text:
How do I effectively use a big wall?
This is from an OGS game I (white, 21k) played against a 20k, specifically my move 26. I'm not even sure about white 24, but I definitely think white 26 was a mistake (although it worked out, but only because my opponent made a mistake later):
$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . , . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . 4 . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Given my huge wall, my theoretical understanding is that I should use it to drive my opponent into it (which white 26 doesn't seem to do at all), but I'm not sure how I would do that in practice.
The best variation I could come up with when reviewing the game was this:
$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 6 8 . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 5 7 0 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . 9 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

(black 29 looks ugly to me, but I don't think black can hane at 30 because a white cut at 29 has all the ladders favoring white?).
But even this result seems pretty good for black to me in the face of the white wall.
Revising the earlier move 24, maybe this might have been a little better:
$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . , . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , 4 . . 2 X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 5 1 . 3 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

but I'm not sure black even has to respond to this white 24 because if black grabs the bottom left corner (which my original 24 was trying to prevent), I think they wouldn't be too worried about the cut?
How should white respond to black 23?

The biggest strength of a wall is that it keeps your opponents stones from connecting to anything on the other side of it; this forces him to worry about living in general, either by making life independently or connecting somewhere else. This is the general idea behind driving your opponent into your wall: Keep harassing him to keep him worrying about living at all, while you strengthen your own position.
The problem with the situation in OP is that the white wall is poorly positioned to do anything about B23. You can roughly visualize the influence of a wall as extending directly in whatever direction the wall is facing:
$$m23
$$ +---------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . x x O x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x O X X . . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

As you can see, the main problem with using your wall to attack B23 is that B23 is well outside of your wall's influence. Black can just as easily connect with his stones on the right as he can jump into the lower left corner; either way, he's really not all that worried about living. The wall really doesn't come into play yet.
Playing at W24 as you did isn't really a bad move since it's a big point and restricts black's options — I probably would've done the same myself: Wall or not, a free corner is still a free corner — but he's still not all that worried about living because he can easily connect. Black's jump at B25 was okay but I feel it's a bit of a wishy-washy response here; he can afford to be aggressive, so he probably could've tried to attack the corner directly with b or c:
$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X
$$ | . . c . . 3 . . O X
$$ | . . . b . . 4 . X ,
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ +--------------------

On the other hand, W26 as original played is problematic because it's working at cross purposes: It's effectively forcing black to strengthen his position, and pushes him into your weak corner. It's also just outside of the influence of your own wall so not very effective at cutting black off from his strength; it's just as easy (if not easier) for black to cut it off from yours. Rather than using your wall to fight, you're basically helping him build his own wall and driving yourself into it instead.
Merits of jumping into the corner aside, if you really wanted to bring your wall into play, the corner isn't how you'd do it here. Letting black establish a base on the bottom means that when he does decide to extend into your walls influence, he's doing so from a position of strength instead of weakness. This severely limits your ability to harass him.
Your second variant, for example, does effectively use the wall to curtail black's invasion (although I believe the black hane at 30 can work by threatening the weak point a in white's wall, I don't have time to really explore that variation). However, this sort of close fighting ends up strengthening black more than it does white, and in the end it really doesn't do anything to secure the corner, which is now really looking rather vulnerable to a black attack around b or c:
$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . a O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . 6 8 . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . . 4 5 7 0 O X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . 9 O X . . . |
$$ | . . c b . . . . X , . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

In other words, the original corner play at W24 looks wasted; if it doesn't really help your fight, and you're not really trying to defend it, it's just not doing much of anything at all. You'd probably have been better off playing W24 at B25 instead, which lets you bring the wall's influence into play before black has a chance to build up his strength. This would keep him effectively constrained, while also leaving white with a generally stronger position:
$$m23
$$ | . . . . . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . , . . O O X . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . 5 4 . 2 . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . 8 X , . . . |
$$ | . . 7 . . 1 . 0 9 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Your final variant where you extend your wall to cut black off from his strength on the right entirely is the right idea, although if I were black, I'd probably grab the big empty corner before worrying about the connection at a. This really isn't a problem since there's pretty much always going to be a tradeoff between "territory" and "influence"; the first two variants fell into disarray because white was effectively trying to go for both but couldn't really commit to either.
$$m23
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O O X . . |
$$ | . x x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . x x x x x x O X . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 x x x 2 X , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------+

Whether black chooses to grab the corner or to connect, this lets white play pretty much anywhere within the wall's now larger area of influence to keep black low on the bottom while simultaneously building a huge framework in the top and left, which will make it way harder for black to extend anywhere beyond the corner you let him have (which was already outside of your influence anyway).
Unlike the previous variation, in which white can cap and constrain black while still keeping things relatively civilised, by extending the influence of white's wall before picking any fights white can afford to be a lot more aggressive here and attack the corner without mercy. Splitting black's forces by descending into a (assuming black lets you) will simultaneously threaten his large corner on the right as well increase your wall's left-facing influence, and if you can undercut black's eyespace in the corner (big if), then you can turn this into a straight-up "drive your opponent into your wall" situation. A word of caution though: This can get messy, you probably don't want to try this unless you're really confident in your fighting ability (and/or just thrive on chaos).
In conclusion, two points to keep in mind:

Faster is better: If you want to bring your wall's influence into play, you want to do it before black has an opportunity to build up his strength. Spending that one extra turn claiming a corner you don't want to keep while black builds a base can make all the difference here.
Choose your battles: Recognize the areas of influence and pick your attacks accordingly; white's influence in the above examples is absolutely terrible for a direct attack on B23, but excellent for capping and restraining it. Relatedly, black will have a far easier time attacking the corner where white has little-to-no influence than white will have defending it. If you are going to attack directly, do so from a position of strength.

But seriously, that all still seems like a lot of work for not so significant an advantage compared to "Hey, look! Free corner!"

Great analysis, thank you so much. And good point about the hane (B29 at W30) possibly exploiting the weakness in the wall, I missed that.

Your last try is the correct one. You must hane at 24 against the loose Black stone. When Black plays 25, you cut one stone to its right, atariing, the hanging stone, followed by an atari diagonally from 24, and an extension from that atari stone. Your goal is to break up Black's lower side formation, giving you a "flanking" position to both the bottom left and bottom right.
The best way to make use of your wall is to protect it. In the earlier examples, you let Black outflank your wall, greatly reducing its value.


text:
How does black kill white in this Tsumego?
I'm struggling with "Basic problem #46" from Tsumego Pro. It looks like this, black to play:
$$ |--------------
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O X X . .
$$ | . O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | . . . O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

In the built-in "correct" solution, after black takes the vital point, white plays 2 right below, after which a, b, and c all kill white:
$$ |--------------
$$ | a O O c . . .
$$ | 1 b O X X . .
$$ | 2 O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | . . . O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

I don't understand why white would play 2 here, depriving themselves of a liberty. If instead it started the semeai below the three black stones, I'm not able to find a variation where black is able to avoid seki. For example:
$$ |--------------
$$ | . O O 3 . . .
$$ | 1 . O X X . .
$$ | 5 O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | 6 4 2 O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

(3 and 5 could also be in reverse order), or this one:
$$ |--------------
$$ | . O O 7 . . .
$$ | 1 . O X X . .
$$ | 5 O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | 3 4 2 O . . .
$$ | 6 O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

If black 3 at 4 then black is dead. If black 5 doesn't happen (either on the 3rd or the 5th move), then either:
$$ |--------------
$$ | a O O 3 . . .
$$ | 1 5 O X X . .
$$ | . O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | 6 4 2 O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

(or 5 at a, or 3 and 5 reversed once more) and black is dead, or:
$$ 5 anywhere but a, b, or c
$$ |--------------
$$ | a O O 3 . . .
$$ | 1 b O X X . .
$$ | c O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | . 4 2 O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

and white plays c, killing black. If 3 and 5 are on two of a, b, and c in the last diagram, black is dead once more.
What variation am I missing where black can kill white if white plays this way?

Is the tsumego actually asking for black to kill? Or is it just looking for a "best move" scenario? Because whether white ends up dead or in seki, black 1 is still the best move here for black (and white is the one who gets to choose the continuation.)

@goldPseudo Just "best move", but generally tsumegos in this collection (and this one in particular) are looking for more than one move. So there are white responses programmed in, and black 1 doesn't make the puzzle "solved" yet.

Surely the solution is just asserting (correctly) the unique black move to get at least a seki.

$$ |--------------
$$ | a O O c . . .
$$ | 1 b O X X . .
$$ | 2 O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | . . . O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

You are absolutely right that White 2 is a mistake in this diagram. After White 2 in this diagram, Black can kill White.
Instead, White should play for the seki as you've found:
$$ |--------------
$$ | . O O 5 . . .
$$ | 1 . O X X . .
$$ | 3 O O X . X .
$$ | X X X O X . .
$$ | 2 6 4 O . . .
$$ | . O O . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .

Still, Black 1 is the correct first move for Black, since it results with Black alive in seki, whereas if Black had played any other first move, the Black stones would have died.
So, this tsumego is not about killing the White stones, it is about finding life for the Black stones.
The only defense I can give for Tsumego Pro showing you this White 2 mistake is that when solving tsumego, we're often less interested in the opponent's "best move", and more interested in the opponent's "most stubborn move" / "most complicated move" / "path of most resistance".
That is, when solving the tsumego, you have to read out every possible answer of the opponent, including this White 2 self-killing move.
But that's admittedly a poor defense in this case, and it's misleading from TsumegoPro to make White play a self-killing move like that, potentially making the player erroneously believe that they have found a sequence to kill White, whereas it should really be a seki.

Sometimes, online implementations of tsumego will randomly choose between some alternate resistance lines.

Seems Black has to take the 1-2 vital point to avoid White making 2 eyes. If White begin to deprive Black's liberty from outside, then Black get connected by taking on 1-3 and White deprives outside again. After that, both Black and White have same 3 liberties, but 2 of them are in common used. This becomes seki and it should be the best result for White.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
When should I get rid of the queen of spades in Hearts?
Whenever I play the QS on the 3rd or 4th round everyone gets mad at me and says that's a low down nasty thing to do! I thought the QS should be dumped asap so as not to get stuck with it myself - which has happened more times that I care to recall, even when I have 4,5 or 6 Spades backing her up. What is the proper etiquette for dumping the QS in Hearts?

It is a low down nasty thing to do. It's also the correct thing to do.

You're just helping them shoot the moon, not your fault if they fail to follow-through.

Since the QS is 13 points, you are correct in tossing it indiscriminately. Throw it in any trick you're guaranteed not to take.
If people are getting mad at you and saying it's "low down nasty", they're either being facetious or they're people that shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.

There is no etiquette required when playing the QS.  It is worth half of the available points in the hand.  Anyone expecting you to be "polite" with it (whatever that means) is unrealistic and should go back to playing against the computer.
There are strategic exceptions.  For example, it may be advantageous to pass on an opportunity to play the Queen if you are trying to stick a specific opponent with it and think you can do so safely later in the round.
That being said, are you sure they are actually upset?  Maybe they are trying to trash-talk or joke about their misfortune and just not doing a very good job of it.

I think that the last point is important: when we play hearts, we tend to call each other a lot of nasty names if we get given the Queen. That said, we also generally have a rule that "what is said at the game table stays at the game table".
So call each other lots of awful things! It's part of the fun.

It can be risky to throw it very early (before any hearts have been played), as if you throw it to a player with a heart-strong hand you may be making it easy for them the shoot the moon.  Of course, they're likely call you nasty names when you throw it, just to conceal the shooting possibilities...

Because some people worry that others will "get control" (aka "shoot the moon"), they have a personal rule not to play the QS before hearts are not just broken, but have been taken by two different people. That's their personal rule and they're welcome to have it. Then, especially if they are not playing against a wide variety of people, they may get it into their heads that everyone does that. This may lead them to feel that it's relatively safe to take a trick before two different people have taken a heart, since the QS is not going to be played. Then they take a trick like that, feeling happy that they've got rid of a high card and the worst that will happen is one heart, you play the QS, and they get a rude reminder that not everyone plays that way, and they react strongly to what you did. This doesn't make them right, I'm just explaining the emotions of someone who wasn't expecting you to ding them.
For your own purposes, if you're getting zinged with 26 points at least once every time you play, you might consider being a little more conservative with getting rid of that QS. (And perhaps your tablemates are partly objecting that "you just made it so Steve can give us all 26 points, thanks a lot, next time think about the whole table not just getting rid of your hot card.") But if you're not, then you're doing nothing wrong and don't worry what people happen to say.

It depends on your hand sometimes, if I have a very heavy Spade hand, I will hold on the Q to play later on, trying to give it to whomever is leading at that point. Sometimes it backfires and you end up with it though! If I only have a few spades I get rid as soon as possible!!!

With a very heavy spade hand it may still be risky as you may get the lead while being the only one left with spades!

Hearts is a game of doing low-down, nasty things. Your opponents need to grow a skin (or a pair) and learn to turn the tables on you by "hunting the bitch"; instead of trying to void Diamonds or Clubs early as they're apparently trying to do, they should be leading low Spade after low Spade to force you to "eat" that Queen by following suit with it.
If that becomes the group's formulaic play, the antidote to that is either to be long in Spades with the Queen and "lead" the hunt yourself to void everyone else in Spades, then lose the lead and play the Queen offsuit, or to not have the Queen at all, be long in Hearts and short (and low) in Spades, void Spades early and break Hearts during the hunt to punish the hunters for beating up on a woman.
Your hand, and your group's strategy, determines your own:

If you have the Ace of Clubs, you shouldn't also have the 2 if you had any chance to get rid of both. Play the Ace on the first trick and you control the hand from there; you can start a Diamond or Club-voiding binge or a Spade hunt.
If you don't have the Ace of Clubs, play your highest one and hope the person immediately to your right doesn't have the Ace.
The lead to the second trick usually determines the basic strategy of the hand unless someone has an unbalanced-enough hand to quickly say otherwise.

Another Club typically results in someone voiding Clubs, so be wary of leading the third Club trick in the hand as you'll likely pay for it.
Diamonds are safer as the first hand didn't have them, so statistically speaking that tends to be another safe hand or two.
Once a Spade is led it usually starts the hunt, and until at least three Spade tricks are played or Hearts are broken, attempting to stop it by winning one safely and leading low in Clubs or Diamonds will either get you flagged as the Queen-holder, or whomever does hold the Queen will have tried to void Clubs or Diamonds, and the odds of the QS being foisted off-suit become very high.
Once Hearts are broken, the next trick is usually "revenge"; whomever won the first Heart will lead the lowest Heart they have, both to lose the trick and the lead, and make sure someone else gets 4 points (unless someone is void in Hearts).
From there, it all depends on who has the lead, whether that person's paid attention to what's been thrown, and what they might be able to do to lose the lead. Usually, someone ends up a little too long in one suit after the first few tricks, and if they win a trick it's pretty much over unless they managed to keep a few low cards in a second suit that hasn't been exhausted yet.

EDIT:
There is one house rule I forgot to mention; it is common in some locales that the Queen of Spades, like any penalty Heart, should not be played off-suit until Hearts have been broken (obviously it can and should be played to follow suit). Your group might be playing with this as an unwritten rule, so your sluffing the Queen early might be messing with their mojo as they feel you're playing a different game than they are.
However, this rule makes the Queen harder to lose, making the game more luck-based and scripted. If Hearts have to be broken to play it off-suit, then "hunting the bitch" is the natural next move for the two or three tricks after the initial Club trick, and your only defense is to be the longest in Spades. So, I don't use this rule, and neither do most computerized versions of the game. I do, however, count the Queen for the "no bleeding Hearts" rule, which states that a penalty card may not be played on the first trick unless the player only has penalty cards (which is an extremely rare situation).

When you go to pass cards prior to the hand, you need to make a decision with respect to spades.  You might only have few, and worse, some of those cards are the A,K, or Q.
I prefer to play the role of "Distributor of Pain" in any hand of Hearts.  To do so it is ideal to have at least 2-3 (more is always better) other spades (other than the Q).  If you do have the A or K, look to play them when playing last, or second-to-last if your left is known to be out of spades.  Then, sit back and plot who deserves it the most.
On the other hand, if you are not well imbued with spades all bets are off.  Get off the sinking ship ASAP.  There is no chivalry in this scenario; you would have liked to drop the Q to conform to the appropriate storyline, but you don't have time to wait around for it to happen.

Hearts is not a partnership game but each player for themselves.
Sometimes you aim to target the leading player, but your primary aims are:

Avoiding taking the queen of spades and hearts, unless you are aiming to shoot the moon
Preventing opponents from shooting the moon
Trying to ensure you are in the best position you can be in when the game is over.

Choosing which cards to pass is an interesting matter. According to the popular rules because it's the ones that came with Microsoft Windows, you have one round passing to the left, then one to the right, then one across and one with no passing. The game ends when one player or more reaches 100 and if you shoot the moon the other players all get 26 points. I've seen a variant where, when you shoot, you can choose between having 26 added to everyone's score or having that many removed from your own, the latter a good option if someone will bust and you won't be winning if everyone gets 26.
If you are dealt the queen of spades and are deciding whether to pass it, passing it to the left is always the most dangerous, to the right the least dangerous. Often one will pass an intermediate heart to ensure that player is not void in hearts. voiding yourself in hearts is one way to try to shoot the moon.
The rule is normally that you cannot drop a heart or the queen of spades on the opening trick. (2 of clubs is always led). You can otherwise play it at any other time (as long as you are not avoiding following suit). You can only lead a heart once they have been "broken" or if you only have hearts left.
So, morals aside, what is your best tactic if you have the queen of spades?
Well firstly, make sure you are not going to take a trick with it, unless you think you can shoot the moon. In general, let someone shoot the moon even rather than take it. (Maths: your average loss on each player by taking it is 13. By letting someone shoot your average loss is 26/3 which is 8.67, less than 13). "In general" depending on the score in general and that of your own and the opponent who might shoot.
Assuming nobody is shooting the moon, if you don't discard it, might you win a trick with it? If part of a suit of 5 cards or longer, with some small ones so you are not stuck on lead at the end, probably not. As part of a 3 card suit, whether you have AK or not, you are in big danger of that happening. 4 card suit is a "maybe" situation.
So, if that's the danger, get rid when you can.
If there is no danger, you look at the score and decide who you prefer to hit upon. Usually the player in the lead, or 2nd placed if you are in the lead.
Now assume it's the early stage, and you don't know if someone is going to shoot the moon. Actually getting rid now may work. The earlier a "break" happens, the more likely it is to prevent someone setting up their hand to take the rest.
So there you go - some tactics to consider.

It is intended to indicate some strategies but I will edit a bit

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


text:
Where can I find 'no limits' Texas Hold'em game logs?
I've been looking at some papers about developing AI players for Texas Hold'em, and many of them have used betting history from expert human players as training data.  I have so far been unable to find a paper that referenced where they got that betting history.
Where can I find betting history for 'no limits' Texas Hold'em games?
I imagine the game history will be in the format of a log file containing the number of chips each player has, the cards dealt to each player, and all the bets made.

Here is an example of a paper I looked at:
Decision Generalisation from Game Logs in No Limit Texas Hold’em

Building a Poker Playing Agent based on Game Logs using Supervised Learning
I found this paper on creating a Hold'em AI that refers to two external log files on page 100 of that paper. One no longer exists. The other, from hhsmithy, costs a couple bucks. They offer logs from various sources, including Poker Stars, Full Tilt Poker and Party Poker.
They also offer a smaller, free set that you can use to build your setup.


text:
Can the climber jetpack to a buried tile?
In Forbidden Desert the climber's card says that they can move to any blocked tile, whereas the jetpack says it can only be used to fly to an unblocked tile.
Can the climber use the jetpack to travel to a blocked tile?
We just played a game and went by the ruling in this thread, which allowed it, but it would be nice if someone can point out a more official ruling (or even a thread where the conclusion is more confident!)

I am not familiar with the game, but I would infer the opposite. If the jetpack takes you to any unblocked tile, it takes you to any unblocked tile. The climber does not make blocked tiles unblocked, thus they would not be eligible targets for the jetpack.

I would say no.  Other cases where players special abilities combine (Navigator and Climber) or where a player's special ability combines with equipment (Explorer and Dune Blaster) are explicitly mentioned.  The Climber says they can move to blocked spaces, not that they treat blocked spaces as unblocked. So I don't see anything that suggests you would be able to modify the jet pack's explicit statement that you can only move to unblocked tiles.

It's not official, but there is a (fan-created) FAQ post on BGG now here. It states (towards the end) that the Climber is allowed to use the Jetpack to travel to a blocked tile.

And a number of people in the comments disagreed with him...

thanks for the link to the FAQ, that cleared up a number of questions I had

I wish I could reference the rule book, but they do not explicitly state the use of equipment with your special ability. So personally, I'd say play by your own house rules.
However, in this specific case I do not think this matchup is allowed. As you mentioned, the card does state to move to an unblocked tile specifically which basically is the answer to your question right there.
Also every equipment card has 3 stipulations listed at the bottom:

Play at any time
Does not count as an action
Discard to box after use

Since it doesn't count as an action and can be played at anytime, I feel that also kind of discourages away from mixing equipment with special abilities.
Forbidden Desert is a great, short game to play on a rainy day, however I think the company needs to clean up it's rulebook and add some much needed clarity.
Happy gaming!


text:
Clarifying house rules for Monopoly
It seems likely that I may be involved in a game of Monopoly soon.  I'm not a big fan of Monopoly for a number of reasons, one of which is that part way through the game someone will reveal that they assumed we were playing with a house rule that no one else has heard of.
Obviously the most straightforward way to deal with this is to collectively read through the rule book before the start of the game.  In practice this is going to be very unpopular, and will add a significant amount of time to an already long game.
What house rules have you encountered and what set makes for a better more well rounded game?

House rules vary from place to place, group to group and can be made up on the fly. It might be hard to try and satisfy every single or even most house rules mainly because there's no concrete rule for house rules, them being what they are.

I agree with @jonn. This is almost an impossible question to answer. A better question would be to list the rules that you have encountered, and ask what makes a well rounded, fair game of monopoly.

Ok - good suggestion.  I have edited the question above.

I sympathize. One of the main reasons I can't stand Monopoly is that most people I play with don't actually know the true rules of the game but assume they do. Then they get mad when I show them they're doing it wrong.

At my place, we play by "Hao's Rules". ;)

When someone lands on an available property, it immediately goes up for auction.  You can't buy it yourself without bidding!

While the free parking rule mentioned by LittleBobbyTables is quite common, there are a lot of other house rules people use in Monopoly.  I know we never used the auction rule when we've played Monopoly, and that keeps property available much longer, since when someone lands on a parcel, it isn't necessarily sold.
Wikipedia has a great list of house rules people use
More house rules you can use
If you're looking for a shorter game, try out some of the rules that help shorten the game.  My second link has a the original rules for a short game that can help alleviate some of the boredom of longer Monopoly games.

It's important to note that there's a direct relationship between the near-ubiquitous Free Parking and no-auctions rules and people's perception that Monopoly is a game that takes forever to play.  The playing time of Monopoly is a function of how fast people run out of money, which is a function of
a) how quickly all the properties get sold and developed and
b) how slowly new money enters the game.
If you don't auction properties, it takes a lot longer for all the properties to get sold.  If you put fines in Free Parking, they come back into the game.  You've now turned a 60-90 minute game into one that takes 3-4 hours to play.  The next step in this process is getting on boardgamegeek.com and telling everyone how terrible a game Monopoly is.

Very well said. I wish more people knew this exact fact and did not improperly judge Monopoly on what is only house rules. Play with the official rules and you'll see how well those rules really work.

I didn't even know about the auction rule until I was about 17 or so. I had never seen it before. Knowing that properties could go up for auction made the game much more understandable.

Also the fact that you could build on properties when you weren't on their square. Nobody I played with knew about that rule until I played an online version of the game.

I much prefer the 60-90 minute version, but I still include your last step ;)

A while back some friends and I had played a few long, boring games of Monopoly in a row. Before we gave up on the game entirely we decided to try one more game with strict adherence to the rules. Not only was the game fun, but it was over in 45 minutes. Two common house rules break the game in the following ways:

Free parking money (free $500 and/or using it to collect and redistribute fine revenue are popular alternatives) leads to inflation in the same way it does in a real economy; except that in Monopoly prices are fixed which leads to a shortage of property/improvements because everyone can typically afford anything they want. Without free money it's easy to over-extend buying property or hotels and go bankrupt. Too much money eliminates the tension between cash flow and assets. Trying to walk that balance is part of the fun.
No auctions. Development is the key to victory, but development requires monopolies, and monopolies require property to be bought from the bank. Actually having to land on all two or three tracts in a single group is statistically unlikely; this extends games as people try in vain to hit that last property. It also means more trips around Go before the development phase of the game starts: more Go means inflation (see #1).

The best house rules are no house rules, both because they break the game and because the easiest set of rules to explain are the ones that are already written down in black and white. If they don't know what they are they can read the book. It's also worth a quick comment that strict rules mean auctions and no cash in Free Parking.

Like the post currently above yours, very well said.

With free parking & no auctions, and the resulting piles of cash that are big enough to ride out any temporary variance from paying and receiving rent, the whole strategy of the game boils down to little more than "buy whatever you can, build whatever you can". Ultimately when all is sold the player with the biggest portfolio should gradually grind down the rest - though if the players are evenly enough balanced, that may not be possible if the expected money supply inflation per circuit exceeds the expected deficit per circuit for the weakest portfolio.

A significant aspect of the game (without house rules) is the gamble: Should I spend all my cash to bump up my monopoly to 3 houses, and hope my opponent will land on it?  If he misses, but I land on his, then I'll have to sell back those houses at half-price!  Whereas with the Free Parking rule, there's no point in ever engaging in this kind of risk.  Better to wait until I land on Free Parking, and then build houses or hotels with the cash bonanza.  Cash on Free Parking makes a win entirely contingent on a lucky dice throw.

I don't understand your complaint -- you don't want to read the rules before playing a game?
If you're worried about time spent reading the rules, everyone can download the rules from Hasbro here and read it any time before coming over and playing (the rules say "Deluxe Edition", but there's no difference in the rules).
We really can't tell you what house rules you should play with; before playing, simply ask everyone if there are any house rules they want to play with, and agree on those.  If someone forgets to bring something up, or assumed it was a rule, that's too bad.  Whoever is hosting should have final say, hence the term "house" rules.
The only house rule I have ever seen is putting money paid for Community, Chance or Luxury Taxes put into the middle of the board, and whoever lands on Free Parking gets it.  I'm not really a fan of that.

Appologies for the original question.  I have now edited it as per the suggestions in the comments.

Agree on all points.  Start with the official rules.  Money on Free Parking is the most common "house rule" that I'm aware of as well.

+1 I will just add that I don't like the "Money on Free Parking" rule because it just make an already long game longer.

Whenever we played, we used the following house rules:

No auctions.  You have to land on a property to buy it.
Free parking jackpot.  Any taxes, payments from chance or community chest, or payments to get out of jail get put in the middle of the board.  Anyone who lands on free parking gets it.

That's the way I played it with everyone growing up.  I also played it once or twice with some people who played the same way, but added in the "landing on GO gives you 2x the money" rule.  That didn't change the balance of the game too much.
You should make sure to bring up these rules, and others, and make sure that all house rules have been discussed before you begin.  If someone brings up a house rule halfway through the game, it's unfair, and shouldn't be allowed.  Everyone should know the rules of the game before you start, and it's the homeowner or game owner's responsibility to know exactly which house rules are being used and fill everyone in before the game starts.

The "2x payday" is borrowed, if I recall correctly, from the game "Careers".

out of curiosity, why is it that folks who play with Free Parking being a lottery don't contribute the interest paid on mortgages to the "pot", while they will contribute all other monies that should have been paid to the bank to the pot?

Removing the auction rule removes pretty much the most strategic element of the game.

We always play with a quick start house rule: In the beginning of the game we shuffle all the properties and everyone draws one. They have to pay for it but have an asset from the get go. We sometimes exclude the most expensive and the cheapest properties from the draw.
We never once played with the auction rule.
Oh, and ever since that last time where my father got his mother to essentially give him all her properties for a bit of money I'm insisting on the No favors for friends, families or significant others rule.

Some rules not mentioned:

give other players a cake (preferably self baked) if caught cheating.
don't pay rent to a owner that is in jail.

Edit Ok, the three times a double roll lands you in jail rule is from the original rules. It was always presented as a counter measure for a player with a lucky roll.

I find rule #2 intriguing - a rule about not adhering to the rules. I assume playing with that rule means that attempting to cheat is considered socially acceptable (since it is dealt with by your rules). What happens if you are caught cheating, but you decide not to bring cake - is that simply another cheat punishable by cake, or is the cake rule considered higher level and inescapable? In the first case, can you indefinitely evade bringing cake by continuously cheating on the cake rule?

@Erik P, lol, we have had some experience with cheating bankers. (They always had a secret stash of cash somewhere).

The cake is a lie?  :)

cake? .. cut to your other points, why would you remove the rule form the book that says owners in jail should be paid rent?

You don't need a laundry list of house rules, just agreements on the three or four most contentious issues. Examples:
1) Free parking: Do fines, etc. go to the bank or into the middle for someone who lands on free parking?
2) Auctions: Can a player refuse to buy a property without putting it up for auction?
3) Buildings: Are there a limit to the number of houses and hotels? In some versions, we played "unlimited buildings," as much as money can buy (usually in conjunction with the Free Parking Lottery),adding new ones from a second set if necessary. In another variant, you could "free up" an opponent's four houses per property by paying for his upgrade to hotels. Again, a "good" rule for someone who came into the money later, especially if those houses are on the Med or Baltic Avenues.
4) Legal tender: Is a get out of jail free card "legal tender" for $50. Is a mortgaged property "legal tender" for half its original value?

I like buying up houses to block other's development as a good bit of strategy.  But it does catch some other players off guard, so best to get agreement on this.
Have allowed player's to sell the get out of jail free card, but only to another player and usually at a significant discount from $50.

How we play monopoly:

The player who goes bankrupt first gives their properties to the ones still playing.
No trading till all the properties are bought.
If someone lands on a property and chooses not to buy it, it goes to auction and the one who gave it up can't bid.
We have the Lord of the Rings version which has a ring that moves around the board and when it reaches go ends the game.
If we choose to use the ring, we decide when it reaches go if we still feel like playing and if we do we send it round again. Usually it takes 3 or 4 times round before we end the game.

For the most part we play monopoly pretty straight and don't use the free-parking or no auctions rules that seem really common.

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


text:
Remembering Decktet Card Distribution
Recently I discovered the Decktet playing card pack, and have been enjoying the way that suits and ranks combine to make for some very clever games. However, I think I would be able to use better strategies if I could remember what cards existed!
I have noticed that the basic deck contains one card of each rank/suit combination, and that the extended deck contains two pawns and two courts of each suit, along with The Excuse.
I was wondering if there was some further logic behind the card arrangement, or some easy way to remember that there is, e.g., a nine of moons/suns, an eight of moons/suns, but no seven of moons/suns.

I don't think there is any particular logic to the suit distribution in the Decktet. A quick search of BoardGameGeek didn't turn up any comments by P.D. Magnus (the designer of the Decktet, who is active in their forums) on the distribution either. I haven't been able to commit the distribution to memory, but if you want to, this is what you would need to memorize:

These are taken from the Decktet Charts and tables pdf available here.
Another useful view of which combinations of suits are most prevelent:

This is an image by HenryBlatbugIII from BoardGameGeek.

+1 Thanks very much - these are good summaries.  I found another image which may also be useful, which I'll post once I find it again!


text:
Are some pieces better than others in Blokus?
Obviously the smaller pieces are generally easier to get rid of than the larger pieces, but I'd be interested to know which pieces I should aim to get rid of first, and which pieces I should save.  I'm sure this largely depends on the gaps on the playing board, but are there some pieces that go better in the majority of cases?

I'm wondering if might make sense to reword the question to better match the question in the longer text. Something like: Which pieces are best to play first in Blokus?

@JoeGolton I was actually trying not to ask which pieces to play first :-)  I already asked that here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1497/what-is-a-good-opening-in-blokus?rq=1

I'm even more confused, then. For example, I think the "best piece" by far is the "1." The 1 should be withheld from being played until it affords you an opportunity to break out into an entirely new territory from which you would otherwise be blocked. So that's a good answer to your headline question, but not a good answer to text which asks about "which to get rid of first."

I agree, the "one" is the best piece and so you shouldn't try to get rid of it

For scoring purposes alone placing the pentominoes first is the optimal approach.

What you place first depends on your strategy.  Sometimes I like to go straight after another player to attempt to block them in.  Y, I, and L are good opening pieces for that.  For a more balanced to the middle approach, I like to open with F or W.  They give lots of corners to build off of and are not immediately threatening to the other players.
I, P, T and X can be difficult to place later in the game, so I like to get them out as soon as possible.  F, U, L, W and Z are all great for cutting other players off, so I like to save them for when I get close to another color.
Usually only 2 of the 4's give me trouble; the straight piece, and the perfect square. I tend to prioritizing placing them over all the smaller pieces and even some of the 5's.
In most games what you place becomes highly dependent on what the other players are doing.  Especially in later turns.  You need to give yourself room to grow while simultaneously denying space to your opponents.

Most certainly; all pieces are NOT created equal, some pieces are greater than others.
I've found that the 'better' pieces are the ones with more vertices.  The fewer points a piece has, the easier it is for an opponent to fully block all expansion opportunities.  The more points a piece has, the more opportunities you'll have for branching the next piece off of it.
Accordingly, I try to play my "low-point" pieces early, and in 'unimportant' locations.  I try to save my "high-point" pieces for when I begin encountering the enemy and expect resistance.
To list:
I = 4
P = 5
V = 5
L = 5
N = 6
T = 6
U = 6
Y = 6
Z = 6
F = 7
W = 7
X = 8

Of course, none of that takes into account how easy or difficult a piece can be to play, merely how strong it can be after it's been played.  Additionally, the situation can make a piece much stronger; the long bars are excellent for making a long jump into enemy territory, and if they can be played to block an opponents expansion into that area then they're the perfect piece for the moment.  In general though, the vertex count gives me a good and easy way to rate pieces.

Like so many Blokus questions, the answer is: "It depends".
Late in the game, the "best pieces" are the ones you can still play.
That will depend on what your opponents have done already,
and won't always be the same ones.
All the pieces are both "good" and "bad",
but in general the ones with lots of corners (like, F and X and W)
are "more useful" than those with long straight edges, (like L and I).
But every piece has both good and bad qualities, and times it should
be used, and times it should be saved.
Take for example, the I (or I5 as it called in online games):
Good qualities:

it takes you as far as possible in one direction,
it can cut off an opponent in some situations where no other piece will, because it's the only one that's 5-long.

Bad qualities:

only 4 corners, so vulnerable to being cut off easily itself
those long edges set up nice places for the opponents to play on  (called 'leaks') which cannot be blocked by the color of I5.

That, and just about every other piece, is a two-edged sword
(with the I5 being most sword-like in appearance!)
For a detailed look at "The 4 most valuable Pieces"
written by an expert player, see
http://blokusstrategy.com/?p=470
And for standard piece naming among online players, see
http://blokusstrategy.com/?p=48
The previous answer that said the the I4(straight piece 4-long) and O4(square)
are the hardest to play was absolutely right.  In online games, they are
the most frequently unplayed pieces, with the square failing to play over half the time.


text:
Advice for an experienced gamer who'd like to play nomic games?
I am an experienced board gamer (and card too), with a particular affinity for collaborative games (Shadows over Camelot, Pandemic, etc.). I would like to take this a step further by studying self-government games in the style of Nomic. However, the learning step appears to be a bit steep. Given that I'd have to find a few friends to play with, I'd like to find a good game for our collective first time, so as not to be too easily discouraged.
So, what choice of nomic games would you recommend, and what general advice would you give me to organize this.

Reading your post reminded me of the two times I played Dangerous Parallel. Both times were in school settings and the game appears to require/be most fun with lots of people, but I bet it could be easily amended for one player per country. The Play and rules are very free-form, albeit more structured than Nomic, yet not as constraining as a game like Diplomacy.

@Pat thanks for link fix. My skills at properly formatting markup on my phone leave quite a bit to be desired.

For having played so many Nomic, I must recommend you to play with friends around a table in a place where there are a few games.
The reasons for that are hard to explain, but playing Nomic online implies one of the two followings:

The game is abstract and requires every player to keep his own trace of the current situation, like two chess players that only send each other the coordinates of their moves.
Many players are programmers that can change the website you're playing on, to add new kinds of elements. Let's say you play with "points" and suddenly you decide to add "coins" and "blue turtles", and there is an hexagonal board, ... You can't just add a comment in a blog to edit the players status and adding fields to the database.

But if you play around a table, you can add "Carcassonne pawns" and "Catane cards" in your game quite simply.
Also, you start with very basic rules. Forget about mutable/immutable rules, for example.
Here is an example of starting rules:
1) No rules can be added or changed if it is in contradiction with an already valid rule.
2) The players play their turn clockwise, each finishing his or her turn before the next player begins. The players decide who plays first in the way they prefer.
3) At a player's turn he or she can propose a new rule, a change in a rule or a removal of a rule, by writing it on a piece of paper in the exact form it is supposed to be added or changed. Such an action is called a motion.
4) When a motion is made, all the players vote by raising hands if they accept or reject the motion, each one having one voice.
5) If more than half the voices accept a motion, it is put in the ruleset, at the end with a new number if it is a new rule; at the same place with the same number if the rule is changed; and crossed out if it is removed.
6) The winner is the one who sells the princess.
(Of course, to achieve such a goal, you must either change the rule 6) or introduce a princess and a way to sell her.)

The best online nomic is Agora Nomic (http://agoranomic.org/), which is played on several mailing lists. BlogNomic (http://blognomic.com/) is also popular and less 'heavy'.

Also being interested in nomics, I followed and attempted to be inolved on Blognomic for a few "dynasties". I never felt like I quite understood what was going on.

So I'm a bit late :/
Even though it seems like a lot to take in, if you really want to start playing nomic, there's no better place than Agora (except if you act fast, more on that in the next paragraph). The thing is, yeah, Agora is really intense, and yeah, you're probably not going to remember all the rules. But everyone who plays Agora has an extremely high tolerance for newcomers, because they are all still keenly aware of how difficult it was during their first days.
But wait, if you call in the next 20 minutes, you'll get this special TV offer!
B Nomic has collapsed. The reasons are interesting but kind of irrelevant; Agora is about to pass legislation that explains it, so I'd point you to that ruleset when it gets updated. But the cool thing is that there are a whole bunch of people who are really good at playing Nomic, and understand how to handle new players, who are starting a brand new nomic. That is honestly a rare opportunity - there is no better time to start playing a nomic than during the formative years.

It's more of a party game than a straightforward Nomic substitute, and it's not directly cooperative, but Democrazy is a fun little game where the players vote on rules that modify the game itself. Check out the videos at boardgamegeek for a demonstration.

One Thousand Blank White Cards is a DIY card game with nomic qualities; also suitable for forum play. See my collection of card images at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cf6505871eabaa8e&sc=photos#cid=CF6505871EABAA8E&id=CF6505871EABAA8E%213187&sc=photos.


text:
Can I place a bridge that has no hope of completion?
I want to place a tile with a road next to a tile that has:

a field on the side that matches up with my road
a field on the opposite side

This sounds like the perfect time for a bridge.
However, the already-placed tile is also entirely surrounded several layers deep. There is zero chance the bridge could ever connect to a road or other bridge on the far end.
Can I still play the tile & bridge?

Whenever I do this, a comfortable sleep that evening has no hope of completion. It's the couch for this guy...

According to the rules, 2 conditions must be met:

The bridge must be built on the just placed tile or a tile adjacent to the just placed tile
Both ends must lie on a field.

No mention is made of your scenario, so I'd say that you meet the conditions for playing a bridge and it doesn't matter that the bridge ends the road and can't be completed.
I vote yes, you can play the tile and bridge.

From the Carcassonne FAQ:

Q: I have memorised all the tiles.  Am I allowed to play a tile when I know that by doing so I am creating a space which can never be filled, either because the required tile doesn't exist or because all the possible tiles have already been played?
A: Yes, that is permitted. But be aware that, if by doing so, you have prevented your opponents from finishing a road, cloister or city (especially a Cathedral city!), they may seek revenge!

I know I've had my fair share of putting pieces that make it impossible for other players to complete a large city they've invested several meeples into.  Bonus points if multiple players are fighting for the city and you make it impossible to complete, therefore cutting down their meeple supply and taking away precious points in the end!

+1. This is the main offensive tactic of the whole game, I would say: prevent opponents from finishing their scoring opportunities.

I don't see why this should be considered problematic.
A Carcassonne bridge is just a sophisticated way of extending a road.  When extending a road in the normal way, there's no obligation to be planning (or even able) to finish the road.  I see no reason why that wouldn't hold for extending a road using a Bridge, too.
Yes, it does seem strange to build a bridge that just ends in the middle of a field, with no possibility of continuation.  But no stranger than building a road that leads towards a "gap" that cannot be filled by any known tile, and that kind of thing happens all the time, even in the basic game.


text:
Munchkin "Insurance Rep" bad things
I have the German version of the game so the card may be named differently in the original or might not exist at all. The card "Versicherungsvertreter" says under "bad things" that you lose items worth at least 1000 gold. If you don't have that much then you lose everything.
What does it mean by "lose everything"?

Lose all your items carried and still in your hand
Lose all your items and your entire hand
Lose every card in your possession
Lose every card and all your levels

Items in your hand are safe from game effects unless explicitly targeted by the card description. I can't reach the rules from here, but that's made pretty clear - in the English rules, at least.
So my answer would be: Lose all items currently in your character's possession, whether equipped or merely carried.
Only items should be lost in this case - the character's class and race should be safe from the insurance industry.

Thanks. Now that I know what to look for I found it. All the way at the end of the rules. The German rules are horribly confusing. So the hand is safe but what about your current Class, Race, etc.?

@Kempeth - added more detail to address your further question.

character class and race do not qualify as "thing" thus would also be safe.  effects on the character such as diminished levels for the next fight, sex change etc would also remain unless they were granted by an item.

"The German rules are horribly confusing" - actually, the English ones aren't much better, at least in terms of organization.

I don't have my copy of Munchkin on me, but I'm pretty sure it means lose all the items you are carrying.

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


text:
How long will an MTG draft take with varying number of players (approximately)?
I'm planning to have a MTG draft with some of my friends, but I'm not exactly sure how much time I should block out. We'd be using 40 card decks with 3 boosters total.

About how long will the drafting itself take? Does this time vary much with number of players?
About how long will each individual game between 2 players take? Since we'll have to wait for people to finish occasionally, how long should I budget for each round?
About how long will the whole thing take? We will have enough rounds so that everyone can play each other once:

4 players: 3 rounds
5 players: 5 rounds (everyone sits out 1 round)
6 players: 5 rounds
7 players: 7 rounds (everyone sits out 1 round)
8 players: 7 rounds

That's a lot of rounds for 8 players.  At FNM (Friday Night Magic) we typically draft, play 3-4 rounds, then cut to top 4.

My local FNM drafts are 3 rounds with no Top N. Still takes from 7 pm to 10:15-ish to do all the stuff.

It looks like you're planning on doing a round-robin cycle, which will result in a lot more rounds than either swiss or single-elimination. Also, the time will be substantially changed if you do best-of-three matches vs individual games.

It depends on whether you use the official rules or house rules.
In appendix B of the MTG official tournament rules (not the same thing as the comprehensive rules) it gives recommended time limits for sanctioned tournaments:

Each pick has an associated time limit, which starts at 40 seconds and drops by 5 seconds roughly every two cards. The total time allocated to picks for a single pack is 285 seconds.
Between packs, there is a period for review of the cards you've picked, which is 30 seconds after the first pack, 45 after the second, and 60 after the third.
Deck construction gets 30 minutes
Each round gets 50 minutes

So based on these numbers alone, you would need a total of (285/60)*3+(30+45+60)/60+30+50*N = 46.5+50N minutes. In practice, people will need a few minutes between rounds to clear their head and change seats, but for only a few people, that won't be a long process. Still, as a decent estimate, you could set aside an hour per round plus one additional hour for drafting and deck construction.
My monthly(ish) drafting group has no time limits at all for draft picks. If your group is not full of competitive players and you're just doing it for fun, I highly recommend this. You can still get the drafting and deck construction done in about an hour, since you can always make fun of whoever is the slowest picker at the table ;-) (The draft time depends on the number of cards that are being picked, not the number of players)
Also keep in mind that Magic tournaments are mentally draining. After 3 or 4 rounds people can start to get tired of playing. In my experience a 3-round tournament works well, and it's possible to adapt it to different numbers of players by doing a Swiss structure with ranking-based pairings.

This answer has pretty much everything. "An hour to draft and an hour per round" is a very good estimate for actual times spent handling play plus all the administrivia. I've done 40-minute rounds (the sanctioned event minimum), and it's rather oppressive compared to 50-minute rounds -- you'll also end up with significantly more draws. The tournament document David linked to generally only recommend 3-4 rounds for small tournaments.


text:
How far can a knight travel without visiting the same square twice?
How many Knight moves is it possible to execute on an empty chess board before the Knight lands on a square it has already landed on in its previous moves?  The most I've ever been able to land on was 54 squares, usually 50-52.

Meta discussion migrated here: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/492/is-this-puzzle-on-topic

There is a famous puzzle called the Knight's Tour in which the aim is to visit every square exactly once.  Since this has several solutions, the answer to your question is that it can visit all 64 squares.

Questions are expected to relate to board games. (This one barely is.) They shouldn't be "too local," but chess is a global game. They are expected to have a reasonably objective answer acceptable to most people, which I believe this one does.If you want to know whether this, or any other question is on/off topic, the place to ask is on meta.

Ok, thanks; I wasn't sure who to ask.  Sorry for the newbie-ness!

Thanks for the link!  The animated wikipedia solution is not intuitively obvious.


text:
Bluff - Early game strategy (5 players)
I have played a few rounds of Bluff with a new group of players and I am currently a little lost in the early game. What's a good strategy to come out ahead of the first rounds? Here is what I have thought about myself.
The other 4 players:
As far as I can tell, the other players are not trying to analyze the playing styles of their opponents early on, so I am not worried about being easy to read, at least not in the beginning. Most of them have played a lot more than me so they have a better feeling for the flow of the game.
What do I want to achieve:
The more I think about it the more obvious it gets. It looks like the early game revolves around not having to call a bluff or getting called. You want your opponents to call bluffs on each other because it is quite rare that you take any damage in that case (only if the exact amount has been bet). On the other hand you can earn nothing if you are involved in a challenged bet. That's why I feel that I have to create situations where I am not involved in the showdown. Is this line of thinking correct?
How do I achieve this goal:
It seems like it depends a lot on position. If I am the first to bet I have no information about the other players. There are 4 players in front of me so I want to make it easy for the next player to bet a larger amount while I don't want the betting to come back to me increased 4 times if noone calls a bluff.
In the first round there are 20 dices out there hidden from me. With the numbers 1 to 5 and a joker on each dice the chance for each number (incl. the jokers) is 1/3. On average there will be a little less than 7 rolls of a certain number out there, a little more than 3 of them will be jokers.
Lets say I rolled 1-1-2-3-J. What should I do? On average I expect 10 times 1, 9 times 2, 9 times 3, 8 times 4 and 8 times 5 (all of them incl. the jokers) and 4 times a Joker. If I start betting the average expected amount of any of those, it is better than a coin flip that I am right. But if I bet 10 times 1 and the next player has no 1 or J it will be called immediately. Not what I want. Going for 8 times 4 feels less risky to get called, that's why I would prefer to take that route.
It might even be better to calculate the expected value and go down a certain amount to be even safer. If I reduce one from the expected value it will be even harder for the next player to call a bluff. If I go down even more it gets better and better. Where do you think is the threshold in a game of 5 players? I could obviously start by betting 1 times 1 but I can be pretty sure that the betting will be back at me for sure, if no one raises the bet significantly.
I guess the same thinking patterns will apply when I am the second to make a bet. If I am allowed to make the same bet that I would have made in first place, I will make that one. If I have to go higher, I am already lost again. What range of values can I bet and when am I forced to call a bluff? I prefer the bet because I might avoid an showdown in which I am involved, but if the amount I have to bet is too high I will be called by the next player.
Transition into middle and endgame:
I want to keep middle and endgame out of this question. Once a significant amount of dices has been lost or the number of players is reduced the psychological factor weights more and more compared to a mathematical approach.
Summing it up:
My main questions are:

Is a mathematical approach viable as long as there are 5 players with almost all the dices left?
How much do I have to factor the play style of my opponents into the equation at that stage of the game?
What is a good betting strategy to avoid being involved in a showdown?

Is a mathematical approach viable as long as there are 5 players with almost all the dices left?
A straight probability is never a bad place to start. You know that 1/6 of the dice will be your number (before you start adding in the 1s. In a five-player game, there are 25 dice. So, it's safeish to assume that there should be around 4 twos (for instance). Obviously you don't want to start that high, but it gives you a good benchmark for when you should start worrying.
How much do I have to factor the play style of my opponents into the equation at that stage of the game?
This is hard to answer since we don't know your opponent's. Any information/tells they're giving up is useful, so I'd start paying attention.
What is a good betting strategy to avoid being involved in a showdown?
Liar's Dice boils down to two questions:
1. What is riskier: calling your opponent's bid or one-upping him?
2. What is riskier to the player after you: calling your bid or one-upping?
To avoid showdowns, you need your opponent to bid low enough that you can safely bid low enough that your opponent would rather bid again rather than call. (Put another way, if your bid is plausible, but the next player can't one-up without being called himself, they'll probably call you and hope for luck. You need to leave the next player room to also be safe-ish.)
Of course, the whole point of the game is the tension of bids becoming ever-more-unlikely, so avoiding showdowns entirely is not going to happen. What you want to be aiming for is to make sure that it's safer for your opponent to bid rather than call you.


text:
Is there a way to play the mafia party game online ?
Is there a way to play the mafia party game online ?

I am a new user and I cannot add an answer.
I developed a new version of Mafia online game. Unlike the ones that have existed so far, this one can actually be played in a very competitive way.
I saw other sites and there is always an entire page about what is "against the rules". Like: "you must not use messengers outside the scope of the site." Something like that might be considered as cheating.
To cheat someone should be the primary objective in the game, so this is why I created my own version.
It is still being developed. You can check it here: http://bit.ly/mafiafer2

Site moved to https://exposemafia.com

I have previously played on Epic Mafia (which is linked to from the Wikipedia page in the question).  They have the largest set of player characters I have seen, some of which makes the game extremely complicated!

Thanks tttppp. I played at Epic Mafia it is the kind of setup I was looking for

In addition to sites dedicated to mafia like those already described, a lot of forums that have a "Forum Games" section will be open to running mafia games if they aren't already - I play mafia regularly on http://forums.xkcd.com and have seen it being run on many other forums I frequent.

I only recently started playing mafia/werewolf on a football forum. Great great fun! I think I'd be terrible in a face to face game

Brainden.com is another great place to play for those just starting out in the online mafia party game world. The games are in the Forum section. Mafiamaniac.net runs games that are a little more advanced, but the membership is very active and helpful, even providing mentors for those who haven't played before. Here is a link to a mafia introduction/guide to playing that you may find helpful if you are new(ish) to the game.

I'm playing right now at http://mafiacity.org the game is just amazing!
Gameplay is amazing. Probably the best mafia mmorpg game online I ever played!

This site no longer appears to exist.

This site is now some kind of communication app.

You can play via IRC in #wolfgame on the Freenode network.

Since no one else mentioned it:  Mafia is, and has been, one of the top 10 Starcraft II Arcade maps for several years.
They added a lot of new features over the face-to-face game, including many that wouldn't be possible in-person.  And since SC2 is so popular, it usually only takes a minute to find a full party of 12 people.
The game itself is $30 (sometimes you can find it on sale for $10), but you can play Mafia for free if you play with a friend who owns the game.

http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/ hosts many games, abstract and social and otherwise, including Werewolf, via email.

There are also Mafia games played in forums like mafiascum.net.

Anyhow, I wouldn't want to play on twitter, but if you search there are whole on-line sites dedicated to the likes of werewolf/mafia, so yes.  Have fun.
This link is more useful than the wikipedia one:
http://eblong.com/zarf/werewolf.html
The links at the end are what you're looking for.

Town of Salem is another Mafia clone.

Town of Salem is no longer free as of 2020.

This app is probably one of the best werewolf apps I have come across.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.werewolfapps.online&hl=en_IN

You can play Mafia live, over webcams, at Daily Mafia.


text:
Can a Monster carry more than one Sample at a time?
The Take Sample keeper action does not seem to have a restriction around having more than one sample, other than it would require multiple turns.

Action: One per turn, choose a monster in an investigator's space.
   Place 1 sample token on the monster and then move it 1 space.

Following on from the above, if the monster does have more than one sample token on it at the start of your turn can you turn them all in at the same time for 5 threat each?

If the Monster is in an altar's space at the start of your turn, place the token on the altar and again 5 threat.

This seemed clear but a little strong for the keeper in our initial game of Mansions when playing the Fall of House Lynch 1B.

Yes,
You are playing this correctly on both counts.  A monster can carry more than one sample, see the rules on page 12

When a monster with sample tokens is killed, all its
  sample tokens are discarded.

The trade in for 5 threat is automatic and should be used for all samples carried by a monster on the altar's space.

The rules imply pretty heavily that you can take multiple samples. As for dumping them, that's not so clear.
Personally, if the players are new and don't know all the rules, or are struggling, I would just remove one sample per turn to give them a chance to break in and stop you.


text:
What are the Differences Between Formula Dé and Formula D?
Thinking about trading for one of these variations of Formula D, but would like to know which one is the preferable version. Are there differences in rules, component quality, or both?

Formula D is a more recent version with a few rules changes and some tweaks.

Car miniatures are different.  I think the old Formula Dé ones are higher quality; that said, both are perfectly functional.
Formula D comes with some nice new 'gear stick' control sheets which let you track your current gear by sliding a gearstick, alongside a pegboard for tracking car wear.
(I find these more convenient than the old versions; they seem slightly faster and easier.)
Formula D has updated the rules a little; in particular there are more categories of car wear.  In Dé wear is measured by using up a limited pool of points of tires, brakes and fuel.  In D fuel is not tracked, but wear is counted against: tires, brakes, gearbox, body, engine and suspension.
(In play this isn't nearly as complicated as it sounds; our group found it just as intuitive as the old system.)
Formula D is newer and maps are still being published. There are 8 maps for D to date (counting the two in the box) compared to around 30 for Dé.  This isn't important, as the map format has not changed significantly; maps for Formula Dé work fine with Formula D.
Formula D allows street racing as well as Formula 1; map sets so far all have a Formula 1 map on one side and a "city" map on the back.  These use the same system, but have added hazards.
There are also some rules changes (less worrying about weather tires, more use of nitrous oxide... street racing characters also have minor special abilities and different car wear stats.)

They are the same, except Formula Dé (Dé meaning Dice in French) is the older version. The maps are not the same in the box, but many additionnal circuits are available. The game material may change a little bit, but the main idea is exactly the same. You can for example play Formula D with your old Formula Dé maps.


text:
Three-space jump on third line: how to connect?
I've seen that in the diagram below, the two black stones can connect by attaching to the white stone, but I can't work out the sequence. How does black play to connect her stones?
$$cm1

$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

The 3 space extension is vaguely connected, but compared to the more solid 2 space extension, it can be split a lot easier.
$$cm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . a O b . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If the opponent invades and there are no other relevant circumstances (nearby stones of either player), the moves to think about are a and b.
Attach on top
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If black attaches on top and white plays bad shape at 2 (bumping her head), black will nobi at 3 and a short fight will ensue, however, black should be able to stay connected.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 5 . . |
$$ . . . . 4 X O . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

So instead, white will hane at 1. If black cuts at 2, white 3 is the only move (anything else dies). Next, black could think about extending at 4, allowing white to connect at 5. The marked black stone is damaged and black is split. Also, white 1 is not captured yet. This should be very good for white.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 4 a . |
$$ . . . . 3 X O 2 . |
$$ . . . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

It is a better idea to counter-atari at 2, forcing white to capture. Next, black usually connects solidly at 4, sometimes at a, or plays tenuki. If white plays 3 at 4, black happily connects solidly at a and white still has to capture at 3.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . . O . O X . |
$$ . . . . . O X . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In this result, black is connected and pretty strong, but white got a good shape in the center. Usually, this is considered slightly bad for black. On the other hand, it may be the best way to try to get this result, if white is strong nearby and black would really hate to be split.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . O 2 1 . |
$$ . . . . O a O X . |
$$ . . . . . O X 3 . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If black tenukis, white can start a ko, so black should be careful.
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 O 3 . |
$$ . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

It is also possible to play at 3 directly, but this leaves more options to white than the way previously shown.
Attach below
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . O 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

The attachment below is far more common. The goal is not to connect, but to get a good result, usually outside influence. White naturally hanes. Which side to hane on depends on the environment, especially nearby corners. This is a very large topic so I won't go into it, just keep in mind that hoshi stones in the corner allow for easy invasions, thus it is more difficult to attack very strongly.
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . 4 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . O 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . . 3 . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Drawing back at 3 leads to large damage to the marked stone and is rarely a good idea.
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . 1 O . |
$$ . . . . . a O X . |
$$ . . . . . . . 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Practically always, black will cut at 1 and white will capture the single stone at 2 (very rarely white will nobi to a instead, this is a special plan).
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . 1 O X 2 |
$$ . . . . . a 3 O . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Next, black 1 is the only move. If white captures at 2, black will probably play at 3 or at 3 and white is in trouble.
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X b . |
$$ . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . 1 O X . |
$$ . . . . . 3 2 O . |
$$ . . . . . 4 X a . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Thus, white will extend to 2 and black must cover at 3. Depending on the board white might crawl at a or b, allowing black to fix his outside. But far more often, white will cut at 4, splitting the single stone.
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . X O X . |
$$ . . . . . X O O . |
$$ . . . . . O X a . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

This resulting shape massively depends on nearby corners, and it's difficult to tell the best variation without a complete board.
As mentioned earlier, black will use the aji in the position (mainly the atari at a) to either fix his outside and get thick, or to jump down the side, usually into a corner.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ . . . . . . 8 7 . |
$$ . . . . . 0 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . . 9 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . 3 , . . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------

This is a common situation featuring a kosumi in the corner.
$$Wcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . X O X 5 |
$$ . . . . . 2 1 O 7 |
$$ . . . . . 3 X 4 6 |
$$ . . . . O . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------

Black sacrifices more stones by playing 4 and 6...
$$Bcm1
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . b |
$$ . . . . . . X 3 a |
$$ . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . X O . O |
$$ . . . . . X O O O |
$$ . . . 5 1 O X X X |
$$ . . . . O 2 4 . . |
$$ . . . . . O . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------

... only to get to play 1 and 3 in sente (the order of 1 and 3 depends on the board, it is almost no difference). Later, a or b are sente, too. 5 finally fixes the shape, and black got a somewhat thick shape while white got a mediocre corner. This is a joseki.
$$Bcm1
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . X . . . . . , . 6 8 9 . X . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . O 4 1 7 O . a . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . b 3 2 5 0 . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Another common shape that involves a hoshi corner. This time, white plays 10 and aims at attaching at a to live in the corner. The idea is to force black to crawl at b. I am not familiar with the joseki involved here so I can't tell sequences.
Conclusion
The 3 space extension is not very solid, but if you treat it right, it is pretty flexible. Connections can usually be enforced, but it is often a better idea to sacrifice for a better result. Nearby corners play an important role.

Well, you can't completely connect.  That's why the two-space extension or three space knight's move are more common on the third line.
Attaching on top fails:
$$cm1

$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . 4 6 . . |
$$ . . . . 5 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . . 2 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Attaching underneath gets closer, but you still have two cutting points:
$$cm1

$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . 7 6 4 . |
$$ . . . . . 5 O 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

With the three-space knight's move, it's easier to stay connected:
$$cm1

$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . 6 4 7 . |
$$ . . . . . O 1 5 . |
$$ . . . . . 3 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . B . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

White can't play 6 at 7 because Black at 6 is atari, and then two stones will be captured.  This depends on what is nearby, though.
If white invades on the third line, you stay more or less connected.  White usually has to worry about his stones, so you have time to fix up one of your cutting points.
$$cm1

$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . B . . |
$$ . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 1 O . . |
$$ . . . . 3 2 4 . . |
$$ . . . . . B 6 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

I think the second diagram is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the extra info.


text:
When to reveal what you saw using the Map card in Saboteur?
When playing as a Digger, when is the best time to share the knowledge about one of the destination cards with the other players?
Should the digger tell other players this information immediately to avoid suspicion of being the saboteur? Or maybe it's better if he waits at least until the first saboteur is revealed?
What strategy should one use to take best advantage of the knowledge gained from looking at one of the destination cards?

When I have just looked a destination card I often afterwards put a road card that either:

Obviously leads towards the destination card that I just looked at, or
Obviously leads away from that card.

It is then up to my fellow players to decide whether they trust my obvious move or not, based on whether they think I am a digger or a saboteur. I noticed that this is often enough information for the other players to understand what you have seen on the destination card.
I don't think there is a better way that does not render you suspicious. If you give too much information away at a certain point, people will always become sceptical. However if you let them infer the "right" information themselves, they might believe that you didn't intend to give all information. And people consider their own "discoveries" more credible than information that was chucked into their laps. Even if you planned it that way. :)

I think there is no clear answer to that.
If your group tends to be suspicious, no matter what you say, they will not believe it, doesn't matter what you say.
If you have been a saboteur before, the first reaction is not to trust what you say.
If you say something, and then somebody else checks the same card and says something different, usually it's assumed that the first person was lying. If the second person says the same, both can be saboteurs and the second is just following your lead.
If you had bad luck with your cards, and you have to discard, or to block something, even one of the less useful roads, you may be seen as saboteur and no one is going to believe you.
I can continue with more examples.
The final thought is, it depends on you and the group playing the game.

This will depend on your group and induvial game but as a rule you should reveal this information as soon as you have it. If you are a digger you should tell the truth and if you are a saboteur you can chose to lie or tell the truth.
Giving the information right away is advantageous for several reasons

If you find the gold you can know exactly where to go.
If you don't find the gold but checked the top or bottom card you can narrow down the path you need to take.
You can find a saboteur easier if they chose to block the path that the gold is said to be in.
If another person gets a map card they can use it to confirm or deny what was said which can help and with multiple map cards you have a chance to confirm it.
As a miner more information will help plan your actions allowing you to make the most of each card.

As a rule it is always best to get as much information out there as soon as possible but there are exceptions to this rule.

If you are a Digger, you always there to be more information out there. There is no reason not to immediately tell the truth if you are a Digger. It's true that not everyone will believe you immediately, but so what? If someone is skeptical of you just because you revealed information, they are not behaving rationally.
Therefore if one is a Saboteur, one should already know if you're going to tell the truth or lie and have a ready answer.


text:
Differences between Forbidden Island and Forbidden Desert?
I own and play both Pandemic and Forbidden Island. In practice, I play Pandemic more...but like Forbidden Island too, when I think the former won't be quite accessible enough for someone.
I've now heard that Forbidden Desert has some neat new design choices.

What are the key differences between the two "Forbidden" games, and how do they play out?
Is the newest different enough that you recommend owning it in addition to the former?
For someone who doesn't have any of the above, how would you decide which "Forbidden" game to get them?

I own both, and will attempt to tackle each of your questions in turn:

What are the key differences?

Forbidden Desert removes the 'shrinking map' clock, and adds two new clocks: each player has a canteen with a finite amount of water, and there are limited ways to refill peoples' canteens.  Each "Sun Beats Down" card causes everyone (there are exceptions) to have to drink some of their water.
The other new clock is the 'buried alive' clock- where tiles would be getting flooded in Forbidden Island, they instead accumulate more and more layers of sand.  If you run out of sand, the game   is over.
It also retains the "maxxed out the danger meter' clock.
Replacing the 'shrinking map' mechanic is a 'moving map' mechanic- the game board is basically a 5x5 sliding-square puzzle, and between turns, the map gets shuffled around.
The method for obtaining the MacGuffins is also changed, and player items are one-use-only and not shuffled back into the game.

Is it different enough to be worth it?

In my opinion, yes; absolutely.  It's definitely harder to 'win', but is different enough from Forbidden Island to not feel like a reskinned version of the same game.

Which to get first?

If you already are familiar with cooperation-driven games such as Pandemic, I would probably suggest Desert.  If you're also looking for a more introductory experience, I'd go with Island.  Both games would be good buys in the absence of the other, though, and if you prefer one theme to the other, let that make the decision for you.


text:
In Spades, what is the probability a suit is distributed in a way, given I hold n cards from that suit?
In Spades, (or any other trick taking game), when I hold n cards of a certain suit, what is the distribution of the other 13-n cards in that suit?
In particular, what is the probability that ♦'s are distributed either 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0, given I hold 4 ♦ cards? (my partner and one of the opponents both hold at least four ♦'s, and one opponent is holding either 0 or 1 ♦'s)?
The situation that led to this question:  I bid nil with 4 ♦'s cards, after 3 ♦'s tricks were played, the opponent led a fourth ♦, I had to play my A♦ hoping that by the fourth trick my partner will be able to cut, however my partner had also 4♦'s, thus the nil was set :( .

Do you require that the 0 or 1 be your partner's holding?

@L.ScottJohnson I require it to be one of the opponents

Clarification: Are you specifically interested in Partnership Spades rather then Cutthroat (ie Solo) Spades?

In general I am interested in both, In this praticular question I think that the probabilities are the same.  Isn't it?

The specific probability of a particular suit breaking 4441 is about 0.74% - a rather unusual occurrence. I would recommend not allowing this to affect your bidding strategy in future - as the opportunity cost of protecting against this unusual situation is too high.

@Cohensius: NO! Partner is a specific seat at the table, thus a privileged calculation. Read the Conditional Probability link in my answer to your previous question. It's the difference between any two of three equal seats, or of one specific seat AND one of the remaining two equal seats.

4441 is about 0.74%, however given I hold 4 cards from the suit, what is the probability?

@Cohensius: As your edits have already invalidated two false starts by me on this question. Please confirm that the specific question you wish an answer for is this single scenario. Note that it will, alone, probably take over an hour to compute and write up with confidence.

@ForgetIwaseverhere confirmed

TLDR:
The probability is about 8%.
Distribution of diamonds for any deal
With no restrictions at all then dealing a pack between four hands results in the following probabilities for distributions of diamonds:
(0, 0, 0, 13): 0.00% or ~1/158753389900
(0, 0, 1, 12): 0.00% or ~1/313123057
(0, 0, 2, 11): 0.00% or ~1/8697863
(0, 0, 3, 10): 0.00% or ~1/646948
(0, 0, 4, 9): 0.00% or ~1/103512
(0, 0, 5, 8): 0.00% or ~1/31948
(0, 0, 6, 7): 0.01% or ~1/17971
(0, 1, 1, 11): 0.00% or ~1/4014398
(0, 1, 2, 10): 0.00% or ~1/91236
(0, 1, 3, 9): 0.01% or ~1/9953
(0, 1, 4, 8): 0.05% or ~1/2212
(0, 1, 5, 7): 0.11% or ~1/922
(0, 1, 6, 6): 0.07% or ~1/1382
(0, 2, 2, 9): 0.01% or ~1/12165
(0, 2, 3, 8): 0.11% or ~1/922
(0, 2, 4, 7): 0.36% or ~1/276
(0, 2, 5, 6): 0.65% or ~1/154
(0, 3, 3, 7): 0.27% or ~1/377
(0, 3, 4, 6): 1.33% or ~1/75
(0, 3, 5, 5): 0.90% or ~1/112
(0, 4, 4, 5): 1.24% or ~1/80
(1, 1, 1, 10): 0.00% or ~1/252654
(1, 1, 2, 9): 0.02% or ~1/5615
(1, 1, 3, 8): 0.12% or ~1/851
(1, 1, 4, 7): 0.39% or ~1/255
(1, 1, 5, 6): 0.71% or ~1/142
(1, 2, 2, 8): 0.19% or ~1/520
(1, 2, 3, 7): 1.88% or ~1/53
(1, 2, 4, 6): 4.70% or ~1/21
(1, 2, 5, 5): 3.17% or ~1/32
(1, 3, 3, 6): 3.45% or ~1/29
(1, 3, 4, 5): 12.93% or ~1/8
(1, 4, 4, 4): 2.99% or ~1/33
(2, 2, 2, 7): 0.51% or ~1/195
(2, 2, 3, 6): 5.64% or ~1/18
(2, 2, 4, 5): 10.58% or ~1/9
(2, 3, 3, 5): 15.52% or ~1/6
(2, 3, 4, 4): 21.55% or ~1/5
(3, 3, 3, 4): 10.54% or ~1/9

Distribution of diamonds given I have four of them
Assuming instead that I can see four of the diamonds in my hand then the distribution for the other three hands becomes:
(0, 0, 9): 0.00% or ~1/98795
(0, 1, 8): 0.05% or ~1/2111
(0, 2, 7): 0.38% or ~1/264
(0, 3, 6): 1.39% or ~1/72
(0, 4, 5): 2.61% or ~1/38
(1, 1, 7): 0.41% or ~1/244
(1, 2, 6): 4.93% or ~1/20
(1, 3, 5): 13.55% or ~1/7
(1, 4, 4): 9.41% or ~1/11
(2, 2, 5): 11.08% or ~1/9
(2, 3, 4): 45.16% or ~1/2
(3, 3, 3): 11.04% or ~1/9

Distribution of diamonds given I have four and treating my partner differently
Treating my partner's hand as distinct from my two opponents results in the following probabilities:
(0, (0, 9)): 0.00% or ~1/148192
(0, (1, 8)): 0.02% or ~1/6333
(0, (2, 7)): 0.13% or ~1/792
(0, (3, 6)): 0.46% or ~1/216
(0, (4, 5)): 0.87% or ~1/115
(1, (0, 8)): 0.02% or ~1/6333
(1, (1, 7)): 0.27% or ~1/365
(1, (2, 6)): 1.64% or ~1/61
(1, (3, 5)): 4.52% or ~1/22
(1, (4, 4)): 3.14% or ~1/32
(2, (0, 7)): 0.13% or ~1/792
(2, (1, 6)): 1.64% or ~1/61
(2, (2, 5)): 7.39% or ~1/14
(2, (3, 4)): 15.05% or ~1/7
(3, (0, 6)): 0.46% or ~1/216
(3, (1, 5)): 4.52% or ~1/22
(3, (2, 4)): 15.05% or ~1/7
(3, (3, 3)): 11.04% or ~1/9
(4, (0, 5)): 0.87% or ~1/115
(4, (1, 4)): 6.27% or ~1/16
(4, (2, 3)): 15.05% or ~1/7
(5, (0, 4)): 0.87% or ~1/115
(5, (1, 3)): 4.52% or ~1/22
(5, (2, 2)): 3.69% or ~1/27
(6, (0, 3)): 0.46% or ~1/216
(6, (1, 2)): 1.64% or ~1/61
(7, (0, 2)): 0.13% or ~1/792
(7, (1, 1)): 0.14% or ~1/731
(8, (0, 1)): 0.02% or ~1/6333
(9, (0, 0)): 0.00% or ~1/296385

From this we can see that the probability of my partner and one opponent having at least four diamonds each is given by these rows:
(4, (0, 5)): 0.87% or ~1/115
(4, (1, 4)): 6.27% or ~1/16
(5, (0, 4)): 0.87% or ~1/115

Adding these together gives a probability of about 8%.

This looks a bit high to me. My calculation for (4, (1, 4)) is about 4.5%

I dealt with the partner then the two opponents. I get P(Partner gets exactly 4 of 9 diamonds) = 0.22 and P(Opponent gets 1 or 4 diamonds from 5 remaining) = 0.14 + 0.14 = 0.28.  Working this out gives P((4, (1, 4)) = 0.22 * 0.28 = 0.06.

Okay, my calc is wrong. Casual Enthusiast agrees with you on the odds of partner having exactly 4, and the 28% odds for a 4-1 break of the opponents' five cards is a well known value.

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