
Evasive beats: This is the same strategy as "blue/white flyers" in a number of other sets. You use hard-to-block creatures to consistently get in some damage with flyers (e.g. Voiceless Spirit, Stitched Drake) while sandbagging your opponent with blockers (e.g. big-butt creatures like Fortress Crab, spirit-makers like Doomed Traveler) and controlling spells (e.g. Bonds of Faith, Claustrophobia, Sensory Deprivation). Take note: Invisible Stalker and Skaab Goliath are also "evasive" creatures! This deck can generally afford to run more auras and equipment than most decks (especially if you manage to pick up Stalkers), though you should be choosy with your picks; Spectral Flight and Curiosity are both good. Unlike the fast aggro deck, you don't so much want to rush to a win as cruise to one.
Midrange beats: Basically this is an deck that spreads its threats out across the curve, beating other aggressive decks with its ability to "go bigger" while still having enough pressure to punish slow decks. You can do it in various colors, but green tends to be a solid choice because of the density of beefy creatures like Festerhide Boar. You can make a pretty cool tribal deck with white-green humans-and-werewolves, thanks to two human lords (Hamlet Captain and Mayor of Avabruck) and cards like Elder Cathar and Gatstaf Shepherd. Some token-makers (even if it's just the lowly Doomed Traveler) can help give your deck a lot of resilience.
Mill yourself: Here's an archetype that's very specific to Innistrad. You want to use cards like Forbidden Alchemy, Mulch, and Curse of the Bloody Tome to fill your graveyard, then, erm, do stuff with that. Your options for "doing stuff" vary. Initially conventional wisdom was to draft flashback spells, but it's not that effective: most Innistrad flashback spells are priced to be cast affordably from the hand, and then flashbacked a few turns later as a bonus. Milling yourself just to pay 8 for a Grasp of Phantoms is not a good deal! What does work pretty well is creature-based self-mill. Self-mill in a creature-heavy deck fills your yard up with cards you can use to reliably cast those sweet Stitched Drakes and Makeshift Maulers, while cards like Gnaw to the Bone, Spider Spawning (splash black), Boneyard Wurm, and Kessig Cagebreakers take great advantage of the massive number of creatures in your yard.
And, on the sketchier side...
Control: You're not going to be able to draft a perfect imitation of a Constructed control deck using the card distribution in Limited, but I think there's room for a control deck in the environment. Blue and black are the classic control colors; in Limited, red is also important because it has the broadest access to removal effects. Don't write off any color, though, because the real goal here is to pick a bunch of best-in-class answers that you can use to dominate the board. Rolling Temblor, Victim of Night, Claustrophobia are examples of removal cards you'll want. Innistrad isn't as bomb-focused as other formats, but a big crazy rare can really make your day -- Olivia Voldaren, Reaper from the Abyss, Balefire Dragon, Bloodline Keeper (if you find yourself unable to go red/black aggro), maybe Ludevic's Test Subject; Skaab Goliath works in a pinch. You'll also want to run some low-cost creatures for defense, such as Typhoid Rats and Delver of Secrets/Stitched Drake (depending on your creature-vs.-spells density). Play Forbidden Alchemy and Civilized Scholar to help you dig for answers. Since you're running three or more colors, you'll want mana fixing (Traveler's Amulet, Shimmering Grotto).
Tempo: Basically you play some awesome cheap creatures and then use bounce, removal, and some counterspells to slow down your opponent while you win the game. Delver of Secrets is common, which is what really enables this deck. Cheap flashback spells like Silent Departure are good. I wouldn't do this as a first-choice strategy, but it's a fun deck to build if you find yourself with several Delver-level creatures but lacking the cards to go full aggro.
Flashback combo: This is a "garbage man" strategy relying on Burning Vengeance and loading yourself up with flashback spells nobody wanted to pick. Some self-mill can help, but, again, watch the flashback costs.

(I deleted my previous post: it was too color-focused.)


text:
Can Monty Python Fluxx be used with the regular Fluxx deck, or is it a separate game?
As far as I understand, Monty Python Fluxx is a separate game, not an expansion pack, that doesn't require the original Fluxx deck to play. But can it be used with the original deck  - can it be used to supplement the original cards, or does it not work like that?
(This related question What are the differences between the Fluxx games? didn't quite answer my question.)

You certainly can just shuffle the decks together, try to play a game with them, and see what happens.  The core rules of Fluxx are always pretty much the same, after all.
However, everything I've heard from people who've tried something like this suggests that, for maximum enjoyment, you'll probably want to start removing cards that don't work well in the combined game; or adding your own homebrew cards that will work well in the new game.
I'm not very familiar with Monty Python Fluxx, but I've played a bit of Zombie Fluxx - and it's pretty well optimised on its own.  I could add my basic Fluxx game into the mix, but then the zombie theme would be much diluted.  It would be much harder to assemble a critical mass of zombie cards to achieve one of the zombie Goals - or indeed the non-zombie cards required for a base set goal.
But in the end Fluxx is a game that it's best not too take too seriously.  If all you're after is a nice long, random game with the possibility of unexpected interactions between cards from different sets, then I don't see why you wouldn't want to at least give a mega-game using cards from multiple expansions a try!

Can? Yes.
Should? No.
The only Fluxx sets with significant goal & keeper overlap are Fluxx and Family Fluxx; certain keepers are duplicated. Those two can be mixed, and mixing those two isn't a clear "Should not"... but the others, they definitely fall into "should not."
Such mixing definitely lengthens the game, as needed keepers are harder to acquire. It also reduces the skill factor and increases the luck factor of victory.
If, however, you simply want to mix the new rule cards and action cards, playing with only one set's goals and keepers, that does work somewhat better. It still potentially lengthens the game. (See note.)

Note: I say potentially, as the shortest game I've ever played was a combined Fluxx/Family Fluxx game. First goal was runny chocolate, I had sun and several other keepers, and the 1st player played "Play all"... and played a chocolate. I drew, got "Steal a keeper", stole his chocolate, and played my sun, thus filling the goal, and winning, 2 minutes into the game.

Adding action and new rule cards does sound like a good way to liven up the game without making it take forever to get keepers for a goal!

You can definitely use multiple Fluxx decks together, but it will slow the game down - different games use different Keepers, so it will take longer for players to get the right combinations together to meet Goals.

Yes, with houserules
The biggest problem with combining Fluxx sets is that it's more difficult to achieve goals. Most versions of Fluxx have 100 cards, and a particular goal usually requires 2 Keepers (so there are 97 cards that are not relevant to the goal). If you add another 100 cards, now 197 cards are not relevant to that goal.
To try to mitigate this, our group has implemented the following houserules, and been pretty happy with the results:

The number of starting cards is 3 + the number of additional sets.
The number of Goals allowed in play are 1 + the number of additional sets. Players win if they match the criteria for any Goal. "Double Agenda" cards that allow two Goals are now treated as "+1 Goal Limit" cards. If this Goal Limit is reached, new Goals can replace any Goals currently in play.

We have found that this works reasonably well even with sets like Monty Python Fluxx and prevents a combined game from slogging.


text:
Draw at the end of turn in Carcassonne

Possible Duplicate:
Pre-drawing cards or tiles

I often play Carcassonne in a lunchtime setting where we are looking to condense playtime as much as possible.  We recently have started allowing players to draw their next tile at the end of their turn giving them more time to plan their next move.  The rule has been working pretty well so far but people are nervous that one of us is going to start exploiting it.  Does anyone see any problems with this rule change?


text:
Use of Executive Order in Battlestar Galatica
As seen in this question ...Playing "Executive Orders" on self
Executive Order lets another player take 2 Actions if they don't move.  From my understanding of the rules this means the other player could:

Play another Executive Order on me, allow 2 players to take many actions in a row.
Allow Cylons to do as listed above, which can be devastating.
Allow a player to move out of Sickbay without penalty.
Allow a player to move out of jail (does Executive Order 'allowing moving' trump jail 'not allowing moving'?)

This seems too powerful.  We play with the following modified rules.

No chaining, 1 Executive Order allows the receiving player to play any action other than an Executive Order.
A player may use the Move to exit jail, however this forfeits the 'action'.

Does anyone have an official rule source on this?

Much of this is covered in the FAQ and Errata, which you can find a link to here.

You can't play 2 Executive Orders on the same turn.  Under Errata:

The “Executive Order” Skill Card should include the following
  text: Limit of 1 “Executive Order” card may be used per turn.

Revealed Cylons can't play Executive Orders on each other (though un-revealed Cylons, sure!). Under Cylon Players:

Q: Can a revealed Cylon player be targeted by the “Executive
  Order” Skill Card or Quorum Cards?A: No.

Yes. Under The Brig and Sickbay:

Q: Can a player in “Sickbay” move out of that location if
  targeted by an “Executive Order” Skill Card?A: Yes. If the player moves out of “Sickbay” before the start of
  his turn, then he will not be restricted to drawing a single card.

I read it that a player may not move out of the Brig voluntarily, not even due to an Executive Orders free move. I don't think anything explicitly states this rule, but I generally feel that "You may not move" from the Brig trumps the "You may move" from Executive Orders.

As for your house rules, the first rule is good (and in the Errata).  The second rule seems to be not strictly in the rules, and I personally don't think it's a good idea - it would make Executive Orders more powerful than it already is (which is already quite powerful!) and the Brig less bad.  The Brig is supposed a scary place to be and hard to get out of; being able to Executive Order someone out of it seems like it diminishes that too much for my tastes.

I believe the Brig says "you may not move" and Executive Order says "you may move", so I can see where someone could be confused as to which one trumps the other. We have always played that EO cannot get you out of the Brig. My interpretation is that the Brig prevents you from moving. EO simply grants the option to move, just as your normal turn does. The Brig prevents the movement in both cases. A more technical ruling might be that the Brig's restriction is mandatory, while EO's ability is optional. In general, mandatory trumps optional.

@Todd Hm, perhaps you could read it that way. For some reason I assume that "You may not" always trumps "You may" (not just in this game but others I am used to).

I agree. I thought that's what I said. Was I not clear?

In most games I've played that have similar level of game text effects that deny something usually beat effects that allow the same thing. Also like others said. XO'ing someone out of the brig feels unrealistic and cheap.

@Todd that is what you said. You were quite clear. The brig's movement restriction trumps Executive Orders.

As an extra note from the FFG FAQ, you can't be forced out of the brig (e.g. into sickbay), and you can't be the one chosen to be brigged/sickbayed when a choice is forced if you're already there (though you could brig someone in sickbay).


text:
How do I decide if I should mulligan in MTG?

Possible Duplicate:
How can I tell when to take a mulligan in Magic?

Once a game has started, the first crucial decision is if you want to keep your hand or if you want to take a mulligan. This is always really hard for me because I have no idea what I should look for. I usually mulligan if I have 0, 1, 5, 6 or 7 lands or if I have 2 lands and only expensive cards that need 3 or more mana. I also mulligan if I play a deck that has more than 2 colors and I am lacking more than one color, especially if my ramp requires it.
These are usually my only thoughts in the beginning. How can I improve my decision making process? I could write down my starting hands during many sessions and analyze them afterwards, but I think I will need a huge amount of games to get any usable statistics out of this. This seems not practical for a hobby player.
What are other players looking for? Combos in hand? Specific cards for round 1 and 2, maybe even 3? Any advice is welcome.


text:
In the game "En Garde!" - How do optional routines work?
For some time I've been puzzling over just how optional routines work in En Garde!
I'm not even sure I fully understand how the Parry-Reposte routine works, let alone the Optional Block and Optional Parry routines.
Let's say I have the advantage, so start with a short sequence. I might write out the sequence Parry(Repost), Parry(Repost), Lunge, Slash:
-P-(R)- -P-(R)- -X-L-X- -X-S-

If my opponent starts with a Furious Lunge, I believe our sequences would go:
-L-X-X-C-X-X-
-P-R-P-X-L-X-

So I would Parry the initial Lunge, which triggers the Reposte, my second Parry would have nothing to protect against, so I would go on to my Slash, meanwhile my opponents Cut would strike me before my Lunge connected.
If my opponent starts with a Furious Slash, I believe our sequences would go:
-X-S-X-C-X-X-
-P-P-X-L-X-X-

My parries would not be effective, so I wouldn't get a Reposte, and my Lunge and my opponents Cut would strike at the same time.
Finally, if my opponent started with a Lunge/Slash combo, I believe our sequences would go:
-X-L-X-X-S-P-(R)-
-P-P-R-X-L-X

So my first parry would be ineffective, the second would trigger a repose and our Slashes and Lunges would both hit at the same time.
So, are my sequences correct and beyond this, how do I use the -OB1-OB2- and  -OP1-OP2- routines? These I just can't even start to understand how they might be used.
If anyone can provide some example sequences of how these might be used, I would really appreciate it.

If my opponent starts with a Furious Lunge, I believe our sequences would go:
-L-X-X-C-X-X-
  -P-R-P-X-L-X-

No: your written sequence would be P-P-X-L-X-X-S... (to 12 actions)
The optional routines kick in when the duel is resolved.
So, when you see that your opponent's first action is a lunge, which is stopped by your Parry, you may replace your next routine with a Riposte. If you do so, the sequence that is executed is P-R-X-L-X-X-S...
Note that it replaces the next routine. If your opponent went X-L-X-X-S... to start with, your second Parry works and you may then Riposte. However the R replaces the X-L-X routine (padding with rests), so you end up executing P-P-R-X-X-X-S... As a Riposte does less damage than a Lunge, you might well prefer not to Riposte in these circumstances.
Personally, I don't think the other optional routines are particularly useful. There are some very specific circumstances where they can be used to avoid damage from an opponent's attack that you can see coming an action or two in advance, but this is often at the cost of sacrificing an attack of your own.
In a postal/turn-based game like mine (www.pevans.co.uk/LPBS), the optional routines have to be used as conditional orders in a player's duelling orders: "If the first parry succeeds, then riposte; if the second succeeds, do not Riposte" for example. This can get very complicated...
The duelling rules work much better face-to-face - as originally intended - as there's the element of out-guessing your opponent.

Glad I saw this : I'd always assumed that my LPBS characters would riposte whenever possible, unless instructed otherwise.

@TimLymington in a postal game, they might. It's a not uncommon house rule, from what I've seen. In fact, I've seen more houseruling for En Garde than for almost any single other game...

@aramis - True, the house rules for Les Petites Bêtes Soyeuses (Paul's game) stretch to 30 pages of pdf, but they do make the game more interesting and round of the rough edges for postal play with En Garde!.


text:
Agricola - Land Parcel point
The card Land Parcel states that:

When you play this card, you receive 1
forest tile that you must immediately
place on an empty space in your
farmyard.
At the end of the game, you
receive 2 bonus point if you have 1
unused farmyard space, you receive -1
bonus point if you have 2 unused
spaces, and you receive -3 bonus point
if you have 3 or more unused spaces.

At the end of the game, say that I have 1 unused farmyard space.
Does this mean that I will get 1 net point (+2 from the card bonus points and -1 because I have 1 unused farmyard space) ?

According to the rules, p8, "the [scoring] categories are scored one after another", so yes, if you consider these two categories in isolation, if you had a single unused space, you'd lose a point at the unused farmyard spaces scoring category stage, and then gain two in the bonus points category stage.
The card doesn't alter the way you score points in the unused farmyard spaces stage, it operates by providing you with (or costing you) bonus points. (For example, note that with this card, your first unused farmyard space, with only the two scoring effects operational, gets you a point, the second costs you three points, the third costs you four points, but the fourth only costs you one point.)
Don't forget that other cards might also add, or subtract, points for unused farmyard spaces and the game has to be designed so that all the pieces can interoperate with one another.
(For example, you might have a card that says something like "when calculating your score for unused farmyard spaces, you don't lose any points for such spaces"... in conjunction with the Land Parcel card, this would give you 2 points for one unused space, cost you 1 point for 2 unused spaces, and cost you 3 points for three or more unused spaces, because again the bonus points get accounted for after the unused farmyard spaces points.)

I understand the first paragraph. But in your second paragraph, you mentioned that 'the second costs you two points, the third costs you four points, but the fourth only costs you one point'. Won't the second unused space cost me 3 points (-2 from 2 unused space, -1 from the card) ?

@ryanprayogo You are correct -- I've edited my answer accordingly.


text:
Donk betting in No Limit Hold 'Em
I've been playing Hold 'Em for a while, and I've considered a variety of different strategies.  However, one thing that's always left me a little baffled is "donk" betting.  Rather, betting into the pre-flop raiser on the flop (before he/she had the chance to bet).
What's the purpose of this play?  When might be a good time to "donk" bet?
This play seems to have a bad reputation, but what is so bad about it?  Rather, how do bad players misuse the "donk" bet?

How you should be thinking about donk bets when deciding whether to use them:
Donk bets don't have an inherently set purpose.  You can do it as a bluff, you can donk bet for value, or you can do it to try to influence behavior (like a block bet).  What you're trying to obtain by doing it depends on your hand and your expected response from your opponent.
As a thinking player, you shouldn't ever just check solely because the other player was the preflop aggressor.  Like any other decision you're faced with in poker, you should only be choosing to check if you believe that you will get more value from the hand by checking than from any of your alternatives.  Whether you believe this depends on your opponent.  For example, if you're holding a hand which is likely ahead, rationally choosing to check requires something like believing that your opponent will bluff continuation bet more often than they will call your donk bet.
Specific extreme examples: If you were playing against someone who does not bluff continuation bet on the flop, but had a strong tendency to call with weak hands, then you should donk bet every time you hit a decent hand on the flop, and rarely bluff them.  If you were playing against a person who rarely calls unless they have the nuts, yet bluffs all of the time, then you should check to them every time when you have a strong hand, and bluff donk bet them every time you don't.
Not only are you sometimes missing value if you decide never to use donk bets; such a decision would be an exploitable aspect of your play.  It gives a larger advantage than is due to the preflop aggressor, as they can be confident that they know what at least one of your moves will be in a following betting round (you will check).  In particular, they can derive more value from raising preflop cards which are geared more toward drawing (e.g.: suited connectors like 7s 6s), because they know that they will usually be able to check behind he flop if they missed, so they actually get to see 4 board cards before being faced with any possible aggression.
Why is it perceived as bad:
Inexperienced players tend to make bad donk bets (bad independently of being donk bets), and commit extra money to the pot in situations where they're generally already at a disadvantage by being out of position, or where board cards suggest that their hand is not as strong relative to the preflop aggressors as they may think.
Also, some people perceive donk bets as sort of against poker etiquette.  They think that "check to the raiser" is the proper, gentlemanly thing to do.  This is more of a cultural thing, and has little to do with trying to play profitably.
They are not inherently bad, and there are situations in which a donk bet is the optimal choice.
How players misuse them:
Players misuse donk bets the same way they misuse any other sort of bet.  They make their decision without considering likely hands their opponent is holding or their opponents tendencies.

I try never to do this myself, and I push back extremely hard against people who do it to me. Most frequently, it seems to happen when my opponents have a hand slightly worse than top pair (or top pair with a weak kicker), or...more often are on a draw. So, instead of checking and letting me bet big, they make a smaller bet than I would have made, hoping I would be scared of raising.
Obviously, this will work against some people, but not against others.
So it's good to use if your opponents let you get away with it (and you can make it to the river with your draw for cheap), but bad against experienced opponents.
I usually call this a block bet.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
Can a creature be tapped to prevent its activated ability?

Possible Duplicate:
How do twitch effects work with the stack vs activated tap abilities?

If I have a creature with a tap to activate ability, can my opponent use an ability to tap it in response to my tapping it to prevent it from being activated?

No.
I believe the way it works is  that, there is a distinction between the paying of the cost and the resolution of the effect.
Tapping is the activation cost. By tapping first, you've already paid the cost. The ability is now on the stack. The opponents are thus reacting to that ability, not the cost paying.

That was my understanding. You can tap them to force them to activate it early, but not to prevent it from being activated at all.

No, this is not possible, for one of two reasons depending on the game state:

If you have priority, then you may choose to activate your creature's ability. If you do so, then everything involved in the activation of the ability (including the tapping of your creature to pay the ability's cost) happens immediately. Your opponent does not have any opportunity to interrupt this. Only after you are done activating your creature's ability does your opponent has a chance to play his tapping ability, but by that point your creature is already tapped, and tapping it won't have any effect.
If you do not have priority, then your opponent may choose to activate his tapping ability to tap your creature. However, in this case, the tapping is part of the effect of the ability, not the cost, so your creature does not become tapped right away. Your opponent's ability gets activated, goes on the stack, and then sits there for a while. You may choose to play abilities of your own in the meantime ("in response"), so for example you could use your own creature's ability before your opponent's ability resolves.

The process of activating an ability is described in rule 602.2, and the timing rules are described in rule 116. You may want to review those (although they're too long to quote here).

He can tap your creature in response, but it wont prevent your creatures ability to go on the stack.
Tapping your creature is part of the cost of playing the ability. So when it goes to the stack, costs are already paid and it is already tapped.

Can you provide a link to the specific rule?

There is no "specific" rule. It is a bunch of events that you need to know what happen to each one of them. http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Stack
Make sure you read everything for a better understanding. If you have questions, just ask.

Actually, there are specific rules. See 110.6, 112.3b, and especially section 602. Most relevant to this question is 112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as "[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]" A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack.

What I meant is that is no specific rule for those events. Because people often ask for rules of a specific issue or chain of events.


text:
When must an Instant be played that prevents damage?
Consider the card Harm's Way or similar. The Oracle text states:

The next 2 damage that a source of your choice would deal to you and/or permanents you control this turn is dealt to target creature or player instead.

When does this instant need to be cast to prevent a creature from dying? I guess the latest point by which it needs to be cast when blockers are assigned, if it were assigned later then it seems it would not longer be of any help.

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt. This is a change from previous rules.
510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

Yep, in order to prevent a creature from dying in combat, the spell needs to be cast before combat damage is dealt. And the last opportunity to cast spells before combat damage is dealt is during the declare blockers step, just after blockers are actually declared.
There is one exception: if any creatures with first strike or double strike are involved in combat, there will be a combat damage step to handle their damage, prior to the time when other non-first strike combat damage is dealt. As part of that combat damage step, you get a chance to play spells and abilities, which could include the Harm's Way. So you could get away with playing it later than the declare blockers step if there is a first striking or double striking creature in combat, as long as it's not the one you want to prevent the damage from.
To make everything explicit, here's an outline of the combat phase:

Beginning of combat step

Play spells and abilities

Declare attackers step

Actually declare which creatures are attacking
Play spells and abilities

Declare blockers step

Actually declare which creatures are blocking and how
Play spells and abilities

First strike combat damage step, only if creatures with first (or double) strike are involved in combat

First strike combat damage is assigned and dealt
Play spells and abilities

Combat damage step

Non-first strike combat damage is assigned and deal
Play spells and abilities


text:
How does an Oblivion Ring interact with a Commander in EDH?
When a commander is exiled, it can go to the command zone if the owner chooses. What if a commander is exiled by an Oblivion Ring?

I am assuming the commander can still go to the command zone. If it does, then what happens when Oblivion Ring leaves the battlefield? Does your commander return to the battlefield? Is the additional cost of casting your commander affected in any way?

The Commander can still go to the command zone, or exile, its' owner's choice.

903.12. If a commander would be put into the exile zone from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead.

When Oblivion Ring leaves the battlefield, it triggers an ability that attempts to "return the exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control." When it can't find the card in the exile zone, it fails to do anything.
You do not get your Commander back on the battlefield (as he is currently in the Command Zone).
The +2 additional mana cost can never loose/subtract/lower in cost, it always increases for each previous time you have cast your Commander from the Command Zone.

903.10. A player may cast a commander he or she owns from the command zone. Doing so costs that player an additional {2} for each previous time he or she cast that commander from the command zone that game.

Side Note - If the commander were put in the Command Zone via the Oblivion Ring, cast again as normal, and then exiled again with the player choosing to let it be exiled, destroying the Oblivion Ring WOULD NOT return the commander because it is not the same object that the Oblivion Ring targeted.

Another side note: This is specifically because Oblivion Ring says "return the exiled card," meaning O-Ring will only look in the exile zone for the card it targeted. A card which says something such as "return it," "return that card," etc. would be able to pull the Commander back from the Command zone (more specifically, from the first public zone the targeted card went to). For example: Otherworldly Journey can pull a targeted Commander back from the Command zone at EOT, meaning you're not in trouble if an opponent uses Stifle on the return trigger.

@BrianS, Incorrect. Can you cite specifically which CR rule allows Otherworldly Journey to find the exiled card in a zone it wasn't expecting? If your reasoning is correct, why can't Rancor return itself from exile if someone responds by exiling all cards in a graveyard?

@user1873, 603.6. Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called “zone-change triggers.” Many abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to... Because returning the Commander to the Command zone is a replacement effect, the Command zone is the first zone it moved to. Because OJ and others say "that" or "it"/etc. instead of singling out a zone, they track to the CZ.

@user1873, Also, see this post by Natedogg (Wizards Net Rep) about a similar situation with Cloudshift.

@BrianS, No, OJ is different. NateDogg is correct for Cloudshift, because it meets one of the seven exceptions. "400.7g A resolving spell or activated ability can perform actions on an object that moved from one zone to another while that spell was being cast or that ability was being activated, if that object moved to a public zone." There is no such exception for delayed triggered abilities. Otherworldly Journey will attempt to find the Commander in the exile zone, but its owner moved it to the Command Zone and it became a new object.

@user1873, Sheldon says Mistmeadow Witch will bring a Commander back, and Natedogg retracts his ruling that Glimmerpoint Stag won't. Because returning the Commander to the CZ is a replacement effect, the result of resolving OJ is "Return target creature to the Command zone. At the beginning of the next end step, return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it."

Natedogg spells out the ruling explicitly

@BrianS, Reading many of the judge's rulings on the matter, I can agree with them (it is interesting they changed their mind). As for this comment by you, it is still clearly incorrect, " For example: Otherworldly Journey can pull a targeted Commander back from the Command zone at EOT, meaning you're not in trouble if an opponent uses Stifle on the return trigger."

@user1873, Let me clarify that statement: If you sent your Commander to exile with OJ (or any similar card), and an opponent Stifled the return trigger, you'd be SOL with your Commander in exile. If you sent your Commander to the Command zone and the trigger was Stifled, you wouldn't get your Commander back for free, but you could re-cast it with the tax.

@BrianS, you might want to post a Q&A here on BG.SE with the Otherworldly Journey and Commander interaction. Bg.SE encourages sharing what you know, and the interaction isn't obvious. You would get +1 for both your Q and A from me (+15) and likely more users would feel,the same. Much better than hidding this knowledge in the comments.

@user1873, as requested

You can either leave the commander under the oblivion ring to begin with, so he doesn't go to the command zone or you can send him to the command zone, making him cost a normal +2, and nothing happens when the ring goes away.

Welcome to the site!


text:
Can a creature's sacrifice benefit be taken when it is sacrificed to Eldrazi Monument?
I asked a general question about double sacrifice bonus, but thought it better to ask a specific question. If a creature has a "Sacrifice this creature for X" ability, can you sacrifice it for that ability and satisfy the requirement of the Eldrazi Monument with the same sacrifice (assuming it is done during the upkeep)?
Oracle Text:

Creatures you control get +1/+1, have flying, and are indestructible.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice a creature. If you can't, sacrifice Eldrazi Monument.

A lot of cards are worded to avoid this ambiguity. Instead of If you can't... they will say If no creature was sacrificed in this way...

No.
Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules:

117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.

No. Card text that instructs you to perform an action is telling you to perform that action for this card. Other similar actions you could take just because don't apply.
Consider the example of two Propagandas on the field: paying (2) to satisfy one of them does not "pay off" the other.