text:
Was South's bidding really as "edgy" as an expert suggests?
Here is a Frank Stewart hand.
You, South hold, ♠K986 ♥KT7 ♦875 ♣KQ9
Both vulnerable, North dealt and opened 1C.
North  East  South  West
1C     Pass  1S     Pass
2S     Pass  3C     Pass
3D     Pass  3NT    All Pass

Stewart characterized South's 3 clubs bid as "a bit bold," and 3NT as "living on the edge--or beyond."
I do consider South's bidding "bold" but not "edgy." I was taught to "bid to make," to freely bid contracts with a better than even chance of making.* (More to the point, I believe that Stewart was trained in that school as well.) Even so, South had 11 hcps opposite an opening hand. In subsequent bids, North had shown support for South's spades and a stopper in diamonds, and more than a bare minimum hand.
Dummy had (among other things) ♠AJx, ♥A, ♦A, enough make the contract if a spade finesse works. Given that the Q was "offside,"  Stewart showed a "hairaising" winning line that involved using the A of diamonds as "transportation" for a (successful) second club finesse.
Under IMP scoring, you will come out ahead if you bid and make contracts with a 40% chance of success when vulnerable, and a 50% chance when not vulnerable. Given this fact,
Is Stewart among only a few experts who would condemn South's bidding?
*This does not include sacrifice bids, where I have enough trumps to reasonably expect to lose less going down than allowing the opponents to have the contract.

Absolutely.
While the South hand has 11 HCP it should deduct one for the 4333 distribution. That's just a given. After that the spots are good but the Q is in the wrong suit - it will usually help the hand much more in Spades than in in Clubs. That's a wash so call it 10  Points even.
With this flat 10 and partner denying a 15-17 balanced hand or 4 spades with an upgrading distributional feature in the red suite, I am happy to pass 2S. To push twice more in hopes of finding partner with a magic 14 count is going to end up badly much more often than it will end well.

Passing 2S is what I would have certainly done in the old days. But I'm a bit confused by the "new math," specifically the IMP scoring that rewards bidding "40%" contracts. While I wouldn't jump to "advance" beyond 2S, I might venture it on a day when I was feeling lucky. And are you telling me that if the D5 became H5 or C5 so that distribution was 4-4-2-3. or 4-3-2-4 that you might advance beyond 2S?

@TomAu: Assuming the points are not pathologically distributed, a 4432 distribution is worth 2 points more than a 4333 distribution. So yes, the hand  K986  KT75  87  KQ9 is two points better on this auction than the one actually held. It holds a potential long trick in both Spades and Hearts, and a potential roughing value in Diamonds, instead of just one of those. It also is easier to bid with a 1H response resulting in North's first rebid being more informative. Both hands still have the small minus of the Club Q not being in a 4-card suit. but balanced by the good spots.

Going back to the other question. If we value declarer and dummy's hands at 23 hcps instead of 24, does that still yield a 40% chance of making 3NT? Isn't that the threshold under IMPS scoring? In this particular hand, the contract could make on a successful spade finesse, a 50-50 chance by itself. I do consider South's bidding "bold," but not "edgy," given the scoring.

12 balanced opposite 12 balanced is less than a 40% chance to make 3N (on perfect double dummy play) - and every other 24 hcp combined holding is worse.  With balanced hands in a NT contract, odds of making go down very quickly with every hcp.

@TomAu: I have always played that when the partnership is looking for a 40% instead of a 50% contract, then Inviter (only) reduces the range by 1 point. No other calls by the partnership change. This has stood me well.

@AlexanderWoo: Do you have simulations, tables or other sources? I had been using the following relationships: 26 hcps, 65% chance to make; 25 hcps, 55% chance. 24 hcps, 45% chance, 23 hcps, 35%. "Balanced" hands of 5-3-3-2, or 4-4-3-2. I agree that 4-3-3-3 is a special case worth -1 pt. One issue is that a lot of these hands depend on finesses. A 24 hcps hand could be worth "26" if a queen is "onside."

@TomAu: Alexander's point is well established since before Kaplan and Sheinwold wrote the first edition of "How to Play Wining Bridge" in 1963. It was the premise of their reduction of "opening points" to a sound 12, and stems from an analysis of World and Bermuda Bowl Championships over the preceding decade or more, as well as their personal experience. But it depends strongly on sound 12 in both hands to make a 24 point game a winning strategy. No 4333 ratbags need apply.

@TomAu - tables at http://www.rpbridge.net/8j25.htm

@AlexanderWoo: Thanks for the tables. Yes, the chances of making 3NT are only about 37% with 24 hcps balanced between the two hands, and with balanced distribution. But if you throw out the 4-3-3-3 hands as Forget suggests, then the (Bayesian) chances rise to almost 50%.

@TomAu: That's under the assumption that 0 of the 4333 hands make 3N, which is certainly not true.  There will be some effect from filtering out 4333 hands which will put the probability somewhere between 37% and almost 50%, depending on how much worse the 4333 hands actually are.

@AlexanderWoo: I used the 4-3-3-3 distribution to reduce 24 hcps to 23, if I'm following Forget's advice correctly. Under this assumption, the resulting filter makes the "37%" chance rise to about 40%, (not "almost 50%")

Given that newspaper bridge columns tend even today to be old-fashioned both in bidding and in evaluation, I would agree with Mr. Stewart.  Partner could have a very good 14, I guess, but she could also have a flat 12; and the "double fit" (an 8-card and an expected 7-card) doesn't help all that much, even though the cards are in the right suits.  For 3NT that means that we need a diamond stopper or two, a helper in hearts, decent spades and at least Jxxx clubs to be able to scramble enough tricks in the blacks to make, while stopping the opponents from cashing their red suit.
Given the kind of bridge I see in flight A in a strong, but not national championship field, Stewart is being generous.  There, 1NT is either 14-16 explicitly, or at least all good 14s are being upgraded.  24-point games are okay, but not something you want to be in (barring shape, and this doesn't sound like a shape auction - if it is, 4=3=1=5 is going to be a disaster, 4=1=3=5 is still scary).  Also, in this world, 3C is 100% forcing, and do I want to do that? (Answer, I did, with better 11s than this, on the weekend and partner went 1-for-4.  No).
Yes, vulnerable games should be bid if you can "sniff it making" at IMPs.  This one could easily require a dog's nose.
Having said all that, MeckWell (who play Precision, so would have a different auction) have spent the last 40 years bidding every single 24-point game and forcing the opponents to defend perfectly to set them, and winning when they fail under pressure.  Many many experts have learned this style from them, and play it to advantage.  I am not a good enough card player to do that.

Welcome to the site. I look forward to reading more of your answers to Bridge questions here.


text:
Are reminders spoken before looking at the cards bad bridge etiquette or ethics?
After the board had been assigned, but before we looked at our cards at matchpoints, my partner announced, "We're vulnerable and they're not." This was a call to bid cautiously because of the prospective scoring.
This fact was apparently available to all at the table, and the opponents could hear my partner as well as or better than I (sitting next to, rather than opposite him).
Even so, was there anything improper about my partner "advertising" the vulnerability situation?

No, I don't believe there is anything improper here. Referring to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2017 revision), I observe the following.
Law 17 (The Auction Period), Part A (Auction Period Starts) reads:

The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner
withdraws his cards from the board.

Law 73 (Communication, Tempo and Deception), Part A (Appropriate Communication between Partners), Section 1 reads:

Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays, except as specifically authorized by these laws.

Since neither of you have yet pulled your cards from the board, the auction period has not yet begun and your communication is not yet limited.

So the key is that we hadn't yet "pulled" our cards, right? Because another partner was reprimanded and penalized for making a remark after seeing her cards.

@TomAu: Yes, that is also how I interpret the Laws quoted above.

@TomAu Yes, you should try to avoid anything that could have been, or could be perceived as having been, influenced by your cards, even it's not explicitly communicating a fact about your hand. For instance, if you say "There are a total of 13 diamonds in the game" during bidding, even though that's something everyone already knows, it will cause your partner to start thinking of reasons why you might have wanted to mention it. Since things you do before you see your cards can't possibly have been influenced by your cards, you have much more leeway then.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it OK to make a takeout double with 14 high card points and bad distribution, but no "stranded" honors?
Answers to a question on this hand suggested that one pass a bid of one diamond  with 14 high card points because of 1) the three cards in the opposing suit, and 2) the "stranded" queen in that suit that reduces its value on offense.
Suppose, instead, (with equal vulnerability at matchpoints) over an opening bid of one diamond, you held (s) AQxx (h)Axx (d) xxx (c) Axx?* That is you still have three cards in the opposing suit, but no "stranded" honor. Would it now be ok to double for takeout, or is it still a pass?
Alternate example. Suppose you have Axxx (h)Axxx (d) Qx (c) Axx? Same 14 points, two cards in opponents' suit, but "stranded" Q. Would you be more, less, or about equally likely to double rather than pass compared to the other example?
*With AQx (h)Axx (d) Txxx (c) Axx, I would be tempted to call 1NT since the three aces are worth more than 12, and the value of my hand is more like 15, counting the diamond T. If partner holds any diamond honor, or xx, the opposing suit may be "stopped" at four tricks.

This bid is named after "Last Train to Clarksville": "Last Train to Minus 630 instead of Plus 100".

@ForgetIwaseverhere: "Minus 630?" That means that they make a game, exactly what the takeout double is intended to prevent.

1D** Vulnerable making 2 scores what? Your bid also ensures that they play any game contract double dummy, and are thus very very unlikely to make a wrong guess that exists. Your Double also increases bid density for the opponents, allowing their bidding to game to be more precise, on top of giving them a road map to both play and hand evaluation. This makes such a call a lose-lose-lose-lose result for you. Their is simply no upside to this call at all.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: In this hand, at least, the only "guess" is the Q of spades. And this may be offset by their wrongly attributing to you any small honors in your partner's hand. The three aces play without a guess.

Not sure it's ever going to end 1D**, but the point is a valid one that it's not helping your side much in the 4-3-3-3 situation. :)

Aces are only undervalued when evaluating for a suit contract; not when evaluating for a NT contract.

Holding (s) AQxx (h)Axx (d) xxx (c) Axx I would be torn over whether to make a takeout double or not. Forget's point that this hand probably works as well on defense as on offense has merit, but there is a reasonable chance of making a reasonable partscore which quite likely will not be found if one does not act promptly. A game is possible, but if partner is that strong s/he will quite likely act in any case, perhaps by balancing, so the right contract might well be reached even if I pass. I am not as worried about tipping off the opponents when most of my points are aces anyway, as aces cannot be finessed.
But if the hands were just slightly stronger. say (s) AKxx (h) Axx (d) xxx (c) Axx or perhaps (s) AQxx (h) Axxx (d) xx (c) Axx I would automatically make a takeout double.  With (s) AKxx (h) Axx (d) Axx (c) xxx I would bid one NT in a flash.

4-4-2-3, 12 points is plenty for a takeout double, especially if they're all aces - so the Q is irrelevant.  I'd like to declare one of the majors, and Partner can let me know which is better.
4-3-3-3, I'm not convinced I want to declare yet.  1d-? in particular, I might want to hold off a round and see what comes of bidding.  X is a bad idea, because I really should have a fourth heart to do that, and I really don't have any good options after 1d-X-p-1h-p-?.  I've got 3 entries, and I can figure out what to do with them in plenty of time.  The X mostly tells opponents where to take their finesses, and if they end up in a game (say, 4H), maybe they end up with an extra trick because they know to play through AQ spades, or maybe even the hearts.

So the fourth heart and the one less diamond help more than the stranded queen hurts?

It's not, critically, the "wasted" honours that are the problem, it's those 3 cards in opener's suit - especially opener's minor (in 5-card-major land at least).  There's no guarantee they have a diamond fit, in which case partner's got something like ♦Qxx or worse, and you're just straight up losing 3 diamond tricks.  If they do have a fit, first they will raise (and partner will be very encouraged to compete, given her shortness), and the ruff is having to be taken in the "long" hand, not yours.  And when the long hand isn't actually "long", that's a problem.
Sure, a 14 count with Qx in opponent's suit isn't a 14 count.  But it's better than a 13-count with xxx, at least when thinking about a takeout double.  At least you're taking the ruff, and that's what the takeout doubler - "dummy" - is supposed to be doing.
They teach that when considering a takeout double, you count your hand as dummy points for partner's fit, to get to "opening" values.  The intent is not to "double on any 13" or even "double on 13s with support for the other suits"; it's to get you to think "shortness in opener's suit is good, length is bad".  It also is to get partner to think "doubler does not want to hear 1NT from me" (so the minimum 6-8ish to do so) and to be able to play the cross-ruff "in her head" during the auction when deciding how high to compete.
If partner only ever doubled with 4333 with the "too strong to overcall 1NT" hand from now on, I would be very happy.  I like making my partners happy, so I avoid these doubles too.  Oddly enough, I'd argue that 4=4=3=2 is a better takeout double of both 1♣ and 1♦ than the 4333, even if it leads to the odd 4-2 club fit.  After all, I might have 2 cards in their actual fit...

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


text:
Can I intentionally help another player end the round early to prevent other opponents from making progress?
I was playing with family yesterday and I was on Phase 9 and I wasn’t close to going completing my phase after 12 turns (a bunch of doubles).
My wife (who I’m very competitive with) has one card left and 4s and 8s down in phase 7.
I’m in first place, and the others are phase 8 but haven’t completed their phase yet. So, I discard 4 to let my wife end the round in order to prevent the others from completing phase 8 and advancing to phase 9.
Is what I did this allowed?
We are in a heated argument (like monopoly type of argument) and the other players say it's not allowed. I argue it's strategic, and allowed me to reset with minimal risk to me as she was 2 phases behind.
Thoughts?

Intentionally discarding a useful card for the next player is legal but breaks social norms.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from making the tactical play you described, with a few caveats:

Your knowledge of the other players' cards must originate from gameplay observations and not from "table talk" or other collusion. In your scenario, the player you're helping has melded, so your play is definitely legal.
You should not collude with another player (like helping someone this game with an expectation that you are owed a favor in a future game).

But really the question you should ask is this: Which do you value more? Winning the game? Or enjoying playing the game with your family? Just because a move is "legal" doesn't make it "right."
Intentionally helping another player could start a slippery slope where anyone who is behind in a phase will adopt your strategy so that the other opponents will have less time to complete the phase. This could make the game last much longer because people are playing defensively. It can also feel like "kingmaking" because you have starting playing not to win the round, but to sabotage other players so they lose instead. And sabotage feels a lot more personal and makes people angry much faster.
Ask your family what their expectations of the game are. Are they looking for a good time or a cutthroat competition? If they feel strongly that intentionally helping an opponent is wrong (even if tactically viable), consider making a house rule for it and write it into the rulebook of the family copy of the game.

Or tl;dr: this is part of the social contract, not part of the game rules.


text:
What is the advantage of bidding to game in Rubber Bridge?
Suppose North-South ("N-S") has a combined hand that can make a contract of 4 Hearts. If they win 10 tricks and make 4 Hearts, then they get 120 points whether they bid 4 Hearts and made game, or (say) just 2 Hearts and made 2 overtricks.  Sure, points from the 2 overtricks are Above The Line, but so what?  If fewer points are Below The Line and more are above, it just means that they get to play more hands before they accumulate enough points to win a game.
Also, by bidding below game, they reduce the risk of not making contract.  If they win only 9 tricks and make only 3 Hearts, then: if they had bid 4 Hearts in the first place, then their opponents get 50 points and N-S gets nothing! But if they had bid only 2 Hearts in the first place, then they still get 90 points (30 of which are Above The Line).  So why would they try to bid 4 Hearts just because the Below The Line points happen to exceed 100?
After all, it's the total number of points that counts. If their opponents quickly win many points Below The Line and achieve two Games, bringing the Match to a close, that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as N-S has more total points when that happens.
This question is Rubber Bridge.  I am asking whether there is some other scoring about which I don't know, which gives an advantage to scoring a whole game at once.  For example, is there a bonus score when a team makes Game (ie. 100+ score Below The Line with a single hand)?  I know there are bonuses to making a small or grand slam.  Are there game bonuses with other types of contract bridge?

No analysis of bridge scoring or strategy can be remotely sensible without first specifying method of scoring (there are several, from Match Points and IMPS in duplicate to Rubber, Chicago with part-scores, and Chicago without part scores to non-duplicate games) and accounting for the Rubber/Game bonuses inherent in the chosen method of scoring.

I think it's "Rubber Bridge" but was taught scoring as if it all bridge games were scored the same. Maybe you can help me identify which system I learned?  Minor tricks are worth 20, major tricks are 30 (except the first trick in NT is worth 40). Tricks made for contract are scored Below The Line, and extra tricks are Above The Line. When one side accumulates 100 or more points Below The Line, that is a Game; and the rubber continues until there are two Games done, at which point whichever side has more points wins.  Is that Rubber Bridge?

You're simply asking why players prefer to win games on hands that can win games now, instead of hoping they can get hands that win games later. The even shorter version: why do players want to win now instead of hoping they might win later? Should make the answer more obvious.

@kwantum: Yes, that is Rubber bridge; though the scoring of tricks both above and below the line is also a feature of Chicago With Part Scores. The point to bidding and making games is to win the Rubber Bonus: 700 for a "fast" rubber and 500 for a "slow" rubber. However: note that strong players will gladly collect doubled under tricks for hours against weak players without deigning to bother with winning the Rubber. Sitting on a Vulnerable part score is a hustle as old as the game itself. Edit your answering comment into the question itself to begin the reopening.

With the edit made by OP this is now a legitimate question about Contract Bridge scoring and tactics, comparing Rubber Bridge to other (non-tournament) scoring methods such as Chicago. Why is there then an attempt to Delete it instead of Reopening?

You say "it's the total number of points that counts".
Exactly.
All bridge games are time limited in some way. Even rubber bridge ends when one pair has to go home or falls asleep.
Bidding games wins rubbers, and winning rubbers wins points. Making game in one auction, rather than over several part scores, has several advantages. Firstly, it is quicker, so you will accumulate more points overall in the available time. If you are playing for money, this can make a significant difference to your income.
Secondly, it reduces opponents' opportunities to make game themselves. If you can wipe out their part-score with your game, then they have to start at the beginning again. If you are timid, and only bid a part-score instead of going for game, they have a chance to convert their part-score to game on the next hand. Thirdly, it is more fun. Playing at the very edge of what you can make means that you have to play to the very best of your ability. In turn that will improve your bidding and play.
Please note that I'm not (and I don't think that you are) talking about bidding 4H, for example,  when you have 40 below the line and 2H would be sufficient for game. I once raised partner's 1S to 3S (showing 4 spades and 10-12 points) in that  exact situation, to hear partner explain, "as 2S would be sufficient for game, 3S must be a slam try" :-)
Fortunately he passed anyway :-)

Thank you! Both responses cogently answered my question. I can only choose one to be "The Answer", and AlDante's answer was ever so slightly more understandable to me, but thank you to all who responded, including commenters whose responses didn't count as a votable answer.

So why would they try to bid 4 Hearts just because the Below The Line points happen to exceed 100?

Rubber Bridge is basically a "best 2 out of 3" format, so teams are incentivized to bid contracts that win a game all at once. The rubber bonus of 500/700 points is usually what will make the difference in final scoring. A game win is worth anywhere from 200-700 points in the Rubber bonus (either by ending the match immediately for 500/700 points or by reducing an opponent bonus from 700 to 500, for a net gain of 200 points).
So the choice between bidding 3H, and 4H is the choice between a safe contract with a small number of points and a riskier a game-winning contract worth many points. The downside of failure is probably giving up 50-200 points in undertricks (depending on Vulnerability and Doubling) to the opponents for a chance to win a game outright on this deal (worth 200+ points).

This is Rubber Bridge. To clarify the question, I am asking whether there is some other scoring about which I don't know, which gives an advantage to scoring a whole game at once.

If fewer points are Below The Line and more are above, it just means that they get to play more hands before they accumulate enough points to win a game.

There isn't a specific bonus to scoring a game score all at once instead of over multiple hands. It's more about winning now while you have good cards and not leaving your opponents with an opportunity to score points in future hands when your team has worse cards. Why give your opponents the opportunity to get lucky?
In your example above, if your team has already scored 40 game points from previous hands, then there is no difference between 2H + 2 overtricks and 4H + 0 overtricks, so you might as well bid the safer contract if your opponents let you.

Making a game when the opponents have a game does not only reduce their possible points advantage by 200 points. It also increases your expectation of getting that 500 bonus yourself.
If both pairs are evenly matched, and you are not vuln. against vuln., the opponents have 50% chance of making 700, and 25% chance of making 500 (you make an intervening game). Your expectation is only 25% of 500, because you have to make the next two games.
Now look at the position if you've made a game. Now the expectations are symmetric - both sides have a 50% chance of making 500, expected value 250.


text:
Which of these full houses wins?
In Texas Holdem:
Player one has: 1, 5
Player two has: 9, 9
The community cards are: 1, 5, 5, 9, 6
Both players have a full house.  Which player wins?

Hi Armando, welcome to the site! You may want to take the [tour].

Passersby: Please don't down vote good answers just because the question is a duplicate or otherwise closed.

The player with the [9, 9] hand beats the player with the [1, 5] hand because a 9-9-9-5-5 full house beats a 5-5-5-1-1 full house (the higher value of the triple wins).  See https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/53389/9999 for a full explanation.


text:
Odds that Left Bower is guarded if I have 5 trumps
I got dealt five cards of the same suit and one of them was the right bower (Jack). Since I had 5 out of the 7 total trump, it seemed a good bet to call a loner.  Twice in 80 hands I was dealt 5 trumps, and twice I was set. We thought the odds of this happening was very small.
If I have 5 trumps, what are the odds that one of my opponents has both the other two trumps?
Example: I am dealt the J♠, A♠, K♠, 10♠, 9♠.  What are the odds that the J♣ AND the Q♠ are in the same opponent's hand?

Probably not as rare as you think, around 13%
First calculate the chance of one of your opponents having the Left Bower.
They have 10 cards, and you know about five or six cards, so there are 18-19 left.  You didn't mention whether you were dealer or not.  For this, I'll assume not, so there are 18 cards left out of the deck.  (24 card deck, less the five in your hand, and the one card turned over that nobody made trump.  Obviously it isn't one of the two other trump.)
10/18 is ~ 56% chance that one of your opponents has the Left.
Next we need the chance of that specific opponent having the other trump.  That opponent has four other cards, and one of them must be the remaining trump.  There are now 17 other cards left.
4/17 is 23.5%
Multiply the two together to get our overall chance of 13.1% chance.
If you were the dealer and made trump, the odds drop to 11.7% (10/19 * 4/18).

We were playing with a 24 card deck so I think that would make it a 10/18 (55.6%) chance that my opponents have the Left.  Then a 4/17 (23%) chance that the last trump is in that hand.  So final odds would be 10/18 * 4/17 or about a 13% chance!

@Boone80 - oh geez, it's been a while since I've played Euchre, you're right, it's a 24 card deck.  I'll redo the numbers.


text:
Environmental protection board game from 80's or 90's
So I've been racking my brain and the internet to find this game I used to play as a kid. It was an environmental cleanup game where you have to clean up oil spills, pick up garbage, prevent air pollution etc. There were cards you pick up that have each of the problems and cards with positives like saving a species or something.
I don't think it was tv-based, and I don't believe it was cooperative. It was a square playing space and you would move your play piece around. When you landed on a space you might have to pick up a pollution card or nature card.

There are quite a few environmental cleanup themed games from the late 80s into the 90s, do you remember if it was a Co-op or TV show themed (e.g. Captain Planet)?

@KMR I don't think it was tv based and I don't believe it was cooperative. It was a square playing space and you would move your play piece around and when you landed on a space you might have to pick up a pollution card or nature card. Not much to go on but last time I played it I was probably 20 years ago.

I edited your question to include the information you provided in your comment. Please add any additional details you remember with another [edit].

From what you are describing, it sounds like a 1989 game from Aristoplay called Pollution Solution.  I have also played this game in the 1990's and I remember cleaning up various kinds of pollution by drawing cards throughout the game.

Players are environmental managers in a township. A die roll determines which areas on the board get polluted, and players must make the right choice to clean up the polluted areas. Pollution can also spread to non-polluted areas. There are three levels of play.


text:
Play set folders too small
I play the Dragon Ball Super TCG and collect play-sets of every card. these cards are standard size. In the earlier sets I could easily fit this in to one Ultimate Guard Quadrow folder but the sets are getting larger so the cards for the set don't fit into a single folder anymore, leaving me with folders with many empty slots.
In an attempt to clean up my collection I'm hoping to have one folder per set. Are there any products out there that store more than the 480 cards that the Quad Rows do, preferably in the same style. I'm not a huge fan of the binder style with loose pages.

I haven't seen anything bigger than 480, unfortunately, that wasn't a binder.  Quadrow Collector Albums like this one are probably your only real shot at more than 480, and of course they're binders.  They can hold 30 pages of quad row, double-sleeved cards (so, 24*30=720 cards), or 36 (single sleeved) or 48 (not sleeved).  Quite a lot.
There are some 3x3 page ones that are bigger from smaller companies, but I have to imagine the quad-row is a big benefit to your particular storage needs.  I guess a 9-card page could hold 2 cards (x4) plus one blank space in the middle or something, and still hold all in one binder (like this one); that's 720 cards, so if you only used 8 per page you'd get 640 out of it - but not as neat looking as a quad row for sure.
I think the issue is that the thickness of a 480 is about the maximum thickness people are comfortable with - plus probably some construction issues.  That 720 one looks really, really thick to me, uncomfortably so, and I'd worry it may bend the cards more than a smaller one would.

Thanks for those options, I hadn't seen the collector albums, do you have experience with them? I've always been a little worried about damage that the 3 ring binders could do.

Not much, I tend to use the 480s myself, but I don’t keep playsets of everything.  They seem like they’re pretty solid though from what I’ve seen.


text:
Help identify a trivia game
This is a long shot.....I used to play a trivial pursuit type game in the early/mid 90s.
There was a board, it was similar to trivial pursuit in that you had a dice that you rolled to then move your counter around the board to reach the categories and when you had answered one question in all the categories you moved to the centre of the board.
The only things I fully remember about it was that the yellow category was up close pictures of things and the orange category was a wild card, in which you could choose to answer a category of your choice. I cannot remember what any of the categories were other than the close up pictures and the wild card (probably because these were my favourite).
Does anyone have any idea what this game was called?

Some other information that might help people if your able to recall.. Was there a board?  How did you win (reach end of a track/collect tokens/ answer a set number of questions)?  What are the other categories?  What country was this in? Did you play in teams or solo?  The more things you can recall no matter how small the less likely it becomes a long shot someone will recognise it.

I am in the uk. There was a board, it was similar to trivial pursuit in that you had a dice that you rolled to then move your counter around the board to reach the categories and when you had answered one question in all the categories you moved to the centre of the board. I cannot remember what any of the categories were other than the close up pictures and the wild card (probably because these were my favourite)

@ASmith that sounds like trivial pursuit there, there have been dozens of versions of the game, many themed on different fandoms or towards age groups, I don't know off hand of one that used pictures as clues, but the rest of the description matches Trivial Pursuit to a T

@ASmith I added your additional details to your question. In the future, please [edit] your question with clarifying details so that these details don't get lost in the comments.

Agreed this sounds like Trivial Pursuit.  According to a fan-site there are version where The Orange category is specifically a wild card.   I'm not put this as an answer as I can't find anything for close up pictures.  https://www.pursuingtrivia.com/categories/

@StartPlayer looks like about half the versions of trivial pursuit have wild card as the orange. I did look at this and didn't find one that sounded like it matched on the yellow card though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trivial_Pursuit_editions


text:
Do Interrupt cards work against players playing as the aliens?
If a player dies and takes control over the aliens can you use the "Interruption" card against them? The card it states you cancel a "player" action. Is the person controlling the aliens still a player?

I'm assuming by "aliens" you mean "intruders" as the rules define "Intruders" as "the name give to the alien organism by the ship AI".
If so then this is covered in the Nemesis FAQ

Can an Interruption card be played to stop an Action of the Intruder
player?
No, it can only be used against other Characters.


text:
What are the rules for triggering abilities that cost mana?
I like the Seedcradle Witch card:

2GW: Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn. Untap that creature.

Two questions:

Given that I have the mana, can I use that ability during the turn I cast her?
Can I use that ability during my opponent's turn?

Does this answer your question? What is "summoning sickness" and how does it affect my creatures?

And also https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/12652/in-plain-english-how-does-casting-spells-and-using-creature-abilities-work-with

I don’t feel like either of the linked questions are duplicated, even though a careful reading through the answers in each would give enough information to answer this question and more. This question is a lot more basic on the surface, and the OP doesn’t necessarily need to dive into the specifics of how priority and the stack work here.

The ability you are asking about is called an “activated ability”, and it is important to not confuse it with a “triggered ability.” Activated abilities are never “triggered” as you suggest in your title. Rather, you simply choose to activate them and pay the required cost any time it is your chance to act, which is called having “priority.”
From the Basic Rules:

Activated Abilities

An activated ability is an ability that you can activate whenever you want (like casting an instant), as long as you can pay the cost. Each activated ability is formatted in the same way: "Cost: Effect." For example, Inspired Sphinx is a creature with the activated ability "3U: Create a 1/1 colorless Thopter artifact creature token with flying." Some activated abilities contain the  (tap) symbol in their costs; this means that you must tap that card to activate the ability. You can’t activate this kind of ability if the permanent is already tapped or if it’s a creature with summoning sickness.

So to answer your specific questions, yes, you can use this ability during the turn that you cast Seedcradle Witch, and you can use it on your opponent's turns. You can even use it multiple times on the same turn, as long as you have enough mana available to pay for it.
If the ability included the tap symbol in the cost, then you would not be able to use it on the turn that you cast it.


text:
What do the purple Oaken cards do in Frozen Uno?
I found this set of Frozen Uno at an op shop with no rules included. Most of the cards are just a Frozen version of normal Uno cards, but we can't work out what the two purple Oaken cards (in the bottom row) are for. I looked online, but the sets pictured don't match the one we have. Does anyone know what they do?
(Apologies for the upside down +2 card. I didn't realise until posting that it was upside down.)
Edit: I don't think this is the same as the blank purple UNO cards that the other question has suggested. For starters, it's not really blank, and there's nowhere good to write down a value to use it as a replacement. And there's only 2, as opposed to 4 which the question states comes with a regular UNO deck.

This question is similar to: What is this blank purple UNO card?. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

Thanks, I've edited the question to explain why I don't think the similar question matches my use case.

The purple cards are not mentioned in the UNO Disney Frozen's rules so it could be 2 additional blank cards that could be used as a replacement card or a house rules card, like mentioned in the UNO rules from 2001.

What are these extra cards for?
Blank Card - This is a special card that you may use in one of two ways. If a card from your UNO deck is lost or damaged, you may use the Blank Card as a replacement.
Example: If you find that your deck is missing one of the yellow 7's, you would simply replace it by taking the yellow Blank Card, marking a "7" on it and adding it back into the deck.
If you family has a special UNO rule you prefer to play with, you may write that rule on the Blank Cards and add them straight to the deck.

Those rules are from this version of uno:
https://cf.geekdo-images.com/X3gNxPOXzNYcN8T59heRqQ__imagepage/img/tALQnGhyoDp5__UzHJdsVuKaBG4=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic4916135.jpg
which appears to be different from the pictured cards

I don't think they're blank cards, as unlike the rules in the link, the cards are purple which don't match the colour of any other cards, and there's not really a blank space suitable for writing a replacement value.

They appear to reuse the same art as the Disney Frozen Uno cards, but neither I or II have the same colors or the same image for the same card. Searching for the top card, I found Online Store, where they are out of stock. It is not marked as Disney and probably not an official version.


text:
Mystery at Stargazer's Manor: Doable with only 2 players?
My SO got me Escape the Room: Mystery at Stargazer's Manor with the intent we could do it together but didn't see the game was labeled for 3+.
Without spoilers, was wondering if anyone who played this thinks it could be done with 2 players or if I should follow the box advice for maximum fun.
From light reading (again avoiding spoilers), I expect this is a one shot, so am seeking advice rather than trying and seeing=)

More players just gives you more eyes/brains to observe and solve the puzzles. This one was relatively easy for 4 of us, and we finished in about a half hour.

All that to say, I'd go for it!

Yes, Escape the Room: Mystery at Stargazer's Manor can be played with any number of players, even one.
With that said, I would recommend 2-4 players. As with most escape room-type games, the more the merrier, although there is only so much physical material to pass around between players.
Source: personal experience™

I accepted this answer because after playing this I agree with it.  We disclaimer however played this with 5.  There is a chart in the game that gives times for what size group.  I assume you could use the "3" for 2 player or add more (or just whatever, no-one is judging you).  Thanks!

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


text:
Are there any Magic cards capable of generating loops alone?
My first reaction to this question was "of course not, there is no card which is able to generate such loops by itself". Such a card would be just too easy to abuse; generally speaking, one needs two cards to work together to generate a loop of actions (which can be executed an arbitrary number of times (see rule 720 for more details). Many of these combos require a third card to actually profit from the loop.
But is this actually true? Or are/were* there any Magic cards capable of generating such loops alone? I don't expect the loops to win the game by themselves, of course.
*: cards may have later received errata to prevent loops; I'd be interested in those cases as well.

When you say infinite loop, do you mean any sequence of actions that can be taken an arbitrary, but necessarily finite number of times as per 720.2, or a loop that contains only mandatory actions and results in a draw as per 720.4?

@Hackworth you're right, I'm looking for what the rules call 'loops' instead of truly infinite ones.

Technically that doesn't help clarify. The game rules call any repeatable sequence  of actions a loop. 720.2a [..] This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. and 720.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw.

In general when people talk about loops in Magic they mean a sequence of actions that is repeatable arbitrarily many times (or until the game ends). But there are so few loops that can be repeated but only a few times that in practice it shouldn't make much of a difference for this question.

There are plenty of 0 cost activated abilities. Not sure if you are counting these. You could activate the ability in response to itself indefinitely; though without some external reason for doing so there would be no benefit.

Hostage taker used to, but errata changed that. Are you counting one card combos that currently work, or any that have ever worked?

@CollinB Hostage Taker would count, nice find. I've clarified the question.

this question is getting worse and less relevant as its scope increases.

Does it count if you need one card, but multiple copies of that card?  Is so, Oblivion Ring and friends form loops when in triples.

No, just one copy please. It's generally harder to get multiple copies of the same card on the battlefield than getting two different specified cards.

Actually it's the same probability

Basalt Monolith can tap and untap itself infinitely without any other cards. You do need another card to get any payoff from doing that.
A number of cards have abilities that cost {0} and without specifically prohibiting you from activating them repeatedly. Like with Basalt Monolith, they generally don't have any inherent benefit from activating them repeatedly. The main payoff for that is Crackdown Construct.
Skyshroud Elf can tap for mana, and has an ability to pay {1} to get {R} or {W}. This can be activated indefinitely, but it's even harder to find a payoff for a loop like that.
Lich's Mirror can do this, sort of. You need other cards to set up the game state necessary, but once you have it Lich's Mirror starts and sustains the loop by itself. Specifically, if a player controls but does not own Lich's Mirror, and then gets 10 poison counters somehow, Lich's Mirror will replace the state-based action with its own effect but it will not go anywhere because it is not a permanent that the ability's controller owns. Then the player still has 10 poison counters so the same state-based action will apply again, and Lich's Mirror's effect will replace it again, forever. This is a mandatory infinite loop and results in a draw.

Basalt Monolith is especially notable because it's infinite untap was used in the (in)famous "Four Horsemen" deck alongside Mesmeric Orb to mill your entire library.

And if you have two copies of a creature with "tap: untap target creature", then you can have them untap each other indefinitely.

If, for whatever reason, both players decide to keep flipping, the procedure from Game of Chaos could go on forever.
The joke card Mana Screw could go on forever (and presents some fascinating probability problems along the way)
Frenetic Efreet can be used to flip an arbitrary number of coins (although you have to decide how many you will flip before you start flipping).  This can be used to (probably) win the game with Chance Encounter.
Beacon of Tomorrows and Nexus of Fate can give you infinite turns if you have an empty library (or get really lucky)
Shuko and the en-kor have abilities that can be repeatedly activated and target a creature.  This single-card loop can be combined with Cephalid Illusionist to mill yourself, and win through a set of other cards like Narcomeba and Dread Return (see the Cephalid Breakfast deck).
Aphetto Alchemist, Seeker of Skybreak, Tidewater Minion, and Basalt Monolith all have abilities that can repeatedly cause a permanent to become untapped.  This single-card loop can be combined with Wake Thrasher or Mesmeric Orb (if you want to mill yourself) for profit.
Mist Dragon and Wandering Fumarole have other abilities that can repeatedly modify game state, though I don't know of anything beyond Crackdown Construct that can profit off of these.
Honorable mention: if your lands tap for more than 1 mana (or you have a land that taps for enough mana, such as Sanctum of the Sun or Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx), Palinchron can be returned to your hand and played repeatedly.

Your Frenetic Efreet link doesn't work, and I have no idea why.

That's a bug we've had for a while where autocard links don't work if the card shares its name with a Vanguard avatar

@Caleth a player losing from having 0 or less life is a state based action.  State based actions are only checked when a player would receive priority and are not during the resolution of a spell or ability.  Normally, a player chooses to stop the procedure detailed in game of chaos when their opponent has 0 or less life, as doing so wins the game (because the spell finishes resolving and state based actions are checked), but they are not required to stop.

One such example not mentioned on the other answers is Hostage Taker, which had to be errata'd.
Hostage would allow to target itself which would exile itself until it left the battlefield, which would happen immediately so it would return, ETB and target itself again, and repeat. It was errata'd either shortly after release or still during spoiler season if I remember correctly...The rules text changes it from "target(...)" to "target another(...)"

Interestingly enough, it also isn't an optional ability, which means that under the original wording, if you played it when there were no other creatures on the battlefield, it would cause a draw.

Hostage Taker received day-zero errata. Eli Shiffrin tweeted about it on 28 Sept 2017, and Ixalan released on the 29th with the errata represented in its Oracle text already plus a ruling with the errata.

If by generating loops you are talking about infinite loops, then no, cards that have been accidentally created with a functionality that can be exploded to create an infinite loop by themselves alone have been given an errata to correct this issue.
Time vault comes to my mind. It has had many oracle texts. One of them was that you could untap it any number of times to give additional turns to your opponent after your current turn. So you could untap it infinite times.
Check this link about the Time Vault history, it's quite interesting:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/evolution-of-magic-the-roller-coaster-called-time-vault
If by generating loops you are talking about being able to finish the game with it, then yes, there's Mana Clash. If you are really lucky, you can kill your opponent on turn 1 with it (the only card alone that can achieve this).
Little piece of trivia: Mana Clash was the original name that Richard Garfield PhD (the creator of MTG) wanted to use, but they changed it to Magic: The Gathering as him and his friends who helped him test the game liked it better ('The Gathering' was added to avoid copyright issues).
Another user describes this here:
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/14036


text:
Position of new words when adding to existing words
If an S is added to the end of an existing word, does the S have to be the first or last letter of the new word or can it be somewhere between?

what do you mean by 'in-between'?  You cant change a letter in a word so I'm assuming you mean a rare situation where you add an 's' between to legal complete words to create a new legal complete word although I'm struggling to think of any off top of head where that would work.

@StartPlayer: An "s" play is eluding me also - but you could run a "g" between "dun" and either "eon" or "hill", or an "e" between "dun" and "land", to make respectively "dungeon", "dunghill" or "duneland".

You could add an S between PAR and NIP to make PARSNIP, but I don't think this is what the question was about. I think they were just asking about hooking with the hook letter in the middle of the main word, e.g. adding ASK to the end of DOG to make DOGS (and ASK).

The standard scoring examples in the rules demonstrate this - see example Turn 3 on the "Scoring" tab.

It can be somewhere in between. The rules are that the tiles placed must be in a straight line (horizontal or vertical) connected to the existing words, and there cannot be any empty spaces between tiles placed.
For more information it may help to know that this is called 'hooking': https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scrabble/Rules#Gameplay

The "s" can be placed anywhere you like on the new word, as long as it's part of the new word. For example, your opponent has built the word "bee" vertically. Then, you can add an "s" to "bee", making it "bees". Then, using the letter "s", you can build any valid word, such as "ants", "trash", "ask" or "rats".
Hope this helps!

Well done on answering the original question, not the bogus added example.


text:
Chance card in monopoly
My piece was on Mayfair [Boardwalk in US version].  After moving, I passed GO and landed on the Chance along Kingcross station [Reading Railroad in US version].
The Chance card reads "go to Pall Mall [St. Charles Place in US version] and if you pass GO collect £200 [$200 in US version]".
Can I collect £200 [$200 in US version] since I did pass go before landing on the chance space? What location is the Chance card concerned with?  My original space (Mayfair) or the current Chance space?

I've proposed an edit adding the US equivalents to this question, so that people who are familiar with the original version can understand your question better.

@Acccumulation - As long as you're doing that, I'll propose an edit to the currency too. It's been bugging me that this question talks about Mayfair and Pall Mall, but then mentions $200 rather than £200!

The idea is, that you move clockwise (the normal direction) on the board until you reach your destination. If you passed Go, you collect the $200. If you did not pass Go, you did not collect $200.
In your case:
You are on Mayfair, rolled 8 and land on Chance. You passed Go, so you collect $200. Next the card sends you to Pall Mall. In this case, you did not pass Go, so you did not collect (another) $200.

And of course, you need to stop when you reach the destination for the first time (you can not go around the board several times to collect several times $200 ;-) ).

It is clearly written on the board : «COLLECT $200 SALARY AS YOU PASS GO», not «... AFTER YOU HAVE PASSED GO» (capitalised in the original).

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


text:
Stealing a "play at any time" item as a thief in Munchkin?
A thief went to steal the Demonic Wishing Eye (Adventure Time Munchkins) by discarding a card and then declaring "I am going to steal the demonic wishing eye".
The Demonic Wishing Eye has the "PLAY AT ANY TIME" text on the top. The owner of the Demonic Wishing Eye therefore decided to play it straight away, before the thief had rolled the dice and hence completed the attempted steal.
The owner's justification was that it had the "play at any time" text. The thief did not think this was fair.
The group and owner of the game could see both sides to the argument as to why the thief would/should be able to steal it without the person playing it and vice versa. We were all wondering if there is an official rule for this interaction, the interaction being if the thief can steal the item before they can play it, or if they can play it before the thief can steal it after the thief declares they are going to and discards a card.

You say the thief went to steal the item, but here's no such game mechanic. Either the thief has stolen the item, or they haven't. Stealing is not something that has a duration, so you can't "interrupt" it. There's no mechanism for time travel or precognisence in Munchkin, so an action (e.g. stealing) must be completed before another one can be started.
If the thief hasn't stolen the item, the owner original (and current) owner can play it.
If the thief has stolen the item, the owner original owner can't play it since they no longer own it.

The thief said "I am going to steal the demonic wishing eye" after discarding a card but before they rolled the owner of the demonic wishing eye played it since it has the play at any time text.

That's all one game action.

So the playing of the demonic wishing eye was not allowed?

Correct. Reversing time is not natural. It's not something you can do without rules to support it. A stolen card can't be used.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up! Was mainly the "play at any time" ruling/text on the demonic wishing eye that made things go into a grey area, haha

The "play at any time" simply means you can play it on a turn other than your own. Unless the card specifically says it blocks, interrupts, or otherwise changes another action, it couldn't be played until after the initial action (the theft) is resolved.

Think of it this way: the original owner would have to know beforehand that the item is going to be stolen, so (s)he should have had a rule in place like "I'll use this item one second before it gets stolen." Obviously, this does not work, since the thief does not go to the would-be-victim to announce the theft, just attempts it and either succeeds or fails. The victim only learns of the outcome after it has been decided so can't act before.


text:
Is it a valid strategy to accumulate cards then swap hand?
If I have a "Swap hand" card, can I repeatedly accuse other people of not shouting "Uno!" (when they actually have multiple cards) in order to cause myself to draw the 2-card penalty for incorrectly accusing them, then dump my entire hand to another person?
It seems to follow all the rules, yet I've never seen it being used.
Is it a legal move? Is it a valid strategy to win?

Is "Swap hand" from a newer edition or a different version?

Sounds like a great way to have no one to play with after a bit...

@GendoIkari it's indeed a newer edition, started in 2015 https://twitter.com/realunogame/status/673929833617854465?lang=en

@GendoIkari it looks like a variant version deck and rules Swap. Unless the OP is talking about Uno Attack which also has a trade hands card.

There is no penalty for calling out "Uno!" when you have more than 1 card. There is also no penalty for calling out another player for not saying "Uno!" if the other player isn't down to one card. The penalty is for when you fail to call "Uno!" while playing your second-to-last card. So you cannot intentionally increase your hand size that way; at best you could intentionally get the penalty once, each time you get down to one card.
You can choose to not play a card on your turn, even if you have a playable card, and draw a card instead. Though if the card you draw is playable, the rules seem to imply that you must play that one.

If the player has no matches or they choose not to play any of their cards even though they might have a match, they must draw a card from the Draw pile. If that card can be played, play it.

Purposefully doing this isn't really an issue of following rules or not, as I can't even think of how you would write a rule to prevent this (allow a person to choose not to play, yet forbid it depending on the player's motivations behind doing so). Rather, this is a question of fun and sportsmanship. Uno is not a competitive game designed to be a serious strategy game. It's a lighthearted family game. Doing something like you describe, whether "allowed" by the rules or not, would lead to simply not wanting to play with you anymore. Or, it would lead to everyone choosing that exact strategy, and the entire game coming down to the luck of who draws a "swap hands" card.

Additionally even if you had to draw 2 cards for calling Uno prematurely, you have the chance to draw another swap card before you pass off your hand, in which case your opponent would just send it right back to you.

If you have a valid card, can you choose to draw instead of playing a valid card?

@Acccumulation Yes, you can. I'll add this.

The question was unclear, but I meant to refer to the penalty for mistakenly calling out "Uno!" against another person (i.e. when I think they have 1 card left). Is there such a penalty? If not, what prevents players from preemptively calling "Uno!" all the times against others? (Your point about being anti-fun still stands, but I'm curious about any official rules.)

@Heisenberg There is no penalty for that either from what I can see in the rules.

@Heisenberg If you're asking "what prevents them from calling "Uno!" all the times against others", you should ask yourself "What do they gain from doing something like that?". I don't see why I as a player would constantly call out others.

@ManuelHoffmann doesn't calling out others constantly allow me to accuse them of having 1 card left before they have a chance to call Uno themselves? If there's a penalty I'd be careful and I only accuse them when I really know that they have 1 card left. But if there's no penalty, I'll be much less careful and accuse them more often.

@Heisenberg You are correct, and it's one (of many) reasons why Uno is not considered a serious strategy game.

Uno is not a competitive game Wait, what?


text:
Strategy for two blank Scrabble tiles
I had two blank tiles at the beginning of the game. The other letters were not high scoring letters, but I was able to use all seven, for a total of 59 points. Would it be a better strategy to use the blank letters on two different turns, in order to maximize score?

Welcome to B&CG christine!

People often consider a blank to be "worth" 25 points to a good player. That is to say, even though it has no points value in itself, it can improve your scoring possibilities by about 25 points through, for example, greatly increasing the chances of using all your tiles.
There's no single answer to your question and it will depend on the other tiles in your hand, but one way to approach the decision would be the following: if you could assemble a score of more than 34 and still keep a blank in reserve (i.e. the 59 that you could score, minus 25 for the retained blank), then it would be worth doing so. Otherwise, play your bonus word.

To add on @user2390246 's excellent answer, consider also the tiles you would be left with whether it will give you a likely score the next turn. If not, it is still not worth it to keep a blank for a score lower by your threshold (25 point in the answer earlier).
As example, say you have the tiles AAQUU?? (? are blank tiles), and you have the options to play sUbAQUA (lower caps are designated letters for blank tiles) for 85, or QAt for 65 keeping AUU? . I wouldn't save the blank because AUU? will unlikely net you high score next turn and there are not many chances of forming 7-letter bonus words with it either.


text:
Fluxx: Hand limit zero + trade hands
A rule was in place that said the hand limit was zero. It states that if it isn't your turn you should have zero cards.
Other rules in play were draw three, play one.
While it was 'Person A's turn he played trade hands card. That means he gave the cards to 'Person B'. There were no modifiers at the time to the standard rule 'play one card'.
So my question is does the trade hands card need to fully resolve - meaning does person B have to discard the cards before the start of his turn. Or does the end of 'Person A's turn ended the moment he played the trade hands card, and person B gets to keep he cards at the start of his next turn.
Edit: I am hoping someone can cite an actual rule why Joe W is correct. My opponent isn't buying the logic and insists his turn is over the moment he traded the cards, so therefore I should keep the cards.

What will happen is Player A will pass his hand to Player B (should be 2 cards since Player A would have had 0 cards to start the turn, drew 3 and played 1) and since no other player can have cards due to the hand limit Player A gets no cards in return. Once the cards reach Player B's hand the hand limit will kick into action and force him to discard both cards and  return to 0 cards in his hand. At this point the trade action will be fully completed and  Player B will be able to start his turn by drawing 3 cards and playing one of the 3 cards now in hand.
There is also a rule that lets you take a free action of taking the top card of the deck and playing it. This action does not have to happen before you take your last action and is allowed to happen after you have taken your last action and before the next players turn ends. This should make it more clear that the player in this case has to discard the 2 cards.

I am player B and I agree with this assessment. =P. Funny part is player A is advocating that I keep the cards, which would make me win the game. I think he is wrong and I didn't win. Sigh.

What you need to consider is that the hand limit rule (when it is not your turn) happens as an atomic action in regards to you getting more cards. What that means is that as soon as you get two cards from the other player you would need to discard enough to meet this limit. Even though the other player has no cards in his hand need to follow any end of turn rules that are now in effect. An example could be having to discard keepers because a keeper limit is in play. Only after all of his end of turn actions are done does play switch to the next player and remove the hand limit from them.

As I stated. I agree with this completely. Despite the fact that we think alike about this, there is nothing specific in the rules to prove that this is the way the game is meant to be played, correct? My opponent is refusing our logic, simply saying the turn ended the moment he handed me the cards to trade hands. Therefore I can keep the cards. I say I had to discard them as I received them when it wasn't my turn. (Incidentally, if I had been able to keep the cards, I would win. I just don't think I did because I had to discard them). If I can't cite rules, he won't buy it.

Found something in the FAQs that inadvertently describes turn endings. They mention you have the opportunity to take your free action up until the next person starts taking their turn. This implies your turn certainly isn't over simply by carrying out the action on the card you are allowed to play. I suppose I could also argue that the action card itself says 'do whatever it says, then place it on the discard pile'. This in itself is implying it isn't complete until you do what it says and discard it. He seems to be accepting the FAQ inference either way. Thanks.

@JHubbard80 I have added that to my answer, I knew about that rule card and should have put it in my answer to begin with.

While player B is holding cards, there is a violation of the hand limit rule, and that violation has to be resolved before the game can continue. This also means the trade hands card cannot fully resolve until player B has discarded his hand.


text:
A board game with astronauts?
When I was younger my parents bought a few board games and left them at my grandparents for us.
There was one game which had a plastic space ship mounted on a stick over the board, and it had a pump to propel the astronauts into the spaceship. You moved around the board and then when you got to the end you could pump your astronaut(s) into the spaceship.
I think there was a spinner similar to the one in the Game of Life, and the astronauts were green, blue, red and yellow.
Does anyone have any idea what game this might be?

Roughly what year would this have been?

This was during the mid-late 90s.

I've been trying to figure this out for the longest time and I finally just did! I loved this game as a kid and couldn't remember what it was!! It's KooKooNauts!

This was it. It's barely available anymore.

Rocket Race appears to involve a pump:

An innovative space game with a real flying rocket! The astronauts are trying to get home from the alien planet but the air from the ground keeps blowing them off the path – the players use the pump to control the air streams. The first one to reach the rocket safely gets to fly home in it!

You could look at the image gallery to see for sure whether it's what you remember. It's hard to see from those pictures but it does have a spinner too, according to the rules. The astronaut pieces are the colors you mentioned, too, though those are pretty common color choices.

I don't think this is it. The pump sends the astronauts use into the spaceship and the board was flatter.

This game propels the spaceship, but not the astronauts into it. Definitely not it.

The date is much more convincing; this came out in 2006. (No offense, but everyone's memories can be a bit inaccurate after 20 years.) Not sure if there's an older version, so I figured I'd leave the answer in case it helps someone find the right answer (and to keep other people from suggesting the same).


text:
Bridge the 3 card 7 club bid
chair one opened 1 spade I was chair two and said 3 clubs,  saying , I have 7 clubs and a outside ace and not 13 pts to open? She says I would have to open 4 clubs for it to mean that, Who's right, of course SHE insisted she has played for 50 years and I'm wrong. Help!

Without saying what bidding conventions you were using, questions like this are nearly impossible to answer.

just party bridge

Given the outside ace, and assuming clubs something like KJTxxxx or AJTxxxx, I would make a simple 2C overcall. This suggests clubs as a contract, and implies some defence and a desired club lead from partner. You can always rebid clubs next turn to show additional length.
Beginners always want to show length right away and pre-empt with hands completely unsuitable for pre-empts - for example hands with outside aces or with too few points in the bid suit. Just the fact that your partner bid and made 3S suggest to me that both you and your partner have much to learn about when not to pre-empt.
P. S. - the correlation between years of bridge played and quality of play is a very weak one - but for the record I taught myself the rules and simple bidding at age 8, and have played tournament bridge successfully for over 40 years now.

You can bid whatever you like, as long as it is within convention agreed between you and your partner, and when the opposition ask your partner (not you) they can say what the bid means.
When you have a weak hand and a 7-long suit, bidding at the 3 level (i.e. jumping two bids) is called a pre-empt. The point of a pre-empt is to take away the bidding space your opponents would use to find their best contract; while making a bid that (if it becomes a doubled contract) you would not lose too many points over. ("Too many" being defined as more than your opponents would have got if you'd never bid and they'd made a contract themselves).
In the convention I play, 3c (i.e. jumping one club bid) would mean a strong hand. 4c would be a pre-empt (i.e. a weak hand). BUT in order to bid 4c over 1s you'd need a stronger hand than needed to bid 3c, as if the contract is doubled you're one trick further off the contract.
Without knowing how many picture cards you have (especially in clubs), I can't answer for certain, but I think your best bid would probably have been to pass.

Thank you, it was a weak hand, guess I was wrong on the bid, she went to 3 spades and got it anyway, LOL

The value of a pre-empt as first to speak is that the opponents then have to take a leap of faith that they haven't got a bad misfit - if they have, they will only find out at the 3- or 4-level. That may shut them up. Once RHO has opened 1S, LHO has a lot more information... so not only does the OP need more strength for the 4c pre-empt, the upside is weaker too.


text:
Annotating "brilliant moves" and "blunders" in chess games
I have become familiar with chess algebraic notation, and have noticed that all of the software tools I've used to re-create the games so I can create videos of them lack one feature: they never append an exclamation mark ! after a "brilliant move" or a question mark ? after a blunder. Similarly, they don't note an "interesting move" !? or a "dubious move" ?!.
Is there an algorithm which can determine which moves are brilliant/blunders/etc? The only approach I have thus far is using a combination of C++ and MATLAB to calculate the "effective score" at each move in the game, detect peaks and troughs, and then annotate that particular move as a "turning point". The only problem with this approach, is that if a player deploys a clever, three-move tactic, my algorithm would likely just recognize a move towards the middle/end of the tactic/sequence rather than the "brilliant" move that started it.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is asking if software uses an unofficial part of chess notation that is entirely opinion based on the person who is doing the notation.

You could just as easily rephrase this as "is there a way to objectively determine an annotation for a chess move" and remove software. It shouldn't be closed, but reworded to be more within the realm of the site. Even if the question is inspired by software, if the question is about the algorithm it's totally legit.

The thing is : some chess programs have a way to compute if the player have made a brilliant move or a blunder. The program I use (Fritz 12) does it with post-game analysis sometimes, so you have to have quite a powerful engine if you want to have this kind of annotations.
But I think it's more a front-end kind of stuff : you won't see the engine doing this directly. The program that runs in front of the engine and can print the "value" of each move has this value and if there is a drop between the last move and the currently calculated value, it's easy to see the blunder. However, a brilliant move is really hard to detect.
And now that we have every single position with up to six pieces in memory, you still have to say what will be the result.
And as @user1108 said, you could contact a chess programmer to learn more about annotations in chess engines.


text:
Dungeon petz 2 or 3 player game: how many cages should be replenished?
The rules has a separate passage for replenishing cages:

If one of the two cage-buying action spaces is
  blocked by a neutral imp, you deal only 1 new cage, leaving one pit empty. Apparently, the neutral imp took one cage before you could get there.

This rule seems to assume that the board starts with one cage and 2 open slots every round: replenish one, leave one open.
What if the board starts with any other number of cages? We had rounds starting with both 3 and 2 cages. In these cages we would possibly not replenish? Or even remove a cage?

The first two sentences of that section still apply, and state

At least one cage will be left over from the previous round. Take the
  lowest of the leftover cages, put it in the uppermost pit and discard
  the rest.

It isn't possible for all 3 cages to be purchased in a turn, so at least one will always be there.  Keep the lowest, move it to the upper slot, and get rid of the rest.  That way you are guaranteed to always have a single slot filled.  Then you either deal 2 more, or only 1 more if a neutral imp is blocking a space.


text:
Does anyone have experience playing Tokaido with only 2 players?
I see Tokaido accomodates from 2 to 5 players. I am wondering wether there is aspects to the game that is problematic or less entertaining with only 2 players?

Users on Board Game Geek seem to think Tokaido isn't as good with 2 players (in the "suggested # of players" section click the "poll" link, then the "results" button) - almost 40% say not recommended.

Thanks @Jefromi. I was also hoping to hear some contrete opinions on what did not work well with 2 players.

Yup, your question is clear, that's why that was just a comment.

I played with two and liked it enough, but the imbalance in characters was too great. Would suggest playing without characters/roles if you decided to play 2p.

Note: I've played with two players exclusively, so I cannot compare it to 3+ player games.
Tokaido is inherently not a highly competitive game. You stroll across Japan taking in the sights, local cuisine, and having minor adventures (making new friends, bathing with monkeys, etc).
The neutral piece offers an element of minor sabotage; whoever is in the lead when it is the neutral piece's turn to move can bump it right in front of where the other player wants to go... alternatively you can just beeline the neutral piece to the inn. But no matter how spiteful you want to be by staying in the lead and controlling the neutral player, you're only shooting yourself in the foot by skipping so many spaces.
Ultimately it's a fun game to play when you don't feel like over-analyzing the game... it's not about "winners" and "losers" and more about which player had the most fulfilling journey.
TL;DR-- The two player rules add an extra element of gameplay through the inclusion of a neutral traveler and the removal of the secondary spaces. (two players can never share a spot on the road except at inns) Personally, I find it enjoyable.

The two-player rules for Tokaido include a "dummy" player, i.e. you play with 3 travellers, but the third one is neutral, moved by whoever is currently in the lead, and is only used for blocking spaces and having some effect on Temple scoring and food choices at inns. This changes the strategy space of the game somewhat (since there is now a small benefit to being further ahead on the road, and the neutral traveller doesn't move to his own benefit but to one player's dis-benefit). Whether that makes the game more or less entertaining is presumably a matter of taste.

Thanks @ConMan. Have you played with 2, and in that case what did your taste tell you?

No I haven't, sorry.


text:
In Risk Classic, are territory cards drawn by players kept face-up or face-down?
The Risk Classic rules do not seem to specify if territory cards drawn by players are kept face-up or face-down. I can't seem to find anything about this from my research and I was wondering if anyone could clarify on this?
Edit:
Thought I'd add some quotes from the official rules for reference.
"Earning Cards" doesn't seem to specify if the cards are drawn face-up/face-down and if they are then proceeded to be kept face-up/face-down.

Earning Cards. At the end of any turn in which you have captured at
  least one territory, you will earn one (and only one) RISK card.

The only reference to face-down cards I can find are when the player has traded them in.

For quick reference, keep traded-in cards face down under the bottom edge of the game board
  to mark the value (in armies) of the next trade

The only advantage I can see to having open-information card drawing is you know if they will be getting reinforcements on their next turn since the number of reinforcements you get scales according to the number of traded sets which is open-information.

I have in my possession all of the anglophone, Parker Brothers/Hasbro, Risk board game rule books ever published since 1959 as I am rewriting the rule book taking into account all of the European & North American evolutionary differences.  Scanned versions of theses rule books can be found on Wikipedia.
On page 5 of the 1993 edition, step 5 of the setup reads as follows:
5. Shuffle the pack of RISK cards (remove the Mission cards) and place it, face down, by the side of the board.  This pack forms the draw pile.
On page 5 of the 1999 edition, step 6 of the setup reads as follows:
6. Shuffle the remaining pack of RISK cards and place it, facedown, by the side of the board.  This pack forms the draw pile.
This answers the first portion of your question.
On page 7 & 8 of the 1963 edition, step (h) of the play reads as follows:
(h). Play of cards:
If a player has captured one or more territories on his turn, he is entitled to take the top card from the deck that has already been placed face down on the table.  He puts this card in front of him and does not disclose it to his opponents.
This answers the first portion & the second portion of your question.
Another related question that has arisen over my years of playing this classic game is whether or not a player must disclose how many cards they have acquired in their card hand.
This question is not addressed in any Parker Brothers/Hasbro rule book that has ever crossed my eyes, however  on line playing does allow other players to see how many cards each player has collected therefore I have incorporated the obligation to disclose how many cards are in your card hand in the rule book that I am rewriting.

If the rules don't specify it, I guess house rules are required! I've always played that they're drawn face down, so noone else knows whether you'll be handing in a set this go or not.

I've played with many different groups of players over the past 50 years, and never seen a group that required the cards to be kept face up.


text:
Is Mana Weaving ok if it's followed by a thorough shuffle?
My friends and I are relatively new to MtG. At some point, one of them introduced us to the idea of mana weaving, and we'd do this to declump our decks prior to a very thorough shuffling. However, at the Theros pre-release, one of us was asked not to do this, and we learned it was frowned upon and ceased to do it.
I just now came across Shuffling Do's & Don'ts, and it sounds like mana weaving's only bad if you use it to leave your deck in an even distribution, and it's OK if your deck is then thoroughly shuffled. In hindsight, the judge may have simply thought my friend wouldn't have shuffled afterwards, but at the time I came under the impression it was frowned upon even if you did shuffle afterwards.
So: is mana weaving my deck OK, if I shuffle it very thoroughly afterwards?

What is the point of it, if you then do a proper shuffle?

@Tim Declumping, mainly. But I'm not sure - my friend was stopped even though he was going to shuffle afterwards, but maybe the judge thought he wouldn't.

In between games I mana weave only my permanents and lands I have used in the precious game and then shuffle it into my deck as I have a problem with mana clumping (my shuffling skills are not perfectly honed), If I don't I sometimes find that I get clumps of land even when shuffling.

@Cameron yes, sounds like those clumps of land come naturally with a proper shuffling, and mana weaving is a way of avoiding that - see AlexP's answer

At a prerelease, my opponent once called a judge, because I wanted to pile shuffle his 'weaved' deck by a multiple of 3 piles which would result in his deck having all lands stacked together. He told me, I was not allowed to 'de-randomize' his properly shuffled deck... :D

Don't bother with an (illegal) manna weave; just riffle-shuffle your used manna into your discards before adding your library to the deck.

@doppelgreener if you properly randomize your deck afterwards, you are just as likely to cause clumping with that proper random shuffle if the deck is weaved before or not. For it to have any real benefit, the shuffle after can't be proper, and in a tournament would be Tournament Error — Insufficient Shuffling or Unsporting Conduct — Cheating depending on how intentional a judge believed it was.

It might not be OK in tournaments, but with friends it can be perfectly fine. This is how I've played for years - mana weave then shuffle 3-4 times. It might be against the official rules but if everyone's OK with that then there's no problem. In my opinion it's more fun because then lands are somewhat evenly distributed but not guaranteed to be evenly distributed.

Look at it this way:

If you properly randomize your deck, then its initial configuration is irrelevant. So "mana weaving" is just wasting more productive time.
If you don't properly randomize your deck, then "mana weaving" is likely part of you cheating.

So, there's no upside. "Mana weaving" doesn't actually accomplish anything, unless you're accidentally or purposefully cheating.
Judges routinely prohibit "mana weaving" because the down side of disrupting someone's pointless pre-game ritual is much smaller than the upside of guaranteeing a fairer game.

Some players "mana weave" to "break up clumps." That's based on a mistaken assumption. A truly randomized deck isn't one where the lands and spells are perfectly distributed; it's one where all the cards are in an arbitrary and unpredictable order. That'll mean you sometimes get lucky and sometimes you won't. Bad draws can be frustrating, but some amount of clumping — even the rare incident of really egregious clumping — is perfectly normal. A player who never gets mana-flooded or mana-screwed isn't shuffling properly.
If you're constantly experiencing clumps, especially drawing cards in an order similar to how you played them last game, then it's a sign you're direly under-shuffling. Spend more time shuffling (2-3 minutes before a game is pretty standard) and practice stronger techniques like riffle or mash shuffling.

Re: under-shuffling -- Based on the paper by Bayer & Diaconis, a 40-card (Limited) deck should be shuffled 8 times. A 60-card (Constructed) deck should be shuffled 9 times. A 100-card (Commander) deck should be shuffled 10 times. (More generally, 3/2 * Log_2(n) shuffles, where n is the number of cards in the deck.) Shuffling more isn't harmful, but does not increase the variance by a sufficiently significant amount to warrant it. (Of course, that's assuming a "perfect" riffle; poor shuffling would require more iterations.)

@BrianS Didn't go back to the paper, but recalling a Diaconis lecture I attended, this assumes a near-perfect but not-quite-perfect riffle shuffle. With a 52-card deck, as Diaconis demonstrated, 7 perfect riffle shuffles will exactly reset the deck. Small deviations from perfect shuffles, however, will propagate through the deck in unpredictable ways--which is what you want.

The elephant in the room here is probably that it's kind of hard to really thoroughly shuffle a deck.
Around 12 riffle shuffles will do it for a 60-card deck, with a few more needed for bigger decks.  (The complicated expression given in the linked paper is pretty well approximated by 2·log2(n), so doubling the deck size requires two more riffles to achieve thorough randomization.)  With three minutes to shuffle the deck between games, that means up to 15 seconds per riffle, which is quite doable with a bit of practice.
But of course, riffle shuffles are kind of hard on cards, so maybe you don't want to subject your deck to a dozen of them before every game.  That means resorting to slower and/or less efficient shuffles like the mash (which is actually pretty close to a riffle), the wash (slow and messy, but OK if done well) or even the pile (slow and potentially cheaty) or overhand (just plain lousy) shuffles.
So the upshot of all this is that, unless you shuffle your deck very thoroughly (say, a dozen riffle / mash shuffles) before each game, some traces of the original non-random order are going to remain.  The question, then, is whether that non-randomness ends up helping you or harming you — and if you start with a mana-woven deck, it'll probably do more to help than to harm.
In general, as long as everyone starts with a similarly ordered deck and shuffles it equally well, it doesn't really matter if the shuffle is a tiny bit short of perfect, since any advantages or disadvantages due to the imperfect shuffling will be the same for everyone.  But if you start with a mana-woven deck and your opponent starts with a non-woven one, it could give you an unfair advantage.

It's really easy to mash shuffle 12 times in 3 minutes.

"pile shuffle" is not a shuffling technique. It should not be used in competitive Magic except potentially as a means to count the number of cards in the deck.

Brian, source? I've seen many pros pile-shuffling.  This is always done in combination riffle or mash (multiple iterations)

I'm quite dubious that if the shuffle is a tiny bit short of perfect than starting with a mana woven deck offers any meaningful advantage. Shuffling works by roughly doubling the space between cards. Where that gets interesting is as the gaps exceed the thickness of the deck and small differences in initial card position are all over the place. (Shuffling, effectively, uses a form of the butterfly effect to achieve its randomization - with the caveat that new perturbations are added with each shuffle)

Having had a bit more to think about it, if anything, an undershuffled deck that had its mana all in a clump is more likely to have evenly distributed mana than one that had mana spread throughout. That is because randomness is NOT evenly distributed. So much so that facing real randomness, people often attribute the extremely uneven results to "good luck" or "bad luck". Shuffling works by doubling gaps between cards. Until the gaps between mana cards are doubled to the point that they are "lapping" the thickness of the deck the distribution of mana will be more uniform than true randomness.

I think pile shuffling can be improper if it's the only technique used. It spaces the cards in a predictable way, and if done to a deck in some sort of order (ie, lands then spells) it could introduce unnatural uniformity. If done with other techniques, I found it can help separate cards in sleeved decks that have a tendency to stick together

If we assume that when you say that you shuffle thoroughly, you mean that you completely randomize the order of your deck, then it should be fine.
If you put your deck in any particular order, and then completely randomize it, then the original order doesn't matter and your deck is properly shuffled.
If you put your deck in a certain order and then "shuffle" in a special way so that your deck ends up in the order you want, then you have stacked your deck, which is not allowed.


text:
Is 'Enchantment Creature' a creature type?
I'm specifically looking at interactions with Descendant's Path. If I have an enchantment creature on the battlefield, let's say Aegis of the Gods, and then Descendants' Path reveals Agent of Erebos, does the shared 'Enchantment Creature' feature allow Agent of Erebos to come into play, or does the Path just look at the Human Soldier and and Zombie part, putting the Agent on the bottom of my library?

According to the rules, possible card types are:

300.1. The card types are artifact, conspiracy, creature, enchantment, instant, land, phenomenon, plane, planeswalker, scheme, sorcery, tribal, and vanguard.

Agent of Erebos shares the type with Aegis of the Gods. However, Desendants' Path looks not at the card type, but on Creature Type:

302.3. Creature subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Creature — Human Soldier,” “Artifact Creature — Golem,” and so on. Creature subtypes are also called creature types. Creatures may have multiple subtypes. See rule 205.3m for the complete list of creature types.
  Example: “Creature — Goblin Wizard” means the card is a creature with the subtypes Goblin and Wizard.

Aegis and Agent don't share a creature (sub)type, therefore you will have to put the Agent on the bottom of your library unless you control more creatures one of which is a Zombie.


text:
Regal force and cyclonic rift
Say I have 2 green creatures out and I cast Regal Force. My opponent responds by overloading Cyclonic Rift. Do I draw 3, 1, or 0 cards, and does Regal Force get bounced?

Respond to what exactly the creature being cast or the triggered ability? The correct answer will be different depending on which one.

It depends on what exactly the opponent is responding to. If they cast Cyclonic Rift in response to Regal Force the spell, then Regal Force ends up on the battlefield and you draw 1 card. However, if they respond to Regal Force's triggered ability, then Regal Force instead ends up in your hand and you draw no cards.
Responding to the spell
If they respond to the spell, then the sequence of actions plays out like this:

You cast Regal Force and pass priority. At this point, Regal Force is on the stack.
They cast Cyclonic Rift. At this point, Regal Force is on the stack, and Cyclonic Rift is on top of it.
Cyclonic Rift resolves, returning your two creatures on the battlefield to your hand.
Regal Force resolves and it enters the battlefield. Its ability triggers.
Regal Force's ability resolves, and you draw 1 card for the 1 creature you control.

Responding to the triggered ability
If they respond to the triggered ability, the sequence of actions instead plays out like this.

You cast Regal Force.
Your opponent declines to respond, and Regal Force resolves. It enters the battlefield, and its ability triggers. At this point, the triggered ability is on the stack.
They cast Cyclonic Rift. At this point, Regal Force's triggered ability is on the stack, and Cyclonic Rift is on top of it.
Cyclonic Rift resolves, returning your three creatures on the battlefield to your hand.
Regal Force's ability resolves, and you draw no cards because you control no creatures.

If the opponent responds to you casting Regal Force, the following would happen:

Regal Force is cast and goes on stack
Cyclonic Rift is cast and goes on stack
Cyclonic Rift resolves, two green creatures return to your hand
Regal Force comes into play and triggers
You draw one card

If the opponent casts Rift after after Regal Force comes into play:

Regal Force is cast and goes on stack
Regal Force resolves, comes into play and triggers, trigger goes on stack
Opponent casts Rift, it goes on stack
Rift resolves, 2 creatures and Force return to your hand
Trigger resolves, you control no creatures and draw zero cards.

You're question is a little bit unclear. If he responds to you playing the regal force by bouncing everything then the force will come into play, it's ability will  trigger and seeing as the regal force is a green creature  you will draw one card.
If he on the other hand lets the regal force resolve and respond to the trigger by bouncing all your critters then unless you can flash in a green creature before the ability resolves the ability will see zero green creatures and you will also draw zero cards.

This answer gives the same information the existing answers, but a day later and with less detail.


text:
Will Shipbreaker Kraken cause creatures to stay on the battlefield when hit by Scourge of Fleets?
If I use Shipbreaker Kraken on my opponent and tap four creatures. The next turn I use Scourge of Fleets.
Do all cards go back to their hand or do the cards I picked stay on the battlefield when I used shipbreaker kraken?

The cards go back to the hand. The only thing Shipbreaker Kraken can do to them is cause them to not untap. It doesn't do anything to keep them on the battlefield if they get sent back to a hand by Scourge.
In fact, it gets even worse. If you Scourge them back to your opponent's hand, and they play them again, they will be allowed to untap as normal. This is because once it goes to the hand and gets recast, it's a different "object". The "object" that was (let's call it frozen) frozen by the Kraken is not the same "object" that they play, even if it's the same physical card.
Long story short, if you're planning to throw out a Scourge of Fleets, try not to double dip on the ones that you target with the Kraken.
Bit of an aside that's a little too long for a comment:
This sets aside the fact that you're playing both Scourge of Fleets and Shipbreaker Kraken in the same deck. I'd have to say such a deck would be woefully underpowered in all formats, barring commander. Both creatures fill the same role: a large body with a mass removal effect. Given their mana costs, for any 60 card deck you can expect it to be too slow to use both of these. Simply put, one of these will be better than the other for a given deck/matchup. Even if you play 4 of the best one, would you really want to play 5 of these big guys?


text:
Can I tap a creature in response to it being tapped?
My buddy uses Dromoka Dunecaster to tap my Humble Defector.  Can I in response activate Humble Defector's ability?

You can't respond to "being tapped"; you can only respond to spells being cast and abilities being activated or triggered.
And that's what you have here. Your opponent activated Dromoka Dunecaster's ability, after which you both get a chance to cast instants and activate abilities in response (i.e. before it resolves).
You are free to activate Humble Defector's ability at this time[1][2]. Having been placed on the stack last, it will resolve first. When it resolves, it will have you draw two cards and then give your opponent control of Humble Defector.
When Dromoka Dunecaster's ability then resolves, it does nothing[CR 609.3] since a permanent that's tapped can't be tapped[CR 701.17a].

If it's your turn, due to the limitation imposed by the ability.

Technically, your opponent gets first dibs since it's their ability to which you are responding[CR 601.2h]. That said, in a tournament setting, it's assumed that a player passes when they get priority in response to casting an spell or placing an ability on the stack unless they explicitly retain priority.

601.2h Once the steps described in 601.2a–g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
701.17a [...] Only untapped permanents can be tapped

Slightly incorrect. A spell that says "tap target permanent" can target and "tap" a tapped permanent. It's why spells that say "tap target permanent. it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step" work on a tapped creature.

@JonTheMon, No, it can't. 701.17a [...] Only untapped permanents can be tapped. For example, an ability that reads "Tap or untap target permanent" forces you to toggle it. (That's why the text of Elder Druid and many others was changed to "You may tap or untap target permanent".) If you could tap a tapped permanent, "{T}: Add one {G} to your mana pool" would give you infinite mana. In the OP's case, the effect skips the tapping, doing as much else as it can [CR 609.3].

Hmm, so the targeting is separate from the actual action performed (or not performed or skipped)?

@JonTheMon, Completely separate. 1) Targets are chosen when the spell is cast, ability is activated or triggered ability is placed on the stack. The effect is performed when the spell resolves, which only happens after all players get a chance to cast more spells and such. 2) You only look at the targeting condition when choosing targets. For example, the only relevant part of "Tap target flying creature. Draw two cards." when choosing targets is "flying creature". Whether the effect is likely to eventually succeed (e.g. if it's currently tapped or not) is of no consequence.

@JonTheMon, 3) A spell/ability that targets and only has illegal targets is countered as it would resolve (so none of the effect occurs). Other spells/abilities resolve, doing as much as possible. For example, if the creature targeted by "Tap target flying creature. Draw two cards." loses flying, the spell/ability is countered and you don't get to draw any cards. If instead it's tapped when the spell/ability resolves, then you don't tap the creature, but you still get to draw two cards.

@JonTheMon: if it said "tap target untapped permanent", then it couldn't target a tapped permanent. But the way you phrase it, it can target any permanent.

@JonTheMon with abilities like this there is always confusion, but ikegami explains it perfectly.

@ikegami can you add what you said in the comments to your answer, it would give a more clear picture :)

@Wouter, I'm not sure a discussion about the effects of invalid targets has anything to do with the question. There sure are lots of questions about that, but this isn't one.

Of course, if it is your turn, Humble Defector’s ability can be activated any time, including in response to a spell or ability. Dromoka Dunecaster's ability is put on stack, you have the opportunity to respond and use Humble Defector’s ability, tapping it to pay the cost.