text:
Should I have balanced in the following situation?
We are vulnerable, the opponents not, at matchpoint duplicate. South opened one spade. West and North passed. I am sitting East with the following: (s) x (h) 9xxxxx (d) Kx (c) ATxx. (All x's are 7 or lower.)
My partner feels strongly that I should have balanced with 2 hearts. I'm not sure for the following reasons: 1) the unfavorable vulnerability. 2) The "two" level (rather than one heart over say, one diamond). 3) The weakness of my suit despite its length.
Change any one of these three factors in my favor and I would have balanced.
Was my partner right to insist on my balancing? Or was I right not to do so?

-100 is a much better score than -110.  -100 is a much better score than -110.  -100 is a much better score than -110.  -100 is a much better score than -110.
+110 is a much better score than +50.  +110 is a much better score than +50.  +110 is a much better score than +50.  +110 is a much better score than +50.
In fact, in a good field, the difference between -100 and -110 will be much bigger than the difference between -110 and -1100, and the difference between +110 and +50 will be much bigger than the difference between +670 and +110.

I checked the game record. It was a weird hand in which we would have gone down two (that  is -200), because two or three finesses were wrong. N-S got 140 (we, -140), and we got a top on the board.

I think that proves my point - most of the time one fewer finesse will be against you and you'll get a bottom for -110.

@TomAu: Exactly how can 3 finesses be wrong when North has at most an Ace, and you have only one finessable card? Did North make an unusual pass?

@ForgetIwaseverhere: OK, it was two finesses, to be exact. My bad.

@AlexanderWoo: One of TWO finesses will make 76% of the time, in which case I get a bottom for not balancing. I could get a top the remaining 24%. So the percentage play is to balance, even though it doesn't always work, right?

@TomAu - yes, that's my point, though I wouldn't take the a priori odds of one of two finesses to be too meaningful considering you already know LHO has about 4 times as many values as RHO.

@AlexanderWoo:Yes. On this hand, holding long trumps and a side entry in East with the balance of partnership values over the balance of opponents values, the odds of both finesses working is quite good; and the odds of two both failing rather unfortunate. Also opponents have many ways to lose a trick when on defense, and the strong hand is on opening lead.

I balance - in tempo. It's a partnership bid, rewarding partner for his discipline in second seat, as much as anything else. Getting a bottom or missing a top for this call seems unlikely (except against truly atrocious opponents - but that's another matter).
As for values, I have reason to think this hand can supply 3+ tricks in a Heart contract; and the length will make it difficult for opponents to double even if that happens to be right.
Playing IMPS I pass. The chance that we're missing game when Partner had Spade length preventing a bid or double in second seat is remote.

South had KQJ95 and West had AT876 but North had more spades than me..

Exactly. Reward partner's discipline by taking exactly 1.5 seconds to bid 2H. You're not bust; and the hand with short Spades has to be the one that enters the auction for your side. By not pausing you take pressure off Partner, and put pressure on North, to make the right call.

In this particular situation, your partner was right to insist that you balance. The main reason for this is that balancing at the two level is usually a better option than passing, especially when you have a long suit.
Additionally, the fact that you are vulnerable makes it even more important to take any opportunity to score points.

Not sure I agree that being vulnerable makes it more likely you make this bid... and "balancing is a better option than passing" is only true with some hands, Xxx Xxxx Xxx Xxx for example you probably wouldn't say that.  A better answer would go into more detail about the reasons for balancing with this hand and what hands wouldn't balance.

@Joe There are a few reasons why balancing in this particular situation is a good idea:

The fact that you are vulnerable means that it is more important to score points when you have the opportunity.

Balancing at the two-level is usually a better option than passing, especially when you have a long suit.

The weakness of your suit despite its length makes it more likely that you will be able to make a game if you balance.

Overall, balancing in this situation is a good idea because it gives you a better chance to score points and make a game.

You just reiterated the answer... :) Though putting the 'weak length' in the answer wouldn't be a bad idea.  I think being vulnerable doesn't make it more important to score points, though, at least not in duplicate...

@Joe Being vulnerable does make it more important to score points, because when you are vulnerable you are at a greater risk of losing points. Therefore, it is important to take advantage of opportunities to score points when they arise. Balancing at the two-level in this situation is a good opportunity to score points.

Since you’re at greater risk of losing points from someone putting you down, seems to me it makes it more important to not be in questionable contracts?

@Joe While it is true that being vulnerable puts you at a greater risk of losing points, it is also true that being vulnerable gives you the opportunity to score more points. In the game of duplicate bridge, being vulnerable means that you are more likely to be put down by your opponents. However, it also means that you have the opportunity to score more points if you are able to make a good contract. Therefore, it is important to take advantage of opportunities to score points when they arise. Balancing at the two-level in this situation is a good opportunity to score points.

In a part score situation?!?  I suppose if you think game might be in the offing you're not wrong, but unless you're thinking 4H is making, being vulnerable does nothing here other than make it cost more if you go down.

I would start by thinking where the highcard points and spades are. First N passed over their partners 1 space opening. That implies less than 6 HC points and short spades (with 4 or more spades they would probably bid 2 spades even with less than 6 HC points). You have only 7 HC points and only 1 spade. Your partner passed over 1 spade, so they have less than an opening hand as well. S opened at 1 spade (as opposed to some game in hand kind of opener).
That gives S around 17 HC points and high chance for 6+ spades and you partner 10 to 13 HC and also a couple of spades. So neither side has enough points or shape for game. S will probably make 1 spade just with their own hand.
I think 2 hearts is a reasonable bid for you but more risky than a pass. If either N or S bids 2 spades over it, that should pass around and your bid was good, regardless of whether they make the 2 spades or not. But if S happens to be strong in hearts they might pass or even double your 2 hearts and you will go down. The heart high cards need to be somewhere and you don't know whether they are in S or E hand.

Your analysis is faulty. There are many 12 to 14 point hands possible in West that, due to Spade length, can neither overcall a suit or 1NT, nor make a Takeout Double. The Spade shortness in hand combined with the Pass by North increases this possibility over the a priori odds.

@ForgetIwaseverhere We can increase partners range to include 14 points. This adds in a few more cases where 2 hearts will pass around and make but it doesn't change the analysis by a lot.

Now add in all the 5422 and 54(31) hands with 15 or 16 points that were hog-tied by South's Spade opening. Your analysis is egregiously bad because you are, at heart, engaging in "placing cards in Partner's hand". Simply learn to stop doing that; and you will become a much improved bidder.

@ForgetIwaseverhere Are you saying that you would pass a 15 or 16 HCP hand with 5422 or 5431 distribution as E over S 1 spade? If by your bidding convention you would pass, that I agree for such a bidding convention my analysis doesn't hold anymore. But I would not pass 15 or 16 HCP over 1 spade, so as W I would exclude E having that many points and then the analysis is valid.

If I can tolerate a 1NT overcall I do that. But with KQJxx KQxx A xxx or AQJxx KQJx Q xxx I pass in tempo and allow Partner to balance. It's possible NT is the right denomination; but either Hearts or Partner's minor is likely better. The only way to find out is to wait and hear how Partner balances.

Remember MP odds work differently than IMP odds.  -110 is much worse than -100 at MPs even though they are they same at IMPs (or total points)

Holding KQJxx KQxx A xxx in the direct sea over 1S with partner unpassed, I would probably overcall 1NT.  If P has Hearts we should find our fit If it gets passed out I expect a S lead and +90 or better. If P has some strength (say 8HCP or better) 3NT should make. But with AQJxx KQJx Q xxx I pass. I discount the single ton Q and rate this as 13 points. Wrong shape for dbl, too short for 2H.


text:
Is anyone the "captain" of the partnership after the following bidding sequence?
Non vulnerable and playing five card majors, South opened onw spade. West passed. North raised to 3 spades. This was a "Bergen" raise, which is to say that North promised only four spades (Law of Total Tricks), but could have 0-9 high card points, not 6-9.

S
W
N
E

1S
P
3S1

Who, if anyone, is the "captain" of the partnership if the bidding goes further after this sequence? Or is one of the disadvantages of a Bergen raise the fact that strength ranges are so wide that it is hard to identify a "captain" even after another bid or two?

I edited in a table of bidding - sort of to see if it would be helpful, and I think it is - if you don't like it feel free to remove it, just might make it easier (and be a nice thing to do for other questions in the future).

The direct raise in Bergen is usually played as 0-6 or 2-6, not 0-9, with 7-9 hands going through 3C (originally) or 3D (many players have switched the original 3C/3D bids).

For the most part, in Bergen, the opener is the "Captain".  Responder does what Opener tells them to, nothing more.  This is particularly true here, in the 1S-3S sequence, which is often described as "preemptive" - it describes a weak hand.
The way you can tell is how the response is very tailored to provide fairly specific information, and then the rebid from opener is either signoff (including pass), or (to lower 3-level responses) includes the help suit game try, which is still fairly limiting in the options it provides.  Opener could have almost any hand (could be 12 HCP, 5-3-3-2, could be 18 HCP, 5-3-4-1, could be 11 HCP, 6-4-2-1, etc.)
Most of the time in this auction, opener passes or raises to 4S (if opener is particularly strong, particularly shapely, or in competition if opener has a 6 card suit or is otherwise willing to tolerate 4S competitively).  Since opener didn't open 2C, you're out of slam territory excepting very limited situations, and so the standard Bergen sequence such as described here doesn't usually mention any other options.
More generally, when you see a conventional sequence, you can tell who is captain because that's the "asking" hand.  The asker is captain, deciding what the ultimate contract is, and the responder just answers questions. Often conventions are structured so that the eventual declarer is captain - because that way defense finds out the least information possible about that hand - but not that's always possible.
There are cases where it's handed off - like in the sequence

S
W
N
E

1S
P
3C
P

3H
P
?

There, South has made a help suit game try, and is giving control to North - asking if North thinks 4S is worth considering.

The only time I have played 3M Bergen raise as wide as 0-9 was when I played it in a Precision shell, but even then, it was "no interest in game opposite a maximum" (just that the maximum was 15, not 21, HCP)[1].
As others are saying, traditionally 1M-3M is 0-bad 6.  And the message being passed is "we don't have game given you didn't open 2C".  There's another call for the good 6-9 hands, and another yet for the traditional limit raises, and another yet for GF+, and others yet for GF-ish with shortness in a side suit.
Captain-ness is neither a rigorous nor a static thing.  It's usually a bad idea to overrule the Captain, but there's nothing wrong with it, if it's right.  It is common for captaincy to be transferred, as well, for instance 5NT King ask after Blackwood, if 5NT promises all keycards are held.
A quote from some system notes I got a copy of decades ago: "As much as possible, one of the first three bids by a partnership should limit their hand.  Once they do, partner is captain."  And the reason should be obvious.  And if you're asked to play some system that seems to violate that maxim, you should be looking askance at it and asking "why?"  It might be, as here, that someone has the wrong idea of what the system is, or it has been adjusted to the rest of the system in ways that don't work in your system.
[1] If you're wondering, we defined 3C as "go on a Goren opener" (we opened all 10s that weren't 9s NV, all 11s that weren't 10s V), 3D as "go only if, had you known you had a 9-card major fit, you would have opened strong 1C to start with".  People asked us for HCP limits.  We didn't need, or have them.  Strengths of a limited-opener system.

I'm struggling to come up with a 9hcp hand that neither has game opposite AKxxx AKxx xxx x nor has the excess defensive values suggesting a raise to only 2M despite a 9 card fit.  (Surely you'd raise to 2S not 3S with QJxx Qxx Qxx Qxx.)  I think you were playing 0-bad8.

We played what we played.  Which, yes, meant that we weren't beholden to rules, especially vulnerable.  But Precision has always had many limit bids that played the odds, and the odds are that my partner's 1S opener looks closer to AJxxx Qxx x KJxx than 6 working controls and both majors.  Opposite that hand, I can't think of many 13-15 semi-balanced hands that don't have a play for slam, but we'd still bid it 1S-4S.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Was this takeout double sound, or "borderline?"
Neither vulnerable in duplicate, South opened 1 diamond. West doubled for takeout with

Spades
QJTx

Hearts
Kxxx

Diamonds
T

Clubs
K9xx

(All x's are seven or lower.) This was a tournament game so all players were experts or better.
I wouldn't have doubled with that holding. West counted 12 points, taking the singleton diamond as three points. I don't like to make takeout doubles with only 12 points, preferring 13-14 (after distribution), because 12 is the minimum South will likely have. Also, I deducted one point for an aceless hand, making it 11. N-S bid (and made) 5 diamonds, in part because the double located the King of clubs, that North's ace was behind.
Did West make a solid takeout double? Or am I right to consider it "light?" One consideration: this was a duplicate match, and I play mostly rubber. So could the takeout double be right for one type of game and wrong for the other?

For me (I'm an aggressive player *), this is automatic.  Minimum, but automatic.  Even though they're not protected by being declarer, I like my Kings "over" opener's Aces (yes, I know the key is that one of them isn't this time.  It will be more often than not).  If you're going to reduce this by a point for being aceless, I get to upgrade it by a point for perfect shape (especially including both 4-card majors).
Will it always work?  No.  Yes, you are pinpointing your strength and more importantly your shape, if it turns out that you don't win the auction.  But remember, if we do win the auction, they've pinpointed their strength just as much.  And, since we have majors and they have diamonds, in the competitive auction - and most of the auctions are competitive auctions, not game auctions - we're in control.
I am not worried about partner going nuts.  Mostly because we've had this discussion about what a takeout double looks like, and after he bids 2D "12+", I don't have to encourage.  But also because a working 12 with a major fit, especially with DJxx(x) or worse (and partner will downgrade diamond honours, especially Q or K), will have a good play for game if partner insists on it.  Kxx AQxx Jxx xxx has a play (not a great play - opener needs both black aces and only two clubs (or not a club lead), and the hearts need to split - but a play) and a hand that forces to game will have another king or ace, or much better shape.
But 90% of the time, especially at matchpoints, this is a competitive hand, and I would much rather explain our fit to partner before, rather than after, the opponents have passed their information.  In response to "1D could easily have a 4 card major, and it might be our fit"; if they do, they almost certainly have a minimum balanced hand (assuming standard strong NT).  Frankly, I'd be more worried about 4-1 the other way, with the points on my right and the trumps on my left.

Edit: As an example, today I held at favourable A92 7 T872 K9762 in second, and dealer opened 1H.  I thought about doubling, but finally decided that without 4 spades I shouldn't.  The hand in the OP is better than that, even if aceless and without the spots.

I'd like that new example better if it was 7 A92 T872 K9762, favourable over a 1S opening.  Partner with 5 Spades will be aggressive over a 2H raise; but I'd really like to prevent Partner with a 5-card heart suit and scattered decent values from getting buried under a 2S raise.

Yeah, I'd probably still be thinking about that hand.  But this one was just a perfect example I could add to show the difference, for me, between "borderline" and "minimum, but automatic" that appeared in real life play.

Yes, it's a bit light.  Not crazy-insane, but a bit light.  I would expect that W have an A instead of one of those K's to be "standard", or another Q or JT or something.  It's not crazy-light though, and there's an argument to be made for making that double.  I wouldn't make it in an unknown partnership, certainly; but if I had a partner who wanted to play takeout doubles of this strength, then I would consider it reasonable.
The issue with opps finding 5D seems irrelevant to me - don't make ends-based judgements, for one; and I don't see how this places the club King unless partner has a zero count.  Any call can help opponents, and certainly one shouldn't make pointless calls that don't give any advice to partner or help find a contract, but 1D-X doesn't fall in that category; it's much more likely to help than hurt.
The concern in duplicate isn't that different from rubber, albeit duplicate being a bit more competitive probably encourages a bit more aggressive bidding.

I'm probably a bit more aggressive than Joe, but I would make this double any day of the week and twice on some days.  Any time I don't double on this hand, I end up hearing (1D)-P-(3Dpreemptive)-P-(P) back to me, and I think I have to pass and take my average minus for -110 instead of -50 or +50 instead of +140.

@AlexanderWoo You wouldn't X in that seat? 1d-p-3d-p-p-X seems reasonable there, no?  Maybe P has nothing and 1D has 19, but most of the time that'll not be the case for that auction...

probably I would (except r/r at MPs), but certainly at that point I wish I'd doubled 1D.

I would not make this double even at favorable vulnerability, let alone with neither side vulnerable. With only 9 HCP, and with the only significant distribution being shortness in the opponent's opening minor, I think it is just not strong enough.
I am not so worried abut opponents reaching 3D or even 5D. My concern is that my partner may take me for a stronger hand, and we find ourselves in 3 or 4 of a major, going down. Opener may well, when opening 1D, have a decent 4-card major, so the chance of a bad trump split is somewhat higher than usual. Having 4 in each major is nice, but the aceless hand is not so nice.
In general i will not make a takeout double on a hand that I would be unwilling to open on in 1st or 2nd seat, and I surely would never open this hand except in 3rd seat.
If one is going to double on hands like this, that should be clearly understood by the partnership, and conventions and methods to check for hand quality before getting too high should be in place.
I would add that "This was a tournament game so all players were experts or better." may not follow. Unless this was an upper flight in a flighted event, or some other special event, one finds many promising novices, and some quite poor players in open events at bridge tournaments. It least that has been my experience in more than 35 years of tournament play in North America, mostly in the Midwest and Northeast of the US. I have played at many sectionals and regionals, and several NABCs, and this has been true at all of them.

In general i will not make a takeout double on a hand that I would be unwilling to open on in 1st or 2nd seat - I would say that this puts you well on the conservative side of the norm, then.  I don't know that I'd make this takeout double, but it's only a point or a point and a half short.  Once opponents have opened, you have more information, and that information matters - both your shape (4-4-1-4 is a very good distribution after 1D, and you're able to communicate nearly the entirety of the hand with that double) and the location of points (cont)

is favorable  most likely - more likely to find the missing A's before you than after you, so the K's are worth something.  There's plenty of hands I would not open that I'd double, and I think I'm around the median for takeout doubles of standard 2/1 players.

I also would not double. In addition to the concern you raised about partner bidding too high, this hand has poor defensive strength and partner might erroneously penalize a "sacrifice."

Double 1D and be done with it; then pass all non-forcing calls from partner.
Barry Crane is still regarded by many as the best MatchPoint player ever; and was decades ahead of his time. Two outlines of his system are linked. For Crane, this is a 1 heart opening as the hand is 4-4 in the Majors and satisfies the criteria:

Open any 11 point hand containing a king. With good distributional hands open lighter.

In a competitive auction as here the hand is clearly strong enough to act, as it has perfect distribution and opening strength; the only decision is whether to Double now or later over 3D. For Barry that was easy: balancing was virtually unheard of:

Get in early, say your piece, then get out of the bidding. This means that there is virtually no balancing. An auction that goes 1S - P - 2S - P - P - Double is a penalty double. If we had a takeout double, it would have happened on the first round of bidding.

Since a Double of 3D later would be Penalty, a Double now is the last chance to make a Diamond Takeout.
This approach of course requires deep discussion with partner (and the ability to summon revokes from opponents, as Barry was sometimes jokingly thought capable of, won't hurt); but is increasingly being copied by top players around the globe. The premise that one is giving valuable information to the opponents really only holds water when the hand is theirs - but that's not the case here. Having excellent support for both majors and well placed cards in everywhere strongly suggests the possibility that this hand can be bought by our side.

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


text:
Acerola Supporter card effect

Put 1 of your pokemon that has any damage counters on it and all cards attached to it into your hand.

Does this mean I can move my active pokemon which has damage on it straight into my hand?

Yes - that is exactly the point.  Sometimes this is just a free heal - sometimes it’s useful to for example play a Tapu Lele or Dedenne another time, or even reuse an ability that was already used that turn (when the Pokémon leaves the zone of play, it no longer is that same Pokémon essentially and can reuse its ability so long as it’s not a ‘only one of X ability can be used per turn’ ability).
Note that if you do this and have no Pokémon on your bench, you lose!

I shouldve added also "as well as any benched pokemon" as this would indicate that I understand how the card works but wasnt sure if it also included my active pokemon. Thanks for that, what a nice little supporter she is then! :)


text:
What is the meaning of this Joseki continuation?
In games against Leela with 7 handicap stones, Leela (white) plays the following variant of a well known joseki (knight move approach with one space pincer)
$$W
$$ ----------------------
$$ |...................|
$$ |...................|
$$ |.......X.XXX.O.....|
$$ |...X...xOOOX...X...|
$$ |......a....O.O.....|
$$ |..........1....X...|
$$ |...................|

The usual continuation of the joseki I have in my books is white a. However, Leela often plays white 1 and takes me out of book here. What is the meaning of white 1 in this situation? How should black continue? Should he tenuki?

I believe you had a small mistake in your diagram, it was one line too narrow. I fixed that.

I wonder if Leela likes to mix it up in in order to take you out of the book, at least when giving large handicaps; a quick glance at the site did not suggest an answer to that question.

@PJTraill In my general experience, Leela does not try out trick play (but she ruthlessly exploits any mistake of mine). Currently I am following the proverb "Your opponents big point is your big point" and I set a stone on a building up some moyo around the upper left corner. This seems to work for me.

Interesting. Of course leaving the book does not immediately qualify as a trick play, though against a weaker player (and I see that Leela is about 8 dan!) that element is more likely to be present. Good luck with your line. Does Leela go on learning when installed on your computer?

@jknappen In your line of reasoning, the key point for black is not at a but above and right of a, directly left of the 3 white stones (let's call that point x). If black a, then white plays x and black cannot block, because white would push through and atari/cut on the second line. That is why black should play at x himself and not at a.

@mafu: I edited in the point x, did I understand your verbal description correctly?

@mafu Interestingly, Leela does not answer a at x, but prefers to play a diagonal attachment from the centre. My plan for black a white x would be to add a black stone left to the single black sotne, and when white pushes a second time, to stop it than. White can cut the stone at a, but it is far from being already dead.

You should try to figure out what White is trying to do by "changing moves," as well as what White failed to do.
White failed to prevent you from moving into the center (and outflanking him) with a. That is something you should consider doing. It connects your upper side to the upper left corner stone, (and makes both absolutely safe). In a seven stone game, you should connect your groups and seek this "absolute" safety; "relatively safety is not quite enough.
Also, a threatens to seal off the left side corner, possibly forcing white to take the 3-3 point (simplifying the game in your favor).
White's next move might be a knights move kakari against your upper right corner shimari. (The meaning of his move was that he strengthened his wall. You should then "touch" with P17. After that, you have the choice of "extending" with P18, securing the corner, or (better), keeping White divided with P13, aiming at a double envelopment of White's wall.
White has "played out" two corners and gained no appreciable advantage to offset his seven stone handicap. If you can use your spear points at a and P13 to limit the influence of White's wall and keep him on the defensive, you should win quite comfortably.

W1 looks like a small mistake to me, if any. This move indirectly protects the cut at the right side, so the third line stone cannot be cut off easily. It is, however, not strongly connected. White needs to be flexible, in case the naive result (the 3 stone group) is too dangerous.
$$B
$$ ----------------------
$$ |...................|
$$ |...................|
$$ |.......X.XXX.O.....|
$$ |...X....OOOX34.X...|
$$ |......a....O1O.....|
$$ |..........O.2..X...|
$$ |...................|

The keima at a would induce black to protect with a move. After that, white will enter the corner at 3-3 as soon as possible, such that white gets both influence and territory. This is a usual idea when playing this joseki.
$$W
$$ ----------------------
$$ |...................|
$$ |...................|
$$ |..3...2X.XXX.O.....|
$$ |...X....OOOX...X...|
$$ |......1....OaO.....|
$$ |...............X...|
$$ |...................|

In the meantime, of course a white move at a is an important consideration. In particular white a may be almost sente against the black corner, to prevent a pincer on the right side.
On the other hand, if black cuts (starting at a), then white needs to consider if the cut off stone can lead to a new life in the upper right corner. In that case, the cut may not be that important.

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


text:
Building a live group on a quarter board where two sides are already black
This exercise is kind of go club folklore: Given a quarter go board where two sides are already occupied by black (and unconditionally alive), white starts playing. White wins when she is able to create a living group in the quarter board.
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ ---------------------

It is also part of go club folklore that with correct play this task is impossible for white and black kills any white group.
What is known (or published) about this special fun exercise? Is the best solution already known?
For clarification: Here is an example of white trying to live (and fail):
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X
$$ | . 1 3 . . . . . . X
$$ | . 2 4 W . . . . . X
$$ | . . . 6 5 . . . . X
$$ | . 7 . . . . . . . X
$$ ---------------------

White starts on the (3,4) point but black counters at (4,2). After the enclosure, the corner has only one eye, and Black's outer stones cannot be captured because of the outer walls helping them. Note that in this setup all ladders are favouring Black.

@RickyDemer: It is well known that White can live on boards as small as 6×6 and 6×7 (solved, see  http://www.mathpuzzle.com/go.html ) and it is very probable that white also lives on 7×7. Experience shows that even a weak Go player can create some living white group on 19×19.

This has been discussed a lot in Sensei's Library (http://senseis.xmp.net/?BiggestCorner and http://senseis.xmp.net/?10x10CornerGame1). The consensus seems to be that white dies with 8 free spaces, but can live with 9 free spaces using 3-3 point and some clever tesujis. I copied some variations from Sensei's to EidoGo for easier studying: http://eidogo.com/#1ZUwMVRaH

I'm not familiar with this as folklore, but the setup is similar to the setup a person might use to work on corner problems. I believe that this could be answered by looking a many examples of corner joseki.  Assuming white's goal here is simply to live, the border formed by black is too far removed from the corner to have a significant effect of white's play. The space enclosed by black may be intimidating, but most corner joseki is contained in a much smaller space.
See Sensei's Library for more examples, but I'll provide one here. Two note: I'm choosing one that I'm familiar with rather than a "best" example and white goes first in this because that's what you stipulated in your question.
W(3, 4) B(5, 4) W(5, 3) B(6, 3) W(4, 3) B(6, 3) W (3, 6) B(5, 7)
Now, given the black border of stones, black may play move 6 (5, 7) differently than the standard joseki. However, I believe that white's moves before that to provide a sufficiently strong foundation that black would lose the fight, or have to run back allowing white to take up more territory in the corner.

While a complete joseki may easily fit in the given space, Black can make use of the power of his immortal walls and deviate from joseki from its first move on. I tried it a lot of times, and it is really difficult to make life with white.

I'm not a strong enough player to rely solely on my own analysis. Can you provide a sequence that you tried that was unsuccessful for white?

See my edit on the question with a simple example.

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


text:
Why is this NOT joseki?
Why is white 4 in this diagram not joseki? How can it be punished by black and how bad is it compared to standard joseki play?
$$ ----------
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ..3.2.....|
$$ ...4..1...|
$$ ..........|

A partial answer is probably: "Because this variation is joseki and it looks more forcing":
$$ ----------
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ..3.2.....|
$$ ..4...1...|
$$ ..........|

I thought the whole idea behind joseki was that they've been studied and considered to be the best option at that point. If a different move for a given position provided a better "return on investment" wouldn't it be the joseki move instead?

I don't think it's that the joseki move is forcing, it's more that the joseki move is better.  5 here is pretty sad for White.  For 4 to be joseki, you would need a response to this move that turns out better than the accepted sequence for White.
$$ ----------
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ..3.2.....|
$$ ..54..1...|
$$ ..........|

Isn't black 5 "pushing from behind"? I think, it is natural for white to put its head in front with white 6 below white 4. This way white builds up pressure against the right margin.

I don't think it's really worth your time trying to figure out the details of joseki unless you're very strong.  My ranking is 2d, and I certainly don't feel comfortable doing that.  If you like this sequence better, play it in your games.  Either it will work out, or you will learn why it's not as good :)

@jknappen And it's not pushing from behind. That is usually used when both players have full connections (no diagonals), and usually it's not used for. In this pattern white's diagonal is very weak, as mentioned in the first diagram here.

I would agree with @jknappen. White can play 6 below 4 (one space jump), making miai of pressing 1 or the 3-5 group. If the top side is important, then white 4 is bad in the first place, in both diagrams showed by the OP (I mean even the one considered as joseki).

White 4 gives black another chance to reinforce the corner (at a or b), as it doesn't put much pressure on 3:
$$ ----------
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ ..3.2.....|
$$ ...4..1...|
$$ ..........|
$$ ......ab..|

For example:
$$ ----------
$$ ..........|
$$ ..........|
$$ 7.3.2.....|
$$ ..64..1...|
$$ ..........|
$$ ......5...|

NOTE: I am stupid and misread your diagram as komoko (3-4) instead of hoshi (4-4) in the corner. The following applies to komoku only! I was going to delete this answer, but then decided to leave it up, because the question would probably be interesting for komoku, too.

W4 is actually joseki, but it is very, very rarely played. I have never witnessed it in high level matches, and I would not at all be surprised if dan players do not know it (the opposite, rather).
I learned it in a book by Yilun Yang (Whole Board Thinking in Joseki). Basically, it is a move that moves white out very steadily (i.e. slowly). Sadly, I do not have the book with me for an extended period of time, but maybe someone else can jump in an add a more detailed explanation of the move.
Either way you don't have to worry about it, really - if your opponent plays W4, deal with it as you would anyway (remember that a non-joseki move can be good sometimes, and also that a joseki move can be bad sometimes, too). If you feel that W4 is a good move on a certain board, don't be afraid to try and play it. You'll see how it turns out!

The problem with W4 is that it is a "slow," non-forcing move that gives Black many options. Some of those have been covered by other answers, but one good move is P17 (one right of 2) that gives Black the corner, while leaving White very cramped.
If you play a sequence that gives your opponent so many good options, the sequence is probably to your opponent's advantage.

P16??? Maybe a diagram would help.

@Christophe:"One right of (White) 2." Here's a case where the board has the appropriate co-ordinates. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/22627/joseki-question

P16 is not one right of 2...

@Christophe: Sorry, make that P17, which has been fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error.

ok. The risk of a contact move is to lead to mutual reinforcement (similar to the M16 answer), against the original intent of a close pincer. P17 leaves opportunities for white around S15-S16, making it a small corner.


text:
Where can I buy a deck of personalized cards?
I want to design my own cards, backside and frontside (on the frontside only the pictures for jack, queen, king, and ace). One of the biggest problems is that I only want two decks,  not thousands of them. It's a birthday gift for my girlfriend.
Where can I buy bridge cards that I can personalize and how much would it cost (including shipping to the Netherlands)?
Are there other ways to print a low quantity of customized cards?
Thanks in advance!

Try makeplayingcards.com

you can also try Cartamundi(http://www.cartamundi.com/). It's a card printing company located in Belgium, Turnhout(at lease one of the printing locations), so shipping will be fairly cheap I guess. I've never ordered anything there, so can't give any feedback. But they print MTG cards, so they should be good :)

@Novarg I think Cartamundi is only for really large orders, isn't it? Thanks anyway!

@MichaSprengers I don't know. As I said, I've never ordered anything there :)

I've had great experiences with Printer's Studio.

You can have anything from a custom back on standard playing card fronts to completely custom fronts and backs that are different for each card.
Good interface for building these decks.
While the images you submit must have a bleed, the jobs I submitted were spot-on.
No minimum order size (though you get discounts for buying in bulk).

Tips:

Don't order without a coupon. You can always get a deal. At the very least, sign up for the mailing list to get $10 off, which will cover the shipping. (The best I've seen was early in the new year where they had a deal for 15% off and free shipping!)
You might be able to save a buck by going to the Canadian portal. The prices of items are the same as the US portal, but the Canadian dollar is weaker. The company is based in Hong Kong.
If you want cards that are perfectly flat, go for the linen instead of the standard. Both types are high quality. (I have no experience with their "plastic" cards.)

I've ordered more "standard" cards from them. While the first ones I got were a little bowed, the new ones lie flat like the linen cards I got earlier.


text:
Chesscademy exercise: material part 2 - why doesn't this move result in a 2 point material lead?
I'm trying to re-learn chess with the wonderful Chesscademy site.
This exercise asks me to "make a move that will leave you up two points in total".

As the hint suggests, I've counted up the number of points on the board - I make it 38 for white, 37 for black. (I'm playing white).
So, clearly white needs to take 1 point of black's material in order to turn the 1 point lead into a 2 point lead.
Moving c4 x f7  - taking one black pawn - is the correct answer according to Chesscademy. But why isn't my initial answer of f3 x e5 - also taking one black pawn - also correct?
(For what it's worth, both moves could subsequently result in the loss of a 3 point white piece in a real game, so it's not due to a difference here.)

The difference is: immediate guaranteed loss, compared to long-term potential loss.

f3 x e5 - Knight takes Pawn - does give you a 1 point advantage on your turn. However black can retaliate with c6 x e5 taking your knight without fear of any retribution which resets the advantage in black's favour. Interestingly note that this move also defends against c4 x f7 which also results in a positional advantage to black.
c4 x f7 - Bishop takes Pawn - gives you a 1 point advantage as well but crucially results in a check. Black cannot retaliate with e8 x f7 since that would result with check from your queen on b3. Interestingly this is also a check; you are forcing black to move his King thus preventing him from developing any defence/offence for this turn.
It is important to consider how the material advantage will change on your opponent's turn as well as your turn when making your move.
As Pieter Geerkens stated the key difference is the guaranteed loss. Theoretically you could lose a 3 point piece from c4 x f7 (i.e. the Bishop), however your loss is not guaranteed in the next turn and any attempts to threaten the Bishop with another piece allows you to respond before the Bishop is taken.


text:
What happens if you go bankrupt trying to pay the bank?
Let's say I land on someone's hotel. I'm short in cash. So, I sell houses, mortgage everything, and am still short in cash. I am now out of the game and that player gets my money and mortgaged properties. If I remember right, they pay the 10% tax or unmortgage at that time. And the game continues.
Now, let's say I had just barely enough cash to pay them. I'm safe and still in the game. I've got nearly zero money and all my stuff is mortgaged. The next turn I land on chance/community chest/luxury tax/jail and I need to pay the bank. I cannot pay.
Who gets the properties? Do they disappear from the game? Go back for sale as mortgaged? Unmortgaged?

From my understanding they all go back to the bank. They all then actually got auctioned off (I thought they went back for sale like at the start of the game).

Should you owe the Bank, instead of another player, more than you
  can pay (because of taxes or penalties) even by selling off buildings
  and mortgaging property, you must turn over all assets to the Bank. In
  this case, the Bank immediately sells by auction all property so taken,
  except buildings. A bankrupt player must immediately retire from the
  game. The last player left in the game wins.

Taken from the final Bankruptcy page from the offical Hasbro Rules
I would add that I would treat the properties as unmortgaged for the purposes off re-selling them and deem that as the mortgage loan was owed to the bank, they would write off that debt if required.

Am I correctly reading this as a single auction happens for all property?

@ZAD-Man: It doesn't say, but as a matter of common sense I'd say no - the properties are auctioned off 1 at a time. Obviously any that are un-bought then go back up for sale at full price.

The bank doesn't write the mortgage off, it forecloses on the property. When the property was mortgaged, the bank paid out half the value of the property. When the player goes bankrupt, the bank gets the full value of the property. So it comes out ahead.

If you get the "bad" Chance or Community Chest card that has you owing more money to the the bank than you can pay, the bank is your creditor, and you must turn over your property "as is" to the bank, just like any other creditor.
The bank is unlike a "normal" creditor, insofar it gets to "unmortgage" your property for "free." The bank will auction your landed property as in "real life." The houses and hotels go back into the common pool of 32 houses and 12 hotels. If there is a "housing shortage," there might be a separate auction for those.
If you are alone against one opponent, you will lose the game immediately. If there are two or more, it shouldn't be hard to persuade at least ONE of them to bail you out by buying one key property for as much you owe or more. Ideally, you will have your opponents fight for the privilege of bailing you out. If you have to go down, go down, fighting, and at least try for the privilege of being "kingmaker" among your opponents.

There are 12 hotels in monopoly


text:
Can I activate an enchantment energy ability during an opponents turn?
The card in question is Consulate Surveillance, which states: "Pay two energy counters: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you this turn by a source of your choice."
Can I activate that ability  during my oponents turn? And if so can I do so after he or she attacks or do I have to activate it at the begining of the turn?

You can activate an activated ability at any time that you could cast an instant. This includes on your opponents' turns. Being an energy-related ability has no bearing on this.
There are several different times throughout a turn that each player receives priority, which is when that player can act. In terms of combat, you could activate it either when the combat phase begins, or after your opponent declares his attackers, or after you declare your blockers.

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me. I couldnt find the answer for it anywhere.

@user6497504 If this answer satisfied your question, you can click on the check mark to indicate that the answer is "accepted". You can always change your mind and accept a different answer if someone writes a better one.


text:
If someone casts an aura on my creature, do I still control the creature?

Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent. Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours. But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

I'm very new to MTG, and read official rules (above) - it says that if someone adds an aura on my creature, this means that I'm no longer controller of that creature.
So, for example, someone casts Sleep Paralysis on one of my creatures. After, I want to use Fling. Can I sacrifice my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis?
Or, for example, I want to cast Certain Death on my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis. Will I get 2 damage, or my opponent? I'm very confused about creature controlling.

Note that MtG makes a distinction between when a spell is cast, and when it resolves. When it is cast, it is added to the stack, and you have a chance to respond to the casting of the spell by casting instants or activating most abilities. So if someone were to cast Lay Claim, as mentioned by ikegami, you still control the creature. You do not lose control until after the following things happen - zero, one or more players add spells/abilities to the stack, and then all players pass priority, and then the spells resolve, in reverse to the order in which they were played.

If the target of Lay Claim is still a valid target when Lay Claim resolves, then you lose control over it. So if you have fling in your hand, and sufficient mana available, you can use fling on a creature, even after your opponent tries to Lay Claim it. As long as you do it immediately. More detail at http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Casting_spells

Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent

Sleep Paralysis does not change control of permanents. Lay Claim is an example of an Aura that changes control of a permanent. It has

You control enchanted permanent.

This ability transfers control of the enchanted permanent.

Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to your creature.
Your opponent controls the creature, so it moves to their side, and they can attack with it and use its abilities (but you can't). You can't sacrifice it to Fling (but they can), and they would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death (and you wouldn't). It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.
However, you still control Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only you can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw to a creature you still control).

But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to Bone Saw (not the creature).
You control the creature, so it stays on your side, and you can attack with it and use its abilities. You can sacrifice it to Fling, and you would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death. It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.
However, your opponent controls Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only they can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw on one of their own creatures).

Minor nitpick. Lay Claim being cast (the word used in the title) does not transfer ownership of the creature. Lay Claim resolving does. If someone casts Lay Claim on your creature, you still control that creature in the time between when Lay Claim is cast, and when it is resolved. If you have available mana and an instant like Fling in your hand, you can still use it.

@Scott, I didn't use the word "cast" at all. You appear to be replying to the wrong post. If you're going to nit-pick at what someone said, at least post your comment as a reply to that person!

@ ikegami - the question asked was 'if someone casts an aura, do I lose control of that creature?' Your answer correctly addresses the question that the OP was trying to ask, in identifying how auras and mind control effects work. However, you did not answer the question that the OP did ask, and therefore upon reading your answer, the OP is likely to continue in their misunderstanding of the meaning of the word cast. I was of the opinion that your post - likely to be the most upvoted and accepted answer, was the best place for this info. But I shall put it as a comment above if you wish.

@Scott, Re "the OP is likely to continue in their misunderstanding of the meaning of the word cast.", I agree, which is why you should leave a comment to the OP. It doesn't do any good to tell me! So move your comment to the question.

@Scott, Re "However, you did not answer the question that the OP did ask", I disagree. If you think that's the case, feel free to post an answer.

@Scott Nothing in Magic changes ownership of a card (although in early MtG, there were things like Ante that could). Lay Claim changes control.

"Your opponent controls the creature, so it moves to their side" AFAIK, putting cards you control on your side of the table is just a convention, and isn't actually part of the rules.

@Acccumulation, 1) First of all, the rules do state the permanents you control you should be on your side of the table. "403.1. [...] Permanents a player controls are normally kept in front of them on the battlefield [...]" (The exception to the normal is attached permanents.) 2) Furthermore, even if there wasn't an explicit rule, you couldn't just put/leave your stuff in someone else's area, at least not without permission. That's just not kosher. 3) Finally, the OP is asking about a quote that explains when to physically move and when not to, so the context presumes physical movement.

Sleep Paralysis does not change control of your creature. It just taps it and prevents it from untapping, which certainly does make it a lot less useful, but it's still yours.
The kind of thing you have to worry about will explicitly say "control", like the classic Control Magic, which is an aura that reads simply:

Enchant creature
You control enchanted creature.

If your opponent plays that on your creature, then yes, they'd control it. In that case, you wouldn't be able to use Fling with that creature (but they would!), and Certain Death would deal them damage.

The only way an aura or equipment can change control of a permanent is if it specifically states "you control enchanted/equipped permanent/creature/land/artifact/enchantment"

I see you have a struggle which isn't totally answered and I'll try to explain it once again, and give an answer which I think is right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The first problem is answered I guess, but the second problem you encountered is a little different. You suppose you have a creature with Sleep Paralysis enchanted to it. Of course, you do not like this at all and you think your creature is better off in your own graveyard. You have a Certain Death in hand and you cast it with your own creature as target. It does resolve. What happens with the life totals of the players?

110.2. A permanent's owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it's a token; see rule 110.5a). A permanent's controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.

111.2. A spell's owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it, unless it's a copy. In that case, the owner of the spell is the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A spell's controller is, by default, the player who put it on the stack. Every spell has a controller.*

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 609, "Effects.")
(...)
608.3. If the object that's resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it's an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller.
608.3a. If the object that's resolving is an Aura spell, its resolution involves two steps. First, it checks whether the target specified by its enchant ability is still legal, as described in rule 608.2b. (See rule 702.5, "Enchant.") If so, the spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller attached to the object it was targeting.

Because your opponents casts the enchantment doesn't mean he controls the creature (exceptions for cards like lay claim). You are still the controller of the creature in this example, which means you both lose and gain 2 life, the creature is moved to your graveyard and the aura is moved to the opponents graveyard.
In the case the aura was a lay claim and not a sleep paralysis, your opponent loses 2 life and you gain 2 life, the creature is moved to your graveyard and the aura is moved to the opponents graveyard.


text:
LOTR CG: May I keep the resource tokens of a dying hero?
Do I discard the resource tokens of a hero that dies or may I keep them? I assume I need to discard them. But I didn't find this info in the rulebook.
The resouce token belong to a certain sphere of influence, yes, but if I have another hero of the same sphere left, then theoretically I could move the resource token of the dying hero to the other hero.

Tokens on a card are discarded when the hero dies, the comprehensive rules cover this under Leaving Play

Leaving Play: When a card (other than a site) leaves play for any reason, any cards played on that card (or borne by or stacked on that
card) are discarded. Any tokens on that card are removed.


text:
In Keyforge, what happens to the Æmber on a creature that is archived?
Vezyma Thinkdrone lets a player archive his creature which is in play (not on his hand). If in this case there is Æmber on that creature, what happens to it? Will the archiving player get it, or his opponent, or is it just discarded?
Capture rule says:

When a creature with Æmber on it leaves play, the Æmber is placed in the opponent’s Æmber pool.

So if a creature is archived from play, does this mean it "leaves play", and therefore the opponent will receive the Æmber on it ?

All the Æmber currently on that creature will go to the opponent's pool.

From Keyforge's Rules
The glossary for Leaves Play reads (ellipses and emphasis mine):

If a card that is in play leaves play (is returned to hand or deck, destroyed, discarded, archived, or purged), all non-Æmber tokens and status cards on the card are removed, [...].
If a creature with Æmber on it leaves play, the Æmber is placed in the opponent’s Æmber pool. If a non-creature card with Æmber on it leaves play, the Æmber is returned to the general token pool.

Therefore, all the Æmber on a creature will be placed in your opponent's Æmber pool when it leaves play, not only when it's captured.


text:
Zombicide Green Horde tile 12V: Is the salad field made up of 1 or 2 zones?
Rules say: "On a street, a Zone is the area between 2 linear markings". However for the salad field, for me it's not clear to see whether there is a linear marking in the middle.

Having only played the original Zombicide, I think the divider line here is the building (shed) and the outdoor area. These would be marked as 2 different zones. I don't have a definite source on this, so I won't post it as an answer.

My question only is regarding the salad area. Is it divided into two square salad zones or is it only one big salad zone?


text:
In Keyforge, does an attacked, exhausted creature deal damage to the attacking creature?
The Fight rule says:

Each of the two creatures deals an amount of damage equal to
  its power (the value to the left of the card’s title) to the other creature.

However, if the attacked creature is exhausted, does it still strike back when attacked ?
Update after Arcanist Lupus's answer: Creatures unexhaust at end of turn, but I used Persistence Hunting to exhaust the enemy creature before I attacked it.

Yes, they deal damage back (but they are probably not exhausted in the first place).
The rules you quote do not say anything about the exhausted status of a creature affecting how it fights. Therefore there is no effect.
That said, cards unexhaust at the end of your turn, not the start. Unless you have cards that allow you to exhaust your opponent's creatures, the creatures you are attacking will be unexhausted.


text:
In Caylus what is the point of placing a worker at the gate
In Caylus I can't see the interest of placing a worker at the gate (first fixed building along the road) unless you really can't decide what to do and prefer to let the choice to bad fortune.

You can use it several ways.
For example, if you want to push building the castle, but not in the first place, so you can make your opponent waste a little more resources to obtain a favor.
Also you can use it if you aren't sure how the probost will move, to make sure you will use your pawn.
Anyway, it's another way to put some preasure on your opponent, a way to have a little advantage.

It's far more useful in a 2 player game than it is in a 5 and to me the tactic is all about controlling building in the castle.
In a 2 player game if I place on the gate and my opponent doesn't go to the castle then I can move it and build one section of castle to get the favour cheaply.
This is especially useful if you have more cubes than your opponent.  They know if they go to the castle you can just follow them and build more sections (or make them spend most of there cube so stand a much better chance of getting the favour every turn).
In short placing on the gate means you are trying to force your opponent to spend at the castle rather than other sections on the board or let you have an easy favour.
In a 5 player game I agree its fairly pointless as you may just as well move where you want to go.

Indeed the only moment it felt usefull was when I was hesitatting between getting a favor by building in the castle or by directly getting the favor. That said it seemed easier to just try to figure the max houses the opponents were wheeling to build and just get the first place in the castle and equal that.


text:
What happens to Element cards spent when acquiring a new Element card?
In the co-op game The Big Book of Madness, the rules say the following about when you acquire a new Element card:

As long as one is available, you can acquire 1 Element card of value
  2 or 3 from the middle of the table. You must spend Elements of the
  same type as the Element card you wish to acquire. [...] When you acquire an Element card, place it in your discard.

So you spend several Element cards to acquire a new Element card of the same combined value. The new card goes in your discard.
Do you destroy the spent Element cards or do they go in your discard as well?

why would they be destroyed? Every other time you use an element card it is placed in your discard.

That's what I thought but destroying small element cards would also increase the odds of getting higher cards from your deck. Just wanted to make sure.

You are correct that destroying lesser value cards would make it easier to get higher value, and thus better, cards from your deck. That is the reason why they are harder to destroy as you are already making the deck better by adding the cards and removing the old cards would make it even better.

So the way to improve your deck would be to use combustion on the 1 element cards to destroy them. Though it would make your deck turnover quicker and increase the pace of madness kicking in.

Yes, using that spell and others that destroy cards is the only way remove cards to improve your deck.

You place the cards used in the discard pile as stated in the action phase section of the rules.

During the Action phase, you may use your Element and
  Spell cards to try to vanquish the Monster and keep it in the
  Grimoire. Five actions are possible:
  • Activate a Spell
  • Learn a new Spell
  • Acquire an Element card
  • Destroy a Curse
  • Cure one of your Madness cards
  You may take as many actions as you wish, in any order, as many
  times as you like, as long as you have the Element cards to pay for
  them. Each action costs a number of Elements, which you must pay
  by discarding Element cards from your hand or from the support
  pool or a combination of both.
  Whenever you pay an Activation Cost, you must discard enough
  Element cards to produce at least as many Elements as required
  for the action. Excess Elements spent on an Action are lost. They
  cannot be used for another Action.
  A single Element card cannot be used for multiple Actions.


text:
Can you force property onto players in Monopoly
The Monopoly rules state that if your debt to another player is greater than the cash at hand, you can give property at its original (or higher, if mutually agreed) price to the person you owe.
However, if you have, say, 3 stations (worth 600) and 100 at hand, and you have to pay a debt of 500 to another player, and no other player wants to buy them from you (or no other player exists). Can you force the player you owe to take 2 stations plus 100, or even 3 stations, to pay your debt, or is it at his will, in which case he/she can refuse the deal, and declare you bankrupt to him/her, and take all 3 stations and the 100? (Since mortgaging is inadequate.)

What rulebook do you have? What version/year? I have never seen it written that way in the rules.

I have the usual rulebook for the deluxe edition, maybe I understood it wrongly.

You can't "force" a creditor to take your property at full (or higher) value.
Your "fallback" option is to "mortgage" property to the bank for HALF price.
You can, in theory, sell property to other players (including the creditor) for more than the half price you can get from the bank. (Or sell mortgaged properties for whatever they will bring.) The creditor may agree to this to keep your property out of the hands of a third player.
If these maneuvers succeed in raising enough cash to pay the debt, you can continue. If not, the "trades" have to be "undone," and you have to turn over everything you have to the creditor and leave the game.

I think this is the most accurate answer and far more concise.

can you source the 'undo trading' part? trades can happen at any time during the game and it is only polite to wait until in between peoples turns/actions. This rollback could theoretically involves tons of cash, all players on the board, and the bank.

@ColinD: Trades "stand" unless one of the traders is in/threatened with bankruptcy. If the debtor owes 1000 and can only raise 950, the "status quo ante" has to be restored, meaning all the trades that s/he did on that one (bankrupt) turn, are cancelled. (All previous trades stand). Then the debtor has to hand over the property and leave the game. As a practical matter, all the trades should be put into a separate "pile" so they can be undone.

@TomAu I was asking for a rules citation or reference. Players are not restricted from trading, mortgaging/unmortgaging, or building houses/hotels on other players turns. unwinding complex trades seems like they could get incredibly messy. for example: the bankrupt player trades a property to an opponent who then wants to develop it, inciting a bidding war for the last few houses available from the bank. If that trade gets undone, how do you resolve the fact that secret information (how much people are willing to spend on houses) was leaked to other players?

@ColinD: The other people can't build or do anything with the trades until the debtor's turn ends, and the debtor's turn can't end until the debt is either paid off, or the debtor pays the creditor what s/he had at the beginning. (The latter implies unwinding the trades.) That's what the rules say, and that's the source.

I cannot find anything close to what you have quoted in any of the rules I have looked at online.
However, the general rule is: Whenever you would owe money, you have the opportunity to do trading with other players to raise the funds, including with the person who you owe money to, but they are not obliged to accept.
This site backs this up and claims it is from official tournament rules.
http://mospaw.com/monopoly/some-obscure-monopoly-rules-explained/12/information#comment-5

If you do not have enough cash to cover rent, you may sell any other
  asset you have in the game, such as unimproved properties to raise the
  rent. You can sell the properties for whatever amount the market will
  bear.
You may also make a trade of unimproved properties (or properties and
  cash) to the landlord, which is effectively selling the properties to
  that person for the amount in question.
The only time a sale cannot take place is if a player will be cheated.
  For example, Player A lands on Boardwalk with hotels and owes $2,000
  to Player B. Player A cannot raise enough cash or make a trade with
  Player B, so he is effectively bankrupt and should turn over all
  assets. Player A would not be able to make a deal with Player C to
  sell some properties for less than their value (say the red properties
  for $1) since that would cheat Player B. He could sell them for more
  than their purchase value, however.
There is a lot of flexibility in how you can finance your debts. Most
  limitations are that the deal is limited to the game (you can’t trade
  a cookie or a kiss) and that you don’t cheat the player due money by
  making a deal with another player when owing money. Other limitations
  involve the inability to grant immunity to someone. It’s simply not
  allowed.

Further, from the official rules on the Deluxe edition of Monopoly has this to say and supports the general rule I mention above:

Using a Mortgaged Property to pay a debt: If you owe money to any of your opponents, you can offer them a piece of mortgaged property to
  cover all or part of your debt. Your opponent has the option of
  deciding whether or not to accept it. If you opponent accepts, he/she
  must immediately pay 10% of the mortgaged value.

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/DeluxeMonopoly.pdf

"You can sell the properties for whatever amount the market will bear." -> If the market will not buy the properties at any price, you are out of luck.

I think that when he doesn't want to make a deal you are obliged to take mortgage on your property. If every property you have has mortgage and you still haven't enough you are bankrupt.
Edit:
To disprove your assumption that property must be given a minimal of the original price I quote this rule I found in this rulebook http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf. (which is on hasbro's site so I think it is valid)

Unimproved properties, railroads and
  utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private
  transaction for any amount the owner can get

Is that the generally accepted rule, or is it just your interpretation? The original rules don't state it that clearly.

@Rainbolt. Yes I do think that "this is a site where people come together to think about what the right answer might be". Wrong answers can also be usefull and eventually those answers taht are backed up by rules will be accepted so no harm is done

@IvoBeckers I both agree and disagree. I agree with having answers build off one another so we end up with the best quality answers. But generally if an answer is present and has up-votes, it discourages others to contribute. Maybe your original answer text should have been a comment?

True. I am beginning to doubt whether my answer is really true too. I do believe that you can't force a deal. But you are not obliged to take a mortgage I think. But doing so would be your best option usually. Not sure whether to edit this answer or to add a new one and/or delete this answer

@IvoBeckers Since you immortalized a small portion of my comment by quoting it after I deleted it, I have to re-explain. The original revision of your answer consisted of two sentences and began with "I think". You failed to explain why your answer was correct. Also, my issue was not with you. My issue was with the six users that chose to reward speed over quality. That said, I do think that you should consider saving your answer until you have something to back it up, be it rules, logic, a quote from some site, etc. Anything is better than nothing.

@Rainbolt I understand. You're right. My apologies.


text:
Would it matter if I mark a Star Realms deck on the front?
I bought a pair of Star Realms decks to allow play with up to 4 people. To make it easier to separate the decks for 2-player play, I was thinking I'd mark one of the decks on the front, with a small mark.
However, does this somehow convey any information that wouldn't be available with unmarked cards? Or is knowing which deck the card came from irrelevant in gameplay?

Just sleeve each deck with a different colour, red deck, blue deck.

@Valamas wouldn't that give you massive hints in the early-game about if (e.g.) the next card you draw would be a purchased ship or from your starter deck?

true enough. I have been thinking about your situation previously. I have 3 decks sleeved the same colour. So using different sleeve colours would mean in the early game that you would most probably know a card is a purchased card. I am now considering placing a small sticker dot on the inside of the sleeve or colouring the corner of the front sleeve. With any option not being visible when the card is face down and without marking or damaging the original card.

I'd suggest sleeving the cards, and then marking one set of sleeves with Sharpie.

No relevant information is conveyed by marking the front of a card. All cards with the same name are totally interchangeable, regardless of whether they are marked.
Logical example
You have two Vipers in your deck. One is marked, and one is not. There are four possible situations.

You draw both Vipers.

You know that both Vipers are in your hand.

You draw the marked Viper.

You know that one Viper is in your hand and one is in your deck.
You know that the Viper in your hand is marked. This provides no benefit to you.
You know that the Viper in your deck is unmarked. This provides no benefit to you.

You draw the unmarked Viper.

You know that one Viper is in your hand and one is in your deck.
You know that the Viper in your hand is unmarked. This provides no benefit to you.
You know that the Viper in your deck is marked. This provides no benefit to you.

You draw no Viper.

You know that both Vipers are in your deck.

Notice that the relevant information available to you is identical in situations 2 and 3. Only the irrelevant information is different.
Less logical example
Consider Magic: the Gathering along with every other card game that has foil, promo, alternate art, artistically modified (with restrictions), or otherwise "premium" cards. These are all tournament legal. If premium cards compromised the integrity of the game, I think someone would have spoken up by now.

Regarding your "Less logical example": There can be a disadvantage for you if you use the same card multiple times but with a different artwork (or any other way to make the copies distinguishable). E.g. you may give your opponent the information that you have multiple copies of a card in your hand (which he/she may have not get to know if those card had the same artwork). It's a quite rare scenario in MtG but in e.g. Android: Netrunner, giving your opponent that information could be fatal.

Yeah, MtG is not actually a good example: pro players do make sure that copies of cards are indistinguishable. For a link about that as well as proof that even in Star Realms it can make a (very small) difference, see my answer.

@BenjaminCosman We interpreted the question differently. I interpreted the question to mean "Does marking the front of a card give away information?", not "Does marking the front of a card allow information to be given away?". Your answer addresses the latter better than mine does.

Whether or not the information matters most of the time, you could mark the cards with invisible ink and then it wouldn't show up while playing. Keep a small black light with the game and you can use it to sort out the cards.

Providing an alternative solution is a legitimate way to answer a question. If the cards are marked with invisible ink, then they appear unmarked during gameplay, and thus cannot convey extra information.

Tl;dr: Go ahead and mark the cards - the difference in gameplay is real but negligible.
Here is one of the rare scenarios where it makes a difference, and even then it's a tiny one: Your opponent knows you are holding card X but does not know your whole hand - in particular, they don't know that you're holding a second copy of X.¹ Then they force a discard (e.g. with Imperial Frigate) and you discard an X. Now if the two copies of X are indistinguishable, your opponent can't tell you're holding another one - for all they know you discarded the one they knew about. But if one is marked then you have to be careful: if you discarded the X they didn't know about, they can tell that you're still holding the other one and can make the remaining decisions of their turn with that information in mind.
In Star Realms this issue is small enough that you should ignore it, but e.g. in pro Magic, similar considerations make it commonplace for players to avoid using multiple versions of the same card.
¹This can happen if they return a base to your hand (e.g. with Mega Mech), or if they can remember all your cards so that when you draw the last couple, shuffle, and draw a few more, they know the pre-shuffle draws by process of elimination.


text:
How much does Vryn Wingmare increase the cost of my Bring to Light by?
Say my opponent has a Vryn Wingmare on the battlefield.  When I cast Bring to Light:

Do I pay 1 extra for the Bring to Light?
Do I pay 1 extra for the (noncreature) spell I find?
Both?
If #2 applies and I pay with 5 colors, can I search a 6 CMC spell?
If there was a sixth color of mana, would I be able to get a 6 CMC spell ( or 7 CMC, given the answer to #4)?

What does it cost?
You will end up paying 7 mana total, 6 for Bring to Light and 1 for the spell you find with it.
What happens is you cast Bring to Light you determine the cost of paying the spell, in this case the mana cost + the cost increase so you will pay 6 total mana for it. Then when Bring to Light resolves you go through the cost determination for the new spell, in this case the alternative cost from bring to light + the cost increase so you will pay {1} for the second spell.

601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If multiple cost reductions apply, the player may apply them in any order. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.

What can I search for?
As for what you can search for, the Wingmare does not effect the CMC of cards, only the cost to cast them. So if you pay 5 different colors you can find a spell with a CMC of up to 5 (and not up to 4 if the Wingmare effected it). If you are playing with Un-cards so there are 6+ colors you could search for cards with a CMC of 6 assuming you have a way to add colors like pink to your mana pool.

202.3. The converted mana cost of an object is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color.
202.4. Any additional cost listed in an object’s rules text or imposed by an effect isn’t part of the mana cost. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) Such costs are paid at the same time as the spell’s other costs.

From the Gatherer Rulings on Bring to Light:

If there are any alternative or additional costs to cast a spell with a converge ability, the mana spent to pay those costs will count. For example, if an effect makes sorcery spells cost {1} more to cast, you could pay {W}{U}{B}{R} to cast Radiant Flames and deal 4 damage to each creature.

Meteor Crater can add pink to your mana pool with one of those tokens. Ah...Unhinged.

This interpretation seems incorrect to me according to the rules you quote. The wording suggests that cost increases take place first (increasing the casting cost by (1)) and then the cost reduction takes place (cast without paying its mana cost). Unless 'you may cast x without paying its mana cost' somehow means "without playing it's original converted mana cost" I don't see how this works the way you say it does

@Cronax "You may cast X without paying its mana cost" is an alternative cost so it is in the first part of determining costs. Cost reductions are things like "Red spells you cast cost {1} less" and things like that

To add to Diego's answer, you will need to pay 6 for Bring to Light and 1 additional for a non creature spell tutored with it (for a total of 7 Mana). The reason that even though Bring to Light states "You may cast that card without paying its mana cost." you must pay extra is covered in the comprehensive rules here:

117.9d: If an alternative cost is being paid to cast a spell, any additional costs, cost increases, and cost reductions that affect that spell are applied to that alternative cost. (See rule 601.2f.)

So Vryn Wingmare static ability is applied when you try to cast whatever non-creature spell you have tutored for, as well as when you cast Bring to Light.

I don't understand what exactly you intend to add to the current answer with this answer.

117.9d just restates a small part of 601.2f, but brevity in an answer is good, so +1 for finding a more focused rule. I think you should answer as though your answer existed by itself though. Don't be afraid to write a shorter, but still complete, answer.


text:
When casting a spell, how can a mana ability be paid with another mana ability?
A situation was presented with Skyshroud Elf and Ashnod's Altar: apparently, you could generate WW or RR by:

Activate the Elf's filter ability ({1}: Add {R} or {W})
Activate the Elf's filter ability
Activate Altar to generate {2}
Resolve filter ability 1 (or 2?)
Resolve other filter ability

But, mana abilities don't use the stack, and once activated they resolve immediately. So, how can you "respond" to a mana ability in this way?

605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated

Credit to Pucatrade for the situation

I'm not sure I understand the situation you're describing. Even ignoring the part about mana abilties, it looks like you're talking about activating the Elf's second ability (pay {1} for {W} or {R}) and then responding to that ability by sacrificing the Elf to the Altar, and then somehow using the mana from the Altar to pay for the ability that you already activated? Or is there some nuance I'm missing?

@murgatroid99 The nuance is that I want to activate the elf's ability twice before sacrificing it.

The point to 605.3b is that as long as the costs have not been paid, it does not count as activated.

It used to be possible to do this by activating the Elf's filter ability during the process of activating the same ability, taking advantage of the fact that one of the steps of  casting a spell or activating an ability is rule 601.2g:

If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

But the rule 605.3c introduced in Eldritch Mood explicitly forbids the specific sequence in the question:

Once a player begins to activate a mana ability, that ability can’t be activated again until it has resolved.

However, it is still possible to do essentially the same thing in a variant scenario where a single creature has two separate instances of the Skyshroud Elf's ability. For example, if you control Ashnod's Altar and Necrotic Ooze, and your graveyard has two copies of Skyshroud Elf in it, then you can accomplish the same thing by doing this:

Activate the Ooze's first filter ability. When you get to step 601.2g of the activation process, do the following:

Activate the Ooze's second filter ability. When you get to step 601.2g of this ability's activation process, do the following:

Activate Ashnod's Altar's ability by sacrificing the Ooze. Now you have {C}{C} in your mana pool.

Pay for the second filter ability with {C} and let the ability resolve, adding {W} or {R} to your mana pool. Now you have {C} and {W} or {R} in your mana pool.

Pay for the original filter ability with {C} and let the ability resolve to add another {W} or {R} to your mana pool.

By doing this, you end up with two mana in any combination of {W} and {R} to your mana pool.

This doesn't work. one could activate the elf, then sac to pay for it, but you can't stack activations the way you do. The problem is that you have to have the mana before activating the filter ability. Mana abilities resolve immediately there is no way to stack them, even if you could the costs must be paid first. Also all of 601.2 must be performed to activate/cast, no one can do anything else while this happens, if any step can't be performed then the game rewinds to the moment before the player tried to activate/cast.

You don't have to have mana before activating the ability. You only have to have the mana before you finish activating the ability. The whole point of 601.2g is that you can activate a mana ability to pay for the ability that you're activating, and there's no reason that you can't do so recursively. Each layer of the list in the answer is one complete walkthrough of the sequence in 601.2.

You must follow 602.2 (n.b. 601 is for casting spells, 602 is for abilities) completely before activating the ability. Yes there is a reason you can't do it recursively it is  605.3 mana abilities resolve immediately. One could pay for the elfs ability with a second activation of the elfs ability, but that would leave you with 1W or 1R in your pool.

602.2b: "The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b–i." 601.2g is a step for activating an ability, including a mana ability.

The little trick that makes this work: the mana you generate for 601.2g doesn't actually have to be used to pay that cost. Like how nothing prohibits you from tapping a Boros Garrison to pay for a Lightning Bolt (and you still get the W in your pool to use for whatever afterward).

Wow. Never realized this was possible. But yeah, 100% correct!

So even with the rule update, you can still do this trick once, right? So if you had no way to get any mana other than sacrificing Skyshroud Elf to Ashnod's Altar's (The elf is already tapped obviously), then you could still get a white or red mana + a colorless mana?

Yes, you can, but at that point it's not much of a trick. It's just activating a mana ability to pay for a cost.

Hey, thanks for keeping this answer up to date.  If an object had two instances of the filter ability (Necrotic Ooze with two elves in graveyards?  Would that even work?  Maybe they're considered redundant but both still present on Ooze?), or if one controlled several such elves, then would that circumvent 605.3c?  What does "same ability" mean exactly?

That's a good point. Multiple instances of the ability count as separate things, so a single creature with multiple instances could still do essentially the same thing the "old answer" describes. Multiple creatures could work too, but that's a much less interesting scenario because then you could just sacrifice one and active the others' filter abilities later.

The relevant rule is

116.1d A player may activate a mana ability whenever he or she has priority, whenever he or she is casting a spell or activating an ability that requires a mana payment, or whenever a rule or effect asks for a mana payment (even in the middle of casting or resolving a spell or activating or resolving an ability).

You announce the first activation of the Elf, then before you pay the costs of that first activation, you announce the second activation. You now have to pay {2}, which you do by sacrificing the elf to the Altar.

This doesn't work as you describe. There are steps to activating an ability, if you fail any step the game rewinds to before the activation. Critically one cannot do anything else during the activation process; you can't announce a second activation during the first.

How do you interpret the rule I quoted then? I can start activating mana abilities  at any time, even in the middle of activating another ability. Mana abilities having steps is exactly the reason why I can activate another mana ability before I have to pay the first. Being unable to complete a step is not checked in advance, it is checked when you get to that step. Also, did you read the link OP provided? A judge said it is possible to activate the Skyshroud Elf a second time before paying the first.

No this doesn't work.

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Only an object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller) can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says otherwise. Activating an ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player is unable to comply with any of those steps, the activation is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that ability started to be activated (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.
emphasis added

Mana abilities resolve immediately (605.3b), but you must pay for them first. There is no way to interrupt the activation process; the game rules require one to complete the casting/activation process or rewind the game (602.2; 601.2 for spells)

116.1d directly contradicts your assertion that you cannot interrupt the activation process

Activating a mana ability to pay for a spell or ability isn't "interrupting" the process of casting that spell or ability, it is part of that process. This is described in rule 601.2g, which is part of the process of both casting a spell and activating an ability (as rule 602.2b says).

@esoterik This is a good start for an answer, but you need to take it all the way. The rule says "If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player is unable to comply with any of those steps [...]". Because you are using that as justification, you also have to prove that the "if" is true. In other words, you need to demonstrate that a player is unable to comply with steps 602.2a-b or 601.2b–i (referred to as "the steps below" in the rule you quoted). So, which of those steps is the player unable to comply with?


text:
Shouldn't Mana be a Copied Attribute?
One of the new Kaldheim cards, Blessing of Frost, has the text:

Distribute X +1/+1 counters among any number of creatures you control, where X is the amount of {S} spent to cast this spell. Then draw a card for each creature you control with power 4 or greater.

and a ruling of:

If Blessing of Frost is copied, no mana was spent to cast the copy, so no +1/+1 counters will be distributed. You may still draw cards if your creatures are large enough.

But rule 706.10 says:

A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. ... If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability.

So why doesn't the snow mana of the original spell count for the copied spell?
(I know the spell and the rules both refer to X, but I'm not concerned about the X of the rules, mostly why the cost of the original spell can't be considered for the resolution of the copied spell)

When they say "the value of X" in rule 706.10, they mean specifically the value of a mana cost of X, the way it appears in, say, Hurricane. This X is an inherent part of a spell on the stack; as you cast a spell with X in its mana cost, you choose X at the same time you would for instance choose to pay for kickers and other alternate / optional additional costs, and the X is included in the converted mana cost as long as the spell is on the stack. As such, that value will be copied if the spell is copied.
However, the X in your Blessing is just another way of writing "Distribute a number of +1/+1 counters among creatures you control, equal to the amount of snow mana used to pay for this particular spell." And if you copy a Blessing, no snow mana was used to pay for the copied spell. That X isn't part of the spell itself. It is only part of the effect that happens when the spell resolves.

You know, I totally didn't connect that X was being used twice.  Once as the snow value, and once as a variable casting cost. It's not the X that I'm confused about, but rather that the originally spent mana isn't copied over.

@JonTheMon As the Gatherer rulings say, when the copy resolves, and asks itself "How much snow mana was paid to cast me?", the answer is 0.

@JonTheMon It's because "mana spent to cast the spell" isn't in the list of things that get copied in rule 706.10. Note that it doesn't count as "objects used to pay its costs", because mana is not an object. That refers to things like tapping or sacrificing a permanent to pay a cost.

Assuming your confusion stems from this passage:

If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability.

This rule does not apply to mana spent on the original spell, as mana is not an object.  (Rule 109.1: "An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem.")  This passage instead refers to things like creatures sacrificed as part of the casting cost for the original spell; without this rule, their last known information would be unavailable to spell copies.

Rule 706.10 'X' refers to an 'X' in the casting cost of the spell. There is no 'X' in the casting cost of Blessing of Frost; it's only part of the resolution. Therefore, you may not distribute any +1/+1 counters. One way to see this is that you can only copy Blessing of Frost while it's still on the stack; the 'X' hasn't come into the equation yet.

On resolution of the copy, why doesn't it remember the mana spent on the original?

I have no idea, perhaps just a case of rules being rules.

@JonTheMon Nothing asks about the mana spent on the original; the copy asks how much was spent casting the copy (this spell). It doesn't matter if it "remembers" how much was spent casting some other spell (e.g. the original).


text:
What happens if Jace, Telepath Unbound is returned to your hand?
So if Jace, Telepath Unbound is returned to your hand, does it turn back into Jace, Vryn's Prodigy to be recast or does it in effect go to your graveyard because Jace, Telepath Unbound cant be recast?

When it enters a new zone, it resets back to its default characteristics. Namely as a creature card. So, you can then recast it as Jace, Vryn's Prodigy.
This is based on two rulings on Gatherer:

While a double-faced card isn’t on the battlefield, consider only the characteristics of its front face.
A double-faced card enters the battlefield with its front face up by default, unless a spell or ability instructs you to put it onto the battlefield transformed, in which case it enters with its back face up.

Hey man thanks. I know it was probably a dumb question but it came up in a game yesterday and I couldn't give a satisfactory answer.

@Teichild If someone answers the question to your satisfaction, accept it by clicking on the green check mark. You can always change the accepted answer if someone comes by later and writes a better answer. Also, welcome to Board and Card Games (and Stack Exchange in general)!

This is also somewhat covered by the rule that any permanent removed from the battlefield or the stack, if it were to come back, comes back as a completely new instance of the card. (I can't access the rulebook atm to find the exact ruling).


text:
Teysa, Orzhov Scion sacrificing one creature multiple times to exhile
I have a rules question for you all. I run Teysa, Orzhov Scion and many black/white creatures in my decks, and I'm wondering if I can sacrifice a black/white creature for her exile ability, and then sacrifice the white spirit token that I get for having a black creature go to the graveyard towards that same instance of her exile ability.
If not, do I have to sacrifice all of the creatures at the same time, or can I, for example, sacrifice two, play a third, and then sacrifice that one?

The cost must be payed all at once.
The triggered ability that provides the Spirit token would not be placed on the stack, much less resolve, before you finish activating the ability. This happens the next time a player would get priority.
As such, you will not have a Spirit token to sacrifice before you finish activating the ability, which means you won't have a Spirit token to sacrifice to activate the ability, which means you are unable to activate the ability.

All costs have to be paid for the ability to go on the stack. In this case, you have to sacrifice all 3 creatures at the same time to get the exile.