The German rules are: 1. you remove the bridges of your opponent, if you get an abolute(!!) majority on that island (absolut of all bridges and free places of an island). 2. you loose the controll, if you loose the absolute majority. That means in this case you have to remove the controll stone. 3. you may not place a bridge on an island, where your opponent has an absolute majority. For example: he had removed your bridges, because he has got an absolut majority. Then you may not place a bridge in your next turns where you've lost your bridge. If you want do this you must break his majority first. 4. written in the german original, but also a conclusion of the rules above: if you play two cards on your opponents bridge, first you remove this bridge. If your opponent looses the absolute majority of one or both islands you remove the controll stone(s). You may place your own bridge, if your opponent dosn't controll both islands or one of these islands. For example: You NEVER can place a bridge between Hunisch-Garanig if your opponent controlls Hunisch or Garanig or Hunisch and Garanig.

The American rules are: "As to the rules changes, most of those who have played it actually like the mistaken rules better. That is they prefer being able to replace bridges when the opponent has majority control of only one (but not two) of the two islands involved. We have discovered that this is one of the things that makes these international games interesting--that is-- rules changes/interpretations." (Rick Soued, funagain games) *** "Well, today we played one game this way, the correct way. It was the biggest one sided blowout we have had with A-I. (And I was the one being blown out.) Several times I found myself with with worthless cards, having to spend my turn discarding while MaryEllen continued to pound me. I actually lost my last bridge before the third round was over. I remember hearing in early reviews that A-I may have a problem with it being difficult (in my case near impossible) for a losing player to come back. I may try the correct way again. But I would suggest others to try playing so that all enemy bridges are still removed when you take controll of an island, but *having* control of an island doesn't keep the enemy from building to it. The result is a more fluid give and take, allowing someone to be down, but not necessarily out. Still a great game I think. Matt S."

A rule-question from the designer: If my opponent controls an island and I've placed a bridge there, what happens, if he places one bridge more on his island? Is my bridge removed ?

And the players answer: "Your bridge is not removed. But it still may be a good idea to place another bridge to an island you already control. The reason for this is that one of the results of your opponent being able to build to your island is that in one turn she may play the right combination of cards to remove your bridge, replace it with her's, take control of your island, remove your bridges, causing weakness at another island where she plays a key card or two, etc. Sometimes this causes a beautiful (depending on which end you're on) chain reaction of devistation across the board. So a few extra bridges here and there can be good insurance. Matt"