text:
What do I do if there’s only one card left and I need to draw four because of attack cards?
If there's only one card left and someone needs to draw 4 because of attack cards, what do I do? Do I draw put a defuse down and then draw again or what?

Draw the card, it's a kitten, you lose.

Attack cards force you to take extra turns, so it's not just "draw 4" but rather take 4 turns in a row, each one that will end with you drawing a card. So you should simply handle each draw separately. So yes, you would have to draw a card (which must be an exploding kitten because it's the only one left), and then play a defuse which allows you to return that card to the deck. But then it is still your turn, so you'd have to draw again.


text:
Spell proposal and hidden information
Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere - if it has, my google-fu has failed me.
CR 601. Casting Spells handles the process of moving a card from the player's hand, a hidden zone, to the stack, a public zone. Specifically, the process is:

601.2a-d: propose the casting of the spell by moving it to the stack and announcing modes, targets, etc.
601.2e: game checks the legality of the proposition, reversing if the spell is illegal to cast.
602.f-h: Costs are paid. This includes an opportunity for the player to activate mana abilities to pay associated mana costs.

Case 1 - Mistimed casting of Emry, Lurker of the Loch
Consider the case of a player attempting to cast Emry, Lurker of the Loch in a mistimed manner. Player has 2 colorless lands and a Chromatic Star. What the player wants to do is propose the casting of the spell, let 601.2a-d check the legality of the spell, let 601.2f apply cost reduction, then crack the Star to cover the colored mana of the spell.
What the player actually does is crack the Star for {U}, then propose the casting of Emry. The spell cannot legally be cast because the play is unable to produce enough mana to cast the spell, and the game reverts to the state immediately before the proposal.
Case 2 - Cast Down on an illegal target
Consider too the (simpler) case of a player attempting to cast Cast Down on a Smuggler's Copter) that the player did not realized was uncrewed and thus not a creature.
My instinct is that because step 1 in this whole process is to move the card to the stack, the card is revealed to all players regardless of whether or not it is actually legal to cast. Is that correct?
(I'm aware that there are probably tournament rules prohibiting a player from doing this intentionally - players are responsible for maintaining the game state after all. I'm interested in how the rules engine outlined in CR handles this)

I assumed this was a question about the (very rare) Proposal card!  Sadface.

A strict reading of these rules actually gives two different answers for the two cases.
Case 1: A spell you can't afford
Rule 601.2 says, in part

A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3).

So, the answer to the question "what if I start casting a spell that I definitely can't finish casting?", according to the Comprehensive Rules, is "you're not allowed to do that".
Now, in a slightly different scenario it is possible to start casting a spell without knowing whether you can afford it. For example, you may control Selvala, Explorer Returned, and if you wait to activate it until step 601.2g, you can discover at that time that you don't have enough mana to finish casting the spell. In that case, this part of 601.2 applies:

If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step listed below while performing that step, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed.

In that case, the game acknowledges that it is possible to reach that state, and the result is that the game is rewound. In reality, the player did still take those steps, including putting the card on the stack and letting everyone see it.
Case 2: An invalid target
Rule 601.2c says, in part

The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.

So, if you try to cast a spell and cannot chose valid targets for it, the situation is the same as the first one: according to the rules, you were never supposed to try to do that in the first place.
However, if you do have other valid targets, then by a strict reading of the rules you must choose them. There is nothing in the rules that allows a player to rewind if the target they intended to choose when they started casting the spell isn't a valid target.

So at least in the very strict sense, the player says "I'd like to cast this spell in this manner" and the game says either "Sure, you can put that on the stack and show it to everyone", or "No, you may not do that, it stays in your hand and nobody saw it". Neat!
And to be clear - I'm aware that I'm being incredibly pedantic here. I certainly hope nobody at my table would ever care this deeply about the precise instant that I'm allowed to see their cards lol

It's important to keep in mind that that's an ideal that doesn't exactly match reality. In paper, the rules can't physically stop you from putting a card on the table, whatever the game state is. And in MTGO and MTGA, I believe the game never shows the opponent the spell until you finish casting it.

Murgatroid's answer is correct, there is some additional baggage in tournament rules (It can be upgraded to Failure to Maintain Gamestate if the spell was allowed to resolve and can't be rewound or Unsporting Conduct — Cheating if the judge believes the mistake was intentional to gain advantage), though mostly they end up the same.
The one caveat I need to add is not all actions can be rewound. Most commonly this is an issue with Selvala, but it also would affect your example if the Chromatic Star had been Chromatic Sphere. Since both activating Selvala and cracking Sphere are mana abilities that draw cards, they cannot be rewound, but the fix is still to rewind everything else that can be rewound, including other mana abilities activated to pay for the illegal spell, and leave the player with mana in their pool from Selvala/Sphere.
Since Star's draw is a trigger, not part of the resolution like Selvala and Sphere, using it during casting as a mana ability might be able to be rewound if the error is noticed before the draw trigger has been resolved.

Cracking the star is not a mana ability that draws a card.  It's a mana ability that triggers a trigger that draws a card.  That's very different,  and easy to rewind as long as you don't resolve the trigger

@ArcanistLupus fair, I was thinking Chromatic Sphere, that's the only difference between the two, how the draw behaves. It's still worth calling out the mana abilities that can't be rewound particularly when Selvala is mentioned in the answer Murgatroid gave.

What specifically are you saying could be upgraded to Failure to Maintain Gamestate or Unsporting Conduct — Cheating in this situation?

@murgatroid99 knowingly Illegally attempting to cast a spell is UC-C, the advantage comes from knowledge of your opponent's hand, attempting to bait out a response before rewinding the illegal spell. FMG comes if the illegal spell is allowed to resolve and is noticed when it's too late to rewind or otherwise reverse the illegal effect on game state, though FMG and GRV are both just a warning, FMG gives that warning to both players, GRV only to the player violating the game rule.

There is no suggestion in the question that the player finishes casting the spell, much less that it resolves, or that the player is doing it intentionally. I just think you should clarify in your answer that those tournament rules violations are not the direct result of the actions described in the question, but rather of additional or modified actions.

@Andrew I think that infraction logic is slightly off.  GRV is given to the player violating the game rule, and FMG is given to their opponent if the violation is not pointed out reasonably quickly.  Both players may receive GRV if they are both responsible for the violation, but both player should never receive FMG for the same violation, nor does a single FMG give a warning to both players.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Question about damage triggers while going below 0 life
My relevant board state is Blood Hound and Shalai and Hallar.
An opponent attacks with unblockable creatures, for say 20 damage, which is more damage than I have life.
Do I get to add the counters to Blood Hound and then deal damage to an opponent with Shalai and Hallar before I count as being dead and leaving the game?

No. Losing the game by having 0 or less life is a state-based action which does not use the stack (CR 704.5):

704.5 The state-based actions are as follows:
704.5a If a player has 0 or less life, that player loses the game.

In a two-player game, you've just lost. In a multiplayer game, CR 800.4 specifies what happens when a player leaves the game. The rule itself is rather long to cover all the possibilities, but the summary is that everything that player owns vanishes from the game with no effect, including any triggers etc which are on the stack.
(Rule references are to the 2023-06-16 Comprehensive Rules)

What about cards that prevent you from losing the game for having 0 life such as Phyrexian Unlife. With that card you can take 20 damage even if it would normally end the game.

Phyrexian Unlife is not on the board in the OP's question , but yes, you'd take 20 damage, add 20 counters and deal 20 damage to an opponent. This is due to the specific wording of Phyrexian Unlife: it doesn't prevent the damage, just stops you losing the game. Other wordings may interact differently.

Alright, thanks.
Side question:
If I had Worship in play, how would that affect the damage being counted for the Blood Hound? Would it get counters equal to the damage dealt and then just set my life to 1 afterwards?

@TGWabba If you have a new question, please ask a new question :)

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


text:
MTG - Does Jhoira grant suspend indefinitely?
When playing Jhoira of the Ghitu and using her ability, it says if the card doesn’t have suspend, it gains suspend.
Once it’s cast and hits the battlefield, and an opponent exiles it, would I be able to use something like Jhoira’s Timebug to put a time counter on it, since it “gained” the suspend ability back when I activated Jhoira’s ability?  Does that ability remain on the card through zone changes?

No. When the card moves onto the stack and again onto the battlefield, it becomes a new object that does not retain anything from the card that was in exile, including abilities granted to it:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. This rule has the following exceptions.

Some of the exceptions involve the card moving to the stack, but not retaining abilities as it moves to the battlefield.
Note also that even if it did have suspend, Jhoira’s Timebug wouldn’t help, because it only works if the target already has a time counter, and also a card with suspend is not “suspended” unless it has a time counter.

702.62b A card is “suspended” if it’s in the exile zone, has suspend, and has a time counter on it.

https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/58957/mtg-dash-and-undying#comment88928_58958 lol

@PhilipKendall At least this one required me to actually read through all the exceptions listed for 400.7, because it didn't seem unreasonable that one of the exceptions could have been something related to retaining abilities that had been granted to it.


text:
Clue: same or different guess and accusation in the same turn
When playing Clue can your guess and accusation be different in the same turn or do you have to wait till your next turn for making an accusation that is different from your previous guess?

Your suggestion and accusation don't have to be the same and can contain completely different aspects. There is no mention in the rules about them having to have anything that match.
It is very possible to use the suggestion to determine the correct parts and then make the accusation right away.
Rules

If you think you have solved the crime (by deduction), you can end your turn by making an accusation and name any three elements.
you can say: "I accuse (suspect) of committing the crime in the (room) with the (weapon)".
Then, you must look secretly at the cards in the envelope to check if your suggestion is correct.
If you are correct, you can place the 3 cards face-up on the table to prove it and you won the game!

You for got to include: "If no one is able to prove your suggestion false, you may either end your turn or make an accusation."

@ForgetIwaseverhere I didn't forget to include it, rather it wasn't relevant to the question of the suggestion and the accusation being different. You are able to make a suggestion that others can prove false and also make an accusation on the same turn.


text:
Can a creature that "loses indestructible until end of turn" gain indestructible later that turn?
I attacked with a 4/4 creature. The opponent blocked with a 1/1. Before combat damage was assigned, they cast Smite the Deathless on my 4/4, dealing it 3 damage, and causing it to lose indestructible until end of turn. If I then cast Orcish Medicine (which can give indestructible until end of turn) on the 4/4 before combat damage is assigned, can it gain indestructible?

Yes.

113.10c If two or more effects add and remove the same ability, in general the most recent one prevails. See rule 613 for more information about the interaction of continuous effects.

Basically, to summarize at a high level what 613 says, an object’s abilities and other attributes will be determined by starting with what’s printed on the card; and then applying each effect that changes that one at a time. Removing indestructible and adding indestructible both happen in the same layer, so they are applied in timestamp order.
Because Orcish Medicine happened after Smite the Deathless, its effect will be applied after and wins.

This is notably why cards like Arcane Lighthouse are worded they way they are, it’s required to ensure the removal of the keyword abilities ‘sticks’.

Gendolkari's correct answer summarizes how two opposite effects interact (most recent one wins).
I'll just point out an alternative line of play that your opponent could have taken that has a different outcome. If they had waited until after combat damage occurred to cast Smite the Deathless, you would have no way to save your creature with your Orcish Medicine. Because you can't interrupt the individual steps of a spell or ability, there is no window of opportunity for you to reapply indestructible because your creature would have already died (and gone to exile) from the 3 damage.
Likewise, the timestamp system in Gendolkari's answer means that applying indestructible before the Smite is also useless because the Smite would remove the redundant indestructible and still kill the target.


text:
MTG: Interaction Narset Parter of Veils with Seizan Perverter of Truth
How is the interaction between Narset, Parter of Veils with Seizan, Perverter of Truth? Does the opponent lose 2 life during the upkeep without drawing the cards?

My guess is they would draw a single card during their upkeep and skip both the second draw and the draw for their turn that is after the upkeep.

At the beginning if your opponent's upkeep, they will lose 2 life and draw 1 card. Then, during their draw step, they will draw 0 cards.
The life loss and card draw are not dependent upon each other or directly related, they are simply 2 different things that both happen when the triggered ability resolves.

101.2 When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

121.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.

This means that the "draw 2 cards" really means "Draw a card. Draw a card." When they get to the second "Draw a card", 101.2 kicks in and prevents them from doing that. Then, when they get to their draw step, 101.2 kicks in again and prevents that draw.
Your opponent still loses 2 life because that part of the effect is not contradicted by anything:

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.


text:
Why is this the solution?
I'm a very weak go player, playing very occasionally. I however enjoy easy tsumego problems on the train on my phone, as I find it more fun than, say, crosswords or sudoku.
However, the app I use (Tsumego Pro) presented me with this problem, and gave me a "complete" mark on a solution I don't think will work. The hints in the program point to this "solution".

As far as I can tell, black is dead and white is fine despite this. In every scenario I play out myself, white is able to kill the black inside the formation and be fine. Is this really the solution? If so, what am I missing? If not, what is?
My apologies if I have screwed up tags, formatting or the question itself, I'm not a regular poster here :)

The key is that killing the black stones doesn't give White an eye.  After White captures the two stones, Black will throw in at the same place he played in #3.  White can capture that stone too, but later in the game the stone above the capture will be placed in atari, and White will have to fill in the "eye" on the right.  Because that can happen, it is a false eye, and the White group is dead.

I see. If black connects their stones on the left side with those in the top, it protects against being taken by white, and can freely take the top white stone. The kicker to make me realize this was your "later in the game". I was thinking immediate action all the time. That's what I was missing, thank you!

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


text:
Can anyone tell me what game these dice come from?
There are 7 d6 and a d10.  Sides contain horseshoes, crossbows, swords, wings, faces, etc.

Those are absolutely Dragon dice. I love that game. I recently found out that they still exist. Someone bought the rights from TSR and has been making new dice.

Could it be you have Dragon Dice? Looks like this particular photo includes D8 not D10.

I think that is it.  Looks just like those and a look around shows others that are just like them as well.  Thanks a lot.

Definitely dragon dice. I bought that game but never found anyone to play with.

you too? I thought I was the only one with hundreds of cool dice that no one else knew anything about. I eventually just got rid of them. Of course I regret that now.

@OmarKooheji Same here.

I wonder if these are the ten-siders in question (faces, battleaxes, wings)...

This is a Dragon Dice expansion of some kind, though I couldn't tell you which monsters these particular dice represent...

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


text:
Does "cards with the same name can't be played" affect tokens?
So a friend of mine has a card with the ability "Name a card. Cards that share a name with that card cannot be played."
My question is does this work on tokens?
I play a zombie token deck mainly, and this would cause a big hiccup to my ability to win the game.

Even if your friend could name tokens, it still wouldn't be a problem. "Playing" a card has a specific meaning which doesn't apply to creating tokens. In short, tokens will never be affected by that card your friend played.

@Hackworth can you just post that as an answer? The other answers are more informative but your comment actually just answers the real question and is much more understandable.

Can I "play" a token?
No. You can still produce zombie tokens even if you are not allowed to play Zombie. "Play" has a very specific meaning in Magic:

701.11b To play a card means to play that card as a land or to cast that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.

When instructed to name a card, can I name a token instead?
It depends. If a token has the same name as a card, then you can name it. Here are a few examples:

Pack Rat creates tokens that are also named Pack Rat.
Meloku the Clouded Mirror creates Illusion tokens, but Illusion is also the name of a card.

Zombie is not currently the name of a card, and so Zombie is not a legal choice when instructed to name a card. However, if Zombie were printed as a card in the future, then it would be a legal choice.

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) If the player wants to name a split card, the player must choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. (See rule 708.) If the player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 709.) If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced card, the player may do so. (See rule 711.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

No, such a card can never directly affect tokens.
Cards such as Conjurer Ban require your opponent to name a card:

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) [..] A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

Tokens are not cards:

108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card. [..]Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card that represents a token isn’t considered a card for rules purposes.

Even if your opponent named a card that also happens to be a token you want to bring into play somehow, you would still not be prevented from doing so, because "playing" a card has a specific meaning:

601.1a Some effects still refer to “playing” a card. “Playing a card” means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.

Tokens are never played, they always enter the battlefield indirectly because of another spell or ability. Of course, your opponent could name the card that created the tokens. If he, for example, named Army of the Damned, you wouldn't be allowed to play that card, and thus would indirectly prevent your Zombie tokens. However, you could still play any other card that also creates Zombie tokens.

The name of the token is "zombie", but it isn't a card that can be named, and you can still generate zombie tokens.
Some cards do care about the name of tokens (e.g. Declaration in Stone) and those cards would hit all zombie tokens you have in play.
Relevant rules:

110.5 Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card.
110.5c A spell or ability that creates a token sets both its name and its subtype. If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the token, its name is the same as its subtype(s). A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its subtype, and vice versa.

No they cannot name 'Zombie', when instructed to name a card they must do exactly that 'Zombie' is not the name of a card, it is a creature type and the name of a token. Also even if they could name 'Zombie' (or say you had a way to create Zombie Assassin tokens) it still wouldn't matter because playing a card means casting it if it is not a land and when you create tokens they aren't being cast, a spell or ability is just putting them onto the battlefield.

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) If the player wants to name a split card, the player must choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. (See rule 708.) If the player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 709.) If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced card, the player may do so. (See rule 711.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

Late comer to this thread. I think I have found a fundamental flaw in both question and answer. When your friend's card asks for the name of a card it's asking for the actual "Name" of the card such as "Devilhorn Fox", "Vengeful Pharaoh" or "Macarbre Waltz". The part a the very top of the card and it has to be exactly the same name name.
For example if your friend said "I ban the use of a card called "Zombie" and you have a card called "Zombie Initiate" you can still use it becuse it is not named "Zombie".
Now there's something else I would like to mention in the spirit of fair play. It seems from the information in your query that if he says "Zombie" you seem to think you can't play any Zombie creatuures. This is incorect. If the card's effect was "name a card type and sub-Type" annd he declared "Creature - Zombie" then you couldn't play zombie creatures for as long as that card effect was active. but the effect is targetting the card's "Name" only so having the name appearanywhere else in card has no bearing whatsoever on the card's effect.
So his card can't stop you playing zombie creatures just because he says zombie. it has to be in the card's name box at the top of the card. so I hope that cleats up your problem.

I don't think this answers the question. The OP asked about zombie tokens, not zombie creatures, and I don't see the word token in your answer at all. Even if the zombie subtype was named, you would still be able to create zombie tokens because creating tokens is not the same as "playing" a card. The word "play" printed on a card has a very specific meaning: 701.11b To play a card means to play that card as a land or to cast that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.


text:
How does Tarmogoyf interact with changelings?
What would happen if you had a Mirror Entity (or any card with changeling) in your graveyard and a Tarmogoyf in play? Would Tarmogoyf's ability only count Mirror Entity as a shapeshifter type creature or a changeling type (every type)?

Nothing special would happen, because Tarmogoyf doesn't care about the Changeling ability at all, or anything Mirror Entity does. Unless it's in a graveyard, in which case Tarmogoyf sees there's a Creature card in the graveyard, and becomes at least a 1/2 from that.
Tarmogoyf's ability reads:

Tarmogoyf's power is equal to the number of card types among cards in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to that number plus 1.

The card types are clarified in a ruling on Tarmogoyf you can see in Gatherer:

The card types that can appear on cards in a graveyard are artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, planeswalker, sorcery, and tribal.

... which means Tarmogoyf's ability can make it an 8/9 at most. For {1}{G}, that's still a pretty big deal. (That clarification also shows up in the reminder text of Tarmogoyf's original Future Sight printing.)
Simply put, it doesn't care about creature types, or the changeling ability. Creature cards don't count as "card types", they are subtypes — the part after the dash in the type line — and Tarmogoyf doesn't pay any attention to those at all. Every creature card just counts for one type: Creature. (Unless, y'know, they're an Enchantment Creature or Artifact Creature or they're Dryad Arbor, in which case they count for two types.) Also, Tarmogoyf only cares about cards in graveyards, while Mirror Entity's ability only affects creature permanents on the battlefield.

"Mirror Entity's ability only affects creature permanents on the battlefield" - except itself, Changeling works everywhere. Not that it changes anything here.


text:
Do I lose control of a creature if the aura which granted me control of it is destroyed?
I gain control over a creature with e.g. Hypnotic Siren.
Do I lose control over that creature if the enchantment is destroyed?

Hypnotic Siren says "You control enchanted creature." This is a continuous effect that's present as long as Hypnotic Siren is on the battlefield enchanting a creature. Once it's gone, that effect goes away and you'll lose control of the creature, giving it back to whoever had it before. (In common situations, anyway - see this question for details.)
Since you used Hypnotic Siren as just one example, though, I should mention that not everything works that way.
If a card simply reads "Gain control of X" and doesn't mention a duration (e.g. "until end of turn"), that effect lasts indefinitely. For example, Beguiler of Wills reads:

{T}: Gain control of target creature with power less than or equal to the number of creatures you control.

That effect lasts indefinitely; you'll get to keep the creature for the rest of the game, unless someone else has a way to gain control of it.

Do you know which rule says that the creature goes back to its previous controller? I could imagine that it goes back to its owner, instead, for instance.

@EOL That seems like a new question. This question didn't ask about multiple control-changing effects. The tl;dr is that when there's more than one such effect, they all still exist, it's just that the last one takes precedence. So if it goes away, the next-to-last one is still there.

You're right. This is elaborated upon in a thread I started after asking the question here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/27150694#27150694

@EOL In case it was unclear, I was suggesting that you post it as a question. Questions and answers are much more useful to future readers than notes in comments. (Also often more useful than elaboration in long forum threads!)

I linked to the answer itself. I prefer not to duplicate the question on two different websites.

@EOL We definitely benefit from asking things here. Most notably, the question/answer format is much more organized and easy to find answers for future readers. Since you're not inclined to do so, I posted the question myself.

Yes, you lose control of the creature.
Enchantments with static abilities only work as long as the enchantment is on the battlefield. If the enchantment is destroyed, the effect immediately ends.

611.3. A continuous effect may be generated by the static ability of an object.

611.3b The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

Logically, the reverse of that rule says that if the permanent leaves the battlefield (or generally the object leaves the appropriate zone), the effect ends.
Note that there are some cards that permanently change control of permanents, such as Keiga, the Tide Star when it dies. If a control-changing effect is not the result of a static ability but the result of a one-shot spell or ability, the change of control is permanent unless the effect has a duration specified.

611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.


text:
Double that is not acceptable
At our bridge game last night LHO opens 1C, overcaller bids 1H, RHO passes, the Partner of overcaller bids DOUBLE, thinking of making a negative double, how should the director rule this.
Diagramatically:
LHO   OHO   RHO  IHO
 1C    1H  Pass  Dbl

How should Director rule?
OHO = Opposite-Hand Opponent; IHO = In-Hand Opponent. This phrasing seems particularly apt for this particular question.
tx

According to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 2008:

Law 35
Inadmissible calls
A. A double or redouble not permitted by Law 19. Law 36 applies.
Law 36
A. Offender's LHO Calls before Rectification
  If offender's LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it is to call [IHO  in this case] and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. The lead restrictions of Rule 26 do not apply.
B. Offender's LHO Does Not call before Rectification
  When A above does not apply:
    1. any double or redouble not permitted by Rule 19 is canceled.
    2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues and the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call.
    3. Law 23 [] may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply.
    4. If the call is out of turn .... [not applicable in this instance]

From your description it seems that case B applies:

You must substitute a legal call;
your partner is required to Pass for the remainder of the auction;
Director may award an adjusted score at his discretion according to the guidelines of Law 23; and
if the opponents win the auction there will be lead penalties at your partner's first opportunity to lead, including if he is on Opening Lead.

The lead penalty in this case will be under

Law 26
B. Other Withdrawn Calls
For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead; such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead.

Morale: Pay more attention to all those multi-coloured cards on the table in front of you before pulling one out of the box.
Update:
When I was a practicing director, many years ago, it was ACBL Policy that a Director was required to carry a rule book on his person whenever called to the table, and that any player present at the table where a ruling was being made could ask for the applicable Law to be read aloud. I cannot find this in the Rules themselves, and no longer have a current copy of the ACBL Guide for Directors, but I would expect that any polite request to that effect would be accepted by a Director.
If you believe a Director may be erring in his ruling at the table this is a possible defence; however I would caution against using this wholesale. Directors do not have infinite patience, and are there to make rulings not to teach the Laws. Spend a few bucks; buy yourself a copy of the rules; perhaps even take the Director's Exam to ensure you have a good grasp of the rules. It will help you become a better player and partner in the long run.

tx  Very clear explanation

@Claire: You are welcome; the most appreciated thank you is an Accept (the green check-mark button) and an up-vote of course.


text:
How many spades does my partner have when responding to my opening 1club bid and left overcalls 1 heart
I open with 1 club.
Left bids 1 hearts.
My partner bids 1 spade.
How many spades can I assume my partner has?

This is a very broad question and the answers would depend a lot on your partners play style and how the game is going

@JoeW: This is a fairly straightforward two-way answer. Unless OP is playing some obscure artificial system there is not much variation here beyond whether or not Negative Doubles are agreed.

Notwithstanding my comment  above -  you should provide scoring method, bidding system,  and vulnerability status for both partnerships when asking a bridge question. Even in this instance there are subtleties that could come into play.

Assuming that you have Negative Doubles, sometimes called Sputnik Doubles, in your arsenal of agreements, then partner is showing 5 or more Spades. With only four Spades partner would double instead.
The argument might be presented that partner is coming in with only 4 good spades as a lead directing call, but there is no reason for this. First, partner is odds on to have the opening lead if opponents win the auction; and second the double would also show a spade holding. Consequently this argument holds no water on this auction.
If you are not playing Negative Doubles then partner's call should either show five Spades and at least a minimum responding hand (normally 5+ HCP in standard systems), or four spades and a hand worth at least two free bids, normally 9+ HCP or so in standard systems).
The reason for the two-way call is that with the stronger hand partner must make it clear that your side likely owns the auction, and can compete possibly to the 2- or 3-level.  You can determine after partner's next call if he might have only 4 Spades, with extra points. Initially assume partner is only showing 4 spades in this case, though it is acceptable to make a single raise to 2 with only three-card support if you are minimum.


text:
Bridge-response after intervening bid
Partner/Declarer opens  1 club
  RH opponent overcalls 2 diamonds
Responder has a balanced 9 HCPs:
 S: K J x x
 H: x x x
 D: Q J x
 C: Q x x

Should responder bid or pass? If bid, what is appropriate?

What system are you playing? What system are your opponents playing - is the jump overcall weak or strong?

Given these assumptions:

RHO's overcall is a weak jump overcall; and
You and partner are laying a fairly standard 5-card major system with no agreements other than negative doubles for this auction.

Then my recommendation is to make a Negative Double.
My expectation is that when both majors are unbid, as here, then such a double at this level promises 4-3 or better in the majors. Some partnerships require 4-4 but that seems excessive and over-cautious for today's competitive auctions.
Additionally, you are better than a minimum 1-over-1 response would have shown, with support for partner's clubs if that suit is real. You also have the possibility of suggesting notrump as a denomination, but have no interest in attempting to defend 2D doubled.
If for some reason you are not playing Negative Doubles as a partnership agreement, then my advice is to start doing so. As this hand illustrates, you are severely handicapped in competitive auctions without this convention in your arsenal.
Meanwhile, 2NT is probably the best call you can make: showing (in a competitive auction) 10-11 HCP balanced and one stopper in the overcalled suit. It hides the nice 4-card Spade suit, but that is the price for playing 5-card Majors without Negative Doubles.
Note that in general for competitive auctions, as here, many strong bids become invitational instead - the reason is that a cue bid of the opponents suit is available to show all strong hands lacking interest in a penalty double. This helps to alleviate the bidding room stolen by the opponents overcall.

If you opponent had bid ONE diamond, I would bid one spade. I would do this even with a weaker hand than yours (take away a queen).
But since your opponent bid TWO diamonds, the "standard" response is a negative double, as recommended by Pieter.
This bid has two meanings. The first is, I'd rather not play in "your" suit (clubs) nor the opponent's suit (diamonds). That leaves spades and hearts.
The second meaning applies in your case: The opponents bid over my suit. So "go back" and think in terms of my bidding one spade (or one heart). I'm not "legally" allowed to say this, but I am allowed to say "double," which in this context, has the same meaning.
The negative double would be more emphatic if partner had opened one HEART, and opponent had bid two diamonds. Here, the clear implication is that I have four of the remaining major, don't want to bid two spades, and am bidding "one spade" in a roundabout way.


text:
Should I reopen this hand?
I have as South
AJ10x
AQJxxx
xx
x

p(N) has:
xxxx
Kxx
xx
Jxxx

all vulnerable
SOUTH    WEST     NORTH     EAST
1H       3C       Pass      Pass
?

What is South's best call and why?

What system are you playing, and why do you think partner's actual hand affects your bid?

Besides giving us the bidding agreement, you should also specify your form of scoring (rubber bridge, IMPs, matchpoints).

Partner's hand affects whether you get blamed for a correct bid that turns out badly or not ;)

If partner's double of 3C would have been negative, double here is not for penalty. It shows a hand with shortness in the overcalled suit and tolerance for responder's bids. Your plan here is to double and correct partner's potential 3D to 3H. Partner may have passed with a hand like Qxx x AJxx KJTxx, which might make 3NT but also probably beats 3CX by 3 tricks or more, in which case you need to double to protect partner's holding.
If partner's double of 3C would have been for penalty, then your choice is between pass and 3H. Even though partner needs very little for you to make 3H (essentially Kx in hearts and Qxx in spades is enough to give you chances), you could easily go down 3, which is a terrible risk. Therefore, pass is probably the best choice.

Good concise analysis of both (system) options - I can think of nothing significant to add.

Except that if partner has 4 clubs and both partner and LHO are short in Hearts, an initial heart lead by partner could develop a very powerful defence. Definite potential for 6 defensive tricks where game in hearts is iffy due to the bad breaks.

There's no mention in the question of North doubling.

@Tom77 right but the point of the response is what we can infer from partner's choice to pass and not double.

It would be useful if you also stated the form of scoring and the meaning of 3C, but I will assume 3C is weakish pre-emptive.
In any case, with that hand I would definitely re-open the bidding and I would probably choose double, correcting any diamond bid by partner to hearts.
With the North hand, if partner re-opens with double I will of course bid 3H, not pass or 3S. I know we have an 8 card fit at least in hearts. Ok, at match-points pass might work if we get a lucky 200 which beats what we make in hearts, and I know if partner has 5 hearts and 1 or 2 clubs then 3H is against the Law of Total Tricks, but I still wouldn't risk it. At IMPs there is no contest as we double into game if 3C makes. Of course I have no idea the opponents have a 9-card diamond fit. (As the cards lie I can see no way for the defence to take more than 4 tricks against a club contract: one trump, ace-king of hearts and ace of spades).
I don't know what kind of responses you play in that auction but 3H immediately by North would be competitive however with that hand it is probably too weak for that. Maybe with a 4th heart
North definitely should not double.
One might use 3D by North also as some kind of artificial invite-raise, although you don't have it here.
If you with that South hand reooened with double and the opponents found their way to a making 5 diamonds they did well but have no idea what the layout must have been or how they got there. It looks like 5 diamonds is probably on for them if hearts are 3-1 or 4-0. Draw trumps which split 2-2, ruff out a club to set them up and enjoy.. They'll potentially make 12 tricks in diamonds if you don't cash your two aces.


text:
How are missing alerts handled?
If a side misses an alert and the other side protests, the tournament director
must decide if the missing alert is a disadvantage for the protesting side.
It is not possible to check, if the situation is prepared by the side or not,
so the tournament director must decide, if this is the case or not.

Is it true that making a "strange" bid twice in a row without alert leads to the assumption that the situation is prepared ?

How to check: at the end of the auction, ask each player what their partner's bids meant. At the end of the hand, check each players hands to make sure that the hand is actually what the bid apparently said it was. If they were telling the truth about what the bid meant, then you know whether there should have been an alert or not. If the bid explanation doesn't match the hand, you need to call the Director.

@AndyT: That is, unfortunately, grossly wrong; players are entitled to make any bid or play they desire (if only so as to make the foolishness of weak players legal so that good players can profit). It is only necessary that all the information available to the partner of the player making the non-systemic call or play be available equally to the opposing side. This requires a statistical analysis as was done to prove that Katz and Cohen were cheating in the 1980's and established evidence that Reese and Shapiro might have been cheating in Buenos Aires in 1965.

It is important to note that your partnership agreements of which the opponents must be made aware specifically includes all inferences from repeated occurrences. So yes, if you make the same unusual action twice in a short span of time the burden of proof is on you to establish that the action is not a partnership agreement.
From Laws of Duplicate Bridge - 2008 Revised Authorized Edition

Law 40
Partnership Agreements
A. Player's Systemic Agreements
1 (a): Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by the partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through
mutual experience or awareness of the players.

And how can a side prove that it is NOT a partnership agreement. This seems impossible to me. This is the reason why I cannot understand the sense of this rule.

@Peter: If it happens twice in short succession, then it is a partnership agreement. Live with it.


text:
Is mana generated by a sacrifice ability permanent?
I have a couple of Generator Servant cards.
They have

{T}, Sacrifice Generator Servant: Add {2} to your mana pool. If that
mana is spent on a creature spell, it gains haste until end of turn.
(That creature can attack and {T} as soon as it comes under your
control.)

Must this mana be used immediately or can it be used in a future round?
And if it's used, does it disappear forever after being used?
Thanks!

All mana empties from your mana pool at the end of each step or phase. So you must use it within the same step. All mana that is spent is, well, "spent", it's gone; you can't use it again.
The steps of a turn are:

Beginning Phase

a. Untap step
b.Upkeep step
c. Draw step

First Main Phase
Combat Phase

a. Beginning of combat step
b. Declare attackers step
c. Declare blockers step
d. Combat damage step
e. End of combat step

Second Main Phase
Ending Phase

a. End step
b. Cleanup step

I recommend reading through the Basic Rulebook, because understanding what happens with generated mana is fundamental to playing the game.

Mana pool:
  The place where your mana is stored until you spend it.
  When mana gets added to your mana pool, it stays there
  until you spend it or until the current step or phase ends.


text:
Are these board games considered as gambling games?
Are these board games considered as gambling?
A.  Checkers?
B.  Four in a row?
C.  Othello?
Edit:  Would it be appropriate to allow children (ages < 18) to play these board games?  (On the computer or tablet devices, etc.) Do they lend themselves to gambling (on line or otherwise) like poker?

It is unclear what you are asking here. People can gamble using pretty much any game in the world if they want to.

Do you mean gambling as in taking a chance, or gambling as in betting money? Generally any game involves taking chances, but betting money is situational. Of the games you list none involve betting in the rules, but there are always ways to introduce it.

"Considered" by whom? There are neo-puritans who say anything they do not understand is sinful; but most people would think persuading teenagers to play these games an achievement, let alone allowing them.

Given your update, it sounds like this question would be better asked in the parenting stack exchange. It is really just a matter of opinion what games are appropriate for what kids. But there's nothing inherent in the games that is more gambling-like than any other game.

I am not a lawyer, and have experience only in Ontario, but under Ontario law wagering on games of skill is not gambling. In a well-known case from the 1960's or early 1970's, in which the St. Clair Bridge Studio was defending itself against charges of running a gambling house, barrister and bridge player Eric Murray in his winning defence argued that bridge is a game of chance only as played by the justices of the Ontario Superior Court, in chambers. This despite the obvious fact that there clearly is a substantial element of luck in the cards dealt to each side on every particular deal.
As all of Chequers, Othello and Four in a Row are games with absolutely no element of chance whatever, and perfect information, under Ontario Law I believe none of them would be regarded as games of chance for which wagering would be prohibited.

This is a hoary perennial, and everyone in any court system has a favourite story. Mine is the publican hauled before London magistrates for allowing darts to be played in his bar. When the bench doubted whether he could prove it was truly a game of skill, he set up a dartboard in court and scored triple twenty three times.


text:
What card should I play when my partner has bid nil and I can't follow suit but do have Spades?
Setup:
My partner has bid nil or blind nil. The player to my right led the trick, and I can't follow suit, but have one or more Spades in my hand.
Possible situations:

I know my partner has no Spades left.
I know my partner has no card of the led suit left, but may have Spades.
I don't know whether my partner has any Spades or led suit cards left.

My response:

Play my lowest Spade. I know that this will allow my partner to get rid of any high cards.
Play my highest Spade. My partner may have a Spade, so playing high will allow them to play their high spades to get rid of them.
Play my highest Spade. My partner may have or may not have to follow suit, or may or may not have to play a Spade.

Is this a valid (i.e. good) strategy? How would additional knowledge of what cards have been played affect my strategy?

It depends. Have you and the opponents bid for most or all of the tricks? If so then your left hand opponent (LHO) will probably not let the trick go by for fear of going down themselves. If not, and RHO has led a low card, then partner's nil may be in danger and you probably won't have to work hard to get your bid, so you need to protect partner from LHO playing low.
If you are going to protect partner, do you think he will have to follow suit? If so, then you can either trump small so he can throw a high card, or discard small and save your strength for later if you think he can duck this trick. If not, then a high trump will allow him to under-trump if he has an awkward middling trump.
Of course, if you know the cards that have been played, hopefully you'll know how many high cards are gone and what risk this trick poses. A good partner will also try to help you by good discarding - ideally he'll discard short suits first (if you have K765432, you don't gain anything by chucking the King early!), and by discarding a low card in a suit he's essentially saying "this suit is safe, please lead it whenever you can". Deliberately winning the lead with the intention of giving partner a free discard is very helpful.
(In any case, aren't spades always trumps? Or is that just the MS online version?)

Oh, and if you have a partner who bids blind nil other than (i) in desperation because you need a huge score this hand to stop the opponents winning, or (ii) because he's bidding last and all 13 tricks have been bid already, get a new partner. Blind nil is ridiculously hard to bring off.

Well, it's easier if you're trading two cards after bidding blind nil.

Possible situations:

I know my partner has the lead suit cards left, (might be in danger).
I know my partner has no card of the lead suit left, but may have Spades.
I don't know whether my partner has any Spades or lead suit cards left.

My response:

Play low spade, partner will duck the highest lead suit card.
Duck a small sidesuit card, partner will discard a dengrous side suit card as well.
Play low spade or discard a low plain suit, save your high spades for a trick where partner could duck under your high spade.  If you play high spade now, partner might not be able to duck a spade of his own.  The choice between low spade and low plain card depends on how dangerous this trick is for your partner.

why do you assume your partner's most dangerous card is a spade? Perhaps your partner never nils with a short suit and needing to discard elsewhere? There is no need to jump in with a high spade on scenario 2.

you right! will change it.

When you say the "trump" suit I assume you mean the led suit. Spades are always trumps.
You need to assess where partner's nil is likely to be set.
Scenario 1, you are worried partner might be forced to win this trick, so you are going in with a spade. That would be correct if there is reason to assume partner might be forced to win it, given by counting what has happened so far. Or it being the dangerous 3rd round of the suit.
Scenario 2: Partner has no cards so he will be able to discard. You're already in trouble if partner only has spades left, unless this is trick 11 or 12 and you know the opps both have only spades too. You definitely do not want to part with a spade here. Save it for when you need it. Partner can get rid of a high side-suit card anyway.
Scenario 3. Playing a high spade is probably the worst thing you can do here. This is like scenario 1, you might ruff in if you are scared partner will be forced to win this trick.


text:
Bidding a high point Bridge hand
I'm south. I have:
♠ A 10 5
♥ A
♦ A K Q J 8
♣ A Q 10 8

East opened the bidding with 3♥.
What should I bid?

Typically hands are given in the order spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs. Here you've given clubs before diamonds - was that a typo?

Yes, that was a typo. In fact, I thought I had done it in the order you stated.

Typically, with any strong hand (something like 17+) you should begin with a takeout double (if it's available — see below). In this case, your hand is even stronger than that, so you should probably cue bid hearts after almost any bid by partner:

after 3S, 4C, or 4D, you have enough to insist on game with very little from partner, so cue bid 4H to force to game.
after a jump to a suit game (4S, 5C, or 5D), partner is showing something like 10+, so you almost certainly have slam and may have a grand. After 4S, you can bid 4NT to start asking about partner's kings. After 5C or 5D, you can cue bid 5H to force a slam and start exploring for grand.
after 3NT, you might just bid 7NT, as it's likely that you have 13 top tricks and it's difficult to imagine having a good constructive auction without strong agreements with partner.

Update:
TimLymington points out in the comments that you may have agreed that double here is for penalty. I had not considered this, as I play in the U.S., where the overwhelming majority of pairs play doubles as takeout at least through 4D and often higher.
If double would be for penalty, I recommend doubling and continuing as above except at unfavorable vulnerability. Game for your side is almost certain and slam is a possibility, but it seems difficult to explore for slam when X is not takeout. I expect to beat the opponents by 3 tricks (they'll likely get 6 trump tricks and nothing else), so I'm happy defending when at favorable or equal vulnerability, but the 500 we'll get at unfavorable doesn't compensate us for the 600+ we expect from making our own contract.
In that case, I recommend bidding 3NT, which is a small gamble, but requires very little from partner (the club K guarantees the contract, as does the diamond ten with the spade K, for example).

Are you certain the double of a pre-empt would not be taken as  for penalties? (Admittedly, here it wouldn't be disastrous if it were.)

@TimLymington Standard American Yellow Card specifies that a double of any partscore is for takeout. Most partnerships I know play takeout at least through 4D, but I'm not familiar with standard bidding systems outside of the U.S. I'll update the answer to reflect the possibility of double being for penalties.

Using the French system, I should avoid a takeout double which would promise four spades.
As said in answers, 3NT is a gamble (may be risky) !
I checked with my partners and it seems that we agree on a cuebid at 4H which, for us, will promise a very strong hand with at least a 4/5 distribution of cards in clubs and diamonds (and for sure, short in hearts and less than four cards in spades).
If the partner is unable to bid 5C or 5D, then 4NT would be his bid and the contract.


text:
Bridge Scoring: Teams of 8
The English Bridge Union (EBU) Recommends using a modified IMP scale for scoring teams of 8 matches. It is obtained by multiplying the standard IMP scale by √2.
I'm looking for an explanation for why multiplaying by  the square root of 2 is the correct thing to do.
The EBU also specifically recommends against simply adding up the IMP scores from both tables. Why is this a bad scoring method?
The scoring scale can be found here

The goal is to retain the integrity of the table, which is designed to subtly emphasize part-score swings and de-emphasize slam swings relative to game swings. This was adopted when it was realized that total points scoring through the 1920's and 1940's had made part scores almost irrelevant in team play, and games much less relevant than slams.
In order to accomplish this maintenance the various types of swings must be adjusted back to the appropriate range of the conversion table. Consider the case of a vulnerable game swing in teams of four competition:

+620 and +100 => + 720 => 12 IMPS.
+620 and -170 => + 450 => 10 IMPS

Now consider a similar range of results at four tables instead of two:

+620, +620, +100, +100 => +1440 => 16 IMPS, 14 MIMPS
+620, +620, -170, -170 => +900 => 14 IMPS, 12 MIMPS
+620, +170, -170, +100 => +720 => 12 IMPS, 11 MIMPs
+620, +620, -620, -170 => +450 => 10 IMPS, 8 MIMPS

As you can see the MIMP scale successfully keeps the range of results for various flavour of vulnerable game swing centered at 11 (now MIMPS instead of IMPS) rather than having it creep up to 13.
Similar analysis of part-core and both small- and grand-slam swings would again show that the MIMP scale keeps these centered at the appropriate portion of the  table.


text:
Does Monopoly Follow Standard Auction Procedures?
I am playing a game of Monopoly. One player lands on a property, but chooses not to buy it. I bid first. Another player bids for a higher amount. The rules state that the banker immediately gives the property to the highest bidder. Can I say a higher bid right now even though I've already bidded?
 There was nothing in the rulebook about it. Thanks!

"I think this is a very unfair rule...if he has a lot of money he'll obviously do a much higher bid" Welcome to Monopoly. Pretty much the whole point of the game is to become rich so you can have an unfair advantage over the poor and drive them to bankruptcy.

I recall playing an official computer adaptation in the late 90s that allowed multiple bids, but don’t have anything to back that up unfortunately.

If you can't bid more than once in an auction, then you would want to go last. But everyone can't do this.
The standard auction procedure is to sell to the highest bidder. So if someone tops your bid, you have the right to top their bid. Until one person runs out of money, or otherwise gives up bidding. Then the bank is supposed to give the property to the highest final bidder. This is in the interest of the seller, because they get the highest possible price.
If, however, you are using a "one bid" rule, then it should be a secret bid. Everyone writes down their bid on a piece of paper and exposes it simultaneously, so that no one has an advantage by knowing what others bid and reacting to it.

Correct, a one-bid auction will just turn into people sitting around waiting for someone else to bid first. This could be fixed with a blind bidding system where all bids are revealed simultaneously, however.

Or players could bid in turn order.

Ever hear of a Dutch Auction, Tom? That might be a nice wrench to throw into the works of this question.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I learned about this process 30 years ago, and barely remember it. I wouldn't want the responsibility of explaining it to others.

@Acccumulation Except bidding in turn order is a huge disadvantage to those closer to the active player. They can either overbid to prevent others from topping their offer, paying more than they would want to or need to, or underbid, which lets others bid above them. If your'e suggesting the bids continue in turn order around the table until no one raises more, this mitigates the issue but still isn't perfect.

@ForgetIwaseverhere The problem with a dutch auction in Monopoly is setting the starting price, unless you decide to handle that via a house rule also (IE 4x the printed property value), and handle the decreases in a similar way, the person setting the price is also one of the bidders, since the banker is almost always a player in the game.

@Andrew I was addressing the issue that Nuclear Wang mentioned of people waiting for others to bid, not the issue of it being "fair". Part of turn based games is people often having an advantage based on turn order. That's just part of the game.

The rules say only "auction it to the highest bidder", which means that your group has to agree on what from of auction to use. The form you are using, where each player has only one bid, suffers from the fact that everybody wants to be the last bidder, and nobody wants to be the first; so there will be a lot of waiting around watching each other. "Only one bid, clockwise starting with the person who landed on the space" is a possibility which advantages the person to the right of the start; "as many bids as you like, each higher than the last" is commoner, giving even more advantage to the richest player. The important thing is that you agree a rule before the game starts.

The richest player has an advantage in any auction situation, Even if it is single bid clockwise and if they are the first to bid, they can almost guarantee a win by bidding higher than anyone else is likely willing to pay, or guarantee it with a bid more than anyone else can pay, though this becomes detrimental to the rest of their game.

@Andrew: Welcome to capitalism; the lesson of the game.

@ForgetIwaseverhere Yes I know the original game was intended to teach how bad and broken capitalism was. It still does that some what, though the message is lessened when people don't follow all the rules as they are in the game, this rule for instance has been ignored in every game of monopoly I have actually ever played or seen played.

@Andrew: My youngest daughter, at twelve, proudly beat her old man and older brother in a straight-up game according to the official rules. We took lots of pictures, and 6 years later she was a school-girls provincial champion curler. I handicapped myself when the kids were little, until they chose to remove the handicap.

@ForgetIwaseverhere I don't see the connection?

@Andrew: Capitalism is the worst economic system ever developed - except for all the others that have actually been attempted. If you want to teach your kids about life, play games with really good rules.

It wouldn't be much of an auction if you only had one chance to bid. While it doesn't say it in the rules the auctions will follow standard auction rules where people bid back and forth until no one is willing to bid higher then the current bid. Once that happens the player with the highest bid wins the property. Note that this can also mean the property goes for less then face value.
Also if you are not winning you should remember your last bid as it is possible that the player who won the bid actually can't afford what they bid.
auction

a usually public sale of goods or property, where people make higher and higher bids (= offers of money) for each item, until there are no higher bids and it is sold for the most money offered:

"It wouldn't be much of an auction if you only had one chance to bid."  Not sure I agree, many games (eg, Medici, Ra)use a 'once round' auction rule where each player either increases a bid or passes.  It creates an interesting dynamic where you know you can only bid once and forces players to make more meaningful bids.   You can also have blind auctions where each player make one secret bid and the winner is the highest.  What you describe (the dutch auction) is just one of many styles.   A problem with this game is the auction type isn't defined in the rules.

@MildlyPerilous That isn't an auction but a bid since the very definition of an auction which I also included is multiple rounds of bidding

the definition at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/auction?s=t just says the highest bid.  What I'm saying is not all auctions have to allow players to make multiple bids and that these auctions are tactically different.

@MildlyPerilous The one I pulled was more specific and I will point out if you ever watch any type of auction related show on tv there will never be only one chance for someone to bid. And outside of games I highly doubt that you will find anyone who thinks an auction is just bidding once and hoping you don't get outbid. Not to mention when you consider the age of Monopoly you have to consider what they meant with the auction rule.

@JoeW There are different auction systems that don't. The "one secret bid" can sometimes extract a HIGHER value than an open bid system, because you have outbid competition without knowing their range. My wife is a professional antique dealer, and we go to a lot of auctions. When you're the only one that wants an item, you get it for dirt cheap - if we had to put what we were actually willing to pay and only got one bid, we'd spend a LOT more at auctions!

@JoeW Also, it's safe to say that Cambridge took liberties when decreeing that "English Auction" is the definition of an auction. It is most certainly not the only style of auction, and it is found in the wild: consider when a government accepts bids from contractors to build something, like a road. Once you've submit a proposal then see your competitors are beating you, you generally can't change your bid.

As other answers indicate, Monopoly doesn't provide specific rule for the auction and most groups allow many increasing bids.  This can lead to long auctions with bids increasing by just a dollar.  I asked how to shorten the typical auction, and have provided my own recommendation which is to require a 10% increase for each bid.
As you have experienced, your group's one bid rule creates a huge advantage for the last bidder, who presumably would only need to add $1 to the 2nd to last bid to win.
Since your group is used to one bid auctions, my +10% method could be adjusted to a +50% or 100% minimum increase.  Requiring later bids to significantly increase greatly reduces the advantage of going last.
Not sure how your group has resolved the issue of who gets to/has to bid first and/or last.  The ordering of who bids will still be important, adjusting the % increase required shifts the advantage to earlier bidders.

So just don't futz around with these Stupid Pet Tricks, I mean House Rules, and just hols a standard New York Auction which is what most people naturally think of when they hear the word "auction". The group will waste more time discussing and finalizing these "house rules" than would ever be lost running auctions in a game.

Have always played all auctions as multiple bids allowed, the highest bidder winning the auction,{Generally agreed by all players}
but cash only. {ref.Hasbro.Inc.(c)2012;Heading. Buying Property "...the buyer pays to the bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property"}
If a player bids more than they can pay in cash, no fund raising allowed,
the auction starts again with this player excluded.{ House Rule circa 1974}
This is our family/house rules from Waddingtons UK rule book,{ John Waddingtons distributed MONOPOLY under licence from Parker Brothers, in the UK, from 1930's}
 laid down by our mother, Christmas 1974.
I hope this edit is useful in explaining my 1st attempt in answering a question

This does not add anything to the question that was not covered in other answers

I disagree - this answer brings up cash only, which is not mentioned elsewhere, and also perhaps cites a rules source ("Waddingtons UK rule book"?). It isn't a good answer yet in part because it's unclear what's actually being sourced from official rules vs house rules, but I wouldn't delete it quite yet without giving them a chance to clarify.

just edited original post, hope this helps.

been researching. found several editions of monopoly rules.

I have sourced a copy of the Parker Bros.inc (c) 1935 edition rules [PB 1935] and a copy of the Waddingtons ltd. UK distributed, Parker Bros.inc (c) 1972 [W 1972], the rules I learned the game from circa 1973.

To address the original question @Curious Kid, both the above rules[PB1935] and[W1972], state under the Heading 'Banker' to 'Select as Banker a player who will also make a good auctioneer'. In my opinion the role of a good auctioneer is to secure the highest bid possible, which under a single bid auction would not necessarily attain this, thus suggesting a multiple bid auction as the intended rule of play.

@Benjamin Cosman, re 'cash only'. This is the way I have always played the game. ref above editions of rules [PB1935],[W1972], under Heading 'Landing on unowned property' both state, when property not bought, '... the Banker must immediately offer this property for sale by auction and must sell it to the highest bidder, accepting money in payment...' Mortgaging or Selling property are not 'at any time rules'


text:
In Bridge, when should third-hand defender overtake partner's honour?
Sorry for the confusion. Here's the full hand and bidding:
    T54
    A874
    KQ32
    A7
872         AKQ6
962         KQ5
JT98        A654
Q106        J5
    J93
    JT3
    7
    K98432

North   East    South   West
                        Pass
1D      Double  Pass    2C
Pass    2NT     All pass

Opening lead was the 4 of Clubs.
After a low Club lead to North's Ace and winning the return with Club King, South switches to hearts. They play the Jack and North knows that declarer at least has the Queen. So as a rule, should I always overtake with my Ace?
In NT, the Ace will usually be good eventually. In this situation, playing the Ace guarantees East those two heart tricks. By holding out, I might still be able to capture the other one. I can't seem to find stats about this. It could be the right thing to do usually and this is just an edge case. Or vice versa.
Thanks!

Do you need to edit your setup to deal with the different voids? The way it looks, there aren't enough clubs on the board.

Please give the bidding.  It seems likely that, from the bidding, North should know that East has all the remaining honors.  These kinds of inferences are absolutely crucial to competent bridge play.  But I can't tell that unless you tell me what the bidding was (and what the East-West agreements about the meanings of their bids are)

Also, the form of scoring might matter.  You might play differently at matchpoint scoring, where every trick is worth about the same, or at IMP/total points/rubber scoring, where whether the contract makes or not is more important than the other tricks.

You haven't given us the whole hand, but it looks like South should have led a low club at trick 1, so that dummy is forced to win the first club, and North can still return a club (for South to run the remaining clubs) when they get in at some point.

@AlexanderWoo: I could be wrong, but I can't see any possible bidding sequence except an (overbid)  opening of 2NT from East with either JT or Jx of Clubs in addition to the cards shown. (That makes for 19 HCP, but the 1 HCP for the Club J should be deprecated when combined with the 1 distributional point for 4432 distribution holding short CLubs - and especially so when considering an opening of 2NT.)

Sorry for the confusion, all. I edited the question with the full hand and bidding. Thanks for your time!

Thank you all so much for your insight! This was really helpful. I appreciate your time!

Thank you for posting this hand with all the spot cards filled in. It is the most interesting play hand I have seen in a while.

If North ducks the Heart A East can run the four Spade tricks discarding a low Heart from Dummy. Then lead of a low Diamond towards the J will endplay North thus:
North still to play to Trick 8 after Diamond 4 (from East), 7, J:

       -
       A87
       KQ3
       -
  -             -
  9             Q5
  T98           A65
  Q             -
       -
       T3
       -
       983

If North ducks the DJ the Club Q is cashed on board and the H9 lead back towards East, giving Declarer an overtrick with 4 Spades, 2 Hearts, 2 Diamonds, and 1 Club trick.

Alternatively if North overtakes DJ with DQ he must either:

Lead a low Diamond to put Declarer on the Board to cash the CQ and lead DT for a repeating finesse, giving Declarer: 1 Heart, 4 Spades, 1 Club, and 3 Diamonds, again for contract and an overtrick.

Lead a low Heart killing the last possible entry to Partner's long Clubs, and giving Declarer: 4 Spades, 2 Hearts and 2 Diamonds for contract; or

(Killing): As pointed out by Jyrki Lahtonen, the killing defense is to cash Heart A and lead a third heart, endplaying Declarer in Diamonds for the sixth defensive trick.
A brave (or desperate) Declarer might even play the Heart Q under the Ace in a valiant attempt to promote the 9 on board - but South's Heart 10 will win enabling the cash of three more Clubs for down three.

If North instead wins the Heart Ace (best) at trick three, returning a heart immediately and again when winning the low Diamond lead toward DJ, then he can stop the overtrick by cashing a fifth defensive trick with your long Heart.
East's 2NT rebid shows a hand too strong for an immediate 1NT overcall, likely 18-19 HCP. It need not have short Diamonds, as evidenced here. Partner's switch at trick 3 denies anything that looks like an entry, which combined with a count again suggests that the SJ is all that possibly remains in his hand.
The real point here is that:

No rule-of-thumb will help you in this circumstance - except to have counted the cards around the table to build a complete picture of the hand half-way through trick three.

Update - after a question correction

The full hand as finally revealed did not match the original description of "After running through a couple club tricks, South chooses to switch to hearts." That description clearly implied that both the AK of Clubs were in South, not split between North and South.
Thus South correctly led a low Club but the suit blockage revealed by East's Club to trick 2 forces South to win and switch (best). The Heart switch is reasonable on the information available, and best as the cards fall.

West makes the egregious error, during the Auction, by responding 2C to East's Take-out double. When forced to bid a 3 card suit in this situation, always bid the cheapest to maximize the opportunity that Partner will be tempted to correct to NT, or some other suit. This is particularly important when it keeps the auction at one lower level, as here and whenever the opening was not 1C.
Note that the hand can always be set on either an initial heart lead (Jack) by South, and is at least difficult for East to make after a switch by North at Trick 2 after winning the Club Ace.

In the second defensive option above, after winning HA at Trick three, the long Heart does not become a sixth defensive trick. On the 4th Spade trick North must discard either that thirteenth Heart or the fourth diamond. In the latter case East then Cashes HQ (removing North's last safe exit) and leads a low Diamond to Board's Jack, leaving this:
North still to play to Trick 10 after Diamond 4 (from East), 7, J:
         -
         7
         KQ3
         -
  -             -
  -             -
  T9            A65
  Q             -
         -
         -
         -
         983

North can win the DK and cash the long Heart for the 4th and 5th defensive tricks, but is then end-played in the Diamonds to lead at trick twelve. East has an exact count of the hands after 8 tricks, as:

South is known to have started with exactly 6 Clubs and 3 Spades, thus with only 4 red cards including at least 2 Hearts.

North thus started with exactly 5 black cards and eight red cards, with the latter breaking exactly 4-4 to justify the Diamond opening. With a fifth Heart to the Ace North would have opened 1H instead of 1D.

Isn't the long heart the 6th defensive trick? (to go with 2 diamonds, 2 clubs, and the ace of hearts)

I want to emphasize one thing that was written.  For a good player, there are no rules.  There is only counting, counting, counting, figuring out everyone's hand, and then making the deductions necessary.

@AlexanderWoo: No. The run of four Spades forces North to either pitch his long Heart or the fourth Diamond. Once the long diamond is pitched East cashes the HQ (taking himself off an endplay) and throws North in with a diamond to the J and K. North can cash the fourth Heart but is left with just Qx of Diamonds in the two-card end position, there being T9 on board and Ax in Declarer's hand.

@AlexanderWoo: I believe, as outlined above, that East has an exact count of the defensive hands at the requisite time due to North having denied 5 Hearts with his 1D opening.

Given the bidding, I'm not leading a club as South (I'm expecting West to have at least 4 clubs, and there is no way for North to set up my clubs, and I have at most one side entry).  I'm not returning a club as North either - partner can't have a side entry so it can't do any good.  I think the opening lead of a heart is the only way to set the contract, and I don't promise to find that.

@AlexanderWoo: I disagree. South's singleton diamond strongly suggests Diamond length in West, and thus a 3-card Club suit there. With both Major suit jacks as potential entries (consider if North had both Major Queens instead of the Heart Ace) I think the Club lead is suggested - especially at MatchPoints. Never swing against the MatchPoints field on a whim, but only on solid evidence. Also the Club 9 is a key card to hold. But, if you are not going to lead a Club, Heart J is clearly preferable to Diamond 7 or Spade 3.

@AlexanderWoo: Also, North still has an opportunity to be brilliant at Trick 2 and return a low Heart instead of the low Club. The unrevealed singleton Diamond 7 in South's hand will give East headaches.

Agree with what Forget I was here said about the bidding. And also what they said about counting. What I want to explain is that I think the defence will prevail, if North lets the heart Jack run to declarers Queen. If declarer then runs the spades, North can pitch a diamond.

Then if declarer exits in diamonds, North will get in, and now play Ace and another heart. This promotes the 13th heart, and endplays declarer.

Observe that it is not good enough for North to exit with a low heart, for then declarer can endplay him with his small heart (this was already explained in the other answer). In a way playing the Ace and a third heart removes declarer's exit card of a low heart.
So this time it was essential for North to wait the ace. The rule of thumb of using the ace to win opponents honors would have served well. On some other hand it would be more difficult but now it is rather likely that declarer has KQ hearts.

Nice catch. I will update my answer to reference this.

A desperate East might even play Heart Q under the Ace. ;-)

A nice observation! That actually adds another layer to the problem @ForgetIwaseverhere. Remember that in this suggested line of defence the dummy has an inaccessible club trick. But, if the dummy discarded a heart on the fourth round of spades, then South can make unblocking contagious, and dump the blocking T of hearts under declarer's Queen, allowing North to cash out three heart tricks (sufficient for 1 down).

OTOH if dummy discards a diamond on the 4th round of spades, then dummy's 9 of hearts looms large. I think declarer will actually then prevail!

Nice! I must be rusty, as Declarer must refrain from cashing the 4th round of Spades, as that squeezes Dummy, but rather leading a low Diamond towards Dummy at Trick 7. Now if North wins and leads Heart Ace to get off the end-play, East plays Heart Queen under it to get off the endplay, South in turn plays Heart Ten to get off his end-play, and Dummy's heart 9 has been promoted. East knows this is safe because South's singleton Diamond 7 was revealed at Trick 7 , making  Diamond 6 in East a vital card.


text:
Progressive euchre tourney question
Progressive euchre tourney when individuals are trying to score as many overall points as possible, should you order the other team in the middle of the tournament simply to prevent giving up four points

Comments are ephemeral - subject to deletion at any time by moderators. Please edit all question clarifications into the question itself.

I can't see anyway that this would, or even could, be a winning strategy.
The odds of going alone and taking all 5 tricks cannot be more than about 10%. If we estimate the chance of Dealer's side making all 5 tricks as about 15%, and of being euchred as say 15%, then Dealer's side's point expectation is:

4 * 0.10 = + 0.40
2 * 0.15 = + 0.30
-2 * 0.15 = - 0.30
1 * 0.60 = + 0.60
Total = 1.00

Even in Third Seat (Eldest Hand's partner) any decision on ordering up Dealer as a sacrifice risks losing a big plus score by Eldest Hand.
One could quibble over my estimates above, but no reasonable values will ever approach remotely near the near-guaranteed loss of a euchre from over-aggressive oordering up.
Yes, the success estimates above assume average play by some definition. I am well aware that skillful play, relative to one's group, will significantly increase one's own point expectations, and likewise decrease the expectations of one's opponents. That is all the more reason not to make bad sacrifices - just collect one's skill reward and be content. In Contract Bridge it's called: "Partner; please stop trying so hard for a bottom."
Exception
The one exception to the above that I can see is if, with full knowledge of the score, the situation is exactly one of:

Up by precisely three or four points over precisely one opponent whom one is currently at the table with, having exactly one hand left to play. Conceding two points eliminates the low probability of a Lone Hand overtaking.
Up by seven or eight points over precisely one opponent whom one is currently at the table with, having exactly two hands left to play. Conceding two points eliminates the very low probability of two successive Lone Hands overtaking.


text:
Euchre Card Game
I need clarification on an issue that I had with playing euchre.
As I ordered up, the dealer (on my right), and right after that, she said that she was going alone and asked for her partner's best card. (Disputed validity as in this question, but accepted at the time.)
Ny partner and I got 3 tricks, so would we get just 1 point or 2 points for euchreing her? I'm very confused here and need someone to help. I appreciate it very much! Thanks!

Possible duplicate of In Euchre, Can a person of the opposing team go alone if trump was ordered up by the other team?

This should be answered by your other question which states you can't go alone unless you are the maker so this would be a house rule to decide on.

I have reduced this question down to just the scoring aspect of the disputed occurrence. There should be no reason remaining to close it, with the duplicated portion removed and replaced by a reference to the earlier question.

Your side named the trump suit by ordering up; and then scored the requisite three tricks for making contract.
Your side scores just a single point.
As noted in the referenced question:

Your opponent, the Dealer, had no basis for the claim of going alone.
Your opponent's claim of best card from partner's hand is doubly unsupported:

It is not part of the standard rules when going alone; and
If a trump, it penalizes your side for forcing up, by providing her with two trumps on top of her originally dealt holding.


text:
In Bridge what happens if a player has more points than their bidding suggests
For example:
              NORTH
            ♠: KJ10986
            ♥: QJ9
            ♦: K
            ♣: Q106
    WEST (Dlr)            EAST
  ♠: 75                 ♠: Q43
  ♥: AK7642             ♥: 1083
  ♦: 8762               ♦: 54
  ♣: 8                  ♣: A9752
              SOUTH
            ♠: A2
            ♥: 5
            ♦: AQJ1093
            ♣: KJ43

Or, for those desiring accessibility assists;
(S, H, D, C)
W: 75 AK7642 8762 8
N: KJ10986 QJ9 K Q106
E: Q43 1083 54 A9752
S: A2 5 AQJ1093 KJ43
W opens bidding with 2H which usually shows 6-10 points and 6+ hearts and then N/S bid to game in 3NT.
East leads [to West's] A then K of hearts and exits on a 3rd heart. You can guarantee the contract by making the Q of hearts, A & K of spades, and 6 diamonds. However you can make +1 by giving up the A of clubs early. The only danger in doing this would be if West turned up the A of clubs and ran the rest of their hearts.
Giving the bidding you should be safe to assume East has the A of clubs since if West had it they would have to have 11+ points. If you played to this assumption to make +1 (important for match points) and West did turn up with the A of clubs making the contract go down then is there anything you can do? Would you need to have asked what their preempt means during the bidding?

Downvotes? Is Bridge not popular here?

There are three votes to close the question as unclear. (I have no knowledge of Bridge, so I offer no opinion on the matter.) The downvotes are presumably because of that, not because the question is about Bridge.

Fundamentally I think your question is equivalent to this - both questions are about whether a bidder is bound to strictly following to his/her pair's agreed conventions.

It would help a lot if you could provide some more about the agreed upon conventions in play.

If East is in contract with 3H, you shouldn't deduce anything about West's hand, since it is dummy and you can physically see the cards. If that's not the contract, there is nowhere near enough information to discuss anything else about the hand.

Thanks for the constructive comments. Let me know if still not clear.

This is a reasonable question (at the time of this comment). +1. Also tried to add a simple answer.

@Nij: Your rollback of my edit made the hand unreadable to a bridge player, The custom of placing the hands, visually, in the cardinal directions is the standard means of presenting bridge hands. Please desist.

@ForgetIwaseverhere It may be the standard means but according to the rollback messages it causes issues for people using screen readers which is something to remember

Using codeblocks to format anything except code is not standard for any user with respect for those who have enough trouble reading things already. The information was all perfectly readable: players, suit order, cards held. You are the one who needs to desist.

@Nij: If a screen reader cannot recognize columnar data - that is a bug n the screen reader. Report it to the author and get it fixed.

It isn't a problem with the reader, it's an inherent property in the way Stack Exchange codeblocks are formatted. There isn't a way to separate this on individual sites - so until such time as B&CG adds a bridge hand format, please don't make life harder for people when there is no difference between the two formats in information available to all users.

@Nij: Okay, let's have both then. A pure text form for those desiring accessibility assists, and a traditional newspaper format for those desiring that format.

First, let's clear up why this question is fundamentally different from this related one:

The related question inquires as to the allowability of making a judgement decision, yourself, in violation of one's partnership agreements. The anser is, broadly though with constraints, Yes.
This question is about whether, in a specific circumstance, one might have recourse after an opponent's call in violation of their partnership agreements. In general no, though in specific circumstances yes.

Now to the question at hand.

As stated in my answer here, a player may "within certain constraints designed to prevent wholly destructive bidding systems" make any legal call. So no, you do not have recourse if West here turns up with the ♣A; unless one of the following occurred:

East made a call that was clearly consistent with

a partnership agreement different than that indicated on their card and communicated to you; and
the erroneous call made by West.

East gave you an incorrect description of the partnership agreement

and

you were damaged by relying on the information given, incorrectly, by East and West.

None of these circumstances occurred.

If West (and possibly East) regularly make similar 'non-system' bids partner will allow for this factor, which means the (standard) explanation on the card is misleading. Since South's deductions were thrown out by this misleading, there was damage and there should be a penalty.  (In actual fact I think this is unlikely; but "None of these circumstances occurred" seems too sweeping). [PS I think you have West for East somewhere there]

@TimLymington: Thank you - corrected in three places actually.  As there is no evidence of past behaviour in this regard, and as the hand was given there is no evidence even of current behaviour, there would clearly be no penalty applied. East has the Club Ace and ten tricks are there for the taking anytime prior to the Spade Queen being established, and a triple squeeze available as well to establish the tenth trick safely.

On the money again :-) Just commenting on the play. With no entry outside hearts it may be better defence for West to let declarer win their due heart trick on the first trick. After such defence, the declarer is to a great extent forced to cash his nine tricks and concede the rest. Irrespective of which defender has the ace of clubs. Of course, at matchpoint pairs, a greedy declarer may choose to finess the spade queen in a quest for overtricks :-). Also, that defence means that East comes under no pressure. On the run of the diamonds, they can discard the four club spots.

No you won't have a recourse, at least in ACBL. (for eg see here: http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Convention-Chart.pdf). I expect Forget I was ever here to come up with a better answer with better references to you might want to wait for it :)
E/W are allowed to deviate from their agreement as long as there is no hidden understanding and such deviations are not too frequent (not sure how that is enforced).

Commenting on the enforcement. Mostly it is on honor code. For example, having played with the same partner for more than 10 years I often know that under certain conditions he may deviate a bit. It then behooves me to alert to the opponents that the agreement is so-and-so, but under the present conditions partner has a history of doing this-or-that. There are also forms for filing a psyche, but I don't remember the details. Also, there are often kibitzers around a table with top players. They are to keep their mouths shut during the play, but may spread rumors about unusual events.

One unclear part of the question that creates different situations: "W opens bidding with 2H which usually shows 6-10 points and 6+ hearts"
The keys to these questions are "You are entitled to their agreements, not the contents of their hand." and "They don't have to play the same way you do."  So:

If the quote means: "West opens 2H, which by their agreement usually shows 6-10 points and 6+ hearts", then the other answers are correct:

If West decided to open with AK A "this time" (which, even if their agreement was 6-11, would be unusual for a preempt.  Aces are worth more than 4 points; AK more than 7), he deviated from his agreement, which is legal, no damage.  This isn't a gross deviation (required for "psychic call"), but even psychs are legal (if monitored much more carefully than minor deviations).
If West opened 2H with 75 AK7642 872 8, and only after making the call found the ace of clubs stuck behind the 8, it was a misbid.  Again, legal, again no damage.
If "usually" means "very rare 11s, and KQxxxx is 6", then declarer has been warned that 10 isn't a hard limit.  I'd still be surprised about AK A for the reason above.
If East would expect AK A, or has even seen West do it more than once, then their (implied) agreement isn't what they give out.  Now declarer may have a case for damage.

Note that "6+" is unusual; it's uncommon for length of suits in preempts to be variable, especially on the high side.  I play with one partner "good 5-card suit, any 6, poor 7" (I can't imagine better than JTxxxxx, at least when not vul vs not), for instance,but that is clearly marked on our card and is part of any explanation, because it's so odd.

But if the quote means "West opens 2H, which I know most people play as 6-10 points and 6+ hearts" (which, see above, it's "6 with rare exceptions and almost always those exceptions are '5') - that is, if declarer assumed the agreement and didn't check - then if it turns out that this pair happens to play Schenken Club with Schenken's original style of weak 2s, that's declarer's tough luck.  "If you had asked, we would have told you."

One of the few things I always ask about is a partnership's preempt style.  I usually get "huh?" or, if I'm lucky "well, it'll be 2 of the top 3, ...", but knowing:

what their suit quality agreements are
what their outside honour agreements are

is frequently critical.  If you assume it's "standard" and it's not, that's your problem, not theirs, whether it's knocking out the club ace in the wrong hand, or West having opened on AK764 and East having a fourth heart (okay, sure, likely there would be a big raise, but still), or (on a different day) assuming your AQ5 was two tricks, and losing to Kxx in East when West opened with (a perfectly systemic, for them) JT8632.


text:
What is the result of a combat between creatures of 3/1 and 2/2?
I don't know which one would win a 3/1 creature or a 2/2 creature, or would they both tie. I always thought they would tie.

Be careful not to use the word "Fight" if what you are talking about is combat. Fight in MTG is a different thing from combat.

Both creatures will die.
From the MTG Basic Rulebook

After all blockers are chosen, combat damage is assigned. Each creature — both attackers and blockers — deals damage equal to its power.
If a creature is dealt damage equal to or greater than its toughness over the course of a single turn, that creature is destroyed and goes to its owner’s graveyard.

In your example, after combat damage is done, there will be a 3/1 creature with 2 damage, and a 2/2 creature with 3 damage. Both of these creatures have at least as much damage as toughness, so both will go to the graveyard.
Note that there is no actual concept of "win", "lose", or "tie" in combat. I suppose it's fair to consider it a tie if both your and your opponent's creatures die, but that's not actual terminology in Magic.

Small note that in MtG player-jargon "trade" refers to creatures mutually destroying each other, especially in combat, which might be a useful replacement.