text:
"House Rules" in Settlers of Catan

Possible Duplicate:
What are common contracts in Catan?

The group I regularly play Settlers with has used a house rule about ports (I can trade resources for you at my port on your turn) for a long time. We got into the habit without realizing it was a house rule, and by the time we learned of it, playing without this freedom felt constraining.
Open ports make ports substantially more valuable. Fees for trading fluctuated for a while but then settled on a standard "2 trades conducted for 1 extra resource" rate of pay. Depending on the player, they might only accept certain resource types as the fee for trade, permit trades at multiple ports they own for the same fee, or even allow for a single port trade with post-payment made on certain conditions (one card for one trade was the opener... conditions might also be "the next wheat you get," etc.) We even evolved a system of using extra pieces (ships, for example, when not playing seafarers) to serve as tokens so that port users could save their second trade for later.
I have always been interested in other ways to "extend" Settlers through rule modifications that don't seem to disrupt gameplay. Specifically, I've wondered about launching side "businesses" in Catan that might offer incentives to multiple parties (hosting gambling with resource cards on my turn? offering to hold another player's cards as a "bank" and absorbing some risk of the 7 roll in exchange for a fee?). There is some economical calibration involved, but what I'm really seeking is more ideas to experiment with that are consistent with the game's premise yet extend and complicate the interactions and negotiations between players.
Do you have any "house rules" to share that add interest or variation to your Settlers games?


text:
Using Vassal on a small screen
Related to this question, I'm wondering also whether using Vassal on a netbook (=small screen) is a good idea.  Are there any tricks helping in such a case, like zooming in/out etc.?

No, using Vassal on a netbook is not a good idea. The standard resolution on most netbooks is 1024x600. While this isn't a bad thing for reading most websites, consuming video, etc. it doesn't work particularly well with the high resolution game boards in Vassal. The problems you will face will differ from module to module, but some of them will be pretty standard.

Most boards will require scrolling. - You can help mitigate this issue somewhat by enabling scrolling with the keyboard arrows. The keyboard is a much better input device for quickly moving the board slightly up, down, left, or right than moving your mouse or built in touchpad to the scrollbar to click/drag the gameboard in the proper direction. You can enable this feature within File->Preferences for each individual game.
Additional Windows always overlay (are always On Top of) the main window. - This will only be an issue if your particular game requires multiple open windows, and each of those windows needs to be open constantly. You can attempt to give your self a little more room to see each of the individual windows by using the zoom controls for each particular window. Fit to Width/Fit to Height will fit the graphics within the current dimension of the window. Additionally, you can shrink the Windows Taskbar to a 5 pixel bar (it won't show the icons of your open programs) which should give you another 20 pixels of screen real estate.
The Vassal Toolbar isn't dockable or configurable within the module. - This means that you cannot remove elements from the toolbar and make them their own floating windows, hide them, or dock them to other windows or other locations on the application. This means that when the module designer creates a toolbar icon, it will always be displayed above your game board. (Example: I play D-Day Dice. This module has 7 buttons that open other windows, 2 that roll dice, and the standard Vassal toolbar controls. Because I cannot configure the toolbar, it takes up two rows of space (about 90 pixels). You can modify the game module yourself to remove unwanted items from the toolbar with Edit Module. Refer to the Help Guide within the Edit Module dialog for more information.

Thank you very much; alas, I'll probably have no choice (the battery in my laptop might not be enough for my use).  Fortunately, hopefully I'll be able to mitigate some of these problems (to some extent at least): I could put different windows on virtual desktops or use a tiling window manager (I don't use windows).  And I could insist on my friend to prepare a not-so-huge map, too;).  At least I know what to expect...

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
In Conquest of Planet Earth, Do I conquer a Location with my remaining Alien Ships after Losing the final Fight Round?
Consider a scenario where I land 2 Alien Ships at a Location with a Resistance level of 1. This means there will be 1 Fight.

From the Battles, Fights, and Fight Rounds section of the Rules Wiki:
Another very important set of terminology to differentiate are the terms Battle, Fight, and Fight Round. A Battle is all of the Fights at a given Location, a Fight is single combat against one Human Resistance (or a grouping of enemy Aliens), and a Fight Round is one round of combat between the Aliens and the Resistance to see if either side is defeated. So one Fight is a subset of an entire Battle, and a Fight Round is a subset of a single Fight.
As an example, if your Aliens attack a City Location with a Resistance Value of 3, which would be a Battle involving 3 separate Fights (one Fight for each of the Resistance). Each of those Fights would then be resolved in a series of Fight Rounds.

At the conclusion of that Fight Round, the Resistance has a higher Strength Total. That means that they win the Fight Round and I lose an Alien ship.

From the Resolving the Fight section of the Rules Wiki:
Whichever side has the higher Strength Total (including Fight Dice rolls) wins the Fight Round.

Since that is the only (and, therefore, final) Fight of the Battle, the fighting should be completed for my turn, I believe, because it says may, below. This would only be true if there were more Fight Rounds to be completed.

From the Resistance Victory section of the Rules WIki (Emphasis added by me):
If the Resistance wins the Fight Round, 1 of the Alien Saucers involved is Destroyed and returned to the player’s Alien Pool. If there are still Aliens at the Location, you may start a new Fight Round. If there are no Alien Saucers left at the Location, the Battle is over and the Aliens have lost (any remaining Resistance cards are discarded).
Next time this Location is attacked by Aliens, a brand new Battle must be fought from the beginning; with entirely new Resistance (any Fights previously won here are ignored).

Does this simply mean that the remaining Alien Ship stays on that Location (and can therefore start the attack over again on my next turn), or does it mean that I have survived all of the Resistance that the humans can throw at me and I have therefore conquered that Location (and should place a Conquest Marker on it, gaining the associated Terror Points)?
P.S.: If someone with 150+ Reputation could add "conquest-of-planet-earth" as a tag, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
EDIT: thesunneversets response got me thinking...
The Exploring Empty Spaces section says...

to conquer a Location you must fight a number of Human Resistance equal to the Resistance Value of that Location."

...but it doesn't say you must win the fight, just that you must fight them. Later on in the Battle at an Existing Location section, it says...

If you have one or more Aliens at a Location with a Resistance Value of 1 or higher that has not been conquered (no Conquest Marker on it), you must fight a Battle there as described in the section on Fights below.

...and similarly in the Fight any Enemies at a Location section,

If you have one or more Aliens at a Location (or Landing Site) with one or more Resistance Counters or enemy Aliens, you must resolve a Battle at that Location as well.

Because these rules seem to indicate that an Alien Ship could be on a Location without explicitly having moved there in the same turn, I'm inclined at this time to think the Alien Ship can stay there, but the Conquest Token doesn't get placed.

I don't think the line "you may start a new Fight Round" means that the Alien Ship can stay on the Location, or claim a victory.  I think it means "you may carry on trying to defeat the Resistance by starting a new Fight Round... or choose another valid option".
What other valid options are there?  See the next section of the rules:

After each Fight Round is resolved, the Aliens have the opportunity to
  escape; immediately ending the Battle as though the Aliens had lost.

I think it's completely intuitive, based on other similar boardgames, that you should have to keep attacking until you either win fairly or are forced to flee.  No sneaky short cuts!

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


text:
Sell and Buy houses from bank in the same round?
Can I sell a house from a property that I own and buy it in the same round from the bank again ?
This question is an edge case of What happens when you need to tear-down a hotel but no houses are in the bank in Monopoly?

From the current rules at Hasbro, under the Selling Property section (emphasis mine):

Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them.

And then from the Houses section (emphasis mine again):

When you own all the properties in a color-group you may buy houses from the Bank and erect them on those properties.  If you buy one house, you may put it on any one of those
  properties. The next house you buy must be erected on one of the unimproved properties of this or any other complete color-group you may own.
The price you must pay the Bank for each house is shown on your Title Deed card for the property on which you erect the house. The owner still collects double rent from an opponent who lands on the unimproved properties of his/her complete color-group.
Following the above rules, you may buy and erect at any time as
  many houses as your judgement and financial standing will allow.

So I see no reason why you couldn't sell a house and buy it back again in the same round.  Just remember that you have to sell houses evenly as well.

Yes, you can and it is often a good stategic move if you can create and control a housing shortage.
For example:
You buy the remaining houses for your light blue color group.  Once you have available funds you would prefer to sell these houses (or buy up to Hotel if possible) and immediately buy the available houses for your dark blue group.
But if others also wish to buy houses at this point, there is the following rule:
[in a building shortage] players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the buildings must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

How does the "highest bidder" notion fit with the fact that prices have different "natural" prices.  Suppose, for example, that someone wanting houses for Mediteranian/Baltic was willing to pay 4x retail (i.e. $200 each), while someone wanting to upgrade Park Place/Boardwalk was willing to pay 1.25x retail (i.e. $250 each).  Who should get the houses?

supercat, your comment is worthy of its own question.  Rules are not detailed for this case.  The way I have played is that highest bidder always wins an auction, regardless of the usage of the house.  The listed price for houses acts as a minimum bid amount.
So I would grab $50 houses for light blue to prevent orange from purchasing.  Later its worth more for my Boardwalk usage, so I win an auction against orange.

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


text:
Can Clockspinning from Time Spiral be used to remove infect or poison counters?
I believe the answer is that Leeches is the only appropriate card for removing poison counters from players, based on this question, but I'll ask anyway since I have observed this card posted elsewhere as an answer to poison counters.
Can cards which remove counters, such as Clockspinning, be used to remove poison counters or is Leeches the only appropriate response?  What about the same question but targeting the -1/-1 counters on creatures?

The Magic comprehensive rules state that:

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it's moved to another zone by an effect or rule.

As a player is neither a card nor a token, and a player is certainly not on the battlefield, Clockspinning can not target a player and thus can not be used to remove poison counters. It can, of course, be used to remove -1/-1 counters on creatures that was caused by infect damage.

Excellent point on permanent text for this card, what about cards which would allow removing counters from player, or as a global effect?

@Stephen: I don't believe any spells or abilities currently exist that allows one to remove counters from players other than Leeches, but if there was, I imagine it would be worded similar to proliferate, except reversed. The only global counter-removing spell of which I can think is Æther Snap, which specifically limits the effect to permanents.

I'm pretty sure that Leeches is the only way to remove poison counters from players - I've read things to that effect in articles on the Wizards website. (Exception: Karn Liberated, who effectively removes poison counters as a side-effect of restarting the game)

@Stephen No such card exists, all the remove counters cards refer to permanents, specific card types like creatures, or suspended cards except for leeches. There is one other way to remove poison counters, and that's causing them to cease to exist by restarting the game with Karn Liberated.

@Andrew Hi :)  You've added your answer as a comment on another answer.  You should add it as an answer to the question itself.  Before adding your answer however, I'd like to point out that in 2011 the question was answered with specific references to the rules.  Has something happened in the last 6-7 years that would change the interpretation of those rules?

@Stephen This is no answer to the original question, but an answer on your additional question, asked as a comment on this answer. Also Karn Liberated was not mentioned, however did exist at the time (New Phyrexia was out in May), he is the only other way of 'removing' poison counters, and that deserved mention.

Poison counters are not placed on any permanent on the battlefield or suspended card, they are placed on the player so no, this card will not work.
Glossary:

Poison Counter
A counter that may be given to a player. See rule 121, "Counters," and rule 704.5c.


text:
Canfield solitaire: moving partial sequences
According to the Wikipedia description of Canfield, "cards on the tableau are also moved one unit, provided that the entire column has to be moved". In other words, this suggests that if you move a sequence of cards from one column to another, that sequence must constitute the entire column being moved, rather than an arbitrary number of cards from the bottom of a column.
However, I can't find any other reference to this restriction. In other books of card games I have referenced, they seem to imply simply that arbitrary valid sequences can be moved from one column to another. Can anybody provide a source for the more restrictive version of the rule mentioned in the Wikipedia article?
(My question is hence similar to this question referring to movement in Klondike, but applied to Canfield.)

http://greenfelt.net/canfield doesn't allow partial-column movements.

Bicycle cards lists the more restrictive rule.

Building
Any movable card or cards (from tableau, reserve, or stock) may be placed only on a card next-higher in rank and of opposite color in the tableau. Example: The  8♥ may be placed on  9♣ or  9♠. An entire pile of the tableau must be moved as a unit.

Boardgames.about.com also lists the more restrictive rule.
To move cards from one tableau pile to another, you may only move the entire pile.


text:
Is voluntarily revealing a card from your hand considered proposing?
Inspired by some comments on this question where someone might play two sorceries at the same time, a different question arose. Namely, if someone is to reveal cards from their hand (without an obvious reason like "reveal a card at random from your hand") does this count as casting? Or more accurately, does it count as proposing as laid out in rule 601.2a which is the first step in casting?
I'm unable to find any clarity on the matter, though that may be more to do with a restrictive internet filter I'm behind at the moment than the lack of availability of an answer out there on the Internet.

You can reveal your hand and cards at will. It doesn't count as casting.

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

I find this rule very convenient in casual events. When someone casts a spell that reveals my hand, like Duress, I'll keep the cards they revealed on the table so they don't need to spend extra time writing down the cards they saw or trying to remember them later (any new cards I draw afterward I will keep hidden, as normal).

If you see them going for a notepad, sure as it'll save both some time, but otherwise, keep them hidden. Their memory may fail them, and this is to your advantage.

@AlexP I've seen this done even at pro-level events.

@AlexP You're losing something by doing this. What about when you draw your second Duress and play it? If you kept the first one on the table, your opponent knows you drew another and knows you still have one in hand. If you had not left it on the table, your opponent wouldn't have all this extra information.

@user985366 I'm guessing he is careful playing what's on the table first, but still, it can happen in a moment of distraction.

But like, at a casual event, who cares? Alex P specifically mentioned it in the context of casual events. If you're being this stingy with new players at a prerelease, I think you have a problem :P I always try to win but I don't try to do it by being annoying at a prerelease.

As stated correctly by the other answers, it's perfectly legal to reveal cards from your hand to your opponents at any time. As the question seems to be more about possible situations where such action may be misinterpreted, let's delve deeper into that question.
Basically, whenever you reveal cards from your hand for a clearly social reason (such as suggesting you have a sure way to win, or bragging about a top-deck draw), you should be fine, as you're likely to accompany this by some kind of commentary or body language. It gets more complicated when you're expected to do something, such as cast a spell or reveal a card, and you choose to reveal any unrelated card instead of doing that.
As an extreme example to illustrate the concept, let's say you just entered your main phase, tapped an exhaustive amount of mana, then reveal All Is Dust (or another card that requires no further interaction, such as choosing targets) without commenting it. An opponent then responds with tapping two Islands and casts Counterspell. Surely, you will have a hard time explaining to that player that you really just meant to show them the card and weren't actually casting it, and I'm sure in a tournament scenario, you wouldn't get away with it, no matter how much the rules cover your action.
Something more encounterable would be Keranos, God of Storms and players misinterpret revealing the card because of Keranos's ability is actually casting that card (which makes sense, considering players rarely do something in their draw step after drawing a card for the turn), causing them to act as if the spell would've been cast and just resolved. This might happen because they're distracted, Keranos's controller not being clear enough, or a combination of the two. It mostly won't be a problem, but might sometimes result in them revealing choices they'd make, which obviously gives the Keranos player a great advantage not only because they now have better information regarding that spell specifically, but also where to direct the 3 damage Keranos deals.
As with many things in MTG, rules alone only define what's allowed, but you will have to make an effort to communicate your actions in an
ambiguous or interpretable situation. These examples cover extreme cases that probably won't appear in any tournament scenario - which isn't by chance, but because players usually have a good sense of when their actions might be confusing others.

Actually, casting "All Is Dust" almost always requires further action: Producing mana. The opponent should really wait until you start producing the mana. Until then, you could technically refuse to produce the mana to cast All Is Dust and revert the casting.

@ikegami: Due to how players usually play, you would be correct. If you re-read my example, though, I mentioned explicitly (or at least tried to) that the player more than sufficiently filled their mana pool prior to casting the spell.

Revealing a card from your hand without any card/effect asking you to do so is not illegal by the rules.
Here's what the Magic Tournament Rules says about it.
Two important points are being described :

"Players are responsible for keeping hidden information from being revealed"

"Players may choose to reveal their hands"

Basically, as long as information is hidden to your opponent, but not to you, it is not illegal to give it away.
It happens in big events, where players will sometimes show a game-winning card from their hand to convince an opponent to concede and save some time.
Unless specifically stated, revealing a card from your hand will never be "automatically" considered as casting it, using it as a cost for an ability or anything else.


text:
Is there a specified order for abilities on cards, specifically creatures?
I was reviewing the a spreadsheet I created of the RTR spoiler to prepare my strategy for this coming weekend. In doing so, I noticed that here and on previous sets if a creature has flying, it is virtually always the first ability listed on the card.
Now, I see a strong parallel between Magic card abilities and Java class, method, and member modifiers. In the same vein that a public static int is syntactically the same as a static public int, a creature that is flying, deathtouch is the same as deathtouch, flying. But you never really see the latter, only the former.
A search of the official rules didn't indicate anything, nor did Google.
Is there a canonical, conventional, or official order by which I can expect cards to have their abilities listed on the card?
Edit: I take back one comment. Faerie Invaders has Flash before Flying. Perhaps Flash is 'more important' than Flying?

iirc the ordering is usually: casting modifiers for this spell (flash, additional cost...),  normal abilities, activated abilities, triggered abilities, alternate casting (suspend, cycling, kicker...) ,flavor text.

Cairn Wanderer is a good place to start for keyword order.

too much forced the Java mention

@Zhen It wasn't forced at all. It was the first thing I thought of when I began pondering the ability-order problem.

This question has come up in the distant past, so there is no telling whether the design philosophy has changed. In the June 2006 Ask Wizards column,

Q: I've noticed on creatures with multiple keywords (flying, trample, etc.) that the keywords are in a certain order. For instance, Flying comes before First Strike and First Strike comes before Trample (Just look at Akroma, Angel of Wrath). My question is: Imagine that there was a creature printed with every keyword in Magic, what is the ordering of the keywords and is there any logical pattern to the ordering? --Matthew Burnaby, BC, Canada
A: From Del Laugel, Senior Editor: The short answer is that there's no fixed order for keywords. I check Oracle for similar cards whenever an unusual combination comes up, but my top priority is getting the individual cards to read well. But what fun is a short answer?
[Following is an example card with just about every keyword ever, Keyword Ultimus, cut from this answer for brevity]

In a now-disappeared thread from the shut down wizards community forum, a user magicalblender supposedly compiled a list of evergreen keywords, and which ones always proceed the other. I cannot verify the correctness of this claim, as I haven't updated my cards.mwsbase database with the most recent cards.

From a rules standpoint, the order in which the abilities are written is of no importance. (The exception is spell abilities. They are performed in order. For example, Footbottom Feast has two spell abilities.)
From a clarity standpoint, placing abilities in a predictable order and placing certain abilities before others makes a difference.
The card designers spend considerable effort making the cards as clear as possible, so they adhere to some form of convention.
I do not know if they publish these conventions, and I'm sure they are fluid (changed as needed).

Of course. The question is, have they ever posted their guidelines?

Don't know. You asked if there was. You also brought up the rules. I answered those, and that's all I can answer.

They often talk about design decision on their blog, and might have published something there, but I doubt they would have published something comprehensive.

Perhaps this is best asked on Maro's tumblr. :-)

Flash is important to know when in hand. That might be why it's first.

The order of one-word abilities appears constant, and it's not alphabetical.

They have answered the question about how they decide the order of the color symbols, but i'm not aware of an answer about ability order. I will point out that the order is important for linked abilities…

@ghoppe, No, it doesn't matter for linked abilities, though they will always be ordered such that the one that references the other will be second.

@ghoppe, 607.2a (for example) uses the words "the first ability" and "the second ability", but they mean the "ability matching the first description" and the "ability matching the second description". They might not be the first and second on the card. For example, the first and third ability of [mtg:Dance of Many] are linked.

@ikegami Counterpoints: Epic Experiment and Primitive Etchings. Also, Footbottom Feast would work quite a bit differently if the abilities were listed in a different order.

@ghoppe, uh, the first two only have one ability. you're right about Footbottom Feast, though. I'll adjust accordingly in a few.

@ikegami nope. Primitive Etchings has a static ability (reveal…) linked to a triggered ability (whenever…). See CR 603.10 for an example.

@ghoppe, ok, I'll concede that Primitive Etchings has two abilities. Their order is unimportant, though, as mentioned in my first two comments two you. Epic Experiment still has one, though. It has a spell ability (whose instructions are performed in the order written). Even if you consider it to be three spell abilities, that's already covered in the earlier update.

112.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. What I take from this is also the reverse: If there is no paragraph between non-keyword abilities, they are 1 ability.

@Hackworth, I thought so to, but ghoppe pointed out a rule that contradicts that induction.

I think the rules are a little fuzzy in 112.2c. Reading section 112 (especially 112.3), it seems there are a few more exceptions. 112.2c references Keyword Abilities, but I think there are some linked abilities written on one line for emphasis that could have a keyword, but don't. Primitive Etchings could be “Anticipate a creature – draw a card. (Reveal the first card you draw each turn, whenever you reveal a creature card this way, draw a card.)”

@ghoppe, Ancitipate would be defined as follows: <<Anticipate is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability. The second is a triggered ability. "Anticipate [subtype]" means "..." and "Whenever ...".>> See Madness for an example. Clearly two abilities. And clearly, the order doesn't matter.


text:
How many missed triggers are necessary before you begin to have Game Losses and/or DQs?
While reviewing the latest changes to the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, I notice that a missed trigger is considered a Warning, but that,

Judges should not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to
suspect that the controller is intentionally missing his or her triggers.

A conversation arose between a friend and I about what would happen if someone were to build a deck around purposefully forgetting his triggers. For the sake of the argument, let it be given that he's an incredibly good liar (20+ Charisma? What, wrong SE site? You mad?) and is able to convince any judge or other person at any time that it was unintentional, but that it was actually intentionally missed.
As the day progresses (and some of these tournaments have 14+ rounds) it is inevitable that a number of his opponents will notice his, err, forgetfulness. However, the IPG doesn't seem to indicate how these infractions begin to roll up into heavier sanctions. At what point does his forgetfulness warrant a game loss, and eventually DQ? Surely after a certain number of warnings, you start having serious consequences.

Kate: You were in default when we sent you delinquency notices.
Peter: I thought those were just warnings.
Kate: They were warnings.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating such a strategy. Even without ethical concerns of trying to cheat and get away with it, I think this strategy would involve purposefully selecting corner-case scenarios which probably won't happen, and that you'd be better off finding solid strategies that don't require you to hope your opponent doesn't notice.

This came up recently at the Pro Tour: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10794

That's the incident that inspired the discussion actually. Although she was DQ'd for something different. She was DQ'd for willfully allowing a discrepancy in life total to be unresolved. I think it's a shame she got DQ'd, but that's another story.

The same pdf referenced contains some text that shows the escalation of warnings on page 7 (2paragraphs before the start of the 'gameplay error - missed trigger' section):

A third or subsequent Warning for a Game Play Error offense in the same category should be upgraded to a Game Loss. For multi-day events, the penalty count for these infractions resets between days.

I read it, and read it, and searched it for words like "escalated" and "elevated" but didn't think to search for "upgraded". Thanks!


text:
Can I activate an ability on a card in my graveyard that returns its to my hand?
Say I have Cage of Hands, Shackles or another card in my graveyard that has an activated ability that returns the card to its owner hand, but doesn't explicitly mention that it can be played from the graveyard. Can I play its activated ability while it's in my graveyard, or only while it's on the battlefield?

Hackworth has it right, but I love me some Comprehensive Rules:

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:

112.6a to 112.6n then specify the exceptions to this rule, including:

112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it's on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability's trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability's cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone.
  Example: Necrosavant says "{3}{B}{B}, Sacrifice a creature: Return Necrosavant from your graveyard to the battlefield. Activate this ability only during your upkeep." A player may activate this ability only if Necrosavant is in his or her graveyard.

No, and no. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, you can activate abilities on a card only when it's on the battlefield or on the effect it has created.
Examples: Eternal Dragon, Elvish Spirit Guide, Reassembling Skeleton


text:
Are there any alternative rules for Settles of Catan to rely less on luck?
Are there any rules to reduce the luck component is Settlers of Catan?
I know there is one stated here, but I didn't understand this. How does this work? Are there any others?

There is actually a commercially produced event deck. When using it, you reveal a card every turn to get a number from 2-12 instead of rolling the dice. A card that reshuffles the deck is mixed in the bottom 5 cards, so the exact composition when the deck gets thin cannot be exactly guessed. (The cards also feature events that affect the game in other minor ways, if you choose to use them that way.)
Other games in the Catan series explore the idea of providing resources or compensation for players who strike out at the dice. Cities & Knights of Catan features an upgrade that gives you a resource of your choice whenever a number that doesn't produce anything for you is rolled. In a similar vein, Settlers of America gives any player Gold tokens who otherwise strikes out on a turn; gold can be later traded for other resources.

I guess you mean this one https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/551/3329
The idea is to set up a card deck with one card 2, two 3, three 4, five 6, six 7, five 8, four 9, three 10, two 11, one 12. That's a total of 36 cards. If you use that deck you'll have the same probabilities than adding two dices, but you may use it in a series, discarding every card that comes up. So now you are sure that the probabilities will be the statistical results.
A side-effect (probably not desired) is that if the deck already showed several 6s, for example, you'll know how that few will be shown until the deck is completely discarded and reshuffled.

Thanks. I've been following the questions for a while, first time I can contribute.

Accepted sitnaltax's answer because of the other rules introduced by the expansions, but voted you up because of your explanation on the deck.

Makes sense. I wasn't aware of that deck and thanks to your comment I checked that out. Thank you.

Letting players trade "future" resources can help a lot. Trading someone a future resource means you're promising to give them that resource the next time you generate it (and when it's one of your turns).
For example, suppose you have a wheat, a wood, and a sheep, and you need a brick to finish your settlement. You have a settlement on a 6 brick, but the dice have been against you the whole game, and you just haven't rolled many 6's. You've had bad luck.
Meanwhile, someone else's 12 brick just rolled, but he can't do anything with it right now.
Ordinarily, you're just stuck passing the dice and waiting for your 6, but with future resources, you can sell two future bricks -- your next two bricks -- for your opponent's brick in hand. You're able to cash in on what your 6 brick should roll in the future, rather than just what it happened to roll in the past.

What's the best way to keep track of these trades in the futures market? I've tried this casually without writing things down, for instance, and it turned into a charity instead.


text:
Does Infect count as damage?
I have a card named Dissipation Field that reads, "Whenever a permanent deals damage to you, return it to its owner's hand."
If my opponent attacks me with a creature with infect (i.e. Cystbearer) while I control a Dissipation Field, does his creature return to his hand after combat damage is dealt?

Yes. The damage is still damage, and any triggered abilities based on damage will trigger. The only thing different is the effects of the damage, since you gain poison counters instead of losing life.

See also cards like Flensermite: 1/1 Poison Lifelink.  It would be a pretty poor Lifelinker if you never gained any life from it, due its damage being in the form of Poison counters!

The key to this is the phrasing - damage is dealt in the form of poison counters, but damage is still dealt.  Normally, damage dealt to a player causes a loss of life - in this case, that behavior is overridden.

Mark's answer above is correct, but I wanted to expand on this and couldn't do it properly in comments.

They don't count as damage, but they do count as dealing damage if their source is from a creature with the Infect static ability. The "deals damage in the form of poison counters" is probably the reminder text for the Infect keyword:

Infect (This deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and players in the form of poison counters.)

There is a ruling on Infect:

Damage dealt to a player from a creature with infect does not deal damage as well as poison counters.

Damage is assigned as a number and can be prevented as normal, but when it is dealt to a player it turns into poison counters instead of reducing their life total. Damage has still been dealt, provided it was not reduced to 0.

On the other hand, a creature with Poisonous N deals damage normally and has a triggered ability:

Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, that player gets N poison counters.

In this case damage is dealt as damage as long as it isn't reduced to 0, and that triggers the N poison counters regardless of how much damage was dealt.

In either case, damage is dealt, whether or not it results in loss of life.

damage is dealt as damage is a confusing phrase to me. I would rather say that the damage dealt causes life loss, or causes the player to gain poison counters.

Reaper of Sheoldred is a great example card. When it deals combat damage to a player, that's 2 damage in the form of poison counters. When it blocks a creature, your opponent will get a poison counter -- but it's not damage.

well they would count as damage, just a different form of damage


text:
Methods for handicapping chess
My four-and-a-half year old son is learning chess.  He's got the moves of the pieces down and understands how to checkmate with two rooks (or rook and queen).
I've read some good suggestions in this question for how to teach chess other than by playing games.  This question is more concerned with how to make a normal game between the two of us fun for both players.
So, what are some ways that I can handicap myself so that I can play as best I know how, but still not win every game we play?  I've tried starting without some of my pieces, and that seems to work well, but I've read in a couple of places that this is not a good idea -- why?  The other option I've considered but not tried is a very short time limit for my moves.
Note: I'm hoping for answers that will apply to two adults with varying skill levels as well.

Nimzowitsch gave the A-rook and moved the pawn to a3 to compensate.  I do not know if he won anyway.

There are a variety of ways to level the playing field in chess. The two most common methods are material advantage and time odds, although there are also a number of more exotic handicaps that one can conceive of (e.g. giving away free moves, requiring a given piece to give checkmate, allowing the King to move two squares, etc).
With material handicaps, you give up some of your pieces, to the advantage of your opponent. This type of handicap has the advantage that it is simple to tune, and can be easily adjusted to correspond to the difference in strength between the two players. This form of odds was very common in earlier centuries, prior to the invention of the chess clock.
The main disadvantage to material handicaps is that a game played with such a handicap is quite different to an equal game. Without a Rook, for example, one cannot castle on that side. Strategic decisions may also be skewed by the weaknesses arising from the missing pieces. For example, you might prefer to focus your efforts on the side of the board missing your opponent's Knight, simply because the piece is absent. In this sense, one can argue that strictly speaking, the game you are playing is chess-like, but it is no longer chess. So there is a philosophical argument here as well - material handicaps are inelegant, and inherently unfair.
With time handicaps, a chess clock is used to disproportionately limit the thinking time of one of the players. For example, you might play with only two minutes of time, while your son has, say, 15 minutes. This effectively limits the depth of your thinking, without changing the conditions of the board itself. Time handicaps are preferred among chess players with even a little skill, because they do not change anything about the game itself, and they allow both players to have a satisfying experience. Psychologically, time handicaps feel more fair than arbitrary material adjustments. However, playing against a clock is a skill in itself, as is making effective use of the extra time you have available. This makes time advantages less effective for chess beginners.
Recommendations: For beginners and children, I would start with material advantage. It's easy to do, and children can easily understand the advantage ("oh, you don't have a Queen!"). As they improve, you can steadily reduce the advantage, until ultimately if all goes well you will be playing on even terms. The problems of material handicaps are just not an issue when you are still learning the basics. Equally important, having more time is not much help without reaching a certain minimal level of competence. You need to know what to think about before being given extra time to think is helpful. Once you have a bit more experience, consider moving to using a chess clock with different time limits for each player.

Note that a good player also thinks in the opponents time.

I have three small kids, and I have a notebook by which I keep track of the material advantage that I give them.   I also log the games (we don't play that often).  When I start losing way more than I win, I reduce the material advantage they start with.   They objectively see their improvements over time with this method.   I use this strategy for Checkers and cribbage as well.

It is true that a good player thinks in the opponents time, but tactical opportunities tend to be more difficult to notice in the heat of the moment during your move. Positional skills will remain about the same since they tend to be thought about during the opponents time.

A "third" handicap other than material or time is a "propositional" game. An example is that you lose (or cannot win) if you have lost all your pawns before administering checkmate, no matter what else happens.
That proposition would lead you to play out your pawns more conservatively at the beginning of the game, and perhaps not use pawn storms.
Other propositions would be that you may castle only king side, or not castle at all.  They would give your son an advantage by altering the dynamics of the game.

Try something new.  A new opening, or relying overmuch on an unusual piece.
This works best when the junior opponent knows how to play and is getting the hang of your usual opening, but you are still better.  Try something wild and new, it might be a disaster, it might actually work, either way you might both learn something.
PS - Especially fun in bughouse chess.

There are a few handicap ideas I use:

Material Advantage
Time Advantage
Swapping colors midway through the game

Material Advantage:
Depends on the difference in skill of the two players. For beginners playing against moderately good players, you can take off whole pieces such as Queens, or Knights (since Knights are notoriously good against beginners due to the strange L-shape pattern). Rooks and bishops are more straight forward, and could be used as deficits when the beginner has a better idea of how to play. I don't like the idea of large material deficits because it allows the beginner to think they can play more recklessly when the handicap is taken away.
For more advanced players, pawn deficits are often a good way to create balance. Peter Svidler says in this video that against a lowish 2000 rated player a f-pawn deficit proved to be one of the hardest and most fair games he has ever played. The f-pawn is the biggest pawn-weakness to make because it doesn't give any development advantages where any other pawn would. Hikaru Nakamura has had various pawn advantage handicaps against the chess engine Stockfish. With a b-pawn deficit, Stockfish won but with a h-pawn deficit, the game ended in a draw. I like these ideas because it immediately sets the player up to have a significantly weaker endgame if they choose to trade down. It also reduces their middlegame since they cannot create tension as easily, leaving the lesser skilled player with more control over the flow of the game.
The problem with material deficits, is that it does not scale very well. It is useful for absolute beginners but at higher levels, a one-pawn advantage requires the difference in player skills to be enormous. However, it does mean that opening theory is often disregarded, which is a learning-benefit since the players won't be able to rely on memorized moves and actually play the game to the best of their ability.
Time Advantage:
This requires the use of a clock, but is a fairly good way to create balance between players. The idea is to reduce the amount of time the better player has to think, which in turn leads them to have to play more intuitively rather than being able to calculate variations. This means that tactical blunders by the worse player are less likely to be noticed, and blunders by the better player become more likely. The difference in skill, will influence the recommended time controls.
I don't recommend 1 minute, because it is simply too fast to have to play for the better player (and will most likely lead to losing on time for most games). If there is a large skill gap, 2 minutes to 10 minutes can be fair, and reduce this gap as the less skilled player progresses. A good equilibrium can be figured out by playing a few games against the worse player to find where a sweet spot is. The better player will still have the advantage overall, but it is greatly reduced.
You will find that children don't use their time very effectively, if at all. When I was playing in juniors, if you gave players 10 minute time controls, they will have finished the game in under 5 minutes most of the time. It is important to emphasize that they think about their moves before playing them. This however can lead to the mindset that they should just wait 10 seconds before playing without actually thinking about any other possibilities. It can be difficult for them since their attention span is shorter than that of adults, but it is a useful skill in general to learn.
Color Swap:
While not great for a friendly game, it is a good learning resource for lesser skilled players. The game plays normally until the better player creates an advantage (the size of this advantage can depend on the difference in skill level) and then the players can swap colors to allow the less skilled player to figure out how to win. This teaches them how to win a won position, and if they can beat the more skilled opponent in a won position, their chances in winning against an equally skilled opponent will increase. Obvious drawback is that it doesn't teach the player how to obtain the won position, but that is generally pretty hard against a better player.
Extra Idea - Letting them win:
My personal favorite when playing against weaker opponents is to deliberately give them tactical opportunities which they can take advantage of. Not a true handicap, since I'm not forced to abide by this rule but it works well. I don't like to leave pieces en prise but wherever I can give them a fork, discovered attack, skewer, mating net, etc I try to allow it. If I deem that the tactic is too difficult for them to see, I will let them know that I have made a mistake for them to learn from. Against newer players, you might want to tell them every time you make a mistake, but as they improve you can talk less and see if they can figure it out on their own. As they improve, you can start to play more towards your normal skill level, and make fewer deliberate mistakes than you did before.
--- Edit ---
How the World Champion First Learned:
When Magnus Carlsen's dad was teaching him chess (at around age 6 before he started playing seriously), he would take away all his own pieces, so it would be 8 pawns+King vs Magnus' entire army. Even with this major disadvantage Magnus was unable to win. This is sourced from his Biography Wonderboy.


text:
If the Axis capture a factory in Axis and Allies, would the game tilt in their favor?
Despite the fact that the odds in the "real" war were heavily skewed in favor of Allies, the game is almost balanced. That is, if it is played with the "No Russian first turn attack rule," bidding shows that the Axis players will expect to win abaout half the time if they were given 12 more Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs) more than they get in the actual game.
Axis and Allies - Is there a best country?
Some British players like to build a factory in India (or perhaps South Africa), and some US players like to build a factory in Sinkiang, even though these factories are at risk of being captured by th Axis and therefore "turned." But a factory represents 15 IPCs (30 if you count the "swing" from being pro Allied to pro Axis), which is to say more than the 12 IPCs alluded to above that would "balance" the game?
Does this mean that if say, Japan captures an Allied factory in India or Sinkiang that the Axis would then have the advantage? Or is it more true, that as game theorist Donald Rae suggests, this would happen too late in the game to make a difference?
And would such considerations cause the U.K. to build their factory in Australia, rather than India or South Africa?
In Axis and Allies, should the UK Build a factory in Australia?
Or the U.S. to build a factory in Brazil, instead of Sinkiang?
In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?
(These factories are "out of the way" and NOT likely to captured.)

A factory in sinkiang..
Is certainly going to fall if the Japanese player decides so.  Just grab the map (whichever version you are playing) and check the sequence of R1 and R2, what units japan can place there and what can the allies place.
Even with russian ground units (which are all needed against germany) the chance is slim against all Japanese airplanes.
Grabbing that factory is a major victory for Axis because:

Russia Alone will have to fend it off while holding germany
It's close to moscow (2 to 3 tiles away depending on the map) so Japan WILL be threatening to take it..

Not to mention of course the loss of IPC (and turns because it takes 2 turns to produce there)
A factory in India depends on the turn..
India has more access through sea and threatens only Stalingrad.  Taking this factory means:

Axis have Jap transports and a factory to place ground units in Asia each turn
Allies would rely on draining gound units from Russia and transporting US or UK units from far .. far lands.

This means that the Allies cannot match the ground forces in Asia, thus Asia is generally lost to the Axis.
This move is a major thing if it's done in early rounds.  If it's in late rounds well.. maybe the Allies are about to take Berlin or subduing Tokyo. In such cases this extra victory city and ground units are neglectable
P.S. I see you talk about restricted russia R1.  That means you are playing the Classic edition. If you are concerned about balance and if you have played enough I recommend you try A&A spring 1942 or A&A 1941

Speaking from general principles, as one who as never played the game but as played a multitude of board games over the past 45 years:
Barring extreme good fortune allowing a very early capture of said factory, I believe the concentration of effort required to achieve such a capture would provide compensating benefit to the Allies that would essentially neutralize the capture.
In any WWII game one of the disadvantages that the Allies face early on is where to defend, as they cannot defend everything. Even just seeing the Axis concentrate forces to take said factory might help the Allies by relieving other strategic areas from stress. I see building such a factory as a gambit by the Allies:

"Sure, you can take this factory, but is it worth while to do so?"


text:
Can "aggressive" or unusual play in blackjack get someone thrown out of a casino?
One example of such a play is "splitting tens." That is an agressive play that's usually foolish, except when someone is "card counting"? When suspected, card counters are "barred" from casinos (or worse).
Can casinos protect themselves against card counters by limiting bet variations in blackjack?
Card counters are usually identified by wildly changing their bet sizes. (That's mostly how they make their money, but they can make "a little" extra money by using card-counting to inform their play). Suppose someone "split tens" without making large bet variations. Would he still be "suspect?"
BTW, what is the rule for splitting tens? Do they have to be the same denomination (two tens, two jacks, etc.) or merely of the same value (e.g. king and jack).
Years ago, someone was harassed by casino authorities for hitting to an 18 and catching a 3 (usually a bad play that made 21 this one time). Upon questioning, this person told the casino that the dealer had a "tell" that said the dealer had 20, so the "heat" went on the dealer, not the player.
Could a player get into such trouble today under the new rules (the dealer is not supposed to look at his "hole" card, but merely turn it up after all the players have played)?
What other kinds of plays may draw "heat" and why?

I would guess if the casino considered "Aggressive" (and other factors) a sign that the person in question was a card counter or cheating some other way. Just for making "Bad" moves they won't throw you out of a casino because after all the casino's business model is around players making bad moves so that the player loses and the casino wins.

Could you move the splitting tens question into it's own question? I think that it gets lost in your more general question about behavior, thanks.

I think winning an excessive number of times get you thrown out of a casino. And the casino will then try to find "good" reasons like card counting or whatever dodgy moves you made. If splitting tens is one of them, and you placed a high bet and you won a lot, then certainly the casino will use that to support their claim. If you just split tens and then lose, I don't think the casino will throw you out. :)
I think the unwritten rules that you mention are a set of heuristics that the casino uses to decide whether or not you are suspicious. More or less like a spamfilter deciding whether an email message is spam or not. Some actions make you more suspicious and once you go over a threshold the alarm bells start ringing. Of course the number one alarm bell would be the fact that you are winning, but I can imagine that a persistent ten-splitter might eventually become suspicious for being "out-of-the-ordinary". I just don't think the casino will chuck you out as long as you don't win too much.
Regarding your card counter's book. In the end (s)he is a card counter, so if the casino chucked them out for splitting tens perhaps (s)he had been doing other moves in line with being a card counter inherently, and has, perhaps without knowing, made several other alarm bells ring already. Maybe the splitting of the tens was "the straw that broke the camel's back"
As far as my knowledge reaches regarding Blackjack, I believe in order to split tens they need to be the same denomination. So a Jack and a King cannot be split.

I consider your answer "warm." My understanding is that the casino will first look to see if someone is winning. If he is, then they'll make an evaluation of his play; is he "lucky" (a tourist) who is playing "randomly" or is he "doing something" (cheating or card counter). But I once read a card counter's book that opined that you could get thrown out just for breaking "unwritten rules" like by splitting tens. After all, if you break those "rules," you may also break the "unwritten rules" against card counting.

I think the unwritten rules that you mention are a set of heuristics that the casino uses to decide whether or not you are suspicious. More or less like a spamfilter deciding whether an email message is spam or not. Some actions make you more suspicious and once you go over a threshold the alarm bells start ringing. Of course the number one alarm bell would be the fact that you are winning, but I can imagine that a persistent ten-splitter might eventually become suspicious for being "out-of-the-ordinary". I just don't think the casino will chuck you out as long as you don't win too much.

Regarding your card counter's book. In the end (s)he is a card counter, so if the casino chucked them out for splitting tens perhaps (s)he had been doing other moves in line with being a card counter inherently, and has, perhaps without knowing, made sever other alarm bells ring already. Maybe the splitting of the tens was "the straw that broke the camel's back" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel's_back

I accepted your answer based on your comments (not on the original answer). So I've taken the liberty of attaching your comments to the answer. You delete the comments if your wish. (Unless you prefer to leave them in and "roll back" the answer to the original.)

Perfect. I'm fine with the current state of the answer. I also prefer to leave the comments the way they are, so it is visible how the answer came to be.

A casino who doesn't like a player will throw them out and that's it. There's no "finding a good reason" - they don't need one at all. Your knowledge regarding splitting is also not accurate in a general sense, few if any casinos are so limiting to require same rank, not just same value.

Casinos are much like any other business; if they want, they can tell you that you are no longer welcome for any reason, or no reason at all. There are some exceptions, primarily the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prevents "places of public accomodation" (basically any property that welcomes the average Joe coming in off the street) from refusing service based on protected statuses such as race, color, creed, etc, but casinos can, and often do, throw someone out just because they were a little too lucky.
In this particular case, playing in a way that disrupts the normal flow of the table, such as not playing according to basic strategy, can distract other players, diminishing their experience. That alone is plenty good reason for a pit boss to come over and invite you to play another game, or to ask you to leave altogether.

Like other executives, dealers, pit bosses, and "floor (wo)men" in casinos are concerned about "career risk." This could occur if they lose too much money to the "public" for the casino. Hence the concern about card counters, who will "make money" off the casino (or at least have a positive "expectation.")
In the example of the person who drew a three to 18 against the dealer's 20, the casino clearly lost money. Hence its executives investigated why it happened. The answer was different from what they expected. Apparently, the player was not card counting. Nor was he running the usual cheat (bribing the dealer to tip him off). Questioning established that the two did not know each other before that day. And the player identified the inadvertent "tell," smugness, that the casino executives had also observed, but did not appreciate the meaning of.) So the dealer was sternly warned to "tighten up" his body language. He did, and all was well. Nowadays, dealers are not allowed to peek at their hole cards before all the players have played and they play, so they won't have these tells. (An electronic buzzer will alert them to the fact that they have a Blackjack, the identification of which was their rationale for peeking.)
Would casino personnel throw out people on "suspicion?" That's a gray area. "Splitting tens" is either a very bad play or (occasionally) a very good play. In any event, it is "sophisticated," which is something that the casino personnel don't like.
After the publication of Ben Mezrich's "Bringing Down the House," about card counters from MIT, casinos reportedly hired detectives to round up MIT yearbooks and otherwise spy on incoming classes of MIT students. That's not an established fact, but it does illustrate how antsy some casino executives might get. Would they throw out someone for admitting to being a math or computer science major, and hence a potential card counter? Who knows? Unfortunately, those facts alone might meet some people's definition of "skilled player."


text:
Are there many mandated "time outs" in tournament bridge?
In "Points, Schmoints," Marty Bergen related an instance in which he announced "skip bid," before "jumping" his partner's two diamond bid to the five level (instead of three). According to him, his Left Hand Opponent had to wait ten seconds before reacting (in order not to give away information by the speed or slowness of his reaction to the unusual bid).
Are there many instances where tournament rules mandate that players take such a "time out" in either bidding or play?
This is a "companion" to my other question:
Can one ask for a "time out" to study the hand in bridge?

I have played in many tournaments in the US and haven't come across any mandated "timeouts" during the play, apart from the STOP card which is (inconsistently) used when making a skip bid.
I expect it will be something similar in Europe and other areas.

OK, there is a "stop card" mechanism. But "more honored in the breach than the observance."

More and more honoured in the observance than the breach, as you progress up the levels of expertise. The world of expert Bridge is a very small one, and at high levels respect for rule observance is significant.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge indicate (in Law 73) that

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But the Regulating Authority may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning or on the first trick.

The ACBL is a Regulating Authority that does require mandatory pauses for skip bids. The ACBL Codified Minutes, Chapter XII, Section A have this to say:

A. How and When Made
Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making an opening bid on the two level or higher, or prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding:

When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please Wait!"
When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so the LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box.

...

C. Opponents of Skip Bidder

All Players
When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during pause). any (sic) obvious display of disinterest is most improper.
Experience Players
Experienced players expected (sic) to maintain proper temp (sic) whether a skip bid is announced or not.

I've never seen a director called to protest that opponents are not using the stop card but would expect to see one called if an opponent was clearly using the stop card only for weak bids. I have seen director calls after a player took far longer than 10 seconds to make a call after a skip bid and his partner took a bid at his next turn.

There is one additional "mandated time-out" in addition to the STOP card: When dummy comes down, declarer is required to study the hand for a few seconds before calling a card.
Depending on how closely dummy resembles any bidding made, that would be on the order of 3 to 5 seconds. To call a card quicker than this is highly unethical, and declarer's RHO is allowed to allowed to take this time in lieu if declarer refuses to do so. There is no inference penalty for opening leader in this case, as declarer has willfully instigated the situation.


text:
Can one ask for a "time out" to study the hand in bridge?
"West" (the opening leader) has to lead before seeing the dummy. Both declarer (South) and partner (East) ought to study the dummy before playing. But often they do not.
Suppose South wins the trick, and leads back quickly. Can West ask for a timeout to study the dummy? Does it have to be before South makes the lead?
Can any player ask for a timeout to study the hand at a critical juncture (say, if a squeeze play is on)?
One reason I ask this question is because it appears to be unethical to hesitate at certain points (e.g. representing an honor, when you don't have one).
This is a "companion" to one of my other questions.
In Bridge, Is There A Way To Shorten "Reaction Time" For "Real Time" Play

Victor Mollo addressed this problem in one of his books (I forget which). His suggestion, if you wished to stop and think at your turn of play, was to place the card you plan to play face down on the table, announcing that you were playing that card, and then do your thinking. Provided your thinks don't take inordinately long, no-one will complain.

I have seen, and performed, just this frequently in tournament bridge over the years. Critical is that one NOT ever change the face-down card, as that will entail an automatic Director call to protect against any inappropriate inference by your partner. Any partner put in an ethical bind by such a change of play will be particularly upset.

Essentially, yes you can. Simply do not turn over the card played to a trick until you are finished thinking about the hand.
In fact, East in your example may not pause to consider the whole hand before playing to the first trick (unless that is necessary to determine which card to play to the trick). Instead they must usually play immediately to the trick, and then keep their card face up while they think about the rest of the hand. The declarer is entitled to know whether you have a problem while playing to the first trick.

The second paragraph is not universally correct; 73A1 allows Regulatory Authorities to require a pause to trick 1 explicitly - and many do, or at least state "no inference can be taken from a pause at trick 1", especially if declarer fast-plays in order to get that information.  First, East will say "I had to work out how the play will go before I know if I do have something to think about at trick 1" and be perfectly correct (barring a singleton).  Also, fast-play to Trick 1 to get info from East would be a violation of 74C7, even without regulation mandating or allowing pause.

That is fair enough; my answer is correct as far as I know for ACBL-sanctioned events, but other Regulatory Authorities may have different requirements at trick 1.
I certainly agree that East may pause at trick 1 to work out the whole hand if the play of the hand affects which card East wants to play at trick 1. For example, East may need to figure out what the most effective defense is likely to be before deciding how to signal to partner's opening lead.

You are "correct" for the ACBL.  They do not have a written regulation around Trick 1 pauses.  However, unwritten policy is that (consistent) pauses at trick 1 are to be considered "thinking about the whole hand", and "maintaining consistent tempo" rather than "deceiving declarer through hesitancy". In fact it seems the issue is more UI to OL.  If you want to see more of current thought and  potential changes, see https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/update-on-acbl-trick-1-policy/ . So, still not "declarer is entitled to know if defender has a problem at trick 1"

As the answers to another of your questions said, it is unethical to hesitate over a play when you actually have no choice, since there can be no good reason for your hesitation.  The same principle applies in the situations you mention here; if, when it is your turn to play, you have a choice of cards and your decision will affect the hand, you can take as long as you need to make the choice**, with or without agreement. You are, of course, giving away the information that you have a choice to make; this may or may not be important. And if you actually have no choice, it is still unethical to imply that you have, merely because you want to study the hand; you will have to play your singleton (or whatever) and do the thinking when it actually makes a difference (such as when you have the lead).
Asking your opponents to delay play while you study dummy would actually be counterproductive; as soon as the next card is played you have more information, so your conclusions are out of date. Do your thinking when it is necessary, not before.
** As mentioned in yet another question, the time you take is in practice limited by the patience of the other players or the Tournament Director, and in some cases by session time limits. But the rules themselves make no mention of how long you can take.

Suppose you ALWAYS hesitate when South leads to the second trick, so that you don't "give away" whether or not you have anything to hesitate about. Is that ok? The reason I want to stop play is to "size up" up the hand, inventory trumps and honors, etc., and plan the play. Basically do what I SHOULD be doing if I were declarer, when the dummy hits the table. Because as opening leader, I DIDN'T get to see the dummy before my first play. (If I were East, it would be a "no brainer." I'd pause after EVERY first dummy play (unless declarer did it for me).

If you have no choice at the second trick, then the number of trumps etc cannot make a difference to your play; so yes, it is unethical to suggest that it can. You make a plan when you have a decision to take.

So you need to have two or more "eligible" cards to play when you hesitate, right?


text:
Different kinds of "two direction" finesses in bridge?
I once read in a book about a "backward" finesse. You, declarer, have AJ9, and dummy has Kxx.
Ordinarily, you would finesse twice from dummy toward AJ9. Except that your left hand opponent has indicated by a bid (or double) that he has the queen. If that's the case, you apparently finish "backwards" by leading the J, and covering with the K in dummy if the left hand opponent covers. Then you lead back an x to the A9 on the theory that right hand opponent is more likely to have the T. Why is that?
Another, apparently similar type of finesse is what I call a round trip finesse. You have K854
opposite QT32, and you're apparently finessing for the A, J, and maybe the 0.
How do you decide which way to finesse for an ace?
So you finesse toward the QT32, then back toward K854.
A third kind of finesse is sometimes called a two way finesse. That is, you have ATxx in hand, dummy has KJxx, and you are finessing for the queen. By counting, or other means, you determine that West/East is short in the suit. Then you win the K/A, to drop a presumed singleton, and then finesse the other way for the queen.
All of these finesses differ from what I call "one way" finesses, low in one hand toward, say AQ, or AQT.
What are the rationale behind the two directional finesses? Is the two way finesse a special case of the "one way" finesse or more like the other two directional finesses. And is the reason for a two directional finesse the fact that opposing honors are more likely to be split than to be concentrated in either opposing hand?

The simple, unhelpful reason/rationale is that it gives you the best chances under the circumstances.
For instance
Kxx
AJ9
You need 3 tricks and know that LHO has the Q. Your best shot is to play RHO for the Ten, (which is ~50% assuming no other information is given). Playing the J first sets up the finesse position for the Ten. (Consider a similar one way situation, xxx opposite AJ9. Needing two tricks, you first play to the 9)
You can try playing the AK to drop the singleton Q or doubleton QT, but that is inferior in terms of chances.
I remember reading a book where in one of the problem hands, the right play in trumps was to  finesse one way, and if that wins, repeat the finesse the other way! (I might add the hand later if I remember it).
Not sure if that helped.

The key point is that you have a QT minor "tenace" in dummy (over the Jack) that you want to lead to.
If the suit is divided 3-2, you'll make two tricks, one with either the Q or K, the second with a "long" low card. So let's worry about the 5-0 and 4-1 distributions.
Lead low to the QT. If West shows out, East has five cards, AJ976. Play the Q, which (probably) loses to the Ace. When you are back in dummy, lead the T to the K8x through J976. If J covers, win with the K, then lead from dummy through 9xx to 8x next time. Otherwise T and K win two tricks.
If West plays, duck if he plays the Ace, otherwise cover with the Q. If East shows out, the suit is divided 5-0, and you will win two tricks with the K and Q (if West plays the A), or Q and T on finesses.
Let's say the suit is divided 4-1 either way, which is possible if both follow. The worst that can happen is that West plays low and East captures your Q with the A, singleton or not.
When back in dummy, lead low toward your K8. If East shows out, West has J9x. After winning with the K, lead low toward Tx in dummmy, with the T scoring the second trick.
If East plays, capture the J or 9 with the K. Then your T and 8 are equals against the J (and the T beats the 9).
Otherwise finesse the 8. If West show out, you win a trick with the 8 and later the K.
If West can take the 8, the suit is divided 2-3, and you will win two tricks with K and the fourth card.


text:
In Puerto Rico, does it make sense to shift to a corn-based strategy mid-game?
One of the disadvantages of corn is that it doesn't "trade" (sell) for as much money as other crops. This point became clear in this question:
On the other hand, corn is cheaper to produce than other crops, and you don't need to build a production facility for it. And corn can be shipped for as many victory points as other crops.
Does it make sense to go for higher yielding cash crops in the beginning, use the money to buy the buildings you need (or want), and then shift to producing corn (for the victory points) about mid-game?

Yes, it makes huge amounts of sense to do such things. It can even make a lot of sense to seek after both corn and cash crops from the beginning of the game. You only need a single Coffee or Tobacco plantation for trading, so going for corn early, middle, and late (but being sure to snag a single cash crop early) is an extremely viable solution.
Yes, you need a production building (and maybe an office, and a small market, and a large market...) to take largest advantage from trading, but you only need one cash-crop plantation to match it. Go ahead and grab Corn for everything else. In the last game of Puerto Rico I played, that's exactly how the winner earned his victory.

Basically, it seems that a "corn only" strategy doesn't quite work, but a corn "almost only" strategy can work.

It makes sense to take Corn at every point during the game.
As you point out, Corn requires fewer colonists to manufacture and is worth the same amount of VP tokens when shipped.
It actually doesn't make sense to go for the higher yielding cash crops in the beginning of the game, until you have one or two other crops to protect it. Imagine only having your cash crop, Coffee or Tabacco. If you choose Craftsman, many if not most of the other players are likely to choose Captain and force you to ship your cash crop, since you will benefit the most from a Trader phase. Taking an early Corn helps protect your cash crop from being shipped during the Captain phase, and usually it will require two other crops.
Mid-game, you should still be focused on setting up your economic engine. A Corn (or any other good) is helpful in emptying the Trading House so that you can still trade in your cash crop.
Late-Game, every Corn you can ship either before your opponents on a boat that will not empty (if you have Warehouse for storage), or on a boat that will fill before your opponents can place Corn is VPs gained on your opponents.


text:
In Axis and Allies, Which Ally Should "Take Out" Norway.
In most versions of the game it is essential for the Allies to capture Norway to allow the US and UK to properly reinforce Russia. A question them arises, which Ally should do the capturing (i.e. which mouse should "bell" the cat)?
Among many second edition players, Russia can't attack the first turn. Assuming that the German player moves out his fighter on his turn (as he should), the UK could launch an amphibious assault on Norway using the tank on the transport from Canada, supported by a bomber and two fighters (assuming that the ships in the UK sea zone were sunk by German air and sea attack).
But the odds aren't great. The attack succeeds 73% of the time (79% if you assume mutually assured destruction that allows Russia to occupy Norway on its turn). http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html. The average UK IPC loss is 21 (the tank, one fighter, and a second fighter half the time) versus much less for the Germans. In conjunction with the naval losses, might that leave Britain too weak to defend itself properly?
Let's try Russia. If it doesn't get to attack the first turn, it might take out Norway the second turn. But that might weaken Karelia too much?
I can't imagine America doing this job. On turn two with two fighters (based in the UK) and two infantry in an amphibious assault?
Maybe a clue comes from another example (using a Russian first turn attack). Russia "strafes" Norway without taking it. In Axis and Allies, Should An Attacker Be Allowed to Relinquish Certain "Prerogatives?" UK (or US) makes an amphibious attack against a WEAKENED German force. Could a "cooperative" venture be the best solution of all?

There are some subtle benefits of owning Finland:

To Russia, it represents another 2 IPCs a turn, which it can turn directly into infantry on the front: a valuable ability. The US and UK can obviously also use the money, but it takes longer for the units to reach the front (first built, then moved to Finland, then to Karelia). Also, both the US and UK have to move units via transports, which means that sometimes even if they have the 3 IPCs for an extra infantry they don't actually have the transport bandwidth to move it the following turn.
The US can build a factory in Finland, thus enabling it to pump 2 units a turn directly into Europe. I typically don't do this if the shuck-shuck is going well because the opportunity cost of a factory is too high. Although I've done it in a long game where I have too much money and the Axis isn't ready to concede--just to speed up the tanks I can put on the continent.
I don't perceive any real advantage of UK ownership--other than the money.

That said, I usually try to have the first country able take Finland and don't worry too much about who it is.
In general, this seems to be Russia. Assuming no ally can take it on turn 1 (by rule for Russia, for want of sufficient transports for UK and US), then turn 2 is the earliest. If Germany was clever, they rescued the tank and 2 inf with a feint on Karelia, making capture easy; if not, it's a prime target for the Russian tanks and the necessary infantry (no dead zone concerns assuming the German North Sea transport is gone). This attack doesn't leave Karelia too weakened because of their turn 2 infantry placement and UK and US fighters that can be moved over in turn 1.

@adam: I don't see how Germany rescues the tank and two infantry via Karelia. Can they retreat into Eastern Europe? Or do you mean that they inflict some damage before their inevitable loss?  The fighter, easily enough, and the big" prize.

Germany attacks Karelia on their first turn with all the land units that can make it except for 1 inf in Finland and 1 in Ukraine (I never give away territory). After one round of combat, retreat to Eastern Europe (unless you're crazy good lucky). This doesn't work well if Russia really stacks Karelia, but lots of players leave too many Russians in the Caucuses.

@adam: That's a good idea if, on the first round, you lose no more than what came from Finland, because otherwise they would be lost anyway, right? Then, perhaps, UK takes out the last piece with an amphibious assault? As UK I want that income to make up for Africa.

@Tom: Not necessarily. I'd be happy with greater losses in the battle than I gain from Finland, as long as my losses were on par with the Russian ones and that enough is left so that Russia can't counter attack EEU. That tank is very valuable to me because I won't be buying them for a while and it's easier to whittle away at the Russian infantry stack so it can't get too big. Russia gets ambitious when they get too many infantry stacked up.

@adam: Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. One option is to use "Finland" to attack Karelia alone, you'll lose them, but take out one infantry (on average). Same for defense. The other alternative is to use them as cannon fodder for a larger "strafing" attack. If losses are balanced, they've done their job. But seldom will there be survivors (from Finland) to retreat. Instead, you've "sold their lives dearly."

@Tom: I'm talking about a large strafing attack using all the Finland units except for one infantry, plus others from down South. I won't make the attack if I think I'll lose any non-infantry units, so at the very least I've saved the tank. The tank and the two infantry I use in the attack can do more damaged when they're joined by the rest of the Germany army than if they just sit there and wait to be killed.

@adam: I think I get it. The tank! (probably) gets to retreat. At the sacrifice of the Finnish (and additional) infantry. Thanks for taking so much time to explain.


text:
In Axis and Allies, should the UK Build a factory in Australia?
Compared to South Africa and India, Australia, is, or can be made safer from, Axis occupation. It also has the potential to be "relevant." This may be more true in the newer versions, such as AA revised, where there are four Asian "victory" cities, How does the introduction of victory cities in Axis & Allies revised change gameplay and strategy? but is somewhat true even in the second edition, with which I am more familiar.
In this variation, I'd move the fighter from India to Australia, and the Indian transport with one of two infantry to Australia. Here, I could make a case for leaving NO infantry in India, in line with a question by another gamer. When retreating from a compromised territory should you always leave one infantry? But I prefer to leave one in India on the theory that it would tie up a Japanese offensive unit (a fighter or battleship) that might attack otherwise be used to attack Australia. Otherwise, the transfer of the UK fighter and infantry more or less safeguards the continent from amphibious attack by Japanese infantry in e.g., the Philippines supported by the battleship located in the Caroline islands.
There are two plausible plans that follow a  first turn build of a factory.
Under plan 1, the second turn build would be an aircraft carrier and an infantry, followed by an "island hopping" campaign with the fighter (on the carrier) and amphibious infantry  against the East Indies, Borneo, and New Guinea, followed by the Philippines. This increases the UK's IPCS and reduces Japan's.
Under plan 2, I'd build infantry and another transport or two for a shuttle service to Madagascar and ultimately Africa (with one transport as a "bridge" between that island and the continent. This would be a particularly worthwhile strategy if the US builds a factory in Brazil. In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?
If you are the type of UK player that likes to build a factory in South Africa or India, would you build it in Australia instead? If you don't like to build those factories because of the possibility that the Axis can capture them, and make them Axis assets, would Australia's greater safety tip the balance in favor of this strategy? And perhaps the answer does matter from one edition of the game to another?

I would also echo the India first, mainly to fortify Asia from Japanese expansion on the mainland (what else is there, some infantry in China?). Australia is isolated and would need to build vulnerable transports to move anything to island hop.
In games that I've played, the second factory has depended on what the enemy has done in the first two turns or so. If Germany makes a hard push for Africa, I look more to build in India. If Japan makes a hard push in Asia and is successful in taking China, South Africa is more my choice. And if by sheer (bad) luck Germany takes over most of northern Africa and Japan is powering through Eastern Asia, then I look at Australia and try to get the US player to help put pressure on Japan's Eastern flank.

Fair point. South Africa under some circumstances, India under others, Australia under a third group.But England moves after Germany and before Japan. So England can see what Germany did the first turn, but not Japan. Or do you defer the decision to the second turn?

Usually I defer the decision to the second or third turn, to see how well (or poorly) my allies do.

I would agree with the previous sentiments.
If you attempt to use Australia as a base of operations, you are putting yourself at the same disadvantage as Japan, (needing transports) but with fewer resources.  Also, with little effort, Japan could bring a large invasion force on turn 3 that would take Australia, and hold it, thereby providing them with a much-needed base to launch a southerly strike against the Western U.S.
Stay in India, as it is highly unlikely that Japan will attempt to take Australia as you will be threatening his Asian holdings.
I speak only to the original A&A.  Newer versions allow for Australia to be a more formidible opponent than a simple desert island with a couple of infantry.

There is far greater spend then an IC in Australia (given it's remote location and subsequent need for transports to make an impact).
1) IC in India, just as temporary defense
OR
2) all spend is UK focused with Fighters to defend Russia or Bombers to take away from Germany, and transports to support US shuck-shuck once they put a Battleship/Aircraft Carrier into UK.

The correlation of forces in the initial set-up implies allied strategy. Merely as a survival tool, you must assume a capable German player. The position of allied combat strength demands a concentration of forces against Germany. The allies have the advantage in that all three can attack Germany before she can respond. So, my answer is; don't build a factory anywhere on the first turn. Instead, Britains first turn buy should be a carrier and a transport and save 4 IPCs. During America's turn, the eastcoast fighter lands on the carrier and if the transport on the coast survived it takes two inf. to Britain. This will leave a minimum of 1d for 1, 1d for 3, and 1d for 4 occupying the British sea zone. It will cost the Germans dearly to eliminate this fleet. Using this as the anchor for the shuck-shuck allows the Americans to purchase more land units and not have to spend as much on warships. As the allied strength in the Atlantic grows, the British will be able to transport troops to Africa as well as providing for the scouring of the Med and the prep for final invasion of Germany. A minimum of investment on the part of the Empire to support it's overseas dominions in the early game, allows for an increased ferocity with which to beat back the Japanese. Especially as you will have undistracted support from both the other allies. The Japanese player will run rampant over all sorts of strategicaly secondary territories, and will have a fine time placing flags all over the map. Once the allies crush Germany, Japan can not by herself win against all three allies. So; "Germany First!" is not even a choice, it is strategic necessity.

I would say no and advise to consider India instead

streets: That's an interesting answer. A more interesting one is "why?" (If you do answer, edit your original, rather than start a new answer.


text:
Can the U.S. Open With an Air-based Strategy in Allies and Axis?
In Axis and Allies, the U.S. starts with the largest number of IPCs, and also has the furthest to go to reach the main battlefields. These conditions both suggest the use of strategies using (expensive) air units.
One strategy is build bombers. The U.S. can spare 30 IPCs to build two a turn. Send them to the UK (one turn) for the strategic bombing of Germany. With six bombers, there will be a loss of one per turn (on average) to anti-aircraft. The surviving five planes will average 3.5 hits on average, or 17.5 IPCs in total. Since a bomber costs 15 IPCs, this is a profitable strategy. And it hurts Germany's economy even if they get some IPCs from Africa.
A second strategy is to build 2-3 fighters a turn, and fly them to the UK, then to Karelia or wherever they are most needed in Russia. Enough of them will stop a German attack cold. Or the U.S. could use a "hybrid" strategy, build one bomber and one fighter per turn for a combination of both. Then spend 5 IPCs a turn on tech research.
Tech discoveries could alter the equation, especially if they were jet fighters or heavy bombers (using one of the "two roll" modifications #1, #2, not the standard three-roll rules). Perhaps I'd use the fighter strategy if I discovered the one and the bomber strategy for the other (some versions of the game don't allow you to choose which tech to research).
Would you use any of these strategies without tech enhancement? With tech enhancement, especially "modified" heavy bombers? Or is the shuck-shuck strategy still superior?

The US can't afford to waste money (and time) building planes
The trap the Allies fall into when considering an airpower-based strategy for the United States is to evaluate the strategy on its own merits instead of by comparing it to the alternative strategies.
The question points out that a large bomber force can do more IPCs in damage than it would expect in AA-gun losses--which is all true. However, it neglects three important considerations:

It takes too long to implement. The US can only afford two planes a turn and starts with one bomber. This means a 6-bomber fleet takes three turns to build and it isn't available until the Combat Phase of turn 4. Furthermore, it will take an average of 15 IPCs per turn to maintain this force in the face of AA losses--about half the US economic output.
If all the US has been doing until turn 4 is build bombers then the game is probably already over (a fait accompli if not an actual economic victory). Also remember that because one bomber a turn is needed just to maintain the force at 6, the US can only afford 2 transports OR 5 infantry per turn afterwards. Granted, a smaller force can attack in the prior turns, but the net IPC swing is too small to hurt Germany, and any AA hits set back the strategy by a half turn.

The strategy can collapse in the face of bad rolls. One turn of good AA rolling by Germany, or a multi-bomber run that only does a few IPCs of total damage, and this strategy is defeated. In contrast, the typical shuck-shuck strategy can't really be defeated by bad luck. The naval force the US and UK can set up by the end of turn 2 can't be attacked by Germany without decimating their air force, and deterrence of German aggression is the entire point of shuttling a mass of Allied infantry into Europe.
Good players tend to shy from luck-based strategies, believing that they will eventually win a game decided by skill but could lose one decided by luck.

The opportunity cost of building fighters is too high. This point has some overlap with the first, but it is a distinct argument. The key metric is not how many IPCs a bomber force can destroy compared to how much it costs to maintain. Strategies have to be compared against each other. The goal is not to bleed Germany for more IPCs than the US has to spend, it's to use the US IPCs to their greatest effect. Bombers are just not as useful as a fleet of five or six transports dropping off 10 infantry a turn in Finland, France, or Algeria.

Lastly, to quickly discuss the fighter-heavy variant that was also proposed.
Sure, a stack of fighters is pretty dominating on defense, but a stack of infantry four times as high is more dominating: they will do more damage on average, are cheaper to replace, and can actually occupy territory if necessary. They are slightly less mobile, but the battle lines in Europe move slowly anyway (when they move at all), and the consequences are much less if some get caught alone in a territory because the UK and Russia decided to bail on a lost cause just before Germany's turn.
So given how much less effective a plane-based strategy is than the shuck-shuck, I would not choose it. Even if some good tech rolls made it occasionally a winner, lots of times the tech won't work out.
I'll take the eventual sure-thing over a long-shot any day.

I think I get it. Planes are "expensive," meaning that if you get unlucky with a few of them, your game goes down the drain. Infantry are cheaper and more plentiful, meaning that their fate don't depend nearly as much on the "luck of the draw."

Because infantry are cheap and defend at 2, the best strategy is to build up a wall of infantry. You need boots on the ground to hold a territory in Axis & Allies. It's axiomatic.
By following an air-focused strategy, the US is going against the grain of the game and such a strategy is bound to end in failure. Without US support, the UK must focus entirely on rebuilding her navy and building it so that it can withstand future German air attacks. Russia must spend all of her energy on defending her Western line. What does this result in? A fast and powerful Japanese expansion and a defenseless German push into Afria. Goodbye East Asia. Goodbye India. Goodbye Africa. Goodbye Oceania.
In the end you will have a land-locked UK and a weak Russian Western front. Germany can twiddle her thumbs, keeping WE, Germany, and EE well defended while Japan's economy soars and soon is able to overtake Russia from the east. Once that happens, it's curtains for the Allies.
Anecdotally, I've seen the heavy bomber tactic you mentioned used by a particular player in a handful of games over at GamesByEmail.com. All of the games were five player games, and each time the Allies lost (and convincingly). Granted, this may be more of a reflection on the skill levels of all five players involved, but I do think that an air-based approach is a mistake - shuck-shuck all the way.

Yes, all advice mentioned above explaining why Shuck Shuck should always trump other strategies is valid. Further to the point - U.K./Russia already start out with 4 fighters which placed with +20 infantry in Karelia will stand as significant defense (assumes UK keeps its fighter in India to delay Japan).  The U.S. will also bring a fighter by round 2/3 depending on how they react to Pearl Harbor.  Either way, the initial 4-5 fighters if placed on Karelia together with Russia's +20 infantry quickly provide the necessary defensive fire power to force Germany into its hole.