text:
What is the best opening lead on this hand, and why?
Playing in Flight A-X of a sectional Open Pairs, both Vulnerable at MatchPoints in third seat you hold: (Flight A is 2000+ MPS; Flight X is 0 - 2000 MPS voluntarily playing up instead of at their own level - the up and comers.)
S:J9865
H:T9
D:53
C:AT94

and the auction proceeds:
P  1H  P  2D
P  2NT P  6NT all pass

The opponents are an unbalanced pair (possibly pro-client) with the stronger member on your right as declarer. (in other words, LHO maybe trained to get NT contracts into her partner's hand when possible/reasonable.) Their system is a fairly straightforward Two-Over-One card.
What is the best opening lead and why?
Additional considerations:

A blind lead from Jxxx is a well-known terrible lead, often killing your Jack. This is less true when holding a 5-card suit, but not irrelevant.
If partner doesn't hold at least the queen in one of the red suit opponents may be able to run 13 tricks once they are on lead - that would be a sure bottom if you haven't cashed the CA. Partner can hold a couple of Jacks and that still leaves opponents with a bare 33 HCP that runs 13 tricks once in.

Update:

RHO's 2NT rebid is likely showing any hand that might open a weak 1NT if playing that system; so in the range 12-14. It certainly is not showing any extra values overall, but may or may not be showing stoppers - sometimes it is best NOT to ask, because every question you ask also has the potential of guiding declarer's play.
RHO and I go back > 30 years, so there can be the possibility of a little personal rivalry in play - or not. He is a very good player with > 6,000 ACBL MPs, all earned and non bought, but LHO is likely weaker.

I want to know opponents agreements concerning 2N.  Is it the default bid lacking a 6th heart, or does it show extras, or does it show stoppers in unbid suit but not necessarily extras?  If extras, how much?

Also, I want to know how confident the 6N bid was.  If I felt like being sleazy, I could try to probe this further by asking RHO if LHO had a 4N invitational option and seeing how LHO reacts.

@AlexanderWoo: I believe it is the default bid without lacking a 6th heart. It being my first tournament game after an eight year lay-off, I forgot to ask that question; but it is a common agreement in this area.

@AlexanderWoo: I will constrain that a spade lead must be either the 9 (top of interior sequence) or the 6 (fourth best) for the sake of partnership harmony and confidence. Having a partner that trusts your signals is far more valuable than any possible result on this hand. Reasons why one prefers either the 9 or 6 in this situation might be of interest. I would like to see you post this comment as an answer since that is the point of a Q&A site.

Okay I posted as an answer, but I think it's more my opinion than anything else.

Does the 2D guarantee 5? In any case, I am guessing most people will lead the CA. Trying a tricky low club (hoping for KJ in dummy and Q with partner, and declarer misguessing) is too risky at MPs. I am curious to see what you are getting at :-) Hope you post your thoughts soon...

@Aryabhata: I believe the 2D call shows either 5 or specifically a 3343 hand (which might otherwise be stuck for a bid with Jacoby 2NT raise in use). After the raise to 6NT there is no reason to believe the 3343 hand is a possibility, as I doubt LHO would make the jump preference to 6NT over 6H with 3-card support. All I will say yet is that I believe I made the wrong lead for the right reasons; we got only a 1/2 MP out of 12 on this hand in an otherwise decent session, considering.

@PieterGeerkens: I am guessing your table was one of two in 6NT (making or not). I would say not leading CA is pretty bad given the auction at MPs. I call it a fix...

@Aryabhata: Agreed; but plus on the hand is probably at least a 10 or 10.5; perhaps a 12. I hate giving Andy a top.

@PieterGeerkens: From what I read, it was not a top :-). Is Andy well known?

@Aryabhata:  I have known and played against Andy for nearly 40 years now. He is among the stronger players in my Unit. And I consider 0.5 a virtual bottom, just as I consider 11.5 a vrtual top.

@PieterGeerkens: Yeah that was a tongue-in-cheek remark from me. Anything below 20% is a virtual bottom for me.

I suspect you won't get a unanimous answer if you asked a number of top experts.  What follows is my guess.
If 6N was bid confidently, that should mean most of the field (since it's a fairly good field) is in the same slam.  I lead the Ace of clubs and take my 45%.
If 6N was not bid confidently, I lead a spade.  My partnership agreements are usually that non-honor leads at slams are meaningless (b/c declarer can usually use the info better than partner), so I lead a random non-honor.
If I am in a swinging situation where I am fairly confident I want top or bottom, I lead a diamond.
Updated to add explanation:
If opponents have 12 tricks no matter what, it's quite likely that they have 13 tricks outside of clubs, or at least they have 12 tricks and can squeeze me in the black suits for the 13th.  (This includes those situations where declarer has no choice but to finesse my partner's heart honor to get to 12 tricks as well as situations squeezing partner (unsuccessfully) in a red suit+clubs and me (successfully) in the black suits for the 13th.)  So I have to lead AC if I think they'll make.
If there is a way to beat the contract, it's quite possible leading AC sets up their 12th trick (for example if their clubs are Kx opposite QJxx).  Indeed, it's quite possible they have 10 or 11 tricks outside of clubs and can set up 1 or 2 more tricks in clubs.  Hence you need to hit partner's king immediately.  The heart king would be useless since hearts are probably with declarer.  That leaves spades and diamonds, with spades more likely because of the bidding.  Spades is also better because there are holdings where partner has the diamond king and the contract goes down except on the lead of the AC, whereas a diamond lead when partner has the spade king and nothing else probably means opponents end up with 1 spade, 5 in each red suit, and a club.
(But there definitely are holdings that require a diamond lead - most of these involve marked finesses against your Jack of spades.  Hence it's a reasonable swinging lead.)
(If one has to lead the 9 or 6 of spades, I think the 9 is better.  If opps have 7 spades (say A52 in dummy vs QT74 in hand), the 6 is more likely to induce declarer to try to drop the KS singleton (either in desperation for trick 12 or hope for trick 13).  Not that I'd think through this at the table.)
A low club hoping to hit partner's king or queen might seem like a good idea, but I very much doubt that LHO bid 6N without neither the ace nor king of clubs (even if 2N promised stoppers).  If partner has the queen and opponents need exactly one club trick, they are more likely than not to get the finesse wrong if you don't lead clubs but right if you do, since a lead of a club strongly suggests you don't have the queen.

As you have noted, the choice of lead can depend on intangibles. However it is possible to recognize the soundness and quality of analysis, irrespective of the final card choice. I have worked hard to not key anything while still giving as complete information as possible.

You lead a diamond through dummy and hope to set up partner's presumed "red" queen? Then why not lead the ace of clubs and look at dummy?

@TomAu - Because it might be a king, and opps might have 3 clubs, 3 spades, 5 hearts, and AD if I lead AC.

@TomAu - More generally, in many of the cases where the contract is in doubt, leading the AC gives away a vital club trick or a vital tempo.  On the other hand, when the contract is not in doubt, the AC might be squeezed out of you (or the opps might have 13 top tricks in the other suits) if you don't take it.

@AlexanderWoo: Ouch! Nice read. Add that to your answer to get the accept. I was thinking on the right lines but missed that possibility at the table.

Suppose you lead a diamond and hit partner's honor. If partner leads back a spade (black suit) instead of a club, you might lose your ace of clubs. Wouldn't be safer to take the ace of clubs for sure and hope that partner has the setting trick? My second choice is the ten of clubs, 1) because partner could just as easily have a club honor as a diamond honor and 2) if he has a diamond honor, he might be able to lead back a club through declarer's honor to my A-9.

Declarer actually held 7; AKJ74; J6; J8652 and the only leads allowing the contract to make are AC and 4C. The key feature I believe is that the lead of the AC (or 4C) ignores the possibility the possibility that TC is the setting trick, as it is here. Because of the suit blockage the lead of TC (or 9C) is even safe. I missed this at the table and lead AC.

@TomAu - I think I've argued why a small club lead can't help.  (Picture dummy with S: Axx H: Qx D: AKQxx C: KJx and declarer with S: Qxxx H: AKJxx D: Jxx C: x)  The ace of clubs will be bad on many hands.  (Picture S: Axx H: xx D: AKQxxx C: Kx opposite S: Jxx H: AKQxx D: xx C: Qxx or S: AKQ H: xx D: AQxxx C: KJx opposite S: xx H: AKQJx D:xx C: Qxxx) You just have to rely on partner being able to read the hand and figure out what to lead back here.  The strong hand is in dummy; partner will have many clues.

The case for AC looks like (S: AKx H: xx D: AKQxxx C:Kxx opposite S: QTxx H: AKQxx D: xx C: xx) on which you end up being squeezed for the overtrick if you don't take it right away.

@PieterGeerkens - As an "Eastern"-er, I can only shake my head at the form of semi-Western that forces you to rebid 2N with that.

@Alexander Woo: The ten of clubs is not a "small" club. It will either "pass" dummy's king to partner's queen, or more likely, set up a second club trick if the king covers. I also advocated leading the ace of clubs only if opponents' bidding styles made it likely that partner would have a diamond honor; otherwise my preference was for the ten of clubs over the ace, or any other lead because of the foregoing.

@TomAu - it's effectively the same for my argument.  Leading the TC strongly suggests you don't have the Q (which you don't).  If partner doesn't have a side king, opponents aren't likely to need more than one club trick.  If partner does have the CQ and the opponents need a club trick, they are likely to finesse the wrong way if you don't lead a club.  My example hand still applies.

@AlexanderWoo: As noted elsewhere, I've known Andy for nearly 40years;. I think he secretly enjoys rebidding 2NT with that hand. I use 2H as the "nothing better to say partner" call, which is probably slightly more descriptive on this hand than 3C.

If 6NT was not bid confidently, then a diamond lead is called for (basically a passive lead, unlikely to blow away any tricks). I don't understand your top or bottom comment about the diamond lead. Also, a spade lead (from J9xxx) is very risky, irrespective of how the 6NT was bid. And about declarer having 13 tricks, you don't need to construct squeezes! Declarer could easily have 6 diamonds + 5 hearts + 2 spades.

Since this answer is suggesting a spade lead in some cases, and talking about diamonds being top/bottom (with no clarification) I am tempted to downvote... Sorry.

It's clear from the bidding that declarer dominates hearts and dummy dominates diamonds. By bidding their respective no trumps, each party probably showed "fillers" in the other's suits.
With only two tricks needed for a set, the fifth spade doesn't matter as much as the fact that your jack is "fourth tier," which is to say that it is too remote to be a trick. Therefore, it seems like the defense's best bet is in clubs. If the bidding led straight to a 33 hcp no trump declaration, I'd lead the ace of clubs, take the sure trick and hope to get a non-bottom. If partner can score a red suit queen (or any other card), that would be gravy. One advantage of leading the ace is that you get to see dummy before making your second lead.
Given the surrounding circumstances, there's a real possibility that the opponents have less than 33 points, and that they are stretching for the 6NT contract with 30-32. (I have retracted my other earlier comments about the bidding because they just cause confusion.) You have five points, and partner may have more than two.
So instead of having one queen, it's possible that your partner has two. (There's also a small chance that partner has the king of clubs, instead.) If both of those queens are red suit queens, the one that's "offside" a finesse should score after a lead of the ace of clubs. Suppose it's one red suit queen and one black suit queen (chosen at random). Which black suit queen can help you more?
Instead of the ace, I might lead the ten of clubs, hoping to set up a second club trick if partner has the queen, and either the king or the jack is in dummy. (And if this doesn't happen,partner will lead back a club if he gets in with a red queen.) On the other hand, if partner has the queen (or even king) of spades, it would take a second round of spades before the jack comes into play on the third round. That is to say, you have two club tricks if and when partner takes his red queen and leads back a club. But you might not get either a club or a spade trick if partner leads back a spade based on an opening spade lead.
In cases like this (only two tricks needed to "set"), I prefer to lead a short strong suit (clubs) rather than a long weak one (spades).

Playing 2/1 - the 2D bid indicates 13+.  The 2N bid depends on agreements: some pairs play it as biddable with any opening hand without 5 hearts, others play it promises some semblance of a stopper in both unbid suits, and yet others play it promises at least 14 or even at least 18.  Without further information, I would assume dummy is the strong hand.

Not when playing the "Two Over One" system.  In a "Two Over One" system, a 2/1 bid is game forcing.

@TomAu: Opponents are playing Western style not Eastern - their opening 1NT bid is strong, and on this auction it is clear that Dummy is the strong hand. Declarer has not shown any extra values. Declarer could be on a 5332 or 5422 12-14 count.

@AlexanderWoo: Also, RHO and I go back more than 30 years, to when we were both under 10 MPS. He would not be above trying to be a bit clever in order to grab me. ;-)

RHO is a very good player with > 6,000 MPS (all earned, non bought). LHO is weaker, but I assume no dummy

I have retracted most of my earlier comments about the bidding (except a brief summary of high card points), because of all the confusion.

@TomAu: That's fine. I didn't originally think of all the questions you raised.

@TomAu: Check this out from some years ago: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/sims/archive/ranking.asp?session=007006&event=World+Wide+Bridge+Contest+Saturday&offset=20

@PieterGeerkens: "Check." Hope that "Happy Days Are Here Again" for you, soon.


text:
Bridge: Which transfer do you use with both majors - one 5 carder and another 4 carder
Partner opens 1NT.
With a 4 carder Spade and a 5 carder Heart, what do you do?
And with a 5 carder Spade and a 4 carder Heart?
Specifically, should you use Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, or some other convention?

The most common answer to this problem is called Smolen, which applies when you have game-forcing values. In Smolen, you start with Stayman. If partner shows a 4-card major, proceed as normal with that suit as trumps. If partner denies a major, you bid your 4-card major at the three level. Opener now chooses a strain.
With less than game-forcing values, your choices really depend on what other bids mean in your system, but the following is usually workable:

With 5 spades, 4 hearts, and invitational values, bid Stayman and rebid 2S after opener's 2D.
With 5 hearts, 4 spades, and invitational values, transfer to hearts and rebid 2S after partner accepts the transfer.
With 5-4 and less than invitational values, consider using "Crawling Stayman." This is a rebid of 2H after 1NT-2C-2D, and it shows a weak hand with the majors. Opener passes or corrects.

It is important to note that while common, neither of these methods is standard. One cannot play them without prior agreement and significant discussion with partner on the relevant inferences and sequences.

As ruds points out in his answer, the expert treatment here holding game-forcing or better values is to play Smolen Transfers. In this case the auction has gone:
1NT  pass 2C  pass
2D   pass  ?

and (with * indicating the alertable transfer calls):
- 2H shows game-invitational (only) values with exactly 4 spades and 5+ hearts;
- 2S shows game-invitational (only) values with exactly 4 hearts and 5+ spades;
- 2NT 9 points, invitational in NT;
- 3C game forcing, 5+ (usually 6) clubs, no 4-card major;
- 3D game-forcing, 5+ (usually 6) diamonds, no 4-card major;
- 3H * game-forcing, with exactly 4 hearts and 5+ spades;
- 3S * game-forcing, with exactly 4 spades and 5+ hearts;
- 3NT to play
etc.
With less than game-invitational values you have fewer choices, and tougher decisions:
Holding 22 distribution in the minors and a weak 5-card major it is probably best to pass and just play 1NT. If the opponents come in they may get a nasty shock from the unfavourable distribution waiting them in the majors.
With 31 or 40 distribution (either way) in the minors or a strong 5-card major you should simply transfer into your 5-card major and pass partner's rebid.
With a bust three-suited hand, short in clubs, it is possible to play Garbage Stayman and simply pass partner's response to 2C. Unless playing Matchpoints I would not recommend this without 5 diamonds and 4-3 or 3-4 in the majors.
It is possible to play Crawling Stayman over partner's 2D response, but this will cost you precision in game-invitational auctions; it is strictly a Matchpoints convention, where part-score auctions are of increased importance.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Must a player disclose what deck they are using before play?
Our family is just learning this game. We were wondering if each player typically announces which deck they are using beforehand. If yes, in how much detail?
I could not find anything in the rules about this but wondered if there's standard etiquette around this in casual play. In our starter games, one player sometimes feels surprised and annoyed the other player made changes to their deck without announcing it.

Mostly no, but it depends.
First, here's a relevant quote from the tournament rules (section 2.7):

Generally, decklists are not public information and are not shared
  with other players during a tournament. At constructed-format,
  Professional REL tournaments (Pro Tour, World Magic Cup, Magic: The
  Gathering World Championship, and Grand Prix), copies of opponents’
  decklists will be provided to players in the single-elimination
  playoffs.

Now for some personal experience: In draft events I have played, it is not normal (although it happens occasionally) to give information about your deck before playing. Many times someone will finish the first game (best of 3) without revealing one of their win conditions, and will keep it a secret until it actually comes out in play in the 2nd or 3rd game of the match.
Thirdly, some reasoning: In casual play I think it makes even more sense to change and keep a secret the content of your deck. I play more Android: Netrunner than Magic, so this reasoning draws on my experience there as well, but in general my goal in constructing a deck is to make one that will be resilient to surprises, and have a chance at winning against a variety of deck strategies. To that end, knowing the contents of my opponent's deck is a hindrance. I would rather we constantly surprise each other to try and polish off the rough edges of each other's decks.
That said, this way of thinking works very well among confident, competitive people, but might be harder to swallow for somebody still learning the mechanics of the game. Especially at the beginning, you might choose to help somebody along by explaining the changes you're making ahead of time, and why you think they'll make your deck better. Well, we've taken a turn into the highly subjective world of interpersonal relationships, so I'd better sign off before I get myself in trouble.

I think your next-to-last paragraph sounds more like competitive Magic, or at least casual with some competitive element. In my experience, it's not uncommon in casual Magic for a player to talk about their deck in advance. It's certainly not required, but sometimes it's fun for players to discuss deck tech even though they may be giving away a slight strategic advantage by doing so.

@DavidZ that's a good point, and my oversight of it is probably mostly explained by the fact that I tend to approach anything - even e.g. Candy Land - competitively, sometimes to my detriment. :)

There are no rules that require players to share with each other what cards are in their decks. Even in tournaments, where players are required to register a list of every card in their deck with tournament officials, that information is generally not shared with other players.
In my own experience with casual play, we knew what decks everyone was using by the color of the sleeves, and we didn't consider it a requirement to inform each other about deck changes.

There is as far as I am aware of no standard ruling or custom for casual play. So I'll talk from what I've seen in live groups. More often among friends, people call deck changes between games, mostly in the form of "I'm using the Red/blue combo deck" or "I'm using the elf one". This is not a hard and fast rule but more courtesy to allow people to adjust before the game is underway, as a 4 men game can last for a long time. If you keep playing with the same people, they will eventually figure out the deck's strategy and win condition, so that just calling the colors is enough information. I've also seen many people directly explain how the deck can break apart, most of the time to break the illusion that a deck might be invincible or widely above the others.
That being said, I've found it is part of the fun to keep the secondary win condition untold. As it sometimes make for interesting reversal when they get into play.
Remember that for groups of friend, the point is to have fun. So rules will be decided by the group, probably naturally to make everyone happy. That goes from house rules (as much as there are house rules in Magic) to mood.
When details can be kept secret
Some times where details are kept secret :
As the level rises or when I'm playing with more-or-less-strangers, some people will sometime keep the deck secret for the opening game and not give info. Keep in mind that those are casual games in that they are not tournament worthy and loosely regulated, but the game is played competitively in this case. If you're playing with your family as you mention, it might not be your case.
When a deck has just been modified or is brand new, I'll see peopleplaying a game or two to show it off before really explaining it. I've also seen new decks who played the obfuscation game until someone could figure out how the deck work.

With most of the people I have played, both casual and competative, it is common to at least give your opponent what color you are playing.  However, it's not a rule.  For instance,  when i play with a group who knows my decks well, I usually don't tell them till they have also chosen a deck so that they can't choose a fitting counter deck.

Of course, in the Commander format all players reveal their commander at the start of the game, which puts a limit on what colors are permitted in the deck. If you're playing with the optional sideboard rule, players may sideboard after commanders are revealed. That's a very specific ruling, though.

Where do you play that it is common to tell your opponent what color you are playing in competitive matches? In Legacy, knowing your opponent's color(s) will often make the difference between winning and losing. In Standard, it has an impact on mulligans.

It's not required,  but the place I play at we usually at least tell what color we are playing. I've only done stadard competitively and you can't sideboard till the second match anyway, so it doesn't really affect much and I  have played very few games where I wasn't asked at least what color I was playing. I'll admit it's been a while since I played standard. I usually just play casual magic.

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


text:
Are there ways to handicap bridge as there are in chess and go?
The games of chess and go can be "handicapped" by giving the weaker player a material advantage. That is, the weaker chess player gets extra pawns or pieces and the weaker go player extra stones. (Backgammon can't be reliably handicapped this way because one more or one less checker affects the dynamic of the game.) Another way to handicap go is to give the weaker player extra points (reverse komi) at the end of the game.
I have never seen any handicapping in bridge. One way is to start the weaker pair with say, an extra +300. That changes the scoring without changing the dynamic of the game. Another way would be strategic: E.g. the stronger pair has to bid and make game at the five level for all suits, not just the minors.
Has any player of note played a bridge session handicapped in some way even on a "propositional" basis? Or even proposed or discussed the possibility of such handicapping?

Certainly, you can.  Whether it's at all useful is another question, as others have been saying.
The ACBL has formulas for handicapping pairs and teams (based on Masterpoint total; there is another method available for handicap based on previous results, which works well in an insular environment like a club).  The grotty details are exactly that, but the TL;DR is "you get a handicap, and it's not enough".
I have never run a handicapped by masterpoint pair game; I have seen the records used to run a handicapped by results pair game, but the game they were keeping the records for stopped being handicapped at least 5 years ago.
Many ACBL Districts have a policy that if there is only one Bracket in a bracketed KO, that it will be handicapped.  I've played in these a few times, and needed the handicap exactly once (given +11.5, lost by 11, 12-board match).  I've had +29.5 on a 24-board match against the then World Women's Bronze Medal team (lost by 80, but have some cool stories), and I've seen higher two or three times.  My experience running the games is that "the handicap mattered maybe as often as one match in each event."
I also know that this is so well-loved by all teams (the ones getting as well as the ones giving handicaps) that we are replacing them with Day 1 RR qualifying 4 teams for Day 2 KO across the board.
So, yes.  And it happens.  And "something to be nice to the weaker pairs, but not so much that the stronger teams don't win" is basically what ends up happening.

My local club occasionally hosts a handicap duplicate game, in which weaker pairs are spotted a few matchpoints to start.
I don't play rubber bridge, but I would imagine that you could start by spotting points as you suggest. Alternatively, you could give odds - the weaker pair might have to pay a penny a point while the stronger pair pays a nickel, for example.

Not really. The problem is that for any handicap to be meaningful the players must be quite close in ability. So close, that a handicap is pointless. Beyond that the game is either structurally altered irredeemably. If i cannot play regular rules with my regular bidding system I decline to play - why would I ruin my game and partnership understandings for a few measly bucks?
I recount some stories from my youth, when for a few years I frequented a Rubber bridge Club playing at 1¢ / point (late '70's, so scale appropriately).
Playing against opponents who could consistently place in the top 40% of a match-point game, I would finish a 3 hour session up between 2500 and 4000 points, for a $25 to $40 gross profit (card fees still due).
In a few dozen such sessions over 2.5 years I never lost money in that game. I never even won less than $10 over a 3-4 hour session.
Not.
One.
Single.
Time.
And I was only about the 10th or 12 best player in the club (most of whom played only in the 2¢ game) and not even the best regular in the 1¢ game.
However much of my winnings paid for expensive backgammon lessons until I became almost as good in that game as I was in bridge.

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


text:
How should the bidding have proceeded in this situation?
A commenter pointed out that the original version of this question was not as interesting as some side issues accompanying it. So I am going to ask a second question to address those "side issues."
At matchpoint duplicate bridge, not vulnerable vrrsus vulnerable, and sitting West, I held
♠ AK32
♡ J643
♢ 6
♣ JT82

Partner (East) opened one heart, South overcalled one spade with the following, a hand that I considered "light" for the purpose.
♠ Q874
♡ 973
♢ AK85
♣ 53

I raised to two hearts, North bid two spades, and there were three passes.
South's "light" overcall got them a top score on the board, and us a bottom. Was it a proper overcall, that is, was South "skillful" or "lucky." More to the point, should partner or I have bid three hearts at some point?

9 points and four cards in hearts and first round control in the opponent's suit (at this point, one opponent) and a singleton diamond… that seems mighty strong for a competitive 2H.
In a noncompetitive situation, that would be at least a 3c Bergen raise, and arguments could be made to upgrade it to 3d (both Jacks have play, the AK of spades are very nice together).  The standard treatment would be 3c, though, but still at least considering more.
In a competitive situation, however, it's even stronger.  AK in opponent's suit?  4 spades, led by the AK, meaning opponent is making exactly zero tricks in spades? I could come up with a hundred hands partner might have that make game with a minimum.

S: 65
H: AK872
D: A95
C: Q73

13 points, 5-3-3-2.  That makes five spades fairly easily with remotely even distribution, and makes four most of the time even with perfect play on defense.
The right initial bid is probably 2S.  I don't think it's a game force, but it's absolutely "limit raise or better", which is what 2S shows.
Beyond that, if you make the 2H bid, why on earth did you pass 2S?  You have all sorts of undisclosed values. You've got an extra heart, you've got AK spades and now you're sure they both cash AND maybe partner gets to toss a loser on the K... what's to lose?  At least compete to 3H.
The bidding should probably be...

E
S
W
N

1H
1S
2H
2S

3H
P
P
P

If partner is very light, or

E
S
W
N

1H
1S
2S
P

3C
P
4H
P

If partner wants to further explore things, perhaps (or Partner might just go to 4H directly).  I think any positive response from partner is sufficient to jump to game - you want to show that you don't have an incredible hand, and here fast shows a weaker hand (no interest in cue bidding, since partner would have to have more like 18-20 to be thinking slam here at least).  Maybe 3D would be better, depending on what it means in your partnership.

One nit to pick - I believe the chance of an opening Spade lead by the original overcaller is remote, given the Spades in hand, notwithstanding the raise by North..

@ForgetIwaseverhere I was thinking the lead would come from N, but you're right, S would be on lead in a heart contract.

The opponents have advertised an 8 card fit (or better) for them, and you have a 9 card fit (or better).  The Law of Total Tricks says that there will be 17 (or more) total tricks.  Let's look at the possibilities:

You make 7 tricks and they make 10.  Then you score -100 if you bid 3H, and -170 if you pass.

You make 8 tricks and they make 9.  Then you score -50 if you bid 3H, and -140 if you pass.

You make 9 tricks and they make 8.  Then you score +140 if you bid 3H, and -110 if you pass.

You make 10 tricks and they make 7.  Then you score +170 if you bid 3H, and +100 if you pass.

In every single case, bidding is better than passing.  You can also do the calculations with only 16 total tricks (having AKxx in their suit increases the likelihood of that slightly), and you are still almost always better off bidding if than passing (the only exception being if you make 10 and they make 6).
I'm not so enthusiastic about inviting with this hand to start with since partner could easily end up accepting based on wasted diamond values.  However, once opponents compete to 2S, I would definitely bid again in balancing seat, and if I'm going to bid again, I might as well show a maximum 2H bid by inviting.  My partnership agreements are usually second suit game tries in competition, so I would bid 3C over their 2S bid.

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


text:
Is an emphasis on card reading/counting well placed for a learner?
I am a "developing" bridge player who has come to the conclusion that card reading/counting ability is the most important skill to learn; more than say, new bidding conventions.
There may be a precedent in chess, whereby a number of world champions were the best endgame players of their time, without being the best at the opening. (The endgame also "informs" middle game play.) The analogy would be that bidding is the opening, and cardreading is the endgame. After all, if you can "see" all the cards, you'll know how to play.
Were there any world class/world champion bridge players who were reputed to be the best card readers/counters of their time, even while having other skills (e.g. bidding) that were not top notch? A lot of the "glory" of world championships goes to new bidding styles, but could card reading be a "stealth" road to high level play?

Keep in mind that a lot of card reading information actually comes from the bidding itself, especially on defense.

I cannot emphasise enough that card-counting is the fundamental underlying skill for all others in Bridge. Until one has mastered counting every card, every hand, every session, until it has become both habitual and an obsession, one cannot even be considered a top-intermediate player. If you are not already counting the opponent's hands, the range of distributions and points possible, every time they call Pass, one cannot even be a competent bidder.
All advanced card-play techniques, including opening lead, are derivative of and dependent on accurate counting of the points and distribution around the table.
Further, if one has a demonstrated ability to count the hand, stronger players will take an interest in mentoring you and even having a game or two on occasion to check on your skill progression.

On your second point, you have confused "complexity of bidding system" with "accuracy of bidding system". Eric Rodwell and Jeff Meckstroth have been a regular partnership for nearly 30 years now (collectively known as Meckwell), and have an encyclopediac record of their bidding system (maintained by Rodwell) and are widely thought of as the best partnership in the world for much of that time.
By contrast the late Barry Crane played a very straightforward (and aggressive) Four-Card Majors system that any strong player could master in a matter of days. He in turn is regarded as the top Matchpoint player of all time.
Note that Crane's phenomenal success was achieved playing part-time (weekends only) while most of his competitors were able to play the full 5 days of most Regional tournaments. This may have influenced his desire for a simpler system, as he also played with more different partners.

Barry Crane Stories #1
Barry Crane Stories by Grant Baze
Barry Crane Stories by other authors

Barry Crane's success reminds me of the story of the world backgammon champion who became so by specializing in backgames. Crane had a "different" system that worked for him and nullified the advantages of others when they were forced to meet him on his home ground.

There have been plenty of examples of experts who weren't top notch in bidding but absolutely brilliant in card play and did very well in international tournaments (citation needed though, unfortunately don't have any. Perhaps Martin Hoffman was one of them).
Bob Hamman has been known to say that the bidding system is 3%. Note, bidding judgement is quite important though (which if you look at it one way, is another aspect of cardplay).
Justin Lall has been known to say that even world class experts miss things at cardplay and if they didn't they would consistently win.
Being able to count the hand is an essential part of becoming a good player.
If your goal is to be able to compete in international tournaments, you need to be competent at every aspect of the game. Trying to come up/be an expert at system and not be good enough at cardplay won't work.

I would go even further, and venture that every world class bridge player is superb at card-play, both as declarer and defender. After that, choice of bidding system becomes more a matter of style, and of which partners you most enjoy playing with: aggressive bidders choose aggressive systems, obsessive players choose precise systems. For many professionals most games are played with clients, and the bidding system in particular must be no more complex than is manageable by the client.

On occasion top partnerships such as Murray-Kehela develop where one partner is very aggressive and the other very obsessive. This is absolutely not incompatible with excellent results: Murray-Kehela were widely regarded as the third best partnership in the world through the height of the Italian Blue Team's success in the 1960's and 1970's, behind only Belladonna-Garozzo and Forquet with his partner of the month .

Generally world-class players have to be excellent at both, but there are certain players like Jeff Meckstroth and Joel Wooldridge who are particularly amazing card players.
Two places to look for people with this skill are players (a) who do great at Matchpoints and less good at teams (as teams is more bidding-oriented), and (b) pro players who play across from clients.  Their clients aren't capable of playing great bidding systems (or bidding accurately), so these pros don't get as much practice at top-flight bidding, and earn a lot of their money by playing the spots off of the cards.
As an aside, in addition to card reading and counting, obfuscation is a huge part of world-class card play.  When playing against these players, you often find yourself confronted by tough decisions.  This is because they are forcing you to make choices before you know where all the cards are, or they have played cards in a way that makes it seem like they have something else.

the statement "(as teams is more bidding-oriented)" is blatantly false. Yes, teams is "more slam -bidding oriented"; but those hands are rare and match-points places extreme emphasis on accuracy in the far more numerous part-score auctions, and in particularly on the ability to double one-trick sets. I would argue that the latter is actually more challenging. Also, the mental strain of match-points bidding is greater, requiring more stamina even as there are no sessions off as in a 6-player team event.


text:
Should West read a low card as "not" discouraging in the following situation?
This is a link to the whole hand from a Frank Stewart column:
E-W vulnerable, S bid 1 spade, raised to 2 spades by N. All pass.
West opened with the king of hearts. Dummy, East and South played low with the 3,5, and 8 respectively. At this point, West knows that the outstanding cards are QJT.
West failed to continue hearts (and let the contract make) because he was discouraged by the 5. But I would have read it as a singleton and continued hearts on the theory that if East had a Q, J, or T, he would have played that card as encouragement.
Should one not be discouraged by the 5 in this situation?
Would East discourage with exactly JT5 and play the 5? And even so, shouldn't West then continue with the A to drop South's Q?
            Dummy
            Q63
            763
            KT3
            Q863
  West
  5
  AK942
  Q72
  J952

Form of scoring is very important here.

@AlexanderWoo: I think it's rubber, because the article didn't say anything about matchpoints or IMPs. You can double check the link, which is why I provided it.

Even if 5 is a discouraging signal, you should not take it as "Thou shall not continue Hearts". Treat signals as suggestions, not instructions. In this scenario, since any other lead may lead to a bigger disaster, a Heart continuation seems reasonable, especially when this "discouraging" signal can be an involuntary one (e.g. singleton).

East doesn't know West has 5 hearts. If west had only AKxx and east had JTx, then continuing hearts would set up the third round for declarer. So discouraging from JTx, Jxx, or even JTxx (if opening leader could have AKx) is correct.
On this hand West should definitely continue hearts. It is safe, and given West's holdings in the minors, it's very unlikely that it's crucial to start an attack on another suit.
In general, saving your honors when they could be crucial for taking tricks is much more important than giving the right signal. Sometimes you have to trust partner to work it out without a signal. So don't signal with the Q from Qxx.
A couple more advanced notes:
This is indeed easier if you lead A from AK, since if the lead was from KQx or KQxx, you want to be able to encourage holding the jack.
Contrary to the previous answer, the situation when the lead is from AK and small cards are in dummy is actually one when standard carding does better than upside down, since with JTx you want to discourage but may not be able to afford an honor. This is a well-known position.

It's also easier if you lead K from AK and Q from KQ ...

The key here is that while a Heart continuation may turn out poorly (namely when poor partner was dealt specifically Qx), it will far more often be either safe or best.
Further, a switch to either Spades or a minor suit is neither suggested by the appearance of Dummy, nor the slightest bit appetizing. It was a clear error for West to make switch at trick two, as Stewart makes amply clear in the original column. West's declined an almost guaranteed safe-or-better continuation of Hearts, to a safe-at-best-and-probably-worse switch.

The standard agreement is that the Q from East would show either QJ(x)(x) (or a singleton), so East would play the 5 from Q5.
Given West, dummy, and the bidding, it's quite possible that East has something like JTxx (or KT9x) in trump, which means a ruff might just use up a natural trump trick, so East may very well discourage with any doubleton.
Even if East has a singleton, leading hearts might just set up declarer's Q while using up (one of) East's natural trump trick(s) on a ruff, so it's not clearly a good play.
PS1 - this hand is an advertisement both for leading A from AK and for upside-down signals, but of course there are other hands that would advertise the opposite.
PS2 - no reopening double from West?

No reopening double from West per the article. The way I play, that would have advertised a 5-3-3-2 distribution (there weren't two or three suits with 4+ cards), and no reopening bid with a six card suit. I would lead K only from AK, and A from AKx (or longer) to show a sequence.


text:
Name of card game similar to crazy-8s or Uno
I would like to know if anyone on here has played or knows the name of a card game similar to hearts.
The object of the game is to get rid of all your cards. If a player doesn't have a card that is played, he can play any card just like hearts. In this game there's no points system.
When 2 players remain in the game, the player who has more cards than the player who has one remaining must play a lower card to extend the game. The cards are then laid out and the player with no cards must pick a card from pack of cards which have been played and pick a card lower than the other players cards to win. The other player obviously has to clear his cards.
You can also request to take another players cards.
I believe it is an Asian card game but wondered if it had an English name and if many people play it.
Thanks.

Can you add any more details? Is there a trump? What keeps you from getting rid of your cards?

it's a simple game really, if you keep getting hit that will stop you from getting rid of your cards as your cards will grow.

Sounds more like Uno or Crazy Eights than any whist variant I have ever played. These games are really in dramatically different game families, so I question whether the hearts tag/comparison is helping you.

This sounds like it might be a form of Minnesota Whist.
Even if it is not, I'd suggst starting with a cassification resource like: Pagat and seeing if anything else jogs your memory.

With the additional details, I don't think it's Minnesota Whist, but it still might be fun to try.

I know this post is old but were by chance thinking of Tricked out hero?

Could you explain the features of Tricked Out Hero such that it matches what's being described?

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


text:
What is the purpose of minimum points required for initial meld?
In Canasta and several variants of Contract-Rummy, like Rummikub and Kaluki, there is an "initial meld" rule: The first melds put down by a player must consist of cards to a total value of at least X points.
From a game design perspective, what does this accomplish? What is the purpose? What problem is being solved here? Is it so that new players entering the board are contributing a large number of pieces on their first turn? If so, why would that necessarily be a good thing?

I’m only familiar with Rummikub, and this is purely speculation; without the initial meld requirement, maybe players were hoarding tiles until they can put them all out in one go, and the rule was put in to prevent that?

The Rummikub rule does not prevent a player from hording tiles - a limit to the maximum initial meld would do that, but a minimum inital meld does not.

I would guess it is to make the game more challenging as you get closer to winning but I can't say for sure.

My wild guess would be that not having that rule leads to degenerate games in some way - not enough open values, like you suggest, or maybe it results in a dominant strategy of rushing lots of small melds.

With or without a maximum initial meld rule, players are still forced to play tiles for two turns. At least in my version, you can't play anything other than the initial meld on the turn you play it.

In the version of Canasta I played long ago - the higher your sum of total points from the previous rounds are - the more points you need in your initial mold.

This gives the players that are behind an advantage, they can play a faster game since it is easier to open
In the earlier stages of the game it makes it harder to take the stack which might influence what kind of cards you throw away.

This means, there is a different dynamic between the start and end of each round. The first few rounds are kind of save (and there is nothing to pick up), you try to figure out what your partner has or not has (and your opponent) by what they trash.
The later stages are more about bluffing or trying to grab a big stack - each card you throw away has to given much more thought to not give the opponent an opportunity.

I want to say, that I think that this is a compelling answer, however this mechanic that you describe does not apply to RummiKub, or at-least the versions that I play, which always puts the limit at 30 points.   So this cannot be the complete answer.

Many old games (including card games) were designed for gambling. This often explains many unintuitive rules, especially scoring rules and bonuses.
So one answer to "What is the purpose [of an initial meld requirement]?" is simply, to "unbalance" the game and increase potential winnings. Initial meld requirements allow a player/team to establish early melds over the other team, which makes scoring points in the hand easier. Without the initial meld requirement, the other team could claim other melding territory more easily, which lets them fight back quicker.

This answer would greatly benefit by describing how the meld requirement actually accomplishes that. Otherwise, it just sounds like a guess.


text:
How to handle dummy's revoke due to a hidden card?
A final bid of 3 spades is made. The opponent leads a club and dummy lays down a hand showing no diamonds. Declarer wins the lead trick in hand and leads a diamond  trumping it in dummy. Declarer then returns to hand and leads a second diamond trumping again. He then plays a club from dummy and in moving it reveals a hidden diamond. Since there is no penalty if declarer revokes, how is this managed?

Presumably you meant that there is no penalty if the dummy revokes.* The declarer can certainly revoke, and the usual penalties apply.

@Jyrki It is also not correct that there is no penalty for revokes by dummy. There is no automatic trick penalty, but the directort will restore equity under law 64 C. See my answewr.

And see https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48231-hidden-card-in-dummy/#entry577198

I am not a TD, but I am a qualified Club Director, and this situation is actually a fairly clear one. Under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge , laws 61-64 govern revokes. It is a common misunderstanding that there is no penalty if the dummy revokes. There is no automatic adjustment in such cases, but the Director should attempt to restore equity, and a proper rectification should be made.
I quote only the relevant sections of the laws below, for reasons of space. Please see the full laws linked above (2017 version).
Law 61 A defines revokes:

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke.

The situation described is indeed a revoke.
Law 63 A provides:

A revoke becomes established:

when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.
when a member of the offending side makes a claim or concession of tricks.

The revoke described in the question has indeed become established.
Law 64 B provides:

There is no automatic trick adjustment following an established revoke (but see Law 64C) if: ...

the revoke was made in failing to play a penalty card or any card belonging to dummy.

Law 64 C provides:

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score (emphasis added)

Such an ADJUSTED score would be appropriate and required in the case described.
Law 12 A provides:

On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so.

The Director may award an adjusted score in favor of a non-offending contestant when
he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of
violation committed.
The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

Law 12 B provides:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Law 12 C1 provides:

(a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as
nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.

(c) An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of
a number of potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in
a legal manner may be included.

(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score (see C2 below).

and 12C2(a) says:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)], the
Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the
irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a
contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

The director could attempt to go back to trick 2 and determine what would have happened had the revoke not occurred. Presumably the declaring side would have then lost trick 2. But it may not be at all obvious what the defense would have led or how the declarer would have played on such a lead. If the declarer has the remaining winners such that they can be cashed no matter what the defense does, the director could simply transfer trick 2 to the defense. But if there is significant uncertainty about the result in such a case law 12 C (1) (d) would most likely be applied, and the director would assign an artificial adjusted score.
Both sides have a degree of responsibility for the dummy, but the declaring side has the primary responsibility. Specifically, under Law 41 D the dummy player is responsible for properly displaying the dummy's hand. I would, in such a case, assign the declaring side an average minus, but assign the defense an average, not an average plus. There is an argument for giving both sides average, and for giving the defense average plus, but I think the defense is at least "partly at fault" here. So that would be my ruling on the facts stated above, if the outcome with the diamond loser were not rather clear-cut.

Thanks for the added details. It was unclear to me to what extent the defenders would be to blame. At matchpoints I would have expected an Av-/Av+ decision, but I also see your point. Unless we see the hand it is probably pointless to try and gauge what might have happened with the dummy properly displayed.

@Jyrki Av+/Av- would be a reasonable decision. The old rule that all players are equally responsible for the dummy is long obsolete, but still often quoted.. Trying to determine what would have happened had the card been displayed properly, or found when the dummy was to play to trick 2 is hopeless without the full deal, and might be unwieldy even with it, unless declarer's other tricks are cold.

David Siegel has the laws almost perfect (and thank you for that!)  He didn't mention that there is also no automatic trick penalty for the second revoke in the same suit (even if it wasn't from dummy), 64B2: "it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established."  But either 64B exception works for the second revoke here, so no matter.
But there are multiple infractions here, and we have to consider them all.  Like anything with rulings, some things depend on Regulating Authority regulations and guidance; I'll speak for the ACBL because that's where I direct.  Other RAs would have slightly different decisions:

When dummy put down a 12-carder, did that affect the defence?  In the ACBL, we protect the defence from misinformation from mislaid dummies (again, "everyone's responsible for dummy" never has been a law).  Doesn't look like it here, though, declarer is in control after trick 1.
When the first ruff occurred, were the defence damaged, or are they going to get that trick anyway?
When the second ruff occurred, were the defence damaged over where they would have been after applying the law to the first revoke?  It's possible - if they were able to take the second diamond, after the first ruff, they might have been able to pull enough trump that there was no second ruff, or take enough tricks that it wouldn't matter, or not set up the diamonds, or...

I disagree with the comment about Average plus/Average minus, however.  I'm a bit of a stickler for this; it's almost always a cheapout.  The quote is: "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious".  I know this was a trick 2 thing, but the possibilities are rarely if ever numerous or not obvious in this situation - either they would have got the club and don't now, or they would have got the club and still will, or they'd be able to stop the second ruff somehow.  I have never, in over 20 years of directing at clubs and tournaments, needed to give a L12C1d ruling.  Sometimes the weighted score (L12C1c) has 4 different options, but you can do it. (And yes, awarding a weighted score in ACBLscor is incredibly difficult.  Other scoring programs handle it much better.  So I can see a club director who doesn't know how having trouble with that).
I don't like A+/A-, because what if just getting there was a 90% score, even if we give the defence everything they are possibly entitled to?  Giving out a 40% for a "minor missort" seems overharsh.  Also, what if they're in a hopeless contract, and even if equity is "score stands", the non-offending side is still booked for 80%?  Is it fair that the "minor missort" gains?

Ehh, you've never given A+/A- because something happened at a point where you couldn't otherwise judge the result?  For sure A+/A- isn't right if the play for 3S= is obvious, regardless of the diamond ruff, and equally it's terrible if (For example) 4S= is trivial and reached at most tables, or if 3S doesn't make without the 'bonus' transportation - but if most tables are at 3S, and it's 50/50 to make, and requires a clearly different line of play, what else can you do but award the A+/A-?  It's not fair to assume declarer will see the correct line of play, is it?

I have, of course - the traditional "East swaps the boards, three players take their hand out, North swaps the board because she's the Lord of the Table and it's Her Job, and nobody notices until dummy comes down", or "East opened 2D Multi in a pair game".  But I have never given an artificial score when a result had been obtained.  I have never used 12C1d.  I work very hard at that.  Now that the ACBL has gone for weighted scores instead of the 2007 12C1c, the ruling is harder to make and to score, but both fairer and easier to deliver.

For your example: First, if it's this example, declarer gets no relief from dummy's infraction.  He will try the ruff line, and whatever happens, happens (possibly weighted depending on defense options). But say that third hand won the first trick and returned a trump hoping to kill ruffs, and that picked up partner's trumps and let the contract through; if she saw the singleton diamond, the "stop ruffs" line is still possible but not clear, and the successful line is reasonable.  Now 12C1e gives me the ability to award say 75% of 3S-1 (good line) and 25% 3S= (try to stop ruffs).  Easy.

Thanks for explaining this. I saw the point of not handing out Av+/Av- without more information, but failed to convey (and properly appreciate) that more information is always available. IMO the big downside of Av+/Av- here is that we then basically ignore the bidding phase of this deal. If 3S was reached at a majority of the tables, then, fine, no biggie. Otherwise there are exactly the cases like the field playing in 4S or in 2S after better or poorer bidding judgement in comparison to this table (cannot tell which without seeing the hand, obviously).

Anyway, I do think that the TD could also strive to give a quick evaluation of the situation (often leading to Av+/Av-) as an initial call. Then inform the players to appeal the decision later. Say, if this is a club evening. To reach a better decision the TD may need to consult a panel of trusted players. Those trusted players are most likely playing in the same event, and are unavailable at this instant. A TD pressed to post running scores will need to score the hand some way. Yes, there will be an asterisk in the running scores, but... Sorry about running away with this :-)

your last comment would actually be a very good question. The answer is very long.  Short answer: you Do Not Rule - you avoid saying anything that looks like a ruling - in a judgement case until you consult.  That way lies embarrassment when your first look is wrong.  If a result has been obtained on the board (you did let the play finish, right?) it is put in as the score.  When you have determined the ruling, you present it to the players (by preference, the "losing" side first) and assign the score.

An interesting situation. I'm not a bridge lawyer, but a bit of seaching pointed me to this source.

The director should not apply the Revoke Laws. The defenders, however, may well be due an adjustment.

This is in line with my common sense. It is not a revoke, but the defenders have been damaged. Even though they, too, had a chance to count that the dummy has only 12 cards on display. I still think that the dummy and the declarer should shoulder most of the blame for the irregularity.
I would just call for the TD, and let her sort it out. Exactly what kind of an adjusted score will come depends on too many factors to handle here.
Hopefully a qualified TD shows up.


text:
Do Thorncaster Sliver's triggered abilities go on the stack?
I was guessing, since you actually target things instead of just dealing damage (similar to Hellrider), Thorncaster Sliver's triggered abilities would actually go on the stack.
This came up in a separate game this past Friday when the Sliver deck attacked with two Predatory Slivers, one Thorncaster Sliver, and two Manaweft Slivers while his opponent had a Blood Artist as well as some 2/2.
The reason this even came up was because, if the triggers went on the stack, you could target things so they resolve in the following order:

Predatory Sliver targets Blood Artist, killing it.
Predatory Sliver targets the 2/2, dealing one damage to it.
Thorncaster Sliver targets the 2/2, killing it.
and 5. Both Manaweft Slivers target the player, dealing one damage each to him.

Triggered abilities always use the stack. That includes Thorncaster Sliver's and Hellrider's.

112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack.

Here's what happens:

You attack with five slivers. Five instances of Thorncaster Sliver's ability triggers
You place the abilities on the stack in the order of your choice: (Best order used)

You place PS#1's ability on the stack targeting the 2/2
You place PS#2's ability on the stack targeting the 2/2
You place TS's ability on the stack targeting the Blood Artist
You place MS#1's ability on the stack targeting your opponent
You place MS#2's ability on the stack targeting your opponent

MS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to your opponent.

MS#1's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to your opponent.

TS's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the Blood Artist

The Blood Artist dies. Blood Artist's ability triggers.
Your opponent places Blood Artist's ability on the stack targeting you.
Blood Artist's ability resolves:

You lose one life.
Your opponent gains one life.

PS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the 2/2.

PS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the 2/2.

The 2/2 dies.
[Move on the Declare Blockers]

Result:

The Blood Artist and the 2/2 died.
The opponent's life went down 2, then went up 1.
Your life went down 1.

Thanks for the detailed answer. I brought this up since a guy said the damage all happened at once, like Hellrider's. I thought he was incorrect, but I thought I would ask, since the abilities are so similar.

All combat damage happens at once. This all happens in Declare Attackers, two steps before any combat damage happens.

Triggered abilities always go on the stack. It has nothing to do with what the ability is, whether it deals damage or targets things or makes Squirrel tokens. If you see the magic words "when", "whenever", or "at", you've got a triggered ability and it goes on the stack when it's triggered.
Obligatory comp rules:

112.1b An ability can be an activated or triggered ability on the stack.
112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and include (and usually begin with) the word "when," "whenever," or "at." Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack.


text:
Are there any open source card game like magic the gathering?
I want to create an online card game with fights like magic the gathering or any other mana-health card game.
Do you know any card game that is open source and I can use the rules, cards and game-play free of charge?
I have tried to create one of my own but it's so difficult.

Game development is a pretty involved task, and a very deep topic! But it's fun and rewarding, too, as long as you persist. There's a lot on the internet to learn, so start researching and learning! One starting point might be Gamasutra's design category.

I can speak from personal experience that designing games is more fun than playing them. The only problem is that unless you get very mature in your design is usually not something you can share.


text:
Monster Stacking Puzzle Game?
A couple of years ago I bought a game that I absolutely adored. Unfortunately I lent it to a friend, never got it back and haven't been able to find it since. Can anyone help? I don't know the name of it, but basically it was a white plastic case that the little see through monsters could be stored in but it was also the game board. The monsters were red, blue and green and they could be stacked on top of one another, but only in a certain order. The aim of the game was that you would start with the monsters set up in a certain pattern and then had to work out how to move and stack them into a single pile.

http://www.passionforpuzzles.com/puzzles/cannibal-monsters-logic-puzzle
Cannibal Monsters is your game maybe?


text:
Why are there multiple copies of figures in Gaming Night Kits
I'm curious as to why there are 6 copies of the same miniature an corresponding ID cards in the Gaming Night Kits. I understand the different languages ID cards copies of the same miniature? I would of expected 1 miniature and three ID cards (one for each language) however i get 6 miniatures and 18 cards (6 for each language).
Does this mean that I can play with the same character in the same game and there are no restrictions for the same survivor? So if I owned multiple copies of the game I could technically have a team of all the same survivor?
Does anyone know if there is a rule that stops this from happening or why the gaming night kits bring 6 miniatures?

The product is intended to be used to run a game-day in a store or club where the miniatures are prizes for the participants.  This is why it comes with multiples.

@Affe That sounds like an answer; mind posting it as one?

@Affe do you know if there is any rule that prevents from using the same survivor?

Most gaming kits come with supplies to provide prize support for multiple people (whether it be players, people who help moderate the events, or other qualifications).
Regarding playing the same character, there's nothing that prevents you from doing this, although typically you'd want to have more diversity of roles (and some characters could make the game much easier with multiple copies.)  The other issue is that without painting your minis or otherwise making them distinct, it could be hard to determine which of the 4 identical minis represent you!


text:
Can I tap permanents if it's not a cost?
Blinkmoth Urn has an ability that only works if it is untapped at the start of a player's main phase. It has no activated abilities.
Can I, on my turn or any other turn, tap the artifact just to tap it, so it won't become untapped until just before my main phase? Is it legal to tap a permanent even if you are not paying a cost nor resolving a tap effect?
(If possible, a citation from the rules would be helpful, as the answer affects a coworker's main Commander deck.)

It's fine! That someone else knew what to look for has happened to me a couple of times too. It doesn't mean anything bad about you.

No, you can't just tap cards on a whim. You need to either cast a spell or activate an ability that has an effect that taps the card in question, or you need to have tapping the card as a cost for some activated ability.

No, you cannot tap permanents (including artifacts) unless an ability (inherent, on the card, or another card) allow you to.


text:
If my opponent tries to resolve a triggered ability out of order, did they miss their opportunity to do so?
My opponent controls a tapped Nettle Sentinel, and has cast 1 copy of Glimpse of Nature this turn.
They then play an Elvish Visionary, and in response I do nothing.
The stack starts to resolve and my opponent draws 2 cards which is evidence the Glimpse of nature and Elvish Visionary have resolved.
They then move to untap their Nettle Sentinel. In this instance because the abilities on the stack would be resolving out of order, did they miss the Nettle Sentinel's triggered ability or is this covered by out of order sequencing?

This is a judging question.  As with all judging questions there is no single absolutely correct answer.  It will depend on if the judge feels seeing the extra card has any relevance to the decision to untap.  (And if they actually looked at the card or just had it in their hand because they reached across the table to do everything at once.) (And to some extent REL even though it really shouldn't matter.)

Before examining the merits, let's keep in mind that it's a very natural out of order sequencing since he could end up doing draw-untap-draw otherwise.
The limit on out of order sequencing is:

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

If he hesitates after drawing but before untapping, he's clearly in error. Out-of-order sequencing is not an excuse for doing something you forgot to do earlier.
On the other end of the spectrum, if he says "I draw two and untap" and proceeds to do so, it's clearly ooos and not a problem.
So what if he silently proceeds to draw two and untap? It's undeniable that information is gained, but that's not sufficient to prevent ooos. It comes down to whether the draw reasonably affects whether Nettle Sentinel the player untaps the Sentinel or not, and there's no guidelines for determining this.
Drawing probably doesn't affect his choice — it's hard to imagine that he'd decide whether he'd untap or not based on what he drew — so it's probably ok.

bear in mind he can stack the triggers how he likes, so could untap draw draw.

@Rawrgramming, I noticed that and noticed my wording implied otherwise, so I had fixed it within seconds of posting. But I was having network connections, and I guess that got lost. Fixed it again.

Note that I'm assuming he didn't hesitate after drawing. Oos is not an excuse for doing something you forgot to do earlier. It's clear an error if he hesitates. On the other end of the spectrum, if he says "I draw two and untap" and proceeds to do so, it's clearly fine.

having said all of this, what if i want to respond to him untapping, but dont want to give that away until after he untaps (a perfectly reasonable situation) and then am shocked to find he has already drawn 2 cards and hasnt untapped. as his opponent, i am surely put at quite a disadvantage by this if it is ruled as OOOS?

@Rawrgramming, You get to roll back his second draw. If he announces what he's going to do, you could even interrupt ("in response"), shortening his shortcut.

Your opponent should have chosen to untap Nettle Sentinel before drawing his second card (the card drawn when Elvish Visionary entered the battle field). Normally, out-of-order sequencing would allow actions like this.
However, You could argue that he missed the trigger due to the fact that he received extra information that influenced his decision to untap by drawing the second card

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely
  gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later
  in that sequence.

http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF2.pdf


text:
How does Valakut trigger with a card like Harrow or Scapeshift putting multiple mountains into play?
Valakut, The Molten Pinnacle has an effect that triggers when mountains enter the battlefield.

When a mountain enters the battlefield, if you control 5 or more other mountains, Valakut deals 3 damage to target creature or player.

If a player has for example 4 mountains and 3 forests in play, and casts a spell such as Harrow, sacrificing a forest to fetch 2 mountains, bringing the total count up to 6, does Valakut trigger?
How does this work with a card like Scapeshift, which would allow you to sacrifice all of your lands and fetch a valakut and 6 mountains?

Valakut, The molten Pinaccle's trigger uses an "intervening if" clause to control the trigger. this means that the condition of triggering is checked both when the trigger condition is met (when a mountain is played, check if there are 5 other mountains) and when the trigger resolves (if there are still 5 other mountains when the trigger resolves, nothing happens)
If at either point there are not 5 other mountains in play, then the trigger does nothing. this gives opponents an opportunity to destroy some of your mountains to prevent the trigger from dealing them any damage.
With regard to the actual question, in the situation where multiple lands are put onto the battlefield at once - 2 by harrow, and as many as are sacrificed in scapeshift - the situation is always resolved in the same way.
All the mountains finish entering the battlefield before any of the mountains have an opportunity to "trigger" valakut's ability. When the mountain enters the battlefield as part of a spell, valakut "remembers" to trigger its ability the next time a player would get priority, after state based actions are checked. by this point, all of the other mountains (and all of the other triggers) are also on the battlefield and queued up ready to trigger.
This means that when you put any number of mountains onto the battlefield at once through a spell or ability, as long as there are 5 other mountains on the battlefield when you are finished, all mountains put onto the battlefield that way will trigger valakut's ability and deal 3 damage.
in the specific examples,
Harrow will put 2 mountains onto the battlefield as it resolves, when the valakut triggers are checked each mountain's trigger acknowledges there are 5 other mountains and is put onto the stack (and targets for each are chosen). When they come to resolve, providing there are still 5 other mountains left on the battlefield, they will deal damage to the chosen targets totalling 6 damage in 2 triggers.
Scapeshift sacrificing 7 lands to find 1 Valakut and 6 mountains - in this situation all 6 mountains and Valakut enter at the same time, but the resolution is still the same, each mountain waits to trigger Valakut the next time a player would get priority, sees 5 other mountains on the battlefield at that point, and thus 6 triggers are put onto the stack. These 6 triggers then resolve, and providing there are still 5 other mountains, they all resolve and deal damage to their targets, totalling 18 damage in 6 triggers.

authors: ابوالفرج المشرع


text:
Hypergenesis and Triggered abilities
If an opponent casts (or cascades into) Hypergenesis, starting with the caster each player takes it in turns to put a Creature, Artifact, Land or Enchantment onto the Battlefield. This can be repeated any number of times, and as a result potentially lead to some confusion.
1) I put an Emrakul, the Aeons Torn onto the battlefield, my opponent puts an Oblivion Ring onto the battlefield. Next, I put a Griselbrand onto the Battlefield, my opponent puts a Detention Sphere onto the battlefield. Finally, I put an Iona, Shield of Emeria onto the battlefield, My opponent puts an Island onto the battlefield. Can my opponent exile my Iona?
2) I put a Goblin Matron onto the battlefield, can I fetch a Goblin Ringleader and put that onto the battlefield in the next round of Hypergenesis?

When an ability triggers, all the game does is make a note of it. The triggered ability is only placed on the stack the next time a player would get priority. This is only after Hypergenesis has finished resolving.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. [...]

So 1) yes, and 2) no.

yes.
no.

From the Rulings sections on gatherer:Hypergenesis

Anything that triggers during the resolution of this will wait to be
  put on the stack until everything is put onto the battlefield and
  resolution is complete. The player whose turn it is will put all of
  his or her triggered abilities on the stack in any order, then each
  other player in turn order will do the same. (The last ability put on
  the stack will be the first one that resolves.)


text:
How does casting a card for its miracle cost interact with cost modifying abilities?
If I reveal and cast a miracle like Temporal Mastery, Bonfire of the Damned or Entreat the Angels, When I am choosing a value for X, must it take into account effects like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or Council of the Absolute?
e.g. If I tap 6 mana to Miracle cast Entreat the Angels whilst Council of the Absolute is in play (naming Entreat the Angels), is X 4, or is X 6? Similarly, if I miracle Temporal Mastery under the same circumstances, does it cost only a single Blue mana?

This question actually does not have anything to do with the miracle cost. It is more about X mana costs and cost modifiers.

No, it does because he's asking about the alternative cost that Miracle provides.

But the alternative cost that miracle provides is still a cost. The question is more about if 'cost 2 less to play' affects x. It could also be asked of Fireball or any other X casting cost spell.

Hmm, I guess he could be asking about either one, really... Miracle provides an alternative cost, so there's a question about how alternative costs interact with additional costs... but there's also a question about how additional costs interact with X costs... hopefully my answer answers both...

I know the costs affect X, i am asking entirely about whether that type of effect still effects miracles. I will edit to clarify

Yes, the cost is still increased or decreased. For your example, X would be 6, because Entreat the Angels for x=6 only costs you 6.

117.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

117.9a Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it’s being cast. The controller of the spell announces his or her intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.
117.9b Alternative costs are always optional.
117.9c An alternative cost doesn’t change a spell’s mana cost, only what its controller has to pay to cast it. Spells and abilities that ask for that spell’s mana cost still see the original value.
117.9d If an alternative cost is being paid to cast a spell, any additional costs, cost increases, and cost reductions that affect that spell are applied to that alternative cost. (See rule 601.2e.)

Note that you don't pay whatever mana you want, and then calculate what X is, though.. it's the other way around. You choose an X, and then pay that cost. In your example, you can choose X=6, which would normally cost you 8, but it is reduced to 6.

107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an , [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.

You should add a mention of rule 107.3 the x casting cost rules. 107.3a It is the support for your last sentence.

Yes, cost increases and cost reductions apply. (And so do additional costs.)
"X" is whatever you chose, so 6. It doesn't change after you choose it.
Yes, it will cost {U}.

The cost to cast a spell (as defined in [CR 601.2e]) is:

total cost
= mana cost or alternative cost + additional costs and cost increases - cost reductions

Keep in mind that

Miracle is an alternative cost [CR 702.92a, 117.9].
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben creates a cost increase.
Council of the Absolute creates a cost reduction.

Finally, "X" is a value you choose [CR 107.3a]. The cost may be based on the value of X, but X is not based on what you payed.

If you cast Entreat the Angels for its Miracle cost while you control a Council of the Absolute naming Entreat the Angels, and you choose X=6, you must pay
total cost
= mana cost or alternative cost + additional costs and cost increases - cost reductions
= {6}{W}{W} - {2}
= {4}{W}{W}
X doesn't change after you choose it, so it's 6.

If you cast Temporal Mastery while you control a Council of the Absolute naming Temporal Mastery, you must pay
total cost
= mana cost or alternative cost + additional costs and cost increases - cost reductions
= {1}{U} - {2}
= {U}

These are the rules noted above in case you're interested:
601.2e The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.
702.92a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.10). “Miracle [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it’s the first card you’ve drawn this turn. When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost.”
117.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.
107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.

Updated answer to improve layout and wording slightly.


text:
How does city in a bottle work?
If I cast City in a Bottle, what cards are affected? I remember hearing something about a rules change revoking the set symbol as a characteristic, meaning that cards like this would affect all cards first printed in the Arabian Nights set, is this correct?
I cant find anything in the rulings or on gatherer to that effect

Just looking at the card text on Gatherer seems to make it pretty clear.

@bwarner it did to me too, which is why i asked, because i had heard differently (as Lyrion has pointed out for us, gatherer is just out of date currently)

I meant that the Oracle text specifically says "Cards that were originally printed in Arabian Nights".

@Rawrgramming I did have to do some searching but Bwarner is slightly right aswell, under cardtext in gatherer it says: "Players can't play cards originally printed in the Arabian Nights expansion." Which is the new rule, only the rulings haven't been updated yet.

good point, I didn't notice that. The rulings do directly contradict the oracle text though, so I  doubt I would be the only one scratching their head as to what to believe following a gatherer visit.

According to the rule 109.3 which states:

109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype,  supertype, rules text, abilities,
  power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects
  can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information
  about an object isn’t a  characteristic. For example, characteristics
  don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s  target, an
  object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.

Which means that the expansions symbol on the card is no longer a characteristic.
This might explain it more: https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/255c&page=3

109.3
Expansion symbols are no longer a characteristic. Magic cards are
  recognized as individual game pieces by their English card names. One
  of the central tenets of that system is that all cards with the same
  name are considered the same for deck building and play purposes. This
  system lets us reprint cards, print promo cards, and have cards appear
  in many languages. But three older cards referred to cards from a
  specific expansion, and that runs contrary to the system. The Arabian
  Nights Bird Maiden and the Fourth Edition version should be the same,
  but City in a Bottle says they're not. In fact, it makes the original
  version worse!
So, cards will no longer refer to expansion symbol as a
  characteristic. The three cards that used to do this (City in a
  Bottle, Golgothian Sylex, and Apocalypse Chime) will receive errata in
  a future update to refer to cards "originally printed" in the Arabian
  Nights, Antiquities, and Homelands sets, respectively). This means
  that City in a Bottle no longer affects any cards named Mountain. It
  also means that those three cards can affect cards that were in the
  appropriate set and then reprinted. City in a Bottle will affect the
  aforementioned Fourth Edition Bird Maiden.

These are the oracle rulings regarding City in a Bottle, found on its Gatherer page:

Token creatures and counters created by Arabian Nights cards are not removed.
City in a Bottle only affects cards with the Arabian Nights scimitar symbol on them, or permanents that are copies of those cards. It does not affect reprints of cards that originally came from the Arabian Nights expansion.

That second ruling is no longer valid. The Oracle text has changed. See Lyrion's answer.


text:
What happens with palace guard and other blockers?
Suppose my opponent attacks with 2 grizzly bears and I control 2 palace guard. I am on 1 life and must block both creatures to survive. I elect to block both creatures with both my palace guard.
In this situation, my assumption is that both the attacker and blockers must assign a damage order for their creatures, however this is confusing as each player can potentially choose a different order. I am at a loss as to what happens in that situation.
How are combatants ordered in this situation, and do player decisions have any significant impact on the outcome?

The damage is dealt simultainously unless someone has first strike. In your case, your opponent will probably choose to assign 4 dmg to your palace guard and 2 to your grizzly bear. You'll probably assign all yoru dmg to a single bear of his, if you dont have any tricks in hand. I cant see any "order assigning" here.

the damage is dealt simultaneously but assigned according to a chosen order by the controller of each creature, I will try and modify the example to make a little more sense.

I have updated the example - they now have to choose what they are killing by explicitly ordering the blockers. this should clarify the question slightly. I recognize that there are very few (possibly none, hence the question) situations where this could matter or even occur, but I would like to have clarity on it

http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/12107/can-i-pump-my-blocker-after-the-attacker-has-chosen-their-order-before-damage-a?rq=1 this question seems to have the answer you are looking for, attacking creatures assign order before blocking creatures assign order.

what is double block?

double block is blocking one creature with 2 creatures, e.g. blocking a Centaur with 2 Grizzly Bears allows you to trade up one of your Grizzly Bears for their centaur. I have updated the question to remove this as it is slightly obscure terminology.

@Nick, possibly, they are both on the same subject matter and that question certainly covers a lot of the same ground, I was just wondering whether creatures having different damage assignment orders could impact the result of combat. I think this does qualify as a separate question, as the previous one was about whether casting spells between the ordering of blockers and the damage step was possible, and someone searching for an answer to this question (as I did) would not find that question, or the answers that can be inferred from it.

If I understand the question fully, I think a better example would be 2 Palace Guards both double-blocking 2 attacking creatures. The key there is that you don't just order the attacking creatures for the whole attack; rather you order them for Palace Guard 1, then you order them for Palace Guard 2, and you can choose a different order for each. And with certain attacking creatures, ordering them differently for each could matter.

Ahh in my circle we call it 'gang blocking' when more than one creature is assigned to block another.

@Gendolkari i will update according to your suggestion, its very much a corner case so its a bit difficult to figure out the best example.

@Rawrgramming, I'm updating my answer according to your update.

For each blocking creature, you choose the order of the creatures that it is assigning damage to. So, for your palace guards, you have 4 total options:

Palace Guard 1 and Palace Guard 2 both assign damage to Bear 1 first.
Palace Guard 1 and Palace Guard 2 both assign damage to Bear 2 first.
Palace Guard 1 assigns damage to Bear 1 first, Palace Guard 2 assigns damage to Bear 2 first.
Palace Guard 1 assigns damage to Bear 2 first, Palace Guard 2 assigns damage to Bear 1 first.

If you choose either #1 or #2, you will do 2 damage to 1 Bear and kill it, while not touching the other Bear. If you choose #3 or #4, you will do 1 damage to each Bear, and not kill anything.
Also, for each attacking creature Your opponent gets to choose the order that your blocking creatures will take damage, so he also has 4 total choice:

Bear 1 and Bear 2 both assign damage to Palace Guard 1 first.
Bear 1 and Bear 2 both assign damage to Palace Guard 2 first.
Bear 1 assigns damage to Palace Guard 1 first, Bear 2 assigns damage to Palace Guard 2 first.
Bear 1 assigns damage to Palace Guard 2 first, Bear 2 assigns damage to Palace Guard 1 first.

Similar to your choices, if he chooses #1 or #2, he will deal 4 damage to 1 Palace Guard and kill it; if he chooses #3 or #4, he will deal 2 damage to each Palace Guard and won't kill anything.

509.2. Second, for each attacking creature that’s become blocked, the active player announces that
  creature’s damage assignment order, which consists of the creatures blocking it in an order of that
  player’s choice
509.3. Third, for each blocking creature, the defending player announces that creature’s damage
  assignment order, which consists of the creatures it’s blocking in an order of that player’s choice.

The key here is that players get to choose separately how each attacking creature (and each blocking creature) orders/assigns its damage.

And the next sentence needs to be fixed as well. "...Bear. If you choose #3 or #4, you will do 2 damage to each Bear, and not kill anything." They would only deal 1 damage each.

it would make more sense also if you took the 'first' out of most of those sentences since the damage is all dealt at once. You would assign it all at the same time as well and there is no real order required, just if damage is assigned to 1 bear or the other.

@pow-lan, the damage is dealt simultaneously, but I meant first in terms of order of assignment. I updated the second half to match the first half, where it says "assigns". You do assign damage to 1 before the other as in the order of assignment, because you will only deal damage to the second assigned one if it deals lethal damage to the first assigned one. So there is a first and a second one, just not when damage is actually dealt.

fair enough. In this instance though if you split the assignment among the two creatures, it is irrelevant because there is no chance for lethal damage.

Since these are pairs of identical creatures, this would be much clearer if you just said two options: they hit the same one, or they hit different ones.

I thought about that; as there are only 2 meaningful options. But the fact is that they are separate creatures; if you have no creatures other than 2 Bears on the field, and you are forced to sacrifice a creature, you still have a choice to make. Just not a meaningful one. And listing all 4 options makes it easier to extrapolate to the case where there are different types of creatures attacking.

@GendoIkari I still think that if you say "both hit one of the bears", you've obviously picked one, and that one took two damage. Not really any harder to extrapolate, and definitely simpler in this case.


text:
Limits to cities of a given resource in Antike Duellum?
In a current game on Yucata.de (http://www.yucata.de/en/Game/CasusBelli/4606422), both my opponent and I have tried to build gold producing cities and failed. We have a total of 10 gold cities on the board, which doesn't seem like it would trigger a limit and we can't find anything about it in the rules (http://www.yucata.de/en/Rules/CasusBelli). Is there a limit to the cities you can found to produce each resource?
The rules on Yucata state that when founding a city: "The player takes a city token out of the bank’s supply (marble, iron, or gold), and puts it at the place of the newly founded city on the board." It doesn't say anything about limits on these city tokens.

The Yucata rules state (emphasis mine)

The game material comes in limited quantity. If a player has no more
  legions or galleys, or if the bank has no more city tokens or temples,
  the supply is empty. Only resource chips are unlimited.
24 galleys (12 per player color brown and beige)
24 legions (12 per player color brown and beige)
12 temples (white)
10 gold-cities
12 marble-cities
12 iron-cities
12 Town Walls

There are 10 Gold cities, 12 Marble and 12 Iron cities in the physical game.  These tiles are all double sided to mark which player owns them.  So 10 Gold cities is the maximum limit.