text:
Is Axis and Allies 1940 Balanced without National Objectives?
In Axis and Allies 1940 (Europe/Pacific/Global), what is the game effect of ignoring most or all of the National Objectives (bonus income) and simply not playing with them.  This reduces complexity and the need to constantly reference rules, but does it significantly unbalance the game?
Do any changes need to be implemented to make removal of the objectives balanced?  For example, if you feel the Allied objectives are easy and the Axis ones hard, maybe the balancing change is the give the Allies +10 IPCs each per turn instead of their objectives.

First, it is not particularly clear that A&A 1940 was balanced WITH all the rules - the changes in the second edition (unless you were referencing that) do in most people's opinions contribute to balance (VCs for Axis and setup changes).
Even with that, though, the NOs do contribute to game balance pretty greatly. Note that they are not symmetric - the US for instance purely gains income when at war, whereas Germany has both peace and wartime NOs. The loss of US and Soviet extra income will definitely be detrimental to their cause. Replacing NOs with free income is a reasonable idea, especially given how nebulous NO "hardness" is, but make sure to not just add it all the time - add NO income when appropriate (when at war, with who, etc).

The addition of national objectives helps the Allies in Allies and Axis Pacific, in an otherwise Axis-favoring game. The addition of national objectives helps the Axis in Allies and Axis Europe by reducing the Allied advantage. If you take these two effects together in Allies and Axis Global, they more or less balance out.
The national objectives in Allies and Axis Pacific encourage the Americans and Australians to cooperate in the South Pacific, which they should be doing, and what they did in the real war. In lieu of these objectives, give the Americans an extra 5 IPCs for San Francisco, and the Aussies 5 additional IPCs for Sydney, so they have 15 instead of 10 to start.
The national objectives encourage the Germans and Italians to play more in the Mediterranean. Instead, just give Germany 5 more IPCs for Berlin, and Italy 5 more IPCs for Rome. Again, this gives Italy 15 starting IPCs instead of 10.
If you add 10 Axis IPCs in Europe and balance that with 10 Allied IPCs in the Pacific while eliminating the national objectives, you've simplified the global game. You have better balanced the two local games as well, relative to no national objectives and no additional IPCs.


text:
How should I modify Risk to play with 7 persons?
I am planning on creating my own version of Risk in such a way that we can play it with 7 persons. For this I am planning to create my own map with a local theme.
What kinds of ratios/parameters are common in games with fewer players (e.g. countries per player, armies per turn)? Based on these, what kind of modifications do I need to make to the map (number of countries / connections between countries or continents) to make it suitable for 7 players? Or is the game playable with the current map  and 7 players?

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about inventing rules for a new game that doesn't exist yet.

I found this in about 1 minute of googling: http://drmuey.com/?do=page&id=18
But yeah, this question is a little off-topic because it can't really have a "correct" answer.

I don't see the problem with this question. Lots of questions on this board deal with making house rules to change the way certain games are played, and several other questions deal with game design principles and how to allow certain mechanics to work for a new game.

We've allowed similar questions in the past - http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1679/how-can-i-play-pandemic-with-6-players?lq=1

I agree with the two commenters just above, and voted to reopen. I've also edited the question a bit.

@AndrewVandever: Interesting link. I followed up by asking what ratios and parameters were common in more "playable" games. They could be used as a "benchmark" for your version.So perhaps this addition makes the question "less" off topic?

We used to play Risk 2210 a lot, often with more than the recommended 5 players, and used the rule that if you are wiped out, when your turn comes around, you can start a rebellion.
Rebellions

Take two cards and choose one of the shown territories to rebel in.
Roll 3d6. That many troops in the chosen territory are replaced with your troops.
If there are any enemy troops remaining in the territory, you must fight them, but if you win, you can continue your turn as normal. If you lose,  your rebellion failed but you can try again on your next turn.

It leads to a more chaotic game but it's a LOT more fun that one or two people sitting around doing nothing for hours.

This might work in Risk A.D. 2210 as there is a five turn game limit. Players coming back in when you're playing turn-unlimited world domination in normal Risk would not be viable.

I haven't tried original Risk with more than 4 players, but there is an alternative that can more or less be played with 7 players, Risk Legacy. It is an official "spinoff" where the map changes and each faction is different and evolves a bit getting special and unique habilities. While it is initially for 5 players, without spoiling the fun let's say it gets more variety.
There are lots of reviews out there (example of a nice one I read a while ago), so you can read about it and decide. I have it and really love the concept, keeps the basics of Risk but "expands".

There are two problems with playing classic Risk with 7 players: map size and game length.
Map size
A lot of Risk strategy revolves around players having continents and/or territory.  On the classic map, there are 5 viable continents (Asia is not a position that can be held for any duration as a player either gets invaded or wins soon after taking it; the other 5 are).  On top of this, the standard risk map has only 42 territories, and you need players to be able to hit 12 territories for territories to start mattering for reinforcements (0 - 11 territories are counted as equivalent to 9 territories for starting reinforcements).
Classic Risk is best with 4 to 5 players, because there is at least one viable continent per player and 8 - 10 territories per player.  Even with 6 players, at least one player will be left homeless and/or will get eliminated in the early game, so unless that's the vibe you're going for, you need a bigger map.
This is easy to fix.  There are plenty of maps you can find online, or even some variants of risk that have been made to support more players.  The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition came with a 9 continent map with 63 territories (it was a bad map for other reasons; in particular the lack of bottlenecks), you could find some on sites like this: https://www.warzone.com/Maps, or build your own.  You could even stick two classic Risk boards next to each other (although this might need a few more connections between boards than just Kamchatka).  As long as it has continents, asymmetry, and bottlenecks, it will probably be fun.
Game length
This one is much harder to fix.  Risk is a game with completely serial turns, so each player you add makes the game longer.  6 players is already pushing it.  If you have a group of people willing to pay all day, that's fine, except that players who get eliminated early will have cleared their schedule for nothing, which feels bad.  There are basically 3 options to fix this:

Play asynchronously.  Find an online or mobile platform that will let you play with your friends at a pace of a turn a day or so and stretch the game out over weeks.  This will likely include the ability to play on a custom map as well.

Find a variant that is more parallel.  You could take classic risk but have everyone reinforce at once.  Then, during the attack phase, have everyone declare one attack at once, and then roll for them simultaneously.  Finally, everyone does troop movement at once.  It would be a little chaotic, but you'd at least keep things moving.  Here's another suggestion: http://drmuey.com/?do=page&id=18.

Play a different game.  Diplomacy is in the same genre but designed for 7 people at baseline and is built with simultaneous turns.  It has a number of different maps that have been made for it for a number of player counts (I've seen maps go up to 50 players, enabled by the parallelism).  And, it was designed to be played by mail, so there are plenty of online platforms for it to play asynchronously (https://vdiplomacy.com/, https://webdiplomacy.net/).

If you wish to make your own map as I have, you could perhaps visit strategygamenetwork.com where you will find at least 80 different maps created by various users of this site.  My map is Polar World.  I have found that playing with 7 players does not make for an enjoyable game of RISK, but if you must, a good ration is 7 to 10 territories per player.  If you want to play with 7 players, your map should have approximately 48 to 70 territories.  Given that Parker Brothers/Hasbro has issued different coloured & styled soldiers over the years, finding more colours or styles on e-bay is not difficult.

I would take the original Risk game and "supersize" the relevant parameters for a seventh person. For instance, there are 42 territories in a game for 6 people, so I would have 49 territories. There are six continents in Risk so I would have seven in your game. I would also adjust the number of starting armies for the seventh person.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Texas hold'em flush Tie or Not?
I was playing Texas Holdem last night with some friends at my house and this was the hand we were dealt:
My cards 7♠ 6♦
His cards 10♠ 7♥
Cards on table  6♠ 8♠ Q♠ J♠ 2♠
Odd hand. Everyone else folded after the flop. Who would have won?
My arguments, 1. Because there is a flush on the table our pocket cards are void and we split the pot. 2. Because the Queen is the highest ♠ card on the table it is shared by both of us so we split the pot. I thought that in a flush the only card that matters is the highest for example if he had a pocket K♠ he would have won.
His argument, was that since his 10♠ is higher then my 7♠ he won and takes it all.
We were all confused and the vote between players was split 50/50 so i said house rules and split the pot. He got pissed and left the table and didn't come back. Was i in the wrong? Any help is appreciated.

Perhaps learning the rules of a game would be better done before playing it for money.

I would leave every table where someone over-houserules the official rules to take half of my money - and I probably would never come back.

Your opponent won the pot.
The fact that there's a flush on the table isn't relevant to whether or not your pocket cards matter. Each player creates the best 5-card hand that he can out of the total 7 cards (2 pocket cards plus 5 table cards). While it is possible that the best 5-card hand is the 5 table cards, that is not the case here.
The best 5-card hand that you could make was Q♠-J♠-8♠-7♠-6♠, and the best 5-card hand that your opponent could make was Q♠-J♠-10♠-8♠-6♠. Your opponent's resulting 5-card hand was better than yours. You both had a flush, so you look at the highest card you each had. This was a tie, so you look at the second-highest card. Still a tie, so you look at the third-highest. Your opponent's third-highest was an 10, while yours was an 8, so he wins.

They're called kicker cards for a reason.

The higher flush wins the pot.  And a Q-J-10-8-6 is better than a Q-J-8-7-6 so your opponent won the pot.  It's the same for any other non-flush hand where the highest cards form the tie break.  Then you compare the next one and the next until 5 cards are in both hands.  Then if both 5 card hands are identical it's a tie.
In this case, your 3rd best card lost to his 3rd best card.  He should have won the pot.

@Ethan: You should do better than that; go find your opponent, apologize to him, and pay him the remainder of the pot that you withheld from him. That is the honourable, and proper behaviour.

There are situations where "board plays," in which case it would be a tie. This is not one of those situations.
A "board plays" situation would be something like A♠ K♠ Q♠ J♠ T♠ (your friend would have to have the 9♠ or 8♠ against your 7♠). That is to say that the board represents the best possible hand. Here, your pocket cards are "void."
The reason "board plays" does not apply is because his T♠ and your 7♠ both improve the board. Therefore, these respective pocket cards are not "void."
Both your holdings replace the 2♠. His hand is, 6♠ 8♠ Q♠ J♠ T♠. Your hand is 6♠ 8♠ Q♠ J♠ 7♠. His hand is better because T♠ beats 7♠ (when you compare the two hands),

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


text:
Good Go practices for a beginner?
I am looking to learn Go.  I learned the rules a few years back, but there is a mindset that the game rewards.  I want to try to capture that mindset.
I have read many Go books, but they are static.  They certainly have a place in my plan for learning go, but they are not everything.
I intend to play in the online Go communities, and that is where my question is focused.  What is the best way to practice Go in a competitive community?  Obviously I can play on varying board sizes and try to constantly win while they try to win, but is there a better way?
I play Starcraft 2, and follow the advice of Day[9].  He recommends practice games where one focuses on a particular aspect of the game (such as being observant, never slowing down your economy, or constantly attacking).  This focus allows one to practice small aspects of the game independently, then put them together when you actually wish to perform (as opposed to practice).
Are there recommended ways to practice Go in this sense?  I am looking for the kind of practice approaches which may hurt my chances of winning but increase the likelihood that I learn something.  I have less use for practice techniques that are dependent on a willing partner, for most of my partners I expect will be out to win.

For starters: Joseki; Tesugi; Openings (just as in Chess); Life and Death;

Joseki and Openings are not for beginners (see my longer answer below).

That is what I do and I think it works quite well:

play games - review them afterwards
If you don't review your games you wont learn as much since a bad move in go can have consequences many moves later and you probably won't pick it up during the game
Have a stronger player review your game (if you can) this helps a lot (try not arguing with them too much especially if they are much stronger than you)
Play go varieties like single colour go on 9x9 it helps a lot to improve your
reading without looking at the board
Learn joseki fuseki tesuji do life and death, this is probably a bit dull and boring but it helps :D, you might just do the joseki you saw in the last game and see if you cold done anything better, maybe you can review a group you killed? was it actually dead?
watch other people play at your local go club if you have one or online, there are multiple streamers and yt channels with lectures and games with commentary I watch these: dwyrin, Nick Sibicky, Haylee

Hope that helps!

Two things I'd add, that may not be obvious: Play (also) against stronger players, 5kyu difference seems  to be good for learning. Get your opponents to comment on your reviews. Personally, I liked the advice to play, and likely loose, your first 40 games before worrying about theory, joseki and all that. But I'm not far enough to say if its good advice.

The winning (expert) mindset is to be willing to "sacrifice" when necessary. Instead, you should try to get compensation.
For instance, if you have a small weak group that you can't defend, you might want to sacrifice it and start an attack on an opposing group of similar size in a different part of the board.
Or if your opponent has reasonably secure territory, you don't want to invade it and possibly get killed. Instead, you should play "restricting" moves that limit the growth of this territory. Sometimes this will give you control of the center of the board, and more than enough compensation.
One more thing: a ko is worth only half the nominal value of what is being fought for because it takes two moves to secure it. This is an important rule to keep in mind when evaluating ko threats.
Go is played on a much larger board (361 points) than Chess (64 squares), meaning that there are more "second chances" in Go. In chess, if you lose a pawn or an important square, that's the game. In Go, if you suffer a similar loss, you have more chances to recoup.

There are a few things to add to kruczy's answer:

Start with the 9x9 board to master basic tactics fast
Once you are comfortable on 9x9 advance to 13x13
After a few dozens of games on 13x13 try the full 19x19 board
In the beginning, life and death problems help you a lot (and even later, the art of life and death never ends!)
Tesuji come next
Don't look to deep in opening theory before reaching a rank of at least 10 kyu. Start with basic Joseki for the 4-4 point then.
Specialise. With this, I mean, try out patterns that work for you. Stick with patterns that win your games, try something different for loosing patterns.
Learn about openings like San-Ren-Sei or the Chinese Opening

And, when a local Go club is available, join it!


text:
Examples of steady play in Go games?
I am looking for examples of professional Go games where one of the pros played solid, steady moves that were initially considered slow by the commentators, but eventually won him/her the game.
My objective is to try and better understand the role of reinforcement moves.
Thanks!

As to specific games, I think someone else might be able to point you exactly, but if we want to talk about players, I recommend Kobayashi Koichi, or Lee Changho. The former because of his very territorial style of play, the latter because of the thick, endgame approach.

Notably, Alpha Go moves were initially considered either slow or mistakes. In reality the bot was maximizing its probability of winning rather than maximizing its score. The bot's goal was to win even if it was by 0.5 moku.

Michael Redmond, the only western nine-dan pro, is a player who plays in the style you describe. The result is that he has placed "high" in several tournaments but has never won one. He "outlasts" most players but inevitably falls to one with a "sharper" style. His games (and game commentaries) often serve as models for the kind of play you are looking for.Here is some Redmond commentary. And here are some of his games
It has been noted by a commenter that the computer program Alpha Go plays "slow" moves that maximizes the chances of winning, rather than maximizing the score.

You can checkout games of Minoru Kitani, Hideo Otake, or Rin Kaiho.

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


text:
Bidding in contract bridge
I am not a bridge player. I have a question about bidding in contract bridge. The question isn't about the mechanics of bidding or what is the ”best” bid given a particular hand. My question is about  the ”communication process” in the bidding phase. I am aware that partners communicate information about the cards in their hands by bidding things like “1 Heart” or “ 3 No trumps” and hence to arrive at some “agreement” about how tricks they are likely to win in the playing phase .
What I don't understand is all this information about bid is “public” so surely the opponents will make the same deductions as the partner as to the likely distribution of cards in the hands? So won't this end up with a sort of ”zero sum” where all players pretty much know what cards are held before the play starts and the playing of the hands is rendered pretty ”mechanical”? Also as I understand, bidding must be a fair representation of the cards held. Any attempt at “bluffing” or "misdirection" in bidding is considered at least “poor play” and at worst some kind of act against the whole ethos of contract bridge. Is that correct or an unfair characterisation?

Yes, you're right - there is no secret information shared by your partner but not with opponents, beyond the difference in ability of the two partnerships at deciphering the information.  When I say "One Heart", everyone at the table knows that I have 12-21 points and 5 or more hearts.
Bridge isn't Poker, or any other similar game, where hiding your hand from your opponents is the skill portion of the game.  In bridge, the skill is in deciding the best contract for your partnership, and then playing it correctly.
That's not to say you tell your opponents everything that is in your hand, though; in fact, this is one of the skills - knowing whether you should announce something that gives information away or not.  Your opponents could be bidding for a contract, and you have one opportunity to make a call other than Pass, say; you could make that call, which both tells your partner something (say, what suit to lead), but also warns opponents of that same information - or you might not make that call, just "pass" instead, and conceal the information from all parties.

So, if my partner and I developed a completely different bidding system (possibly not as good as the current standard one), are you saying it would be considered cheating for us to use it without explaining it to the other players first?

Using any bidding system is cheating if you don’t tell them what you’re doing. There are lots of systems - all of them require disclosure.  In competition some bidding systems might be illegal, also, FYI.

This is a (very old fashioned) extreme example, but many systems are designed at least in part to hide information from the defenders.  Bids on the left, explanations on the right:
1NT-2D; 12-14 Balanced - Artificial game force
2NT-3C; No 4 card major or 5 card minor - show your shape
3H-4S; exactly 3 spades, 2 hearts, 4=4 in the minors (key!) - to play
pass
Sure the defenders know a lot about opener's hand - 13 HCP give or take 1 point, exact shape - but that hand is going down on the table after the opening lead, so they'd know that all anyway.  All they know about the closed hand is that it has enough strength for game (which, well, they're in game, so one would hope so) and his decision on where to play relied on partner's exact shape (so, almost always 5 spades, but could be weak in hearts with 4 spades, and now he knows that 3NT has a fatal flaw).
As the other answers noted, all bidding leaks information, which is useful on defence (or in declarer play, from bids made and not made from the defenders).  During the play, similarly, defenders will pass information about their hand to their partner with their carding signals, and that is read by declarer as well.
The key is that the information passed to partner is worth more than the cost of giving it to the opponents (usually).  Another key, given in particular by 'Forget...', is that even with all that information, declarer play is hard, and defence is harder.
This ability to pass information with a very limited set of calls is so critical in bridge (even if it's read by the opponents as well) that the premiere strategy for the weak side is to take away as much of that room as safely possible, to make it that much harder for the strong side to work out where to play.  This is called "Pre-empting", and entire books have been written about it, and entire nights at the bar after the game are spent discussing the "finer points".
As far as deliberate misbids, you are correct, they are legal but frowned on in many circumstances (against weaker players, when not in contention (especially against friends who are), just for the [...] of it,...).  They also can not be done too frequently, ethically (as partner will get a better idea than the opponents when you're lying, and what you have when you lie.  Since the opponents are entitled to all information you know about your partner's bidding, either you have to tell them (and then there are issues about whether that agreement is legal) or you don't (and you have an unfair advantage).)  How frequent is "too frequent" is a question for the ages, but I do it more than most, and I probably average two a year (over 4000 deals or so).
It's not commonly done even ignoring those restrictions because passing information to partner is so important that lying to everybody actually harms your score on average (which is why "when not in contention", et al).
But basically, "full disclosure" is a base rule of bridge.  Playing it with that constraint is no different from not being allowed to leave the batter's box to get a better look at the pitch, or not being allowed to play the puck after crossing the blue line before it.  The best players are "the best players playing within the constraints of the rules", in any game or sport.

Nice write up. Some partnerships, such as Kehela-Murray and Drury-Murray, had it easy. Everyone on both partnerships always knew that if one player at the table was lying - it was certainly Murray. Though the ethical guidelines were less strict in those days.

One of my favourite of my own one-liners.  In response to "why is Drury called Drury?""Because calling it Murray would have been rude."On the other hand, all of Murray's opponents, and Meredith's across the pond, also knew . (So goes it with Zia these days - everybody knows that if someone is playing around, it's him.  It's just that with Zia, usually you find out that someone is playing around too late...)

Yes, same with Murray. He and Kehela were the third ranked pair world wide, for many years, for good reason.

Yes, it is a requirement that each partnership's agreements, both in Bidding and Play, must be available to the other side. However, by my estimate somewhere between 5 and 10% of all non-trivial calls by each side require judgement between two (or more) possibilities. These decisions are often the topic of long, occasionally even heated, discussion with partner and other colleagues after the game. Learning how to make these judgement decisions (which occur on at least half of all deals for at least one player at the table) is the learning process as one advance from novice to intermediate, to veteran, to expert, and perhaps beyond.
One of the most difficult lessons to learn is when not to make a call, even though you (at least nominally) have the right hand for it because it's the wrong time, or the wrong opponents. As a novice doing such usually results in a loss of more points than opponents were entitled to make at their own contract, through a doubled set. As one progresses through intermediate and veteran skill it is more common that such results in keying the opponent's play rather than bidding. If Declarer must locate an outstanding Queen, or protect against a bad break in in one opposing hand or the other, even an undue hesitation before passing may key the correct decision. It takes great discipline, skill, and experience to make each call and play in tempo, and avoid making calls which allowed by one's system would be inopportune at the current moment. That's where the great players pull ahead of those who are merely experts.
Finally, one must remember that all major tournaments are ten days long. Even in a team event with a six player team, where each player gets to sit out one third of the sessions, playing such a mentally intense activity for 7 hours a day, against top-level opposition, for ten days, is a significant test of endurance. One often hears intermediate players comment unfavourably on the errors made in the final sessions of major tournaments (and yes, I've been there and one that in my youth): "How could E. have missed such an obvious play?!"  That's an easy thing to say when one plays 2 or 3 sessions a week against club opposition; try the same thing on the tenth day of 2 or 3 sessions per day against top-level opposition, like the champions do.

Bids not Intended to Make
The question says:

Also as I understand, bidding must be a fair representation of the
cards held. Any attempt at “bluffing” or "misdirection" in bidding is
considered at least “poor play” and at worst some kind of act against
the whole ethos of contract bridge. Is that correct or an unfair
characterisation?

This is quite incorrect. There are any situations in which intentionally bidding more than one can reasonably make, and failing to do so would be poor play. For example, if you have reason tom think, during the bidding, that you and your partner can take 8 tricks with hearts as trump, but your vulnerable opponents can take 9 tricks at no-trump, it is good play to bid four hearts, contracting to take 10 tricks. If your estimate is correct, your opponents will score 100 or 200 points for setting you (depending on whether your side is vulnerable) or if the opponents double you (as they probably should) they will score 200 or 500 points. But if you has permitted them to bid and make three NT, they would have scored 600, so 4H down 2 is a better result, perhaps much better
To Give a more detailed example suppose your partner o0pens one heart as dealeer, and your right-hand opponent bids 1 no-trump. Assuming Standard American bidding on both sides, you partner has shown about 13-20 high-card points (HCP) and your opponent 16-18  with a quick trick (stopper) in hearts, and a balanced distribution.
Now if you chance to hold
S: xx
H: KJxxx
D: Qxxx
C: xx
It is likely that you can take at least 8 tricks in Hearts, possibly more if your partner has more than the minimum promised, and it is very plausible though hardly certain that your opponents could make 3NT. An immediate bid of 4H v uts them off from 3NT, and will more often than not be a winning action, even when it goes down.
However, a bid that is too high would allow the opponents to make a score higher than any they might make by taking the contract. For example bidding 7H on the above hand and auction would be very unwise.  How high to bids is a matter of skill and judgement, in light of one's own hand and the previous calls in the auction.
Public meanings of Bids
Now as to some of the other aspects of the question.
While the agreed meanings of all bids used must be known to or available to the opponents, there is often a significant range of hands that might make a particular sequence reasonable. Nor are all players capable of prefect play.  The best way to declare or defend a hand, even given the knowledge revealed by the calls of the opponents, is often far from clear. In many cases there may bge two or more lines of play which could prove successful. Properly handling the timing of play, entries, transport between the two hands, and other options is often far from mechanical. Indeed this is one of the places where bridge skill can be decisive. A player who is good at play of the hand will have consistently better results than one who is only average,  and will tend to be a winning player. Many books have bee written on the card-play involved, starting only at the end of the auction, advising how to analyze a hand based on the auction and the known cards, and how to achieve the best possible result in the circumstance. Once beyond beginner levels players strive to master these techniques, and to retain the needed focus and quick thought to apply them in actual play, as opposed to leisurely analysis of a paper problem. It is not at all easy.


text:
Using the Deserter card in Catan Cities & Knights after realizing you can't place a knight instead
Please help me to determine if the following move is legal:

The active player uses the Deserter card and chooses another's player knight to steal.
After revealing the card and asking to steal the knight, the active player realizes that he can't place a knight of it's own since he/she doesn't have valid spot for him.
The active player wants to build a road so he could place a knigh instead (after revealing the card earlier).

The other player chooses the knight, not the player that plays the card. That is an important detail.

It is technically not legal; but how to handle this situation will depend largely on your playgroup’s style and friendliness.
Playing the Deserter card when you don’t have a space to place your new Knight is completely legal:

Progress Cards: Deserter - May I play the Deserter if I can’t place a knight of the same strength?

Yes

Also, the act of placing your own knight is optional; the card says you “may” place a knight.
So technically, as soon as the player revealed the card and chose the opponent, the card should be considered played, and now that the card has been played, it would be too late to construct a road before the card is finished getting played.

During your turn, after you have rolled the dice, you may play any number of progress cards in any order. You may play them between other actions taken during your turn. When you play a progress card, resolve all of its effects, then place it, face down, under the progress card stack of the matching color.

However, with pretty much any playgroup I know, the players would allow this, assuming that the player did not get any extra knowledge by playing the card that caused them to decide to build a road. There are 2 possibilities here:

If the player needed to build a road in order place his own knight no matter what, then I and anyone I’d be likely to play with would allow the player to build the road first; basically temporarily undoing the move. Little mistakes like that happen often in board games, and we generally allow the player to fix it if he catches it immediately and before anything else has changed.
If the opponent's choice of which knight to remove affected the decision to build a road, then we would not allow it to be undone. For example, if the opponent had 2 knights; one was in a space where the active player could place a knight, and the second was not. The attacked player chose the second knight, which left the active player with no space place a knight. But had the attacked player chosen the first knight, then a new road would not be necessary. In this case, playing the card without building a road first would not be an obvious mistake; but could be seen as a gamble that the opponent would chose the first knight.


text:
Does the camel caravan gives points at the edge of the oasis?
In Catan Traders & Barbarian expansion, if I place a settlement at the initial point of the caravan convoy, and it has a camel going through it, does it give an additional VP or not?

Catan Traders & Barbarians - Rules

Three caravans are formed during the course of the game--each caravan
  consists of a string of camels that begins at the oasis. Each
  settlement and city adjacent to a caravan route is worth an extra
  victory point. (page 12)

According to the rules (page 14), the essential condition for obtaining an extra victory point is :

Each settlement or city located between 2 camels is worth 1 additional
  victory point.

Therefore, in the situation you describe, if there are two camels - one starting the caravan and leaving the oasis, and another that has come back to the oasis (see photo) then, if you build a settlement on the oasis between these 2 camels, you will get an extra victory point. The edge to the right of the settlement is considered an initial point of a caravan because a camel is leaving one the 3 caravan starting points.

The photo above is a reconstruction of the example on page 14 of the rules.
In the photo, I have added the objects pointed to by red arrows : 2 red roads and one camel. By placing a red settlement (or city) on the oasis, in the position indicated by the red box, the red player will get an extra victory point because the settlement is between 2 camels.
Catan Traders & Barbarians - Rules


text:
Premptive bid with too much strength in Bridge?
What happens if opener bids 3 diamonds (a preemptive bid) and everyone else passes and then it is discovered that opener had 14 points, too many to preempt?

By "14 points" do you mean "14 high-card points", evaluated only using the Work Point Count for high cards, or do you mean "14 total points, both high card and distribution"? Many distributional point systems would count the diamond length as worth five points (one for the fifth, two each for the sixth and seventh), which would leave just 9 High-Card points, quite reasonable for either a Vulnerable and Not preempt at the three level if no outside Ace, King, QJx or QTx is held.

It is not a violation of bridge law to deviate from your agreed bidding methods. Players are allowed to use their judgement. This kind of bids create a problem with the laws only if a regular partnership does it often enough so that one partner is live to the possibility that their pre-empting partner may, in fact, hold a strong hand. If my regular partner had done this twice, then it would behoove me to alert the opponents of this piece of partnership history. In a casual game with pick-up (or drawn) partners such a bid is very much ok. In 3rd hand at least it would have some tactical merit.

Whatever the result of playing 3D was stands. Bidding incorrectly is not (usually) a violation of the laws of contract bridge.

As @Ruds said, whether you bid 3D on purpose or by accident, you have to play 3D and/or proceed bidding as if 3D is a pre-empt. If the bidding comes back around to opener they are allowed to continue bidding (regularly), indicating that they might not possess a 'standard' preemptive hand; in my experience that only adds to the confusion rather than clearing it up. When in a hole, stop digging.
Two notes I want to make in addition:

The opener is not allowed to say anything about a bid made in mistake - whether they end up playing 3D, or partner has to play (say, 3 Spades) or opponents play -until that hand is finished.
If you and/or partner regularly open 7-card hands without regard for points at 3-level, you may need to include that in your bidding system / add that to the system's card: Opening 3 C/D/H/S: 7 cards, 0-14 HCP

There are no "rules" to bidding. The systems we use now are agreements we make that X bid advertises you have this and that.
By bidding 3D, the opener advertised they do not have opening strength. It is not a crime to mis-advertise your hand (on accident).
You can also mis-advertise your hand on purpose. In that case it's called a psyche. This means that you want to mislead opponents (and your own partner) in the hopes they will miss the right contract or play wrong as declarers. If you psyche too often, that can become a problem though.

Not bad enough for a down-vote - but you have entirely missed the vital connection between the right of one player to make any constructive bid, and the obligation of that player's partner to not have any private knowledge, either implicit or explicit, about the occurrence of such a circumstance.

In my third paragraph I stated that doing it too much will be a problem. I left out why that is; the thing your comment explains.


text:
Bridge: Strong balanced hand rebid?
I open 1D with a balanced hand of 19HCP.  Partner bids 1NT. No interference from oponents. How do I show my strength in NT in rebid? Should I bid 2NT or 3 NT?

Assuming a relatively standard framework, then partner's response shows 6-9 points with no 4-card Major and an inability to make a weak raise in diamonds. It is generally desired to play in a 3NT game with two balanced hands when the partnership assets total 25 (or a good-matching and equally divided 24) points. Partner's announced 6 with your 19 make 25, so the book bid is a direct raise to 3NT, as stated by ruds.
However, there are strategic considerations. There may be difficulties with so few partnership assets hidden. The opponents may well be playing double dummy from trick 2 or 3 on if a good lead is found. I would tend to underbid by a point here, and raise just to 2NT with exactly 19, when not vulnerable. It is winning bridge to stretch slightly (to game, not slam) when vulnerable, and retract slightly (again wrt to game only - small-slam bidding is reversed) when not vulnerable. This reflects the unequal rewards and benefits of vulnerable and not vulnerable game (or rubber) bonuses.
The raise to just 2NT invites partner to continue on with 8-9 points, and to pass (or correct, if your agreements allow) with just 6-7.

Daily smile for those who know Latin: I saw the use of boni in place of bonuses last weekend in an answer on another site - clearly by someone who didn't know that boni means "good men", and Boni means specifically "the good men who conspired to assassinate Caesar". The meaning of the answer changed dramatically with that interpretation.

You don't mention your bidding system. In Standard American, you would rebid 3NT.

One good option is to reserve the 3NT rebid for excellent 6-card diamond suits.  (Just as many partnerships use a 3NT rebid to show 18-19 with 6-card major after opening 1M).
So, in this case, you would either rebid 2NT or open 2NT.  (In general, I open 2NT for most any 19 count with a 5 card minor, and some other excellent 19s besides.)

Partner bid 1NT (6-9 points balanced), opposite your hand, which was also balanced, but too strong for 1NT. Clearly, you belong in a NT contract, with the decision being between 2NT and 3NT. Your rebid options are between those two bids, and the issue is who gets to decide the level.
If you rebid 2NT, you let partner decide. Your 1D--2NT sequence advertises 18-19 points. (With 20-21, you would have bid 2NT directly). Partner now knows that your strength range is exactly 18-19 and will (probably) give you credit for 18. If s/he has 6-7, partner will probably pass, calculating your combined count at 24-25. If partner has 8-9, partner should raise to 3NT, figuring on 26-27.
If you raise to 3NT, you are taking the decision on your own. This is not recommended. The problem is that you now know the strength of partner's hand only within four points (6-9), whereas after your 2NT bid, partner knows your hand within a two point range (18-19). Better information makes for better decisions.
A 2NT bid (almost) fully informs partner about the strength of your hand (and s/he can make the better decision). This bid makes partner the "captain" in the bidding process.

Read the sentence again. It states that making one's partner the captain for the hand is "(nearly) "always" a good thing for partnership relations.". That's untrue. What is good for partnership relations is to know your bidding system so well that identification of which direction (not partner) should be captain is trivially obvious to both partners.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: OK, deleted the last part, and made a reference to the bid as making the partner the captain.I acknowledge my debt to you for teaching me the importance of "captaincy," and apologize for misapplying the principle earlier.


text:
How do blackjack simulations work?
The basic strategy of blackjack has been built using computer simulations. Let's say I program the simulation's "player" to play with a certain strategy, hitting, standing or whatever given certain player and dealer hands. I then run the simulation, having the "player" play possibly millions of hands and then I observe the results.
But how are the results interpreted? I could count how many hands the player won and lost. If the player lost a lot of money, then definitely there was something wrong with my strategy, and I would need to adjust it. But how would I know what to change? There is a large number of possibilities, and I don't know which part of my strategy influenced my big losses and how much. Is there some kind of algorithm for this? I suppose I could just randomize the strategy until I find a one that brings the player most money, but that doesn't seem to be very effective.
Also, how does betting work in these simulation? Is there usually a fixed bet or is there some kind of betting strategy being implemented also?
I haven't been able to find much code or anything that would explain how these simulations work in more detail.

I would start by studying the already existing and well known strategies - all of which are well founded in both probability and game theory. While it is undoubtedly possible to achieve marginal improvements on these, the likelihood of a wholly new strategy being an improvement is zero.

@Forget I was ever here I think you've misinterpreted my question. I'm not looking to improve any existing strategies (which I am familiar with quite well), I'm interested in how these strategies were developed in the first place. Modern blackjack strategy tables are more based on simulation than calculation.

Your answer is going to be highly dependent on what the simulation is trying to determine. Is it just trying to figure out the basic win rate based on when you take actions? Is it trying to determine what the best bets to place are?

There's probably a tractable exact solution. Having counted all the previously seen cards, you can get exact probabilities for each value drawn, and thus can calculate the expectation for winning or losing for each possible move.

Any simulation is based upon a set of assumptions - the simplest assumption in blackjack is that any card drawn will be of value 10 (i.e., 10, J, Q, K). You run your simulation with that assumption, which drives your strategy (e.g., the simplest being hit if you have 11 or less, stand if you don't). Run a million hands and see how you fared.
If you're not in the hole by a lot, great. Your strategy works reasonably well, and you could stop there if you wanted. If you are down a lot of money, then you need to start modifying your strategy until you find one that works well (enough). And, without some guiding principles based on probability and such, to do that you really do need to test just about every possible strategy you can think of (within reason).
The beauty of this is that computers are really good at running millions and billions of hands, and so running all these simulations is not as bad as it may sound (I would expect a well-written program to be able to simulate 1 million hands in a matter of minutes, so you can run hundreds or thousands of different iterations in a day). If you can apply some math and statistics, you can likely reduce the number of modifications you need to run.
So you start out by modifying your bet (double down if you have 11, for instance), or your hit/stand rules (split Aces), or your assumptions (hit on 12 if the dealer shows 10, because even though you're likely to draw a 10 there's a possibility you won't). The key is to only modify one element at a time. At the end of each run, compare your final chip count. Find the run with the highest and there you go. You could then start to combine some of your highest scoring modifications and see how the combination fairs (double down if you have 10 or 11, for example).
In the end you wind up with a set of rules for how the player should bet and play, to maximize their winnings / minimize their losses.
This is a type of simulation called Monte Carlo simulation, in that it uses a random hand to simulate the play. Run enough times, the randomness can lead to a deterministic answer. In fact, each time you run your simulation, you are trying to calculate the house advantage - if you start with $100 and wind up with $98, the house has a 2% advantage (or something like that). The closer you get to simulating perfect play, the closer you get to calculating the true house advantage.

The optimal player strategy of BJ is well studied and known.  A quick google search will present you tons of charts similar to this one.
The way to find the optimal action in each situation is, as mmathis said, Monte Carlo simulation: in each position {hand of the player, card of the dealer} simulate about a million times what will be the player's profit if she plays each of the actions.  Then choose the action with the highest average profit in each situation.
As far as I know, betting sizing does not work anymore since dealers shuffle the cards before the reaching the bottom of all the cards.

the last 60 to 75 cards or so will not be used. (Not dealing to the
  bottom of all the cards makes it more difficult for professional card
  counters to operate effectively.)
  BJ rules

Pseudocode:
list_of_best_actions = []
for each hand of the player:
    for each hand of the dealer:
        maximal_average_profit = 0
        best_action = None
        for each action from possible_actions:
             profit = 0
             for iteration (1,n):
                  profit += play(action)
             average_profit = profit / n
             if average_profit > maximal_average_profit
                 best_action = action
    list_of_best_actions.append(best_action)


text:
Diplomacy Support Question?
In the Diplomacy board game, can player A issue a support order for a player B unit? Let's say player B has a hold order for his unit. Can player A use that unit for support in an attack? Basically, at any point under any circumstance can I "commandeer" an opponents unit to support my own attack, and in essence cut that support if he is also using it in an attack?

You can only issue orders for your own units. I'm trying to work out if I have misread the question but you seem to be asking if you can issue orders to units that aren't yours...

I'm with Chris.  A specific example of the orders for player A and player B would help a great deal to clarify what you are asking about.

No, you can only give orders for your own units.
The first sentence of paragraph 2, "Order writing phase" in the rules is, emphasis mine,

Each player secretly writes "orders" for each of his/her own units on a slip of paper.

With no rules reference or explanation, this is essentially an opinion comment rather than a legitimate answer (despite being correct). Another sentence or two by way of explanation, before I forget about this question, would garner an up-vote from me.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I know, but I still feel this question needs an answer like this.

A nation can support another nation's units. You just need to coordinate and issue the correct orders. Remember, you need to be specific with your support.

Army in X supports army moving from Y into Z.

That's till inadequate - you must specify the territory from which the moving army/fleet being supported in its attack is moving (or being convoyed) from.

You can only send orders for your own units. You can use diplomacy to request another player to issue an order, but they are not required to do so.
You can issue an order to support a unit of another player (both move and hold). You can also convoy a unit of another nation.
But you can not support a unit that is attacking you.

"But you can not support a unit that is attacking you."  Actually you can, but the order is voided by the attack (if I recall correctly).

There are several versions of te rules. Some allow it some don't but the end is that it is voided.

No.
The way to obtain the support of Player B's unit is to convince player B to write out the support order on your behalf.
Let's say you are France, allied with England against Germany. On the second turn, you move A Burgundy to Belgium, opposed only by a German fleet, Netherlands to Belgium. You want the support of the English fleet in the North Sea.
Even though you and England are allies, you can't write orders on his behalf. Instead, you must persuade him to write, F North Sea supports A Burgundy to Belgium on his own order card.
This is a good time to find out if England really is your ally. Maybe his order will be, instead, F North Sea supports F Netherlands to Belgium.

The nationality on your orders is unnecessary, and also troublesome as giving an excuse for an argument over the completeness of an order. The nationality of a piece being ordered or supported is always irrelevant - as it is always fully determined from the piece's start-of-move location. It is highly desirable to practice, and demonstrate, a minimally fully complete methodology for writing orders.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: That's not the way I was taught, but i respect your suggestion enough to follow it. Fixed.


text:
What are the criteria for the best move in Scrabble?
Suppose you're playing (classical, not duplicate) Scrabble and it's your turn. My question is:

What would be a good general defintion of a best move for you?

The definition could be of a theoretical interest only, but I'd prefer a definition which could be translated (at least partially) in program code in order to generate automatically the list of your best moves.
Some constraints of objectivity
It might be argued that the concept of best move is a subjective one. In effect, when choosing your move, you might take these factors into consideration:

Your opponent last moves, in order to evaluate the probability that he has certain letters in his current rack. Note that in general, you can't know for sure what his letters are, except if there's no letters remaining in the bag.
Your opponent strength. Note that in general, you can't know for sure if your opponent will know particular words or if he will see particular variations.
Your opponent style (open or close).
Your opponent psyche. This is what you exploit when you bluff.

The three last factors apply only if you play against a human. Indeed, a program would theoretically be of the greatest strength and it would only care about playing a good objective move.
I think that it is reasonable, therefore, to distinguish between two types of best moves: subjective ones and objective ones. My question asks for a definition of the objective one, since it is the one which can be used . In other words, we must not

"In other words, we must not".... editing failure :-)

Is @Amateur the same person as OP? 'cause that's quite an edit they're suggesting...

@BenjaminCosman Yes, I messed up. It would not let me post at first because they considered it to be spam or something.

@Amateur you should use the "contact us" link at the bottom to request that your user profiles be merged.

Also, after reading your proposed edit in full, I'm not actually sure what your question is. You say that you are asking for a good general definition of a best move, but you later say "Intuitively, a best move should give you the biggest probability of winning the game". This looks like a perfectly valid and good answer to the question, and if that's not what you're looking for, than what is?

I'm tempted to vote to close this question as being too broad. Could you imagine the same question with respect to chess or go? The criteria for best move changes depending on the board state, your rack state, what your opponent's last few plays were, and what stage of the game that you're in. How can we objectively answer a question with none of that information?

The permutations for possible situations precludes providing a general definition for the best move. You have to account for the tiles that have been played, the tiles you have available, the points that could be played at both before and after your move, the squares available, the tiles you will draw in the future, etc.

If you're really serious about this, you'd want to consider using machine learning to derive that notion of the quality of a move, rather than creating heuristics manually. Look for "value network" and "policy network", or look for things about AlphaGo. (You can use those ideas even without being on the same scale as AlphaGo.)

Any move in Scrabble has a few effects on the game:

It earns you points.
Unplayed tiles remain on your rack.
You draw new tiles (usually).
The board changes, which can make scoring easier or harder.

This suggests that the best move is one that can maximize as many of these (sometimes conflicting) aspects:

It scores a bunch of points.
It leaves you with complementary tiles for future points, especially having a good vowel-consonant balance.  It often pays to forego a few points this turn for a good opportunity at a bingo the next turn.
It lets you draw many tiles.  This means more opportunities for getting "lucky" with high point tiles (JXQZ) or super useful blanks.
It shapes the board in a way favorable to your current gameplan.  The best advice I've heard is to open the board up when behind (for more opportunities to catch up) and to close the board down if you're ahead (for just the opposite reason).

You won't always have an obvious best choice, but the more bullet points you can achieve the better.  Bingos are especially important because they score a bunch of points and give you more chances of drawing important tiles.

I hope I understand the question enough.
You could say, the best move is the one that gives you the most points. But that only looks at the current move, not the entire game. If your best moves gives you X points, but it enables another player to get X + Z points the overall effect of the move is negative.
Unfortunately, you don't know the hand of the other players. So you need to use some judgement. If you can choose between two moves, and one of these has a high likelyhood that another player plays an even better move, you probably better use the next one.
So you should play a move that:

give you a decent amount of points.
minimizes the obvious connections for other players.
exploits obvious connections (so other players can't use that).
preferably one that includes a lot of hard tiles.


text:
Bridge - Standard American
While playing 2 over 1 where a responders bid of 2 in a new suit shows 13 or more points (we open with 12 points) and is game forcing then a 1NT response to a Major opening by partner would show upto 12 points (is that right?)
And to a 1 of a minor opening bid it would show upto 10 points.
So, the bidding goes:
N    E    S   W
1H/S  P   1NT  P ... 1NT bid shows up to 12 points and is one round forcing ?
1d/c  P   1NT  P ... 1NT bid shows up to 10 points and is NOT forcing ?
How do you tell when a responder is using a 6-9 point non-forcing 1NT versus a 6-12 point forcing 1NT?

Which ONE question are you asking? If you wish to ask more than one question, then create multiple questions; or remove the rhetorical questions and simply state your assumptions around the ONE questionyou ish to ask. DON'T MAKE US INVENT YOUR SYSTEM - as we do not have the benefit of partnership discussion with your partner.

This is a single "comparison and contrast" question. How do you tell when partner is responding with a 6-9 point non-forcing one no trump, versus a 6-12 point forcing?

I will take a stab at your final question: "How do you tell when a responder is using a 6-9 point non-forcing 1NT vs a 6-12 point forcing 1NT?"  With current ACBL rules, opener is required to announcing "Forcing" if their partnership agreement is as such.  [Presumably if it is YOUR partner who is bidding 1NT after your major opening, you already know which system you're playing and can announce the "Forcing" yourself.]

Yes, your suppositions are correct. But it's best not to have to work all this out yourself. Are you following a system from a book or web site? If not I suggest you do. You can always vary what you learn later.

Thanks...which is the best site you would recommend?

Here's one: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

And another: http://www.fifthchair.org/archive/annam/2-1.pdf

I have no insight into which is best, if any. I've been playing long enough that I learned using other sources.


text:
What led to the creation of games in antiquity?
I am thinking to use games for my development of thinking on a particular concept/problem. I hope to use it to know on how games provide ways of thinking on other problems. I am also thinking on making these games naked, by knowing the general structure of all these games. If on how these games came to dawn or if a origin story of the first games are given, it will be helpful.
If any related book, article, passage, quote or even abstract game is suggested, it will be of greatest help.
But was there any theme or rationale behind early games?

Boredom ? Desire to have fun ? Aren't they something we human all look for ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_games

[History.se] might be a better place to ask about things like this, though you might have to narrow it down a little.

Most of these games (running, jumping, chariot racing, fencing, javelin throwing etc.) were based on skills useful in war.
In fact, many considered these games a "civilized" form of war that allowed for the release of hostilities, without having the real thing.


text:
How to bid and make a slam with 28 HCP between the partnership?

The Common Game recently had this board in which the East-West pair usually ended up bidding and making a game contract of 3NT or 4 spades. Only 3 pairs of almost 1,000 bid and made grand slams; 42 pairs bid and made small slams. The question is, "How would you bid a slam with this hand?"

The answer is; you don’t.  Not with normal 2/1 methods, anyway; and even pretty out there methods would have a hard time finding this.
Why?  Because it’s dependent on so many things. The seven card heart fit AND the short jack. The spades splitting 2-2, or guessing the finesse.  The partnership has only eight top tricks, and the rest depend on distribution. In NT even a small slam is risky if you get a club lead!  No one would bid the grand knowing even every card in both hands for EW - you need 70% to bid a grand and you won’t get that here (hearts are 61% and spades are 46% roughly between the length and the finesse possibilities, so the grand is about 30-35%, plus some small chance for a club trick with a squeeze).  6S is probably the ideal bid double dummy (only the spade split is really a problem there, hearts don’t matter, and extra chances appear in clubs).
A normal 2/1 auction is simple here.
1NT - p - 2H - p
2S - p - 4S - pass out
Some would bid 3NT instead of 4S, and some would leave it there.  Some have ways of showing really good spades (superaccept), though KTx feels borderline to me for that. Could the spade hand see the slam?  I guess?  But 28 points and pretty average distribution beyond the one extra spade isn’t super exciting.
Some bidding systems are very control oriented very early on, for what it’s worth, and would find most or all of the eight trucks in the early going plus the space fit.  Things like this precision system would have a shot at the small slam I think.
Don’t assume that the few hands that bid the best score did so by being smarter than everyone else. Usually it’s that they were more risk-taking than usual, or misstated the strength of their hands, and got lucky. But for every top they get for this kind of thing they get four or five bottoms when they’re down 2 in grand slam and everyone else is making 4S+1.

Playing SAYC or other SA varients the auction eould be much the same. Anyone eho bids the grand i won't be playing eith in future, Even bidding 6 is overbidding on these hands.

A Club lead is dangerous for the Defense as it risks transferring the Club control and setting up the Heart-Club simple squeeze for Declarer. That's a bad idea particularly when Defenders suspect the slam is a stretch. There's few things worse than for opponents to stretch to an unmakeable slam - and then you find the only lead to let it make.

I think you have overestimated the grand considerably. https://www.bridgehands.com/S/Suit_Combination_3.htm has spades at 46% and https://www.bridgehands.com/S/Suit_Combination_1.htm has hearts at 61% taken independently. You have small additional chances from a club-heart squeeze when a stiff club honor is paired with shorter hearts (along with Hxx, Hx, or H in spades, so at least seven diamonds).

@ruds Probably; I was just making a very rough estimate (the kind most players would be able to make at the table).

@ruds Edited to reflect that, though - either way, point is Grand is a bad choice. :)

Here are two auctions that aggressive bidders could use to reach a small slam, using common methods in a 2/1 base system:
W    E
     1NT | 15-17
2H   2S  | transfer to spades; acceptance
4S   5C  | mild slam try; club control
5D   6S  | diamond control; everything's covered

For pairs that play Texas transfers, a 2-level transfer followed by a jump to game is a mild slam try with a 6-card suit. W chose to make a mild slam try with excellent controls; this was a bit aggressive. E has a control-rich maximum with good trumps, so is clearly right to bid on.
W    E
     1C  | E chooses to upgrade
1S   2NT | 4+S, 6+pts; 18-19 bal, 2-3S
3D   3S  | Some kind of checkback; 3 spades
4D   4NT | Control bid; key card ask
5H   6S  | 2 w/o the trump queen; just off the queen

Here, E has been the aggressive bidder, while W has bid normally. 3D may be part of new minor forcing or Wolff signoff, both of which use 3D to ask about opener's major-suit holdings. After the fit was found, W showed a diamond control and denied a club control. E, having the other two suits controlled, checked on key cards and placed the contract.
Note that both of these auctions are quite aggressive though not outside the realm of reason.
As noted in Joe's answer, the grand is quite bad. It requires picking up the spade suit (two-two with split honors, half of QJ tights, and half of stiff honors is about 47% a priori) and avoiding a club loser (hearts are stiff J, Jx, or Jxx in either hand, about 61% a priori, or a small chance of a stiff club honor in the hand with short hearts to provide the opportunity for a squeeze). You can't quite just multiply the a priori odds to get the probability of both things coming home, but you wouldn't be far wrong if you said that the grand is something like 25%.

Quick explanation of the spade calculation: The idea is that you cash one of your top honors. If both defenders follow low or the player under your remaining tenace played an honor, you cash the other top honor. This picks up all split honors and half of QJ tight, 5/6 of 41%. If the player over your remaining tenace played an honor, finesse the second round (1/4 of 50%).

Your first auction is impossible - 4S -> 4C.  West also doesn't really have a slam try - max 28 points and a terrible spade suit plus wasted AK doubleton of diamonds.  And why would East upgrade?  17 4-4-3-2?  These auctions just go to show how terrible of a choice it would be to go for that slam using normal bidding techniques.

(Edited to fix the first auction)

Thanks for fixing 4C->5C in the first auction. As mentioned, these auctions are aggressive. As for whether west has a (mild) slam try, here are some hands for E that lead to good or excellent slams: Kxxx Ax QJxx AJx; KJx Ax Qxxxx AKx; KQx AQx xxx KQJx; QJxx AKx QJxx Ax. As for E upgrading to a 2NT rebid, I would not but devotees of K&R evaluation might, as that system rates this hand as 18.3. Certainly it's a better hand than many 18 counts I could name with connected honors, good spots, and more aces and kings than quacks.

As others are saying, it's a 5-or-7 hand; if you can pick up the spade suit (which has some luck involved in real life when it's 3-1 with stiff honour than double-dummy) you make everything when the heart J drops in three rounds; if you can't pick up the spade suit, the club lead will mean you lose two tricks.  5-or-7 hands are the ones you never want to see; if you missed slam, you want it to fail, because if it makes, you're losing to all the slam bidders; if you're in slam, if it fails, you get an almost shared zero.  And in the case where the spades are Qxx-J (or Jxx-Q), it's even more fun, because now everyone who plays the wrong top honour loses to everyone who played the right one (and then plays Restricted Choice, which is 3-1 here) - in game or slam.
Having said that, I'm not surprised that slam was few and far between, and I agree with other answers that those in the grand almost certainly got there on a bad auction (probably using 4NT "we might have slam, partner", and then 5NT "we have all the aces, so I have to find out how many kings", then bidding the grand missing one (was the long suit not mentioned?)  Keycard would have found the missing Q, and definitely bidding seven off the trump Q and a K is a bad idea.
Having said that, these hands are what strong club systems were built for; assuming no interference (and I wouldn't guarantee that, either hand), mine would likely go:
1C-1H; 16+any, 17+if BAL - GF, 5+spades
1S-2H; Agrees spades, control ask - 5 (AAK or AKKK, has to be AAK as I have two kings)
2S-3H; Trump ask - 6 to one top honour (has to be the A, so we're off the Q)
4C-4H; Club ask - third round control, so no A or K in clubs, so DAK, which covers my doubleton)
6S-p.  5 spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds and a club; hope I can pick up one of (SQ, CK, HJ).

Note: I always find it amusing when we have auctions like this - where responder bids hearts 4 times, bu never saying anything about hearts!

First of all, there is no reasonable way to bid "seven" with these hands. One test is that only 3 pairs out of 1000 did it; the other test is in the last paragraph below. So the issue of bidding "slam" really refers to a small slam of "six."
As it were, a "random" nine card fit with 28 high card points is about "even money" to make a small slam. There are several important features of these two hands that make the actual odds decidedly better than 50-50.

There are all four aces and three kings between them. They have first round control of all four suits and two round control of three out of four. (Also, because of the power of the trumps, aces and kings are worth more than their "Work" point values at suit contracts.)

The two hands have three doubletons, that work well with the two round controls and thus provide additional ruffing value.

The two hands could actually make seven, because it was possible to drop the opposing jack of hearts, either with an opposing 3-3 split, or having the jack on the short side of 4-2 or 5-1 split. This is slightly better than a 50-50 chance, but not good enough odds on which to stake a grand slam. For this, you actually need two chances out of three (e.g. a 3-2 split in your key suit), because you lose both a game and a small slam bonus if you bid a grand slam and fail.


text:
Why is being in the dummy in bridge called "on the board"?
It is customary when declarer is in the dummy to say "on the board"?  Where did this terminology come from?

Being declarer means they are not dummy. I've never heard "on the board" to mean anything except "has scored some points at all".

In Australian bridge, the board is all four hands. You refer board 1, 2... as the set of cards played.

I've heard "on table", meaning the next card to be played (normally starting a trick) will be played by dummy. Is your "on the board" in this same sense? "On (the) table" is fairly clear as to where it came from: dummy's unplayed cards are on the table, everyone else's are in their hands.

I've definitely heard this used, e.g. declarer asks "I forgot where I took that last trick: am I now in the hand or on the board?"

The dummy's hand is typically arranged flat on the table (a flat surface, or "board"), and it appears the terminology comes from this
For example, from the ACBL's glossary:

BOARD. (1) A duplicate board. (2) The table on which the cards are played. (3) The dummy’s hand, so called because it lies on the table.

The question is not quite clear, but you may also be asking why players say "On the board". It is not polite for opponents, and not permitted for dummy, to comment on the way a hand is being played, but one of the few exceptions is to point out when declarer is about to play a card from his hand rather than from dummy as he should do. "Excuse me, but I believe the lead is in dummy rather than in your hand" is somewhat cumbersome after the first few occasions, so just saying "On the table" (or presumably "on the board" in some circles) is the normal phrasing.

In many card games, the "board" refers to exposed cards. The "dummy" plays this role in bridge. The declarer and both defenders can see it because the dummy's cards are placed face up on the table.
In Hold' em (poker), the "board" refers to the five exposed (common) cards that everyone can see and use. This is in contrast to the two private (hidden) cards in each person's hand.


text:
Pawn movement in Chess?
My opponent moved his pawn to the 7th rank. It was blocked by my bishop. He captures the bishop and promotes the pawn to a queen.
I was under the impression that a pawn captures diagonally and not in the same direction of movement.
Is there a rule that allows a pawn to capture a piece directly in front of it?

Pawns cannot capture in a forward direction, even though they move that way. If they could, there would be no way of blocking them. E.g. 1. e4   e5.  2. e4xe5. So the pawn cannot capture the blocking bishop.
Pawns capture only in a forward diagonal direction. But there are two such directions; left diagonal and right diagonal. Pawns are the only pieces in chess that capture differently from the way they move.

You should mention the "En passant" move also....

Pawns can only capture diagonally.  If there is a piece directly in front of them, they cannot move forward into that space. This isn't any different if they are moving onto the 8th rank to be promoted.
From chess.com:

Pawns are unusual because they move and capture in different ways: they move forward, but capture diagonally. Pawns can only move forward one square at a time, except for their very first move where they can move forward two squares. Pawns can only capture one square diagonally in front of them. They can never move or capture backwards. If there is another piece directly in front of a pawn he cannot move past or capture that piece.


text:
Can I block enemy's port if my navy is on the sea sector next to a factory zone?
No House Rules
So lets say I have a navy as the Japanese on the american port of western america.
Is that port now blocked? Or does America have to build its navy at the other factory or build a navy on that sea zone and go into instant battle?.
I don't see going into an instant battle being realistic to the game rules because that's not the attack phase.

I was able to find the answer after reading the rule book for 17th time after awhile.
Clearly the rules state on page 20 paragraph 2 in section restrictions on Placement
"Place sea units only in sea zones adjacent to territories containing eligible industrial complexes. New sea units can enter play even in a hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase is over."
So yes build your navy in the hostile navy sea sector adjacent to your factory but no battle is committed.

If you occupy the opponent's factory zone with a land or air unit, the opponent doesn't get to build on that zone. You do.
But the question was for the naval unit. It will be in an ocean zone next to the port zone, not in the port zone itself (it can't go on land).
The American player builds and deploys a new naval piece from the port zone to the adjacent Pacific zone side by side with the Japanese unit. This is the one time he does not attack, when there are opposing units in the same zone, because the "build" phase follows the combat phase. Put another way, the American unit ends its turn by "leaving port" as opposed to "attacking."
On the next move of the Japanese player, that player is deemed the attacker. He has the option of actually attacking (except with a transport), or of retreating the pieces in the hostile sea zone.


text:
Catan: Can I move my boat in the first round of the game?
If I build two boats during the setup, can I move one of them during the first round of the game? Or does the setup count as the first round which would mean that I can't move the boat?

You can move a ship in the first round of the game.
The setup step is something that happens before the first turn of the game begins; it doesn't happen "during a turn". There's no difference between the first turn and any later turn in terms of moving boats or anything else.


text:
In catan seafarers, does using a knight on a pirate ship give you double resources?
In Catan (seafarers), there is a new piece introduced: the pirate ship. When you move the pirate ship, even without a knight card, you get to take a resource from the owner of an adjacent boat. If you use a knight, would you get two resources, one for moving the pirate, one for the knight, or would you just get one? It doesn't really say in the book as far as I'm aware, and the wording doesn't seem to hint at it in either way.

No, the pirate ship acts in the same way that the robber does, allowing you to steal 1 resource.
Playing a Knight card by itself does not allow you to steal a resource from a player. Playing a Knight card allows you to move the robber, and if you place the robber next to a player, then you get to steal a resource from that player. The pirate works exactly the same, placing the pirate next to a player allows you to steal a resource from the player.
From the Seafarer rules:

If you roll a "7" during your turn, you may elect to move the pirate INSTEAD of the robber. Like the robber, you place the pirate in the center of any hex you choose--except that you may only place it on a sea hex. You are then allowed to steal one random resource from any ONE player who has a ship adjacent to that hex! If a player has more than one ship adjacent to that sea hex, you are only allowed to steal one card from that player.

If you play a knight card, you now have the choice of moving either the robber or the pirate.

And from the base game rules:

If you play a knight card, you must immediately move the robber. See "Rolling a '7' and Activating the Robber" above and follow steps 1 and 2.

So the Knight card by itself does not allow you to steal a resource, it is only the robber, or the pirate in the case of Seafarers, that allows you to do so.


text:
Is it advantageous to go first in Dominion?
The rulebook says:

If the highest scores are tied at the end of the game, the tied player who has had the fewest turns wins the game.

What advantages does the first player have over the other players?
Do these advantages overcome the detriment of losing in a tie when the other player has had fewer turns?
What effect does the number of players have on the advantage/disadvantage?

Yes, it is certainly advantageous to go first in Dominion.
There are some good threads about first player advantage on the DominionStrategy forums.
Here is what Donald X thinks about first player advantage.  Donald X actually underrates first player advantage based on faulty understanding of optimal play with a disadvantage (his "proof" seems to require symmetric play, which is not optimal under the asymmetry that first player advantage can induce) and hence he understates the advantage.
Here is an expert player stating the  reasons for first player advantage.
There is also copious data supporting the idea that first player has an advantage.  Here is some data analysis I did that corrects for second player is better confounding problem @Jefromi mentions.  It says that first player advantage is worth about 2 or 3 points overall.

Is there data for 4 players? Does the first player have a 2~3 point advantage over just player 4, or all three other players. Does the 3rd player have an advantage over the 4th player? If so, then how much?

I didn't crunch it for 4p, the particular bias correcting method I picked would break down for >2p games, because you just aren't going to get many exact matchup duplicates for 3+ player games.  If you want to approximate and linearize, then 1/2 turn is 2.5 points from 2p.  In 4p, the expected turn advantage is 1/4, so you'd expect the number of points to be about 1.25.

There are many advantages to going first.
Your 3rd turn is safe from attacks.  For instance in a game where people will discard down to 3 "every" turn, you will get 3 turns of playing with 5 cards, while everyone else will get 2.  This advantage can be very significant as dominion lead can snowball.
You will have the most chances to give away curses.
You have first dibs at all piles.  If any pile of good cards runs out you have a chance to have the most.
You can take a province and end the game denying everyone more turns.  So in a game where everyone is tied after an equal number of turns with 1 province left, you can take a province and win.
The tiebreaker in no way offsets this.
I would recommend letting everyone take the same number of turns, and letting players buy virtual cards from depleted piles on the last round.  Even with this and the tie breaker i do not feel like it funny offsets the first turn advantage.
The only thing that may help more than going first is 3/4 vs 5/2 but that is fixed pretty easily

Some simulator data with simple mirror strategies might help to make this more visible:
Sea Hag is the biggest offender: if both players go for Sea Hag, the first player will win almost twice as many games as the second player and in 4-player the first player will win almost 3 times as many games as the player in the 4th seat. Cutpurse's cumulative effect is clearly evident when we add more players. (Tact/Vault is the double Tactician Vault deck and HP/Baron is the Hunting Party/Baron deck)

The obvious thought is that if you scored the same number of points with one fewer turn, you did "better" (and thus deserve to win the tiebreak).


text:
How does lifelink affect indestructible creatures?
My 4/4 lifelink creature is blocked by his 1/1 indestructible creature.
How much life do I gain, if any?

You will gain 4 life.
Lifelink and indestructible have no special interactions with each other. Your 4/4 will deal 4 damage to the 1/1, and you will gain 4 life. This is the same as if your 4/4 had dealt damage to any other creature. It doesn't matter how much toughness the defending creature has, or whether it will eventually die.

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all.

@Tony: If you believe your question has been sufficiently answered, please accept one of the answers to remove it from the unanswered queue. You should also comment only to add informational value to the post.

The rules definition of indestructible would be helpful here; as the confusion seems to come from not being sure if indestructible creatures are dealt damage.

@GendoIkari I considered it originally, but ultimately decided not to include the rules quote because it doesn't make a difference whether the creature has indestructible or not (just as it doesn't matter if the creature ultimately lives or dies). I feel the extra text will just add to that confusion. (Plus the rules text is basically just "This creature doesn't die to lethal damage.")


text:
Giving a creature hexproof as a response
The situation/question:
I have Nahiri, the Harbinger. I use her "-2:  Exile target enchantment, tapped artifact, or tapped creature" on Elusive Tormentor.
My opponent transforms Elusive Tormentor, which gives it hexproof.
Does Insidious Mist get exiled or does my spell no longer work.

Nahiri's ability would be countered due to a lack of legal target (commonly called 'fizzling'). This is because the legality of a target is checked at 2 different times, when the ability is activated and put on the stack and then again when the ability goes to resolve.

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. [...] Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. [...] The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. [...]
Example: Sorin’s Thirst is a black instant that reads, “Sorin’s Thirst deals 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life.” If the creature isn’t a legal target during the resolution of Sorin’s Thirst (say, if the creature has gained protection from black or left the battlefield), then Sorin’s Thirst is countered. Its controller doesn’t gain any life.


text:
Chandra, Pyromaster's ability and spells with x casting cost
Chandra's ability allows you to cast spell without paying its casting cost:

−7: Exile the top ten cards of your library. Choose an instant or
  sorcery card exiled this way and copy it three times. You may cast the
  copies without paying their mana costs.

(see http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=383204).
What if I decide to cast a spell with an X casting cost, e.g. Fireball (see http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=376334)? What kind of damage will be dealt?

X is always zero in this case according to this rule.

107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0.


text:
Reign of Terror on Through the Ages
On the "Reign of Terror" event, do you lose one worker from the worker pool or the population bank?

On page 12 of the rule book, it states the following

When a card says you must "decrease"
  your population, you return 1 yellow
  token from your Unused Workers Pool.
  If you have no Unused Workers, you
  must remove (and return to your
  Yellow Bank) a Worker from one of your cards. Do not forget to adjust
  your indicators.

Therefore, you must lose a worker from your Pool (or one of your cards if no workers in your pool).

Reign of Terror states "lose" not "decrease". I wonder if there is a difference between those.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest they are treated any different.