text:
How Is the Magic Core Set 2015 "Deck Builder's Toolkit" Different From Other Core Set Offerings With Respect To Cards?
I'm getting ready to invest in the 2015 MTG Core Set and I'm confused by some of the offerings.  What is the difference between:

Magic: the Gathering - 2015 Core Set Deck Builder's Toolkit
Magic: the Gathering - 2015 Core Set / M15 - Sealed Fat Pack (9 Booster Packs & More)

The sealed fat pack seems to have other accessories like deck boxes (which I'm not really interested in).  I'm mainly just curious about the cards themselves.
Does the toolkit have inferior cards compared to the fat pack? If I were to compete with just cards from the deck builder's toolkit, would I be at a horrible disadvantage?

This is a little sparse to be a proper answer, but the Deck Builder's Toolkit is substantially less random than the Fat Pack (which is AFAIK just a collection of boosters with some accessories).  Wizards calls the Toolkit's contents 'semi-randomized', which I believe means you can expect to get particular combinations of cards out of it.  Unfortunately, neither is likely to get you particularly close to a competitive level in and of themselves - it will take quite a bit more to muster that.

The reality is that neither product is meant for anyone who aims to be competitive. The closest prepackaged product to this would be the "intro packs", which are prebuilt decks + 1 booster. These are decks intended for standard play, but extremely limited in card quality by the price point WoTC places on the product. Intro decks will be competitive with each other, but not "serious" players.

@bengoesboom The event decks (not sure if the M15 clash pack is supposed to replace them or not) are much better than intro packs for competitive play.

Changed "inferior to" to "different from" in title. The former is subjective (and hence frowned on in this site); the latter is objective.

@bengoesboom, While boosters in general are not cost-effective, both products are just fine for building a collection (the toolkit being superior for someone starting from scratch) and, ultimately, building a competitive deck. (Neither is enough on its own, however)

It depends on what cards you have and what you are interested in becoming.
If you are a beginning Magic player (i.e., you have no cards at all) then I would suggest getting the Deck Builder's Toolkit. This includes plenty of cards from all 5 colors, and you can easily craft a (fairly weak) deck from what you get out of it.
It should also come with 4 booster packs, which is nice, and the 100 lands, which you will really need. However, you will probably only get 4 rares out of the kit (the 4 rares from the booster pack).
If you at least have a collection of Magic cards, and want to get powerful rares, I would suggest getting a fat pack. They include 9 booster packs, so you are guaranteed at least 9 rares, though you have a good chance at getting foil rares or mythic rares (or both!). You will also get 80 lands, which is nice.

Does the toolkit have inferior cards compared to the fat pack?

The toolkit will come with 5 rares in the fixed card pool, plus 4-5 rares from the booster packs — and you will get a good amount of decent uncommons and commons to work with. The fat pack will come with at least 9 rares with a high chance of pulling a mythic rare, and will also include 27 uncommons.

If I were to compete with just cards from the deck builder's toolkit, would I be at a horrible disadvantage?

It all depends on who you are playing with. Just playing kitchen table Magic, you should be fine if you play with people who buy basic decks. However, at a tournament, you will get eaten alive by pretty much everyone. (Even some casual players with decent decks will destroy you.)
Also note, buying a fat pack is not really a good way to start, either, because although you will get those powerful cards you need in a deck, you won't get the "backbone" that your deck needs to survive. For example, you may get a powerful late game card from the fat pack, but if you don't have the cards to stay alive that long, that card is pretty much worthless in your deck. The Deck Builder's Toolkit has cards to help you in that circumstance.
In conclusion: it all depends on your circumstance. If you have no cards at the moment, buy a Deck Builder's Toolkit. If you have a good base of cards to work with, buy a Fat Pack. (If you have the money, I would suggest buying both!)

Thanks. I have a deck builder's toolkit from 2013 so I already have basic lands and such. Looking to expand on it.

I will argue with everyone here and suggest that there really is no difference between the fat pack and the toolkit. What you really need to look at is the cost per pack. Beyond that, consider what packs you are going to get. With the standard block still including the rtr block the toolkit has a limited chance of providing packs from this block that will cycle in October. On the other hand it will more than likely contain boosters from the theros block.
The fat pack will only contain boosters from the set it promotes, thus limiting the variation for the playable formats. Generally speaking a booster pack will have a retail cost of $3.79 to $3.99, the deck builders toolkit retails at $14.99 to $19.99, and the fat pack retails at $39.99. If you break the costs down to a per pack price, you will find that the difference is nominal. In either case, being a starting player or a seasoned veteran of the game, both of these options will have benefits for a player. The land included in either of these boxes is really not significant. By this I mean that unless you just want to look at the newest land art, which is often a reprint anyway, there is really no basis for influence on your purchasing decision.
At the end of the day, the real question is what set you like. What cards are you wanting to play? If you find that the m15 block has all the cards you need for your newest build, buy a fat pack. If you have no idea what sets are good and just want to get the feel of the standard format's mechanics, buy a toolkit.

The Deckbuilder's Toolkit comes with 4 randomized booster packs.  So instead of getting 9 packs from 1 set (as you would in a fat pack), you will probably get a pack from four different sets.
If you are into card collecting, the 2015 Deckbuilder's Toolkit comes with 15 exclusive cards.  Other than the toolkit, the only way you can get these cards is from free intro decks at gaming stores, conventions, etc. or buying them as singles online.

The toolkit can also be used as an introduction to limited formats for up to four players. Take one of the 10 card seed sets each, then draft the boosters and the fixed cards to fill out your decks. I've done this with previous toolkits in groups of casual players and each toolkit is good for a couple of evenings play at least.
If you have friends that are interested in attending prelease or launch events but don't know what to expect (or if you've never tried it yourself) this will help.


text:
Should I respond to 1 NT in a suit or NT holding 17 HCP and a void?
My partner opened a "strong" one NT. I am holding:
♠ void
♥ KJxx
♦ AKQxxx
♣ KJx
What should I bid?

If possible, this question should be edited to be more general.

I would bid 4C (Gerber) to ask about aces. If partner has 3, bid 7D. If partner has only 2, bid 6D.
The weak point in this hand is if partner has, say, the KJ in spades; some other responder might have a fancier convention to pick out the specific high cards.

We actually made 7 NT. I responded 3 D. My partner bid 3 NT. It was the last hand of the day so I just passed (regretfully)

When partner opens 1NT, the job of of finding the right contract is pretty much in your hands. Your hand is dynamite (17 HCP plus a void) so you definitely want to be in a slam; but nothing stops you from bidding it yourself. Your partner didn't have anything to say after your 3D, so just returned to 3NT; partner might have raised diamonds with a 5-card suit, or bid a 4-card major, but you didn't need that to go to slam.

Thanks. It was the first time I had played with this group and I was a little nervous. I'll be more aggressive in the future.

+1 staymen first is also a possibility to reveal a potential heart fit, but I don't think it buys you much here assuming strong NT

Now that this is open again:
Opposite a strong 1 NT, I bid 3D if it is natural, or I transfer to diamonds if that is available. If partner denies support for diamonds I bid 6D. If he shows support for diamonds I investigate 7D with what-ever methods are available to me. Consider where partner's 16 points are. An "unfortunate" hand from partner would be this: AKJx AQx xx Qxxx, and 6D is looking pretty icy even with all those wasted values in spades. In a practiced partnership I investigate grand slam even if partner denies diamond support initially.
Opposite a weak NT I will probably still end up in 6D, though I might blind the auction by jumping there in an unpracticed partnership. Why help the defence by bidding precisely when it is going to be of more help to the defence?

You have to make a forcing bid, what you specifically bid will depend entirely on what conventions you and your partner are playing with.
Assuming you're playing with a strong 1NT opener (15-17 HCP), that means you and your partner have 32-34 HCP.  Since it's 33 points for slam and you've got a void, you know you've got that.  That means you have to force the bidding to continue until you get to the 6 level.  Whether or not you make it go to 7, and in which specific contract you want to end up, those are things you can use all that bidding room to decide.  A typical tool for this purpose is Blackwood/Gerber.  With a bid suit preference, I like the additional information gathered with Roman Key Card.
Here's a nice wiki reference to help you pick a Blackwood convention to use.
Just keep in mind that unless you've got that 33 points (pretty rare) there's a good chance you're just bidding yourself into a hole.  I've definitely seen players who are way too anxious to try out their Blackwood bidding!

Yep. In my mind, Blackwood and Gerber are for when you're already confident you have the points to make slam, and need to make sure you're not missing critical aces (since you can have 33 points counting singletons, but be missing two aces).

Absolutely.  Only after you know the point count is it important to figure out how many losers you can't avoid on the lead.

You don't know the best strain or the right level (6 or 7), so asking for controls is not the right approach. Gerber/Blackwood are for staying out of slams, or occasionally for differentiating between 6 or 7. They're extremely dangerous when you hold a void.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Trying to understand when to take a deep finesse?
This is from Dorothy Truscott Hayden's book "Winning Declarer Play".
                    Dummy
                    AQ9
West                                     East
?                                        ?
                    You
                    752

She suggests first finessing the 9 and then the Q.
Directly finessing the Q gives you 2 tricks only if West has the K.
But doing the deep finesse gives 2 tricks when

West has the King
West does not have the King but has both the 10 & J

This is quite clear, but where do we stop on this? What if Dummy has AQ8 - do we still first finesse with the 8 in the hope that West 9,10,J?

    AQ8
JT9x    Kxx
    xxx

If you play small towards AQ8 in dummy, LHO should play one of the J, T, or 9. Then you can only score one trick in the suit. If the position is
    AQ9
JTxx    Kxx
    xxx

then splitting honors does not prevent you scoring the 9 (after J, Q, K, you can come to hand and repeat the finesse).
So the general answer is: only take a deep finesse if it can promote a trick.

Your answer is very logical & I accepted it. But I find it very difficult to work such things out on the table. Is there a thumb rule that can be formulated for this - something similar to 8 ever, 9 never for the Queen finesse?

To take off on Ruds' answer, if you have AQ9 in the dummy, you play the queen if West covers with the J or T, and the nine otherwise. This gains under the following circumstances.

The king is "onside" (with West), so playing the Q wins the finesse.
  2a. The king is "offside (with East), but both J and T are onside with West. Playing the Q on say, the T uses up two opposing cards (T and K) for the price of one. You end with A9 in dummy against Jx (or more x's) in West.
  2b. The king is "offside (with East), both J and T are onside with West, but West "ducks" with a low card. Then playing the 9 forces out the K from East, promoting your Q.

If you have AQ8 and West has JT9, he should play one of those. Then 2b no longer works because West will have JT against your A8. On the other hand, if E has K9 (or better), your 8 will lose to the 9, not drive out the K, so 2a no longer applies. Of course, 1 still applies.
Since you can't gain from playing 8 from AQ8, you play the Q straightaway and hope for the best.

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


text:
Can there be two winners at the same time in Catan?
Imagine the following setup:

Player A has 6 points, including the Longest Road.
Player B has 8 points with an equally long road.
Player C has 9 points with a shorter road.

Now what would happen if Player C places a village, breaking Player A's road chain? At that moment Player A would have 4 points, while both Player B and Player C would have 10.
In this case, who would be declared the victor?

I removed your second question, since we prefer that each question only asks one question. It is an interesting question however so I would recommend you repost it as its own question.

Only the player who is currently taking their turn can win the game, so player C would be the winner.
Official Rule:

ENDING THE GAME
  If you have—or reach—10 victory
  points on your turn, the game ends
  immediately and you win! You can only
  win during your turn. If somehow you
  find you have 10 victory points during
  another player’s turn, you must wait
  until your next turn to claim victory.

Source: Downloads page on www.catan.com

IIRC the 5-6 player expansion allows multiple players to win; since it changes the rules so you can build on any turn.

@esoterik There is nothing in the 5-6 player extension rules that changes the winning conditions. If you build a settlement that secures enough points for victory during someone else's turn, you still have to wait for your turn to claim victory.

Notably, in extreme cases you can get 11 points and still lose, if the active player builds a settlement that interrupts a different player's longest road.

No, there can't be two winners at the same time even if they have the same point total. You can win only on your turn.
Player C wins, because he reaches ten points (after adding the village) on his turn.
If Player C started with eight points, and added a village for nine, then play would continue to Player A. That's true even though Player B has ten points, because Player A might break up Player B's longest road (or do something else to reduce his point total). If the play then gets around to Player B and he still has ten points, he wins without playing, because someone else "made" his ten points for him. But he can't win until his turn.

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


text:
Meaning of redouble in Goren system?
Here is the situation. Playing best of minors (with four diamonds and 14 points with no five card suit) I opened one diamond. Opponent on my left Doubled. My partner Redoubled. Her partner passed and I passed…not comprehending what she was telling me or asking. As it turned out she just thought it was the right thing to do having four diamonds and a minimal supporting hand. We made two diamonds, and scored it accordingly, but left all of us still wondering what the Redoubled meant.
What could it have meant, or what should it have meant under the Goren system of bidding? Was redoubling the right thing for partner to do with a minimum supporitng hand?

This seems like a pretty objective question: "what is XX in 1D - (X) - XX, playing the goren bridge system" (assuming it is well defined). So +1.

In typical Standard american variants (played in the US), the XX is strength showing: 10+ points, and might not have diamond support (for instance a 3=3=3=4 hand with 11 points).

Playing a basic Goren system the Redouble (of a Take-Out Double of an opening 1 of a suit bid) shows a hand of 10+ points. It tends to show a balanced hand as it suggests that Opener Double the escape by 4th hand if it is into a good 5-card  suit (or 4-card suit at the two level) in his hand, otherwise pass. It also tends to deny good support in Opener's suit for the same reason, as with a good fit Opener's side may find more profit in a Game contract than in penalizing the opponents.
The more strength there is in Redoubler's hand the more likely that it is short in Opener's suit, again because the likely profit in a penalty double increases from the potential mis-fit.
With sound support for Opener's suit the modern tendency is to make a pre-emptive raise: to the 2-level with 4-6 HCP and good 3-card support and the three level with 7-9 HCP and either a side-singleton or 4-card support and a doubleton.
For the situation you described Fourth hand should have taken out the redouble: You scored a nice profit considering the opponents can probably make 8 or 9 tricks in a major themselves.

Based on what you have written, your partner should not have redoubled with a "minimum supporting hand," which I take to be 6-9 points, perhaps more like 6-7 for reasons discussed below.
A redouble after an opening bid and takeout double means, "I think we've got them." It shows 10 high card points or more, which opposite your 14 means, "we've got at least 60% (out of 40) of the high card points between us.
You did the right thing to pass. If partner really had ten high card points, you would have made three diamonds. Two doubled overtricks are 200 points, and you would also have gotten 80 points below the line. If the opponents had fled to a major suit, you should have been able to double and set them with your partnership's presumed 24+ points, and relatively balanced hand.
The fact that you made only two diamonds, not three, suggests that partner had only 6-7 points; you and partner together had about 20, not 24+, and likewise the opponents, had about 20. (Unless this was an "unlucky" hand in which all the breaks and finesses went the wrong way.) If this was the case, one of your opponents should have bid one of a major, with the final likely contract being two of their major (which outranks two diamonds).
Your actual result seems to have been "fortuitous," (although possibly wrong: partner probably overbid with a redouble and scared the opponents out of what should have been a plus score for them. Even if they went down one, their minus 50 not vulnerable or minus 100 vulnerable (neither doubled), would have been less than letting you have 280 at a redoubled contract.

The redouble is not forcing on the original bidder, so the responder must be willing to see the hand played in the bid contract.  That means:

The responder has support for the original bid (at least 3 diamonds, and at least six points.)
The responder must have neither the points or the distribution that would make game (or a slam) virtually certain -- otherwise bid a new suit or NT.
The responder does not have a hand thaat would make a preemptive raise reasonable, to prevent the opponents for finding game or slam.

This is no longer correct, if it ever was.  Most experts nowadays play that the redouble denies support in the bid suit along with showing 10+ points.  (An artificial bid of 2N is made with support and strength.)  With that many points, you're likely to make overtricks even with a 3-2 fit, and redoubled overtricks are worth a lot more than the game bonus.


text:
How to speed up reaction time in Settlers of Catan?
I'm looking for ideas on how to make Settlers of Catan quicker to play between friends.
Whenever I play with friends they complain that you have to stop all the time to decide what are you going to do: trade, build, exchange at a port so the game doesn't flow as good as it should.
This could be because my friends (and me) don't play board games very much. No one seems to be able to make key decisions quickly.
Any ideas/suggestions on how to deal with this issue of slow decision-making?
Note: This question, unlike the other, is not about how to "shorten" the game by reducing the required number of moves. This question is about how to shorten the reaction time for a given move.

Can you narrow this down? right now it is likely to be taken down because it is too broad and answers would be based on opinion.

Ok! I'll try to :)

How fast do you expect the game to go? Deciding your actions for the turn, negotiating with other players, and things like determining the best logistics for your currently held resources take time during your turn whether the other players like it or not.
If you want to make the game quicker, make it shorter... perhaps an 8-point victory condition? Maybe a timer for a player's turn?

Most of those decisions should be done before their turn even starts. Yeah, the resources obtained on your turn changes things, but usually not that much.

Here is a similar question from another game: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4251/in-bridge-is-there-a-way-to-shorten-reaction-time-for-real-time-play

This question is, as it is, asking how to speed up decision making, but all answers are taking it as how to speed up the game in general or get it over with sooner (nothing to do with decision making). Xokas11, are you after those answers for just making the game quicker, or do you actually want specifically only decision-making help?

Well @JonathanHobbs at first I was looking into how to speed up my friends decision making. But I'm actually quite happy with the responses, I'll try them out and I'll try to get back to the commenters

One way to speed up the game is to increase resource production. There are two common approaches to this:

During setup, each player's second placement is a city. This gives a boost to everyone's economy/engine from the start.
Play a 3/4-player game with the map layout for 5/6 players. There will be many more spots, more valuable spots, and less blocking throughout the game.

Obviously, neither of these addresses the issues with turn length and trading. It sounds like your friends need to hurry up and make a decision!

I like the idea of the second placement being a city. I'll try it out

One option would be to play for less points.  The first to 7 or 8 wins.

You should take out a city (and a settlement) if you do that.

If you really wanted to add another dimention of play to this you could always add a timer. Like give each person 2 minutes or something for their turn. Should the timer run out, their turn is over - effective immediately.

// , Eh, a grace period is always nice, but yeah, we've done this. Just make sure it's with the right group, and everyone has agreed in advance that they want the game to happen in a shorter amount of time.

I agree with ikegami's comment that (strategic) decisions can mostly be made before one's turn actually starts (i.e. during other players' turns). There is some interaction that may influence one's decision (esp. if one rolls into a massive resource influx on one's turn that suddenly enables many different actions that weren't previously considered), but there are very few game events that drastically change the board state (unlike some other games, e.g. Innovation).

You seem to have put your finger on the problem: "[We] don't play board and card games much."
The way to speed up decision-making is practice. You and your friends need to play the game more, get some experience, learn established patterns, etc., and your decision-making will speed up.
That said, you might be able to speed up your decision making in Catan just by learning to play OTHER games better.

In terms of speeding up the game - you could opt to reduce the cost of trading by 1 card universally (i.e. 3-1 directly with bank, 2-1 with a general port or 1-1 for a dedicated port).

Settlers of Catan is one of those games where there exists an initial learning curve. It is not a long learning curve but it does span 1-2 games to get a basic feel and a further 2-4 games to gain a degree of innate familiarity.
(It takes time to look blankly at a hand of resource cards, often looking towards the build card for your purchase/ build options - and not sure which options are going to give the best results)
As the innate familiarity sets in so too will the length of each player's turn become shorter - significantly improving the flow of the game. Players will hope for the resource cards they need to fit a planned course of action before their turn even comes.

Of course things get more lengthly if you introduce a variant like Cities and Knights. If you see that a variant is taking the fun out of the game by making it take too long then either play the variant less frequently or try any of the tricks already mentioned in the answers received.

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


text:
How Can One Create Game Balance Axis and Allies WWI?
My gaming circle does not feel Axis and Allies WWI is balanced. None of us has yet achieved victory as the Central Powers. What rule modifications would you suggest to balance the game?

The standard way to create balance in Axis & Allies is to use secret bidding. For example, bid an amount of money that Germany would get extra at the start of the first round of the game (the one bidding lowest gets to play Germany).
For example, two players bid in secret.  Player A bids 20 and player B bids 25.  This means Player A gets to play the Axis and that Germany gets an additional 20 IPC the first round.  The rest of the game unfolds as normal and Germany does not get additional money in later rounds.
The upside with this bidding is that nobody can complain that the game was not balanced any longer (if they thought differently they should have bid differently).

I would make the following observation, that there are THREE blocs (not two). They are: Central Powers, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, 77 IPCs; Western Entente, Britain and France, 54 IPCs; "fence sitters," U.S., Russia, and Italy 59 IPCs, in total. Although aligned with the Entente, the fence sitters basically had the balance of power. So game "fixes," might be addressed at them.
Russia: Make it easier for the Central Powers to start the Russian Revolution and knock Russia out of the war by conquering Poland and one territory adjacent to Moscow (instead of three), or a total of three territories not adjacent to Moscow. That eliminates Russia's 25 IPCs. Also, the Central powers get to keep  with their IPCs for the conquered territories.
U.S. It's not a given that the U.S. joins the war. One might make a rule that beginning with turn 3, the Western Entente gets an "allowance" of 10 (out of 20)  U.S. IPCs per turn, delivered to the UK. The Central Powers can permit this, or else they can "interdict" those IPCs, by declaring unrestricted submarine warfare. Beginning with the turn on which "interdiction" occurs, the U.S. player may join the war on any turn when in rolls a six, but it can build units only U.S. territory. Sensible Central Powers players would often opt for the 10 IPC allowance.
Italy: Italy didn't make a decision (in real life) until 1915. At that time, force both sides to "bid" for Italy's services, using IPCs. The Central powers had the advantage, insofar as they bid for Italy (in real life) using Austrian territory (specifically Tyrol). The Western powers can outbid them by offering Tyrol and Trieste, but if they don't "pay off" by controlling those territories at the end of X turns, Italy re-joins the Central powers. If the Central Powers capture Venice (as they nearly did after Caporetto), or any other Italian territory, Italy goes back to being neutral, minus its lost province.
The "fence sitters" can win if their IPCS of 20 (U.S)+ Russia (25, minus Central power occoupied territories)+ Italy (14IPCs, plus territories handed over in the bidding war) exceed that of both the Allies and Central Powers.


text:
What are the primary enhancements Cities and Knights and Seafarer's add on to the original Settler's of Catan?
What unique features do Cities and Knights and Seafarer's expansions add to the original game?
How do they make the game more playable/interesting?

Cities and Knights makes more total changes than Seaferers, but the rest is just opinion.

In my experience, more people prefer C&K

Why do they prefer C & K? That's my question

Opinions will always vary, but what I think one can objectively say is that Cities & Knights adds more complexity and variation to the game as it adds several new dimensions: new resource types, new types of knights, new expansion cards and new 'privileges' gained as you expand your principality. So if this type of 'extra dimensions of complexity' is your notion of 'replay value', then C&K would be the extension to go for of the two.
On the other hand, it does mean slightly more complex rules to introduce to new players. So if 'replay value' means being able to play with different groups of friends a few times rather than the same friends multiple times, this is something to take into account.

I would also add, that the gameplay time also slightly increase, up to 2 hours for 4 players game.

The tradeoffs are often the usual case... with more complexity, there's a higher learning curve, and all other factors being equal, the game takes longer.  However, you do get more depth, strategies, and things to do.
Features vary between publisher (e.g. Kosmos vs. Mayfair) and edition (3rd edition and 4th edition Seafarers have some maps that are NOT in the other), but overall....
Seafarers adds new scenarios, or otherwise known as map layouts.  They don't just slightly rearrange some tiles around.  Some have 4 islands, other have a "fog of war" where you flip tiles over as you discover them.  There's also a Gold resource when you get, you immediately get a resource of your choice.  Special conditions, like building on a foreign island gets you a bonus +1 VP.  You can build ships to get a passageway over beach or water edges of tiles.  The pirate ship can be used to halt building of ships, and steal a card like the robber
C&K replaces the Development cards with Progress cards.  They come in 3 different decks, and you can't buy them.  You need to earn them through die rolls and tech.  You can physically place knights on the board to do some minor shenanigans (like chasing away a opponent robber, or opponent's knight that's blocking a settlement spot), but they primarily are to defend against the Barbarian.  There's a separate track for the Barbarian, and when it occurs, they either reduce a city to a settlement, or if the collective strength of every is enough, rewards may be doled out.
Metropolis is like in-breadth Largest Army that's 3-wide (there are 3 different ones of them), and there are also a new resource called Commodities that correspond with the traditional resources (Wood and paper, ore and coin, sheep and cloth).  The commodities are used to upgrade your tech calendar.


text:
Should N-S be in 3NT if not vulnerable?
This hand was presented by Michael Berkowitz in the column of Larry Cohen. These are experts I consider on the "aggressive side. Both vulnerable, the bidding was
South West  North East
1d    Pass  2d    pass
2NT   Pass  3NT   pass

(North's 2d was an inverted minor raise.)
The hands were:
North
s: A93
h: KQJ
d: QJ74
c: T83

South
s: JT72
h: A75
d: K832
c: A6

Berkowitz characterized this as a "normal 3NT with 13 opposite 12." But North has a 4-3-3-3 distribution, so shouldn't "12" really be 11, and "25" really be 24?
Sources such as this give N-S only a 37% of making 3NT with only 24 points. This includes hands with "24" that are really 23, not hands that are "25" really 24. Making this adjustment, the chances of success are about 40%. Using IMPS scoring, that's good enough, when vulnerable.
But Berkowitz/Cohen didn't make a qualifier for when one is non vulnerable. Should such a qualifier have been made? Am I right to feel misled by an assurance that this hand is a solid, rather than borderline, 3NT bid when "25" points is more like 24 because of the 4-3-3-3 distribution?

You can't just mix-and-match how you count the hands - consistency is key. HCP alone is easy, so consider a full evaluation for the two hands:
North:
 - 13 HCP
 - -1 for 4333
 - -0.5 for the Heart shape
 - +0.5 for the Spade 9 and Club 8
Total: 11.5 Pts
South:
 - 12 HCP
 - +1 for 4432
 - Offsetting plus/minus for the weak Diamonds vs Spade 10
Total: 13.0 Pts
Yes; according to Goren (and many others) one absolutely counts one for the doubleton of a 4432 hand, even in NT - as it represents the advantage, both in suits and NT, of either two 4-card suits or one five-card suit as might apply.
One might quibble that 11.5 is not 12 - but every good player I've ever known has always rounded up an extra 0.5 after all considerations have been made.
Also, defending this hand correctly is non-trivial. Both North and South have denied major Suit interest; making it easy for West to lead the wrong black suit when the Spade honours are split and East has a broken Club suit without the Diamond Ace. Then a simple false card of the Spade 7 by South at Trick One might give the Defense conniptions.

I've never understood why you add +1 for 4-4-3-2. I was taught that was the "standard" or "par" shape. 4-3-3-3 is clearly -1, if you are making that adjustment, and depending on the cirstances, 5-3-3-2 could be +1, especially in NT. Put another way, relative to 4-3-3-3,(worth -1)  I consider 4-4-3-2= +1, and 5-3-3-2= +2. More to the point, I consider 4-4-3-2 "intermediate" between 4-3-3-3 and 5-3-3-2, with 5-3-3-2 worth +2 over 4-3-3-3. I could make the case that 4-4-3-2 is worth +1.25 over 4-3-3-3, and 0.75 less than 5-3-3-2.

I also didn't count anything extra for intermediates because N-S have two Ts, one 9 and two 8s, versus an expectation of two Ts, two 9s, and two 8s. Now if they had, say, three Ts between them, that would be different. The hand is clearly makable, but at 24.5, less than 50-50 (an even 25 is just over 50-50). I would consider this a "borderline," not "solid" 3NT bid when not vulnerable.

@TomAu: As you noted: "These are experts I consider on the "aggressive side. Both vulnerable". Defensive errors occur even against the best opponents, particularly on opening lead. Top declarers expect to make a bit more often because of those errors.

I think I understand now. Aggressive Cohen/Berkowitz would consider this 24.5 3NT "normal" and conservative Frank Stewart might consider this "edgy," with the truth somewhere in between. Thanks for your help.

I think that your adjustment to HCP is perfectly fine for your own purposes, but it's not within the technical definition of "high card points" (which solely include the 4/3/2/1 point count, or whatever other numbers you want to assign each honor) and exclude distribution points.  You're well within rights to consider distribution; but many automated programs will solely focus on HCP, including the link you sent, as far as I can tell - so when they say that two balanced hands with 25 points are optimally in 3NT, they mean the hand above to be in that collection.
I'd also say that those two hands look fine in 3NT.  They're both solid hands with dense honors yet still largely controlling the suits; little wasted value ("Jxxx" type stuff) and lots of T/9/8s also to round out the hands.  North can count 4 tricks in their hand even with basically nothing of value in South, and South similarly can count 3.5 tricks at least in theirs again with absolutely no help from North - 4 if you consider the diamond length to make the K fairly safe.  Each expecting the other to have 4 solo tricks plus one trick from fitting honors seems reasonable, don't you think?

There are lots of good comments in this article, but also I feel 'some inaccuracies.
First start with the punchline and get it out the way: the hand is very likely to going down, with opponents more than likely in 5-3 club fit and club lead or a club-switch the odds-on favourite, it's hard to avoid 5 losers. But this was not an article about how to bid failing hands, rather, its about how to recover when you've bid one with negligible 5% chance. It's better to bid to a solid contract in the first place! (And that 7S discard only makes the clubs switch marginally less obvious on the off-chance it was a 4-4 club split)
Looking closer at the hands themselves:  The biggest weakness I see in the hands is the wasted hearts points although its hard to locate. 'Forget..' sensibly deducts points from KQJ in hearts and 4333 shape. Although Personally I wouldn't add a point for south's doubleton in NT, it's only useful when in a 3D suit contract.
North doesnt have enough to upgrade his hand. Certainly not enough for 3NT raise over 2NT. North could invite over 2NT with 3C* on that bare minimum 11-12 but south ought to refuse with 12 points and exit to 3D.
While Norths hand started out as a normal and reasonable 13 point opener, the bidding led this to be downgraded to a minimum, and the hands should only reach 2NT or maybe 3D after bidding.
I think the moral here, is that when you have an invitational hand, make sure YOU invite your partner don't get into the situation where you have to make that decision for yourself. And, if an invitational hand is inviting another invitational hand, then the answer is NO.

North-South should 100% be in 3NT.
If you could see both hands, you wouldn't want to be in 3NT. One of the joys of bridge is that the auction only gives you a small amount of information about partner's hand. and in this case you can't get enough information to avoid bidding game.
In Standard American and 2/1 (and most any other system, for that matter), there's no such thing as a 4432 12-count that shouldn't open the bidding. You give up too much equity otherwise. Likewise, in Standard American and 2/1, there's no such thing as a 13-count that shouldn't force to game after partner opens at the one level. Choosing to invite with 13 HCP gives up too much. It makes you miss too many good games.
Once that is clear, we can ask: Is this the right auction to get to 3NT? I don't think so. There's no particular reason that North should raise diamonds with only four cards in the suit and no ruffing values. I would make whatever call shows a balanced minimum game force in my agreements (likely 3NT or 2NT).
The bad news is that 3NT in this case is likely to go down. A spade lead practically guarantees a make, a club lead practically guarantees a set.
The good news is that you'll have plenty of company. The pairs that avoided 3NT on this board are likely chucking match points away on all the other boards.

I love this: "there's no such thing as a 4432 12-count that shouldn't open the bidding.". As I noted elsewhere recently: Never pass a hand that Goren would have opened with.


text:
Is there a reasonable suit preference signal on this lead?
The contract is 3 NT, and the bidding has been a straightforward, 1NT, pass, 3NT, all pass.
West leads the king of diamonds from AKTxx. The defenders have agreed that this means three honors, counting the K (if West had AKxxx without the T, he'd lead A, then K or low, depending on how others play). But West could have AKQxx or KQJxx, etc.
Dummy (North) has two little ones, E has J72, and South has Qxx. South is going to win a trick with the Q if all the diamond leads come from West.
East has an ace in spades, hearts, or clubs. Given this, and the defenders' diamond honors, there aren't enough points left for other entries.
If East gets a lead to his ace, he can return a diamond to the AT tenace, trapping South's queen for five diamond tricks plus the side trick (down two).
In this sequence, can East play the J, 7, or 2, depending on the location of his side suit ace as a suit preference signal? Put another way, is it possible to have a suit preference signal in three suits in no trump (rather than two in a trump contract)? Or if the defenders agreed to play this way, and lead as described above, would they be giving up too many options (e.g. attitude and count signals) on other hands where the layout was slightly different?

The basic idea is reasonable but unpopular, perhaps justifiably so.
The main problem with using SP here is that declarer may hold no stopper in the suit. East needs a way to encourage with Qxx.
Some top pairs never the less agree to use SP extensively on the opening lead. I have not used this method, but having three suits in play seems impractical. East's card will often be difficult to read, and usually dummy will furnish enough of a clue to rule out one of the side suits.
If you do use attitude here, as I do, I suggest following the suggestion of the late Helge Vinje from his New Ideas in Defensive Play in Bridge. He used upside down attitude and would discourage with the J from Jxx. Now when East plays a high card lower than the J West may be well placed to continue with a low card at trick two.

One of my preconditions for the suit preference signal was that West had three honors, meaning that he plans to "steamroll." If E has Q72 and South Jxx, playing the queen for a spade lead still works. East takes the ace of spades and South's jack is trapped. My convention "sort of" encourages E to discard his Q, unless dummy has Jxx. But in that case, South would see that also, and (probably) know what to do.

Vinje has a similar precondition. His K lead promises AKJ or KQT.
The problem with using the Q as SP is that E might have no outside ace, or no side entry at all. It seems silly for the defenders not to be able to set the hand after they have led declarer's unstopped suit.
Your proposed method will have gains and losses compared to attitude signals. Try it and keep track!

Of course if the lead is from AK9xx and dummy has 10x your partner will need to keep the Jack to lead next round. Oh well, I guess you're stumped.

@CashCow: If West leads K from AK9xx, its obvious that he leads the K next to drop the T. Then forces out the queen with the third round. (And leading K from AK9xx, treating the 9 as an honor, is "bending the rules).

So from AK9xx I lead the ace? Or a low one as finding partner with Jxx, declarer Qxx and dummy 10x is too remote to make it the right thing? Although partner could also have 4 small

@CashCow: I'd lead the Ace. And if the T is in the dummy, East's play is no longer a suit preference signal, so I'd lead the king and hope to "steamroll" if East discourages, or lead low to the J (or Q) if East encourages. The reason it's a suit preference signal in the question is because all the opposing values are in the South hand, so think "finesse."

Problem is if you continue with the king and a 3rd one, your hand is dead and partner's ace will give your side just 3 tricks. If partner didn't have 9 on top a low one at trick 2 would at least achieve 1 off. What form of scoring is it?

I agree with this answer: Attitude is the right answer here, unless you're a very strong pair (ie, you're a pro at least) and play a lot.  Attitude is easy to see here; a strongly discouraging signal like the J (assuming UDCA) will not only tell P to switch (unless P has AKQ in which case P doesn't care) but tell P that you have a good suit to switch to.  Maybe P guesses it right, maybe not - good Ps will have a good chance to find it based on the lay of the other cards - but at least he doesn't continue diamonds, and you have your chance later.

The whole situation described only seems to work when partner has 3 cards and will lead through on the 2nd round. The honour lead also works of course when declarer has Qx and you can run 5 tricks on top.
I think most of the time, if East has a side-suit ace, declarer probably won't have 9 tricks to run anyway, so attitude will probably be better most of the time, as partner can now encourage with Qxx but how do you then distinguish between that and 4 small ones when you want partner to lead the other honour?
So maybe you're better off playing a pure count signal in which case if partner has 2 you just bash out the other honour and a 3rd one and hope for the best. If partner shows 3 we guess he won't have the queen most of the time but might have the jack so switch and hope for the best again. Odds favour declarer having the queen, I guess.

In the actual example, West led "fourth best" from AKTxx, declarer took the Q of diamonds, cashed five club tricks, then AK of hearts, and finally A of spades (East had the k), making nine tricks. The whole point is that you don't want South making the Q, so West should lead a high honor, then let East come to him with a finesse. E doesn't want a spade lead to South's AQ, so he (probably) plays a 7, asking for a heart lead. If he comes in with the K of spades, he leads a diamond through South for the finesse. If E has 4 diamonds, and S 3, and N 2, West only has AKTx and the finesse is vital.

Indeed the lead did not work out this time. Low works when partner has Qx so it doesn't block the suit, when declarer has a certain stopper eg Qxx opposite Jx in dummy or some holdings where declarer has 4 cards with your partner and dummy both having 2, and partner will get in eventually to stop 9 tricks on top.

And this is why you play UDCA:  you can discard the J to discourage (thus implying you'll lead back when you get in) and discard low from Qxx; and discard middle if you don't really care.  (Of course if you have Q98 it may be hard to tell, but that's why humans are better than computers!)


text:
Is there a "consensus" definition of what constitutes a "strong" or "weak" deck?
In various Magic the Gathering posts, I've seen references to "strong" and weak" decks, and specifically to decks that are "too strong" or "too weak" to be "playable.
Is a deck that is "too strong" one where a player can win after a trivial number of turns based on luck, without much skill? And deck that is "too weak" one with which a game will drag on endlessly because no one can get the upper hand?
Even if people reasonably disagree as to what constitutes "strong" or "weak," deck is it possible to measure "stronger" or "weaker" (e.g., a strong deck will allow a resolution in fewer turns and a weak deck will allow a resolution in more turns)? That is, can these terms be defined comparatively?

"Strong" and "weak" is context-sensitive language rather than pure jargon (unlike "aggro," "tilt," "linear," &c.). Meaning is likely to vary significantly depending on who's writing and why. Might help to link some examples you're interested in.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I have made the question clearer, and hopefully more objective, by asking for the meaning of the terms on a comparative basis, and was wondering if it can be re-opened in its current form.

Honestly I think it was fine before. You asked what people mean by these terms, not for us to decide about a specific deck. In both cases you're asking about measuring it, which is mostly impossible, but it's fine, answers can say that.

Also, I'm curious: what leads you to guess that maybe strength means speed of games rather than simply chances of winning? In both forms of the question you led people that way, and you've even accepted an answer focusing on that.

@Jefromi: Issues raised on other posts.

@TomAu It's an issue in the question that could use clarifying, and I don't see where you've done so: are you asking what strong means, and this is just a random guess at what the answer might be? Or does it indicate you're actually trying to find rules to determine how likely a deck is to win (and suggesting this as a possibility)? The latter is a pretty different question, and I advocated reopening based on the former understanding.

I disagree that a "stronger" deck will allow a resolution in fewer turns. A control deck may take longer to win, and that does not make it weaker. This demonstrates that the question is still primarily opinion based and should remain closed.

@Jefromi: Mine was a random, "example" guess of a definition, your first branch.

@Rainbolt: In plain English, strong means something like "more," and weak means something like "less." In that context, the difference is totally objective. I was confused by the terms as used in other MTG posts, and the gist of the question is why don't the two terms "map" as conveniently in MTG as they do in plain English. So how do they "map?" And an answer like Alex P's comment, "Strong" and "weak" is context-sensitive language rather than pure jargon" is an acceptable answer. But I'd like to be able to ask a question to find that out.

@TomAu The definition of "strong deck" is primarily opinion based. The definition of "stronger deck" is too. Their definitions are not just context sensitive - they are also person sensitive. If you ask me, I would answer "Win percentage." Jefromi's and Diego's answers roughly agree. Chad Portman's answer says something totally different. Doppelgreener mentioned in a previously deleted comment, "It depends on who you ask." All of these are correct answers, and proof that your question is primarily opinion based.

I don't think the definition is terribly opinion-based. To put it bluntly, if you're reading articles about competitive decks for tournaments, "strong" means winning, not what turn you win on - Chad's answer is not the most common terminology. On top of that, the existence of an alternative answer doesn't mean that the question is primarily opinion-based.

@Rainbolt: I edited the title to ask if there was a "consensus" definition as to what constitutes a strong or weak deck. It is now a "yes-no" question that can be answered objectively.

@TomAu A simple "Yes" or "No" answer would be downvoted into oblivion and you know that. You are gaming the system in an attempt to force your question. I could wrap any question in a yes-or-no shell with very little effort. Why is it important to you that this question be asked here? What prevents you from taking your question to a forum such as MTGSalvation where constructive opinions are invited so long as they remain on topic?

@Rainbolt: I got "caught" on my weakest topic on the site, not realizing that normally neutral English words like strong and weak could be opinion-based regarding MTG; it was meant as a definition question. Your point about the other site has merit. I did not know of that one, only this one.

@TomAu Do keep in mind that Rainbolt is only one user, and there are also a few reopen votes - don't feel the obligation to try to edit your question to satisfy every last close voter. (Side note: saying "consensus" lets people say "aha now you're inviting debate about whether everyone agrees!) I really think that asking for the common meaning of a piece of commonly used terminology is totally fine, and this is not the kind of question we need to defer to another site. If you're asking "how strong is this particular deck?" sure, take it elsewhere. But this is fine.

Strong and weak are opinion based in any context, not just MTG. Asking for the common answer to a subjective question is exactly the same as asking for a consensus. For example, transform "What is the best way to do Foo?" into "What is the most common way of doing Foo?" Assuming that Foo is subjective, I would still vote to close. I'm glad that Jefromi made it clear than I am only a single user. I was worried that I might confused with a hive mind.

The terms "Too Strong" and "Too Weak" are very subjective. However there are generalized categories that most people will agree upon. So for instance a deck that most would consider "Too Strong" would be a deck that can win on turn one with a "god hand". While having a >50% to have that said "god hand". Decks that most would agree are "Too Weak" could be described in many ways as there are several things that can hurt a deck's strength. For instance if the deck has no control over the opponent in any way(including damage reduction) and has no way of winning itself until say turn 10+, then this deck would be considered "Too Weak" by most players.
All this really depends on the player environment in which you are playing. If you are playing with at a major level tournament then your deck will need to be able to compete with the decks expected to be there and anything else someone throws your way. However if you are playing at a local card shop with a group of players that all just started the game and are still learning how the game works you can have a much "weaker" deck and still do just fine and have plenty of fun while you are at it.
I would say most people measure a deck's strength based on a couple values:

How fast can it win?
How does it fair vs other top tier decks in that format?
How much control do you have over your opponent?

Now the desired responses to these questions vary based on the player asking them and what their goal is. Some people play for the sole purpose of winning major tournaments others play for fun because they enjoy the game and have no desire to paly in tournaments.
Also a side note most of my experience is based on the Vintage/Legacy formats. The Strong/Weak deck types will vary greatly based on format.

I'm not sure "how fast can it win?" is really a primary concern; people would never call control decks strong if that were the case.

@Jefromi aggro decks is one of the biggest problems to control decks actually. In standard, most control decks have turn 5 board wipes. If a deck can kill on T4 - then it kills control deck before it can clean the board. Things changes with sideboard for this matchup greatly... but this is another story. As tempo player I hear "uhh, if only I had one more turn!" far too often.

@desudesudesu That's all true, but it doesn't change my point. Yes, "how fast can it win?" is important for aggro decks, and they can often beat control decks. But that doesn't mean that people see a control deck and ask "how fast can I win?" - they're asking "how well can I take control, especially if my opponent is trying to win fast?". And all of that is really just "how often can I win?", made more specific for the type of deck in question.

@Jefromi if you notice I stated that the desired responses to the question would vary based on the player asking. So while an Aggro player would really desire a fast win from the question how fast can it win, a Control player could care less about that and a great deal more about how much control they have over their opponent.

@ChadPortman The confusing thing is that you've listed (1) speed, (2) "does it win?", and (3) degree of control in parallel, as if people are asking them all about all decks. Really, they're always asking (2), and then depending on how the deck wants to win, asking one of (1) or (3).

@Jefromi I can see where you would have that opinion but from my group of players we ask all three. Then we also ask a forth one which is-- Is it Fun??

I think that's the core of it then: you're focusing a lot on casual play here, much less so on competitive play.

@TomAu It's worth noting that in most formats there aren't really decks that can win on turn one, and indeed most decks typically take many turns to win (e.g. even a fast standard deck will take at least 3-4 turns), so people really aren't evaluating strength primarily based on speed as your question and some parts of this answer suggest. In casual anything goes play or vintage where there are tons of crazy fast combos available, sure, but in more sane competitive formats looking primarily at "can I win" makes much more sense. (And even vintage has control decks that take their sweet time.)

@Jefromi I was referring to competitive play not casual. Even at the competitive level if the player does not find the deck fun they will not play the deck in the best way.

I see. In that case I do think it's a bit beside the point; when you hear someone say "that deck's strong" the primary thing they mean is that they think it can win a lot (though they'll probably think winning is fun). If it's an aggro deck, yes, they also mean it can win fast, if it's a control deck they mean it can take control, and if it's a midrange deck they mean sorta some of both, but really winning is still the primary point. (And unless you mean vintage/casual, the "50% chance of turn one win" is probably not a good example of a strong deck.)

That was more of an extreme and most of my experience is with Vintage/Legacy. I understand that standard/modern and some of the newer formats those types of speeds are not available. I just despise the newer formats that require to spends lots of money every couple months. I much prefer the formats that require you to spend insane amounts of money once

Fair enough, but you might consider editing a little. Since the OP didn't specify a preference for vintage/legacy, focusing on those formats in your answer without saying so is a little misleading. Perhaps mention that example is based on those formats, or at least edit to avoid making it sound like it's the primary kind of strong deck. Although you call it an example, you only provide the one example of a strong deck (and it's fast), but then say that weak can be many different things, implying that strength mostly means fast.

Fair point I wrote the answer quickly while at work.

Roughly, to most people, a "strong" deck is one that'll tend to win against other decks in its format, and a "weak" deck is one that'll tend to lose. It's about winning and losing, though, not as much how you win. Note that "in its format" is a pretty big deal - strong Standard decks are completely different from strong Vintage decks.
Why isn't speed of winning a good way to look at this? Well, not all decks with the same chance of winning do so at the same speed. Especially in Standard, it's normal for there to be aggro decks, midrange decks, and control decks that are all reasonably strong (they all have a good chance of winning a lot facing diverse opponents' decks). The aggro decks can win fast, the midrange decks take a bit of time, and the control decks always take a while. But people will quite reasonably say there's a strong deck in each of those categories, and if they try to compare, it won't be based on speed (then the aggro deck would always be "best"), it'll be based on which they think they can win the most.
If you want to try to measure, I'm afraid playtesting is really the only way. You have to try playing the decks against all the other decks you think might be strong (or find others who have done so), and play plenty of matches. This is why there's so much debate about what decks are strongest: it's difficult and time-consuming to measure, so people try to shortcut by testing just a bit and then using their experience and knowledge to fill in the gaps.

Once you look more closely, a few things make those statements a bit difficult to evaluate and measure.
First of all, people's subjective preferences do come into play, and on top of that, they'll tend to exaggerate, or at least be a bit cavalier with claims. People can also have objective preferences; they might be better at playing with some types of decks than others, and thus consider them stronger.
Next, "tend to win" might not indicate as large of a probability as you'd think. For example, someone might reasonably say "that deck is really strong" when it's going to win 55% of its games against other decks. That may not really sound that strong, but on the other hand, if a decent number of people play the deck at a tournament, that makes it likely that a large fraction of the top N players of the tournament will be ones playing that deck.
So if people are talking about "strong" and "weak" in the context of a tournament (or serious competitive play in general), the difference between the two might be relatively small, and hard to discern unless you're a fairly skilled player and have played plenty of games with the decks in question (or otherwise have data). If you want to measure strength of strong decks, this is pretty much the only way - look at a large number of games played by a large number of people, figure out who's playing the same decks (or similar enough to group together, at least), and see. (On the other hand, determining that a deck is very weak is pretty easy; you'll tend to notice that it loses all the time.)
Perhaps most importantly, "in its format" covers up a ton of complexity. You might think that just picking a format pins everything down, but in reality there's room for a lot of variation in the metagame: what kinds of decks everyone chooses to play. Generally, a given deck will be strong against some decks but weak against others. Depending on which of those decks are being played by more people, the deck could turn out to be strong or weak.
If you're talking about casual games, the range of power is enormous, especially when people have limited budgets and are perhaps building decks to suit their preferences, not just to be competitive. A deck that's "strong" among you and those you play with might be seen completely differently by another group of people. Of course, in casual play, you're also likely to be a bit less concerned with "playable" and eking out small edges in win probability, and more concerned with just having fun.

What constitutes a strong or weak deck depends on a few different things, the biggest are the format (Standard, Modern, etc.) and somewhat related to that the metagame. What ends up defining a strong deck is one that has a good chance of winning most of its matches, and a weak one is one that doesn't have a good chance of winning.
The biggest thing that effects how strong a deck is is the format you are playing. A deck that is strong in for example Legacy like Dredge isn't going to be as strong in Modern or Standard just because many if not all of the cards aren't legal, and similar style decks can be played but they are going to be weaker due to having less choices in cards.
Another major factor in the strength of a deck is the metagame. The metagame is in the simplest terms what decks people are playing. The effects how strong a deck is because if you have deck that is pretty good in a vacuum but there is another deck that is being played heavily that beats it 70% of the time the deck that will be considered weaker and end up being played less. Later if a new deck starts being played that beats the 'strong' deck but the 'weak' deck you have beats this new deck your deck will suddenly be considered strong.
These definitions of what is "strong" or "weak" can change quickly, sometimes from week to week depending on the results of various tournaments. For example if one deck does really well in a Pro Tour one week the next week at a Grand Prix there might be a larger percentage of that deck being played, therefore a deck that normally isn't very strong but happens to be good against that deck could be the right call for playing in the GP.
Now for decks that are "too strong" or "too weak", what exactly are those? Generally if a deck (or decks designed specifically just to beat that deck) are being played by an overly large percentage of the metagame that deck might be considered "too strong". If this happens one or more cards from the deck may end up getting banned. Examples of this are decks like Caw Blade from Zendikar-Scars Standard, and when UR Storm when Modern was first announced as a format. In both of these cases in order to make the metagame more varied Wizards ended up banning several cards from both decks. For Caw Blade these bannings pretty much killed the deck, and for UR Storm it is still a deck, and it works fairly well, but it is not a top deck like it used to be.
For decks that are "too weak" this mostly just means that they tend to lose to most of the decks that are being played. It is possible for a "too weak" deck  to win occasionally, but most of the time it is going to lose. A deck could be too weak for several reasons, usually because a few cards that it would need to be good aren't in the format at the time or the current top decks could just have a really good match up.
Now these definitions are based solely on tournament play, for more casual play what is "strong" and what is "weak" can vary widely. For example at one kitchen table Lightning Strike might be considered "strong" but at another where they play with Lightning Bolt it might be considered "weak".


text:
In Settlers of Catan, is it possible to avoid "losing a won game?"
Here's the kind of sequence I'm talking about. You finished your last turn with eight victory points (VP)s. Between then and your current turn, one opponent interrupted another opponent's longest road, and you now have longest road and ten VPs at the beginning of your turn. If you have the required VPs at the end of your turn, you win.
Is it true (in some variants), that you might possibly draw a card that increases your VP requirement from 10 to 11 so that you don't win at the end of the turn?
If the above is true, is there an antidote for this? Is it possible for you to follow a course of action that doesn't prevent you from having the requisite victory points at the end of your turn? Or does every course of action (in a particular variant) have a chance (however slight) of derailing your victory?

... How would you drawing a development card disrupt your victory points, anyway? You're not forced to play any of the dev cards (in fact, you can't play any except the VP ones on the turn that you draw them). None of the dev cards have the ability to destroy or reduce your own stuff.

@AlexP: I'm a bit confused myself. But my understanding (in some variants of the game) is that you can draw a development card that increases your VP requirement by one from 10 to 11 points. So if you have 10 points at the beginning of the turn and draw such a card, you've "thrown away" your win. Then my question was, "can you be 'headed off at the pass?'"

You mean The Boot? IIRC. it's not a dev card, it's a "fish" card.

@AlexP: I think that's what I meant.

Thanks for clarifying, Tom. I think I found the rules relevant to your example.

10 Points On Your Own Turn = You Win!
If you have 10 or more points at any time during your turn, you win the game outright immediately.
From the University of Catan FAQ (emphasis added):

Q:    Can a player win the game when it is not her turn? For instance, during another player's turn, the player remembers that she has a victory point card and that card along with other points that she accumulated gives her 10 points. Can she win during another player's turn or does she have to wait her turn to play the victory point card and declare herself the winner?
A:    You can only win during your turn. If somehow you earn enough points to win during another player's turn (such as getting Longest Road because another player broke the longest road, or because you remember your victory point card) you must still wait until your turn. However, you can win at any point during your turn, even before you roll the dice. On the other hand, if another player earns 10 points before your turn, that player will be the winner even though you had 10 points first!

Fear the Boot
So, there's a particular mini-expansion called Fishermen of Catan. You can find the rules online (PDF link). This expansion contains the "Old Shoe." Every time your fisheries produce resources, there's a chance you'll draw the Old Shoe card, which can turn your 10/10 VP into 10/11 VP. Oh noes!
Here's a rules quote (emphasis added):

D. That Old Shoe
One of the tokens shows an "old shoe" that you might
  accidentally draw while collecting a fish token. If you
  draw the old shoe, you must reveal it immediately! Keep
  the old shoe face up in front of you. As long as the old
  shoe is in your possession, you will need 1 additional
  victory point to win the game! So, you would need
  11 victory points to win the basic Settlers game!
There is good news, however! During your turn after
  rolling the dice, you can give the old shoe away! You can
  give the shoe to any other player who has the same or
  more victory points than you. But, if you alone have the
  most points, you must keep the old shoe for yourself!

So, it looks like the Old Shoe can, in fact, "turn a win into a loss" if this scenario happens:

You get 10 VPs on some other player's turn (per the Longest Road example in the question).
Then another player's roll generates resources for you, and you end up with the Old Shoe.
You can't win on your turn because of your new VP threshold.
Another player goes after you, gets to 10 VP, and wins.

However, if an opponent already has a lot of VP on the board just like you, you can do this on your turn:

(same) You get 10 VPs on some other player's turn (per the Longest Road example in the question).
(same) Then another player's roll generates resources for you, and you end up with the Old Shoe.
You roll the dice, then give the Old Shoe away.
Claim your victory immediately (as above)!

This is yet another case where it's useful to hide your +VP dev cards in your hand until the exact moment you claim the win (sine it makes it easier to dump the Shoe).

OK, so even though I have 10 points, I don't win until it's my turn, because someone else could get 10 points on their turn. And even though I got 10 points first, they had their (10 point) TURN first.

@TomAu Correct!

You can win on anyone's turn in 5/6 player settlers though, as you can build at the end of anyone's turn and win by getting to 10 points that way.

@Nick Can you also claim the win anytime in 5-6 player Settlers?

@AlexP Yes, I believe so. There is a strict order to building though in order from the current player around in turn order.

@Nick Let's find a rules cite and edit it in, then!

But you can't give the Old Show away unless another player has 10 VP.


text:
In bridge, how would you bid the "worst" 14 point hand?
You are playing 15-17 point no trumps, five card majors, four card diamond bids, and three card club bids listed on many convention cards. And you have an unusual 14 high card point 4-4-3-2 hand that basically violates all the rules, like this:
(s) QJTx (h) QJxx (d) KQx (c) Kx.
Give me another T (or even a 9) in one of the major suits, and I might consider this a "weak" 15 for 1NT. Upgrade my spade Q to a K (and compensate by downgrading K of clubs to Q of clubs), and I would consider bidding a "strong" four card major. But as the hand stands, I wouldn't do either of these things.
What would most people do? Perhaps a three-card one diamond is the least of evils? Or would "pass" be a viable option, even though most people wouldn't pass 14 point hands? (Downgrade one of kings to a Q, and I'd pass the resulting 13- point hand.)

Depending on what would surprise your partner least, bid 1D or 1C. If you've established that a 1D bid means 4 of them, then I go with 1C here--partner knows you would bid that with 4432 or 4423. Hopefully partner bids one of a major. The hand is difficult to bid, but far too good to consider passing.

@sitnaltax: One club! I had entirely overlooked this option.

@TomAu: As others have said, this is not a matter of judgement, but of agreement. Just agree upon something with partner. If you are asking which agreement is better, there is no objective answer, IMO.

I regard that as a comfortable, though minimum, 1NT opener playing 15-17 !NT, and open it accordingly.
If you wish to improve your Notrump hand evaluation, use a 54321 point system (for Ace through 10) and perform this transformation on the result: multiply by 2; add 1; and divide by 3 dropping any remainder. When applied to this hand provided we get an initial count of 22, which becomes successively 44, 45, and then 15 under the described transformation.

Actually, I put in the T because I thought it would take the hand just "under," not to, 15 (a second T or well-placed 9 would have put it over). But what you do without the T?

Without the ten, the count described above yields just 14 instead of 15, so I open 1D planning on a 1NT rebid. However your choice to have the ten in the spade suit (or not) really swings more like 1.5 points than 1.0. The QJTx holding in spades is really closer to 4 points than 3, raising the original hand as given slightly above a rock bottom 1NT opener.

OK, a "random" T (e.g. KT of clubs) doesn't do so much but T behind QJ in spades is worth quite a lot, right? I also consider QJTx worth about four points.

@TomAu: Actually I consider QJT almost 0.5 point weaker than QJTx; the small card is very valuable both for its length, and for its ability  to improve communications. Often this will reflect in the 321 distribution count, but may have to be applied manually in some cases as an adjustment.

You bid it like you’d bid any other minimum balanced hand with no five-card major.
Open one of a minor. Rebid NT, raise partner’s major, or pass partner’s 1NT as appropriate.
Which minor you open is a matter of partnership agreement. The usual agreement in the US is that 1D can be on three with this shape, but there are some who prefer to have 1D always be four, and so open 1C here.
Passing is a poor plan, even if you made it slightly weaker, as is upgrading it if it had slightly better spots; it’s a perfectly respectable minimum balanced hand, and pretending it isn’t is just going to lead to reaching the wrong contract.

@ji8e: (Mostly) good points. IMHO, the spots could be worth something. I play that T9 is worth a point behind a QJ (essentially you have three "jacks,") but not in say, KT9. Likewise, TWO QJT sequences are worth a little extra. Again, the Ts really upgrade the Js.

This is a curious question. You note that the context is five card majors, four card diamond bids, and three card club bids. When you agreed to play this system you must have realized that you would occasionally pick up a 4=4=3=2 hand. What was your plan? Never mind the ones with 14 HCP, how about 12 or 13 HCP?
I play 4-card diamond suits with one partner. We have agreed to open 1C when 4=4=3=2 with 12-14 or 18-19 HCP. What you should open is a matter for agreement between you and your partner.

With 12-13 HCP I would probably "punt" by passing. The meaning of the question was, what do you do when you have a rare hand that falls into the "cracks" between your various conventions? My "convention card" would read, "15-17 point NTs, five card majors, four card diamonds, three card clubs." But I reserve the right to deviate with a hand like the above (for the question, I deliberately constructed one that is on the edge in every way.) But thanks for a good answer.


text:
Does "tournament experience" show "too many players" in a game of monopoly?
The rules say that the game is for 2 to 8 players. But there are only eight monopolies on the board, meaning that in a game of eight players, there would only be an average of one monopoly for each player. Meaning that some players probably would have no monopolies. And it might be hard for any player to get a monopoly (except, possibly, by trading). Then you would have a great divide between the propertied, and non-propertied players.
But six players is mandated in some versions of Tournament Monopoly. Are there any tournaments that feature more than six players? Do other tournaments have five, four or three players more frequently than "six"
In the interest of keeping answers relatively objective, the best answers would address tournament experiences and results, or cite a book or study using an expert author's experiences (either first hand tournament or computer simulated).

I have found more than 0 to be "too many players" for Monopoly.

It's just personal opinion; based on the types of games I like. It wasn't meant as an answer to the question, just a quip.

@GendoIkari Have you ever actually played a game with 0 players?  I suggest you actually try it before you claim only games with more than this number of players is too many.

According to the Official Tournament Rules for Monopoly, the final round (of at least 2) must have 6 players (Page 2, about half way down). Clearly tournament players do not deem 6 players as too many.

Even the committee that wrote the tournament rules came here and posted their answers explaining why 6 players truly is the best way to play Monopoly, I'd still consider the question primarily opinion based. (Although I would still be interested in reading their opinions.)

Could you please try to ask a more clear, less poll-like version of the question? For all the editing and notes about how to answer objectively, you're still asking "have you experienced X?" which really tends to invite anecdotes rather than well-supported generalizations.

@Cascabel: I believe that I have improved the question by asking about "tournament" experience (rather than personal experience). I am voting to reopen it because it is much less "opinion-based" than before.

Board Game Geek has some session reports for Monopoly.
The main problem with having more players is that starting order becomes increasingly important as you add more players. If you're going 6th, 7th or 8th then your chances of landing on an unowned property are very low. You're pretty much screwed from the start.

Which basically depends on the first dice roll, prior to the game.

This is exactly right. I've played in a game with 7 players and three of the first four players were clearly in the lead the whole way through. Players 6 and 7 struggled to buy anything

@dsas: Based on your experiences, four players is manageable, maybe five, but 6 and 7 are going to suffer.

One solution is that people cannot purchase property until they go around the board once. That further randomizes the effect of who has the first go at buying property.

@Jason, does that really fix the problem? You're just swapping out a single dice roll for multiple dice rolls to find out who gets first shot at unowned properties. I don't get the idea of of "further randomization" - it either is random, or it's not. That method might even make things worse, since the last one to cross GO might be lagging by quite a few spaces. At least if I go last with an even start, I could possibly roll high and pull ahead. If I'm behind by a dozen spaces, there's no way I can possibly be the first one to enter unspoiled territory.

@NuclearWang The most balanced rule is that buying can start the moment the FIRST person has gone around the board once. That actually usually puts most people in a position where they can buy, with the lagging player actually getting an early shot at the high-end properties.

There are two ways of playing Monopoly: I find them considerably more different than, say, Chess and Draughts.
The first is the commoner, a family game played to fill in the hours till bedtime. Everybody knows that Emily will cry if she loses, so the Bank provides regular subsidies.  If there are no losers, there can be no winners, so the aim becomes 'to build up a pretty-looking property portfolio': if the supply of houses and hotels runs out, something else is used instead. This is pretty much a game for the feebleminded, and with more than five players there are not enough properties for everybody.
The second is played among adults, with no house rules.  Being a simulation of unbridled capitalism, the aim is to bankrupt your competition. So you don't trade another player the card to make up a monopoly unless a) you get a monopoly, or something equally valuable, in return or b) you think the other player is overstretched: for example, if he has to pay rent before somebody pays him, he will have to mortgage the newly acquired monopoly, losing the right to build houses, and starting on a downward spiral.  This can certainly be played with eight players, though the tactics change drastically as the number of players goes up, and you will probably lose the first time you play an x-player game.
Forgoing any political comparisons, I remark only that it is strange that the players who object to Monopoly as a children's game that never finishes are usually the ones who insist on altering the rules to make it less painful, which means it lasts longer and your decisions are less important.

I'd say that with more than 4, there is no tactic, just luck. Much more than with less players.

@PatomaS: Good point.

Well said. Playing with kids between 8 and 12 or so I make one concession - such kids get $200 for landing on Free Parking. Playing with adults and older kids I make no concessions. Games are always fun and fast, rarely exceeding 90 minutes. Pictures of my youngest daughter's first Monopoly victory over Dad and older brother, straight-up Classic Rules, are priceless. The empty table in front of older brother; the bankrupt mortgaged board in front of Dad; I'll post them at her wedding and be proud of her accomplishment at only 12.

By that game she wouldn't even accept the $200 for Free Parking - if Dad and older brother didn't need it neither did she.

I recommend the following starting rule to make the start up more fair with more players:
Each player (in turn order, before the first player moves) chooses one of the corners of the board as their starting location.  The first time you pass go, the amount to collect is prorated based on how far you traveled, e.g. collect $50 if you started at Goto Jail, $100 if you started at Free Parking, ...
This allows later players to start from locations with fewer opponents.  This is a quicker way to address the first roller advantage than the no buying on the first lap rule mentioned by @Joe Mc
Addressing the main question, more players generally makes the game longer.  Monopoly is already considered by many too long, even with the correct rules.  If players are reluctant to trade (and the above rule is used to even out property ownership), it is quite likely that no player gets a Monopoly.  In this case, the game could go on forever.
With more than four players, I would really recommend playing Mega Monopoly instead of the standard game.  Mega Monopoly is also listed as a game for 2 - 8 players, but has several rules that make it a better game for more players.

Mulitiple-board monopoly described at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Monopoly/House_Rules is another option to consider if you have many players.

With less players, everyone gets a few monopolies, and then it's just the luck of who lands on the other's monopoly first. With more players, it's about who can strike a deal, take risks, and strategize the best. A good way to break the first rollers advantage is implementing the house rule that one must go around the board once before buying a property

If you say players have to go round once first doesn't that just give an advantage to the first players to get round or indeed a player lucky enough to get an "advance to...." card?


text:
What constitutes "wrongful" hesitation in bridge?
The protagonist is West (W). Declarer leads a small card of a suit in which dummy, to W's left, has A8. West hesitates before playing in the following four situations:

He has Kx (x<8). This is the mark of weak player who has "given away the game," and the declarer has all the advantages.
He has T6, which "straddle" the 8. If the tournament director (TD) asks why he hesitated,  he responds that he was trying to decide whether or not to "top" the 8.
He has T9 or 76, "equal" holdings that lose to the A, but either beat, or fail to, the 8. If the TD asks him for an explanation of his conduct, he replies that he was trying to decide whether or not falsecard the higher card to induce the declarer to lose count.
He has a singleton, and hence no decision to make, and should play "naturally." As it is, he's pretending that he has more than one card when he doesn't.

The last case would clearly be one of wrongful hesitation. Would any of the other three cases, or others that I missed, constitute such misconduct, and why?

Hesitating in case 3 is clearly unethical, as West has no problem in playing from either T9 or 67 in this scenario. One may hesitate in order to determine which card to play from a technical perspective, but not whether or not to signal to partner without an accompanying technical problem. Otherwise one would always hesitate when showing an even number with 2, and never hesitate when showing an even number with 4, thus creating a(n illegal) signal that clearly distinguished between holdings of 2 and 4 cards based on the manner in which the cards were played rather than the particular cards played.
Even in the absence of the above, hesitating would clearly be seen as an attempt to mislead declarer on the location of a single card between the A and 8. It is quite likely that Declarer is not harmed in this instance, but that does not preclude the award of an adjusted score against the offending side, EW here. The appropriate penalty for a first offense would be the actual score for NS, and lower of actual and Average-minus for EW.
Update - Added comments from below

1) "False carding to make the declarer lose count" is not illegal in this instance, but "reinforcing" it by hesitating is, right? –  Tom Au
Yes; but it is important to realize that all signals not made in tempo comprise Unauthorized Information (UI) for partner; namely that there was a question about whether or not to make the signal, and thus that the signal is in some fashion weak. Likewise false carding must be done in tempo in order to not be seen as an attempt to improperly deceive declarer; but this is really just a special case of the preceding as partner is also given UI.
2) In example 2 (and even example 1), you have two cards that "straddle" the 8, so you have a technical problem, right? Then hesitating under those circumstances would be amateurish, but not wrongful, right? -- Tom Au
Yes, that is correct; however the decision on carding if Declarer plays low towards Dummy should have been made as part of West's review of dummy right after it came down. Hesitating when the play occurs is still UI for partner, and will hinder effective defense in consequence. Practice taking a full 3/4 second or so on every play as defender, to give yourself a couple tenths reaction/thinking time when you need it.
Yes, the experts do what you suggested, and it's the amateurs that wait until it's too late = Tom Au
So true.

"False carding to make the declarer lose count" is not illegal in this instance, but "reinforcing" it by hesitating is, right?

It is important to realize that all signals not made in tempo comprise Unauthorized Information (UI) for partner; namely that there was a question about whether or not to make the signal, and thus that the signal is in some fashion weak. Likewise false carding must be done in tempo in order to not be seen as an attempt to improperly deceive declarer; but this is really just a special case of the preceding as partner is also given UI.

In example 2 (and even example 1), you have two cards that "straddle" the 8, so you have a technical problem, right? Then hesitating under those circumstances would be amateurish, but not wrongful, right?

@TomAu: Yes, that is correct; however the decision on carding if Declarer plays low towards Dummy should have been made as part of West's review of dummy right after it came down.  Hesitating when the play occurs is still UI for partner, and will hinder effective defense in consequence. Practice taking a full 3/4 second or so on every play as defender, to give yourself a couple tenths reaction/thinking time when you need it.

Yes, the experts do what you suggested, and it's the amateurs that wait until it's too late. So a pause of three-quarters second, or even a full second every time is legit, as long as it's about the same length each time.

I believe that cases 1-3 are all ethical, but these are simple problems that should have been solved at the end of some earlier trick (In duplicate bridge, after all the cards to a trick have been faced, players should indicate that they are thinking about the hand by keeping their card face up. Play does not proceed until all players have turned their cards face down.).
None of 1-3 damage declarer, and in any case you may pause to think whenever you have an actual bridge problem. However, your hesitations may also transmit unauthorized information to your partner, and so your partner may be constrained in their future actions.
Jeff Goldsmith has a useful and interesting discussion about unauthorized information on his website, which covers this area, and discusses what you should do in case partner has accidentally given you unauthorized information.


text:
In Bridge, What is the Merit of Taking a "Double" Finesse?
Suppose I am declarer, and dummy has a "side" (non-trump) suit with AQx or AQxx, and I have xxx in my hand. I have been told NOT to finesse the Q (a 50-50 chance), except as a last resort, or late in hand. (And to "refuse" the finesse, probably taking the ace, if that suit is led in say, a NT contract).
Change dummy a bit to AQTxx. Now I'm told that I have a double finesse, because I am finessing against both the K and J. In such instances, I have been told that I SHOULD finesse (assuming that going twice to my hand to lead doesn't cause problems elsewhere). If the KJ are both with LHO, I win twice, if both with RHO, I lose twice, but most likely, I win one and lose one because the honors are split. If the opponents have a 3-2 split (a 68% chance), I can treat the lost finesse as a "ducking" play, and run the suit for four tricks after I clear it with the ace.
What makes the "double" finesse so much better than the "simple" finesse? Is it because the extra card in dummy might allow me to win a fourth (long) trick? Or is it because I have a second potential stopper in dummy if the first finesse fails? Is it in the double finesse I PROBABLY win once, whereas in the simple finesse I POSSIBLY win once?  Or have I been given the wrong advice about double finesses?

You have answered your own question in the last paragraph. The simple finesse gets nothing because you can only win the Queen if the King is onside, in which case you will come to it in the end anyway, and taking it may consume an entry, lose a tempo, and so forth.
In the second case you are, as you state, developing a possible long card, and (provided you put in the Ten) possibly the Queen as a winner if the Jack is right and the King wrong.

Putting in the T is a key point. So with AQTxx, you have the chance/option of putting in the T. Whereas you don't with AQxx.


text:
In Diplomacy, How Would England Identify Its First Target?
England, being an island, has an enviable defensive position. This same fact makes it hard for it to get a foothold on the European Continent, where most of the remaining 31 supply centers lie.
There are three countries that immediately block England's expansion: Russia, Germany, and France. England will inevitably end up fighting at least one of those countries, possibly with the help of one or both of the other two.
Russia blocks the way to Scandinavia, Germany opposes England in the Low Countries and the center of the Continental Europe, France stands in the way of expansion via the Mid-Atlantic, the Iberian Peninsula, and ultimately the Mediterranean.
England is one country I've never played. How does England decide on target supply centers, and by implication, whom to fight? Does it depend on what is going on elsewhere on the board (e.g. the Mediterranean)? Does it depend on the caliber and personalities of the people playing the other three countries? Will other countries flock to seek alliances with England to create a balance of power? Or will it be mostly ignored, since it is an island, and have to "go it" alone?

My Diplomacy openings for any country are usually of one of two types

Try to be a leader.  This usually means coming up with a bold joint opening and try to negotiate the other player to follow along.  For England, this might be trying to take Brest in 1901, or trying to bounce Germany out of Denmark.  Some players are more likely to work with you when you have a concrete plan, especially one that offers the potential for big early gains, and you might be able to make a good long-term ally.
Wait and see.  This means make a safe opening (like bouncing in the Channel), go for your natural neutrals (Norway), try to negotiate fairly neutrally with everyone, and see how 1901 goes.  Maybe you find someone that you get along with really well, and you want to ally with them going forward.  Maybe some other player makes a bold move, or a big mistake, and you want to adjust to capitalize on it.  This is typically safer, but can backfire if your opponents are both looking for early action, and interpret your neutrality as an invitation to get action at your expense.

Either way can work.  The one thing you should NOT do as England (or anyone else) is ignore people (or let them ignore you).  Corner countries don't stay that way for long, and if you aren't talking with people, you have no chance of making a deal with them.  England can get boxed in if you try to rely too much on your corner position, and you can't defend the island against a concerted attack for very long.

As England, I would determine my first target the same way as I do for any other country I'm playing. I would talk to the other six (yes all six are important) players, to try to get a feel of what is happening on the board, who is and who isn't likely to want to work with me and use this information to develop a strategy. It is possible to do well as England with any of France, Germany or Scandanavia as a first target. There is no royal road to success in Diplomacy (and the game would be boring if there was).
Now for something more useful: I'll give two internet resources that can guide you in your play.
At Diplomacy Archive there is a collection of strategy articles on each country (eg England's is here). This is a collection of articles by various authors that you may find useful reading. They are of varying quality so it can pay to read some of them over with a critical eye to see what ideas hold up to scrutiny. At the very least they'll give you an idea of the various points of view other players are likely to have.
Another resource is Diplomacycast. This is a podcast about the boardgame diplomacy. In their first episode, they specifically discuss the play of England. Note two things. First this is long (at least 90 min), and secondly don't be put off by the audio quality, its their first attempt and the quality improves after the first two episodes.
Don't forget as England Norway is your natural neutral, and you have about an equal share together with France and Germany in Belgium. You will not be 'ignored' (cf last sentence of question).

So Belgium "the cockpit of Europe," is the flashpoint, and either France or Germany (or both) will seek your alliance to capture it, or at least keep it out of the hands of the other. You also made an important point about talking to all six, if the Med is in England's (near) future.

Are there any of the articles that you would recommend?

@pat: There are individual articles about how to play EACH of the three strategies. But my question was how do you CHOOSE among them, given articles on all three.

@Tom - I find a link to an archive of articles of "varying quality" of questionable usefulness.  A better answer would say, "You should do XXX, YYY, ZZ based on article 1 and 2 because ...." and make a good case for it.  That would demonstrate to me that the answerer likely has expertise in the question and has done more than just googled the answer.

@Pat: I didn't ANSNWER the question that way. I asked it. As an answerer, I might consult the articles, might even cite my favorite one, but would summarize it, along with my own interpretation.

@tom - so then you agree with me?  I'm confused as to what you are trying to achieve here.  Hit me up in chat if you want to discuss further.

@pat: I don't know how to adjourn to chat. Did so once when prompted. But basically, I wasn't sure whether your remark about answers was directed to Peter (who answered) or me (who asked, then commented on Peter's answer).

@tom - lack of an @ indicates a note for the answerer.  The system will actually remove a leading @peter in some cases now.

It is important to note that the board is divided into two parts, the Northwest, and the Southeast, each with 17 supply centers. The Northwest includes England, France, Germany (nine centers), plus the two Iberian countries, the two low countries, the three Scandinavian countries, plus St. Petersburg. In the Southeast are Russia (minus St. Petersburg), Turkey, Austria Hungary (12 supply centers), the four Balkan countries, and Tunis.
England's most likely winning combination is the Northwest, plus Tunis. Note that this city plus St. Petersburg, represents the outer limit of this domain. To a lesser extent, this is true for France and Germany, with the important differences that France has a better chance at Italian supply centers, and Germany, at Russian and/or Austrian supply centers.
If Russia is a strong player, you might want to go for St. Petersburg to put an immediate and "permanent" stop to his expansion. Otherwise, France and Germany are your higher priorities; if Russia is being attacked by others, St. Petersburg can usually wait.
Germany and France can beat you if they combine, unless you have help from both Russia and Italy (and can get Austria and Turkey to fight each other). So your first thought is usually to ally with one of them to take out the other. With your corner position, you can later easily find a second ally to help you defeat the first ally; e.g. Italy, to help you against France after Germany is gone, or one of the eastern countries against Germany, after the occupation of France.