text:
Which expansion to get for BSG Board game?
I've got the Battlestar Galactica board game and I absolutely love it. I'm thinking of getting one of the expansions for it but I'm torn between the Exodus and Pegasus expansions.
How do these expansions change the game? and from people who have played both which do you think is a better expansion?
Note that since this question was written the Daybreak expansion has been added too.

The rules for both variants are available at FFG's site, so you can read them for the full details.  Both expansions contain an "alternate ending" which can replace the Kobol objective, kicking in when the fleet jumps to distance 7. Both have new character and skill cards.  Both expansions include the possibility that characters will be executed, not just brigged - it's a bigger feature in Pegasus.
Summary first, then discussion:
Pegasus
In general, this expansion adds a lot of "tweaks" to the gameplay; once you've got it, you'll probably use most of the new rules every game.

New characters: Admiral Cain, Ellen Tigh, Kat, Dee.
New cards: Lots of new and interesting crises, and most of the new skill cards are in this set.  There are an additional 1,2,3,4, and 5 card for each skill deck, with some useful new powers.  Compensating for this is the new "Treachery" skill, which only goes from 1-3 but is always negative, and has special text only usable by cylons.  Unfortunately it's not safe to discard either, as some booby-trap Treachery cards can hurt the humans if you do...  Anyone drawing treachery is good news for the cylons.  (And some new crises can force you to draw treachery.)
Major new rule: Pegasus.  The humans get an extra battlestar board with four new locations.  This gives the humans more effective guns against raider swarms, and another way to hurry up jumps.  It also adds the lethal "airlock" location - don't want to try to brig that suspect?  Just kill them!  Of course, a good cylon player can con people into executing other humans...

(This variant makes "destroy Galactica due to damage" cylon win nearly impossible, because the humans can soak 4 extra hits on Pegasus if need be.)

Minor variant: Cylon Leaders: Cavil, Leoben, Caprica Six.  These are playable characters, replacing one cylon loyalty card.  Effectively, they work like revealed cylons from the start, but can "infiltrate" and rejoin Galactica, playing cards as human crew.  They draw an "agenda" describing which team they have to support to win, but it also has a limitation - they mustn't win by too much.

(The idea was to replace the uncertainty of "I don't know who's a cylon" with "I don't know which side the cylon is on".  In practice implementation isn't perfect, and this variant reduces the uncertainty.)

Variant ending: New Caprica.  Instead of ending after a jump from distance 8, at distance 7 the fleet lands on a "New Caprica" board and is occupied.  They then have to take actions to release the civilian ships from lockup while waiting for Galactica to jump back, then defend them while evacuating.  Crises are drawn from a new deck of 'during the occupation' crises.

(This definitely favours the cylons, as it's harder than just making one extra fleet jump.  If the change from 8 to 7 even saved you one.  However, it's hardest if fleet attacks have been light, because there's more civilian ships left to protect, so it evens out a bit.)
Exodus
Fewer tweaks to the game, but several major new variants.

New characters: Sam Anders, Tory, Gaeta, Cally.
New skill cards: Some 0 cards for each deck, which have some other effect on the skill check when played.  (e.g. the 0 Tactics causes two extra Destiny cards to be played in.)  One 6 card for each deck, with special text so good you want to play it for that instead of the 6. (For example, Engineering 6 can be used to build a new nuke.)
New crisis cards: A lot of interesting crises that play off the new rules.  There are no new fleet attacks, so if you don't play the Cylon Fleet variant, you'll be sharply reducing the proportion of fleet attacks in the deck if you use them.
Major variant: Cylon Fleet.  There are no fleet attacks.  Instead, cylons build up forces on their own fleet board with it's own jump track.  When the cylons jump, they arrive en masse on the main board.  When the fleet jumps, surviving cylons move back to their board to build up for next time, but civilian ships are not removed.  They can be escorted off by vipers instead, but that uses up precious actions.  Humans get an extra title, CAG, which helps command unmanned fighters, as well as some better Vipers.

(This evens out the randomness of fleet attacks, but with competent cylons can make the buildup of raiders harder to deal with in the endgame... by the end most of the civilian fleet could be on the board.  Works better when used in conjunction with the Pegasus; otherwise the humans can be a touch outgunned.  You will need your nukes.)

Variant ending: Ionian Nebula.  This changes the game by making much more use of the cast of characters.  As well as the characters in play, you have random extra characters all over the ship, and a limited supply of "Trauma" tokens used to decide whether they do good or bad things when encountered.  At distance 7 you enter the Nebula and there's an extra round of personal crises (an extra random dilemma to face) and possibly executions, depending on how well you've done at getting rid of your 'bad' counters.

(So this variant emphasizes character interaction more, and gives you a whole new set of possible suspicious behaviours to indulge in.  Properly managed by humans it can result in a lot of extra fleet bonuses... but needn't.)

Minor variants: Conflicted Loyalties / Final Five.  Characters have additional personal goals that they have to accomplish to win.  Final Five Cylons, if used, also go in the "Not a Cylon" loyalty slots - they count as being on the human side and work like humans, but they make it much less safe to use 'peek at loyalty card' abilities.

(This variant makes life much harder for the humans, as they're wasting resources and suspicion dealing with extra side issues.)
Decision Notes
There's plenty to like in both sets. Which is "better" depends a bit on what you like most about Galactica, and especially on what you like least.

If you like the treachery/uncertainty, but play 4 or 6 player and think the weak "Cylon sympathiser" mechanic is a major flaw, get Pegasus.
If you dislike the random distribution of fleet attacks, and want to avoid games where there are very few or very many, get Exodus.
If you think the series cast should appear more, get Exodus.
If you don't play often, you'll get more out of Pegasus, as Exodus has fewer 'every game' rules changes and more major variants.

This is an awesome summary, I think we'll be going for Pegasus for now and maybe get Exodus later.

+1 for a very comprehensive answer. If you dislike the sympathizer rules (as I do), there's also an official variant for the base game that gets rid of them. I just recently found this, so I haven't tried it yet, but I probably will next time I play 4/6 without Cylon leaders. The BGG page for the rules has a disclaimer that they haven't been tested with expansions, so note that. Link: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Battlestar_Galactica/BSG_optional_rules.pdf

Hi Tynam, any chance we could persuade you to update your answer with details of Daybreak too?

That's a good point, @MarkBooth.  I'll try and spare some time this week.

Thanks Tynam, I know it's a bit cheeky to ask, but you did such a great job summarising the first two expansions, I didn't think it would hurt to ask.

I have played both, and each one adds a lot to te game. The first thing they each add is time. they also each add new characters and new a new end game condition.
My favorite version of BSG is playing with both expansions using the end game condition of Exodus.
The Pegasus Expansion adds a second Battlestar ship with 4 extra rooms. These tend to give great power to the human players. They also act as extra damage tokens. My favorite aspect of Pegasus is the treachery cards, which are brown cards that are beneficial for cylons hidden and revealed. The end game of this expansion is New Caprica, which is a separate board and gives a chance for the Cylons to destroy civilian ships before the game ends.
Exodus adds a few more complex additions: cylong fleet board, allies, trauma tokens, and a big battle as an ending.
The main complaint of exodus people give is a player-elimination mechanic. I do not mind this, however, since it is a turn or two before the end.
The Cylon Fleet board is the reason I love playing with Exodus. This edition makes it important to have pilots. The fleet board keeps a steady stream of attackers coming instead of using the fleet setup cards in the crisis deck.
The expansion also allows you to remove civilian ships if you're a pilot, however this is the only way to get them off the board now. Jumping no longer doess.

Hi Brendan, any chance we could persuade you to update your answer with details of Daybreak too?


text:
What happens if you go out playing a wild and then flip over wild in Mario Kart Uno?
What happens if you go out playing a wild/item box and then flip over another wild/item box in Mario Kart Uno? Do you win or do you have to draw 2 and stay in? See image of card in question.

Do you mean playing an item box and revealing the bom-omb?

Yes.  see edit with card in question

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it always better to play a knight immediately?
I'm fairly new to Settlers. I was playing online last night and drew a Knight card.  The robber was already on a tile that had two of the game leader's cities attached.  I had few resource cards at the time, so I wasn't close to being able to get something I needed, so I saved it for a few turns. When I finally played it, the other player went off on me for not playing the knight sooner.
Also, no, I did not already have two other knights, so it would not have gotten me the largest Army token.
So my question is this: Is it always better to play the knight immediately, or can it make more strategic sense to play save it?

Did the other person perhaps have some personal interest in the knight getting moved?

It was not blocking him.  It was an ore tile I think and I know it was either a 6 or an 8.

Simple answer is no, it is not always in your best interest to immediately play a knight when you get one.  In all truth I would say that it is better to hold onto it for a while unless the robber is currently in a position that is hurting you. By holding onto it you accomplish two things, first you keep protection for yourself allowing you to move the robber if it moves to a bad place for you. Second it allows you some time to make sure you optimize use of the card.  And lastly if the robber is in a place that hurts your opponents and not you that is great reason to not play the knight.

That was my thinking. But the guy reacted so strongly, I was wondering if I had missed something.

I would wager that the other player just wanted the robber in a different position

@JoeW That's why I asked, but the OP said no. Maybe he had some political motive? Wanted it moved to another opponent who seemed to be in the lead?

Additionally, no one knows what the card is until it is played, for example it may be a road building, monopoly, or victory point card. If you always play a knight card immediately, then it will become obvious if you have a different development card.

@JoeW It was a three player game, so wanting it on someone else doesn't make sense. The only thing I can think of is that maybe he was keeping track of what people had better than I was and knew the guy in the lead already had a bunch of what it was on and it would have been better on something he needed, e.g. it was on ore, maybe he already had a bunch of ore and I would have been better off moving it to the guy's wheat tile.

Its almost always better to save the knight and NOT play it immediately.

You can play the knight when the robber is blocking one of your settlements to unblock it.  You can even do this before you roll the dice on your turn.
Having an unplayed knight as a threat can convince a player who rolled a 7 to place the robber elsewhere rather than somewhere that blocks your settlement, as if he blocks your settlement, you'll play the knight to move the robber to block his settlement.

There are only a couple of times you want to play it immediately

when doing so will prevent another player from winning by denying them the largest army
when you already have other unplayed cards, as you can only play one card per turn.

It's worth noting, that since TIES for largest army go to the person who acquires it first, playing your Third Knight ASAP can be advantageous (or 4th if someone else already has Largest Army w/ 3 Knights).

Depends on which version of the rules you are using -- the original German rules where ties go to the first player to play the knights or the later rules where ties cause noone to get the bonus.

The best time to play a knight is NOT necessarily immediately.
One example was the one you cited, that you should wait for more knights to get the largest army, if that was your ticket to victory.
Another case is where the robber is on a hex that hurts you a "little," and hurts your leading opponent "more." In that case, your best interests are served by "hurting your opponent more" and not playing the knight.
Sure, if the robber is on a hex that costs you, and no one else, critical resources, then you might want to play the knight immediately.
Catan is something of a "curved" game where how much you advance is no more, or less important, than preventing other people from advancing. The person that complained about your not playing the knight at once either didn't understand that, or perhaps was trying to distract you from playing according to that understanding.

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


text:
Bridge: Holding both 5 card majors which should I bid first in Jacoby transfers
In SAYC my partner bid 1 NT showing 15-17 HCP (no void, no singleton and only one doubleton).  I was holding a hand of 10 HCP with 5S, 5H, 2D and 1C.  Using Jacoby transfers should I have responded 2D (showing 5H) or 2H (showing 5S)

This is mostly a matter of agreement.
The reason this is so, is that what you decide to do with a 5-5 game forcing hand would effect other hand types.
Here are some hand types the responder can have:
5-4 majors game forcing.
5-4 majors invitational
5-5 majors game forcing
5-5 majors invitational.
They are multiple ways of bidding:
For instance, some folks play 3H response to 1NT as invite with 5-5 majors and 3S response as GF with 5-5 majors. This allows them to transfer and bid the other suit to show some 5-4 hands etc.
So there is no one way to bid this, and is something you need to agree with your partner.

Good; you could also note that SAYC is (except in rare limited events) where system agreements with partner begin, not where they end.

@PieterGeerkens: Right! SAYC documentation is quite inadequate. No idea what is part of it, and what is not. Technically, SAYC is supposed to be a complete system...

Incorrect - SAYC makes no attempt or pretension at being a complete system - merely a minimally playable system, mostly for novices.

SAYC is standard american yellow card, and is supposed to be a system that can be used in Indys etc. Perhaps I have misunderstood the motivation for the creation of SAYC. Anyway, I do agree, it is woefully inadequate.

It's five-card majors without a Forcing 1NT response - how can that possibly be an adequate system? It's Goren with five card majors, straight out of the late 1950's with a couple of bells and whistles. Latest additions to the system appears to Sputnik doubles through 2S and D0P1 after Blackwood interference: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf

In bridge, the rule is to bid the lower suit in order to proceed more slowly.
Here, the "lower" bid is two diamonds, partner transfers into two hearts, and then you bid two spades, staying at the "two" level when you show your second suit. It depends on the partnership style, but such bids at the two level are often treated as "invitational," and not forcing.
If you bid two hearts first and partner transferred into two spades, you'd need to bid three hearts to show your hearts. More to the point, a bid at the three level would be considered by many to be game forcing and show slam interest.
Whatever "subsystem" you use should be agreed with partner beforehand.

+1. 2D shows hearts, and says nothing about spades: 2H shows spades, and (since you could have shown hearts but chose not to) implicitly denies good hearts.

-1: Sorry. This is quite incomplete and misleading. See my answer (posting soon, so you might not see it yet).

@Aryabhata: I amended my answer to capture the nuances. Is this better?

Well, the first paragraphs are still misleading.

Seems like a 10 point hand opposite a strong NT opener should be a game forcing hand.

And - beyond that, in SAYC, continuing to 2S after transferring to hearts is still game forcing (see my answer).

Playing SAYC there is always the possibility of partner making an error - both my partner or partner's partner. This is a different situation that two strong players with a very solid system understanding.
With 10 points you are entitled to show both majors, creating a game forcing situation - however with a weak partner it is advisable always bid 2D first (showing Hearts) instead of the other way around, because a rebid of 2S will be  unambiguous to a weak partner, but a return to 3H might be misunderstood.
All else equal this also happens to be best practice, as Tom Au has already mentioned, but in practice there are advantages in this situation to bidding your weaker suit first - middle honours in partner's hand are gold, and he learns fo their value sooner this way.

Given this is a game forcing hand, but a minimum game forcing hand, I don't see why you would choose the slower (=stronger) bidding sequence.  I don't disagree that bidding that way is more unambiguous to a partner who may well be confused, though.

This is too long for a comment but it could be of interest to somebody.
I do not play the SAYC but, with my partners, what we use for describing a 5-5 distribution after the partner open 1 NT is a bid at the level of 5 in the shortest suit (for H and S) or at the level of 4 (for C and D).
For example :

1 NT - pass - 5 C means 5 H + 5 S  (void or singleton in C)
1 NT - pass - 5 D means 5 H + 5 S (void or singleton in D)
1 NT - pass - 4 H means 5 C + 5 D  (void or singleton in H)
1 NT - pass - 4 S means 5 C + 5 D  (void or singleton in S)

This implies no hope for a slam.
Using this convention for almost 30 years, we think it is very precise and we have good results with it.

This is interesting, but could do with some amplification. If there is a point bracket, it seems this would come up once in a blue moon; if not, all you know is that the partnership has 7 trumps, which isn't much to go to game on.

In SAYC, continuations from Jacoby in other suits are all game forcing.

If, after the transfer is accepted, responder bids a new suit, that is natural and game forcing.

As such, both

1NT - 2D
2H - 2S

and the inverse

1NT - 2H
2S - 3H

are game-forcing.  Without any other agreements, there is technically no difference in the system; I would suggest that the choice of transferring to spades first is the weaker option, and transferring to hearts first is the stronger option, as it gives you more room to discuss possible slams.
As you are a minimum game forcing hand (10 points opposite 15-17), you should make the weaker choice, and bid 2H to transfer to spades.  Since partner is guaranteed to have a 3 card fit with one of these two suits based on your rules for opening 1NT, you don't need to worry about ending up in 3NT.
Of course, it is preferable to have a superior agreement with partner than the basic SAYC agreement, as this hand pattern (5-5 Majors opposite 1NT) is frequently a slam-going hand even with  only 10-12 points, if things line up properly.  You likely can't find that with only Jacoby, while the direct bid of 3S (GF 5-5 Majors) as Aryabhata suggests would be quite helpful in possibly finding that slam.

I personally would not bid this using Jacoby transfers, but using Stayman. By bidding 2C in response to the 1NT opening, you ask if opener holds a 4-card (possibly 5, depending on your definition of a 1NT opening) in a major. partner responds with:

2 Diamonds: none
2 Hearts or 2 Spades: that one, or
2 NT: both majors.

If he has no majors, you can still bid 2H. Having asked him about his 4-card Majors, him denying and you still bidding one makes it at least 5 cards long. 3NT is still an option at this point, even with your distribution.
If he does have one (or both) of the majors, pick one for game.

I wouldn't bid Stayman here unless you play Smolen (and even there, I wouldn't, because I'd have a bid for 5-5 Majors).  Definitely not in pure SAYC.  Too confusing and too hard to show both 5 card majors. And beyond that, 2H after stayman is not necessarily game forcing (it may show 5-4 with 5 hearts and invite opener to pass).

I would be very surprised if my partner passes on 2H. He knows I have at least 8 points, but I haven't put an upper bound on my strength yet. Unlike Jacoby, Stayman is not played with less than 8 points.

1NT bidder gets limited choice on continue/pass. Responder is in control, always. If you make an invitational response, 1NT opener must pass with minimum (15-weak 16).

@steenbergh:Incorrect. The conventional definition of [Non-Forcing Stayman]9https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stayman_convention#Forcing_and_Non-Forcing_Stayman) is that the 2H rebid may be passed - it does NOT imply game forcing values. if you are choosing to play that bid as forcing instead of passable that is an alertable partnership agreement.

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

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


text:
Opening "best of minors"
"My wife and I play a version of best of minors that was questioned by a friend as "I never heard of such a thing." We open best of minors seeking a four card major, but by opening with one club we offer three clubs, maybe four, and expect a two club response by partner if she has five clubs, thus giving us eight or nine clubs altogether. Or, when we open one diamond we promise four diamonds, expecting a two diamond response from partner if she has four or five diamonds thus giving us eight or nine diamonds altogether.
Does this make sense, or are we out of touch? What should we tell our friend?

When do you open a major? What is the name of the system (if any)?

You will be stuck if you have 2 clubs and 3 diamonds and 4-4 Majors and its outside of your no-trumps ranges. Then you'll have to cheat and either bid 1C or 1H.

This is part of the standard French system.

Your opening style seems fine, but responder should prefer to bid 1 heart or 1 spade holding four cards in the major to go along with support in your minor. That is, after you have opened 1C, partner should respond 1H holding
x
xxxx
xxx
AKxxx

There are a number of reasons for this; perhaps the most important is that making ten tricks in a major-suit contract is almost always easier than make 11 tricks in a minor-suit contract when you have a 4-4 fit in the major and a 5-4 fit in the minor.

As @user2617804 mentioned, you may find yourself with the 4-4-3-2 hand, unable to open a 5-card major but also lacking 4 diamonds.
And similar to what @ruds said, especially at duplicate, you want the major suit part score (or NT) instead of a minor part score.  Especially at match points!
Those are the reasons why you should prefer the 4-card major to showing support for a minor.  That said, I have heard that "better minor" described as a regional thing, referring more to answering the question:  What do you open (a non-1NT valued) with 4-3-3-3?  1C or 1D?  West coast style (at least what I was taught) is that you ALWAYS open that 1C.
If you're say 3-2-4-4 for example you would open 1D.  But some people look at the quality of the minors, when they have equal number of cards in each, to decide which to open.  That's what I understand "better minor" to mean.
If you play a system where a 1C opener COULD potentially promise ONLY two clubs (that is, a bid of 1D ALWAYS promises 4+, so you would open a 4-4-3-2 hand 1C) the ACBL requires an Announcement "could be short" when pard opens 1C.


text:
Defense to Strong Pass Systems
"Strong pass" systems are classified as Highly Unusual Methods, so most players never worry about them. My understanding is that they are not particularly overpowered (otherwise all the pros would have switched to them) but that one needs highly detailed defensive methods to defeat them and it's not worth memorizing these methods for the casual player. I am curious what these methods look like. Has any team ever played a Strong pass system at the national or international level, and what sorts of defenses did their opponents come up with?

Strong Pass systems are very rare, and as a Highly Unusual method you will never encounter one outside extended team play or without notice.
In extremis, adopt your Strong 1C defence by substituting a 1C call for a double of a 1C opening, and warm up the Double cards if opponents open a fert (any call besides Pass that is definitely limited) instead.
Anecdotes and alternatives from BridgeBase.com:

When I met it years ago, I played that a One Spade overcall said "I am
  present at the table". The next player bid 1NT, alerted as Stayman.

and

"Need" is a strong word, but it's always a possibility to consider
  making your "opening bids", especially in the majors, be more akin to
  overcall strength than full openers. This is tougher for the minors
  because you might need to make convenient minor full opening bids and
  it can be harder to distinguish them from overcall-style openings.

and

If they 'open' a pass bid as much as you can as fast as you can. If they open a
  fert be prepared to double them lots with balanced
  hands and your overcalls are more like opening bids with shape. If
  they open with something else then use your generic meta defence and
  bridge principles.

and even:

Use an anti-fert over the fert.
  1H  = 0-8,
  1NT = 0-10.
  Its a lot of
  fun.

Definition of the term fert: short for fertilizer, as in that which a male bovine extrudes from just under the tail. ;-)

I've played against strong pass in nonserious matches (but against high quality players) while I was in college, and defense against strong club was exactly what we played (usually some variety of Mathe).

Much of the time your specific defence won't be against the strong pass itself, which is relatively easy to defend. In fact the pass itself can be a weakness of the system as your side can come in before the opponents have described their hand properly.
If the pass is actually "super" strong you can defend it like a strong club (above answer).
If the pass is medium, so they open on either properly strong or weak hands, you should treat pass as 0-no-trumps so you can come in like you would over 1NT but a level lower. And of course more frequently as it is less risky. (In a typical strong pass system, they like to open more often than not, so pass might be 13-15 with opening bids 8-12, and usually one bid showing 0-7 known as the "fert" bid, often 1Spade, and 1NT or other bids showing strong hands).
What you have to now handle though are their opening bids. These are no doubt the strengths of the system when they open the limited 8-12 range as they open a lot and show their hands reasonably descriptively. You need to also be constructive whilst being able to compete. Be prepared to reach par on these. Go plus when the hand is yours. Compete to the right level. This is your hardest area so probably prepare it well.
Answer above suggests how to handle the fert bid.
I'm pretty certain Strong pass systems were used in the 1991 Bermuda Bowl, held in Yokahama, and won by Iceland.

Here are the Daily Bulletins from that Bermuda Bowl, won by Iceland as you noted: http://bridgedailybulletins.nl/index.php/bridge-bulletins/jsdocumentation/article/article/12/131/0

It does look like Örn Arnþórsson played strong pass in that bulletin (he opened 1d with a 2 point hand in that bulletin!)

If you play in ACBL sanctioned events the forcing pass is illegal per their GCC. since they banned it, it must have some merit. as a Precision player, this system was the forerunner for various Precision systems. unfortunately I'm unaware of any local events where it is legal.
for what it's worth, the GCC also bans the popular in Europe & UK multi 2D

Why was this downvoted?

hi hunter   beats me.  i'm new to stack.  if you find out please advise.   keng

this answer deserves its downvote, the question asks whether forcing pass was played in any tournaments and what defences were / might be used against it, not whether it is licenced at ACBL..


text:
Richard Pavliceks mystery
Richard Pavlicek made a great bridge site.
Here
http://www.rpbridge.net/7f55.htm
The mystery is this:

Is there a bridge hand where North/South can make a grandslam in any
  suit, but not even make 5NT?

he asks for solving a mystery and how close he came to a solution. He claims he first saw it in a newspaper.
I am also very interested in this task.
Does anyone know a solution or, better yet the deal Richard Pavlicek might have seen in the newspaper??

Please revise your question to include the mystery, that way if the link goes down your question is still valuable. Leave the link of course for reference and explaining his solutions, but the original question should be in-line here.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question is not really about the problem discussed by Pavlicek, but rather a reference request that is probably non existent.

@Guvante: Any quote of the problem sufficient to get people started would likely go beyond the limits of fair usage, and thus unfortunately violate copyright.

@PieterGeerkens: What copyright? Pavlicek clearly states he found it elsewhere. Just quoting the problem will not violate fair usage even if (but IANAL). And this is clearly on-topic and actually one of the more objective questions I have seen about bridge on this site.

It is the same thing as in this question : http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/23788/par-zero-deal-with-many-points-for-n-s

The difficulty of answering a question is no criterion for off-topic or on-topic. It is important that a concrete answer is possible. And I do not see how a creation of a board with pavlicek's properties violates the copyright, unless the constructed problem happens to be exactly the same as the unknown author published.


text:
duplicate bridge revoke not agreed upon
A strange one, for sure.
After the hand was played, cards returned to board but before the next round was called, the defenders realized, in discussing the hand, that the declarer had revoked.
The declarer did not agree and the dummy couldn't remember (!).  One declarer (very good memory and very honest - ex-director of the club) explained card by card the play.
The declarer said "I don't remember it that way" but had no other explanation of how the cards had been played.  Both defenders agreed (of course) on the way things had gone.
The defender said:

"10 of clubs lead, won by K in other defender's hand (agreed by all),
  Jack of hearts lead, ducked by declarer, allowed to win the trick
  (dummy had two small hearts).
Next heart lead, trumped by declarer (diamonds trump).
Next few tricks and then a heart lead again, won by declarer with the
  Ace he should have played on the first trick (he having only two
  hearts also).

So, 3 diamonds making 4.
Scored and then director called.  I believe that it is still a revoke since it was the last hand in a round and the next round was not called yet.  But the penalty?  Since the declarer doesn't agree?  But has no other explanation except "I wouldn't have let the first heart ride" kinda bewilderingly.
I thought a one trick penalty (since he seems to have revoked and later had the Ace left to play and win a trick) was in order with an adjustment if necessary later.
However, he made 4, would have made 4 if he had played correctly, so is making 3 fair when he doesn't agree?  I don't know what to do.  I am a fill in director and haven't had this come about before.

Great question, and a common type of scenario for beginning directors.

Were the cards shuffled after play? If not then pull them out and the play could be discerned.

@user2617804: OP states that this was a duplicate game, so the hands were returned to the board and passed to the next table upon conclusion of the round. Every hand will be played several times over the course of the evening/afternoon, by different partnerships. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_bridge

@user2617804: Additional link to a duplicate board for holding and passing hands: http://www.baronbarclay.com/category/duplicate-boards

The OP states that defenders before playing the next hand- they thought the declarer revoked so there was a window of opportunity.

What he 'would have made if he had played correctly' is a red herring. If he revoked, there is a penalty, as set out in the rules: if he did not, there is none.

some players shuffle their cards before returning them to the wallet so the next player can't work out the order the cards were played, which really would be unauthorised info. Good idea to do that.

Note, the correct penalty is two tricks: the trick that was revoked on (which was won by offending side), plus one additional trick won afterwards.  One trick is only the penalty if the offending side lost the trick that was revoked on; since he ruffed it, it's 2 tricks.

There is a standard pattern here that may be applied to numerous difficult decisions:
Politely inform Declarer that as he cannot contest the explanation of play provided by the defenders, you must tentatively accept their version, and thus are required by law to assign the normal revoke penalty. Inform Declarer that he is entitled to appeal this ruling, and that you will promptly assemble a suitable committee upon conclusion of play if he so requests. Ask declarer if he wishes to make such an appeal, and if he replies in the affirmative arrange for the three best and most respected players of the club to act as the committee.
Allow declarer a few minutes after the game to refresh his memory of the play with a (supervised) examination [of the board], to prepare a rebuttal to defenders' description of the play.
In order to ensure that the committee proceeds efficiently remind them that their prerogative is strictly to determining the facts, and that given a determination of the facts you will apply the rules by the book. You are the Judge, and they are the jury - not the other way around. Declarer presents his case first, followed by the Defenders, followed by a simple recap by Declarer. Committee members may then pose questions to both sides. Get a determination of the facts from the committee, and apply the Laws; politely explain the result to both parties.
Done correctly the entire process (for a simple determination of facts such as here) should be over in less than 10 minutes. Don't let either side or the jury waste time.
Remember to thank both side later for creating a situation that enabled you to practice your committee work.
Update:
The key here is that "I don't remember." is not a defence in any circumstances; but "I need time to refresh my memory in order to prepare a defence." is a valid request.

The fact that the declarer was unable to raise the objection until after the cards where returned has no bearing?

@Taemyr: Uh? You seem to have the sequence wrong. Defenders noticed, and called Director for, the revoke before the round was called, which is the allowed time to do so. Declarer had no need to raise any objection prior to that. What "objection" are you referring to? Other than the revoke and OP's uncertainty on proper procedure there is nothing inappropriate happening that I have noticed.


text:
Making 6H (declarer: 54, AKQJTx, -, 98765)
Apparently 6H (small slam with hearts as trump) can be made on this hand, irrespective of the distribution of opposing cards.
How?
You are south (holding 54, AKQJTx, -, 98765) . Dummy is north, the lead (by West) is a diamond.
AK32
652
JT
AKJT

54
AKQJT4
-
98765

For those who might be unfamiliar:
This is a bridge hand and the hands are written as spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs or
spades
hearts
diamonds
clubs

So north hand is actually:
  Spades:    AK32
  Hearts:    652
  Diamonds:  JT
  Clubs:     AKJT

Writing as spades,hearts, diamonds, club has become the standard practice.

Can someone please add a [declarer-play] tag?

I haven't done a thorough check, but I think this is impossible when W has (T9876,9873,Q932,-) and E has (QJ,-,AK87654,Q432). NS will lose to the QC at some point, and so can't afford to lose any other tricks.  This means they must clear out the trumps to start with, and S is only left with one trump as a winner.  Consequently N will get stuck with the lead and lose one more trick in spades or diamonds.  Have I made a mistake here?

@ttt: I believe it is possible even with that hand for West.

I believe the following works:
Ruff (or trump) the diamond lead.
Now lead out the Trump Ace. If both opponents follow, then this is easy. You can take out opponents trumps and play the clubs. You can even try to finesse the CJ or T and try for an overtrick, when West has the Club Qxx. You have two trumps in hand, so you have an entry to hand after you unblock the clubs.
The problems happens when one of the opponents shows out on the Trump Ace.
Now draw three more rounds of trump. On the fourth trump, discard a diamond. Throwing the diamond is the key play: North hand is void in diamonds now. Now play AKJ of clubs. Opponents have to win this and if they return a diamond, you ruff in South hand, throwing the blocking club T from the dummy!

Yes, that was the key ... a way to get QC out from an opponent and also TC out from dummy. Very nice!

If you know all the cards in a bridge problem (this is called "Double Dummy"), you can
use a computer program called DeepFinesse, see http://www.deepfinesse.com/
to solve the problem. But it solves only problems where all 4 hands are known,
so it doesn't solve the question "can you make 6 H against any distribution?".

Yes, I believe even GIB does double dummy (and there are quite a few other DD solvers). This answer is kind of relevant in the sense that you pretty much end up with a few distributions for East/West you need to consider and those can be solved double dummy. Of course, it is more fun to not use the DD solvers :-)

So the trick (no pun intended) is to get to the remaining winner in your hand: once Q♣ is out, your clubs are good, but the only entry is by using your trump. To win club tricks in your hand, dummy must have only enough clubs to win tricks prior to the Queen's fall.
You trump the opening trick with 4♥ (1 trick). Run hearts through South to clean out West's trump (5), and on the last heart trick, slough dummy's 2♠. Lead clubs to finesse East's Q♣ ... East must take either the first or second club trick for her Q♣ to be good. When she does, she will have no more winners: QJ♠ lose to the board, Kx♦ is trumped in the hand, remaining clubs are taken on the board.
When East uses her Queen, you have 6 or 7 tricks won. If East leads a spade, you take that and the next trick with dummy's spades (8/9), followed by a spade from dummy to be taken with your last heart (10), which makes your remaining clubs good (11/12).
If East leads another club, you take it in your hand (7/8) followed by your last club(s) (9), then the heart (10), then across to dummy's spades (12).
If East leads a diamond, you take that with your last heart (7/8), but then there is no entry back to declarer's hand, and thus the final trick is a spade loser from dummy rather than the club winner.

The problem with this is that east holding Qxxx of clubs might hold up the Q... +1 though :-)

@Moron, I don't think that's a problem: I'll edit to explain.

@Moron, I take that back. I don't see a way around the resulting diamond lead. West will keep enough spades to prevent dummy from taking a third trick, which leaves East with two winners.

eh ... if you have club winners on the board, those have to be played prior to the entry to your hand.

If you play the Club Jack before playing AK, east can win the Club Q immediately and play a diamond, with AK blocking the club suit. (Or did I misunderstand your edit)?

@Moron, no, you're right. Two separate thoughts in one answer, neither complete. If dummy sloughs a club, East can hold the club until the fourth trick. If dummy sloughs something else, West will keep a spade to win the final trick.

btw, if East has the Club Q, you are not actually finessing East's club Q. If west had it, then by playing J would be the finesse.

@Dave: I have added an answer which I believe works.

The first thing I do is ask, what trumps are outstanding. They are 9873. That means I can draw them with four leads, but need to be careful about low trumps being overruffed.
The second thing I do is ask, which honors are outstanding. They are: QJ of spades, AKQ of diamonds, and Q of clubs. My AK opposite a doubleton takes care of the spades. I can trump the diamonds. My main worry, ironically, is the Q of clubs. But if that's my ONLY loss, I make six.
Here's how: 1) Ruff the diamond lead. 2 Draw all four trumps with AKQJ, discarding the diamond from dummy. You have one trump left in hand. 3) Take AK of clubs. 4) Lead J of clubs. If the queen hasn't dropped already, someone will take it. You have made seven tricks, lost one, have five more to go.
Opponents are out of trumps because you've drawn them. Realize that they only have four clubs between them, because you have nine. If they lead their last club, capture it with the 10 in dummy. Play AK of spades, ruff a spade in hand, then win the last club (five tricks). If they lead a diamond, ruff in hand, discarding the T of clubs from dummy. Lead the last two clubs (from hand), then cross over to the AK of spades (five tricks). If they lead spades, win the AK of spades. Win the T of clubs, then cross to hand with a spade ruff, and win the last club (five tricks).
Note how I counted trumps, clubs, tricks, honors, etc. This process is at least as important as winning the hand.


text:
Did a bridge column make errors in discussing a hand?
This is from yesterday's New York Post. North-South are playing at four spades. Vulnerable, they had bid 1 spade, 2 spades, 4 spades, no opposing bids. Here's the hand:
        North
        (s) AQ9
        (h) K63
        (d) 854
        (c) 7432

  West                  East

(s) 53                 (s) 42
(h) JT97               (h) AQ852
(d) QT72               (d) 963
(c) Q98                (c) KT5

         South
        (s) KJT876
        (h) 4
        (d) AKJ
        (c) AJ6

South has six easy trump tricks, two side aces and a king for an easy nine. The tenth trick will come from a finesse or end play into one of South's minor suit tenaces.
West leads the Jack of hearts, which East correctly overtakes with the Queen in order to lead a diamond to West's Queen. South intercepts with the King, and leads a trump to dummy in order to lead a low club. East covers with the King. All understandable so far. Here's where I think the narrative goes wrong, with a focus on the part in bold:
"South took the ace, led a trump to dummy, and returned a second club, five Jack, Queen. He ruffed the next heart, lost another club, and got to dummy with a trump to pitch his Jack of diamonds on the good club."
Doesn't South need to cover East's five of clubs with the six so that West wins with the nine? Then cover the T with the Jack on the third round so West wins with the queen? All to keep East off lead. Because otherwise, East wins on the third round and shoots another diamond through South.
The narrative also attributed South's difficulty to "good play" by the defenders. It's true that East played well, but it seems to me to be only "ordinarily" well.
My understanding is that the issue in the club distribution. For instance, if East has KQx of clubs instead of KT5, he has a forced win of a club, and the chance to take the minor finesse diamonds. Ditto if clubs split 4-2, and East has KQ. If clubs split 2-4, South can win only if West has KQ or KT so East doesn't get the lead.
Is my understanding correct?

Please put some effort into formatting the hand in future questions like these. It was quite hard to understand earlier.

The defense by east is not ordinary. It is extraordinary! especially if made at the table.

@Aryabhata: I did put "some effort" into formatting the question, copying your template from a previous question. Just "failed" but certainly tried. And did not realize that East's defense was extraordinary. I guess I would have returned the 5 of clubs myself. But maybe East counted tricks and was hoping to strike a K or Q of diamonds. If West had the K instead of the Q, maybe the defense would have succeeded.

@Aryabhata: I was taught to overtake (e.g. with the queen as East) if I have the majority of the defense's points, nine in this case. Was I taught right?

I think you were taught wrong. If you have the majority, you should strive to keep partner on lead, to trap declarer's card which are in between the defenders hands. Leading from the strong hand is usually bad. In any case, the right answer is, "it depends on the hand". As to formatting, trying using the code block formatting.

@Aryabhata: I am by no means an "extraordinary" player, but East's defense is indicated to me by my algorithms. In my group, I am considered "intermediate," (based on results), but with the highest potential, since our bridge teacher considers my algorithms "beyond her." My goal is to develop algorithms or heuristics to make currently "extraordinary" plays accessible to average players.

"extraordinary" plays are rare. Average folks would be better off learning to count! Anyway, I do hope you find something, and perhaps make a world class computer program someday.

No; swap the club 5 and 6 and South still makes the hand. Deal it out with a deck of cards and see.
If West wins the second club and returns a diamond the diamond loser has been eliminated; if West returns a club the 4th club is now set up for the diamond pitch; if West returns a trump or heart Declarer wins and leads out the 3rd round of clubs, wins the diamond return by East and goes to board with 3rd round of trumps to pitch the losing diamond.

@TomAu: What exactly is the error you think was made in the column? I thought it was this: "Doesn't South need to cover East's five of clubs with the six so that West wins with the nine?"

OK, I think I see it. (I added the part in brackets.)"South took the ace, led a trump to dummy, and returned a second club, five Jack, Queen. He ruffed the next heart, lost another club, [from hand, captured East's diamond lead with the ace], and got to dummy with a trump to pitch his Jack of diamonds on the good club." The problem was that I thought he would have to return to dummy for the third club lead, but he didn't, saving his entry. But I was thinking in terms of avoidance play,  lose all club tricks to West,more urgent if West has a major tenace in diamonds, e.g. KJ over South's Qx.

But would South still make the hand if East had KQ5, or even KQ, meaning that East can win the second club, lead a diamond, and force out South's second high honor before South can clear the club suit? To me, the critical issue is the lie of the East-West clubs (which the column glossed over), not the (admittedly, but ordinarily) good play of East

@TomAu: You have missed the entire point of the column - Don't worry about card lies that always defeat the hand; just play to manage card lies that need not defeat the hand.


text:
In "Standard" American, Is It Possible to Bid the Opposing Suit "Naturally" Over a Takeout Double?
I dealt and bid one heart with the following:

♠Axx
  ♥AQJxx
  ♦Jxx
  ♣xx

Left hand opponent doubled for takeout. Partner passed with something like K♦, Q♣ and one heart.
Right hand opponent held something like ♠Jxx ♥KT98xxx ♦void ♣Jxx and bid two hearts. It made, since the takeout doubler had some 18 points. I congratulated them on a good contract.
Would it have been better for RHO to pass for penalties instead? (No one was vulnerable). I always thought that a bid on the opponents' suit opposite a takeout double was a "cue" bid indicating a void, and slam interest, with prospectively 25-30 partnership points concentrated in three suits.
We were bidding a "loose" version of Standard American. So was two hearts a proper bid in this context? Or should it have meant something else?

In "standard" american (or typical variants of 2/1) it is normal to play 2H in the sequence: (1H) - X - (P) - 2H, as a close to game forcing hand (opposite a minimum takeout double) or better. There might be variants which different partnerships play, but it is almost never a natural bid.
2H should not be to play, as it makes no sense to play in 2H there. You are contracting to make at least 8 tricks with hearts as trump, with partner showing shortness in hearts by his takeout double! If you make those same 8+ tricks, opposing a 1H doubled contract, don't you rate to make at least +200 (or more if opps are vul)? There might be cases where you let 1H doubled make, but in that case, you are probably down 2 in your own 2H anyway and those would be very rare.
Over a minor suit takeout, some people might consider playing it as natural, as opponents could have shortness there and might have the option to try and run to a longer suit, but I believe the usual is still to play 2D in: (1D) - X - (P) - 2D, as close to game forcing hand etc and not natural.

Since they DID make eight tricks in "my" suit, they could also have passed for penalties, set me two, and scored 300 points (doubled, non-vul), which is a better result than they actually got, right?

@Tom: Yes indeed, +300 beats +110 :-)

Suppose the other team had a "leg" of 40 (or more). Would it THEN make sense for RHO to bid 2H, which would complete their game? Actually this kind of question comes up a lot in our "game" since there are a lot of part scores.

@Tom: There is no guarantee that 2H is going to make. Doubler could be void and the AQJxx is sitting over you.  If 1H opener was stronger you are likely to go down. In the current case, doubler was quite strong here, he does not need to have the 18 points he had. Even with the 18 points, if your partner had the spade K and Q (instead of diamond K and club Q), 2H is down 1 (3 spade tricks and 3 heart tricks).  1H doubled could go down quite a bit, enough to cover the potential loss of the rubber which you might incur by prolonging the rubber. It does not make sense to change the meaning

of 2H bid based on the partscore situation etc. For instance would 2H be natural on the very first board of the rubber? The fact of the matter is, playing 2H as natural is a way to make your opponents rich :-) In the current case (doubler probably holding KQxx,-,AQT9x, AKxx), 1H X would probably go down 4 and they would have made an easy 800 and the still been 40 up...

While I agree with Aryabhata about the given hand, it is possible in more-or-less standard bidding to bid opponents' suit naturally. For instance, consider the auction 1C-X-1H-2H. In this case, partner promises either heart support or a very strong hand. Responder only promises a 4-card heart suit and not much in terms of values (responder may have 5 hearts, but is limited in terms of values by the failure to redouble). Advancer is showing a good 5- or 6-card heart suit and less than limit-raise values. Because of responder's bid, advancer knows that finesses in the trump suit are likely to be on; because of opener's bid and overcaller's values, advancer knows that finesses in the side suits are also likely to be on. The hand almost plays itself!

+1 for answering the general question. But I suppose it might depend on whether you are playing responsive/penalty doubles in that position or not.

Yes, I suppose if you play penalty doubles, 2H can be some sort of forcing response without clear direction, but I think even when doubles were almost always for penalty, people played 2H natural here.

Playing 2H as natural (with double being penalties) just seems like an inefficient use of that bid, but, I believe you are correct that many partnerships played 2H as natural. In any case, I believe it is a matter of partnership agreement and different variations are "standard" in different regions of the US.


text:
How do I bid using "weak Stayman" (or garbage stayman)
People like Marty Bergen have written things like, "almost anytime you're responding to your partner's 1NT and you have few clubs, you should respond 2 clubs," Stayman (this is a paraphrase, not an exact quote).
The point I think he was trying to make was that you should aim for a two-level suit contract, even with something like (s) xxxx (h) xxx (d) xxxxx (c) x.
Here, you're bidding Stayman while, weak, not aiming for a game contract.
If partner responds 2 diamonds (no four card major), should you just pass and be glad he bid your "suit," even though he might have a 3-3-2-5 distribution? If he bids 2 hearts, should you accept what may be "Moysian" (4-3) fit and pass?
In general, should you pass whatever your partner bids, after bidding a weak Stayman? Are there exceptions to the rule? Or would you recommend against bidding this way with the hand listed above?

It is Marty Bergen and typically called garbage stayman.

@Aryabhata: Would you bid 2 diamonds (Jacoby transfer) with a Yarborough and six hearts? Does weak Stayman operate on the same principle?

Yes. With a normal 3-2 break, the hearts will provide at least 3 tricks(which they don't in a NT contract) and entries which can be used to take finesses etc. I would transfer even with 5 hearts. It is likely better to play even in a 7 card fit at the 2 level, rather than 1NT when the responder has a yarbourough. 4-2 fits, not so useful. So, don't use garbage stayman unless you have 5 diamonds and at least 3 of each major.

@Aryabhata: Then my example above was OK, five diamonds, four spades, three hearts, one club. Because you need 3-3-5-2 (or better) right?

Yes. Textbook example :-)

@Aryabhata - You have enough rep to edit the post, and clearly the expertise to do so. Feel free to correct egregious errors/clarify terminology.

@ire_and_curses: Yeah, I was expecting Tom will confirm that it was indeed Marty Bergen and edit it himself. Done.

@Aryabhata: Does "garbage Stayman" refer to the garbage in the hand? Or is it a pejorative reference to the system?

@TomAu: It comes from garbage in the hand, I believe. The system is actually a good one.

One you have decided to bid a weak Stayman, it is imperative that you pass opener's rebid.
Any subsequent action of any sort by your hand categorically promises 8+ points.
Consequently, you must have a hand that can tolerate any of the three acceptable responses to Stayman. It is unwise to make this bid with club tolerance for two reasons:

Partner responds 2D too often, and you have jumped into an inferior contract that is easier for the opponents to double than was 1NT.
You lose the valuable inference from the auction following that you have either a few points or club tolerance or both:

1NT    P     P    Dbl
    ?

  It is possible to play more complicated sequences in these situations, but they must be very well discussed with partner. It is extremely demoralizing for a partnership to be at risk of 500 or 800 point sets on every 1NT opening, due to bad experience with toys like poorly agreed weak Stayman.

In order to play garbage stayman, you must first remove the 2NT response from your convention card (some people play that it shows both majors).
As far as the previous answer is concerned

One you have decided to bid a weak Stayman, it is imperative that you
  pass opener's rebid.
  Any subsequent action of any sort by your hand categorically promises
  8+ points.

, i have to make an amendment. Biddind 2h after 1NT-2c-2d is not forcing. it is a "pass or correct" bid where opener should pass with 3 hearts or bid 2s when not having 3 hearts (so he has 3 spades).
That way you can bid garbage stayman even with: xxxx, xxxx, x, xxxx
If until now you played this sequence (1nt-2c-2d-2h) to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, you can always use (1nt-2d-2h-2s).
You could even more extend it further and use this kind of stayman with hands like x,xxxx,xx,xxxxxx where the bidding could be like (1nt-2c-2d-2h-2s-3c). This is for sure sign-off, since 2h can be passed. So now instead of signing-off immediately in 3c, you can check for a heart fit, (or even a moysian one).

Please read the whole post before criticizing it. As noted in my post: "It is possible to play more complicated sequences in these situations, but they must be very well discussed with partner."

well, I surely had read the whole post. And I'm not criticizing. I'm just explaining my POV of the "toys" which are neither complicated nor hard to remember. There is nothing in my post that criticizes your post (unless you think that the word "amendment" is too harsh to be used). Your words "imperative" and "categorically" seem to make you disagree with my answer but this should not be a reason to downvote a well-claimed useful post.


text:
Can a hero move by spending fatigue without a move action?
Can a hero move by spending fatigue without a move action? Can he do this more than once a turn?

Yes, fatigue tokens may be used as often as you like to gain movement points. These movement points are spent just like regular movement points, to perform Movement Actions or to move (gold chart page 16 shows examples).
From the rule book (page 18):

Spending Fatigue for Movement - At any time during a hero’s turn, he may spend one fatigue to gain one movement point, even if he is currently taking the battle action. This may be done as often as the hero desires. Movement points gained in this manner are spent just like normal movement points

Yes, to both questions. One fatigue for one movement.


text:
Does a winning strategy exist for Don't Break the Ice?
Don't Break the Ice is a children's game, where players take turns using mallets to knock pieces of ice away from the playing field. The playfield is composed of a (6 x 6) grid of single square blocks, except for the 2x2 block that the skating bear is on.

The object of the game is to not break the ice and have the bear fall.
Is there an winning strategy? If so, for which player? Assumptions:

Each player only knocks out one block of their choice.
Blocks are 'sticky' and will cling to each other along any edge, and so:
The game ends when the center 2x2 square has been disconnected from the exterior of the 6x6 square; that is, when there is no orthogonal (connected along the edges) path from any cell outside the 6x6 square to a cell in the interior of the central 2x2.

I've edited to get at what I believe the intent of the question is, based on the discussion in comments below; if I've made any mistaken assumptions in my simplification, please let me know.  Thanks!

A few notes:

There's very little point in bothering to remove blocks under the conditions specified for the simplified version; the only cells that can ever be removed by becoming isolated are the four cells diagonally (but not horizontally) adjacent to the central block.  All the cells on outer 6x6 ring are, of course, always connected, and all of the rest but those four cells are connected to the inner 2x2 block.
The four cells on the outer corners of the board can be ignored for connectivity purposes; there's no path through them that doesn't also touch another edge of the board.  Thus, they effectively serve as 'pass' moves, a move that can be taken without affecting the board in any meaningful way.  What's more, since the game is symmetric, if it's to one player's strategic advantage to pass then it's to the other player's as well; thus, a pass should always be followed by another pass.  Since the passes come in pairs (4 total) then they have no meaningful effect on the gameplay either and can be ignored in computing the game's outcome; you might as well leave those cells empty from the beginning.
These simplifications (along with a lot of transposition tables) put the game into eminently-analyzeable range.  Since the 4 central cells can't be knocked out and the 4 outer-corner cells don't matter, there are effectively 28 cells whose state can meaningfully change; this means that the game has 228 positions in total.  That's just 256M positions, and since you can store a position's value in a single bit, then you could actually hold the complete 'truth table' (this position is a winning or losing position) in just 32 megabytes.  If you want to be fancy, you could even add an additional bit indicating whether the position is 'already lost' (i.e., whether it's connected or disconnected), doubling your storage but making things a bit easier.
What's more, building that truth table is straightforward; the position with 0 bits on is impossible, so its value doesn't matter.  All positions with one bit on are lost for whomever has just moved to them.  From those you can compute the value of all positions with two bits on (or even more simply, just fill in the ones that aren't lost: the eight positions with one 'interior' cell and one adjacent 'exterior' cell on).  From those, you can compute the value of all three-bit positions; etc.  This wouldn't take more than a day to write and probably less than 5 or 10 minutes to run on any decently-powered modern machine, assuming the algorithms were done well.

If there are sufficient amounts of interest, I can try and put something together to find the final value, but it'll take me a day or two; it's also eminently possible that it could be solved with a quick case analysis, since 90% of the connectivity feels like a 'red herring' and (aside from the 'interior corner' cells) the problem is almost entirely a matter of knocking out either an interior cell or both the adjacent exterior and adjacent interior-corner cells.  It ought to be analyzable as the sum of four 'mini-games', one for each of the four corners of the board (but be careful - in the standard parlance the game is misere and not normal, so normal nim-sums can't be applied to it).

If I understand the game correctly, there should be a winning strategy for the player going last. If we first disregard the corners, then the bear will fall when the second last block is removed:
--X---
--X---
--BB--
--BB--
------
------

(or similar)
Since the number of blocks is even, this block will be removed by the player going first.
Now, there are two complication. First, the last block removed may include the corner:
-X----
-X----
-XBB--
--BB--
------
------

or
-X----
-XX---
--BB--
--BB--
------
------

Since the number of remaining blocks is now odd, the player going last would lose.
Second, a block may fall due to being disconnected. As Steven notes, only four blocks can possibly fall this way. If an odd number of blocks fall, then the player going last will be the one to make the last move in the first setting.
However, both of these can easily be avoided by attacking the corner blocks first. Since it requires two moves to remove a corner block, the second player can always remove the corner block before the first can make it fall, and of course before all side blocks are removed. This ensures that the final position will be of the first kind, and thus that the player going first loses.

This is great and should really be the selected answer.  If the second player ensures the corner squares are removed within the first eight moves then the game must last an odd number of turns, and so the second player wins. As you say the second player may need to prioritise one corner over another to prevent the first player dropping it by disconnecting it.

In theory, an optimal strategy, in the sense of a Nash equilibrium, certainly must exist.  However, based on the description of the game on Wikipedia, I see some difficulties in finding such a strategy in practice.
First, it appears the the game is non-deterministic, so the optimal strategy can only be optimal in a statistical sense — it cannot guarantee victory for any player.  Second, the outcomes of different moves appear to depend on the physical properties of the blocks, which means that calculating the optimal strategy would first require developing an accurate model of the game physics, and then fitting the model to actual measurements.
(That's not completely impossible — for example, it has been done for Pass the Pigs, but that's a simpler example, since the pigs in Pass the Pigs don't really interact with each other much.  In that respect, Don't Break the Ice seems closer to, say, Jenga.)
Finally, I'm not sure how consistent the physical properties of the game pieces are, or how likely they are to change over time due to age or wear.  If the behavior of the pieces varies too much, a strategy calculated for one particular game set may not be optimal for another one.
All that said, however, it might still be possible to come up with a deterministic (or at least consistently non-deterministic) approximation of the game, and then analyse that approximation.  I'm not familiar enough with the game in question to suggest what such an approximation might look like, though, except for some very crude features (e.g. that completely disconnecting the center from the edges of the playing field should surely be a losing move).

Which is why I removed physical properties from the question. A block stays up if it has an orthogonal neighbor. As it stands, this isn't an answer.

Ah, OK, I interpreted your question as referring to actual physical friction. So we should assume that the blocks are really sticky?

Yes. Blocks will not fall if a continuous straight-line path can be drawn between itself and the wall, with no gaps due to missing ice blocks. With the 2x2 block being supported by either side (it can zig or zag)

Given physics, it would seem like blocks wouldn't be sticky - but you can still predict when they will fall. Blocks will stay if they are in between (with a line of unbroken blocks) two blocks that are already confirmed to stay up (counting the edge)
For example, take this board.
----
--x-
---x
----

The two other "corner" blocks by the Xs would also fall, since they are not supported.
----
--xx
--xx
----

The rest of the blocks would stay, though. The rest of the board would stay up because of compression with the board edges.
----
--xx
--xx
x---

This block has been broken, now. However, nothing else will fall. I am going to mark stable blocks with an "s". These blocks are stable because they are held together by edges:
ssss
-sxx
-sxx
xs--

The rest of the blocks are also going to stay because they are held between edges and other stable blocks.
However, there is still a pretty simple winning strategy. Always break the ice block 180 degrees from what the first player played. The board will always remain symmetrical, and eventually you will get to some scenario like this.
xx-xxx
xx-xxx
xxBBxx
xxBBxx
xxx-xx
xxx-xx

Your opponent will be forced to break one of these chains, thus making the center fall.
You can never lose when doing this because of the symmetry. The central tile will only fall if it is not supported neither vertically nor horizontally. If you are breaking one of the tiles holding the center up (here shown as S tiles)
--SS--
--SS--
SSBBSS
SSBBSS
--SS--
--SS--

you would always break a side on the same axis that your opponent broke. You won't break stability in any axis because your opponent will first.
xxxSxx
xxxSxx
--BB--
--BB--
xxSxxx
xxSxxx

If your opponent breaks any of the S tiles, there will be no helpful force vertically.
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
--BB--
--BB--
xx-xxx
xx-xxx

The bottom two tiles are not providing any stability for the center because this stability only comes from compression, and the other side of that compression is broken. This means that when you remove the bottom two, you are not making the center less stable.
Knowing this strategy, however, doesn't mean you'll always win. You have to always be able to knock off only the block/blocks you want (which is skill, not strategy). I also haven't figured out what to do if you are going first and your opponent makes a mistake.

You've ignored a basic requirements stated in the question. Physics is irrelevant, the blocks are known to be sticky, and the bear only falls when there is no path through orthogonal adjacency, this can occur despite situations your answer suggests would lead to a collapse and therefore loss. Without that assumption you can't rely on symmetry and force arguments, since plastic blocks just aren't made that accurately.


text:
Carcassonne: The Grass Connection
Been looking into the rules a bit but can't find all the answers I want and it's possible this is more of a house rule with no definitive answer, but what I'm looking for is some official ruling if it exists.
Do grass continue under bridges? i.e. is the grass connected? I'm thinking of the bridges from for example River 2 that cross the river.
 Source
Also does the grass go around the well/pond from River expansions? Usually even if no other tiles connect the grass we do play as if the grass does connect on well/pond.  source
Do grass continue around the monastery from Catapult (that has the yellow fair thing stretching from one end to another)?

Source
Finally Bridges, Castles and Bazaars I'm assuming grass under the wooden bridges does connect?
Source
There are a lot more pieces in the expansions that basically asks the same question about farmer grass. If there is no official ruling I'm still interested in what is most common out there.

I should mention perhaps the monastery from catapult only connects to grass on all sides as the yellow is nothing so normally this would be connected but placing it at the end where it is not yet connected you can then takeover the grass. Also in our case we had a road leading to it with one of those wooden bridge over so the only connection was through that tile

The link to the second image is not working anymore.

Found another that does show the pond so updated the post

The rule in all cases is the same.
A field is contiguous only if there is an unbroken path of green on the tile(s).
The large wooden bridge does not interrupt the green so it does not break the field.  Everything else you mentioned does except for the path around the well/pond.

I have a Carcassonne Big Box (containing The Tower, Inns & Cathedrals, Traders & Builders, and The Princess & the Dragon). I consulted those rules.

Fields do not continue past bridges. This is shown on page 7, using a tile that looks like a + of roads, one of them containing a bridge that looks like it could feasibly not split the field.

[emphasis theirs] The bridge is not a crossing! One road rune [sic] from left to right across the tile and the other runs from top to bottom across the tile. The field segments are all separated.

Fields do wrap around the edges of the River. This is stated on page 11.

The field space on the lake and spring tiles wraps around those features.

I cannot answer the Catapult question or the Bridges, Castles, and Bazaars question with authority. I would guess the Catapult ones are divided while the Castles ones are not.

Sometimes these rules can be confusing, but the iOS edition of Carcassonne has answered a lot of rule grey areas for me, including the River II city-bridge one.  The Carcassonne app makes it clear that this city-bridge over the river is, in fact, high enough to keep the fields connected.
While I still find this visually confusing sometimes, the app rules and application within games are clear.  This large bridge, as opposed to all small bridges, does not separate fields.
The pond end to the river also continues fields.
I can't answer your other questions with the same certainty, but I can say that my group and I have always played it that the wooden bridges you place over the tiles do not block fields.  But that's just my group.
(Since this post is years after you asked the question, you may all know those rules already, but I thought I'd add this just in case anyone's doing a search.)

Hi Rebecca, and welcome to the site. Check out our [tour] to learn a bit about how our site works. New answers to old questions are welcome for exactly the reasons you've described - Stack Exchange is attempting to build up a repository of knowledge for people in the future experiencing these problems, so this is all maintained for people doing a search as well.

A city cuts a field in two, as does a road, even if it appears elevated in the drawing.  So that tile from River 2 has four fields on it.
However, if the field wraps around a feature on the tile--such as the lake at the end of the river, a cloister at the end of a road, or the river source--then the field is connected.
I haven't played with Catapult, but judging from the picture, it looks to me like that Cloister and the stuff connected to it do divide the field.  I'm sure the rules that came with that expansion address it.

... and I honestly have no idea about the Bridges.  I didn't even know about that expansion yet.

The owner of the game wasn't sure I assumed he has checked the rules though but I guess I'll check if I can find a pdf of the rules from catapult expansion. The statement about an elevated road is from the rulebook?

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


text:
Why are the port arrangements in Better Settlers not like the arrangements in my game?
In the Better Settlers' setup, I can trade with bank at 3:1 or 2:1 ratio if I have a settlement or city on specific harbors. But the location of the harbors (3:1 and 2:1 ratios shown) doesn't match with the game that I have. In my game, these ratios are printed on outside long pieces. I also went to the official Catan site and compared pictures in the rule book with one from Better Settlers' site, and the pictures don't match :(
Why does Better Settlers site show custom 3:1 and 2:1 placements?

The short answer is that at least some versions of the game (and I think the Seafarers expansion) come with pieces for marking the harbors. I don't know the details off the top of my head, though.

This question could be improved by the main title being the actual question, rather than just the name of the board game.

As a side note: the better settlers site is positioning the harbours incorrectly. The harbour should "face" down a row of 4 or 5 tiles, not down a row of 3 tiles. (Not sure if the word "face" makes sense to anyone, but that's how I think of it).

@Jefromi is correct, there are card pieces that you can use to cover over the ports printed on the sea frame. In this image you can see the port pieces covering the printed ones. They are used to randomise the ports, in a similar way to randomising the tiles. Note that they only change what type of port it is, and not its location.
Seafarers of Catan also comes with additional port pieces, but they are used in a different way specific to that expansion.

To answer your comment, there is a specific reason that the ports are arranged as they are in the board game. This is to do with balance of the game: if they are arranged differently then you could get ports too close together, which makes that area of the board much more powerful than it otherwise would be. To avoid this, each port needs to be at least two hex edges away from its nearest neighbour. As the board only has 30 outside edges, with nine ports this only leaves three leftover edges, so the possible variations are all very similar to each other if you try to space the ports out evenly. As to why there are nine ports, not ten, I don't know, but I expect the game designer tried the game with different variations and found nine to make a better game than ten.
To quote Andrew Flynn's answer:

The reason I chose not to force harbors positions even after the new version is I found that it was possible to create better and more variable board setups if I didn't add the constraint of fixed harbors.

While I haven't played Andrew's game, I would be surprised if it allows ports to be too close together, and so while the exact locations may be different, the board will look similar and the overall balance of the game won't be affected. (The screenshots I've seen seem to support this.)
As an aside, the Seafarers of Catan introduces many scenarios with different port locations, but the ports are still carefully placed, and the "variable setup" rules suggest you don't move them (although you can shuffle them up, as usual). Again, this shows that the placement of ports is very important to the balance of the game, and shouldn't be messed with too much to avoid breaking it.

I looked at the image and i see what you mean. But Better Settlers' port "locations" are different from the original port locations. Is that normal?

To answer the question, the balance of ports is definitely still aimed to be maintained and even improved from the original way they're spaced out. What makes Better Settlers special is it has the ability to lay out a board that doesn't require special, repeatable instructions. So while using Better Settlers, you'll notice the ports are more randomly spaced, but still maintain a balance across the entire board.
Same goes with the Seafarers expansion of Better Settlers.

I created Better Settlers and the other answers are correct in that the version that I usually play with, the harbors are completely individualized on their own hexes so it's possible to completely randomize them. Newer versions of the game have the continuous puzzle-interlocking pieces to make things quicker for setting up.
The reason I chose not to force harbors positions even after the new version is I found that it was possible to create better and more variable board setups if I didn't add the constraint of fixed harbors.
The best solution with new versions is to flip the frame pieces over (so harbors aren't visible) and then use the additional harbor pieces that come included with the game (you can even just use a piece of paper if you don't have the additional pieces).
Hope that helps!

Would it be possible to answer my comment to Tom Potts's answer below -
I looked at the image (http://boardgamegeek.com/image/2360057/catan) and i see what you mean. But Better Settlers' port "locations" are different from the original port locations. Is that normal?

Sure! See my answer below

In my version of Settlers of Catan (bought in the UK circa 2007) the land hexes are surrounded by sea hexes. Some of these sea hexes have harbours drawn on them. But as the harbours are on individual hexes, their placement can be completely randomised.
In my version of Seafarers of Catan (bought in the UK circa 2009) the playing area is edged by long pieces, similar to the OP's. But the harbours are on small individual pieces that are placed on top of the sea (whether the sea in question is an edge piece or a sea hex in the middle of the play area). Hence, again, their placement can be completely randomised.
So, in answer to "Why does better settlers site shows custom 3:1 and 2:1 ratios?" - It's not custom, it's just what came with the version they purchased.


text:
Leading from the wrong (nondummy) hand in bridge
While playing bridge you were supposed to lead from the dummy's hand, but you pulled a card from your hand by mistake. After putting it back in your hand, do you have to play the same suit when you play from the dummy hand?

From the Laws of Contract Bridge - 2014,
Law 55 - Declarer's Lead Out of Turn

When declarer leads out of turn from his or dummy's hand:
  A either defender, without consultation, may accept that lead as provided in Law 53; or
  B. either defender, without consultation, may require declarer to retract that lead. Then,
   1. if it was a defender' turn to lead, declarer restores the card led in error to his or dummy's hand without penalty.
   2. if declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to lead from his or dummy's hand, he withdraws the card led in error and he must lead a card from the correct hand.
If declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on information obtained through his infraction, the offenders should adjust the score to redress the damage.

So, in direct answer to your question, and assuming no inappropriate information was obtained by declarer through the infraction, once a defender requires declarer to retract the card led in error declarer restores it without penalty and leads (any card of his choice) from the correct hand.
In a club (other than a Duplicate Club) a slightly more formal alternative law may apply using the services of a pre-appointed Arbiter, if such is available. I understand from your description that this is not the case fr your question.

In the shortened version:

No, they cannot force you to lead from the same suit in the hand that should have led. But they can "accept" your lead from the wrong hand (or reject it). If the next player plays, that is assumed as an acceptance (whether that player was alert or not about the play out of turn).

Declarer should not draw an "inference" from the opponents willingness or not to accept the lead.
In general, there is no "damage" to the opponents because your partner is dummy and cannot gain any advantage by knowing about you holding a certain card.


text:
In Carcassonne Rivers, does the Abbey Tile stop a road?
Is the mini city on the right a stopper to the road on the left? All the other mini cities have gravel/dirt in the center rather than a road that appears to run through this one.

It plays as illustrated: the road is unbroken.
See the scoring example that shows the road is "not ended":

Specifically, note the second tile penultimate tile in both cases is this one and is included as part of a contiguous road.

Roads are interrupted by intersections (not bridges, tunnels, or roundabouts) and buildings (cloisters, city walls, and houses) in them (not adjacent to them). What you see is pretty much what you get.


text:
How could allowing a moon shot in hearts benefit the other players?
I was playing online with experienced players. The high guy was about 55; the other three were between 15 and 25. The high guy attempted to shoot the moon; I prevented him. I was roundly criticized by another player for stopping the moon shoot. The criticism was that allowing him to shoot benefitted "the three of us."
For the life of me, I cannot understand why that would be a good idea. What am I missing?

Likely this question needs more details: obviously allowing a player to shoot only benefits that player. The rules are explicit on that point. So either the other players are wrong or they have alternate goals beyond the base game (perhaps related to the online site).

Thanks. We weren't playing for money or anything like that, so it was just a game for the sake of a game. The guy was so incensed by me blocking the shoot that he left the game -- couldn't be bothered to further dally with such a brainless amateur. But why he would want us to voluntarily give up our roughly 30-point leads each....I cannot understand. And I guess I can't understand it because he's just dead wrong for some obscure reason.

Sounds a lot like they're playing for the lucky trophy rather than winning the game. Makes sense if you've won so many games you stop caring and are more interested in being able to claim a rare achievement, but none at all if you're outside that social meta-game.

What did it cost you to stop him? For example, did you take 1 point? 4 points? 13 points?

@ryanyuyu if it cost him 1 or 13 or anything in between, none of those supports the assertion that allowing the shooter to shoot the moon would've benefitted the three other (non-shooting-the-moon) players.

If I recall, the would-be shooter ate most of the points.

Thanks for all the comments. This guy got so bent out of shape -- acted as if I had ducked six straight tricks to allow someone to win -- that I had to second-guess myself. He asked why I did it. I said....uh, instinct? The only scenario I can think of where you would allow someone to shoot would be if by doing so he put someone out yet you would still finish low and therefore win.

OT: I played tennis with a friend once. They told me off, because I wasn't hitting the ball back to them. That's just not cricket.


text:
Canasta, frozen, ONLY allowed to pick up to the wild card? Not whole pack, what?
In Canasta, when the pile is frozen, you need a natural pair to pick up.
I've joined a group that says you can ONLY pick up to the freeze wild card, YOU ARE NOT  allowed to take the whole discard pack.
I've played canasta for 60 years, and NEVER heard of this. I know that in established groups, rules get added and most people go along to get along.
Has anyone EVER heard of this rule?

Not a rule I'm familiar with.
I don't have quite your depth of experience, but I've played Canasta over 40 years in New York, Ohio, and Texas.
While I've played different variants of Canasta with different groups, picking the whole discard pile is what I would consider to be a core feature of a Canasta game.
Picking up only the freeze card leads to questions.  Does the new top of the discard pile control it?  I'm not sure I'd want to grab just one freeze card to expose the rest of the pile to my opponent(s).  That's weird!


text:
What happens if the target of equipping dies?
My opponent plays the living weapon Lashwrithe. Afterwards he spends 4 life to equip it to his Vault Skirge. While doing this, I kill his Vault Skirge with a Galvanic Blast.
What I think will happen:

He loses 4 life
His Germ token under the living weapon dies
His Vault Skirge dies
His Lashwrithe lies around as equipment ready for the next try
I smile

Is this correct? Does equipping use the stack to enable such a maneuver? And does the Germ token really die if equipping goes ill, or does the equipping never take place because it has no valid target and the Germ lives happily ever after?
Edit: Changed the damage spell to Galvanic Blast, because I obviously require an instant and not a sorcery. Thx for pointing that one out.

You can't actually cast Red Sun's Zenith in response to the Equip ability, because Zenith is a Sorcery. You would need to use something like Galvanic Blast instead.

+1: Thx Stuart, I just picket the first damage spell that came to mind. Change it to Galvanic Blast.

The Lashwrithe stays equipped to the Germ, but your opponent doesn't get his 4 life back.
Here are the rules for the Equip keyword:

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means ‘[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

When your opponent wants to equip the Lashwrithe to the Skirge, he activates its Equip ability by placing the ability on the stack, choosing its target, and paying its activation cost. He then passes priority to you, hoping that the ability will resolve. However, you respond by casting a Galvanic Blast, which resolves and kills the Skirge.
(You can't use a Red Sun's Zenith here, because Zenith is a Sorcery. You can only cast it during your main phase when the stack is empty, but right now it's your opponent's main phase and the stack isn't empty.)
When the Equip ability starts to resolve, it first checks to see if its targets are still valid:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that‘s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability‘s effect for which it is an illegal target can‘t perform any actions on that target or make that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.

Because the Skirge is gone, the Equip ability has lost track of its only target, and is countered by rule 608.2b instead of resolving. Because the ability doesn't resolve, no effect moves the Lashwrithe, so it stays where it was.
So, here's the corrected summary:

He has lost 4 life
His Germ token remains alive
His Vault Skirge is dead
His Lashwrithe remains equipped to the Germ
You smile a little bit

Note that if you wait until after the Lashwrithe is equipped, and then kill the Skirge, the Germ will already be dead. However, since the equipped Lashwrithe will increase the Skirge's toughness, you'll probably need something stronger than a single Galvanic Blast.


text:
What happens if 7 Soldiers block a Phyrexian Obliterator?
This is a situation I am confronted with more often than I want to. My opponent attacks me with his Phyrexian Obliterator (5/5). The card says:
Trample;
Whenever a source deals damage to Phyrexian Obliterator, that source's controller sacrifices that many permanents.
I have a lot of small creature tokens available to block with, lets take 7 Soldier tokens to make it simple. They are all 1/1. My opponent has 4 Mutagenic Growth in his deck and I have reason to believe that he has one of those in his hands.
The situation forces me to block, otherwise I would die. Lets assume I only have 1 life left.
I decide to declare all 7 Soldier tokens as blockers, so that I survive even if he uses a Mutagenic Growth. The question is what happens if he does not boost it and I am blocking the 5/5 creature with 7 Soldiers.
If I would block with a single 7/x creature, I would deal 7 damage and I would be forced to sacrifice 7 permanents afterwards. But what about the 7 individual creatures? Do they still deal 7 damage or do they deal only deal 5? I am afraid the answer is 7, because they all deal damage at the same time, but I am not confident about my interpretation.

The Phyrexian Obliterator takes 7 damage.
Besides first strike and double strike (which create a separate combat damage phase for first-strike damage), all creatures exchange combat damage simultaneously. So the Phyrexian Obliterator takes all 7 points of damage even though it only has 5 toughness.
To add insult to injury, its triggers go on the stack after state-based actions are checked (meaning it and 5 Soldiers are dead), so you'll have to sacrifice 7 permanents in addition to the 5 tokens you lost blocking it.


text:
In {American, Bios} Megafauna, how can we improve showing who has what traits?
In American Megafauna and its newer version Bios Megafauna, each of up to four players has up to four species in play.  Each species has several traits, and some traits can be multiplied (values up to 3).  I've found the visualization of this information, so that all players cna easily inspect all the species currently in play, to be deficient in both games and am looking for advice on approaches we might take, including developing new play aids.
In American Megafauna each trait is represented by a little cardboard tent, and you put these tents on your playing mat (which sits in front of you).  If you have more levels of a trait you use extra tents.  This can sometimes be hard for even the player himself to see, let alone people sitting across the table; the tents are small (but if they were bigger they wouldn't fit on a reasonable table because they're numerous), and if you're viewing a tent closer to edge-on you can't read it.
Bios Megafauna acknowledges this problem and tries to fix it.  However, what it does is to split the information up: the central playing board has tracks for some of the traits (you place your species markers on the appropriate tracks), and some traits come from cards that you play on the table in front of you, and if you've spun off a species from another one you might have chits on your mat indicating whcih traits were inherited.  Each individual piece of this -- track, card, chit -- is easier to see than the tents from American Megafauna, but now you have to look in three places.
What playing aids would help us solve this problem?  I'm currently thinking in the direction of stackable, color-coded markers -- or it's possible that good old paper and pencil is the answer.  What have others tried for either of these games?


text:
How can we finish Titan in 4 hours?
We like to play Titan but the game always feels too long, it usually takes 6-8 hours.
We've tried the quicker game variant suggested in the rules (skipping the first level of recruits and going straight to the second tier), but found it unsatisfying because of the lack of variety.  Most of our time seems to be spent in board management, not combats.
What have other people tried and found successful in reducing the total play time to under four hours for Titan?

Note that site policy specifies that answers should be based on actual experience, whether the experience is with house rules that speed up the game or with enforcing existing rules or other aspects of play to keep games shorter.

Play more aggressively -- beginners at Titan often underestimate the attackers advantage with a summoned Angel and don't attack when they should.  On your first split (not counting the initial pre-game split), you should be setting up one of the two split legions as an attacker, which strives to maximize immediate combat power rather than longer term recruiting.  Then use that guy to attack.
Even more aggressive -- use your Titan legion as the main attacker -- this is particularly effective if you roll a 6 for your first turn and get a Warlock.  The goal here is to build up your Titan legion by earning Angels rather than recruiting and win the game before anyone else can recruit anything more powerful than an Angel.
When attacking you should ALWAYS offer a deal to resolve the battle without playing it out, unless its Titan vs Titan.  The goal is primarily to speed up the game, but it can also be a useful way to cooperate against against a 3rd player who is winning.  Figuring out what is the proper offer requires some experience, but often it is worth taking more losses than would likely have occurred in the actual battle to avoid summoning an angel when you don't particularly want to or to get rid of weak characters in a legion.  When making (or evaluating) an offer for battle resolution, take note of the board situation around the battle.  Leaving an enemy legion weakened in a spot where another player will get the benefit (points) of crushing it is not to your advantage.
When defending, if you're outnumbered you should generally flee (to avoid giving the attacker full points) unless you have a decent chance of inflicting crippling losses on the attacking legion.  Just killing 3 or 4 weak creatures is not worth giving you opponent and angel and boost in Titan strength.

Thanks!  We usually hold back the titan, so you're right that we should play more aggressively particularly in that regard.

Thanks for the addition about offering deals!  That hadn't occurred to us and I'll bet it'll make a big difference with the "slog-fest" battles.

A house rule I recall using many years ago when last I played: roll 2 dice, pick one for movement. Roll doubles, use either the showing or reverse number (6-1, 5-2, 4-3) for each stack. This made recruiting and movement go faster in the long run.