text:
How to bid a slam when partnership cannot find the best suit?
The following hand was dealt recently in the Common Game; but only a very small number of partnerships bid and made a slam (1 grand; 2 small slams).

As you can see from the last 2 lines, the computer predicts that 4 different slam contacts are make-able. Would you please let me know if you can see the best way of bidding to reach a slam contract.

Playing 2-over-1 with a few conventions (including the serious 3nt), my auction would be something like

1d
1s
2c (this is a bit conservative but I think the right call)
2h (artificial game force)
2s (showing three cards in spades)
3s (setting trumps, showing a hand that is not bad for slam. A hand with poor controls would bid 4s, ending the auction)
3 nt (conventional. Serious 3 nt shows a strong slam try. This hand is a maximum for the actions taken so far and has good controls)
4h (showing first or second round control in hearts, denying the same in clubs or diamonds)
4 nt (asking for key cards)
5d (3 or 0 - ak in spades and a in h)
5 nt (confirms all 5 key cards and sq, asks for kings)
6s (no side king. With 7 spades, I would have bid 7 spades, as I have two tricks partner didn't know about, which must be enough to make grand reasonable)

Now north has a couple of options. They can count 6 tricks outside of spades, with a possibility of two more in diamonds. This makes me think that we should be in spades, not no trump. That virtually guarantees a fourth diamond. To make grand, we'll need six trump tricks. It doesn't seem too difficult to get there, so an aggressive north can bid 7s.

Ha ha! This is the first auction I came up with, before deciding that 2C was an egregious underbid. Perhaps not quite so egregious, though certainly too conservative, upon reflection, for my taste. I don't think it's reasonable, on any auction I can imagine, for grand slam to be bid unless North somehow locates the Diamond J. P.S. I think I am finally finished editing my answer.

On a trump lead there are entry problems in the grand slam that are readily apparent to both North and South in terms of getting a Heart ruff for the thirteenth trick. That requires not only that Spades break 3-2 but that other bad breaks don't occur. I believe the Grand should not be bid in those circumstances without finding the Diamond Jack.

Specifically, after: Spade lead won with the Q; cash Heart K; Spade back to hand; and ruff Heart in dummy: how does declarer draw the last outstanding trump without a Diamond J entry (which is the 13th trick even without a Heart ruff)?

I agree that grand is not very good, but South's hand is a minimum for the actions up to 5d in my auction, so I wouldn't blame North for bidding it. The spade jack or a sixth spade in South's hand would make grand very good indeed.

That is exactly why Barry Crane's rules were very simple: "(1) Never bid the grand. (2) Never place cards in my hand." Reasoning such as "Partner might have this jack." or "Partner might have that extra spade*." is losing bridge, and always has been. If you can't see a path to making it against the very barest minimum partner might have, then don't bid it. Just making the extra trick, on its own, is almost always sufficient for a decent, or better, score.

I think that's a fine way to play.

Let's talk capabilities first. In general, Grand Slam should not be bid unless one can identify all 13 tricks expected to be made.
If North is making the final 6/7 decision in Spades after a Blackwood auction then only 12 tricks can be counted unless the Diamond J is somehow located: 5 Spades; 3 high Diamonds; fifth diamond after one ruff; and A,A,K in Clubs and Hearts.
If South is making the final decision small slam is likewise the maximum. It is hard to conceive any auction enabling South to count tricks instead of relying on controls and an overall strength assessment of 32-43 combined points.
Now for a possible auction playing Two-Over-One-Game-Force, (assuming no interference from the weak and unshapely E-W hands):

N: 1 Diamond
S: 1 Spade:
6+ points, 4+ Spades.
N: 3 Spades:
Game invitational in Spades showing 18-19 points, and either 4 Spades or 3 to a top honour (ie A/K/Q) with a side singleton.
S: 4 Hearts*:
Slam invitational showing a (either first or second) high card control in Hearts and denying such in both minors.
N: 4 Spades:
Nothing extra.
S: 4NT:
Roman Keycard Blackwood (1430) as South can see the 8/9 card fit in Spades and 32-34 points in the two hands.
N: 5 Spades:
Two plus the Spade Q.
S: 6 Spades:
As discussed above, there's no way for South on this auction to identify the tricks needed for Grand.

* This cuebid sytle is one well worth discussing with partner:

First cuebid by each partner must be a high-card control, either A or K, and denies such in any suit skipped over.
Subsequent cuebids by each partner can be either a high-card or a distributional control, but again denying such in every suit skipped over.
First and second round controls are treated equally.
The goal is to more quickly identify, or eliminate possibility of, any suit with two fast losers. This expedites small slam investigation at the possible expense of grand slam investigation. Many partnerships find this trade-off worthwhile.

Also, some partnerships reverse the meaning of North's 3 NT (to convey "just joking partner - I've lost interest." In that case North would call 4 Clubs instead to show continued interest, and the auction would continue as before.

Here's an auction that finds 7 Spades without being ridiculously aggressive:

N: 1 Diamond
S: 1 Spade
N: 3 Diamonds:**
Game invitational showing 16-19 with five or more good Diamonds.
S: 3 Hearts:
Game forcing as showing 10+ vs 16+.
N: 3 Spades
S: 4 Diamonds:***
I have a face card for you, but no A/K in Clubs.
N: 4 NT:
RKC-1430 with Spades agreed.
S: 5 Diamonds:
Zero or three.
N: 5 Hearts:
Do you have the Spade Q also?.
S: 5 NT:
Yes I do.
N: & Spades:
I can count 13 tricks: 5 Spades, 5 Diamonds, and A/A/K in the round suits.

** It is unclear to me that the North hand here is quite the right holding for a rebid of 3 Diamonds instead of 2 Clubs, most particularly because it both hides the Spade fit and should promise a good six card suit; but it certainly would work on this hand (with the right partnership agreements).
*** One must have good understanding with Partner when making a call such as this to ensure Partner doesn't mis-read it - in particular:
 - when it shows a control;
 - when it shows a high honor (ie A/K/Q); and
 - when it shows a face card (ie A/K/Q/J).
One possible agreement is to use them when Partner has, respectively:
- opened or simply bid;
- opened and rebid; or
- opened and jump rebid
the suit.

Hand Evaluation
The South hand evaluates as about 14 points at the deal, and possibly upgrades to about 15 if North rebids Diamonds strongly:

A/K/A in the majors for 11;
J/J in the short minors for 1; and
Both doubletons (Goren style) or one doubleton and Spade length (more modern) for 2;

The North hand evaluates to about 18-19 points as follows:

Spade Q, Diamond AKQ, CLub A for 15;
Heart K for 2; and
Heart Singleton and Diamond length for 2-3

Call it either a good 18 or a weak 19.
With a total combined strength of 32 at the deal, rising to 33-34 on the bidding and both an easily identified fit in Spades and a strong side suit in Diamonds, finding small slam at least should not be difficult.
In a strong club game or better I would expect at least half the field to find a small slam in either Spades or Notrump. With two good five card suits in 8 and 7 card fits respectively, plus all the aces and keycards in both suits and no interference, there seems no excuse to miss the slam unless one has poor partnership understandings. Even a dedicated Goren partnership with just 1430 RKC should find at least small slam in Spades or Notrump on either the same auction as (1) above or:
1D 1S; 3D 3H*; 3S 4D; 4NT 5D; 5H 5NT; 6S/NT Pass
where [*] creates a game force.
Evan an egregious first rebid by North of 2 Clubs should still find a small slam after a 2 Heart (Fourth-Suit-Forcing (and artificial) rebid by South.

The auctions described above and in the answer by ruds all hinge on the first rebid by North, and its correct interpretation by South. There are three possibilities:

2 Clubs:
Non-forcing, non-invitational, and hides the spade fit: a problem. Partner can pass 2 Clubs with better Clubs than Diamonds and a bare minimum of points, say 5-7. A hand such as KJTxx xx xx Jxxx will find it difficult to avoid passing 2 Clubs despite being almost cold for a 4 Spade contract.
3 Diamonds:
Non-forcing and invitational, but still hides the Spade fit. It works on this deal because South has extras, and in particular the Diamond J. However again partner can pass with a preference and a bare minimum, say on KJTxx xxx xxxx x.
3 Spades:
Yes, this will be taken as showing 4 Spades; but three to a high honour, a working singleton, and full values elsewhere is quite acceptable. With a balanced hand and a bit extra Partner can (and should) accept the invitation with 3NT rather than 4NT when holding a 4-card Spade suit.
All choices for East are a lie in some regard: but which call involves the smallest or least error-prone lie? To not make this call puts a lot of pressure on Partner to rebid a five card Spade suit - which is a bad habit to be avoided not encouraged. Hence this is my choice of call for the hand.

If 2C is an egregious underbid, then surely 3C must be in the picture, and rated above the distorting 3D call. It seems likely that the pair that got to a grand slam started with 3C. I'd also put 2NT in the mix as a bad call that rates above 3D.

@ruds: Okay: North rebids 3C; and South preferences to 3D agreeing Diamonds as Trump. This doesn't help North at all because he can see the top three Diamond honours in hand but needs to use RKC in Spades, and can never agree Spades as trump now below the five level. South's Spades are at least a card short for either a 3S or a 4S rebid, refusing to preference in the lihgt of North's revealed strong two-suiter.

@ruds: 2 NT is better, but still suffers from being passable. At least South will respond 3C (Check-back Stayman) in this instance, creating a game force and allowing Spades to be agreed with a 3S call by North. Then the auction continues as in the third bullet above.

Just for fun, in the Precision version I play with one partner:
1C (16+ hcp) - 1H (5+ spades, gf (rarely 0-1 spades 3 suited))
1S (spade support) - 2H (exactly 5 spades, 2 of top 3 honors)
2S (asks) - 3H (5 controls (A=2, K=1))
4D (asks about diamonds) - 4H (no diamond control)
5D (asks about diamond length) - 5H (two, I think - we've never used this ask in several thousand hands)
6S (you can't bet on the J or the 3-3 split in diamonds)
Also for fun, in KK Relay:
1C (16+ hcp) - 1H (9+ hcp, 4+ spades, at least one 5+ card suit which might not be spades)
1S (asks) - 1N (spades and hearts)
2C (asks) - 3C (exactly 5 spades, 4 hearts, 2 diamonds, 2 clubs, or rarely 7411)
3D (asks) - 4D (5 controls (A=2, K=1), confirms 5422 distribution)
4H (asks) - 4S (both or none of AK spades (longest suit first) - N knows it can't be none)
4N (asks) - 5D (one of AK of hearts, no Q of spades - N is presumed to know about club/diamond AK from control count)
5H (asks) - 5S (no Q of hearts)
5N (asks) - 6C (no Q of diamonds (higher ranking suit first in ties))
6D (asks) - 6H (no Q of clubs)
6S (asks) - 6N (no J of spades)
P (we've run out of room to ask about the other jacks; note the J of spades would've been sufficient to make 7S a good contract since, presuming a 3-2 split, it makes it possible to get back to South's hand and draw trump after ruffing a heart (or even ruff the heart high))
Maybe the 6D ask is too optimistic, since it means you might not be able to stop in 6S and 6N is riskier than 6S if partner has nothing, in which case the 5N ask is pointless (since North knows the answer they'll get).  (Also, 6N makes the known hand declarer, so defenders will defend double dummy.)
(Also - note that all of South's bids starting with 5D are encrypted!  As far as the agreements are concerned, it's possible that South has 4 or fewer controls in spades and hearts combined, in which case 5D shows one of AK of hearts and neither or both AK of diamonds, and 5S denies Q of spades, 6C denies Q of hearts, and so on.  Of course both North and South knows which is the case, and it would take a very aware and daft North (or South, behind screens or online with self-alerts) to explain this ambiguity to the opponents!)

With my long-suffering partner we would get to 6S easily enough. A grand would be a not unreasonable gamble at best, and might be bid if we need a swing. But you see, a 41 spade split more or less dooms all grands. And if the fifth diamond and a heart ruff are needed to get to 13 tricks, a club lead will knock of the dearly needed late entry. We don't have the tools to diagnose the importance of DJ. Obviously that would be taken into account in those cases, where a swing is needed, but normally you only bid a grand when you can count 13 tricks.
Our bidding (approximate, I will actually show this hand to my partner if there are points of interest)

N:1D (=usually five for we open most balanced hands either 1C or an appropriate number of NT), S:1S.
N:1NT (a Gazzilli variant for showing various hand types), S:2C = a non-minimum hand (8+HCP).
N:2S (=17+points with exactly 3 card support, 2H would also show 3 card support but a slightly weaker hand, 2D would show 45 in the reds, deny 3 card support, and limit the hand to less than reverse range). Together with South's 2C this creates a game force. S:3S (=sets spades as trumps, so promises at least five, invites cue bidding, so slam positive as opposed to a fast arrival 4S).
N:4C, S: 4H (lowest controls).
At this point North should fire Ole Black. The HK just got better (unlikely that partner's 4H is showing a stiff), and there is the chunky diamond suit. N: 4NT, S: 5C, 0/3 out of five, now obviously three, making North sit up.

Three keycards in the South hand is great news. Still, entries for heart ruffs may be difficult to arrange. A diamond jack or king of clubs could do. A probe for a grand is justified, and my partner would probably do one. If my glass has been half empty all evening I might simply close shop at 6S, and apologize if a grand is cold. As others pointed out, longer spades in partner's hand improve the odds for the grand immensely.
Then again, a heart ruff may not be needed. I guess a generic king ask/grand invitation is best, so

N: 5NT, S: 6S (no kings to tell about, nothing extra, that diamond jack is of uncertain value even though you like it).


text:
Bridge auction: 3rd suit tells – 4th suit asks
Subject: 3rd suit tells – 4th suit asks [in Bridge auction]
I occasionally used to hear the old fogies round my bridge club quote the above phrase. However, none of them could ever really explain it well.
As I haven't seen any of them since the pandemic started, I've searched online; but even there I find very little to advance my understanding of it.
If anybody reading this can help I would be eternally grateful.

This Aces on Bridge shows a good example of this.  Look in the "Bid with the Aces" section.
What this describes is an auction where you're exploring NT, and trying to figure out if you're comfortable with coverage in all four suits.
If you have an auction like:

N
E
S
W

1C
-
1H
-

1S
-
1NT
-

2D
-
?
-

2D there would be "asking" for diamond suit coverage.  It wouldn't show coverage, because that's pointless - if N is not worried about diamonds, N would just bid 3NT.
However, in this auction:

N
E
S
W

1D
-
1S
-

1NT
-
2C
-

?

Now you'd be showing a clubs stopper, and looking to see if North had a hearts stopper, since there are two outstanding suits.
All of this assumes fairly basic conventions, as there are other options for conveying this information of course.
It's also worth noting that this is distinct from "fourth suit forcing" - had South bid 2D in the initial auction, that wouldn't necessarily be "asking" for diamonds, it's a generic forcing bid.  As noted in comments, a common response to fourth suit forcing is still in line with this idea - showing the stopper in the fourth suit by bidding NT.

I'd only add that after "Fourth Suit Forcing" by Responder, one of Opener's options, with a balanced or semi-balanced hand, is to show the stopper by bidding notrump.

I wasn’t really intending to go quite that far in but makes sense to include I suppose!

No pressure; you've already got my upvote. It just seems to round out the discussion.

I have never heard that phrase for the concept, but it's a very valid one.  The version I hear is "two suits shows, one suit asks". That is, if there are two suits your side are concerned about (stoppers for NT), you bid the one you have (and NT with both, of course); with only one suit of concern, if you bid it, you're asking for one (because you'd bid NT if you had it).
Notice that this maps onto your phrase perfectly - "third suit tells", because you're concerned about two suits (the third and fourth); "fourth suit asks" because you are concerned only about one (the bid fourth suit).
Of course, these can apply one after the other - with two suits open, I show the stopper I have.  If partner then bids the other suit, there's only one suit open any more, so she's asking.  Note that since I've denied full stoppers in both suits (I would have bid NT myself), what she's asking for is a half-stopper (I have Qx, do you have Jxx?)
This applies a little more generally than just "third suit shows, fourth suit asks", although that's the most common situation.

After inverted minor raises (1C-2C or 1D-2D "limit or better" or "game forcing"), the "standard" set of responses is to show the major stopper you have, and NT if you have both (3 of the minor if you have none, usually).  The other minor is usually ignored here, because these auctions get major suit leads (as the 2m bidder has already denied a major suit).

When there is interference, there may be multiple suits unbid, but not enough room to find them all out.  The "one suit" that you absolutely have to care about is the one they bid (potentially, and raised), so bidding it asks. (what it asks depends on the pair; some show a half-stopper looking for the other half, some show none, needing a full stopper; some can do both with different auctions).

Similar style when cuebidding for slam (though these phrases don't completely apply): The person who knows they have sufficient controls to not lose two tricks in a suit can switch to Blackwood or some other "are we off two quick tricks" call.  A (very confusing) convention called Last Train[1]  replicates this "fourth suit asks" trick - instead of using the "last bid below game" to show a stopper, it shows "real slam interest, but I don't have this stopper", so partner if they do, can take over, and if they don't either, can stop in 4M.
[1]: (originally "to Clarkesville", but the people who saw the Monkees live are dying out)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Please help me better understand the Lebensohl convention
I've just started trying to understand the Lebensohl 2NT transfer --- used after partner opens INT and there is intervening interference from opponent,  eg.,  1NT > > > 2 ❤ > > > 2NT. My 2NT bid instructs partner to bid 3 ♧ and tells him that I have a stopper in opponents suit ("slow shows").
If anybody reading this can help me better understand this very complicated convention, I would be eternally grateful.

Executive Summary

Lebensohl sacrifices 2NT as a natural invitation in NT in order to allow responder to have two meanings for all 5 3-level bids - one if bid directly, one if bid after 2NT-3C.  2NT doesn't "show" anything; only the full two-bid sequence does.  Lose one (pretty useless one) to gain five useful ones - a good trade.
"Slow shows" (also known as "fast denies") only applies to two of those 5 auctions - the cuebid (Stayman) and 3NT.

Understanding the "Complicated Convention"
Formatting note: there are lots of rabbit warrens to go down with even a simplified explanation of Lebensohl.  I've put a (*) next to the entrances, and then after the "basic" explanation, down the hole we go.  If you care.
There are variations, but Standard Lebensohl is still reasonably effective, and anyone that plays any Lebensohl will be able to play it the "Standard" way.  I'll try to build it up for you in a way that may make more sense (though Anderson's classic is still the best way to learn the basics).
Step 1: Getting halfway there
When I'm teaching, I start people off with what I call "half-Lebensohl", or "Lebensohl without Lebensohl".  It can be taught to your partner in 5 minutes, you won't forget it, and it gets you a long way (at least ahead of "no idea" or "stolen bid doubles" - which against people like me turn into "stolen auction" doubles because I bid on garbage, knowing you can't double me):

two bids are natural and to play (transfers are off (*))
three bids are natural and game forcing
cuebid is Stayman (and game forcing)
double is penalty (opposite a standard 15-17 1NT, that's 7+ HCP or so and 4 trump.  "more points" and "no 8-card trump fit" equal "going down").

Agreements can be made as to whether 2NT or 3NT promise a stopper or just hope; and whether this applies over a 2C overcall (I say no, double=Stayman and systems on seems better here).
Now, you'll notice some problems with this - and more the more you play it.  I've already pointed out one - how do we know if we have a stopper in their suit when we have the points for 3NT?  But there are others:

1NT-(2H).  I have to pass with xxx x xxx KJxxxx?  Really?
1NT-(2H).  I have to guess with KJTxxx x Axx xxx whether to stop in 2 or force to game.  It would be really nice to be able to invite.
1NT-(2D showing spades and another suit). What's 2S?  3D?  3S? (basically you need rules about "what suit is the anchor suit" in artificial overcall auctions (*)).
1NT-(2C, "some single suited hand") (or "diamonds, or a major and a minor")  or (2D "hearts or spades") You need rules about what it means when you bid directly, versus what it means when you wait for them to show their suit and then come in (*).

Step 2: How to get the rest back - sacrifice the natural 2NT response
Again, when I'm teaching, I will wait a month or so for those people I've taught half-Lebensohl to, to realize where the frustrations are.  Then I show them the secret, which is exactly your question:
The number of times you want to invite in NT is very very low (*), and you certainly never want to play 2NT on an invite opposite a minimum.  So (key point 1), we sacrifice that call and instead it means "please bid 3C, so I can show you my hand" (technically this is called a "puppet".  You don't need to know that).  Effectively, you now have two ways to make each of the 3-level bids - directly, or after bidding 2NT.
That's all you need to understand about "the Lebensohl convention".  They've taken away some of your room and some of your sequences; you sacrifice a nearly-useless sequence to gain 5 useful ones.
So, what sequences do we get?  In "Standard", after going through 2NT-3C:

3 bids lower than overcaller's suit (or pass of 3C) are natural and to play.
3 bids higher than overcaller's suit are natural and invitational.
Cuebid is still Stayman, game forcing
3NT is still to play.

But, but, what's this "slow shows"?
But, you may ask, if we now have two Stayman calls, and two 3NT calls, what's the difference?  Well, remember the key problem was "how do we avoid playing 3NT when they can run their suit?"  So the key thing to want to know is "do you have a stopper or not?"  So:

direct bidding (of Stayman or 3NT) denies a stopper (so opener will do something other than 3NT without one either).
going through 2NT shows a stopper (so opener doesn't have to worry about xxx in their suit).  This is "slow shows" (you took the two-round way to show your hand).

So, the second key: "Slow shows" (or "Fast denies", equivalently) only applies to these two auctions.  All other 2NT sequences show differing strength to the "fast" version, rather than possession or otherwise of a stopper.
And that's it.  With those 4 rules and that one stepping stone, "no meaning" bid, you get:

to play in all unbid suits;
game forcing in all unbid suits;
invitations in some suits (those higher than the overcall);
Game-forcing Stayman for unbid majors;
security that if we end in 3NT, we have their suit stopped at least once;
and you can still punish them when they come in and it's wrong.

Which is pretty much everything.  Sure, you lose the "right-siding" of transfers (*), and sometimes you will just have the 8-count that doesn't feel comfortable doubling, and you'll have no invite.  But if it didn't make your life harder, they wouldn't overcall.
For many people, this is where you can stop and be comfortable with what I call "the most complicated convention everybody should play".
(Some of) The Rest of the Story
But if you're Alice, like me, you'll have noticed a bunch of dangling threads you want to look at.  Note: this will not be exhaustive (either in scope or in detail), just a bit of "drink me" to get you thinking or investigating.
Transfers are off
Standard Lebensohl takes away transfers.  There are two reasons for transfers:

"the strong hand gets to play it"; and
you get two sequences for each "bid" - transfer-and-pass, and transfer-and-bid.

When we teach transfers, we usually emphasize the first one.  And it is an advantage (especially with the strong NT).  But the second is much more important.
With standard Lebensohl, we "get the sequences back", and give up the rightsiding.
There are alternatives.  One, known as "Rubensohl" (after Jeff Rubens) or "transfer Lebensohl", treats all calls 2NT and higher as transfers (so now, 2NT does in fact "show" clubs; 3C is diamonds,...)  It's an alternative way to get "to play" and "forcing" (and "invitational", where you had a natural 2x bid available), but it's even more complicated ("transfer to their suit is Stayman", for instance) and not everybody knows it or can remember it if they do.
Also, if you play Texas (4-level) transfers, the standard agreement is that they are still on over interference if it's a jump.  So with KTxxxx x AQx JTx, you can still get opener to play spades after 1NT-(2H).
What about the 3 level?
Sometimes the nasty opponents overcall at the 3 level, taking away that nice 2NT puppet.  What do you do?  Well, nothing's great, but the following is "standard":

bids are game forcing
double is takeout (more flexible than penalty, and partner with KTxx can pass!)
double and 3NT could just be "I have a stopper".

More flexible?  Can I hear more about that?
Another common variation makes the double takeout even at the 2 level.  I switched 5 years ago and will never go back (I play a weak NT in a strong NT world; so "reproducing" their 1m-(1H)-X auctions with 1NT-(2H)-X is a powerful advantage. But even with strong NT, I like it better).  Sure when they step out and they're wrong, the +800 is juicy; but the takeout double comes up much more often, and leads to +110 or +140 vs +100 (or -110)! a lot when it does.  And sometimes opener has the trumps and can convert, so we still get some penalties.  Also, opener "will protect" with a poor trump holding (my agreement is Qx or worse), so we get some of those back too (with the danger that we're now either -470 or -500; nothing works all the time).
Don't assume this with a partner without discussion, though!  Standard is penalty, and -470 (and it's usually -5 or more 70, they make overtricks) is never a good way to find out you're not on the same page.
Artificial overcalls (or what is the Lebensohl suit?)
There are pairs with pages of rules about this; it is not easy, and with the plethora of NT overcall schemes (Nine pages of them here) you're bound to run into one you've never seen before.  A good default:

if they have the suit they bid, that's the suit.  If they have another (known or unknown), guess and hope on that.

there is an argument if they've shown 2 known suits, the "cheaper" cuebid is the suit (so 1NT-2D (D+H, Brozel), the suit is hearts, because you have a 2H cuebid cheaper than 3D).

if they show two known suits, neither of them the suit bid, the cheaper suit is the suit. (note this is most often a bid for both majors; frequently it will be 5-4 (or even 4-4), and your fit is in one of their suits.  You can hope it's the other one!)
if they show one suit and an unknown second, ignore the unknown.

if they bid 2C "clubs and", decide whether to ignore it (and play double=Stayman, systems on) or have clubs be the suit (in which case you either lose the ability to "Stayman with a stopper" or you agree that 1NT-(2C)-2NT; 3C-3D is "Stayman with" and give up the invitational hand in diamonds (better if you both remember!)

if they don't show a known suit, you can bid "half-Lebensohl" directly (and leave them blind), or you can wait for them to show their suit and follow the above rules on the next round (there's a danger that fourth hand will pass because the suit bid is their suit, but it's very rare).

definitely if they double "single suit", or "4-card Major and longer minor, both unknown", just ignore it and play systems on (but if you pass and come in next round, Lebensohl applies).
also definitely if they bid 2C "single suit" or "diamonds or Major-minor", systems on, the first round.

But I want to invite in NT!
No, you usually don't.  As mentioned earlier, if partner passes you, they're likely running their suit before you get yours set up, and you're not even making 2.  And if you've got sufficient stoppers that that doesn't happen, you're likely setting them, so double instead.    Yes, the time you have the hand is annoying.  But compared to the times you have the other three hands, and the comfort when you get to 3NT that you do have the suit stopped, it's a drop in the bucket.  Try it and see!
Why "slow shows"?
It's up to you.  You can agree to play FASS (Fast Action Shows Stopper), if you want 1NT-(2H)-3NT to be the "will be passed" one (and avoid 1NT-(2H)-2NT!-(3H)).  There are advantages and disadvantages to either way; but not enough to say that one is better than the other.  But "slow shows" is more common, and "expected" in "standard".
This is cool, what else can I do with it?
A lot.  The classic two other situations are:

after double of a weak 2.  You have the same basic problem here; you want to be able to bid weakly, and show strength, and you only have one 3C bid.  You want to maybe find 4-4 major fits, or see if 3NT is worth playing, but being off the first 6 tricks is embarrassing.  It's also highly unlikely that you will have a "natural NT invite" opposite a takeout double.  So 2NT Lebensohl puppet to the rescue!
after partner reverses.  Reverses are strong auctions, usually 16 or 17-21.  Almost always you're going to game.  But sometimes you responded on the 6 count (or Axxx and out!), and you need a way to warn partner to slow down.  Again, two ways to make 3-level bids come to the rescue!

Note that with both of these, unlike 1NT, opener is unlimited, and might want to wave off your attempt to slow down.  That's even more complication...
There are also many other treatments that are "Lebensohlish" in nature:

a big one is "Good/Bad 2NT".  Don't ask me to explain it (I've never got an explanation I can understand well enough to play it), but basically "in competition, 2NT is a convention, not a contract".  So 2NT shows interest in competing to the 3 level, but not game ("bad 2NT"); where as bidding 3 level directly shows extras and game interest ("good").
1M-p-2M-X looks an awful lot like "double of a weak 2", doesn't it?
there are even people who play 1NT (by a passed hand) in auctions like p-p-1D-1H: 1NT as "Lebensohl"!

There are also many other uses of puppet bids (not even looking like Lebensohl) in other conventions, that cover different situations; always with the idea of "we don't have enough sequences here, so let's give up a not-very-useful one to double the rest of them". (Note: interestingly enough, "Puppet Stayman" as usually played isn't a puppet).

Many thanks for such an excellent response -- you have taught me a lot.

This is an excellent summary. Too often a "teacher", or a convention chart, just lists the meanings of various bids without describing the underlying thinking.

The main purpose of Lebensohl is to allow responder to take control of the auction.  Standard 1NT (15-17, 16-18, balanced) auctions generally suggest that responder is the player with more knowledge of the partnership's combined hands; you know a very small point range around what partner has, and you know what you have, but nobody else knows what you have, so you should be in control for the most part.
Lebensohl lets you take control of an auction that's otherwise fairly hard to navigate.  2H or 2S takes up a fair amount of room you otherwise would've liked to have had; so you use the "puppet" response.

N
E
S
W

1NT
2H
2NT
P

3C
P
?

Now most of your responses require partner to pass - you can stop in 3C or 3D.  It also opens up the invitational 3S here, where 2S was available; in the reverse case, where the interference was 2S, 3H is not invitational.  But it gives you this third option...

1NT-2H-2S = to play
1NT-2H-3S = game forcing
1NT-2H-2N--3C--3S = invitational

I would note that I don't agree that it shows a stopper in all auctions - only in the 1NT-2H-2NT--3C--3NT auction does it show the stopper (and make sure you know what to do if you're the 1NT bidder and the auction is 1NT-2H-3NT - pass is not correct if you don't have a stopper!).  In any other sequence, it does not suggest anything about a stopper; it's just a way to exit the auction at the lowest level, allowing the "natural" bids to mean more.
The importance of this is that 1NT-2H-3C is not passable - if responder wanted to play in 3 of a minor, they would've used Lebensohl; so that sequence now can mean something else, something more interested in game or slam.

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


text:
Opening light in the 3rd position
What requirements do you have for opening the auction light in the third position when you are light ?
vulnerability?
strength?
4-card major?
etcetera?
All responses will be welcome.

My feeling is that, in expert play, you should open in 3rd seat if you'd be willing to overcall, OR if you'd be willing to open in 1st seat.  (Of course, sometimes you make 4 card overcalls.  Nonvulnerable, I'd overcall 1S over 1C on AKJx xx xxx xxxx or KQxxx x xxx xxxx)  In expert play, I also think it's profitable to psyche frequently in 3rd seat favorable, but unfortunately that's actually illegal in most bridge jurisdictions (as frequent psyches make a partnership agreement and an agreement to open as light as 0 hcp is illegal).  (Note I'm not an expert.)
Now, I'm not going to follow that at the local club.  My partner probably isn't prepared for it, but even if I was playing with someone who was, this kind of aggressive bidding scares less skilled and less competitive players away (and we end up with not enough players at the club for a game).  Also, against worse players, we already do well enough by just outplaying them and there is no need to take extra gambles, even if the gambles work out more often than not.

I'm just an intermediate, so keep that in mind.
I  think this has to be divided into different kinds of opening bid:

1 NT (and stronger bids) should be the same as usual.
1 of a suit - I still want 5 cards for a major, but will make rare exceptions. I'd say 11 HCP
Preempt - 3rd seat white on red, I'll go a bit crazy. As long as I have a long suit, I'll bid even with no points outside the suit. Why?  I have read that the average HCP in a passed hand is 7. So, figure partner has 7 and RHO has 7. Now, if I have 7 as well .... well, LHO has 19!  Make them bid at the 3 or 4 level!  (Don't you hate it when your opponents do this to you?).

Points 1 and 2 are good; but statistical fallacy in "I have read that the average HCP in a passed hand is 7. So, figure partner has 7 and RHO has 7.". That only applies BEFORE you look at your cards. Once you look at your cards, that changes. If you have only 6 points you need to figure that the two passed hands in front of you each are increased, on average, by some fraction of the amount you're short of 10. Further: you and partner not being good enough to profit from bad 3rd hand preempts doesn't mean strong players aren't capable of doing so. Also beware ethical violations - see above.


text:
Partner opens 1NT (15-17 HCP) and then your RHO intervenes
My question is about whether or not you play "systems off" if there is an interfering bid by your RHO (right-hand opponent)? I guess that how you will respond to your partner's opening 1NT bid depends on exactly what is the RHO's bid.
For example, if she bids 2 clubs and you were intending the same bid as a Stayman enquiry, then you would just double her bid to tell your partner that "she stole my Stayman.... do you have a 4-card major?".
But, what you do if she bid another suit or 2NT and you had originally planned to use the Stayman convention? Or, what if you were planning to initiate a transer command to your Partner's 1NT, and she interfered with that.
All comments, answers and suggestions will be welcome.

This is what I would expect to agree with an advanced player at the partnership desk given that we have only a few minutes to discuss all of our agreements and want to stick with what I would expect both of us to be familiar with.
If opponents bid 2C or a double, systems are on, double of 2C being Stayman.  If 1N is naturally doubled, redouble is to run out to 2 of a minor; if 1N is artificially doubled, redouble suggests penalizing them.
Otherwise, 2N is the Lebensohl convention - it requires partner to bid 3C, after which I can show a weak (i.e. less than invitational) hand in a  suit I could not have bid at the 2 level (other than the opponent's suit) or an invitational hand in a suit I could have bid at the 2 level.  A bid of 3N is to play, but denying a stopper in their suit; 2N followed by 3N is to play, showing a stopper.  Analogously, a bid of their suit is Stayman without a stopper; 2N followed by their suit is Stayman with a stopper.
(There are various alternatives to Lebensohl, some of which are genuine improvements, but none of them are even close to being known by all advanced players.)
Otherwise, 2-level bids are natural and intended to be passed, and 3-level bids are natural and game forcing.
Double is negative, showing a hand short in the opponent's suit, without an obvious suit of our own to compete in, and less than game forcing strength.  (A substantial but shrinking minority still prefers double to be penalty.)


text:
Partner opens the auction with a Weak Two bid and then your RHO intervenes
Can the Ogust convention still be used?

You have my permission to use it, if RHO doubles or bids 2♠! Whether it's a good idea to have that agreement is up to you and your partner.

The McCabe convention, briefly, gives you the following options after opponent doubles after your partner opens a weak two:

A new suit as cheaply as possible: A lead-directing raise of partner's suit. If LHO passes, your partner will rebid their suit. If LHO bids, your partner should lead the suit you've bid.
2NT: Whatever 2NT would have been without interference.
Redouble: A single-suited hand, usually with a void in partner's suit but essentially always with 7 cards or better in our own suit -- essentially, a reason to believe that your suit provides a better place to play than partner's. If your LHO passes, partner will bid the cheapest suit so that you can pass or correct.

If opponents intervene in another way, one reasonable way to play is that bids mean the same thing they would without interference (so 2NT would still be Ogust if that's your agreement). Note that double by responder after opener's preempt is always for penalties.

YA"name of convention is not full disclosure" game: McCabe, in any of my bridge areas, is the '2NT is runout, XX is blood' I mention below (to the 25% of the field that has heard of it at all).  I play "Goldman Raises and Parking Lot Redoubles" - which is what you are describing as McCabe :-).

As (almost) always here, all the other answers are correct.  However, a question arises (hinted at with AdamW's answer) about efficiency.  In other words, "You can.  Should you?"
Now, of course, if the opponents' intervention is at the 3+ level, you can't bid 2NT.  Ignoring that...
What is the point of Ogust (or any other 2NT inquiry)?  It is to find out if partner's opener has the right cards for game (in their suit or in NT, usually.  If you're looking for "right cards for game in my suit", almost always the "right cards" are in that suit, and so bidding it (forcing) to find out is the way to do that).
Now, a common bridge aphorism is "you don't preempt over a preempt".  There are good reasons for that, but it's outside the scope of this question.  The relevance here is "when they intervene, they have stuff".  Now, if your game doesn't ascribe to that bit of bridge wisdom, then maybe the case for Ogust is more prominent (and the case for "don't care what the field does, we don't preempt over a preempt" raises even higher.  You'll get the good results from partner knowing you have stuff, and the good results from the opponents not counting on you for it).
But in a normal field:
When you intervene over a 1-level opening bid, is your system designed around finding game?  or competing for partscore?  The latter, obviously (yes, there are games when the opponents open at the 1 level.  Yes, they're good to get to.  But 90% of these auctions are either "compete for partscore" or "work out if we should sacrifice over their game"/"find the right lead against their contract").
It's the same here. LHO has "opened" over your partner's "overcall" (with playing strength, in their suit at least).  How often are you looking for game, as opposed to competing for partscore, or raising the preempt, or determining if the sacrifice is there?
Another question is: assuming RHO lets partner answer, how much do you want the opponents to know the answer to "how good is your weak 2/where are your cards"?  If your side the one with game, then you're telling the opponents if they should sacrifice or defend; if they're the ones with values, how much is that worth to the "two-way guesses"/"finesse or drop" analysis?
I have switched to the style ruds sets out (although I know it with a different set of convention names).  We actually have 2NT as an explicit "does not have a meaning"  I guess we could play it as Ogust, still, but our preempt style, being more aggressive than normal, makes it even less likely we have game on power, and more likely that "just bid game, either it makes or it's better than their 140, without telling the opponents what's in opener's hand" is the right decision.
If you play sound/"disciplined" weak 2s, you may consider switching 2NT and XX - yes, it means you're forced to the 3 level of your "my suit is better than yours", even if it is higher than partner's, but fitting with "double by preempter's partner is always for penalties", you get the "partner, they have stepped out here" immediate flag that pass (which could also, and usually does, mean "oh good, I'm glad they're going to let us off the hook") does not.  And if opener has the 6=4 that partner can't cover (or KQx, or), when they run to that suit, they get to double.


text:
In this Go position, can black capture the entire length of the white arm?
In the position below, can black capture the entire length of the white arm with a combination starting with placing a black stone on A?

Yes.  That white chain has only two liberties - A and the space next to A.  If black fills both of them the chain will be captured. None of the surrounding black stones are vulnerable to capture because of their eyes, so white has no defense against this play.
The space next to A will have no liberties when black plays in it, but that is okay because capturing the white pieces will open up the liberties as black plays their piece.
White could technically capture the stone at A by playing next to it, but doing so would be pointless because it would use up the other liberty and black would still be able to capture.

Yes, but Black doesn't need to.  Since each of the surrounding groups already have two eyes, there's no reason to play those stones.  In fact, it will cost Black two points in Japanese scoring.
If one of the outside groups was in danger, then you could play at A and the point next to A to remove the group.  When the second stone is played, both the two stones just played, and the large group will be without liberties.  In this situation, the opponent's stone are captured before your own, so the large group is captured and the two stones stay on the board.

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


text:
How to make a small slam in bridge with less than 30 points between the partnership?
The following hand came up recently in the Common Game. I would like my gentle reader let me know how you would have bid in order to reach the optimal contract (6 clubs). I know that a small slam really is possible because a few partnerships, admittedly rare, actually bid and made 6 clubs. I suspect those partnerships used the Precision Club system, or some variation thereof; but any insights that you can provide would be much appreciated.

At matchpoints in the typical club, given just the N/S hands, I would much rather be in 3N; I would figure to get most of the matchpoints at little risk, whereas 6C, even if it's more than 50%, can go down in a variety of ways.  It is not good matchpoint play to risk a 75% score for a 60% chance of a 100% score (and 40% chance of a 0).  At a good club, calculations change because I can't expect a 75% for 3N.

Thank you for your response, Alexander; but I think you miss the point of my question.The safety players in our club bid and made 3NT.  For that they got 400 masterpoints, which is far less than the few partnerships that bid and made 6 clubs, who were rewarded with 920 masterpoints.

But you should make at least 10 tricks for 430 in 3N, and a good player will probably make 11 for 460.  Making 11 tricks puts you ahead of the players making 9 or 10, and gets you around 75% on the board.

Stefanovitch, is your club using total scoring? Highly unusual I must say. @Alexander assumed that matchpoint scoring is used. So he wants to be sure that he scores better than the average player holding these cards. Saying that he expects a 75% score declaring this hand radiates a degree of confidence in his own (and/or his partners) declarer play! But the logic is that in a matchpoint tournament 3NT is often a good enough contract with these cards. Partner and I might probe for a slam (when the MP logic would more or less force us to also bid it).

I propose the following sequence playing a standard approach, with EW passing throughout:
1C 1D
1S     4 Spades, denying a hand suitable to rebid 1NT
   2H  4th Suit Forcing to game, suggesting dislike for NT
3C     5-card Club suit, dislikes NT also, often denies Heart control
   4C  agreeing clubs, still forcing, extras
4D     1st or 2nd round control in Diamonds
   4H  1st or 2nd round control in Hearts
6C     We have the controls, and 5C is almost always a bad result

Another possibility using Single Raise Forcing (10+ Pts)  is:
1C  2C  forcing raise, 4+ support and 13+ support points
2S      4 Spades, two suited with longer Clubs than Spades
    3H  Denies Diamond A or K, shows Heart A or K, Game Force
3S      Spade A or K and Diamond A or K or singleton denied by partner
    4H  Holding both A and K, or singleton A, of Hearts; and
        likes the Diamond and Spade controls from Opener
6C      Looks like a super fit

It is also faulty analysis to claim that NS have less than 30 points combined. The South hand is worth 16 to 17 points in a Club contract (15 HCP and either 1 point for the fifth Club or two points for the two doubletons) and the North hand is worth 16 Dummy points in a Club contract (14 HCP - 1 for the unsupported QS + 3 for the singleton Spade). This is a combined partnership strength of 32-33 points, and as the auctions above indicate that it is quite reasonable, using standard methods, to find the Club slam.
If finding reasonable slams were easy, they wouldn't be worth so much. Bridge is designed to reward those who can accurately reassess hand strength during the auction, in light of bidding by partner and the opponents.

Many thanks for your comments and proposals, which I found most helpful, especially the second bidding sequence. Am I right in thinking that Single Raise Forcing is also known as Inverted Minors ?

@Stefanovitch: One can (at least theoretically) play Single Raise Forcing without the second aspect of Inverted Minors, namely the Jump Raise Preemptive. As the sequence above did not require any inference in regards the Jump Raise I used only the most specific agreement.

@Stefanovitch: Note that not all partnerships use the cue-bid style I have exemplified here -  but as you can see it is very informative.

It's possible that those partnerships used Splinter Bids, which are artificial bids that promise High Card Points a bit short of a guaranteed slam but also show shortness in the bid suit to compensate.  With a bit of distribution luck it's possible to get extra tricks via ruffs.
As discussed in the article above, specifics like splinter bids after minor openings and other slam bidding conventions come into play.  But I suspect that a splinter bid first alerted South of a favorable card distribution, with an Ace opposite a singleton spade.

An Ace is always more valuable opposite a long suit than opposite a singleton - as in the former case it assists in setting up additional length and honour tricks, while the latter case it is a duplicate control. Thus your answer is incorrect analysis - the determination of that duplication should slow the auction, not accelerate it.


text:
How to make a small slam in bridge with only 25 high card points between the partnership?
This follows my recent question about how to bid a small slam in clubs with <30 HCP; but this time the partnership only had 25 HCP in toto (board 15 TCG). The optimal contract was 6 diamonds by West; but even fewer couples bid and made that compared with the 6 club slam in my previous question. In fact, only 1 of 1807 partnerships bid and made the small slam in diamonds.
My partner and I bid 3 diamonds; but in fact ended up making a total of 12 tricks. East opened the bidding with 1 club and West responded with 1 diamond. East responded with 3 diamonds, which jump raise by Opener is usually forcing in our partnership. West chose not to be forced and ended up playing 3 diamonds. There were no intervening bids by our N-S opponents.

My question to you, gentle reader, is how would you bid this hand in order to end up in a small slam contract of 6 diamonds by West. Should East have shown his strength (17 HCP + 2 shortness points for the singleton heart) more forcefully ?   Should he have indicated an interest in slam investigation with a control-showing cuebid bid during the second round of the auction.  I look forward, as usual, to reading your comments, criticisms and words of wisdom.

Looking at just the E/W hands, 6!D has about a 20% chance of making.  So you don't want to be in it (unless you've peeked at the N/S cards).  At matchpoints, you should be wondering about how to get to 3N.  With my preferred bidding system, it would go 1D-3C(*)-3S-3N (where 3C shows 7-9 high card points and 5+ diamonds)

Without the 3C gadget, I would suggest 1D-1N-2N-3N or 1C-1D-1S-1N-2N-3N or 1C-1N-2N-3N.  If South opens 2H (which some will), I think you'll get something like (2H)-P-(3H)-X-(P)-3N (yes that double is for takeout)

@AlexanderWoo: Please don't put answers into comments - especially good ones!

Making or not, if you find yourself wandering into this low-odds slam you should be asking why your bidding system, or perhaps use of it, is preventing you from stopping in 3 or 4 NT on a minor-suit fit. Finding this slam indicates a flaw, not a strength, of your bidding system.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I think you misunderstand my question. My partner and I did not find ourselves "wandering into this low-odds slam". The contract that we played on the hand above was 3 diamonds --- far less than the 12 tricks we made.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: Maybe I should rephrase the question. Is there any way that you can see for E-W to successfully bid a small slam in diamonds using conventions that are not unique to your partnership ?

@AlexanderWoo: Thank you again for your thought provoking comments. Just for my own edification, would you explain how you reach the conclusion that the above hand had a 20% chance of making a small slam in diamonds by E-W ?

Lack of entries to West , and the need to preserve them for other suits, makes odds of avoiding the diamond loser 53% (40% to be 2-2, 13% to be singleton Q). Then odds of finding Club Q is 50%, providing a place to park the second Spade of West's. Then you need to avoid two Heart losers, either because Diamonds were originally 2-2 (40%) or the Heart A and Q are split (50%). Total odds are then about 53% * 50% * 70% = 19%. Perhaps there is a small additional chance in there somewhere, but 6D is NOT a contract you want to be finding frequently.

Looking at just the East West hands without looking at the North South hands, 6D is a fairly poor contract.  It has only about a 20% chance of making unless you have peeked at the North South hands.
There are a number of choices that East/West can make during the bidding, but all of them should end up at 3N.
Possible auctions (depending on various subtle differences in partnership agreements and player judgement, all of which are playable) include:
1D-1N-2N-3N
1D-1N-2S-3D-3N
1D-2D-2S-3N (if not playing "inverted minors")
1D-3C(*)-3S-3N (inverted minors with a 3C mixed raise - I've also seen partnerships that use 2S or 2H instead of 3C for this purpose)
1D-3D(*)-3S-3N (inverted minors without a special mixed raise)
1C-1N-2N-3N
1C-1N-2S-3N
1C-1D-1S-1N-2N-3N

The calculation of slam success (thanks to Forget i was ever here) is as follows:

You need to guess who has the club Q so that you don't lose a club trick.  This is 50%.
You also need to avoid the diamond loser.  If the diamonds are 2-2, then you can ruff 2 hearts in the East hand.  There is another way to avoid a diamond loser, which is if the Q is singleton.  In this case, you need a heart finesse to work to avoid a heart loser, and whichever heart finesse you choose to try is 50%.  This comes out to 40% + 1/2*13%, so 47%.

Total odds are then about 50% * 47% = 24%.  This isn't exactly correct, as there are a few additional unlikely chances to make the contract as well as a few other unlikely chances for it could go down, but 6D is NOT a contract you want to be finding frequently.

Feel free to edit my addition to suit your style; or to remove it if desired.

Actually, I think there are 2 roughly cancelling mistakes in the calculation: (1) the avoidance of heart losers and avoidance of diamond losers aren't independent, so you can't just multiply those probabilities, and (2) you can't pick up Qxxx from South and need the heart finesse (regardless of the diamonds) to pick it up from North.

There is no need to pick up HQxxx from South; just the need to guess correctly - once only -  which of split honours is in South. Of course one can squeeze a little more out of the percentages, but that's close enough to ballpark the overall odds. You are correct on the other point - but I'm doing all this in my head w/o pencil and paper and ust looking to be close; not dead-on. Feel free to edit however.

(I'm checking because I might be the one who's wrong.)  If Qxxx of clubs is with South, how do you get rid of the spade loser?

Lead the CJ and then C2 from East. EW combined have 5 of the six Clubs 9 through A, so two will go on one trick with South's Q as a winner, plus the other 3 as three more winners.

But South just ducks clubs 3 times!

oops - i see now

I always count my 9's.

Six diamonds is an aggressive contract that "makes" by luck. But you should have been in FIVE diamonds.
By rebidding three diamonds, East is showing about 17 points. He actually has 17 high card points, plus another three for his heart singleton. You have eight points (nine, counting your spade doubleton).
You should have taken the "force" to four diamonds. With a bare minimum for this three diamond bid, East might have passed, but he had "extras" (relative to 17), and would then bid five.
You and East have 29 points (counting distribution) and nine trumps (instead of the usual eight). Five diamonds is a comfortable contract.


text:
Is it possible to live with false eyes, only?
Sometimes, in a game of Go, we get a life where there is a false eye involved: There are two groups with a single real eye, each, but they are connected to one another via a false eye, allowing their individual eyes to join forces to ensure life. Something like this:
$$Bcm0
$$ .........
$$ .OOOOO...
$$ .OXXXO...
$$ .OX.XOOO.
$$ .OXXaXXO.
$$ .OOOX.XO.
$$ ...OXXXO.
$$ ...OOOOO.
$$ .........

While the false eye at a is not necessary (black could fill it and still live), it does not need to be filled either, directly providing a liberty to each of the two black chains. I wonder whether it's possible to construct a live that entirely relies on such false eyes?

In this question, I use a purely local definition of a false eye: A false eye is a free spot that is a freedom of two distinct chains. I am aware that there are other definitions of false eyes that would call the example above a living group with three eyes.

Yes, this is possible. It requires the living group to circle back on itself like this:
$$Bcm0
$$ ............
$$ ...OOOOOO...
$$ ..OOXXXXOO..
$$ .OOX.XX.XOO.
$$ .OX.XOOX.XO.
$$ .OXXO.OOXXO.
$$ .OXXOO.OXXO.
$$ .OX.XOOX.XO.
$$ .OOX.XX.XOO.
$$ ..OOXXXXOO..
$$ ...OOOOOO...
$$ ............

Here, each of the eight black eyes is locally a false eye, but because the chains that they connect are also connected via the other false eyes, none of the false eyes can ever be attacked. The term for such a construction is "two headed dragon", and they are described in Sensei's Library at https://senseis.xmp.net/?twoheadeddragon (thanks to Karl Knechtel for the link).
The above example makes the circle explicit. However, much smaller forms exist which do not require encircling an opponents living group, where the two eyes are also false by the definition you gave:
$$Bcm0
$$ ........
$$ .OOOO...
$$ .OXXOOO.
$$ .OX.XXO.
$$ .OXX.XO.
$$ .OOOXXO.
$$ ...OOOO.
$$ ........

Here too, we have two eyes which are shared liberties of two separate chains, and again, the whole thing is only alive because those two chains are connected via the other eye. Most Go players would call these two real eyes, though. The two eyes are just so close together, and both groups rely on the exact same two liberties, so it's hard to call these eyes false, even though they fit the definition you gave.

See also https://senseis.xmp.net/?twoheadeddragon . The latter example you give is sort of a degenerate example; people usually think of those eyes as "true" because in each case, one of the "missing" points is not an opposing stone, but... the other empty space.

@KarlKnechtel Thank you. I wasn't aware that sensei's got an article on this. I have added this info into my answer now for the benefit of future readers.

Note that there are even smaller shapes that work, at least in the corner - see https://senseis.xmp.net/?SmallestGroupWithTwoEyes


text:
Can I build off a branch blocked by a troll?
Saboteur Duel adds Troll cards into the game where there is path, but one of the branches is blocked by a troll.
The rules state:

The troll blocks the path behind it. If a player wants to pass a troll, he has to bribe it with 1 gold nugget.

My question is: can I build off the blocked branch?
As precedent for being able to build off a blocked branch I would point to the coloured door cards from Saboteur 2. Any player can build off of a path blocked by a coloured door, but if the gold is exposed through a path through a coloured door, only that team wins regardless of who plays the final card.
Would it be for paths blocked by trolls that I could build off the blocked path but not be able to collect any exposed gold until someone bribes the troll?
I assume the answer is 'no', but the rules aren't explicit on this point and there is some debate in my group.

This is not covered in those rules but it is covered in the rules of the original game.
https://www.ultraboardgames.com/saboteur/game-rules.php

Important: Newly placed path cards must always have an uninterrupted connection to the start card!

Since you are digging tunnels you will have to have a path to where you are digging the new one. Also it would greatly reduce the power of a card that blocks a path if you could continue building until you get a card to fix the blockage.


text:
How to define "to the best of your ability"?
The rules of Harbour state that when you move to a card you must carry out its action to the best of your ability. This raised some questions in our group during a recent game.
Take for example the card where you:

Exchange N of one good for N of another good, and
Buy a building.

In the situation where you have no goods, you can do neither. That makes sense.
In the situation where you have enough goods to fulfill enough orders to afford at least one building on the board, you must do both. That, too, makes sense.
The situation that's tricky to us is where I have some goods, but not enough to fulfill enough orders to afford any of the buildings.
Does the player moving to that card:

Do nothing?
Exchange N of one good for N of another good only?
Exchange N of one good for N of another good and fulfill as many orders as they can, even though they will lose their money since they can't afford any of the houses?

Which of these is considered "to the best of their ability"?

So from the rules for Actions;

Some actions have two separate parts that are not dependent on each other and in those cases you may perform the parts in any order, or perform one part and not the other. However you must perform both actions if you can.

And for Buying.

Taking a "buy a building" action is the only time you may ship goods.

While you do have to perform both actions, it is only if you can. The second action on the card is "buy a building" which you do by shipping goods to pay for it. If there is no building you can afford then you cannot take the buy a building action and do not have to ship any goods to pay for it. Shipping and buying are not separate actions, they cannot be performed separately.
There is also no concept of fulfilling "as many orders as you can". You ship as many or as few types of good as you need to purchase the relevant building. If you can meet the cost just shipping fish, there is no need or requirement to ship Wood, Meat or Stone at the same time.

In the rules for Harbor, under "How Buildings Work":

Some actions have two separate parts which are not dependent on each
  other, and in those cases you may perform the parts in any order, or
  perform one part and not the other.  However, you must perform both if
  you can.  The actions with two separate parts are the Library, Bank,
  Traders Guild, Architectural Society, Privateer Ship, and Seaside
  Crane, and they all have the '&' symbol.

So in your case you would exchange goods and then end your turn.


text:
Citadels - Can a warlord destroy a district for free?
If a district is worth one gold. Can the warlord destroy it without paying?

Yes.
This is explicitly stated in the rules.

8) Warlord
You receive one gold for each military (red)
  district in your city. At the end of your turn, you
  may destroy one district of your choice by paying
  a number of gold equal to one less than the cost
  of the district. Thus, you may destroy a cost one
  district for free, a cost two district for one gold,
  or a cost six district for five gold, etc. You may
  destroy one of your own districts. You may not,
  however, destroy a district in a city that is already
  completed by having eight districts (or seven
  districts when the Bell Tower is in play).

[Emphasis added]

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


text:
What happens when the Paranormal Investigator looks at a Doppelganger or Copy Cat who is now bad?
When a Doppelganger (or Copy Cat from the Vampires expansion) look at a role, their card now takes on the role they looked at. So, if they are swapped by a troublemaker, for example, the person who ends up with the Doppelganger card is the role the Doppelganger looked at.
Further, the Paranormal Investigator becomes any non-Villager role they look at and must then stop looking at cards.
In neither case are cards swapped.
My question is, what happens when the Paranormal Investigator looks at a Doppelganger who has looked at a card on the Werewolf (or Vampire) team?
First, if the Doppelganger is the first card they look at, do they assume that the Doppelganger is a Villager role and then look at a second card? I assume so. That's the only thing that seems fair.
Second, does the Paranormal Investigator become the non Villager role that the Doppelganger looked at?

The Daybreak rules state the following for the P.I. (emphasis added):

If the P.I. sees the Doppelgänger that saw a Werewolf, he continues looking (he doesn't know what the Doppelgänger saw, and does not become what the Doppelgänger saw, even if the Doppelgänger saw a Werewolf or Tanner).
The Paranormal Investigator is on the village team, unless he finds a Werewolf, or if he finds a Tanner, in which case he becomes a Tanner and only wins if he dies.

So a P.I. who sees a Doppelgänger stays on the Village team, regardless of what happens to the Doppelgänger.

I asked the game's makers before there was an answer, they got back to me:
We just checked out the link and the answer provided is correct.
Thank you,
Bezier Games, Inc.

And presumably this sets the precedent for the later Copy Cat role.

I believe it does.


text:
Which crystals can a Geologist collect?
The rules say  "When the treasure is split, a Geologist gets as many Gold Pieces as there are crystals visible in the maze of tunnels."
I find this ambiguous. How should I interpret this?
Is it that:

"visible" means "visible to the people playing the game", that is, any crystal card that was played but not rock slid? OR
"visible" means "visible to the miners", that is, if there is no connection between a ladder and a crystal, it is not counted?

Frederic Moyersoen, the designer of the game, clarified it should be option 1 on BGG here (emphasis mine).

Consider the geologist as someone who picks up the crystals as they are discovered. As the crystals are printed on the cards and cannot be physically be picked up, we just count the points at the end of the round. We don't care if a path connects to the crystals or gold.

I think we can all agree that they're not actually collected as they are discovered, so if you become a geologist mid-game, you still get to count the gems previously discovered, and you don't get to count the gems on tiles removed by rockslides. The important part is that no connection is required. (Visible to the players)


text:
Game design and review?
Where is a good place / forum to get new games reviewed & tested by other game developers and avid players?

I've found Playtesting groups through Meetup. Depending on your location someone might be running a local one. Otherwise Boardgamegeeks has a section.


text:
King of Tokyo (2016 version): Battery Monster and Friend of Children
In the 2nd edition of King of Tokyo (2016 version), the Battery Monster Power Card states:

(Keep) When you buy Battery Monster, put 6 [energy symbol] on it from the bank. At the start of each turn take 2 [energy symbol] off and add them to your pool. When there are no [energy symbol] left discard this card.

The Friend of Children Power Card states:

(Keep) When you gain any [energy symbol] gain 1 extra [energy symbol].

If you have Friend of Children and buy Battery Monster, does this then mean that you get 3 energy cubes each turn for the next three turns? I am unsure about this because Battery Monster does not explicitly say "gain energy". On the other hand, other Power cards like

We're only making it stronger (Keep): When you lose 2 [heart symbol] or more gain 1 [energy symbol].

and

Metamorph (Keep): At the end of your turn you can discard any KEEP cards you have to gain their full cost in [energy symbol].

do explicitly say "gain" so I would expect that these two cards synergize with Friend of Children?

Is King of Tokyo 2016 significantly different from the original? I'm wondering if we should create a new tag for it, like we did for [robo-rally] and [robo-rally-2016].

From my own limited perspective since I only have the 2016 version, looking at boardgamegeek posts only a few Power Cards have been changed significantly (like Battery Monster for example, because it was overpowered). Most are identical and some have been made more clear (e.g. Acid Attack). There are some other minor changes in the rulebook to further avoid ambiguities with other Power Cards (one example is Healing Ray: monsters in Tokyo cannot use this card since it now clearly states that in Tokyo you cannot use heart dice except for evolutions).

That sounds like comparable differences to different versions of Talisman or Axis & Allies, and we only have one tag for those. Thanks.

No you don't because the card does not say to gain the energy but to transfer it from the card to your pool so you are not gaining but moving so it is available.
Battery Monster:

(Keep) When you buy Battery Monster, put 6 [energy symbol] on it from the bank. At the start of each turn take 2 [energy symbol] off and add them to your pool. When there are no [energy symbol] left discard this card.

The Friend of Children Power Card states:

(Keep) When you gain any [energy symbol] gain 1 extra [energy symbol].

For Friend of Children to take effect, the card ability that triggers it needs to specifically be a "gain".
This has been officially clarified by the designer of the game originally in French, but the English translation can be found in this FAQ from BGG.

I thought this FAQ referred to the 1st edition of King of Tokyo although many Power Cards are identical of course. For example, the Metamorph Power Card has been slightly changed in the 2nd edition and now explicitly includes the word "gain".

It does refer to the first edition, but in my opinion the clarification on gains is still relevant unless/until the designer says otherwise.


text:
Drunk UNO Game: Who is "the player that gets reversed" in Uno?
In the Drunk UNO Game, the rules say that when a Reverse is played,

The person who gets reversed takes two shots

If A, B, and C are seated clockwise and play is still clockwise, then when B plays a reverse, it becomes A's turn.
Who is "the person who gets reversed" in this case?
The whole table is reversed.

Is it just a very poor wording to mean just player A?  It says 'the person' so we can assume it means a single player.   if it was a 'skip' card then there would be a player who 'gets skipped', maybe 'gets reversed' is just to refer to the first player affected by it?     I don't want to give this as an answer as no other evidence than gut feel.

@StartPlayer It's poor wording, for sure. My gut says the rules intend to refer to player C as the "victim" of the Reverse (but fail to do so unambiguously).

When Player B plays a reverse it makes it Player A's turn which means that Player C would have gone next if the reverse hadn't been played. Following the same rules as the other action cards in UNO (skip, draw two etc.), the player who would play after Player B would be the player that would take the shots. in this circumstance it would be Player C.


text:
7 Wonders Duel Pantheon: Anubis
In 7 Wonders Duel Pantheon, the Anubis Divinity card is defined in the rulebook as follows:

Anubis: Discard a card previously used to construct a Wonder (an opposing one or one of your own). The affected player doesn't lose the instant effects previously granted by that Wonder (Coins, Progress tokens, constructed or discarded cards, Replay effect). It is possible to rebuild this Wonder and thus apply its effects once again.

Does this effectively mean that the Wonder is deconstructed? The fact that you can rebuild it, seems to imply this. So does this then mean that you also lose the Production of the Wonder (for Piraeus and The Great Lighthouse), as well as the victory points that the Wonder might be worth at end of the game?
Would it be more clear to state:

Anubis: Deconstruct any previously built Wonder (an opposing one or one of your own) and discard the card used to construct it. The affected player doesn't lose any instant effects previously granted by that Wonder (Coins, Progress tokens, constructed or discarded cards, Replay effect). It is possible to rebuild this Wonder and thus apply its effects once again.

Is this helping a bit to clarify? https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1661638/question-about-anubi

@Zibelas Yes it does. Unfortunately, Anubis is misspelled in the title of that question and I did not encounter it during a first search. Thank you.

There is a discussion about it at BGG about the various interactions with anubis and wonders. The key points are

All wonders: no VP if it remained unbuilt at end of age 3
Sanctuary: stops providing discount until rebuilt
Great Lighthouse: stops providing stone/clay/wood until rebuilt
Piraeus: stops providing glass/paper until rebuilt

And when you get the instant effect of the wonder again when building it again (Coins, Progress tokens, constructed or discarded cards, Replay effect)
It is a tactical decision if you use it on your own wonder or the opponents. Good reasons to use it on not your own wonder are

it is a wonder without instant effects (Great Lighthouse or Pyramids) and/or
the opponent needs to pay many coins to rebuild it (because he lacks expensive resources for it) and/or
the opponent used a card to build the wonder which you particularly want (which should often be the case) and you still have access to the discard pile (with the Mausoleum or Hades).


text:
If I pocket the queen and one opponent's C/m in the same shot, what happens?
If I'm playing black and I pocket the queen and a white C/m in a single shot, do I get a chance to cover the queen? Or does the queen come back on the board? Or does the queen go to the opponent?

Is this covered here? I don't know enough about carrom to tell...

You can continue and get a turn to pocket the cover provided the white coin was not the last coin on the board.
If white coin was the last coin on the board then white wins the board. 4 points if his score is less than 22 and 1 point if score is more than 21.

This is incorrect. Player loses their turn when pocketing the opponents coin.

Pardon the bump but the correct answer is:
Player loses their turn and the queen comes out. Any of the opponents pieces remain pocketed.
Actually this is hard to pin down. The official rules state that if a player pockets an opponents piece their turn is over. Since they would then not be able to cover the queen must therefore also come out. There seems to be no mention of any due or penalty, nor a specific rule covering this, so the pocketing of an opponents coin ending the turn appears to take precedent.
However according to Master Of Games website, this would count as a foul, the turn would end and the queen along with a penalty coin would be replaced. The pocketed coins would remain pocketed. The rules laid out on this site differ in many ways from the official ICF rule so take that into consideration.
Both rule sets state the turn ends and the queen is replaced, the only difference being whether or not the penalty is charged.


text:
How does the "Bean Protection Rule" affect Bohnanza?
I learned recently that there is a rule stating "If there is only one bean card in one of your fields, you cannot harvest it as long as you have another field
containing more than one bean card."
My friends have decided to house rule this out of the game, but I was wondering how does having or not having this rule affect the mechanics of the game?
For example:
Does it influence the game length?
How much does this change the implicit value of a 3rd bean field?

You lose tension without this rule, since players can effectively just "burn" undesirable beans - both those in hand and those that are flipped in the second phase of each turn.
My suspicion is that players would trade less and plant more - though without necessarily scoring more points - without the rule.
The 3rd bean field could be more valuable without the rule, since you are effectively doubling your useful fields (in the case where most players, most of the time, are using their second field for trash).
The impact on the game length - at least, in terms of how many turns there are - is tied to points scored. More points scored [earlier] --> fewer cards in the deck for each shuffle --> shorter game.

Thanks! Just to add my perspective, our established group already trades excessively (brokering "later favors", 3rd party, etc.) and generally only 2-5 such burns are done per game, usually when a player sees that there are too many players investing in something and it was the first card in their hand, or if most of the beans of that kind had already been collected and it's one of the 2 drawn beans that must be planted but nobody wants it. Our conclusion was that the 3rd bean field was more valuable with the rule since players would have to rip up larger (suboptimal) bean piles more often.


text:
Neheb, the Eternal and lifelink
Let's say I control a Neheb, the Eternal and attack my opponent with two 2/2 creatures. My opponent blocks one of those creatures with a 2/2 that has lifelink. When my postcombat main phase begins, does Neheb give me two mana or zero mana?
I searched the comprehensive rules, and this seemed to be the only section relevant to my question:

120.3a Damage dealt to a player by a source without infect causes that player to lose that much life.
120.3f Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage’s other results.

This makes it sound like my opponent will simultaneously lose two life and gain two life, meaning that I expect to get two mana from Neheb. But I wanted to double-check that there isn't some sort of "canceling out" of the damage and lifelink that causes my opponent to in fact lose zero life.

You've linked to the Gatherer page which says "Neheb's ability checks only how much life opponents lost during the turn, not by how much their life total decreased compared to the start of the turn. For example, if an opponent lost 2 life and then gained 8 life before your postcombat main phase, you'll add {R}{R} to your mana pool" - what more do you want then that?

Note that you omitted from your scenario the part where the player actually got damage during combat. I presume you meant the unblocked critter dealt damage and hence caused life loss, but that damage could also have been prevented by other means, leading to a total of zero life loss and zero mana from Neheb.

The basic assumption, in general, is that the only relevant game pieces/events are the ones described in the question. The question states that two creatures attack, and that one is blocked, and that a Neheb is on the battlefield. That section of the question does not explicitly state that any creatures deal damage, but the question later states that the expected outcome is that the defending player gains and loses 2 life. This implies that combat proceeds as normal, and that there are no unstated damage prevention or life gain prevention effects that would modify that outcome.

The life loss does happen, and you do get mana from Neheb's ability.
Rule 122.3, regarding the cancellation of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, sets the precedent that cancellation of opposite effects only happen when explicitly stated by a rule. There is no rule that explicitly states that life gain and life loss events cancel out so that they don't count, so that is not what happens.
Each of the effects described in 120.3a and 120.3f happens separately and simultaneously, so both the life gain and life loss events are considered to have occurred for anything that cares about them, and Neheb's ability does grant mana as a result.


text:
Prevent a player from using creature type?
Is there a card that has an ability to the effect of "Choose a creature type. Creatures of that type cannot be summoned."? I feel like I would have found something on it if there was, seeing as it counters A LOT of decks, but I'd like to get confirmation.

The modern wording of such a card would probably be something like "Choose a creature type. Creature spells of that type cannot be cast."

That specific effect does not exist. However, there are some cards with effects that are probably less powerful, but still can do significant damage to a tribal deck:

An-Zerrin Ruins prevents creatures of a chosen type from untapping.
Circle of Solace allows you to prevent damage from creatures of a chosen type.
Engineered Plague decreases the power and toughness of creatures of a chosen type. Outbreak has a similar effect, but just for one turn.
Tsabo's Decree destroys creatures of a chosen type, and also makes your opponent discard creature cards of that type.

I had Tivadar's Crusade in a white deck (sideboard) just because one player in my group at college loved his goblin deck.

No, there is no card that prevents creature types from being played. The closest card (prevention wise) would be Iona, Shield of Emeria, which prevents your opponents from playing a color. This would do quite a bit of damage to a tribal deck, since most tribes favor a color (goblins are red, merfolk are blue, elves are green etc)


text:
Can a squad use a leader or unit from another squad?
I've never played Warhammer. I have a close friend that does. I am looking for a gift to get her for the game.
Is it possible for a Blood Angels squadron to use a character like Sammael from ravenwing? If I were to get her that would it be useful in her game RAW? Also can a 40k 8th edition game, use units from 30k?

The Short answer is "yes, but throw in some other guys to make sure"
The only restriction that Warhammer 40k has for building armies is that the chosen models need to share a Faction Keyword, though specific factions within that keyword need to be grouped together. As it turns out, since Blood Angels and Dark Angels share two Faction Keywords, Imperium and Adeptus Astartes, that is fully acceptable. However, because they don't share all the same Keywords, they can't be played in the same group or Detachment. Though a unit may be played by itself at a penalty, it'd be polite to also gift a Troop choice, such as a tactical squad or scout squad, for each HQ Character you are gifting, like Sammael. Units like Apothecaries, Ancients and Champions are Elite Characters, not HQ Characters.
As it stands, having a chunk of the army that doesn't maybe hurt itself for loosing too many models, or takes moral checks, is a very good thing. Also, Dark Angels in particular tend to have particularly strong abilities to take advantage of. As of the current edition of 40k, 30k models that are listed in either the book that an army is tied to, or Codex, or approved through the Forgeworld website for the game may be used in Warhammer 40K armies. Such models include Tartaros Terminators and Contemptor Dreadnoughts


text:
Board game that you set up each time differently with little cards
I played it in probably early 90s. You had little cards and each time you played you put down the cards or tiles along the spaces on the board so each time you played it was different. They were like go back 3 spaces or go forward 2 spaces. I remember I had played it so much I knew the best way to set the board up. It was essentially a make it yourself game. This is driving me crazy! I thought it was similar to grape escape or splat BC I thought maybe it came with playdough but I'm not sure if I'm just remembering wrong. Please help me.

Can you remember any more clues? What was the shape of the cards/tiles? What did the player pieces look like? Was it a flat board or did it have 3D elements like Grape Escape (and many other play-dough games).

One of these (There are 7 pages...)

The description of playing cards on a track that have different movement instructions sounds like "This Game Is Bonkers".  I had this in late 80s early 90s so it would fit the time frame.
It was a roll and move game.  When you landed on an empty space you would play a tile from your hand with an instruction such as 'back 3' or 'forward 2' with the objective of trying to land on scoring spaces.
Only thing that doesn't fit is play dough as thats not in this game but you did say you might have remembered that wrong.
BGG link to game


text:
What happens when this situation occurs in Tsuro?
There are two empty sepetated spaces left and the person going does not have a card to play but the next person does.
Does the first person lose because they are out of cards to play or does the second player lose because they still have a card to play afterwards that will move them off the board?

I don't think this should count as a duplicate, even though your short "it's impossible" answer with a link to that other question does handle this. The questions are (on their face at least) very different, and the answer to this one does/can include information that does not appear in that one: that under proper play, by the time one person is trying to play from an empty hand, all other hands are also empty and there is one space left. (This could be added to the other, but it isn't directly relevant.)

It's impossible to get into that situation.
Please review how to handle the situation when you run out of cards.

I would like to post a picture but it says its to big.

Feel free to email the photo to ikegami@adaelis.com, and I'll add it to your question. That said, a picture won't help because your description of the scenario was quite clear. It's just not possible to get into that situation if you followed the rules.


text:
Warhammer Age of Sigmar moving within 3" of enemy models
This seems quite an obvious question, but I can't seem to find any answer around the net.
AoS rules state:

When you move a model in the movement phase, you may not move within
  3" of any enemy models. Models from your army are friendly models, and
  models from the opposing army are enemy models.

And also

Any unit that has charged or has models within 3" of an enemy unit can
  attack with its melee weapons in the combat phase.

So my question is: can I move a unit at exactly 3" from an enemy unit, skip charging, and then just pile in and fight in combat phase?
This kinda sounds awkward as I can imagine an unit running toward an enemy unit, stopping at 3" (because you cannot move it within 3") and then just pile in during combat phase. So like I'd just run every time instead of charging as the odds of adding a D6 to your base movement seem better than just moving 2D6.
I think the key of this might be in that within keyword: how far from an enemy unit in practice may I end my movement? how far from an enemy unit in practice may I perform a pile in?

I think this is pretty clear, if you trim out some of the extra stuff in those quotes:

you may not move within 3" of any enemy models

and

has models within 3" of an enemy unit

It seems clear to me that you cannot avoid the charge phase - you can't move within 3", and you can't fight without being within 3".  At the very least, the intent of the rules are clear, and trying to avoid the intent would likely be looked down upon by your opponent.

So like if I move an unit which is 4" from an enemy unit and has movement 5" I should place it at like 3.1 away so that it won't be within 3"?

Yep.  That's the idea.


text:
Can Sacrificial Construct be uses to prevent the trash of cards like Clone Chip or Shiv?
Sacrificial Construct says:

[Trash]: Prevent an installed program or an installed piece of hardware from being trashed.

Does this mean it can be used to prevent the trashing of cards like Clone Chip or Shiv when you activate their trash ability?

To whoever is downvoting this - This is a very common question by new players when seeing this card, and has not been yet asked on this site. Stack Exchange encourages the sharing of knowledge this way, even going so far to allow the poster of the question to answer it while asking.

Yes and no.
While you are free to use Sacrificial Construct to prevent sacrificing your Clone Chip or your Shiv, this means the cost was not paid and nothing happens, other than the Sacrificial Construct being trashed.
Compare Clone Chip with Acacia: Acacia will still work and can be saved by Sacrificial Construct, Clone Chip will not, since Clone Chip's cost was prevented.
From the official FAQ:

If the cost of a paid ability requires a card to be trashed, then preventing that card from being trashed prevents the cost from being paid and the paid ability does not resolve.


text:
Seal Away and Permanent control
Most spells that exile a permanent temporarily, like Oblivion Ring or Fiend Hunter specify they return the permanent to the owner when the effect ends. Some of the newer ones like Seal Away do not say they return it to the owner.
Now I know if the permanent had been taken under temporary control from the owner, say Act of Treason or Word of Seizing the temporary effect ends, and it returns to the owner, but what happens if the effect was ongoing, say it was under temporary control then had Ghostly Flicker cast on it, or Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker's -2? Does the card return to the controller without the "end of turn" effect or does it return to the owner?

I think the answer still is back to the owner, but since they don't specify in cases like these, I am not totally sure.

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/42619/does-a-creature-you-own-under-an-opponents-control-count-as-theirs-if-you-seal-a

Ah, I had thought that "exile until" was a continuous effect, so was looking without success at those rules. But I see now that it's actually 2 one-shot effects.

It's note clear to me why your answer on that question isn't the exact same as the answer to this question.

Your answer quotes this rule: "returns under its owner’s control unless otherwise specified" and your comment states "they don't specify in cases like these". So, it's not "otherwise specified".

The Seal Away will return the creature under its owner's control: a permanent enters the battlefield under its owners control unless specified otherwise.

610 One-Shot Effects
610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, creating a token, and moving an object from one zone to another.
...
610.3b An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner’s control unless otherwise specified.

Blinking a creature will always return it to its owner's control unless specified otherwise. It does not matter whether or not a previously existing control-changing effect was permanent or time-limited.
There is no fundamental difference between a permanent (Nichol Bolas' -2 ability) and a temporary (Act of Treason) change of control. Both are continuous effects, one with a limited duration, the other without.

611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

Either way, a blink ends that effect:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. [..]

Unless the blink effect creates its own, new control-changing effect (such as Ghostly Flicker), the permanent will return to the battlefield under its owner's control.

610.3b An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner’s control unless otherwise specified.


text:
Cribbage score for pair of cards not in a row
If player A play a 6 and then player B play a 7 and finally player A play another 6, considering that each player put their cards in their own stack, would the two 6 will be considering as a pair?

No.  The two sixes would not be counted as a pair.  The pair needs to be with the last two cards played.

Pair: For adding a card of the same rank as the card just played Peg 2

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