text:
In Bridge Play, What is Meant by "Combining Your Chances?"
I was in a NT contract. After the initial rounds of play, the last few (visible) cards were something like these in two suits (call them spades and hearts):
dummy:
spades KJx
Hearts xxx
Me:
Spades Ax
Hearts AKQx
I had five "top" tricks, but needed six to make game. I could play out AKQ and hope that the hearts were split 3-3, a 36% chance. Or I could take the spade finesse, a 50% chance.
I took the spade finesse and lost. A passerby commented that I would have been "odds on" (better than 50-50), if I had "combined my chances." Apparently, I needed to start with hearts, though. Then he left.
What did he mean by "combining my chances"? And why would I start with the lesser (36%) chance?

Great question!
Normally, you have a few chances to make your contract (like in your example, hearts 3-3 or spade finesse). Combining chances mean timing the play in such an order such that the failure of any chance to materialize still allows you to take the next chance. Even though you might start with a lower chance, it allows you to take another shot rather than ending there.
If you do the math, this comes out to 1 - (1-c1)(1-c2)...(1-cn) where the chances of success of each chance are c1, c2, ..., cn and assuming the chances are independent. This is larger than any single chance (or a strict subset of chances).
Example 1
You are in 3NT. LHO leads a spade.
xxx
AKQx
Jxx
JTx

A
xxx
AKxxx
AKxx

You have to win this (top hand is dummy, bottom is declarer and suit order is spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs from top to bottom).
You have 8 top tricks and need just one more without losing the lead.
Now you have three major chances:

hearts 3-3
diamond Q dropping in two rounds (diamond finesse is a practice finesse).
club finesse

and a minor club Q dropping singleton.
You test for club Q singlton, no luck.
Now the correct play is to test diamonds first, then test hearts and then take club finesse.
Notice that if diamond Q does not drop in 2 rounds, you can still test hearts. If the hearts don't break 3-3, you can still take the club finesse: thus combining all your chances.
Imagine if you had taken the club finesse and it loses. Now you are down, without getting to test the diamonds or hearts.
Note that you have to test diamonds first. If you test hearts first, and then diamonds, then you are in the wrong hand and cannot take the club finesse!

Here is another example, where you have to take a finesse first.
Example 2
You are in 6S. LHO leads a trump.
KQxxx
AQ
AQ
AKxx

AJTxxxx
xx
x
xxx

You have 11 winners and need one more. Now your major chances are

heart finesse
diamond finesse
clubs 3-3

The correct order of play is to try the diamond finesse first.
If that loses, you can now discard a club from hand on the diamond A, play AK clubs and ruff a club, thus testing for clubs 3-3. If that fails, you fall back on the heart finesse.
Note that you cannot time the play in any other order. If you test clubs first, and it fails, you are now committed to guessing which finesse to take.
If you take a heart finesse first, then you cannot test for clubs 3-3 and are forced to fall back on diamond finesse.
Hope that helps.

OK, I think I get it. If I do the hearts first, I don't sacrifice the finesse opportunity later, even if hearts "fail." If I try the finesse and lose, I can't go back and try the hearts because I've lost the lead. So even though the hearts have a lower percentage, I do what allows me to make BOTH plays.

@TOm: Yes, that is right.

You have two ways of making your sixth trick given this ending.  You can find the outstanding hearts divided 3-3, or you can find the spade Queen onside.
The beauty is that you can take both chances.  First, play the hearts.  If they break 3-3 (or somebody has done some lousy discarding in the build up to this end position), you're set for your sixth trick with your baby heart.  If they do not break, you can then play the Ace of Spades (in case somebody has the singleton Queen), and finesse the Jack.
Your chance of success now are the 36% chance the hearts split, and the 50% of the time that the Spade Queen is onside in the case that the hearts do not break, or:
36% + (50%) * (64%) = 68%

Note that you have to start with the Hearts.  Testing the hearts does not result in the loss of a trick, it only establishes a trick for the opponents if the suit does not break.  Testing the Spade finesse will lose a trick if it is not correct.


text:
Could Japan's and the US fleets meet on another battlefield than the North Pacific In Axis and Allies?
In World War II, the US and Japanese navies battled it out in the north Pacific. That's understandable because Japan controlled the western edge, the US the eastern edge, and the ocean was the route from one to the other.
But maybe one or both of them of them could have benefited by employing their fleet and airpower elsewhere. And if "elsewhere" happened to be the same place, might they more logically meet at "that place"? And where might that be?
Japan can use its battleships to capture the Soviet Far East, Australia, and other places. Its aircraft might do better service against Chinese armies than American ships. Soon they could all head for India, then to Africa to support the Germans.
Maybe the U.S. would prefer to take on the Japanese fleet in a war of "mutually assured destruction" in the north Pacific (particularly if the Japanese player is better than the German). That actually happened. But it might have delayed the invasion of Normandy by a year (four turns).
Perhaps the US battle fleet should support Allied operations in the Mediterranean or Europe instead. And maybe that would lead to a direct clash with the Japanese fleet trying to do the opposite.
Would you rather fight the opposing fleet in the north Pacific, around Africa, or at another locale of your choice as Japan? The US?

If you're playing Japan and want to meet American on a field other than the mid-Pacific, the first step is having a fleet, and the easiest way to keep you fleet is to stay away from Pearl Harbor.
As Japan, I rarely attack Pearl Harbor. Many seem to consider this sacrilege; however, I've found this opens up options for me as Japan:
The best case, if Japan attacks Pearl, is that it wipes out the US fleet and doesn't lose much. That's obviously good, but even in this scenario, the opportunity cost is high: it requires the use of one if not two aircraft that could have been used in Asia--setting back Japan one if not two territories on the first turn. Having taken these territories would mean a few more IPCs, but more importantly can make the construction of Allied factories in mainland Asia very unattractive. Lastly, the power at Pearl can't be used to threaten India or to help take the Soviet Far East on turn 2. Japan's focus needs to be on mainland Asia, and they should only dabble elsewhere if they have units with nothing else to do. The navy, on turn 1, has better things to do than attack the US at Pearl.
Worst case, the US can get lucky and do a lot of damage to Japan's navy, or worse still, it could force a retreat and survive. If this happens Japan is in trouble. They are severely hampered in taking Asian coastal territories and the US can use it's fleet to threaten any transports built to ferry troops from the islands to Asia (practically forcing a factory-based strategy).
With no Pearl attack, Japan has a strong fleet and air force that can be used in Asia on turn 1, and that is left in position to attack anywhere on the coast on turn 2. The only downside is that I've left the American fleet intact. But is that really a downside? Consider what the US can do with it's intact Pacific fleet:

They can send it to the Atlantic, except the Atlantic is turns away; by the time it arrives the US and UK will already have a fleet to big to be attacked by Germany. The battleship isn't even useful in amphibious assaults unless France is being attacked, which is idiotic as long as there are too few ships to send armor (air power is at risk from AA guns and from not being able to retreat and should only be used in France when it can be taken with little risk). As Japan, this strategy does not have me shaking in my boots, and as Germany I'm shaking either way.
They can keep it moored. If they don't move it, then it's not a threat. It's like the fleet was destroyed, except that I didn't have to risk my fleet to do it.
They can move it towards Japan, except that my fleet will be consolidated, and is bigger, and is on defense. Plus, because of the distance I'll have one-turn of warning and can just buy a sub or two to turn the odds even more in my favor. Direct attack is stupid for America to try.
They can take it South to pick off islands. This is probably the most effective option, and one I sometimes use as the US when Japan doesn't Pearl me. The downside is that the US only has one Atlantic transport (and can't afford to let up on Germany to build more in that theater). So they can use the infantry from Wake and Hawaii and the one-shot on the battleship to try and pick off some islands. They might even take a few while Japan is too busy on the mainland to care much. But it takes turns to get into position, it is only a swing of a couple of IPCs, and then can be easily taken back by Japan in the mid-to-late-game. Plus, when that battleship doesn't hit it doesn't take much luck for the defender to knock out one of the two infantry, which can't be replaced because America is so far from home.

So assuming I've convinced you that Japan can forgo Pearl...
Once they have solid control of the coast, Japan's carrier, battleships and subs are no longer useful near the homeland, giving them lots of options for other places to take on the US:

Attack Alaska. The US typically puts very little there, so it can easily be taken by two battleships and two infantry. It can be done from the Japan sea zone so is often not anticipated, and if the US is using shuck-shuck, their forces are all in the Eastern US and Canada, where they can't immediately counter-attack (giving Japan time to reinforce or retreat). Shuck-shuck requires careful calibration of transport capacity and buys, so forcing the US to divert units to re-take Alaska messes with their mojo. It's only worth 2 IPCs per turn, but it really screws with America.
Take the British South Pacific. Also ripe for the taking are Australia and New Zealand. Slightly further away than Alaska and risky for the same reason that makes it hard for the US to take Indonesia: a couple good defensive rolls and Japan is out of infantry. However, Japan has the unique advantage near-by replacement infantry on the islands. The Australians and Kiwis are only worth a few IPCs per turn, but the UK has no feasible means of taking them back so it's a swing of 6 IPCs per turn for the rest of the game. It adds up.
Africa. Africa is closer to India that Japan often realizes, and a few troops there are often all that's necessary to help Germany hold on an extra turn or two--or better yet, it can force the Allies to skip a turn of reinforcing Finland and provide some breathing room for Germany in Europe.
We'll always have Rio. Typically I only do this after taking New Zealand, but only two moves away is Panama--the Alaska of the South. American tanks in Eastern US can't reach immediately and taking Panama disrupts the shuck-shuck. If Japan manages to save 3 IPCs they can waltz South through Columbia to take Brazil. They don't have to hold any of these territories, just mess with America. Plus, if they get really lucky, America will over-react and split their fleet to bring capital ships South to deal with Japan. But they have to take Panama first and if done too aggressively, this could leave the North Atlantic Allied transports under-defended enough for German attack. At this late point in the game it would be worth sacrificing the German air force to destroy the transports, as this likely buys enough time for Japan to finish off Russia.

So Japan has good options for taking the fight to America, but in my experience the opportunities rely on the non-canonical choice to leave the American fleet alone.

you say that if the US is doing shuck-shuck then their forces are in Eastern US and Canada - that's not necessarily true. You can (and should) shuck-shuck from Western US up to Western Canada. Western Canada borders the Eastern Canada Sea Zone and is a pickup spot for Atlantic transports (just like Eastern Canada is).

@Scott: That's a good point. I have played before where Western Canada does not touch the Eastern Canada sea zone, precisely because it enables Western shuck basing, which is just historically silly. Before instituting that house rule, we'd never though to base there because it's logistically burdensome (moving units completely across the board); we didn't think to add the house rule changing the map until the above-described Alaska and Panama attacks necessitated the change.

I'd might use the Don Rae version of the Pearl harbor attack (only Battleship and sub to Hawaii seazone, carrier and fighters in Wake out of retaliation range) if I had "nothing better" to do. But if Russia is overextended with an attack on Manchuria, or UK with Kwabang attack, I'd move west, take India, the SFE or Yakut, and really punish these guys. It's worth giving up Pearl Harbor because I think that the Axis have won the war right there (barring bad rolls like the UK transport off Kwantung sinking something).

I like the idea of another answerer for Japan to leave the American fleet alone. And he's also very creative in his idea for Japan to threaten South America. But it seems that the biggest prize may have eluded him.
It appears to me that BOTH countries have bigger "fish to fry"--in the Mediterranean. Many games are decided by whether the Germans can hold onto, or the Allies can recapture, Africa. A "second front" (or lack thereof) in western or southern Europe could make the difference between whether or not Russia survives. The Med is the key to both these strategies.
The Japanese fleet can get to the Red Sea from the Pacific, (via the Indian Ocean) in something like three turns. The American fleet offshore California can get offshore Algeria (via the Panama Canal) in three turns. A fourth turn could put one or the other squarely in the mid-Med, with the other attacking it from east or west. Because both fleets are helping their respective allies, that's where the decisive battle can be fought.
I can see an American player wanting to fight Japan in the Pacific to avoid this outcome. (Particularly if "Japan" is the better player.) But I can't see Japan dodging the "Med." I believe the Axis' "achilles heel" is the German navy (or lack thereof), for which the Japanese navy could be the logical cure.
Granted, this seems like kind of an advanced, sophisticated play. But the people I've met on this site are sophisticated players. How about it, guys?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Am I analyzing the following hand properly?
Vulnerable vs. not, N-S are in a 4S contract (South 1NT, North 4H, South 4S, all other bids passed). North's bid was a "transfer."
QJ9832
JT4
A64
5

AKT7
A96
T72
AJ9

Frank Stewart reasonably points out that when West lead the K of clubs (presumably from KQT), South erred in taking A on the first trick. He then ruffed a club on the second trick, which I consider the real mistake.
My theory is that South can still save himself by returning the J of clubs to West's Queen on the second trick (pitching a diamond), win West's diamond return in dummy, go to his hand with a trump, and lead the 9 of clubs to West's T, pitching another diamond. When South regains the lead, he can ruff a diamond (high) in dummy, draw the last trump in hand, and ruff out the last diamond in dummy. In the remaining worst case scenario, South then finesses the Jack of hears "around" East and "into" West. (If East covers with an honor, South captures it with the ace and has reduced his heart losers to one). If West wins, he then has to lead a club for a ruff-sluff or away from a heart honor.
My understanding is as follows:

1)  The operative strategy is "elimination."
  2)  South needs to keep East off lead to prevent him from leading a heart before the elimination is completed.
  3) The way to achieve 2) is to lose club tricks to West, rather than diamond tricks to East.
  4) The way to achieve 3) is to dump dummy's diamond losers on South's club losers, so that South's diamond losers can be ruffed rather than conceded (loser on loser play).
  5) Switch the club 5 and 9 between dummy and closed hand, and South needs to lose the first trick by playing the 5, because otherwise, there is no guarantee that East won't win the lowest club.

Questions:

Am I correct in saying the first trick "mistake" was still correctable on the second trick in this instance?
Have I analyzed the hand correctly from a strategic point of view?

If you win the first trick, a better option (IMO) is to ruff a club and play a diamond up. East has to win and return a heart (and west has to hold HKQ) for you to go down. If East does not win or does not return a heart, you can now eliminate clubs and play DA, diamond back. This requires a defensive mistake, though I would say is a better chance than playing opening leader for the CT.

Only if West has the Club 10. Ducking the first trick makes the location of the Club ten irrelevant (as witness that one ducks it by playing the Club 9 under the King).
So in one sense yes, declarer might be able to recover at trick 2; but declarer is guaranteed to make the contract by ducking trick one. (I guess unless West was dealt 8 clubs.)
You would probably enjoy There must be a Way by Andrew Diosy.

This hand also is interesting from an opening lead perspective. When I was learning Bridge I memorized the opening lead charts that were so popular at the time, which was good, but inferred from the ordering a false preference. These charts correctly identify which card to lead from various holdings, but make no comment on which suit to lead. It took me a while to unlearn that bad habit.
So now look at poor West's opening problem against a Texas Transfer auction to 4S:
S: 64
H: KQ83
D: J85
C: KQT4

That Club lead looks so safe from that strong honour holding, but is one of only two suit choices that allows declarer to make the contract. Perhaps West should think more about the bidding and less about those glossy Opening Lead Charts.
The odds are high that South has at least one of the outstanding honours in both round suits, so those honour combinations are easily compromised by being lead from. So what about the pointed suits?
Leading low from Jxxx is a true beginner move, but from J85 less so. An argument could be made for both the 8 and the 5 as the appropriate lead her, the small lie being told by the former probably not fatal. But the flaw here is that if it works, one risks quickly winning the third round with the Jack, trumps now drawn, endplayed for sure in those round suits. Not enough plus side here, so let's save that lead for later; our Jack suggests that Declarer will not wish to open this suit quickly either unless to rectify the count.
That leaves Spades. Dummy has 6 (not likely 7), West has 2, and Declarer promised 2 with his opening 1NT call. That leaves only 3 outstanding, and the likelihood of partner having a compromisable Queen third very low.
Conclusion: Just lead a spade here, saving a diamond exit for later (if necessary) when we start winning those round honours, and let Declarer struggle to down one like he should.

Also Richard Pavlick on Double Squeezes is excellent: http://www.rpbridge.net/6d81.htm

Note that though a diamond lead (any card) sets Declarer here, that doesn't make it a good lead; just a lucky one. It works because we found all five of partner's points in that suit, which is highly unlikely.

I don't see how declarer is guaranteed to make the contract by ducking the first trick. What if West returns a trump at trick two?

btw, disagree with your last paragraphs about the opening lead. CK is a normal lead, even for mere experts. Recommending a diamond is a bit out there. A trump might seem safe, but you might need to make an active lead against texas auctions.

@Aryabhata: Really! Win in dummy; cash DA; win SA; Cash CA pitching Dx; Lead CJ pitching Dx; ruff diamond return (best) high in dummy. hands are now all stripped. Duck heart around to West to collect either slough-ruff in Clubs or heart end-play.

@Aryabhata: I'm specifically not recommending a diamond here - there isn't enough upside for the risk involved because it is likely to put West back on the round suit end-play. I am recommending a spade lead because the first card North leads in the side-suits will help in deciding which one to attack.

Doesn't that line require a 2-1 spade break? West can exit with a spade when in with the CQ. Now you are en entry short to ruff out the diamonds. Basically, guaranteed is a bit of an overbid :-) Or am I missing something?

@Aryabhata: Not if West has only 5 pointed cards; who says his extra spade didn't start red.  ;-)  Leading a broken honour sequence as the strong defender holding a balanced hand sitting over a strong NT opener doesn't appeal to me. It feels like I am volunteering for the endplay. Put one or more of my heart honours in partner's hand and I like it better.

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


text:
How Would I Get A Modern Diplomacy -"Like" Game Produced?
Some years ago, I created a modern Diplomacy "takeoff" game (with a new name to be determined). The five "countries" are U.S., Russia, China, Europe and the Middle East. The pieces are fleets (F), armies (A) and air squadrons (S), and the object is to capture "population centers." There are limited nuclear capabilities. The time is the present. Otherwise it plays much like the original.
How would I go about trying to get it "produced?" Would you play it if it were produced?
And any suggestions for the new name?

@pat: How do I register so I can vote and (use meta)? I've "voted" by "accepting" answers, but that's all I can do for now.

Take a look at the FAQ, particularly the "Accounts, registration and logging in" section.

@pat: My bridge question that you just closed was that game's version of this question. I got three very helpful answers for this one (and accepted one). I would have thought that people would come with helpful suggestions of clubs, tournaments, pros, cruises, software for the US, particularly NYC.

lets keep discussion of that post on that post (or meta) please.

A few immediate thoughts:

from a game play standpoint where are the "BRIC" countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia etc) or are you designing the game to largely involve conflict between the 5 powers you cited in Africa, South America etc?
from a "how do you get a game produced" there are many routes. An increasingly popular route would be to go independent - many games are starting with Kickstarter campaigns (where the supporters get the first copies of the game) which has the advantage of helping you gauge the actual market interest and demand. In the case of a modern update to an older game you may have to determine what, if any, patents or other IP rights you might have to license from the original (if any at all) and thus may have to deal with the original publisher (or who ever now owns the rights to the game). Since Diplomacy is a fairly old game it is likely that any patents on the game board etc have long since expired.
a final suggestion, Diplomacy has had a very long standing tradition of being played online (via email, via websites etc) could you make a digital, online version of your game before you make any investment into a physical game (with all the production costs & distribution issues that involves?). A digital game, especially if you can attract a core of engaged players, likely would also help you iterate on the game design and evolve the gameplay and game balance based on many rounds of playtesting.

And finally while there are game players here on Stackexchange I assume you do know about the very active and engaged board game community of BoardGameGeek? I'd strongly suggest reaching out to serious Diplomacy fans there and at reaching out to independent game publishers both on BGG and via their Twitter and websites. I'd also suggest subscribing to great game design podcasts such as Richard Garfield's great podcast (and there are many other board game related podcasts that feature long interviews with game designers and publishers).

I'm pretty sure you can't patent a board game, at least in the United States. In fact, games have very little IP protection. The most that can typically be done is enforce copyright, and typically that only applies to artwork, which could include a map, the text of the rules, and custom writing, such as text on cards. I agree with Shannon that you need to look into it, but IP probably won't be a big hurdle.

actually yes you can indeed patent a board game and quite a few board games (and their pieces, components etc) are protected by patents. (years ago in college I seriously pursued patenting a board game design and probably still could as I haven't yet seen an example of the mechanics and construction I was proposing)

for just a few random examples see this blog that covers among other topics board game patents - http://www.purplepawn.com/2011/01/january-board-and-card-game-patents-3/ - design patents & patents on methods can cover a lot of things. That said, it does require something which is "nonobvious" and new so simply updating Diplomacy with different flavor text probably doesn't qualify.

Not to discourage your work, but you should consider renaming it.  The Diplomacy hobby has long had a varient named 'modern':

Modern (Vincent Mous)
A ten-player variant that takes place
  in modern times on a modified map
  which contains the regions on the
  standard map plus a slightly larger
  portion of Western Asia and Northern
  Africa. Standard Diplomacy rules
  apply, along with special geography
  rules (e.g. canals and coasts) for a
  few of the provinces.

-- http://www.diplom.org/Online/variants3.html#m
It's different in concept, so the same name might be trouble.
Historically of the hundreds of alternate maps only two have been sold commercially, back during the Avalon Hill days.  They were colonial and ancient -- neither sold well.
Not to laud Diplomacy too much, but there seems to be a small subset of the Diplomacy community that's interested in variants.  Most of them (us) view the mapboard/rules as a framework for the negotiations and secondary to the real game.  The value of the tried and true mapboard is I can read a set of orders in a blink and know exactly what's happening w/o looking at the board.  Map variants take me out of the "it's all about the relationships" stage and throw be back into the "can I move Fleet X to Y?" zone that I left behind years ago.

The "name" was meant to be a "description" so people could immediately identify with the original, for the purposes of asking the question. That's why I put in quotation marks. The title might be something like 2000, etc.

drop the name. It's too similar to a popular game, and the differences will draw ire, not applause, from that crowd. And it sounds in concept dangerously close to Supremacy.
Don't bother trying to find a buyer. You'll need to go it yourself to build enough rep to get someone to by it from you.
Best bet: PDF playtest. Do a low-cost PDF Print & Play version, counters and maps both printable. Get people to play it, critique it, tear it apart. Then revise and re-release based upon their feedback.
Once you have it playtested, use a Kickstarter project to raise the up-front money for the initial print run. If you get enough, you print. If not, you don't, but you aren't out anything (and Kickstarter kicks back much of the cash.) See below for more on this.
Once you've raised the cash for the initial print, you do the initial print run. IMMEDIATELY fulfill the kickstarter promises. Then sell the rest through a website, and offer stores and distributors a discount.

When you go to do the kickstarter, remember to account for printing costs, component costs (the bits can probably be commercially acquired), and your combining time and effort, and at inventory tax for your locality for at least a year, plus shipping and handling on the absolute worst case of owed copies due to the kickstarter. Plus 25%, as (IIRC) Kickstarter takes 20% off the top.
So, if your "$5" is a revised PDF of to match the last minute changes in the boxed set, that's pretty much a freebie. If it's going to cost $30 in parts and print, and 10 minutes to pack, that's 0.15 hours, and you should pay yourself $10/hr for pack, so $1.50 for that, and $30 to ship anywhere in the world can be done... you need to set the "get a signed copy" at about the $100 level... so that, even if EVERY bit of your initial run of 200 is eaten, you still are getting in $80 per set costing you $35 to make and up to $30 to ship.
And no matter how you do it, get ads out. A column inch in X-men is frightful expensive, but is an advert that will be seen for years and around the globe. An advert in your local paper is forgotten the next week, and seen by only a tiny portion of the target audience.
Don't neglect conventions, either. People playing it in a demo are likely to spread word of it... good or bad, it's a great route for feedback.

I wasn't going to the use the name (more like 2000). That's why I put it in quotation marks. But I wanted to convey the idea that it was a "takeoff" on an old idea.

"Diplomacy" is such an established game that probably no gamemaker will want to produce a "variant" from scratch.
That said, there are lots of gaming clubs (on line and face to face) that enjoy learning and playing diplomacy with new maps (and sometimes new rules), just as there are continental variations on "Risk." I'd suggest pitching your idea to one or more of these gaming groups and try to get your game adopted in a small way by them.

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


text:
Why Do Modern Players Use "Negative Doubles" In Bridge
Personally, I think that too many people overcall. Meaning that we need a penalty double for it in bridge. But the modern fashion seems to be for "negative doubles" over overcalls. These seem to mean, "I don't like your suit, and I don't want to defend the opponents' suit, therefore I'm strong in the remaining two suits. At least relative to my 8-10 points. Meaning that it largely precludes the penalty double.
With some reluctance (and with certain partners), I used a double that means, I like the "remaining" major suit(s). (I hate minors.) It could be either negative or penalty, depending on the circumstances. Some examples:
1 Club (You) 1 Diamond (Opponent) Double (me). I like one, possibly both majors. Negative.
1 Heart (You) 2 Clubs (Opponent) Double (me). I wanted to bid one spade, but 2 clubs shut me out. Negative.
1 Heart (You) 1 Spade (Opponent) Double (me). I like one of the majors (and not yours, because I didn't raise, with Qxx or better). Penalty. (I have AKxxx or QjTxx and hope you'll pass me out.)
Should I stick to penalty doubles? Are negative doubles so compelling that I have to "switch?" Or is it possible to use a "blend" strategy like the one above?

Personally, I think that too few people overcall.  If you played with me, you'd get a whole bunch of "weak jump overcalls" - where I jump to, e.g. 3 diamonds over opponent's 1 spade, based on 6 points and 6 diamonds in hand (at a rough minimum).  Are you getting a clear idea of what kind of Bridge player I am yet? :D

@thesuneversets: I'd want you to have seven cards at three, six at two, over my presumed two (on average). Law of total tricks and all that. But I also believe in overcalling with "trumps" rather than "points," with your few points supporting your trumps. With your 6 "concentrated" points, we'd have trouble stopping a game unless I had "lots." Maybe not even a slam. Go for it.

The short answer is - use whatever your partner and you are comfortable with using.
The long answer is - the penalty double at the one or two levels rarely works out the way you think.  Either their partner will switch to a different suit (where you may not want to double for penalties again), they will SOS redouble for takeout (again to a suit that you may not want to double), or they will play in the doubled contract.  You'll find they'll make this contract a maddening percentage of the time, or only be off one.  The times that you have the strength to set them a large number at such a small contract, you could have bid game or slam yourself and make at least as much, if not a lot more.
This is why people really don't penalty double at the low levels anymore.  In competitive auctions, it's much more useful to use the double to find a fit.

In two out of three cases shown, the double was negative. But in the third case, I WANT to chase the opponents out of one spade, and into the "wastelands" of a minor suit. (Note how strongly I feel about this.) Thanks for your (great) interest. I want to upvote you, but can't because I'm not registered (and don't know how.)

You want to chase them out of a suit where you have a AKxxx?  Chances are, they'll do it themselves without the prodding.  In that case, all you seem to be doing is giving away free information to your opponents.  I guess your partner could take this information and later bid notrump if they have a strong hand, but why not bid notrump yourself to communicate the spade stopper and lack of heart support?

The preference for takeout doubles particularly with regard to competitive auctions like 1,2 and 3 is due to the likelihood of having either a straight out penalty hand or one that wishes to play in another suit- the latter is judged to far more likely.
You could also end up playing in no-trumps when opponents could make or just go down not enough doubled to make missing a no-trumps game worthwhile.
As dpmattingly noted its quite fine to do what you and your partner agree to- just realise the chances of missing a decent contract are quite high.
Case 3. Means you are showing one or both minors.
Note just because you play takeout doubles doesn't preclude you from penalising opponent's overcall, you might make a takeout double and partner decides to leave it in as a penalty (usually a strong hand with at least 4 cards in their suit)  or your partner can do a reopening double with a good hand and usually a shortage in opponent's suit which you can pass because you wanted to penalise your opponent's overcall. I am continuing from your examples where you a responding bidder and your partner is opening.

Two things not mentioned in the other (good) answers:

Negative doubles help you find 4-4 major suit fits and (by bidding a major when a negative double would have been available) especially "3-5" major suit fits that can be impossible to find otherwise at low level competitive auctions.
You don't throw penalties entirely out the window, as opener can balance with a double that responder can convert to penalty.

Point 2 is the real crux of the matter - Bride is a partnership game, and the "compulsion to act" ahead of partner is one of the defining characteristics of weak players, and must be overcome habitually before one can advance to an intermediate level.


text:
Should We Eliminate or Modify the "Factory Rule" In Axis and Allies?
The better players I know don't build industrial complexes "factories" outside of their home countries. It costs 15 IPCs (five infantry) up front, and offers an uncertain return. Far better, they would argue, to "stick to the knitting" and "go for the throat,"--of a war in Europe, which is already "overbuilt." What's worse, a factory in say India or Sinkiang can (and probably should be) captured by the Japanese, possibly giving them the momentum they need to win the war.
Other players argue in favor of e.g., a South African factory for Britain. A writer at Morrison Games likened to a two "supertransports" shuttling four zones between the UK and South Africa with two infantry on alternate turns, for similar costs in IPCs. Thus, factories do make the US and UK easier to play.
I (a newbie) don't mind some aspects of factories and dislike others. First, I think factories outside the main countries should be allowed to produce only infantry. I can imagine "local levies" of riflemen in India, China, or South Africa, but really can't imagine them producing tanks, ships or planes (and this was 70 years ago). And I wouldn't allow factories at all in landlocked territories like Sinkiang (which consists of Tibet and the Taklamakan desert. Camels, anyone?)
Also, three out of the five countries already have two industrial complexes. Only the UK and Japan have only one. Perhaps we should have a limit of two "factories" per country, meaning that only the UK and Japan can build new ones?
If "good" players don't like factories and intermediate players do, are factories necessary to the game? And if "unnecessary," should they be permitted anyway? With or without modifications?

@scott: You're too modest. YOU (and Adam Wuerl) were the "good" players I was referring to. You both sound better than that nameless guy at Morrison games. Here's the irony: most "lobbying" for the rule seems to be on the behalf of US and UK players. But Japan actually benefits the most. Hence, JAPAN would benefit most from factories in India and Sinkiang, (when captured). Last, I don't consider the income rule restrictive enough. What if South Africa producers two fighters, or one bomber and one infantry?

If "good" players don't like factories and intermediate players do, are factories necessary to the game?

I'd classify myself an intermediate player and would say that the only country that really has any business building factories is Japan, and then not until the late game. The most common early game factory builds are usually mistakes, at least when playing against stronger players. A skilled Japan player will take out the Indian or Sinkiang factory in due time. And a skilled German player will have enough manpower to neuter a South African or (gasp) Egyptian factory if it is built too soon in the game.
That being said, allowing no factories for either sides is a common Axis & Allies variation, which I noted in my question, Recommended Axis & Allies alternative rules / variations?
I've played this variation a number of times and I've found it to shift the strategy of the game a bit. Without doubt, it affects Japan the most. Without the aid of factories, Japan must ferry man and material into Asia from the homeland. Since each transport can only carry a single tank, this forces Japan to go with a less than optimal infantry/tank mix. Moreover, it makes the battle of the Pacific more paramount, because if Japan loses her navy - or even suffers a heavy set back - her flow of troops to mainland Asia is impaired, if not neutered.
The no factory variation foists a dilemma upon the USA strategy - does the US still go full steam ahead with the "shuck-shuck" strategy, focusing on aiding her Allies in nixing Germany first, or does she use her IPCs to build up a navy in the Pacific with the intent of quelling the Japanese flotilla?
All that being said, to answer your question...

If "good" players don't like factories and intermediate players do, are factories necessary to the game?

They are certainly not necessary, but they make the game much harder for Japan without them. Japan's must have a prepared strategy and be prepared to execute on that strategy deftly. Little mistakes - like not correctly balancing transports with the number of troops in mainland Japan - can be fatal. Therefore, I think a no factories option is an interesting variation if the Japan player is a strong one, otherwise eliminating them presents an uphill battle for Japan that she might not be able to overcome.

And if "unnecessary," should they be permitted anyway? With or without modifications?

There are other units in the game that are unnecessary, no? How necessary are submarines, for instance?
Speaking of factory variations, the standard rules allow the factories that exist at the start of the game to churn out as many units as can be afforded, whereas factories built after the start can only output as many units as the territory's IPC value. Moreover, factories cannot be moved.
For your consideration, here are three factory variations. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of either, but both do color the game quite differently:

Initial factories outside of the capital territory can only produce as many units as their IPC value. This has the most pointed effect on Russia, as her factory in Karelia can only output three units per turn.
Factories, like AA guns and other units, may be moved during the non-combat phase. A moved factory could not output any units this turn or next, and would have its output restricted to the IPC value of its new territory once units can be produced. This option allows the UK to move its Indian factory out of harm's way (if needed), but on the flip-side it allows Japan to march factories closer to the Russian capital.
When an attacker successfully invades a territory with a factory, he may decide to destroy the factory.

Food for thought...

@Tom: Thanks for the compliment, Tom, but how do you know if I'm any good? We haven't yet played! <hint, hint>


text:
Why Do People Use "Precision" Bidding in Bridge?
As I understand it, in the "precision" bidding system in bridge, you open one club with 16+ points (a greater than minimum opening hand), while all the other "one" level bids show 13-15 (a minimum). That includes 1NT, making it a "weak" 1 NT.
I was taught that "higher bids mean higher points." Precision blatantly violates this rule. Besides, I don't like the "weak" 1 NT because it's too hard to have all suits adequately covered with 12-14 points.
If you feel the system has merits, what are they? Or do you see a lack of merit like I do?

I've noticed in a couple of your questions referring to "having all suits covered" with 1NT bids. That is a very old-fashioned way of looking at things. It turns out that narrowly limiting the range and shape of your hand for your partner is extremely valuable even without promising all suits covered, and that usually things work out (e.g. you play in a suit, between the two hands you actually have all 4 suits covered, the opponents lead one of your safe suits). In particular, weak NT openers don't need to have all 4 suits covered, and in fact have a weaker hand if their honors are divided.

@ruds: I was taught to play bridge in the 1960s by a teacher born in 1896. Played most of my bridge before 1973. That explains my "old fashioned way of looking at things."

Culbertson, Schenken, Goren, Sheinwold, and Kaplan were all advocating looser rules for no-trump openings long before 1973. All the beginner books I read in the early 1970's, a decade or more from initial publishing, were advocating this. The Precision system itself was invented by C.C.Wei (et al) in the late 1960's.

I think Precision is - with some caveats - an absolutely brilliant system, and one that everyone should try out at some point.
I used to play Bridge with, not to put too fine a point on it, a group with players of various different levels of skill.  Playing with standard systems, some of them would just not get it quite a lot of the time.  Presented with anything other than a balanced 1NT hand, they just wouldn't really know how to bid it, much less respond, or deal with an overcall!
The beauty of Precision is that it takes a lot of the mystery out of at least the early game.  A junior player can't fail to alert you to their strong hand if they are in first seat with 20 HCP.  Likewise, they tend to have less trouble finding the correct suit and level, because of Precision's tightly circumscribed bids.
Is Precision better than other systems in the long run?  No, because once you have a genuine feel for the game you don't really need a system with so little room to maneuver.  Your talent and ability to think quickly will fill in any games in a looser, more economical system.  But don't underestimate Precision's value to beginners.
As for your problems with the 1C opening bid to indicate a strong hand, you might as well say you have problems with conventional bids in general.  Conventional bids are shortcuts to success, taking the place of bids that would otherwise have little value.  1C is a terrible bid, in a literal sense - I have not especially good points, no good majors, and strength in clubs?  Well, that's not going to get me very far, really, is it?  Unless I have 80 below the line or something.  It's almost never useful in actual practice though.  So being able to indicate a strong hand while retaining a whole level of bidding space is usually much better.  It gives you an extra bid and response to accurately describe your hand to partner, and reach that slam that a 16+HCP hand is often capable of making!

If the system really does provide "so little room for maneuver" why does the strongest partnership in the world, over the past two decades, use it as the basis for their system?

Because they can and do memorize 800 pages of system (note that the Lite system they play with clients is much less detailed!) and remembering all of that doesn't tax their brains much.  So they have more energy left for all the rest of the game - including when they do fall off-book.  Plus, they're famous - notorious, even - for "frequent upgrades, almost never downgrades"; there's your "room for manoeuver"!  As a Precision player myself, I loved that the system bid for me for one or two rounds more than standard; more brain power for the play!

The main thrust behind the precision 1C is that it keeps the rest of the one level open for descriptive bids.  Their argument is that the standard bids used to show strength (jump raises and so forth) take up too much room in the bidding, room that could be used by you and your partner to hone in on exact strength, distribution, etc.  The downside to this is that it keeps that low level open to your opponents, and many strong players will do whatever they can to take that bidding room that the Precision system would otherwise use.
I did once play a weak NT system (outside of Precision), and I thought it worked very well.  You really didn't need to worry about having suits covered.  Even if you were left in 1NT and your opponents could run a suit before you could get a word in, you could usually still find 7 tricks, or at worst go down one.  Plus, your partner knows exactly what you have when you bid 1NT, and will take you out if he has a oddly shaped hand that will not play well in NT.  It also acts as a pre=empt for opposing bidding.  A good number of players have no real idea how to overcall weak NT openings, and you've taken away the entire one level, so they would have to start on the two level to try and find a fit, and may end up too high too soon.

Personally, the reason I use Precision is not because of the 1C opening directly, though it is much more useful than the old-style Strong 2s or the newer, Standard American Strong 2C just due to the frequency with which it comes up.  Rather, I like the fact that using 1C to open all hands of 16+ HCP (except for 22-24 balanced) limits all other openings to 11-15 HCP.  This allows responder to decide right away the level the partnership can safely explore.  Yes, there is plenty to learn as far as conventional bids in the system, but if you look at the top partnerships in the world, most of them play some kind of Forcing Club system like Precision, and most would probably say that it's because of the tight limit it places on all the other openings.  Benito Garozzo, one of bridge's greatest theorists, said just that, in fact.

Despite the disapproval precision players receive at club level, many top pairs in north America, Europe and Asia play modified precision systems or multi-way club systems. In bermuda bawl 2009, 2 out of 6 American pairs played precision, and 10 out of 18 European pairs chose either precision or multi-way club systems. They must have seen some merits.
This is not a good place to lecture on precision, so you can search the web for hints. Also you can find many good points in previous posts. I just want to add a point that is missing in that post, and i think it is important.
In strong 2C systems, all 23+ hands will be opened 2C. This is a poor design. Why should we assign a bid to hands that occure once in 200 deals? In fact 2C in natural systems is a bid that you rarely use, so it is a waste. Let's look at natural systems and precision basic structure designation with some statistics:
Natural:
0-12: frequency: %73.2 --- either pass or open with a pre-empt
13-22: frequency:%26.3 --- one of a suit is opened. but still 1C/D openings does not promise any length and next rebid for clarification is required. Also, the exact point range should be clarified with a second or third bid (weak: 12-15,  intermediate:16-18, strong:19-22). Responder still is in the dark after the opening bid. The mandatory second clarifying bid by opener makes these openings vulnerable to overcalls and usually awkward guesswork and overbiding starts at intermediate level and sometimes experts miss too
23+: frequency: 0.5% --- do you remember the last time you opened 2C?
Precision:
0-11: frequency: %56.2 --- either pass or open with a pre-empt
11-15: frequency: %34.0 ---a limited bid will be used. There is no need for a second or third bid to clarify the exact point range. Partner knows more at this stage compared to a natural system. Less opportunity for overbiding. overcalls are not disturbing at all (they will only help us), but sometimes distributional games can't be found at intermediate level who play just on HCP count. This is the safe and pleasant part of the system
16+: frequency: %9.8 --- 1C opener takes the control of the auction. opener does not show his hand to opponents and just asks. The drawback is sometimes you play the contract wrong sided compared to a natural system (but this problem is solved by top players). It is sensitive to pre-emption and a pair must employ methods to overcome dificulties, might be hard for intermediate players. (But there are times that the deal is a misfit and those anti-precision players who jump carelessly in the auction and go down, give us a top board)
For years, and all around the world, experts have worked hard on natural systems and made them playable by adding gadgets and giving exact meanings to many sequences. But still they could not overcome the inherent flaw in the main structure, specially meaningless 1C/1D openings.

Your "once in 200 deals" comment is way off - That would be once per 8 sessions for a partnership when it is more like once in every two or three sessions, or 2.5% to 4% of hands where we open the bidding (rather than opponents).

Precision has many advantages, and some disadvantages. My opponents bid a hand the other day that went 1C/1D/1H/1S/1N/2C/2H/2S - They were the only pair in 2S (4-3 fit) for 100%. Our hands were both 4-3-3-3, 8/9 HCPs each, vulnerable so we couldn't interfere. My experience is that if you leave a precision auction "uninterfered" with, you will almost ALWAYS score badly, so pre-empt like hell.
On another hand my RHO opened a Precision 1C. I had a 9 count NV with 5D, so I bid 4D. Yes, it might get doubled but I was probably getting a bad board if I passed so what the hell. LHO didn't know if I had 8 diamonds, he didn't know if his partners suit was H or S. He didn't know if a slam was on. He didn't know what to do. If he passed after a long hesitation, (while he thought), he knew his partner would be silenced, so he had to bid. Whatever he bid was a guess. He bid 4S, which made 11, when 6H was a laydown. Had I passed, they would have reached 6H for 93% as ACOL players struggled to find it.

Amateurs! (Not you - them!) Try those shenanigans against MeckWell and see how you do. Another argument for always studying your hand for ~10 seconds after an opposing Skip Bid - so you don't get hung out to dry by opponents obsessed with preempting power auctions.

There's a big clue in the name. Playing Precision allows you to get a precise picture of the hand early in the bidding, at the expense of not being able to be creative.
This suits some pairs, but not others. It works better, I think, in tournament play; normal club players feel they're being deliberately confused (and I'd never consider playing it in a rubber bridge evening).
BTW, what most people consider Precision nowadays wouldn't be recognisable to the inventors: the principal feature of the original was that Pass showed 14+ points.  Sadly, that was so successful internationally that it was effectively banned...

In addition there is not one standard system where higher bids means higher points- either you were taught badly or weren't  really listening to your teacher. 2 level bids in traditional ACOL with strong 2s were stronger than 1 level bids but 3 level bids are preempts and are weaker than 1 level openings. Any system where higher level means stronger is difficult to use.

I find only 2 disadvantages of precision.

Opponents frequently interfere & sometimes psych with the only the desire to interfere. By using control count responses that take into account that interference, that interference is welcome. Thus the disadvantage becomes an advantage.
Finding a Precision partner even in a very large club is a challenge. Most locals have years if not decades of experience with various forms of SA, play with with many different partners, fear that a whole new system would compromise their ability to remember which nuances of SA are played by whom, & are unwilling to partner someone with fewer master points. BBO doesn't make it easy to find a Precision partner. Therefore, a good deal of time crunching numbers, research, & thought are probably wasted.

That does not answer the question of why people use Precision Bidding in Bridge, while it may be good reasons to not use it.

sorry. i meant to imply that i like everything else about precision.  turboirc.com/precision/ is the best description of precision advantages i have found. you might also want to google larry cohen on the subject.


text:
Was a bridge column "resulting" when it criticized an opening lead?
Both sides vulnerable, South dealt and bid one heart. West overcalled one spade, North three hearts, East three spades, South four hearts, East four spades, South five hearts.
West held (s) KQJT8 (h) 2 (d) K93 (c) JT32, and led the K of spades. The column characterized the lead as "natural," but called it an error, because leading the 3 of diamonds would have beaten the contract. (East had the A, West the K, and East a "side" trick.) In the actual hand, South captured the K of spades with the A, and then successfully "sluffed" two diamond losers).
Is there any widely accepted theory or statistical study (e.g. a Monte Carlo simulation) that would lead one to believe that the 3 of diamonds is the better lead a priori, based on the bidding? Or am I right to believe that the columnist was "resulting," based on this one hand?
If the lead of the 3 of diamonds was statistically inferior, but made by an expert, would it just be considered a mistake, on would it be grounds for potential discipline, based on the assumption that the expert had more knowledge of the hand that he was entitled to?

Did North (Dummy) come down with something like x-Jxxxx-xx-KQxxx, and Declarer perhaps xx-AKQxx-xx-Axx? That would leave partner with Axxxx-xx-AQxxx-x and Declarer with a fast diamond pitch if we don't lead it

It would also have been REALLY useful to know what LHO denied by not bidding 2S - it leaves me wildly guessing as to what specifically 3H meant and showed.

@ Pieter Geerkins: West had five spades, East had four, hence their bids. With a "solid" five card spade holding, West might have bid two spades, (treating them as six, per Marty Bergen) but didn't. I'd bid two spades with KQJTx, but one spade with KQJxx and the rest of West's hand.

@ Tom Au: We need to know what NORTH showed by bidding 3H rather than 2S (or some other conventional heart raise).

@AlexanderWoo: North's hand was (s) A (h) QTxx (d) QT98 (c) Qxxx. But West isn't supposed to know (or infer) this before the dummy comes down unless North was bidding a particular convention.

@PieterGeerkens: Given North's hand in my response to Alexander, South took the singleton Ace of Spades in dummy, crossed to his hand with the AK of clubs, back to dummy with a spade ruff, led out the Q of clubs (which held), while discarding a diamond from his hand. Then the last club,  discarding the second diamond, in hand, loser on loser. East made this trick and the A of hearts and that was it. The lead of the 3 of diamonds looks "random," but represents the best chance for 2 tricks. With a third to come elswhere.

Which column was this? I would call it resulting.

@Aryabhata: The New York Post. A Murdoch paper. September 24, 2015. I read a hard copy, not a link.

@Aryabhata: The hand is here: http://www.baronbarclay.com/product/bridgecolumn092415/September2015

@TomAu: Now that I read the article, I don't see the claim anywhere that a spade lead was an error. I believe the error referred to was by East: not underleading a diamond for a trump promotion (4th club from West, and East makes the trump Jack). The error south made was not making a scissors coup (play 4th club and throw the other diamond loser). Those are the errors that cancelled out. There is no resulting about the opening lead.

@Aryabhata: It may just have been a stylistic thing, that the article said that "a normal result is achieved when errors cancel out; a diamond lead would have beaten the contract but West made the natural lead of a spade..." so I took that as saying that West made an error.

@TomAu: You completely butchered the description of the hand; the bidding significance; and the analysis apparently in order to make a point. Shame!

@Tom Au: Having conventions that allow bidding 3H on that strong a hand is quite unusual nowadays; almost everyone would bid 2S (conventionally showing a limit raise or better in hearts) with that hand.

@AlexanderWoo: This is a bit beyond me. I'm an "old timer" who would go to three hearts on four trumps.

@TomAu - upper intermediate standard these days in North America is 3H="0"-9hcp, 4 trumps (in quotes because only the most distributional 0s bid) and 2S (their suit at the lowest level)=10+hcp 3+trumps.  I'm not entirely sure, but I think expert standard these days is converging on 3H="0"-6, 4 trumps, 2N=7-9, 4 trumps, 2S(their suit lowest level)=10+, 3+trumps, assuming they're not using more exotic methods such as transfers or good/bad 2N.

Yes, it would have been resulting had it criticized the opening lead. As @PieterGeerkens noted, the article neither terms the lead an error nor implies it.
Thanks, @Aryabhata, for posting a link to the actual column.

I "second" your second comment. Thanks to Aryabhata for showing me  it could be done. Next time I'll do that.

It was actually Pieter who posted the link.

Second question first: Could this be evidence of cheating?
Not by itself.  A large number of hands where an expert correctly guessed along with a paucity of hands where the expert incorrectly guessed might be considered evidence of cheating.  This kind of thing comes up in maybe once in a hundred deals, the case where the lead makes a difference maybe once in five hundred, and I would think you need at least a 5/5 or 9/10 success rate to even think cheating might be going on.  We're talking about looking at 5,000 deals, and pretty much only professionals play that much bridge in a year.
First question: Is this really an error?
It really depends on how likely one of the opponents is to have a first round spade control (ace, void, or both) and a source of discards (both ace and void, or running clubs).  This in turn depends on their bidding system and style.  For example, South was limited to say 15 points (playing some strong club system), it would be much more likely.  Also if North was by agreement very weak (say <6 points) for the 3 hearts bid.  It's also possible South has a lead directing bid available over 4 spades (say if 5 diamonds would have meant "I want to play in 5 hearts but if they bid 5 spades then lead a diamond"), in which case failure to make such a bid is meaningful.  Also, West might have information from opponents' mannerisms that West is certainly allowed to take advantage of.
Unless it's actually clear one way or the other (I'm not an expert; I don't know), it would be pretty hard to make enough justifiable assumptions to say what the right play was.
Also, if it's a long team match, there may be state of the match considerations about how much of a risk you want to take.

Now that we have learned 3H was actually an invitational (or maybe even game forcing) raise rather than a pre-emptive one, I am much more in favor of a diamond lead.  But I will leave this whole response up.


text:
Would A "Dual Capital" (house) rule make sense in Axis and Allies Pacific?
The gamemaker "opened the gates" to this question by allowing China to collect income and build units without a capital (or for that matter, and industrial complex). This is kind of an exception to the normal rules of the game. The "fiction" behind this might be that China has a "second" capital at America's San Francisco (Western U.S.). Then the resulting "house rule" would be that China could produce units until the Allies lost its "second" capital at San Francisco. And the Allies could reactivate this (joint) lost production by recapturing either San Francisco or China's capital of Nanking (in the same square as "Shanghai").
These two countries are often played by the same player. (And even if they aren't, during the real World War II, the U.S. took China under its wing,overseeing its command structure and supply sourcing more than the other allies.) So the house rule would allow China to operate under an American "shadow" government. This rule would mirror the Classic version, under which the two Chinese provinces were treated as U.S. "satellites" played by the U.S. player.
Likewise, the UK would have a dual command structure out of (Calcutta) India and (Sydney) Australia. And again, the UK and ANZAC are often played by the same player, in addition to being linked in real life. So if one capital were captured, would it make sense that the country could continue to collect income and build units under the leadership of the other capital; India or Sydney? (If India were captured, production of the combined number of pieces would fall under the limitation of Australia's industrial complexes.) Again, it doesn't seem logical that either India or Australia would stop building units upon losing its capital when there is a "sister" government in the same hemisphere that it can report to. The two UK countries are actually closer to each other than the U.S. and China, so it would make more sense for them to operate jointly than for the U.S. and China.
Japan has no allies, so it would not have a dual capital structure.
This is an "umbrella" rule that 1) "explains" the China exception to the usual rules; 2) provides for the loss of Chinese productive capacity if it loses American aid and moral support and 3) extends the "China rule" to India and Australia. Would such a house rule make sense by making the game 1) more consistent (internally and with previous game versions) 2) more playable 3) more historically accurate?

More details on the specific problem addressed by the proposed change would help, as the experience and strategies of other game groups may be different than yours.

Churchill certainly announced an intent at some point of relocating the Cabinet and Monarchy to Canada in the event of a successful German invasion of Britain, in order to continue the fight. Your proposal is consistent with this intent, and the Dutch and Poles (and the French, sort-of) continued an official resistance abroad.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I believe, but am not sure (from my reading of the rules) that France operates under "China rules" (and British auspices) in Axis and Allies Europe after the fall of Paris.


text:
How is France played in Allies and Axis Europe 1940 (Second Edition)?
In Allies and Axis Europe, France's capital, Paris, typically falls on the first turn. As a result, most games do not have a player playing France alone. Instead, either the US or UK player is typically assigned to play France. Then the question is what does this person get to do with France? I'm confused by a rule that says "France will be managed as a separately controlled power, including its IPC economy," which suggests that it has an economy.
Is France played under "China rules" from Allied and Axis Pacific when it is left only with its overseas holdings? (China has lost its capital (Nanjing) and has no industrial centers but still gets to collect income from its remaining territories and gets to build infantry using this income.) China is typically played by the U.S. or one of the UK players. In that case, it would make sense to assign a player to play France from the beginning.
Or is France played under "standard" rules (its pieces stay on the board until eliminated, but it can't collect income or build new units until Paris is liberated, at which time it gets four "Free French" units on Paris)? Then wouldn't it make sense to let the liberator (UK, US or possibly Russia) play France (separately from its own pieces) instead of assigning a player early on? Because there's a possibility that Paris won't be liberated, in which case, wouldn't playing France be moot?

Yes france is moot and standard rules.  Liberation is only hope. and if original French territory is taken by axis and then taken by allies while paris is not liberated, the original French territory may belong to the ally (until paris is liberated).

Hey JMill, welcome to Board & Card Games. Would you mind including some references or links to back up your answer, in the hopes of making it better?


text:
In duplicate, is it ethical to base your play on other people's body language?
In bridge, there are some times when you can assure yourself of x number of tricks (just enough for your contract) by making a safety play to guard against an adverse 4-1 distribution. If you don't make the safety play, and instead lead out three top cards, you will make an overtrick if the suit breaks 3-2, and go down one if it breaks 4-1 (because you can't get back to dummy to take the fifth trick. Most rubber players would make the safety play to maximize expected points, and most duplicate players would take the three tops to maximize expected tricks.
Suppose you are a member of a "traveling" duplicate pair. As you approach a certain table, you notice declarers looking glum as they leave the table. From this, you infer that one or more declarers caught a bad break. Sure enough, when you sit down and declare, you see the road fork between making a safety play and laying down three top cards.
Now it's unethical to peek at the score sheet to find out whether others made an overtrick, their contract, or down one. But is it unethical to make the safety play based on the body language of the two preceding declarers?
Suppose someone else was the only declarer to make the safety play. The tournament director observes this and accuses him of cheating. He defends himself by saying that he was dissatisfied with his position in the standings, was in a "top or bottom" mode, and earned a top on this one hand. How would these claims be resolved?

Under no circumstances is one entitled to draw inferences from the actions of a partner or teammate.
Under certain circumstances one is entitled to draw inferences from the behavior of the opponents at one's table, on boards one is playing against them. As you note, deliberately peeking at an opponent's scores is not one of these cases.
However, under no circumstances is one entitled to draw inferences from the behaviour of opponents at other tables, about boards not currently at your table. In this instance, there additionally seems to have been a conscious interpretation of forbidden knowledge, making the violation particularly egregious.  Other than for a novice, I would likely assess average-minus on the board in question, and a further procedural penalty of one additional full board if I felt there was sufficient evidence to establish a likelihood that the egregious violation occurred, other than from lack of knowledge.
If I felt that the offender had lied in order to hide the deliberateness of the offense, that is blatant cheating. If sufficiently established I would immediately eject the player from the game, consequences to the movement not withstanding; impose a lengthy suspension from the club; and file a full incident report to the ACBL describing my actions and the evidence I used to reach the decision..

Addendum 1: There are situations where one sees or overhears the behavior of opponents of other table without intending to, and it becomes impossible to play a board normally.  In that case, you should inform the director, who will probably give both sides an average-plus on the board if he or she agrees the board can no longer be played normally.  Sometimes a player will realize the significance of an overheard remark only in the middle of playing the board, and the director should be informed then.

Addendum 2: It is of course possible to cheat, and in many cases the director will not notice or will be unable to establish sufficient evidence to make a ruling.  A director who is suspicious is supposed to file a Recorder Form with the ACBL Unit.  The Unit likely will not do anything (after all, the director at the scene did not see fit to do anything), but it might investigate further or tell directors to be careful if they see several reports on the same person.

If an "onside" opponent at your table hesitated when you were playing a finesse, that would be a permitted inference, right?

@AlexanderWoo: So then the ethical thing to do is to inform the tournament director as soon as you realize that you inadvertently have an 'unfair advantage," right?

@TomAu - correct on both counts.

@TomAu: Katz & Cohen were first identified as cheaters because they could not adequately justify their plays in post mortem analysis sessions. Once this was clear the ACBL followed up by having designated kibitzers take notes, from which a case was constructed sufficient to force them into a resignation from the ACBL. That degree of effort can, of course, only be made for National Champion cheaters; but it describes the process to be followed.

"Under no circumstances is one entitled to draw inferences from the actions of a partner or teammate." Perhaps this overly pedantic, but one is permitted to draw inferences from in-game actions, such as bidding or playing a particular card. It's non-game actions, such as sighing, that one is not allowed to make inferences from.

@Acccumulation:  Wrong! Horribly wrong. A player may never make inferences from anything other than specifically the call made or the card played. Other "*in-game" actions include the tempo and pauses, and no player may take inferences from those made by partner. Neither may a player watch the cards held by either an opponent or partner to read where they are being pulled from.

When you draw the line as you have attempted, simple in-game activities such as scoring are inappropriately included when they are clearly excluded by the proper definition.


text:
In axis and allies, how are casualties allocated when two allies both defend a single zone?
For instance, suppose there are two American armies and two Soviet armies defending American-owned Sinkiang, which is attacked by the Japanese. The Japanese inflict two casualties and "back off." Who absorbs those two casualties, or are they split one and one between the Americans and the Soviets?
My way of playing is that the owning power (America in this case) absorbs casualties until they are wiped out, then the allies absorb the remainder.
Do any of the rule books for the different variations say differently? If so, what do they say?

According to page 19 of the rulebook at https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis.pdf
Defending together - when a multiple force is attacked, the attacker fires first as usual.  If a hit is scored, the defenders mutually agree which unit is chosen as the casualty (if they cannot agree, the attacker chooses).  When counterattacking, each defender rolls separately for his or her units (including casualties).


text:
Can Russia and Japan Follow A Mutual "Hands Off" Policy In Axis and Allies?
During World War II, the Soviet Union and Japan had a five year mutual non-aggression pact that was kept until the very end. Could a similar thing happen in Allies and Axis?
In some versions of the game, this policy is "enforced" by the fact that it costs 5 or even 10 IPCs for one side to attack the other's territories. Would you play such a game variation?
In other games, there are understandings between the two countries, derived during table talk. This may include not reinforcing territories that the other is likely to attack. For instance, Russia can reinforce British forces that have captured Norway, but not British forces in India.
Would you try to conclude such an agreement with the other party if you were playing Japan? Russia?

That treaty was kept more by Apathy than by act of will... Russia really didn't have much force in the east. A&A is mildly ahistoric, as well.

@aramis: Fair enough. But it laid the groundwork for possible game play.

Would you try to conclude such an agreement with the other party if you were playing Japan? Russia?

If I was playing Japan, no, I'd not want such an agreement. If I was Russia, then yes.
Russia's sole aim in the early game is to build up a wall of infantry in Karelia to stop Germany from expanding her borders and to buy time until her allies can start sending in wave after wave of troops support. (By the midgame the US should be depositing 10-12 infantry into Finland each and every turn.)
Having a "hands off" policy with Japan allows Russia two distinct advantages:

It inflates their economic base. The Soviet Far East and Yakut are two territories that usually fall under Japanese control relatively early in the game. That's 4 IPC per turn Russia gets to keep until later with this agreement.
It let's them focus on reinforcing Karelia without having to worry about staffing troops in Russia.

I can see how such a deal might sound ideal to Japan at first blush - namely, Japan gets to focus 100% on China, Sinkiang, and India, but I don't think it's worth it in the long run.

I quite agree with your answer. You nailed it. For the other part of the question, would you be willing to play Japan in a game variation where you'd have to pay 5-10 IPCs for the privilege of attacking Russia (breaking the historical treaty)?

@Tom: I don't know how to ask this any other way, but would you be interested in playing A&A online sometime over at GamesByEmail.com? If so, drop me a line, you can find my email address in my profile - http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/44/scott-mitchell

"I would if I could," but I'm about to start a new job. The reason I'm on the site at all is because of the few days I have to transition. Also, I forget to "@scott:" in my comment above.

@Tom: If you comment on someone's answer they get a notification in their inbox even if you don't include the "@". Also, you should be able to edit your comments--just mentioning it in case you forget something at some point in the future.

@Tom: Re: playing Axis & Allies at GamesByEmail.com... I just wanted to let you know that it's not continuous, online play, but rather play via one move at a time, at your leisure. So you can make your move in the morning before work each day, or at night before you go to bed. If you're still not interested, no worries, but I wanted to make sure you realized that you could play on that website without having to set aside several hours of time.


text:
Why Do People "Pre-empt" With Seven Of A Suit In Bridge?
One advantage of a "pre-empt" is quite clear: You take two levels of bidding away from your opponents with a "three" bid. But could that be cutting off your nose to spite your face?
Recently, I had something like KQxxxxx, and a side queen (I forget how the other suits were distributed but was told it didn't matter). My partner was disappointed I didn't "preempt" (in "third" seat). My response was "with seven points?"
My understanding is that people often bid three of a suit with seven cards and this little. Sometimes even less, particularly when non-vulnerable vs. vulnerable. In its extreme version, the mantra is "with any seven (suited) cards."
Isn't this risky? What if we're doubled and only make three or four tricks?

With 7 points and 7 cards I would never consider not pre-empting.  In most systems (that I know of) this is an automatic move, because it will so often be to your advantage, over keeping your mouth shut.

Incidentally, I don't think it makes sense to say "pre-empt with seven trumps".  You pre-empt with a seven-card suit, and then only if you win the contract do they become "seven trumps"!

@thesunneversets: I changed the title per your suggestion.

Your response of "With 7 points?" makes me think you have some misconceptions about the hands the you ought to preempt on. (As an aside, I am really curious: What do you preempt on?).
One normally preempts on highly offensive hands, which when played in any suit other than your long suit will offer very little defense. The position also is relevant, as in third seat you can really be aggressive in your preempts, opposite a passed hand. The vulnerability and scoring also matters: at IMPS going down 3 doubled, non-vul (-500) against a making vul game is (-600) is a great sacrifice.
Don't look at the total hcp, but look at your suit length and how offensive your hand is.
So a hand like Jxxxxxx, Kx , Qx, Kx (9 hcp) is not a hand to prempt (it offers nice defense and is less offensive oriented), but you should preempt on a hand like KQTxxxx, x, xxx, xx (only 5 hcp).
With KQTxxxx as trumps, assuming partner holds 2 small trumps, you rate to take 5-6 tricks on average. If partner also has an outside A, you will take 6-7 tricks, which is a great bargain (going down 2 or 3) against opponents making game/slam, especially when vul.
The usual point of preempting is that you rate to take away opponent's bidding space, as well as pointing the way to partner in making a sacrifice over opponents game/slam bid.
Ultimately, like with any other bidding situation, it is a risk vs reward + partnership discipline scenario and if you don't go for a number sometimes, you are not preempting enough.

Generally speaking, if you have only seven points as in the example hand, your opponents will have the preponderance of strength.  Pre-empts are designed to eat up the bidding room that your opponents could otherwise use to zone in on the right contract.  If, as it sometimes happens, your partner has the strength  instead, the pre-empt is still good, as it paints a very accurate picture of your hand that your partner will use to determine the right contract.
If you get doubled and go down three or four, think about what your opponents will have.  They will usually have missed a slam, and your result will compare favorably.
It will happen, but it is very rare that your pre-empt will be a total disaster.

Ok, it's "down four" versus "slam." Out of the fire and into the frying pan (the reverse of the usual).

Only in the worst case scenario (vul against not) would down four doubled not be a good trade against a slam.  In the best case (not against vul), you get -800 instead of -1430.

Also, down four in a pre-empt means the opponents take two trump tricks when there are only six between the other three hands, and you make no side tricks at all; rare.

The Wikipedia page is actually really good; I don't think I could put it any more economically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preempt
Especially, check out the graph on that page, which shows how many points you lose from undertricks at various vulnerabilities, compared with the points opponents will gain from making game.  You seem to have trouble with the idea of making a sacrifice bid, but quite often it is just accurately gauging the lesser of two evils for your side.
Obviously if you're going to go down 6 doubled vulnerable, you never make a sacrificial pre-empt!  But you'd be surprised how many tricks you can usually take with 7 or 8 of a single suit in your hand.

I have 7, partner has 2 on average. Opponents have AKQJ, divided 3-1. They take three tricks in the suit, we take four. Down five. OK, not in my example with KQ. K falls to A, Q scoops J, we take six, down three.

@Tom: But you have to have some high card points to make a pre-emptive bid, you can't just do it with 7 diamonds and 0HCP.  Even if you lose a few of your tricks in the trump suit, you still have overall control of trumps, which should help you convert some of your high card points in your OTHER suits to tricks...

Seven is (more than) enough 0 is too few. How many do I need, 3, 4. 5? Mostly in my own suit, maybe a stray queen elsewhere? I can live with down three (nonvul) if the opponents have a slam or a vulnerable game.

@Tom: I believe the conventional wisdom is something like 6-9 HCP to justify a preempt.  Bear in mind that, suppose you hit the nightmare scenario and your partner has NOTHING to back you up, and the opponents double.  Yes, you'll go down a lot, but your opponents probably had an easy small or even grand slam in their cards!  Messing up their chances of reaching it is well worth the risk, IMO.

also there is no guarantee you will be playing after your preempt - if partner really has nothing opposition may still be able bid anyway

@TomAu Even if you have 0 hcp the danger is not so bad.  If your partner can not get any tricks your opponent sitting fourth would have no less than 23 HCP. - For him to double rather than a bidding for a game or slam is a huge gamble.  However if you have no HCP, and in particular no honors in your suit you run into a different problem.  Which is that your partner could draw bad inferences about your hand, if he has something like QTxx in your suit he might be tempted to overbid.

@Taemyr: If I have 8765432, partner has QJT9 in your example. The opponents have AK, which will "split" more than half the time, giving us six trump tricks.

Originally (when Culbertson and others first studied Contract Bridge), the rule was "Seven cards and an outside Ace". With that and even a semi-reasonable dummy, you can usually make your contract, if left in it.
But a little more study revealed that the hands you don't make are usually the ones where the opponents have an easy game/slam and, more importantly, starting at the three-level often makes it impossible for them to find the right contract, even if they do bid. Too valuable to restrict: cutting the outside Ace down to a King or Queen reduces the chance of making your contract, but offers much greater scope to interfere with the opponents, so reducing their score at the risk of a small penalty to you.


text:
Why Is Two Clubs the Preferred "Strong Two" In Bridge?
I'd prefer to use two spades myself. And save two clubs for a "weak two." Moreover, I was taught that "higher bids mean higher points" (all other things being equal). Two spades is the highest suit bid short of "pre-empts," and follows this rule. Two clubs doesn't.
With a five card (or better) major suit and 22+ points, I'm really asking for HCP from partner more than anything else. Because I'm going to assume (on averages) that partner has xxx or Qx in my suit. The expected responses (and points) are:
2NT 0-2 points. (No help. You're on your own).
3 Clubs 3-5 points. (One trick. Game possible with a reasonable fit.)
3 Diamonds 6-8 points. (Two tricks. Probable game, except with a terrible fit. Limited slam interest).
3 Hearts 9-11 points. (Three tricks. Possible slam.)
3 Spades 10-12 points. (Small slam or grand?)
The only "problem" is if my suit is hearts, and partner bids 3 hearts with 9-11 points (about half of mine). But that is a nice problem to have!
Under this system, spades would actually be my "real" suit almost half the time. (Hearts, the other half, plus the occasional NT, and with a minor, I'd use a different system.) You can't say that about a two club bid.
So why would you use two clubs over a system such as I've described? Or could you possibly prefer mine?

So with AKQJT98, - , Q3, AKQJ, all you need to know is how many HCP partner has?

Since we were talking about Precision the other day, I seem to recall that 2C in Precision describes an above averagely good opening hand that is much the strongest (6+ length) in clubs.  But of course your strong bid is still clubs, just at the one level...

@aryabhatta: If I heard 3D or better I'd rebid 3S, indicating that my suit was spades, then we'd start bidding "controls." I'd want to hear 4D, followed by 5D or 5H (ace-king of diamonds or red aces). Partner can't have spade and club aces.

@TOm: After your 3S, what would partner do with a singleton/void spade? Why is spades the agreed trump? Why should the next bid by partner be a control showing bid? I was mainly disputing the claim that one should be mainly interested in HCP compared to anything else...

@aryabhatta: 2S means: "I've got a strong enough suit that I'll "dictate" it with my rebid (3S), (and take full responsibility). Just tell me about 1) your point count and 2) controls. In your example, I can't support hearts or diamonds, yes, we might miss a better fit in clubs, but that's the chance I'll take.

@Tom: What is a strong enough suit? AKQxxx? Anyway, you seem to be trying to go back in time. The strong 2 bids have been discarded by players over the years. You should be able to find plenty arguments against it on the web. Good luck with your system.

@aryabhatta: I "seem to be trying to go back in time." Exactly right, regarding my "revivals." In "real life" I published a book in 2004 "A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing" that predicted  the 2008 crash, and advocated a 1930s style of investing. Thanks for your good wishes.

@Tom: How is that even relevant to the current topic? Apples/Oranges etc etc :-) Anyway, we are drifting off-topic.

@aryabhatta: What I do in "real life," I'll do at the bridge table. In this case, "turn back the clock."

Actually I am in favour of people trying to come up with madcap new systems - its sometimes hard for set-in-their-ways partnerships to know how to play against them.  One of my happiest ever evenings of Bridge was me and my partner coming up with a "strong pass" system where most bids meant completely the opposite of what opponents were used to.  We managed to go down 2-3 tricks undoubled with 10 points between us on one hand, against an increasingly bewildered pair of opponents.  Ridiculous and unsustainable, but oh so very much fun.

2 Clubs is the most useful because it leaves the 2 level open for you to describe your hand.  Your side has the preponderance of strength, and thus your side would benefit the most from the extra bidding space.  Conversely, keeping 2 Spades preemptive prevents your opponents from starting to investigate their hands on the 2 level.  If your opponents have a heart fit, they can start to investigate it with a 2 heart bid over a preemptive 2 clubs, while they would have to start with 3 hearts over a preemptive 2 spades.
The system of responses you describe is one that exists in various formats, called Step Responses, where the weaker partner quantitatively reveals the strength of his hand to the 2 club bidder so that he may make a guess as to whether end up in game or slam.

I agree with what dpmattingly says - clubs is a useful level to bid at when you are looking for a response from your partner.  Spades is a useful level to bid at when you're trying to deny bidding room to your opponents.  You don't need to deny bidding room to your opponents when you have a strong hand - they may be scared to leap in and earn a costly double.  You need to go as high as you can though if you are trying to lock then out of a contract that is theirs on points - only by seriously severing their lines of communication by depriving them of LOTS of bidding space do you stand a chance of achieving your desired result.
(I used to play with beginners who used to do things like overcall a strong 2C bid with a 2D bid.  I hope you can say that that deprives the opponents of no bidding space whatsoever, just gives them a huge amount of valuable information about the lie of the cards!)
I'd add to what dp says, that clubs are a great suit to bid to conventionally describe a strong hand... because clubs are a rubbish suit for actual non-conventional, hand-describing bids.  You almost never want to be in a clubs contract if you can help it - unless you're making a slam.  3NT is almost always better than 5C, and it's so much better than 4C you wouldn't believe it.  I'd almost go so far as to say any system that actively discourages you and your partner from finding club fits is better than one that doesn't!
For all these reasons, 2C is a much better place for your strong 2 bid than 2S.  It's become a standard for a reason - don't try to reinvent the wheel!

One of the main reasons for the death of the strong 2H,2S etc bid is the effectiveness as a preemptive bid.

Not sure the advantage of him having 2S as the strong bid isn't being able to use 2C as a pre-empt or as a bid showing good clubs, forcing the opponents to start higher at the times they are more likely to outbid you.

A defining feature of the 2 club "strong two" is that it makes the responder the "captain" of the partnership.
After a sequence of 2 diamonds, opener rebids the "real" suit, in a "two club" (strong two) opening, the opener has largely described his or her hand within very narrow parameters. Because of the strength of the opening hand, every point or feature in the responder's hand becomes much more valuable at the margin due to their scarcity. With a "double Yarborough" (zero high card points and zero cards in the opener's suit), and the responder should pass; (opener will probably be held to eight tricks). Three points and three cards in the suit, game values. (You probably have one "top" and/or ruffing trick for the ninth, and a finesse into declarer's hand may yield the tenth.) Around 10 high card points and/or a double suit fit, possible slam. The responder has been made captain because s/he is in a better position to observe these values.
The "two spade" system sacrifices this major advantage. It is a "demand," bid, not only for responses, but for information. By hearing your "strong two" bid and seeing their own hand, the responder knows more about the combined partnership assets than you do. Yet the system retains the "captaincy" in the opening hand, which is inefficient, to say the least.

Very nice description. One small subtlety to add: this fact, that the 2C opening makes Responder captain, should be regarded by Opener as a defining characteristic for a 2C Opening. More complex hands, no matter how strong, must be opened 1 of a suit instead.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: Changed the second word of the post from "important" to "defining." In response to your other comment, I require a higher threshold for two clubs if my suit is a minor than a major for this reason.

You might want to correct the Your.  It's pretty confusing, since you are also the asker of the question :)

@Joe: This is "standard" SE terminology. In answering your own questions on SE, you are supposed to pretend that you are not also the questioner.

Perhaps, but I don't think the pronoun is necessary here - it would be easier to just say "The".  Standard or not, it's confusing. :)