text:
Is bidding in contract bridge just a matter of applying a set of rules?
Some years ago I tried to learn to play contract bridge with some friends and I never really understood the philosophy (for want of a better word) of bidding.  It seemed as if we just had to learn a set of rules and apply them - e.g. if you have N points and a balanced hand, open with [whatever], if you're responding to your partner's bid of [whatever] do [something depending on your hand], etc.  It was some effort to learn even the basic set of these rules, and it appeared (at the very basic level we were playing) as if the whole bidding process could have been done perfectly by an algorithm running on a computer (or your phone :))
As I understand it, in bridge competitions one is obliged to disclose which conventions you and your partner use, which also suggests to me that the intention is that your bids are an open and deterministic description of your hand.
So, with apologies for my naivety, my question is really where the skill lies in bidding well?  Or to what extent is the interest largely later on in the game, when applying what was learned through the bidding in playing the hand?

Wikipedia says that any bridge bidding system is a well-defined form of legal table talk:

Each bidding system ascribes a meaning to every possible call by each member of a partnership, and presents a codified language which allows the players to exchange information about their card holdings.

That would seem to imply that there is no skill involved at all, but I think there's more to it than that.  I used to be a casual reader of the bridge quizzes printed in our newspaper.  They would tell stories of bridge tournaments where every table played the same hand, and different tables would arrive at slightly different contracts.  As the commenters have pointed out, there is some flexibility within the bidding system.  It's not an exact algorithm.  While everyone knows what your bid theoretically means in the context of your hand, you and partner still need to use that knowledge effectively to arrive at the most profitable contract.  The skill, therefore, is in correctly choosing the next bid, not in decoding the bids or deceiving your opponents.

+1. The point of the codified bidding is to provide your partner with as much information as possible in a limited space... but the space is very limited.  The 'algorithm' sometimes gives you several reasonable choices for next bid, depending on whether your and your partner's points are at the low / high end of the given bids... and which you choose decides what information your partner will have when play comes.

Thanks for the answer, @Kristo, and the helpful followup comment, @Tynam - I think the problem was that at the stage I got to in learning I didn't notice situations where there might be more than one possible next bid according to the bidding system.  @Kristo: you imply this in your answer, but perhaps you could edit it to make it more explicit that bidding systems typically don't specify a unique next bid?

I would suggest that, after the opening bid, most bids are open to a certain amount of "artistic licence"; certainly there are very few hands that have an objectively correct interpretation, in any bidding system.  The scoreline is also relevant: what might be a correct bid if you need a slam to win the match might be a terrible bid if you need a partscore.  (Assuming we're not playing duplicate of course.)  I remember my own bidding style fluctuating based on whether my partner was an aggressive or cautious bidder!  And there are many other possible factors...

@Mark, I've edited my answer slightly to try to roll in what you guys have suggested.

you're talking about duplicate bridge: my grandmother used to play in tournaments like that quite a lot. The idea was that playing identical hands took much of the luck out of the tournament, and usually the best players would have better results. As you say, it's really more about accurately estimating the best contract you and your partner can make, the best contract your opponents might make, and either approaching the former or disrupting the latter (or both).

I know I am a bit late, but there is a lot more to Bidding than just applying a set of rules.
There is this aspect of bidding called 'judgement' which does not depend on the bidding system you use, and this is where the skill and experience of better players shows. In fact, top players would claim that the system is immaterial (implying that it is judgement which is paramount). If I remember correctly, Bob Hamman once quoted that System is 3% of the game. When asked about this quote, he said, "Did I say that much?".
Here are some examples where you need to apply your judgement

Deciding what to open:
Example: playing a standard American system and holding Kx, AKxx, Qxxxx, Kx. Most experts would open 1NT with this, even though 1NT shows a 'balanced' hand which this is not. The reason being that it becomes harder to handle in later bidding. What would you rebid if partner responds 1S?
Deciding where to pass/invite/bid game.
Example: You hold AKxxx, x, AQTxx, xx. You bid 1S and partner raises to 2S, showing 6-9 points. Even though you only hold 19-22 points and you normally need 26 points for game, you ought to bid game (4S) here. (Some systems try to account for this by adding points for shortness).
Deciding the right suit to play in.
Example, you hold xxx, Kxxx, Kxxx, Kx. Partner opens 1S showing 5+ spades, you raise to 2S and partner now bids 3H. Showing 4 or more hearts and inviting to game. You should bid 4H here. One, you accept the invite and two, a 4-4 fit usually plays better than an 5-3 fit.

Many times, you actually need to imagine how the play might go during the bidding itself (this is especially true when deciding whether to bid slam or not) and the rules don't help you much there. Then, there is skill in deciding whether to sacrifice over opponents contract, etc.
More evidence of this are the complaints most people have on BBO (an online site to play bridge) regarding the bidding by GIB, the robot. It should be easy for a computer to apply a set of rules...
So in short, No. :-)

Thanks for your answer - it's nice to see some examples (and the mention of a real life bidding robot :))

It is easy for a computer to apply a set of rules! The problem is that you have to specify the entire set of rules, complete with defaults and precedence ... and if you could specify the entire set of rules accurately, you wouldn't need a computer to do it. :)

@Dave: True, one major problem is to precisely define every possible sequence. But, even the opening bids by GIB can sometimes be crazy (or not what a human would do). Rules for opening bids should be simple to code in I suppose.

I think it's the exceptions more than the rules that cause problems. It's trivial to count up high-card points; the challenges come when you start talking about part scores and fourth hand and such, and I think that gets back to your original point: bidding is more than just rules, and it's important to learn exceptions and reasons behind them as well.

@Dave: Multiple rules could apply at the same time and there need not be a fixed precedence order which will work everytime. And as the bidding sequence gets a bit complex, this becomes even more pronounced. I guess that is another way of saying it is hard to know when not to apply a rule (i.e. exceptions)...

Yes, bidding was difficult for me to get my head around, at first, too.  I liked the idea of sharing a system with my partner - but intuitively it seemed as if this should be secret information, to be kept from the opponents, to hopefully confound and overwhelm them.  The fact that, if your opponents ask you "what did your partner's bid mean?", you are obliged to answer them honestly was initially alien.
Having said that: it's only your system that has to be revealed to your opponents.  If they ask you "what did your partner's bid mean?", all you need to disclose is what partner's bid ought to mean, according to your system.  If your partner is getting a little bit creative with his bidding, based on the complexities of a particular hand... well, there's no realistic way to keep the opponents informed of that.  As a friend of mine was very fond of saying: "If you lie to one partner and two opponents, you've made a profit on the deal."
So fundamentally I don't see any problem with bidding systems being open information.  There  would be no glory in beating your opponents because they doubled you assuming your no trump bid was weak, when in reality it was strong.  You have to work pretty hard to outsmart your opponents during the bidding sequence, which makes it all the sweeter when you manage to do it!  But in the end, the actual play is more important, and that's where the opportunities to be deceitful (through falsecarding and such) really shine.

+1 Thanks for the very interesting answer.  I didn't realize that in tournaments one could ask about the meaning of bids as you go along!

While you have to disclose your system to the opposition there is certainly skill in designing bids and systems in the first place, which of course any partnership is free to do.
the bidding space forms a fixed code-space in which you would like to communicate much more than you can, so there are trade-offs. Every conventional bid you add replaces a natural bid so the trick is to replace 'boring bids' with conventions which give you extra help in e.g. finding slams or games, as they are weighted much more than getting part games in the scoring.
Another thing to bear in mind is that your opponents aren't necessarily just going to sit there and let you bid to slam uninterrupted. There are numerous conventions for disrupting opponents bidding while not risking too much. The bidding space is potentially even more limited when your opponents bid as well.


text:
Is there a good casual online place to practice/learn bridge?
I know that Pogo.com (which powers Yahoo Games) has a long running online bridge game and that there are a handful of places for serious tournament/MasterPoint level bridge players online (though most seem based on software written a decade or more ago) but are there any places to play, practice and learn bridge in a more casual manner? Ideally via a well designed modern piece of software?

If you are looking for free online site, I would strongly recommend BridgeBase Online, or BBO for short.
You can create an account by just specifying a username and password and either login using the web browser or using their downloadable windows version of the software.
BBO has a lot of features, like partnership bidding rooms, GIB robots (which you have to pay a minimal fee, if you want to use them), tons of free tournaments. They also have two 'clubs', the Main Bridge Club and Relaxed Bridge Club, where you can play casual games (the Relaxed Club being more casual). Anytime I have logged on, there were at least 3000 players online!
There is also the added bonus that a lot of great players play there (look for some of the 'stars') and they have an excellent broadcast line up of high level bridge tournaments, with commentators giving insights, etc.
They also have a supporting forum where a lot of good players visit and you can discuss bridge/the BBO software/ or even Global Warming!

I have played at BBO with some frequency, mostly in their sanctioned ACBL "tournaments" which are basically online equivalents of club games. Those cost a small fee, but much o BBO is free. I often use BBO to practice with a new partner before going to a serious event.

I have set up a website to practice card play: akqbridge.com

It seems that your only reason for posting is to proselytize.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
In Bridge, Which Forms of Deception Are Ethical? Does This Include "Moodying?"
Playing in a casual game of bridge, holding JTx of trumps, I "falsecarded" on the second trump lead with the J. Believing that he had drawn them, declarer stopped leading trumps.
Later, I trumped one of his tricks with the T. Declarer protested, saying that I should have followed "in sequence." My partner agreed with him, but dummy just said sagely "My partner forgot to count trumps."
I wasn't "wrong" was I, even though I was "deceptive"?
But I've been told that there are limits. For instance, is "moodying" allowed (act strong when weak, act weak when strong) even though this is a critical element of say, poker?

Seems like declarer is trying to shift the burden of his incompetency onto you :-) Well done fooling the declarer with this legitimate play! Of course, against most declarers, this would not work.

Any player moodying as my partner has just played his last session with me; I will call the director myself on second occurrence in the session (there won't be a second session ) to protect my own reputation. Any player moodying as my opponent is likely to lose his shirt.  However false-carding is part of the art of the game; and one played in tempo that fools the opponent is a good one.

"Deception" is a weird concept in bridge.  Just like in every game, there are forms that are ethical and forms that are not.
Falsecarding, as in your example, is perfectly fine.  Your opponent failed to count trumps correctly, and paid the price.  A similar, and perfectly valid strategy, is to play a high card instead of a low card when losing a trick as declarer to make the opponents think that you are now void in the suit, hoping that they will switch to a different suit.
"Moodying" is more of a gray area, and should probably be avoided.  Granted, any information that your opponents take from your tells is at their own peril, but if your partner could use any information that your tell gives away to his and your benefit, then your opponents could rightfully claim to have been wronged.
Very broadly speaking, deception is OK as long as you are deceiving everyone at the table, partner included.

That helps with my "5" card major question, where partner is not deceived by opponents might be. But I strongly believe in the "figurative" over the "literal" truth, and will not only fill out the card, but explain why, as I have to you. Have I made myself understood?

I think so.  As long as you make your philosophy available for public knowledge, no one can have any qualms if you put down a four card major after opening it.

You should really add to your answer that it is NOT OKAY to deceive opponents through e.g. fake hesitation when you have a singleton.

Any deception by use of a bid or card played is legal. Any intentional (meaning "on purpose") deception by your tempo manner or countenance is not ethical. Bridge is not poker. It is best to be emotionally detached in your countenance and keep your tempo even.  Do not pause to think unless there is something to think about. Do not show pleasure or displeasure at your partners or opponents plays or bids. This is very difficult to do. Try to control your tempo and emotions. If you lose control, at the very least your pauses and emotions should be genuine not contrived. All emotions, mannerisms, and variations in tempo and what they imply are unauthorized information to your partner.  An ethical partner will not only ignore these but should bend over backwards to make it clear to opponents that it did not influence his play.  He will generally choose an option not cued by such unauthorized information if he has reasonable choices between continuations.
A Bid that grossly misrepresents the strength or distribution of suits you hold is called a psych.  While use of these bids are technically legal and they do occasionally happen, psychs are strongly discouraged.  This is because the use of such bids usually create a pattern which is more familiar to your partner than your opponents creating a sort of secret agreement.  All agreements should be available to your opponents and it is not ethical to play systems your opponents do not understand without full disclosure.

I don't see anything deceitful or unethical in your play.  The important thing is that your play fooled your partner as much as your opponent(s) - obviously, in this case, as your partner was angry that you stepped outside of your system!
I believe that your opponent was  perfectly entitled to ask your partner about your system - does your partner's play here usually imply that he is now out of trumps?  And your partner should answer honestly.  The only "unethical" behaviour would be if you had some kind of prearranged system where, let's say just for the sake of bizarre argument, you always drop your highest trump under the opponents' first round of drawing trumps.  If you knew this to be the case but lied about it when questioned by your opponents, that simply wouldn't be on.
Bridge would be a much poorer game without deception!  But it can never be a carefully planned deception between a partnership - it must always be purely improvised in the course of the game, without communication with one's partner.

This was a "new" partner. Actually, I was a "stand-in" for someone with left the room to "use the facilities." Maybe they all had an understanding I wasn't aware of. But dummy thought it was HIS partner's fault.

If you and partner don't really have a well-defined system, then on the one hand, they're quite likely to get angry at you if you go too wild with your improvisations.  On the other hand, you can get away with all kinds of fun stuff: you can't be held responsible for not sticking to your system, if you don't have one!  Which is why, sometimes, too much of a system can be a curse.  Do you really want to let two opponents know exactly what your hand looks like, just so one single partner is clear about that too?

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

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


text:
What is (Larry Cohen's) the "Law of Total Tricks" In Bridge?
Based on my (imperfect) understanding of the "law," it means that my partnership should bid up to the same level as the number of trumps. For instance, with four trumps over my partner's five card major, I could raise his bid to three.
But I was taught to use a combination of trumps and points. Thus, we'd want to bid four spades with 26 points and eight trumps, or with 23 points and nine trumps, or with 20 points and ten trumps. So why the "law?'
Apparently, the opponents' (theoretical) trump suit also figures into this equation. How do I count for their "trumps?" And once I've done so, how do I combine their trumps and mine into a "law" calculation? Why would I do this anyway?

Law of total tricks is an empirical law which states the following:

If opponents play the contract with their best suit (with A cards) as trumps, and they can make x tricks, and you play the contract in your best suit (with B cards) as trumps and you can make y tricks, then A + B = x + y.

This was first proposed by Jean-Rene Vernes in a bridge world article and made popular by Larry Cohen in his book: "To Bid or not to Bid: The Law of Total Tricks."
The purpose of the law is to decide whether to play or defend and the level to play, when both sides are bidding, i.e. it is more useful in competitive auctions.  Trying to apply it in constructive auctions (where opponents haven't bid) does not make much sense. (Of course, when you are raising partner with a weak hand, as a preempt, you are kind of using the law in advance).
As a simple example: Say you hold xx, Kxxx, QJx, Txxx, playing IMPS, non-vul.
Suppose partner opens 1 Heart (showing 5+ cards), RHO overcalls 1 Spade. You bid 2 Hearts and LHO bids 2S, which is passed around to you.
Now assuming opponents have 8 spades between them, if you assume the law, then there are 8+9 = 17 total tricks.

Now suppose 2S is making exactly. Then by the law, it means you can make 3H.
Now suppose 2S is making 9 tricks. Then by the law, 3H is at most down 1.
Now suppose 2S is down 1. Then by the law, you make 10 tricks in hearts!

In all cases, you are better off bidding 3H (even if doubled, non-vul) as opposed to letting them play in 2S.
Of course the law is based on empirical evidence, and there are many adjustments that need to be made, which you can find in Larry Cohen's book.
On the flip-side, there is a book by Mike Lawrence: I Fought the Law of Total Tricks which says that the law might actually not be as useful as people think.

My sensse is that the "law" is basically pretty good. Now there are some "extreme" versions of it like the Bergen raises (of his partner, Marty Bergen), raise to 3 with NO HCP. That's where I, (and probably Lawrence), might have a few problems. Everything in moderation, right?

@Tom: Well, I haven't read the book, but I am guessing Lawrence has a good statistical analysis to back up his claims and objections are not just some cases, but probably at a more fundamental level.

Here is a case where using the law in advance is helpful! Since you bid 2H to begin with, LHO was able to bid 2S safely; now both opponents know they share an 8-card fit, and if RHO has 6 spades they can profitably bid 3S over your 3H. If you had bid 3H at your first opportunity, you and your partner both know about a 9-card fit, and your RHO doesn't know about the spade fit. If LHO doesn't have 4 spades, they can't afford to bid 3S, and if RHO has 6 spades, they won't know about their partner's 3-card support and bid 3S.

@TomAu: I haven't read Lawrence's book (and I highly recommend Cohen's book). Some judgment is required, but raising to 3 with no HCP can be a reasonable call. Imagine this situation: Not vulnerable vs vulnerable, your partner has dealt and bid 1H. Your hand is void Txxx T9xxx xxx, and RHO has passed. Looking at your hand, it is extremely likely your opponents have a spade fit, and if they don't have game values then your partner has a 16-count or better. 3H is likely to play well in that situation, and 3H may be enough to keep opps out of their vulnerable spade game while not going down much.

@ruds: It depends on whether you judge your hand is preemptive (so you bid 3H over the 1S) or constructive (so bid 2H), and might reach a game/double opponents in 4S etc. The example hand I gave is borderline (because it has some defense), and would not argue with a 3H bid. In any case, it was just an example to demonstrate the usage of the law :-). In your example to Tom, you cannot bid 3H with that hand (which has 12 cards, btw), as that would show a limit raise in "standard", and you would need special agreements to have 1H - 3H be a preempt. I am guessing you play Bergen raises or similar.

@ruds: On the other hand, if you are suggesting playing 1H-3H as preemptive, there are no arguments there :-)

@Aryabhata: Oops, hand should have been void Txxx T9xxx xxxx. In other comments I've been writing 14-card hands, so I guess I overcompensated :).
I was responding to TomAu's comment about preemptive 1H-3H, so I took it as read that we weren't talking about pure standard. In fact I do play Bergen raises with preemptive jump-raises in the majors with most partners, but that didn't enter into this comment :)

@ruds: Oh! Sorry, overlooked Tom's comment!

You're using a corollary to the LoTT, not the Law itself (very nicely explained by Aryabhata).  The corollary says:

it is usually right to compete to the level equal to your trump fit. [2 level with 8 trumps, 3 level with 9, 4 level with 10]

The math is pretty extensive, and it's all in Larry's books, but you don't have to care. Sure, there are adjustments, sure there are auctions where the length of the opponents' fit isn't confirmed, sure there are auctions where they're not playing in their best fit; if you know all of that, great, use it!  But if you don't, competing to the level of your fit will be right more often than not.
Note, though, the word "compete".  With game-going values, don't stop in 2 just because you only have a 4=4 or 5=3 major fit (obviously). With enough for slam, same deal.  But on the hands where both sides have somewhere between 16 and 24 HCP, and they can both reasonably be in the auction, blindly accepting the push to the Law level (and giving up after) is no worse than reasonable.
Larry Cohen's partner at the time he was writing his books on the LoTT was Marty Bergen, and he was a proponent of pushing the opponents around a lot, and using the Law to determine "safety".  From him, we get:

Bergen raises: "if we have 9 trumps, get to the 3 level before the opponents get a chance to say anything and we might win the competitive auction before it starts."
definitely "preemptive raises in competition" - 1H-X-3H on "nothing and 4 hearts"; again, trying to win the competitive battle before the opponents can show their suits.
Law-safe raises of weak 2s and preempts (partner opens 2H, you raise to 3 with effectively any hand with 3 hearts, because 6+3=9).  Note that the Bergen-Cohen partnership played this differently, preempting effectively one card lighter (and with much weaker suits) than standard, "expecting" 3-card support from partner.  Don't try this if you can't play like Bergen or Cohen!
when they've found an 8-card fit, try very hard to not let them play at the 2 level.  Larry once said on vugraph, "I'd rather be -1100 than -110"; because much more often than not, especially at matchpoint scoring, there's a better score for you somewhere else.  Sure. sometimes, you're hooped, and you go for sticks and wheels.  Apologize to partner, and get 'em next time.

All this is common to the point of being elementary now, but was revolutionary in the 1980s.
Finally, note that the LoTT degrades the higher the trick count.  When both sides have 10-card fits, the chance total tricks is exactly 20 (or even one trick away) is much lower than when total trumps are 16, 17, or 18 (the most common cases).


text:
Does a Takeout Double Apply to a "Passed" Partner?
Using Standard American my left hand opponent bid one heart. Partner passed. Right hand opponent raised to two hearts. I was in the "balancing" (fourth) seat and held:
(s) Axxx (h) x (d) KJxx (c) Axxx, doubling for takeout.
Partner passed me for "penalty" with Axxx in the suit, and the opponents made 2H, which (doubled) amounted to game.
I said that I expected a (competing) bid. Partner claimed that her original pass was a "bid" and therefore would not have "taken out" the double in any event. She was pleased to pass for penalty, but expected me to have something like Qxx, in which case we WOULD have set the opponents.
I always thought a double was for takeout until partner bid. And that partner couldn't pass except in very limited circumstances. Does Axxx in the opponent's suit represent enough "defense" to pass? Or does the previous pass justify the later one?

Related meta question - http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/476/questions-about-specific-bridge-hands

@LittleBobbyTables: A number of my problems have been due to my techphobia. For instance, you (rightly) deleted my first answer because I "clicked" on the wrong question (I had been meaning to answer another question.) Until two days ago, I couldn't vote, because I couldn't register, because I didn't know what a URL is. Sometimes, I have access to something, lose it, and can't regain it, except by trial and error. I'm just learning my way around these functions, are not totally familiar or comfortable with them, and hope to "get better" as time goes on.

@LittleBobbyTables: Please let me ask you something: If I get two good answers, am I allowed to upvote them both? Or just one? Am I allowed to accept more than one answer? It's questions like these that I am wrestling with. I did offer a bounty, because that's one thing I'm sure I know how to do. The "skewness" is in my "abilities," not the questions on the site.

You can upvote any answer that you find to be valuable, on your own questions or any other. Encouraging the best answers is what makes the site work well!

As lil said, you can and should upvote as many answers as you find useful, both to your own questions and to other's questions.  You can only accept one answer though, and only on your own questions.  You should use this to indicate the answer that you think best addresses your question.  You can wait a few days to accept an answer, but you should eventually accept one unless you feel that your question was not answered.

I would definitely understand your double to be for takeout; and I would indeed expect partner's pass to be for penalties, based on confidence of taking down 2H.
That said, if you're that confident of taking down 2H, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be confident enough to compete in the auction.  And since, as it turned out, your partner didn't have enough defensive strength to justify his pass, I think you were right to be a little aggrieved on this occasion!

If you and your partner are playing standard takeout doubles, this double would certainly be for takeout.  The opponent's have not necessarily finished their bidding yet (the 1H bidder could still bid on), and you have not had a chance to bid before this.  Partner has passed, but you knew that and took that into consideration before you doubled.  Partner needs to trust you, and bid a suit that he has length in, or bid 2NT with the necessary stoppers and strength.  If he wants to pass, he does so at his own peril and should have a hand that can set 2H on his own nearly from the outset.
Given your options, the double is a good bid, and gives you the best chance of finding your best fit as cheaply as as possible.
One minor point: you really weren't balancing here.  "Balancing" refers to the person who, if they passed, would end the bidding.  Since LHO could have bid over the 2H if they had more strength, you were competing, not balancing.
(Edit: Expanded upon partner's responses)

@dpmattingly: OK, I wasn't "balancing" even though I was in the fourth seat because third seat had bid, right?

Correct, balancing is a bid made when a pass would end the auction.  You do sometimes hear about balancing refered to as a fourth-seat bid, but that refers to auctions which go 1X-Pass-Pass.

"... and bid a suit he has length in, regardless of his strength or his heart holding". This is not right. 2NT is always an option. With AKQJT of hearts, partner can choose to pass 2H doubled.

@Aryabhata 2NT is an option, yes.  Pass is an option as well, but it's going to have to be a hand that can nearly beat 2H by itself (and if he has AKQJT of hearts, one of the opponents has lied).

@Tom: Axxx of hearts is not a good enough defensive holding opposite a takeout doubler of hearts, to be passing the double. In fact, it is a very good offensive holding and partner should strive to bid instead of passing 2H doubled.

@dpm: Well, make it AKQJ of hearts. Clueless opps might raise on xx of hearts (or maybe playing 4 card majors and raising on xxx). The point is, that blanket statement is incorrect.

@aryabhata: Thanks. That's what I thought. I'll tell my partner you said it.

@dpmattingly: "One of the opponents has lied." That's almost, but not quite, true. If I have a void, opener could have xxxxx, and responder xxx in some systems. Now you understand why I ask these "pesky" questions about "too weak" five card majors and eight card fits.

@drew hoskins: I "pre-balanced" correctly above, right? Or did I?

The double is for takeout, because it was made at the doubler's first opportunity to confront the opposing heart bids.
A rough rule of thumb isthat in order to double (or convert a takeout double for penalties), the "doubler" (partner was this in effect) should have at least 13-n of the suit in which the bidder contracted for n tricks. That is, you need at least six to double a one bid, five to double a two bid, etc. The "passer" should have had at least five hearts and only had four. The (hypothetical) fifth heart should have been the K, and, giving the passer a holding of AKxxx, and in the event of six hearts, the second highest should be at least the 9, giving a potential second trump trick. With her actual holding, she should have taken out the double to avoid the "doubling into game," a disaster.

I would add that: (1) the trump length you describe is a minimum requirement rather than a sufficient one; and (2) In this circumstance where partner is making the opening lead, Partner must also have a trump holding such that leading it at trick 1 is unlikely to cost a defensive trick.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I added "at leasts" and minimum rank holdings to make it clear that these are minimum holdings.
"


text:
Which way to capture a queen?
This is a problem from today's New York Post.
You (South) are in a stretchy major suit contract with only 22 high card points. You have four top tricks outside the trump suit, and have just won a critical finesse in your hand by finessing to your king. This bypassed an ace in East, whose early play showed an A-Q and five cards in another suit, but did not open.
If East had as much as a queen more, he would have opened, so all other honors including the queen of trumps must be with west. With five (non-trump) tricks in hand, you need five trump tricks to make game. (There are no other trick taking possibilities in this problem, so focus only on this one assumption.)
You have AJ862. Dummy has K54. Opponents have QT973 between them, with the Q in West, for reasons discussed above.
There are two ways to capture the queen. One is to play for the drop. In the problem, West has Q7, so South makes his (optimistic) contract.
The other try is a "backward finesse." Lead the J of trumps from the South hand, and capture West's queen with the king in dummy (if West covers). Then lead back a low trump through East.
As the cards lie, the backward finesse fails, because you are leading through East's T9 to your A8 in hand. (It would have worked if West had Q9 or QT and East had T73 or 973.) But suppose the 8 were a higher cards, say 9 or T (and East's correspondingly lower). Would the backward finesse then have offered better chances for five trump tricks than the drop?

"It would have worked if West had Q9 or QT and East had T73 or 973."
I don't think that's the case; if they lie like that, East or West will win the T or 9, depending on whether you run the 8 or not. Laying out all the possibilities, I can see only one holding where the finesse succeeds against the correct defence
Q      T973    Fails
QT     973     Fails
Q9     T73     Fails
Q7     T93     Fails
Q3     T97     Fails
QT9    73      Fails
QT7    93      Fails
QT3    97      Fails
Q97    T3      Fails
Q93    T7      Fails
Q73    T9      Succeeds
Qxxx   x       Fails
Qxxxxx void    Fails

Turn the 8 into the T, and we have...
Q      9873    Fails
Q9     873     Succeeds
Q8     973     Succeeds
Q7     983     Succeeds
Q3     987     Succeeds
Q98    73      Succeeds
Q97    83      Succeeds
Q93    87      Succeeds
Q87    93      Succeeds
Q83    97      Succeeds
Q73    98      Succeeds
Qxxx   x       Fails
Qxxxxx void    Fails

What a difference those two pips make!
Give declarer the 9 instead of the 8...
Q      T873    Fails
QT     873     Succeeds
Q8     T73     Succeeds
Q7     T83     Succeeds
Q3     T87     Succeeds
QT8    73      Fails
QT7    93      Fails
QT3    87      Fails
Q87    T3      Succeeds
Q83    T7      Succeeds
Q73    T8      Succeeds
Qxxx   x       Fails
Qxxxxx void    Fails

although some of those successes rely on a clairvoyant knowledge of the distribution.
So my conclusion is, unless you have the ten, try to drop the queen.


text:
Is it legitimate/ethical to treat the same bid from different people in different ways?
I play in a bridge "round robin" using Chicago scoring, with three other people. Call them, A, B, and C, with three different styles.
A will open, say one spade with as few as ten high card points (HCP) and a 6-4 or 5-5 distribution, or 11 hcp and a 5-4 distribution using the "rule of 20." (The sum of hcp and length in the top two suits needs ot equal 20.)
B bids "Standard American."
C will never open with less than 13 hcp, sometimes passing with them, and needing 14.
Suppose I have 6 points as a responder. I will sometimes pass with A, unless I have something extra, like a fourth trump or a good sequence (KQ, or QJT), but bid with B. With C, I may shade my points down to 5 with "something extra."
In a tournament, when paired with A or C, I should disclose our unusual bidding practices, right?
But suppose I do this in a round robin when I will be partnered with A for four hands, B for four hands, and C for four hands, etc. Is this objectionable?

It is legitimate, as long you disclose the known tendencies to the opponents.
If you don't, it is similar to having undisclosed agreements.

In a tournament, I'd have to disclose. In a round robin, I'm assuming that A, B, and C "know, or ought to know" each others' tendencies.

@TomAu: "Know or ought to know" is not good enough reason to not disclose when relevant.

Do you mean that I should disclose each person's tendencies to them? Or my reactions to them?

@TomAu: I believe convention cards allow disclosure for some tendencies (like light openings, preempt style). If opponents ask, you have to reveal. If they don't ask, you might get away with it, a sad state of affairs.

I was referring to a situation in a club where three different people have different tendencies, I adjust my bids (within a point or two) to those tendencies, without telling my partner. That is, I don't tell A that I know he opens light, so I have an extra point when he responds, or C that I know he opens heavy, so I'll raise him with five points instead of six.

@TomAu: I guess that would probably be ok (like underbidding if you know partner plays the dummy horribly etc). As long as both of you are not "in on it" it should be fine I suppose.

On a practical note, When you adjust your bidding to compensate for your partner, you'll tend to encourage them to adopt an even more aggressive or conservative stance in their bidding over time, so in the long-term there's wisdom in bidding 'standard' and helping them see the downside from their 'non-standard' bidding! Although this is obviously difficult for playing with partners once-in-a-blue-moon in matches.
What is not OK, is for you to bid different opening or response ranges to your partner, to the extent that you are playing a different convention card depending on who is opener and who is responder. I think this would be the main issue here, if you excessively field partners style and they possibly field for your normal style.
Naturally there is a degree of latitude for personal playing style, and I'd say the specific examples you gave broadly fitted within the normal range of 'shape adjustments'. However when you systematically make strength adjustments a specific part of your bidding agreements, then you really ought to hold 3 separate convention cards for the different partners, and on one note the style as light openings in the summary box, and on another note full openings/light responses, for full disclosure.
Common sense is a good guide-line, but its perfectly ok for you to play different convention cards with different partners within a match, although you and partner must be playing the same convention card at any particular time, and obviously with no hidden agreements!


text:
In bridge, what are the proper followups to a Jacoby transfer?
In bridge, over a 1 NT opening, a responder might bid 2D/H with five hearts/spades asking the opener to "transfer" to 2H/S. The idea is to try to find an eight card fit, assuming that the NT bidder has three in the major.
But suppose the 1NT bidder only has two of the designated suit. Does s/he have to accept the transfer, or can one bid 2NT in this situation.
Assuming the opener accepts the transfer, is the responder (i.e. 2D/H bidder) supposed to go to 2NT to give the opener a choice of a NT or suit contract?

Can you qualify which bidding system(s) your question is about? I answered for Standard American with strong 1NT openings below as that's the only system I know. I don't even know if Jacobi Transfers are used with other systems but if they are, and you want to know how they work in other systems, you'll get better answers if you mention that in the question.

Well, the proper followup is what you have agreed upon.
The 'normal' responses to a transfer allow you to bid the major at the 2 level (usual completion of the transfer) or bid the major at the 3 level, which shows a maximum hand and 4 cards in the major in question (called super-accept).
Assuming your agreement is the above, bidding 2NT with doubleton in the major, instead of completing the transfer is just silly.

You partner could have 6 cards in the major and a bust hand and might have been planning to pass the 2H bid from you. With a 6-2 fit, 2H will play very well as compared to 1NT. Even with a decent 5 card suit and nothing else, 2H will likely play better than 1NT. 2NT might just be too high. This is because the trumps serve as stoppers in other suits, and also provide entries into dummy.
With partner having an invitational/game forcing hand and exactly 5 card major, you will always be able to reach 2NT or 3NT when you need to. With an invitational hand and exactly 5 cards in the major, partner will rebid 2NT, which you can then pass (or go on to 3NT if you have a maximum hand). With a game forcing hand and 5 hearts, partner will bid 3N.
You are denying partner the chance to bid 2S after transferring to hearts which can show some hand types (some people play it as 5-5 in majors etc).
Bidding 2NT is a unilateral bid. Remember that your partner is the captain. You have narrowed down your hand with your 1NT bid.

So violating the transfer to bid 2NT to show doubleton is pointless with no real gain (you will always get to deny support later), and has only downsides.
Also, from a system point of view, having 2NT show a doubleton is inefficient, as later followups will clarify that situation. You are just wasting space and getting to a bad contract/wrong siding it for no reason.
That said, some people do have followups other than 2 or 3 of the major, but those typically show 4 card support and some other feature (like doubleton/values in the suit bid).

Your last point is really important I think, with 1nt you have already told your partner pretty much everything you can, they are in the driving seat even though you may still end up as declarer

@jk.: Yeah, it is a common problem with newer players. Another common problem is the thinking that if you have a misfit you must play in NT (which might be the real reason the original question has cropped up).

Let's re-emphasize the most fundamental rule of bidding: the proper follow-up is what you have agreed upon with your partner.

In Standard American with strong 1NT openings (typically 15-17 or 16-18 points), the 1 NT bidder must accept the transfer, even with only 2 in the suit. Root and Pavlicek's book Modern Bidding Conventions (Standard American) is very clear about that.
This will not always lead to an optimal result, but like many other conventions, the first 2 bids of the Jacoby Transfer are just the start of a longer communication sequence and departing from the sequence this early in the bidding would waste much of the benefit.
Also - despite the 5-2 fit, this is usually a good place for the contract to land when a weak responder is not even assured of taking a single trick (without ruffing). The contract with the 5-2 fit gives you a ruff or two from the dummy and an opportunity to attempt finesses that require a lead from dummy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the major benefits of the Jacoby Transfer, as a 1 NT contract with zero support from dummy often leads to going down 2-3 tricks, whereas the 2H or 2S contract with 5 in dummy and 2 in declarer can often be made.

What about with 0 in the suit?  I feel like the "two of the designated suit", even though asked in the OP, is a bit of a red herring to getting a clear answer to this question: should you ALWAYS carry out a Jacoby transfer, even if it appears capable of landing you in an appalling contract?

@thesunneversets In Standard American bidding with strong 1NT openers, 1NT promises fairly even distribution. Having one 2 card suit is fine, but it is considered unusual and stretching (if not downright wrong) to start with 1NT if you have a singleton or two doubletons. I personally do stretch this way on rare occasions but I would never open 1NT with a void and I can't recall ever doing it with a singleton. I see that I did not qualify my answer with "standard american" so I'll do that now. I don't know how the 1NT bid and Jacobi transfer works in other systems.

Sorry, Joe, you're absolutely right, I wasn't thinking straight - after my initial 1NT bid I obviously do have at least 2 hearts... or else I've only myself to blame!

The system, won't let me edit because it's not long enough, but it is spelled "Jacoby."

Today with 20 pts, I opened 2NT with a singleton ace of hearts.
My partner bid 2 diamonds, I said "transfer" and choose to bid
3 NT. The computer printout, showed we could have made 4clubs,
5 spades, and 5 NT. Didn't play to 5, but did make 4.  I was
the only player in that contract and the high board. My partner
upon laying her hand down, only had 4 hearts, not five, and
only 6 points.

This doesn't seem to answer the question.

@tsuma534:That's good enough for me. This was one person's "experience." Admittedly, it's an unusual bidding convention but it worked for them.

OK.  But the other day I had 21 points and bid two-no.  Partner had ZERO points with 5 hearts, bid two diamonds.  I had 2 hearts, both little; I could have made three-no just with my own hand.  But when I answered 3 hearts (forced, I'll admit, by the whole table saying "You HAVE to accept the transfer" when I tried 3 no-trump) I went down in flames.  Is consider this a reasonable exception.

Welcome to the site. I strongly agree with you (although many will disagree). You probably had Kx or Qx opposite five hearts, and 18-19 points concentrated in the other three suits, probably seven tricks there, two (out of five) in hearts. With less than three cards in the suit, I LIKE playing NT opposite 5 small. (With Kx opposite xxxxx, you have only 10 trump points out of a possible 23 (10 hcp plus 13 trumps). And it was improper for the "table" to make you retract your 3NT bid. Once made, it should have been allowed to play.

What were the hands?

To follow-up on @Aryabhata's comment: 5332 hand with zero points should not be transferring over 2NT. To transfer over a 2NT opening responder should have either a 6-card suit; an unbalanced hand that truly cannot stand NT; or at least game-invitational values

I can't imagine a hand that should open 2NT and can make 3NT in hand. AKQ xx AKJT9 Axx has some play (the diamond queen might drop doubleton) but it's anti-percentage, and there's some argument for stronger action with that hand. @TomAu, you're right that a bid made should hold, but there are very few hands that will make 9 tricks across from a worthless dummy in no trump, but not in dummy's 5-card suit, even in a 5-2 fit.

The main value of a transfer is not that it hides the strong hand; that's just a bonus. The main value is that, opposite a narrowly described hand, it gives the responder a chance to place the contract or ask for a specific piece of information in order to place the contract (e.g. 1NT-2D-2H-3NT: partner, do you want to play in 3NT or 4H opposite a 5332 hand?). That value is erased if partner unilaterally bids past the transfer. The reason super-accepts are used is that finding out about good 4-card support often improves the value of responder's hand, and this is judged an acceptable risk.


text:
What Is a "Reverse" In Bridge?
Partner opened one diamond. I responded 1 NT with the following hand.
♠Txxx ♥Axx ♦Txxx ♣Ax
Partner then rebid two spades. I raised to four spades, reading my partner for 17 points or so. We went down two because he only had 13.
I said, "I read you for 17 points because you "reversed" (bid a higher-ranking suit at a higher level with the second bid).
Partner answered, "I was just bidding my 5-4 pattern. It said nothing about extra strength."
Did partner, in fact, "reverse"? Does it require about 17 points to do so? And if so, did it make sense for me to raise to four spades (I counted "eight" HCP, plus something extra for the club doubleton, and the two tens, located strategically in his suits).

Without knowing the bidding system you are playing, it is hard to answer who is right. I suggest you leave the specifics out. "What is a Reverse?" is a good question in itself and does not need the other questions.

I agree with your understanding of the situation.  By forcing you to go to the 3-level if you decide you prefer his first suit (diamonds)... well, that's a textbook reverse.  I would suggest that "about 17" points is a fair reading of such a bid.
Since your partner only had 13 points, and your bid should clearly have allowed him to infer that between you you only barely have the balance of the points, it's difficult to see what he hoped to achieve by going to 2S.  You are extremely unlikely to have 5 or more spades after your NT bid, so at best you're finding a marginal 4-4 spade fit, at worst no fit at all.  And that's if you stop bidding there, which of course you are unlikely to, because your partner has just falsely suggested that he has some basis on which to keep the bidding going... 4S sounds about right for an 8 card fit and roughly 24-25 points between you, yes.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again - send your partner back to basic Bridge school!

You should have responded 1♠ to indicate 4+ spades. 1NT response denies 4-card major.
Yes, your partner reversed. Since you denied 4 spades, opener's rebid 2♠ is unusual and hence a reverse. Opener's reverse promises at least invitational values.
If the opener has a minimum hand, he bids no higher than 2♦. With a balanced hand, he passes your 1NT. Otherwise, he bids 2♣ for 4+ clubs or 2♦ for 5+ diamonds. These 2m's are non-forcing.

Welcome to the site. Interesting answer. So I should have "avoided" the "reverse" by bidding one spade. Even with a suit headed by the T?

Bridge is different from dating, quantity is more important than quality. This way you will never miss 4-4 major fit. If you have 3 spades and bid 1NT, his 4 spades won't make a 8-card fit. (He seldom has 5 spades or he may open 1♠.) Therefore, his 2♠ reverse does not seek fit (4♠) but seeks 3NT.

I would bid 1S in this sequence on a suit that was no better than 8xxx.

First of all, let us consider the issue of simple preference. You hold
S 92
H AQ652
D KQT3
C K5

The bidding goes 1H-1S/2D. The 2D bid asks partner to show preference between the red suits. If he prefers the FIRST bid suit, he can do so at the 2 level
Now, say you hold
S 92
H KQT3
D AQ652
C K5

The bidding goes 1D-1S/2H-?
If partner prefers your FIRST bid suit, he must go to the 3 level. So you want to have a better hand to do so. Probably a King better than minimum or extra length in the two suits. So he has three reasons not to reverse
1  you have denied having four spades
2  He is not strong enough
3  The information that he has four spades is of no value to you.
Hopefully, this answers your question.
But why did YOU respond 1N? Much as you may hate to do so, the standard response on that hand is 1S,  informing partner that you have four. He has promised a rebid, so with  his minimum hand he raises to 2S. The end.


text:
What are the standard time settings in chess
What are some of the most popular time limits for chess games?  I'm looking for those used today as well as historically.

Game times have changed a lot since the rise of computers, as a formerly active chess player I'm quite interested in what people who are more current in playing tournament chess write. Historically at the highest levels you might have games that adjourned after a time control was met - something which today's computers no longer allow.

Blitz games will have 1-5 minutes per side.
Most tournaments will have 1-3 hours per side.  A popular setup is 1-2 hours per side for the first 40 moves, plus an additional ½-1 hours each after the 40th move.  They may also allow Bronstein/Fischer time, if the clock supports it.
The official FIDE time settings are 90 minutes for the first 40 moves + 30 minutes after move 40 + 30 seconds for every move.
The 2010 world championship was "120 minutes, with 60 minutes added after move 40, 15 minutes added after move 60, and 30 additional seconds per move starting from move 61."
I've heard of World Championships going up to 8-hours per side, though.

In my experience, anything under three minutes is called "lightning" or "bullet" chess rather than blitz, and blitz can be anything from 3 to 10 minutes.

Fast time controls are more current these days.  You can find a lot of 30/30 (each player has 30 moves to make in 30 minutes) and G/30 (each player has 30 minutes to make all of his moves) in over the board tournaments.  Slow time controls are still out there, but with the rise of Internet chess, even over the board tournaments are going with quicker time controls.  On the Internet clubs you can find blitz chess (usually something between 3 and 15 minutes for each player to make all of his moves) and bullet chess (under 3 minutes for each player to make all of his moves); although the Internet allows for slow chess too, it may take a while of waiting, and good deal of patience, to get a game.

There is also "correspondence chess", which has time limits on the order of days or even weeks.

Bullet: one minute per player for all moves
Blitz: 5 minutes per player for all moves
Quickplay: 20, 30 or 40 minutes per player for all moves
Quick tournament: 1 hour 30 mins to reach move 35, then 30 mins to finish (per player)
FIDE tournament: 1 hour 30 minutes to reach move 40, then 30 mins to finish, plus 30 seconds per move (per player)
Slow tournament: 2 hours to reach move 40, then one extra hour to reach move 60, then 40 mins to finish (per player)
Lightning: 10 seconds per move
Hourglass: 1 to 2 mins each to start with. the time you lose is added to the opponent's clock, and vice versa
Fischer delay: 5 seconds (usually, can be less) are added to your clock after every move

Could you add some references to this answer?

Quickplay is usually referred to as rapid. The FIDE controls for rapid are 15 mins + 10 seconds/move.
Quick Tournament - Where is this sourced?
Lighting - Where is this sourced?
Hourglass - Not a popular time control.
Slow tournament - Are you referring to the World Championship time controls? The time control you are using is outdated, as it is now 120 min for first 40 moves, 60 min for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes + 30 seconds per move.

Actually, in FIDE rules, you have different kinds of time settings :

Up to and including 10 minutes per player, it's Blitz ;
Between  10 and 60 minutes, it's Quickplay
Over 61 minutes per player, it's Slow

Fisher increments are counted 60 times and added to the base time in order to find the equivalent in K.O. time (no increment). These are the time settings according to the FIDE Handbooks. I can't find where exactly, sorry about that.


text:
Wild Draw Color card on top of Wild card in UNO Flip!
In UNO Flip!
If someone plays a Wild card, can you next play a Wild Draw Color card on top if it?
Or is the Wild card on top of the discard pile counted as all the colors?

This is a really tricky question since the UNO Flip! rules (© 2020) doesn't clearly state anything about what color a Wild card is regarded as.
You could argue that the Wild card:

isn't any color, but just an Action card, or
represents all the colors, since it's a Wild card (any color could be choosen when playing it), or
represents the color choosen by the previous player.

Reading the UNO Flip! rules (© 2020) I myself leans toward #1.

Since the Wild card is just an Action card (and not a colored Action card) and therefore always being valid to play on a Wild card.

But then reading the UNO rules (© 2022) for the Wild Draw Four card (a similar card):

Wild cards are considered a match, too.

and taking that into consideration, then #2 is not a bad choice either...

From the UNO Flip! rules (© 2020):

Wild Draw Color Card – When you play this card...
However, there is a hitch! You may only play this card when you do NOT have another card in your hand that matches the COLOR on the DISCARD pile (but it is acceptable to play this card if you have matching number or Action Cards).
...

furthermore the rules for the Wild card doesn't clarify anything...

From the UNO rules (© 2022):

Wild Draw Four card - This card matches anything...
However, there’s a catch: you can only play a Wild Draw Four if you DO NOT HAVE ANY CARD IN YOUR HAND THAT MATCHES THE COLOR OF THE DISCARD PILE.
...
If the player challenges you, then you must show them your entire hand to confirm whether or not you have a card that matches the color of the discard pile – Wild cards are considered a match, too.
...

Other Links:
UNO Flip! rules (© 2018)
UNO Flip! Splash rules (© 2020)
UNO Flip! Express rules (© 2020)


text:
Number of "Nope"-cards played after each other in Exploding Kittens
How many "Nope"-cards can be played after each "Nope"-card?
E.g.:

Player A -> Attack
Player B -> Nope
Player C -> Nope
Player D -> Nope

or can only 2 "Nope"-cards be played after each other?
Is there a limit?

From the rules of the basic game: "Stop any action except for an Exloding Kitten or a Defuse". Therefor as many as you like, since the Nope card is not mentioned in the exceptions.

There is no restrictions on how many "Nope"-cards that can be played after each other.
From the Exploding Kittens rules:

NOPE (5 cards)
"Stop any action except for an Exploding Kitten or a Defuse.
It's as if the card beneath a Nope never existed.
You can also play a Nope on another Nope to negate it and create a Yup, and so on.
You can play a Nope at any time before an action has begun, even if it's not your turn...

Your example explained:

Player A -> Attack
Player B -> Nope (the Attack is cancelled)
Player C -> Nope (a Yup -> this means the Attack is back on)
Player D -> Nope (the Attack is cancelled again)

Other Links:
Exploding Kittens rule page


text:
Picking the pack in Canasta
When picking the pack on an initial opening meld.

Can I use the two cards that I’m picking the pack with as part of my points requirements?

or

Do I need the points requirements WITHOUT the two cards used to pick the pack (the two that match the card in the discard pile)?

This is the first time I heard you can use the card from the discard pile as part of the meld requirements!

It's one of the reasons that strategically, it's usually wiser to discard a 4-7 rather than an 8-A against an opponent that has not yet melded.

You can use the matching cards, as well as the top card of the discard pile, to make your initial meld's minimum points. The only thing you cannot count is other cards in the discard pile below the top card.

The count of a meld is the total point value of the cards in it. To meet the minimum, a player may make two or more different melds. If a player takes the discard pile, the top card but no other may count toward the requirement.

https://bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/canasta

If you are using cards in your hand to claim the pack, they must be a part of your hand prior to your turn beginning.  Any cards in your hand prior to your turn can be used as the point requirements, and this applies in all situations.

Can you better explain this answer? Currently, it doesn't clearly explain whether the cards used to meld the top of the discard pile count towards the point requirement.

Hm, I thought my answer directly applies to the question "can I use the two cards that I’m picking the pack with as part of my points requirements?", since those cards must be part of your hand (thus, any cards in your hand can apply to the points requirements, which is 100% factual and answers the question).  Do you not read it that way?

Appreciate your comment!

No, I did not read it that way, and your comment is actually longer than your answer. Now that you've explained your answer in the comment, you should [edit] your answer with that reasoning.

I see, perfect!


text:
Ending up with loose tiles (from existing melds) after rearranging the melds in Rummikub
Suppose there are 3 seperate melds on the table.
Blue 6,7,8, Red 5,6,7, Orange 4,5,6.
I made my initial meld and I'm holding tiles in my hand that would allow me to form new melds of 4,4,4, 5,5,5, 6,6,6, and 7,7,7, but I have two loose tiles left over (from the table) that can't form a meld.
Now what happens if the existing melds are rearranged to the point of no return, and I can't place the remaining two loose tiles?

Haven't played in years, so just a comment: Pretty sure you have to do your best - with agreement of the other players - to put things back the way they were originally and find another move.

Per the Original Rummikub® rules:
Manipulation:

... Sets can be manipulated in many ways (examples follow) as long as at the end of each round only legitimate sets remain and no loose tiles are left over.

Incomplete Runs:

Players who cannot complete a move within the 1 minute time limit must replace the tiles that were on the table to their previous positions, take back the tiles they played, and draw 3 tiles from the pool as a penalty. This ends the turn.

As for putting things back in their previous positions, the players need to try to remember what those were and come to a consensus about the original state.


text:
In Scrabble, does a blank tile on the double/triple word square count?
If the blank tile is on a triple word tile while you are making a word, does it still count as a triple word?

@ava, a blank tile still scores 0, even on a DW or TW square.

@ava - from the same official rules quoted in my answer, rule number 1 "Use a score pad or piece of paper to keep a tally of each player's score, entering it after each turn. The score value of each letter is indicated by a number at the bottom of the tile. The score value of a blank is zero." It's not a 1 point tile.

The key strategic point is that while a blank gets zero points directly, it can be used to enable getting many points indirectly, by creating a longer word that hits a double or triple, by enabling use of a high-point letter (J,K,Q,X,Z) or by helping to create a Bingo (+50).

Yes. It doesn't matter which tile is on the double/triple word space, if you make a word while placing a blank tile on one of these squares, your word score is still doubled/tripled. From the official rules of Scrabble:

Premium Word Squares: The score for an entire word is doubled when one of its letters is placed on a pink square: it is tripled when one of its letters is placed on a red square. Include premiums for double or triple letter values, if any, before doubling or tripling the word score. If a word is formed that covers two premium word squares, the score is doubled and then re-doubled (4 times the letter count), or tripled and then re-tripled (9 times the letter count). NOTE: the center square is a pink square, which doubles the score for the first word.

Letter and word premiums count only on the turn in which they are played. On later turns, letters already played on premium squares count at face value.

When a blank tile is played on a pink or red square, the value of the word is doubled or tripled, even though the blank itself has no score value.

Technically even on a double/triple letter score, the value of that blank tile is still doubled/tripled as well, however since the value of the tile is 0, doubling or tripling it does nothing.


text:
Going out by adding a tile and a joker to a run in Rummikub
I have seen many posts about using a joker from a player's rack or replacing a joker on the table. My question relates to using a joker at the end of a game to declare Rummikub.
Here's the scenario:

I have one tile, a Red 5, in my rack.
Since I cannot go out, I draw from the bag and get a Joker.
Next time it is my turn, there is a run of Red 1,2,3 on the table.

Can I use my Joker (as a Red 4) and my Red 5 to add to the run on the table and declare Rummikub?
The rules seem to imply:

That you can only use a joker from your rack with two other tiles, and
That you also have to make a new set.

But at the end of game you do not have sufficient tiles to do this.


text:
Can you buy 4 houses and a hotel in the same turn in Monopoly?
Can you buy 4 houses for each of your properties and then right after turn them in and instead buy hotels for each property in the same turn?
I was taught you had to wait until your next turn to buy hotels.

Not a duplicate.  The other question asks about multiple houses only - no mention of house and hotel together.

The other question does in fact ask about hotels. Only the title left out reference to hotels, which I've corrected.

You can purchase 4 houses on each property and upgrade to hotels right away as no where in the rules mentions limits on how quickly you can upgrade housing. Any rule that says you have to wait would be a house rule and nothing official. Monopoly is one of games where the rules are misunderstood and house rules are often considered official rules.
Rules

When a player owns all the properties in a color-group, he or she may
buy houses from the Bank.
You may buy as many houses as your judgment and financial standing
will allow, but you cannot erect more than one house on any one
property of any color-group until you have built one house on every
property of that group.
The price you must pay the Bank for each house is shown on your Title
Deed card for the property on which you erect the house.
The owner still collects double rent from an opponent who lands on the
unimproved properties of his/her complete color-group.
When a player has four houses on each property of a complete
color-group, they may buy a hotel from the Bank and erect it on any
property of the color-group. Only one hotel may be erected on any one
property.
As you build evenly, you must also break down evenly if you sell
houses back to the Bank.

It might be worth mentioning that you can't go straight from empty properties to hotels if there are not enough houses in the bank.

@MatthewJensen I did mention buying all 4 houses and then upgrading them to hotels which I think covers that. And the rules I quoted state you have to have 4 houses on each property group to buy hotels.

That's fair. It's probably not all that relevant to the question either. It's mostly about timing restrictions.


text:
Can you see the other side of your own cards in UNO Flip?
In UNO Flip!
Can you see the other side of YOUR OWN cards?
Example: You are playing the light side of UNO Flip! and you want to see YOUR OWN cards on the DARK side. Are you allowed to do that?

Yes. You can look at the other side of your own hand.
There's nothing in the rules, from what I see, that says you can't. So I definitely think you are allowed to do that.
From a practical standpoint, when you are dealt your hand, you'll see the dark side of your own hand while it's being dealt anyways.


text:
In Uno Flip, which side to use for scoring when going out on a Flip card
If you go out playing a Flip card, does it flip the cards and is it the new side's points to use when calculating the score?
Example:
Final card is a light Flip card.
Does the cards change to the Dark side and the Dark side's points that are calculated for the score?

Yes. The card is played as normal. (Just like in regular Uno, in order to go out, you have to play your last card. A card played is resolved when played, whether it is the final card play or not.)

Yes, I would say that playing a Flip Card, flips all the cards.
Since, from the Going Out section of the UNO FLIP! rules (from 2020), it is clear that:

the action from the Draw Cards is enforced before calculating the points;
hence should the action from the Flip Card be enforced before the game is over.

If the last card played in a round is a Draw One, Draw Five, Wild Draw Two or Wild Draw Color card, the next player must draw the one, five, two or until they get a chosen color card respectively. These cards are counted when the points are totaled.

The same could be argued from the UNO FLIP™ IN A NUTSHELL section of the UNO FLIP! rules (from 2020):

Whenever someone plays a **FLIP Card, the deck is flipped over (as are the cards in your hand)
...
Note: Remember to score points based on which side (Light or Dark) the game ended on.


text:
Initial move in Rummikub
In an initial move in Rummikub, can I go out by:

making an inital meld with 30 or more points (made up of my own tiles),
then continue (my first turn) by manipulating and adding tiles to the existing board.

Or must I wait until my next turn to manipulate and add tiles to the existing board?

Does https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/33542/13207 answer your question?

@chicks the question is similar, but there is a significant difference.

The initial meld can only use tiles from the player rack. So it is not possible to extend the turn with tiles from the board. This is clear from the Rummikub rules:
The initial meld:

In order to make an initial meld, each player must
place tiles on the table in one or more sets that total at least 30
points. These points must come from the tiles on each player’s rack;
for their initial meld, players may not use tiles already played on
the table.

The other turns:

On turns after a player has made his/her initial meld, that player
can build onto other sets on the table with tiles from his/her rack.

As per Wikipedia "Players may not make their initial meld and along with that play on groups and runs during the same turn. You can play on runs and groups after the turn of making the initial meld."

The first sentence of that Wikipedia quote is unclear. It's unclear how it even parses.


text:
Computer engines that play Mancala
Are there any available computer engines that play the game Mancala? I know that there are many versions of the game but it would be interesting to know if there are computer engines that play the game, whether through AI or some form of alpha-beta pruning.
Note that this is different from the other question based on Mangala. I am asking specifically on the game of Mancala, not Mangala. As a result I am not sure why this question was flagged as a duplicate.

The Mancala variant Oware was strongly solved in 2002. This basically means they have a database with the best move and outcome of all possible positions in the game. The researchers made their database available via a Java applet, but unfortunately, it's offline now.


text:
How many of a legendary card should I be including in my deck?
So, I am making a Magic: The Gathering cat deck for my younger sister, and I am running in to a wall with trying to narrow my 63 card deck into a 60 card deck. My biggest problem is that I have 6 really awesome planeswalkers to choose from. They are pairs of three different types of planeswalkers.
6 planeswalkers is quite a lot for a deck. 4 seems decent.
There are two options I have: Get rid of one pair, (as well as another card,) or have each type of planeswalkers, but only one of them.
BUT, you can only have one legendary card of the exact same name on the field at the same time.
So, my big question: For legendary cards that you can only have one of on the field at a time, is it usually better to have two types of the same card, and increase your probability of picking it up, but at the risk it taking up space in your hand, and being unable to play it because it's already on the field,
OR
Have different types of legendary cards, meaning you could have both on the field at the same time, but it decreases your chance of picking up either one of the card, making it more unpredictable?
Note: I do not expect people to help me pick cards to put into her deck. That’s not what I want the focus of this question to be about. But I would still gladly listen to any card suggestions. ^^
I will provide card context into the comments below for anyone who desires to help me on my quest to make an awesome cat deck for my sister.
I'm not 100% sure this question is suitable for this site, so just tell me if you feel otherwise.

My deck list is:

Lands: 21x Plains, 6x Forest
Enchantment: 4x Compulsory Rest, 4x Anointed procession
Creature: 4x Sacred cat, 4x Adorned pouncer, 4x Regal caracal, 4x Pride sovereign, 4x Leonin warleader, 2x Brimaz, king of oreskos,
Planeswalkers: 2 each of Gideon, Martial Paragon (to help pride sovereign make cats), Huatli, Radiant Champion (to draw cards quicker), Ajani, adversary of tyrants (to make even more cats)

Isaac, did you mean Leonin Warleader or Leonin Warlord

Mm. I haven't got many doubles lands at the moment, but I'm planning on getting some.

Generally, consistency is preferrable over uniqueness/playability of legendaries.
If you tune a deck for strength, you identify the best cards for your strategy and make sure you draw them when you need them, i.e. rather earlier than later. If your deck has strong card draw or search effects, you can get away with including fewer than 4 of those cards. Otherwise, you want to include as many as possible. Also remember that a planeswalker is a permanent that can be destroyed, countered, discarded, exiled etc., so you will want a replacement ready.
Of course, all this advice depends on your deck, the decks it's playing against, and especially in your case, "flavor" of the deck.

Randomly draw seven cards from your current deck of cards.  Do this several times over and over again.  Out of that snapshot of 7 cards, decide which ones you absolutely love seeing.
Eliminate the cards you are unsure of or put them in your sideboard.
Play 200 games with someone you trust without changing the matrix of the deck.  After putting 200 games behind that setup, decide which cards you love seeing and which ones simply don't make sense.

There is no way "play 200 games with someone you trust" is realistic except for professional tournament players with a support team. This is just someone making a deck for their sibling. Could you suggest something more viable for everyday players?


text:
buster blader the dragon destroyer swoardsman effect not working
Why doesn't buster blader the dragon destroyer swordsman with DNA surgery on the field stop destiny hero plasma's effect that allows plasma to take my monster. Oh BTW this is in the duel links game

Hey Hopey, what you are experiencing here is due to the same reason I exposed on my answer to your post I linked... thus why I casted a close vote as it is a Duplicate... this will be the case with any card that has continuous effects (that don't "activate" per se)...

Buster bladers effect states:
Dragon type monsters in your opponents possession cannot activate their effects

Normally this would prevent Destiny hero - Plasma from activating it's absorb effect.
However, Plasma has a second effect:
Negate the effects of face-up monsters while your opponent controls them.

This is a continous effect, so it doesn't activate and so isn't blocked by Buster blader. This means that Buster bladers effect is negated and so can't stop Plasma from absorbing him.
For completions sake, in the case we have two monsters (e.g. 2 Plasma, or jinzo vs skill drain) that would negate eachothers effect. the one first on the field will win out and negate the other one.


text:
Can you give an example why the active player wants to have priority in Beginning of Combat first?
I've read this article published on blogs.magicjudges.org explaining the combat shortcut which is about (contrary to the normal proceeding) the Not Active Player (NAP) receiving priority prior to the Active Player (AP) in the Beginning of Combat step (BoC).
This is also stated in the Magic Tournament Rules:

If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their
  first main phase, the non-activeplayer is assumed to be acting in
  beginning of combat unless they are affecting whether a beginning of
  combat ability triggers.Then, after those actions resolve or no
  actions took place, the active player receives priority at the
  beginning of combat. Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones  that target) may be announced at this time.

At the end of the article the author mentions that normally this is not a problem since most of the time the AP does not want to act first anyway. However, one scenario in which the AP wants to be the first one to receive priorioty in the BoC step is mentioned:

AP Acting First in Combat
The new structure makes it look like the active player can’t be the
  first person to act in the beginning of combat step. That’s not true,
  but it does reflect the fact that the active player needing to act
  first is unlikely. The only scenario I’m aware of is holding a split
  second spell while your opponent is floating mana, which is not
  something that’s going to come up every day! In that situation, the
  protocol is the same as ever – you ask your opponent if they want to
  do something with that mana in the main phase. If they do, you’re
  still in main phase, since they used mana they couldn’t use in
  beginning of combat, nullifying the default.
Otherwise, there is a way to do it, but it does give the opponent some
  information. While in your main phase, simply say “I do this thing in
  Beginning of Combat”. Done! Of course, the non-active player has the
  ability to interrupt and do something in your main phase. That’s not
  really any different than it was under the previous shortcut.

However, I can't reconstruct an example for such a scenario from the information given in these two paragraphs. The following information is given as stated in the paragraphs:

NAP has mana floating in the first main phase
AP has a split second spell

Question: Can you give an example for this scenario in which in order to reach his or hear goal, AP needs to be the first one to to receive priority in BoC to then cast the split second spell?
To illustrate the difficulties I have with this, here is an example which doesn't work:

AP is in his main phase, controls a Grizzly Bears enchanted with a Rancor. He has a Sudden Spoiling in his hand and enough mana to cast it.
NAP has 2 life, controls an Endbringer and has one mana floating.
AP wants to have priority in BoC to then cast Sudden Spoiling. He does not want to cast Sudden Spoiling in the main phase because NAP has floating mana he or she can use to respond. If everything goes well, AP then can attack with his bear (4/2, trample) and win the game (NAP now has a 0/2 creature).

This example doesn't work because of several aspects:

Why does AP need to have priority in BoC to cast Sudden Spoiling before NAP receives priority? Why does AP not let  NAP have priority first in BoC, NAP then passes priority, then AP uses his priority to cast Sudden Spoiling?
Why doesn't AP cast Sudden Spoiling in his main phase? Sure, NAP has mana floating, but he can't use it to activate Endbringer's cant-attack-ability in response anyway because Sudden Spoiling has split second.

The first of the two reasons you give for "the example doesn't work" isn't valid. If the NAP passes priority in BoC with an empty stack then it's the declare attackers step immediately with no chance for the AP to cast more spells first. It doesn't change much because there's not much reason Spoiling needs to be cast in BoC in the first place.

To expand on Kamil's comment: where you write in the question "(contrary to the normal proceeding) the Not Active Player (NAP) receiving priority prior to the Active Player (AP)", that is not correct. The AP does receives priority first during the BoC step, it's just that, roughly speaking, they are assumed to be passing it unless they actively announce that they're using it for something and what that something is.

@DavidZ That's not exactly accurate. Part of what makes this shortcut so unusual is that if the NAP passes priority without acting, play goes back to the AP. This is different from every other priority cycle in the game, so it is not the same as just treating it as though AP passed their first priority at the beginning of combat.

@murgatroid99 Well, yes, I did mention right in the comment that it's not exactly accurate. But I don't think that stops it from getting at a significant point of confusion for efie. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about this being different from every other priority cycle. If the NAP passes priority without acting, then yes, play goes back to the AP, but (I'm assuming an empty stack?) in the next step of the turn, just like any other time.

What I'm saying right now is that this does in fact work differently than what you are saying. It says so right in the shortcut definition quoted in the question: "Then, after those actions resolve or no actions took place, the active player receives priority at the beginning of combat." So, in this particular shortcut, the NAP is assumed to be acting first in the BOC step, then even if they take no action and the stack is empty, priority goes to the AP next in the same step.

@DavidZ and Kamil Drakari: Take a look at the example given in the "The Cryptic Command Problem" section in the article. It works exactly like this (AP receiving priority in BoC after NAP passed priority in BoC): AP: "Combat". NAP: "Ok" (Doesn't cast Cryptic Command). AP: "Activate Mutavault" (to get it in for 2). (After having activated Mutavault, still being in BoC, NAP can still cast Cryptic Command).

@murgatroid99 My understanding is different from what you're saying: when the active player says e.g. "combat" it's understood as them passing during their main phase and proposing a shortcut in which NAP passes in the main phase and AP passes in BoC, returning priority to NAP. If NAP plays something without further clarification, they accept the shortcut with the understanding that their play is made in BoC. If NAP just says "OK", that is interpreted as shortening the proposed shortcut to just NAP passing in their main phase, after which AP gains priority in BoC.

I see what you mean and IMHO the shortcut def is amiguous in this regard, but maybe an argument against your consideration is that in the "AP Acting First in Combat" section there explicitly is stated a way in which "the active player can act first": He has to say what he wants to do BoC in his main phase. Following your interpretation, there is another way the AP acts first in BoC. However, this is a technical argument, since in your interpretation the AP depends on the NAP to be the first to act. Instead, what this section proly is about is how AP can force to be the one who acts first BoC.

I think the two different pieces here are in some sense independent. The opponent's floating mana makes you want to act in the beginning of combat step instead of the main phase, and holding a split second spell makes you want to act first in the beginning of combat step instead of waiting for your opponent to act.
Holding up mana here isn't necessarily about responding to the split second spell; it's more generally about having more options for actions to take, perhaps after the spell resolves. If you force the mana to empty from their mana pool, you cut off those options.
So, here is a scenario in which it matters that you specifically act first during the beginning of combat step: The active player has some mana available and Extirpate in hand, and two attackers with at least two toughness each. The non-active player has one floating red mana, two islands, Electrolyze in hand, and Feeling of Dread in their graveyard. The non-active player is better off casting Feeling of Dread, but they don't want to cast it during their main phase because then the active player could follow up with another creature, possibly with haste.
If the active player plays Extirpate during their main phase, the non-active player can use their floating mana to cast Electrolyze. If the active player waits until the non-active player acts in the beginning of combat step, the Feeling of Dread is no longer in the graveyard for the Extirpate to target. They get the best result if they act first in the beginning of combat step.

It's contrived, but....
You have an Electrostatic Field on the battlefield. Maybe even you and your opponent both do, and you are both at one life.
You also have an Anointed Deacon on the battlefield (or any permanent with a "beginning of combat" triggered ability).
You and your opponent both have a Trickbind in hand. Whoever gets priority first can cast Trickbind, which will trigger Electrostatic Field's triggered ability. That will resolve before Trickbind, winning the game for the player who cast Trickbind.
Whichever player gets priority first in the beginning of combat step wins the game. No floating mana involved.
*You no one can cast Trickbind during the main phase because there is no ability on the stack to target.

Note that the last sentence of that shortcut definition (not quoted in the question) says "Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target) may be announced at this time." Since those triggers are announced at the end of this weird backwards shortcut, I think this may not entirely address the issue of who acts first in accordance with that shortcut.

I agree with @murgatroid99 and edited the question to add the last sentence of the combat shortcut. Because of this last sentence the plan you described for the AP even works with the current shortcut (NAP receiving priority in BoC first): AP: "Combat". NAP: "Ok". AP: "Anointed Deacon trigger, Trickbind to counter that trigger". Apart from that nice try though! :) and sorry for not mentioning the the last sentence.

An extremely contrived situation would justify "I need to cast this Split Second card in the Beginning of Combat step rather than the Main Phase as the Active Player, specifically because the opponent has mana floating.
Here is the board state: Your opponent has 2 life, controls 3 Island, Rampaging Ferocidon, and one facedown Morph card, and has no cards in hand and one mana floating (any color). You are at 1 life, control 2 untapped Mountain, Goblin Rabblemaster, and have Sudden Shock in hand.
In this situation, as the active player, the correct play is to pass priority in your Main Phase, then cast Sudden Shock in the Beginning of Combat step. The reason is that your opponent's facedown card could be Voidmage Apprentice, which could be turned faceup to counter your Sudden Shock because Morph is a special action which does not use the stack, and doesn't count as either a spell or ability as discussed here. In the Beginning of Combat step, Goblin Rabblemaster triggers to create a Goblin token, which would kill you because of Rampaging Ferocidon, so you can't wait to cast Sudden Shock any later and must cast it in the Beginning of Combat step to win the game, otherwise you lose.

This question was not just about acting in the beginning of combat, but specifically about the active player acting first in the beginning of combat. I don't see that represented here. In this case, you can wait for the NAP to pass priority before casting Sudden Shock without losing anything.


text:
Are there any cards in Yu-Gi-Oh that let me interact with face-down banished cards?
Pot of Desires is a card where you banish 10 cards from the top your deck, face-down to draw 2 cards. Is there anyway I can change those cards, like flipping them face-up or returning them to the Graveyard?

Actually, the card you mention is Pot of Desires

Oops,sorry about that.

There are a few cards that allow you to put these back in the graveyard or deck.
E.g. "Psyframelord Omega" and "Necroface".
The rule around this is that you cannot use cards that limit you to a certain card type (for example 'escape from the different dimension' can only summon back a monster).
The cards I gave as an example do not have these limitations but can put back any type of card, so they still work with face down cards.
Of note is, you yourself can still look at these cards, so you do not have to pick them blindly to put back in the graveyard/deck


text:
How to handle unintentional revealed hidden information through dexterity w.r.t. sideboarding?
I have some questions about Sideboarding, especially in Limited sideboarding, that I would like to know the answers to.
The speed at which players sideboard, and how much time is spent adding and removing cards to the deck can reveal a rough indication of how many cards are sideboarded. In constructed, typically this gives little information; it's easy even to misdirect someone who attempts to gain information this way (just spend as much time as it would take to sideboard say 12 cards when you're only switching 2). It's hard not to notice boarding is happening or when it is done, and one player inevitably is faster than the other.
The interesting question is what happens with Limited, and fringe or linear strategies. Two examples are Lost in the Woods (Innistrad dark ascension) and Mill.
Say one player is playing heavy into mill. They're mulling over what to sideboard and notice the opponent having shuffled their deck and putting down a very thick stack of cards. Their opponent turned their 40-card draft deck into a 65-card one. Is it wrong to act upon this information? How would you even prove someone did, as it's not that weird to sideboard out a mill strategy when hate against it is universal due to the rules for Limited. Or, if you're the player playing mill, and the information is supposed to be hidden, whether you intended to cheat or not gets muddy when the decision to continue with mill or switch up the deck is strategically contentious.
Another example, which I don't know if it ever came up, is two copies of Lost in the Woods in the same draft facing each other, with either player not having any enchantment removal. If both players decide to stick with it or return to it in game #3, #4 or #7, whoever has the biggest library wins. And since you can add any number of forests, and see 49 cards using mulligans, and both players attempt to do this, thus the sideboarding never ends, or I guess whoever has the biggest hands (as in, physically) wins, which is just weird.

Why do you say "Into the Woods" when the card you linked to is "Lost in the Woods"?  And what does that card have to do with mill or having a larger deck? It doesn't change the number of cards in your deck.

@ArcanistLupus Lost in the Woods makes it so that you can't lose to combat damage, so if both players have one out (and they aren't playing direct damage) then whoever has the larger deck will win.

@Arcanist Lupus It's because of an earworm from a certain movie that came out a couple years after Innistrad that I conflate that card's name all the time. Doesn't help that half of the movie is spent singing it.

You are allowed to use information revealed by your opponent, but you may not acquire such information actively. You may not delay sideboarding indefinitely.
As per the Magic Tournament Rules, sideboarding is part of the pregame procedures.

2.3 Pregame Procedures
The following steps must be performed in a timely manner before each game

If sideboarding is allowed, players may remove cards from their
sideboards.

Players shuffle their decks. Steps 1 and 2 may be repeated.

[..]

You are allowed to use any information revealed by your opponent, whether the reveal was intentional or not. You may not attempt to find out such information actively.

3.13 Hidden Information
Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look. Throughout the match, a draft, and pregame procedures, players are responsible for keeping their cards above the level of the playing surface and for making reasonable efforts to prevent hidden information from being revealed. However, players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them but are not required to inform opponents who are accidentally revealing hidden information.

As already quoted in rule 2.3, the pregame procedures including sideboarding must be completed in a timely manner. They are subject to the time limit of each round of matches. A judge can give out warnings for slow play for either player if either or both of you go back and forth about sideboarding without completing it.