text:
With which "non-trump" holdings is a 4-4 fit superior to a 5-4 fit?
If a partnership has both a 4-4 and 5-4 holding on one deal, I could see why it would make sense to have the 4-4 holding be the trump suit. The 5-4 holding can take "long" tricks with the fourth and fifth cards (on the 5 side), while the only way to "lengthen" the trump holding is through ruffs.
But suppose that you have the 4-4 and 5-4 holdings in separate deals. And suppose that you have no other "long" (seven card or longer) suits in either deal, so that the eight card (4-4) holding is distributed 8-6-6-6 in the four suits, and the nine card (5-4) holding is distributed 9-6-6-5 in the four suits.
In this case, wouldn't it be better to have the 5-4 holding with the extra trump than the 4-4 holding? Especially since the ninth card guarantees a ruffable imbalance, e. g. 5-3-3-2 opposite 4-3-3-3, whereas the eight card holding could be 4-3-3-3 opposite 4-3-3-3? Or is there something I am missing?

I have no idea what you are getting at. Perhaps give a specific example of the two hand shapes you are trying to compare. Also, it is important to note that all non-trump suits are identical - why should, or even how could, you care which is which?

@PieterGeerkens: If I have 5-4-3-1 opposite 4-4-1-4, I prefer the 4-4 fit in hearts to the 5-4 fit in spades, because spades is a "long suit that might yield an extra trick. But If the shapes were 4-3-3-3, opposite 4-3-3-3, the 4-4 fit doesn't seem to do me much good, and I'd prefer a 5-3-3-2 opposite the 4-3-3-3 with the extra trump and an "imbalance. Put another way, I might be inclined to bid one higher with 5-3-2-2 opposite a (presumed) 4-3-3-3 than with 4-3-3-3 opposite the same 4-3-3-3. In the other deal, the trick-taking potential was maximized by the 4-4 fit.Or am I missing something?

If both hands are 4-3-3-3 why aren't you playing the 9-trick NY game? Play a contract that requires one less trick, to compensate for having a trick less playing potential due to the unfortunate distribution.

@PieterGeerkens:Then a 4-4 fit needs an "imbalance" in side suits to shine. Ideally a partnership holding of 8-8-5-5 (or better), rather than 8-6-6-6 (unless the latter were something like 4-2-4-3 opposite 4-4-2-3). That was the point of the question.

This is sort of an odd question. The cards you get are the cards you get, and you should do the best you can with the cards you have. You don't get to decide whether you have a 4-4 fit or a 5-4 fit, so in a sense this information doesn't help you. But as a way to improve your hand evaluation, let's consider this.
One answer comes from the law of total tricks, which basically says, if you add up the tricks your side can get when declaring in your best trump suit to the tricks your opponents can get when declaring in their best trumps suit, it'll add up to the number of trumps you have plus the number of trumps they have. Of course, this isn't actually a law (it's easy to construct counterexamples), but it's a good rule of thumb. In this case, you're comparing 8+7=15 to 9+8=17, so it seems likely that your 9-card trump fit will have more trick-taking potential for the same number of high card points.
You can also look at this from the losing-trick-count point of view. If you move a spot in a 2- or 3-card suit into a suit that already has 4 cards, you're removing a loser from your hand (in losing trick count, you count the number of cards that will lose to an A, K, or Q not in your hand, so AKx, AKxx, and AKxxx all have one loser, while xxx has 3 and xx only 2).
Even good old high-card-point evaluation methods typically give some sort of value to distribution -- either adding a point for the fifth card in a suit, or adding points for having doubletons instead of tripletons, singletons instead of doubletons, etc.
So this is a lot of ways to say, your intuition is correct. All things being equal, in a pair of hands that only have one fitting suit, having more cards in that suit tends to increase the number of tricks you can take.


text:
Is" third seat, favorable vulnerabilty" the only appropriate time to pre-empt with "any seven" of a suit?
I would do this with 8765432 of a suit in third seat, and a "Yarborough" elsewhere in hand, and with favorable vulnerability (not vulnerable vs. vulnerable).
Opposite a passed partner, I don't fear missing out on a game, or any constructive bid, and I do fear that the opponents have at least a game in hand, if not a slam, if fourth seat gets to open.
If partner has one or two trumps, I will make four tricks on sheer length against an opposing 3-1 or 3-2 distribution (3-3 for that matter). Doubled, non-vulnerable, that is -1100, less than the value of an opposing slam and rubber bonus.
If partner has the three defensive tricks needed to hold opponents to game, s/he will contribute 2-3 tricks, and we'd be down two or three -300 or -500, less than the value of game and rubber for the opponents.
Are the above circumstances the only time to do this? Or are there some systems or experts that would go "beyond" this and bid "any seven" either in the first or second seat, and/or with equal vulnerability?
Or would most people refrain from bidding "any seven" even with third seat and favorable vulnerability?

Yes, bridge clubs around the world have numerous fools who would bid thus - what more do you need to know? Bidding on the assumption that LHO received a defective bidding box, without any red cards, is lunatic bridge. LHO's bidding box is just fine, and he knows exactly how to pull that red card, whether it be for penalty or takeout.

Hans Krijns famously overcalled Belladonna's light first seat 4H opening with 4S, ending the auction. After Kreijns made the contract Belladonna was caught looking for Kreijns's fifth spade, to which Kreijns replied "God only dealt me 4." Bidding systems that prey on the weak are discouraged  everywhere - and expert opponents will eat you for breakfast if you frequently make these crazy non-constructive calls.

The rules were changed 10 or 15 years ago; down 4 non vulnerable is -1100, not -900.

@TomAu: Yes, but if partner is stacked in the other suits you are going -1100 or  -1400 instead of -630. That's bad Matchpoints strategy, and worse IMPs or Board-a-Match strategy.

@PieterGeerkens: 1) How is partner stacked in other suits if I'm doing this in third position because s/he passed initially? 2) To the extent that partner has tricks on defense, s/he reduces my penalty on offense. I can make up a scenario that s/he has "three queens" for defense that are worthless for offense, but that's rare.

Your question is specifically about non-third-seat openings. And I distinguish "stacked in the other suits" as referring to length; if I wished to imply points, additionally or instead of, I would have said so.

@TomAu: Make up your mind which question you are asking - the answer's cannot be even similar because the circumstances are vastly different. Are you asking about 3rd seat or about 1st/2nd seat? Your title strongly implies 1st/2nd seat.

To answer your specific question: Other than third-seat favourable vulnerability, only when you are specifically interested in a small short-term bump in your results against weak club competition, and are willing to sacrifice your overall partnership rapport and skill level in order to do so.
Your argument is extremely faulty. If one is allowed to open 3 in a suit with a hand like such as
x-xxxxxxx-xx-xxx

then one is effectively removing the capability to open 3 in a suit with a constructive hand such as
x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx

because it is too dangerous for partner to respond on the possibility of the second hand and risk going down 1700 or 2000 if you only have the first.
Further, you  are neglecting the value of the distributional information that you are giving to the opponents, and that you are depriving both yourself and partner of (from hearing an informative opponent auction) in making an informed opening lead and sound defence. Destructive agreements like this are discouraged by all authorities because they both prey on weak players, who do not have the experience and agreements to deal with them, and convert expert contests into extreme games of chance from ones of skill.
Yes, in a club game you will undoubtedly do well with such an agreement against weak players; but you will at best break even in the same games using it against experienced partnerships; turn friends into enemies; and see your tournament results plummet as you develop a reliance on such gimmicks for good results at the expense of sound bidding and play.
as I noted in a comment above:

Yes, bridge clubs around the world have numerous fools who would bid thus - .... Bidding on the assumption that LHO received a defective bidding box, without any red cards, is lunatic bridge. LHO's bidding box is just fine, and [if an experienced player] he knows exactly how to pull that red card, whether it be for penalty or takeout.

Update:
It is also important to note that a very weak hand is much less likely than a merely weak hand. Thus that holding a hand similar to x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx is much more likely than holding one similar to x-xxxxxxx-xx-xxx. Are you really sure you wish to handicap all the hands where you hold the former, just so that you can bid on the very rare occurrence of the latter?

Similarly one moderate feature outside the suit is much more likely than no moderate feature outside the suit, compounding the unfavourable statistics.
Update An example of how a system that encourages light openings enables opposing declarers to make contracts unlikely to be made otherwise.

In situations (favorable in 3rd seat against opponents who bid well but don't take inferences from the bidding) where I am crazy enough to open x-xxxxxxx-xx-xxx 3H, I would also be crazy enough to open x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx 4H.  It's not unreasonable to open a 7-loser hand at the 4 level favorable, though on a hand that turns into a 9-loser hand with everything offside, and 10-loser with everything offside and poor splits...

@AlexanderWoo: The question as written when I created this was specifically "When would t be reasonable to open these hands in 1st/2nd seat?" I am in no way referring to 3rd seat pre-empts  in this answer.

@PieterGeerkens: In 1st/2nd seat my comment is still true, though it's close to being a vacuous implication.

Thank you for a long and informative answer. But with a hand like x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx, my inclination is to open a weak two with it. And save "weak three" for "no defense." Put another way, open 1 with 12-13 points, open 2 with 6-7 (and distribution), open 3 with 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. FWIW, I consider "single face card hands" in the same category as 8765432, which was just an extreme case. Maybe I need to revisit the distribution of weak hands.

There is Every Hand An Adventure, which is playable but not really a serious system.  The goal was basically to make the most disruptive, playable, reasonably natural, ACBL-legal system possible.  At least some versions of it included n-3 level overcalls on every hand with less than 12 points, a singleton or void, and an n-card suit, no individual judgement allowed.  (Yes - this means 5431 hands are opened with a weak 2, and 6331 hands at the 3 level.)  It also uses the 10-12 1N opening.
It's not trivial to play against.  To do well against it, you need solid agreements with your partner to define precisely the strength and shape of various actions over their weak bids.  With such agreements, it's not so hard to deal with, especially since knowledge of the opponents' distributions, combined with the fact that the hand itself is distributional, means you usually can make 22 hcp games and 29 hcp slams (as long as you're not off 2 quick tricks).  (Also, the negative inference that an opponent who passes in first seat has no singleton and <10 hcp is quite valuable.)  This means its gains are mostly due to opponents being unfamiliar with it rather than any of its strengths, and it is kind of cheap to try to win from unfamiliarity.  (Unfamiliarity also doesn't go very far, because it stops being an advantage if you're good enough for opponents to start preparing for you.)
Mostly it gets played by young adventurous experts in side games they don't care about.  It's also much less playable at IMPs, because, with 4 weak 2s and no opening carrying a promise of more than 13 hcp, you tend to miss games and slams where opener has a very strong hand, though at MPs these are rare enough that it's not a big deal.

Strangely enough, I would rather defend than preempt with your KJTxxxx-xx-KTx. The two reasons are your side honors, and the K-J, K-T  tenaces that are hard to overcome. This hand should prevent most slams, but it is vulnerable on offense to "offside" cards. You have 7 hcps (8 counting the T/s), not much below the average of 10. I "like" 1100 point penalties only when I see a slam for the opponents, here I don't.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How did the Greek campaign affect Afrika Korps?
In the Avalon Hill game, Afrika Korps, the British receive reinforcements in June, 1941, several months after the game begins. These are survivors of a futile campaign to save Greece. I am asking the following two questions in order to try to assess the impact of the Greece campaign on the game (and real life events).

How do the reinforcements from Greece compare to the force sent to Greece? (I'm not claiming that they were sent from Egypt, only that they would have been available for Egypt if not sent to Greece. Was the order of magnitude one-third, one-half, two-thirds, or closer to some other number?
Let's assume that the returning reinforcements were never sent to Greece, but that the British start with those June "Greek reinforcements" at Alexandria at the beginning of the game. How (if at all), would that change the balance of power in the game?

(My sense is that the "sent" force was two to three times the size of the "retrieved" force, but that even allowing the British the "returned" force at the beginning of the game might make it better for them.)

Note that despite being ejected from Crete, British casualties in that battle were relatively light in men (though all heavy equipment was again, as at Dunkirk and Greece, abandoned). Churchill observes that the destruction of German Paratroop capability in that battle, though not immediately recognized by the British, was on it's own a favourable trade-off from the British viewpoint.

As I remember, the Paratroop Corps lost almost as many men as the British, but were far more "strategic."

Your base assumption concerning the relationship of the Commonwealth Expeditionary Force to Greece is incorrect. That force comprised three fully (or nearly so) re-equipped units:

6th Australian Division - Fought in Syria after being evacuated from Crete, and then was transferred to the Pacific Theatre in January 1942. Given the supply priority of units sent to Greece, it was probably three 2-2-6 brigade units.
New Zealand DIvision (only later re-designated as 2nd New Zealand Division) - after evacuation from Crete was integrated into Eight Army proper, but returns to the game in November 1941 as part of the Crusader reinforcements. This may be un-historical, as I could find no record of a rebuilding of the division required before it returned to combat duties. In game terms this division comprises three 1-1-6 brigade units.
1st British Armoured Brigade This unit returns to the game in November 1941 as a 2-2-7 armoured unit, but in April 1941 was similarly equipped to other British armoured brigades, so likely a 4-4-7 armoured brigade and 1-1-12 reconnaissance battalion. If not sent to Greece it would likely have been available at El Alamein I April 1941, having just been re-equipped with new tanks to replace those lost during, or unserviceable after, Beda Fomm.

From all research I could find the order of Battle of the June and July replacements listed in the game would be unchanged. It is possible that they would have been better equipped however, so perhaps a couple or three of the 1-1-6 units would have appeared as 2-2-6 units instead.
It is worth noting that the game designation of British infantry brigades as 1-1-6 or 2-2-6 units clearly is not intended to represent an accurate reflection of some such units being either twice as effective as others, but rather as a means of expressing an average combat value of about 1.5, while still providing the British with the ability to allocate weaker or stronger forces to specific locations. Certainly some units arrived in the theatre better trained or better equipped, or achieved greater renown while there, but the difference was never so great as 2 to 1.
Thus making these troops available almost doubles starting British forces, though they would have been scattered from Alexandria to perhaps Tobruk rather than being available in Western Cyrenaica. The British were well aware of Rommel's reinforcements of earlier that spring, but badly under estimated the speed with which he was able to prepare and assemble them for an offensive out of El Agheila - they estimated that such an offensive would not be possible until May or June.
As the game is finely tuned match and readily balanced in tournaments by the simple expedient of adjusting Supply rolls (see Side Determination and Bidding for Supplies), any change in the starting British forces would require a severe adjustment to the victory criteria. In essence, you are building a new game based on an unhistorical assumption.
Churchill in The Grand Alliance notes that the deciding factors in sending an expeditionary force to Greece were:

The belief that Rommel could not launch an offensive in Cyrenaica until May or June; and more importantly
That not doing so, after having granted public assurances to Greece and being seen to have available forces in Egypt, would have had possibly dire effects on the neutrality of both Spain and Turkey.

Summary of Bidding with supplies:

German player gets ability to nullify a number of Sunk results on Supply Table (after the die roll), and/or start with additional Supply units, a number of times equal to the British player's winning bid.
British player gets ability to nullify a number of Arrived results on Supply Table (after the die roll) equal to German player's winning bid.
If both players bid for separate sides no auction occurs.

OK, added a disclaimer in parentheses to clarify the question. Based on your answer, there would have been (practically) "no game" if all of those forces had been sent to Egypt initially.

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


text:
How do ranks work in amateur Go?
One of the most commonly asked questions of beginners. How do ranks work in Go for amateurs?
Why do we start backwards? And why do we suddenly count upwards again? What is the difference between 9d and 9p? How is this related to rating? What are the basic differences between ranks used in different countries and different servers?

Let's start with the basics. Beginners start out as "30 kyu". As they get stronger, the number decreases to 29 kyu, 28 kyu ... down to 1 kyu. Kyu means "student" and is commonly abbreviated 'k'. The range from 10k to 30k is called DDK (double digit kyu) while 1k - 9k are SDK (single digit kyu).
The difference between each rank is supposed to be 1 stone of handicap. That is, an 8k should give 3 handicap stones to an 11k. All handicap games are played with komi of half a point. So an 4k playing a 3k plays black, not placing any additional handicap stones, and white receiving 0.5 komi.
Once a player surpasses 1k he becomes 1 dan, "master", abbreviated 'd'. Dan ranks go from 1 dan ('shodan') to 7 dan for amateurs (occasionally to 8 dan).
Professional players are obviously stronger than amateurs, since they studied the game very intensely for years and received training by pros. Only top amateurs have a chance of winning. Pro ranks go from 1 dan pro to 9 dan pro (abbreviated 'p' instead of 'd') with "10 dan" being a title that can be won in a tournament.
Nowadays, the difference in strength between pros is not related to their rank, because new 1 dan pros received the most up-to-date training and already possess vast knowledge (just like someone coming fresh from university is very up to date on the current research). Formerly, it was said the difference between 3 or 4 pro ranks is about 1 stone.
That being said, there are different ranking systems in different parts of the world that are not completely equal for various reasons. Online go serves got their own ranks as well. On Go servers, it is usually possible for amateurs to get assigned a rank of 9 dan.

"Expert" begins at 1 dan for amateurs. Then there's a second, higher level of expertise, 2 dan. One level above that is 3 dan, which is master. Then there are increasing levels of mastership rising to 4, 5, 6, and 7 dan. In recent decades, because of the popularity and training of go for amateurs, some of them became one to two levels stronger than 7 dan, call them 8 and 9 dan. A 9 dan amateur is almost as strong as a pro. All of these is based on being one stone stronger than the previous level.
Then the question is why do kyu ranks work in reverse order. A kyu player is a "non expert" player by definition. Then the ranks are based on "how far are they from expert?" A 1 kyu needs to rise only one level (stone) to become an expert, a 30 kyu, is 30 levels below. Think of kyu ranks as "minus" numbers (they're entered that way in the ratings computer), with 1 kyu being less "minus" than say, 10 kyu.


text:
Lasting  games in the past century
One of the appeals of traditional games such as Chess, Go, Backgammon, or Poker is the depth that they have acquired over the years; long-standing communities and traditions, wide range of players from different backgrounds, depth of strategic analysis that has occurred over the years, and wide range of skill levels with very strong top players that comes about from years of study and training.
Many newer games are mere flashes in the pan; fun for a while, but ultimately replaced after a few years with something newer and shinier. Many of them have the potential to gain such depth, but they are crowded in a field of other games, and do not really develop their own independent communities nor a significant pool of people to put in the time and dedication to create a strong competitive system.
What recent games (defined as having been invented within the past century or so) have managed to achieve this sort of durability; their own cultures and communities, high-level tournament play, strong strategic analysis and a broad range of player skill? What games have not yet had time to (past 10 years or so), but do you feel have the seeds of such depth?
Here are some criteria that can help determine if a game has reached this level. Not all criteria need apply, or may not apply exactly, but the more the better.

Significant tournaments with professional or semi-pro players; or large amateur tournaments at a national or international level.
Official rating or ranking system (or more than one) with hundreds of players and a wide range of abilities represented.
Significant coverage in mainstream media, not just passing references or coverage in game-specific media.
Multiple independent publications discussing the game specifically (not as one of many, but dedicated to the game in question). Books, magazines, professional level blogs or e-zines, etc.
Professional on-line or software implementations dedicated to this game, or many independent computer implementations in systems which cover multiple games with hundreds of active players.
Popularity in groups of people outside of of traditional gamer groups; cultural relevance of the game outside of the gaming community.
Multiple clubs (regional, city, or university) dedicated to this game in particular, not gaming or a particular genre of gaming in general.

I would consider this question to be just on the wrong side of the subjective/objective dividing line, so voting to close.

@Erik There's nothing wrong with subjective questions on their own; most questions on here are going to be subjective to one degree or another, this isn't a topic with lots of questions that have objective answers like programming or math (there are a few specific strategy question that might, but this is about a lot more than strategy). The close vote is for subjective and argumentative; for questions which are both subjective and likely to lead to arguments, such as well-known flamewars.

Chess, Go, Backgammon, and Poker all have multiple sources for their pieces, and rules. Most modern games (and the answers below) have unique pieces, and a single owner. I wonder if that is a limiting factor.

@ErikP.: edited the question by changing "deep" to "lasting." "Deep" is subjective; "lasting" can be measured objectively, and I have voted to reopen this question as edited.

I can't answer since this is closed, but I'll say that I think Arimaa fits all the criterion.  Its community isn't large yet but it is growing, has tournaments, and generally meets the other criteria.  As @Pat Ludwig said, I think M:TG is the single best contender, but I think Arimaa is a good contender too.

Magic - The Gathering
This simple looking card game transformed the industry quickly leading to huge tournaments culminating in a World Championship.  It has been going strong for over 15 years and shows no sign of stopping.
Strategies mutate and change with every release, but the good players are able to adapt and continue to remain strong.

Tournaments: The World Championship is the culmination of many levels of feeder tournaments.  There are a large number of people in many countries that play the game on a semi-pro basis.
Official Rating system - check, The rating system has been active and supported for over a decade.
Mainstream coverage - NY Times, USA Today, GAMES magazine Hall of Fame, broadcasts on ESPN, many others.
Publications

529 book references on Amazon for "Magic the Gathering", a lot of magazine have publishing price guides and articles for Magic over the years.
Scrye was my favorite back in the day.
InQuest was another popular magazine.

Online or Software support

Two videogames released in 1997 (Magic: The Gathering and Magic: The Gathering: Battlemage
Magic: The Gathering Online was released in 2002 and is still played by hundreds of thousands of people

I think that given the criteria listed, and evidence presented, this would have to be it. It is amazingly popular, has a professional tournament system, has supported multiple professional publications. The one caveat is that it is very centralized upon its publisher; given the nature of the game, it's not one that can really have a life outside of its publisher. This means that it might not last, if the publisher goes out of business or scales it back, but for moment, this is the best answer.

I'm not sure Magic is completely dependant on it's publisher any more.  It's dependant as long as WotC are alive, but there are many tools for creating cards and web sites full of fan expansions.  If Wizards died tomorrow, I think the community hardcore would organise and start agreeing 'community official' expansions.  (There is precedent; this happened when WotC's Star Wars card game was cancelled.)

@Tynam: I don't really believe it. Custom-created cards will never be developed with the same amount of depth as the publisher does. You'll be lucky if they "playtested" them twice. When Wizards publishes a broken (i.e. too strong) card, it's official and you have to live with it... what if a custom card is too strong? This will never work.

Lo'oris: I do believe it; it works well in other domains. (When Wizards publishes a broken card that's much too strong, the community immediately exploits it until Wizards catches on and fixes or bans it - because a large community of playtesters will catch stuff even the official testers miss.  Look at the Mirrodin artelands for an example.)  I didn't say a single fan would provide good fan-expansions (as you say, they'd never get enough testing).  I said the community as a whole would.  'Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'  Given enough Magic players, testing is sufficient.

@Pat Ludwig: As you pointed out, strategies change in response to new releases. This is an lateral expansion, not one of depth. I'm not trying to say Magic isn't a great game, but I don't believe it can be called "deep" in the same way that chess or go can. They, in contrast, gain depth through exploration of strategies that were possible all along.

@Andrew - I think you are using a different definition of "depth" than the Questioner here.  Your definition should make a fine standalone question though!

+1 for recognizing that Magic is a truly amazing game, especially after so many years of intensive development and improvement.  So many people hate it because it's an evil corporate money-making machine, and forget that it's consistently one of the deepest, most interesting and most absorbing games out there... if you can foot the bill.

@Andrew... your point is good, but I'm not convinced it means Magic isn't deep.  That the community doesn't exploit the full depth (because of the constant expansion in breadth) doesn't mean that depth isn't there.  I recall some very deep strategic analysis and deck design discussions back when I started playing... when Antiquities came out and the total card pool was still around 500-600.

@Tynam I hadn't thought about it that way before. The closest I've ever gotten to Magic was playing Pokemon as a kid (which, I know, isn't very close), but I could imagine a bounded pool of cards being explored indefinitely.

It is worth noting that MTG recently scrapped its Elo ratings, in response to high-ranked players avoiding events to "protect" their ratings. The system that replaced it is based much more on straight-up participation. Several notable pro players have said that the problem with the Elo ratings was a miscalibrated curve, which failed to account for the effects of randomness in MTG games. That in itself may be a point against MTG's "seriousness", but that's why MTG tournaments have best-of-3 rounds and sideboards. And, IIRC, chess players have occasionally made similar criticisms of Elo as well.

@AlexP Many serious games including poker have at least an element of randomness.  I think MTG is the best answer to the question, but one major caveat is that it is designed for constant expansion and evolves very quickly.  Chess, Go, etc. all evolve but slowly.  Magic has seen more changes in its rules in 2012 than Chess has seen in the 1900s.  But with that caveat, I think this is the answer.

Scrabble
The game mechanics are very simple, but the game is far from simple.  Unlike a game like Magic the Gathering, Scrabble achieves it's depth of near infinite possibilities with a simple board and a 100  wooden tiles.  Each play on the board has an immediate effect on what future possible actions players can take.  Scrabble has it's own dictionary, had a TV show, has an established tournament structure, and can be played online.  Scrabble has appeared also on numerous consoles and computer systems.
Playing scrabble well requires critical thinking, and good spelling.  First published in 1948, Scrabble continues to remain popular even today.

There's a documentary about competitive Scrabble that's weirdly interesting; I've seen it twice

I voted this answer up, but I'm not 100% sold: Scrabble success depends on vocabulary, while the examples listed (go, chess, backgammon, poker) do not. This is an element outside of the game itself that affects success, and I'm not sure that really qualifies as depth.

I was turned off to Scrabble when I learned that the best players aren't even native English speakers! It might have been in the documentary cited above... ??

@AndrewVandever Chess depends on knowing how every piece moves, and then studying a dictionary of chess openings. Scrabble depends on knowing a list of words. How is that different?

@Stef, wow, 14 years later, I really had to rethink this one! But I think I can expand on my answer, hopefully to your satisfaction. Chess’s depth belongs to the game system and the creativity of players working within that system. If Scrabble’s depth lies only in language, it’s proper to say that that depth doesn’t really belong to Scrabble. Couldn’t any word game also claim that depth? FWIW I think Scrabble also has a strategic depth that is derived from the rules system irrespective to language, but i don’t believe that depth is as great as that of chess.

@AndrewVandever Thank you! I think I agree!

Diplomacy
This has all of these things - a distinctive culture, played in tournaments, ranking systems, extensive opening and endgame analysis with named opening patterns.
There is also a still-extant play-by-mail culture, PBEM through the Judges and a string of on-line play sites
It was first published in 1958, so it's now 50 years old.

There are a number of amateur tournaments, starting from the early 1970s, up to the annual World DipCon, running since 1988.
There are a lot of unofficial ranking systems, but there is neither an official one, nor one that covers the diversity of ways to play (websites, PBEM/judges, PBM, face-to-face, tournament).  Many PBM 'zines and most websites have ranking systems for their users.
Diplomacy got more coverage in the past than it does now, but when Kissinger spends a lot of time talking about the game, you know it's had a mainstream impact.
Dedicated publications coming out of your ears: Diplomacy World is up to issue 117 (as of April 2012).  I don't think there has ever been a fully-pro periodical, but there are a number of published books.
Multiple independent software implementations - yes, and so much so that there is now a standardised complete test suite for conformance to the rules (DATC).
Popularity outside of gamer-culture, probably the weakest, though getting a Secretary of State and a President playing is still kinda impressive. JFK played as well as Kissinger; Nixon is thought to have done so.  I dread to imagine playing with both Nixon and Kissinger.
Clubs,  Oh yes.  75 just counting those listed on one relatively obscure website

+1 Diplomacy IMHO can be so 'deep' because the negotiation stage allows for the full range of human emotions and behaviours.

PS check out the links, especially "string of on-line play sites"

Great answer after the edits! I'd agree, Diplomacy definitely qualifies.

Dominion
I don't expect a lot of votes up because the game is very new, but I think Dominion has the potential to do a much better job qualifying in the long run than Magic: The Gathering. The problem with any Trading Card Game, in my opinion, is the high financial barrier to entry, as well as the potential significance of limited run cards. To put it more clearly, if you spend more money, show up at more promotional events and have been playing longer than I, you are going to have a much larger set of cards to choose from, and this could give you an insurmountable advantage. If I just don't understand and any starter deck could beat the deck of an experienced player, then I guess I'm mistaken, but I doubt that's the case. One could argue that this is part of the game or meta-game, but I would argue that one of the great virtues of games like chess, go, backgammon or poker is that you can own a set for very little cost to you, and introduce a new player without their having to purchase anything at all.
Dominion, in contrast to Magic, has a much lower barrier to entry because new players can simply join in on a game with your set, and because in a given game all players have the same resources available to them at the beginning.
Now to argue against both games' inclusion: chess, go, etcetera are expanded in depth as a result of exploration of new strategies within the existing game framework. Most modern games, including both Dominion and Magic, are expanded by the addition of new game elements. One could argue that games like chess and go must have gone through an evolutionary phase like this before reaching their current form, and I suppose that is possible, but I certainly think that a game that is still adding features cannot be called "deep" in the same way that these older games can. Perhaps one day Dominion will attain this status, but I think at this point I couldn't vote up my own answer in good conscience.

having played both Dominion and Magic the Gathering I disagree. Dominion is a good game but lacks the depth and complexity of pro-level MtG (I played in the early tournaments including the first world championship and though I was more focused on being a MtG dealer for a time I had many friends who were serious pro-tour players - winning major tournaments and traveling around the world). I haven't kept up with MtG but the range of tournament types and ongoing pro-tour shows it is still very popular

The cost to play competitive MtG is moderately high, but a competitive deck is much less than a decent set of say Golf Clubs.  The barrier to entry in casual games is low.  For about $20 I can have two prebuilt decks that let you play and are well balanced against each other.  When you are starting out and show up to events you will frequently have people just give you cards (I built up some of my collection on gifts and turned around and started giving when I got a decent sized collection.)

Contract Bridge and Duplicate Bridge
Technically speaking the modern form of the game was devised around 1925 (by Harold S Vanderbilt). There were variants earlier like auction bridge, which don't fall into the past century category I suppose.
Every point you speak of is true for bridge (concentrating mainly on USA).

Tournaments: USA itself holds nationals at least two times a year, with a world championship (Bermuda Bowl) held every 2 years, at different locations in the world. Many countries have their own set of tournaments.
Ranking System: ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) has a masterpoint system with milestones like Master, Life Master etc. World Bridge Federation also seems to have a ranking.
In the 1950s/60 etc Bridge was one of the major games getting media coverage. This has declined, though.
Too many books, magazines devoted to bridge.
At least two competing online bridge sites (BBO and okbridge). There are also software like Jack and GIB which are designed to play and teach. There are even computer player only tournaments where these software like Jack compete.
Mainly popular outside traditional gamer groups.
Almost every major city in the US has at least one club which holds weekly games.

One game that has "not yet had time to, but..." has the seeds of depth is Settlers of Catan.
It's too new to really have the depth of community analysis we're talking about here yet.  Yet it does have an entrenched and widespread community, multiple (electronic and board) reimplementations, and the strategic depth to support serious analysis.  (For example, a moment's web search reveals numerous articles on the mathematics of resource exploitation.)
I'll be interested to see where it is in thirty years.

-1 : If you do not think your answer qualifies, please don't post it.  This isn't a forum, we need to keep to our question/answer format.  Thanks!

@Pat, the question does ask "What games have not yet had time to (past 10 years or so), but do you feel have the seeds of such depth?". I was attempting to address that when I posted. (My answers to the rest of the question had already been covered, so I could just upvote.) Probably I should have made that more explicit in the answer.

hmm, I hadn't picked up on that one sentence in there.  My apologies.

@Pat: No complaint here.  If you hadn't picked up on that, probably other readers haven't... and we should edit the question, or the answer, to be clearer.  I've edited the answer.

Advanced Squad Leader (ASL)
The ultimate game of WW2 squad level fighting, where anything that could be done in WW2 can be modeled (rockets, paratroopers, any vehicle ever used, etc.).  It has a dedicated community with ongoing tournaments.  There are over two thousand scenarios for it, and many modules and addons.
It has clubs throughout the world, tournaments all year round, many publications that support it solely and many publications that print scenarios and other articles for it.  It has two different rating systems, OARS which is just for ASL, and AREA which is used for many wargames (though nowadays I think AREA is mostly used).  It has many websites, forums and blogs that discuss it.

Great game, and there's a lot of information there.  Obviously it has a huge learning curve (thousand-page rulebook and all) but how much analytic depth is there in the game, or is it just about the ability to process the volume of information?

@Richard, There are hundreds of articles doing analysis on the tactics, some with unbelievable stats and math behind them.  It is a very analytical game, and in fact there seems to be more analytical type people who play it than otherwise.

ASL certainly satisfies the first, second, fourth and fifth items in the bullet list, and it is usually possible to get a mention in the local paper with a little effort.

Hex and other connection games like Twixt
Cameron Browne has written a book of analysis and online play is pretty active. I haven't heard of any tournaments in person, though. As much as I love Hex, my personal favourite connection game is Akron, invented by Cameron Browne.

I wouldn't quite count these. While there has been substantial analysis of their strategy, and they are somewhat popular online, I don't think any of them quite meet the threshold of having a large and deep enough community. There is a good deal of light online play, but there isn't much in the way of serious competitive tournament play, any substantial ranking systems, and isn't that much of a community around any one specific game.

@Brian: Hex and Twixt have serious competitive (online tournament) play, substantial ranking system and more than 100 serious players. Check http://www.littlegolem.net/

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

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


text:
Clarification of the Veto Card in El Grande
In El Grande, it is possible to collect a Veto card, which can be used to prevent a player from performing the action of the card they choose. It can be used to veto one card in the current round or the next round.
It says something like

when a player starts to perform their action, the veto card is played, and prevents the action.

But, does the player have to explain their full action, or just their intention to use the card? For example.
If Player A has the Veto Card, and Player B decides to play the Move King card, does Player B have to make known

Their intention to move the king
Where they intend to move the king (which indeed may be to leave it where it currently is).

Or can they get away with just declaring their intention to move the king, and leave some element of doubt for Player B?

Here are some clarifications of the Veto rules personally corrected and confirmed by the game designer Wolfgang Kramer:

*9. Veto: If you have taken this card, then lay it in front of you
  where the other players can see it. You may use it to veto any one
  special action that a player wishes to carry out either during the
  remainder of the current round or during the next round. You may only
  veto a special action, the normal placement of Caballeros is carried
  out as usual. You may only use your Veto once, and during the special
  action is carrying out. You may not cancel an action once carried out.
  Once you have used your Veto you must return the card to the box, if
  you have not used your Veto by the end of the round after the one in
  which you took the card, then you must give it up.
The opponents can ask for or come to an agreement with you about what
  they can do. * An opponent wants move some Caballeros, he can ask :
  "If I move this Caballeros from ... to ..., you play the Veto card?"
  or "May I move this Caballero, and this else?" or other similar
  questions.
If an opponent doesn't want to carry out the special action, you can't
  force him thanks to the Veto, because it can prevent (but can't force)
  an action.
9.1. Veto & Special action addressed to only one player:
The player who is on turn determines the order of the steps of a
  special action (rule 4), so the Veto can stop his special action at
  any time before it ends.

"INTRIGANT:4 BELIEBIGE CABALLEROS AUF DEM SPIELPLAN BELIEBIG
  UMSETZEN: The player may remove up to 4 Caballeros (their own and/or
  opponent's) from the board, and replace them in another region or in
  the Castillo.": A player may move four Caballeros. He has already
  moved two. You were pleased with these moves. Now he plans to move one
  more. You don't like that, so you play your Veto and he can't execute
  the remainder of the special action.

There's more where this came from, but I thought I'd stop there!  I think this illustrates the power of Veto quite nicely: you can indeed find out what a player plans to do with their move before choosing to veto it; and you can even use the Veto partway through a move if it begins to take a direction you don't like!


text:
How many units do you use to attack a dead zone in Axis and Allies?
How many units do you use to attack a dead zone territory? Is there a formula or computation that can be used to discover the optimal number of units to attack with?
Consider the Eastern European front with Russia holding Karelia and Germany holding Eastern Europe, with the Ukraine as a dead zone (3 IPC). Presume Karelia has sufficient infantry support to resist a German invasion and vice versa, and that the only sort of attacking that's going on at this stage in the game on this front is the tit for tat taking and retaking of Ukraine.
Now, say it is Russia's turn and that they have, say, 25 infantry in Karelia and 2 fighters and Germany has one infantry in Ukraine. How many troops does Russia attack with given two fighters? What if Germany has two infantry in Ukraine? What if Russia has only one fighter?
I'm curious if there is a general formula for ascertaining the optimal attack ratio. Using a calculator like this one seems a necessity, but what sort of likelihood of winning the attack do you aim for? 60%? 80%? Higher?
Thanks

If I'm attacking a dead zone I won't use tanks. So I determine the attacking force structure by determining the number of aircraft available for the attack and then adding infantry until my gut (or a battle calculator) tells me I'll have enough to occupy the territory.
Often, I'll find that absent these dead zone attacks my planes wouldn't have anything else to do anyway, so more often than you might expect dead zone attacks utilize overwhelming airpower.
Against 1 infantry with 2 fighters: I'd probably send two infantry because this almost guarantees I can capture the territory (with one fighter I'd still only send 2 inf--stranding 3 inf in a dead zone is too many and the odds of winning are still decent). If I'm stretched thin I might only send one, but I'd prefer occupying the territory with two infantry than not taking it at all. If you take it you get 3 IPCs that turn and you make the other side answer the more difficult question of how many inf they send to re-take the territory.
Against 2 infantry: the problem is more difficult. Typically in this scenario I'm almost resigned to not capturing it with high probability and only want to make sure I take enough infantry that there's no chance of taking fighter damage. So if I can afford it I'll attack with 3 inf, knowing that I'm going to retreat before any combat round when I don't have at least as many infantry has he does.
As for specific probabilities I target in my attack structure, that's all game dependent and balanced against the opportunity cost of those units elsewhere on the board. My key metric in planning dead zone attacks is minimizing downside (i.e. the risk of losing fighters and/or stranding more than 2 inf in the dead zone).

Using the combat simulator, http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html and running various calculations, I come up with the following: if there are x defending infantry and you attack with x fighters and x+1 infantry, your chances of winning "round" to 100%. With one fighter and one infantry against one infantry, your chances of winning are about 94%, and with one fighter and three infantry against two infantry, your chances of winning are also 94%. With two fighters and two infantry against two infantry, it's 98%. Basically, with the heavy firepower, you don't need much extra infantry, just enough to guard against "accidents."

Tom, I think you are overlooking that a "win" is just not overpowering all of the opposing force's units, but also having at least one infantry to take the territory and gain its IPCs.

@scott: If x infantry gives me a 94% chance of winning, and x+1 infantry gives me a "100%" chance of winning, that's good enough for me. Maybe you want to use x+2 infantry to eliminate the chance that you'll have to sacrifice a fighter to save an infantry for occupation. But any more than that risk putting YOUR infantry into the dead zone.

Remember, it is vital that the attacker take the territory back to gain the IPC, yet to leave it as underdefended as possible. Ideally there'd just be 1 inf in the territory afterwards. But if you attack with 1 fighter and 1 inf, you can still "win" the combat, but not reach your goal - namely, if the defending inf gets a hit.

@scott: That's why you might want to add "+1" inf; i.e. 2, in this case. If you put an extra inf in a "dead zone," you're basically risking the 3 IPCs at stake in the territory.


text:
In Seven-Wonders Can I buy resources that were built by my neighbors this turn?
In 7 Wonders, you do a lot of building things and purchasing resources from your neighbors. Naturally, you cannot purchase resources that aren't actually there.
However, sometimes you run into a situation where you attempt to build a building that requires a resource that isn't available right now, but it just so happens someone also built the resource that turn.
In such a case, is it possible to purchase the resource from that player?
Times this would happen:

You were going to build something from your left neighbor, but you have a discount from the one on the right and hey they happened to build it this turn!
I want to try and build a thing that I can't afford, hoping my neighbor will build something. If not, I'll just discard for cash instead.

Same question on boardgamegeek.com.

And another thread with the same question.

Semi-duplicate of an earlier question of mine: Timing Rules in Seven Wonders...
The consensus we seemed to come to then was that, no, you can't build something with a neighbour's resources that have come into play that turn.
If it helps to clarify the order that things go in, I recommend doing it this way: everyone reveals their card, which is not yet in play.  Then everyone pays the costs of their revealed cards (buying resources from neighbours if necessary).  Then the revealed cards are put into play, and any resulting gold bonuses are added to players' treasuries.
It's a bit "Magic the Gathering" (and possibly a bit anal!) to break everything down into discrete phases in this way, but I think it makes it a lot easier to visualise what's happening, when people are still hazy on the precise timing rules...

thesunneversets’ answer is correct, and here’s a quote from the official FAQ
 to confirm it:

Q: Can I buy the resource from a card played this turn by a player next to me?
A: No, the only resources which can be used are those which were available
  before the card was played.


text:
Rules for the game "Chainstore"
There is an old box in our storeroom containing the game Chainstore.  My brother and I bought the game when we were kids (ages ago).  Now my children wants to play it, but the rules are missing.  I've tried to figure it out, but that's not the way to go.
Anybody have a copy of the rules of Chainstore?  It looks like Monopoly-based game.

Dave Elder has a copy of Chainstore for trade listed at boardgamegeek.
You could try contacting him via GeekMail there.

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


text:
How Can I Identify How To Beat My Computer At Chess?
This is an embarrassing question to have to ask, but here goes.  Recently I've gotten a new Mac laptop which has a chess program on it.  I'm not a chess expert by any means: I can beat casual players most of the time, but I suspect I wouldn't stand a chance against anyone who was actually good at the game.  But it's becoming humiliating being utterly crushed by my computer every time!  I'm meant to be the boss of this relationship, but in our battle of wits I am utterly outclassed.
Obviously powerful modern computers have certain advantages over human beings when it comes to a game of pure analysis like chess; but I feel as though there must be some way I can up my game.  Are there any strategies I could adopt that would give me a chance of escaping defeat, or at least securing a draw?  Even if I can't win against my computer, I suspect that even attempting to get better at doing so will make me better aware of the weaknesses of my approach and thus a much less awful chess player.  Any ideas?
Different computers play chess at different levels. How can I find out how well my computer plays, and then beat that level?

Hmm ... what difficulty level is the AI set to? Are there finer controls that you can set (number of moves to look ahead, that kind of thing)? Understanding your opponent might help us give you more specific advice.

I haven't tampered with or even looked at the settings.  I hope the default level isn't the easiest one!  Was hoping for just some generic suggestions on facing off against AIs, but I agree, it would be interesting if I could get more information on its capabilities, I'll have a look tonight and let you know.  One thing I am noticing is that if I take a move back and then replay it it often seemed to make a different move in response, which suggests that it's quite flexible in its idea of good moves...

Some games, like Chessmaster, have different AI "personalities": they don't just look ahead more moves, but play different "styles" and have different built-in weaknesses. To make the question narrower in scope, it'll be good to find out what those default settings are ... otherwise you could just as well be asking "How do I get better at chess?"!

I'm hoping there's a fundamental difference between playing a human and a computer at chess!  Otherwise I'll lose all respect for it as a game worth playing, if it only boils down to "who can hold the most variables in their head at once".

@thesunneversets That is what chess is, unfortunately. No human player can ever look as far ahead as a computer. Computers are not creative, they just don't make mistakes. They win by brute force, basically. You might want to check out Go, at least until quantum computers are invented. As I heard, even with little skill humans can beat the best Go programs.

This was my concern about the scope of the question: so far, answers are basically touching on how to win at chess. That's definitely a question that would require a book to answer, and thus too broad ... hopefully you'll be able to make it more specific so that we can provide targeted advice.

Voting to close - this is far too broad. The answer is 'get better at chess'. Concentrating on AI weaknesses etc. is a waste of time. What's the point? Any human could in theory play the same line - and you would lose.

Fair enough re the voting to close: at the level I'm at, the answer is just "get better at chess".  I'm sure, at the Kasparov level, he adopts a different strategy to beat a computer, but obviously I'll never get there!  I don't think I'm going to bother getting better at chess though, a computer is clearly too strong an opponent for me, and I'd always choose to play a more interesting game when I have the luxury of a human opponent!

@Dave DePlantis: I have changed the heading, and added a last paragraph to narrow the scope of the question. Is the "revised" version of the question acceptable to you, that is, would you vote to re-open it as edited? If not, are there (minor) revisions that you would suggest to make it acceptable?

@Tom and others, meta discussion opened.

Basically, you have to find out what level your computer plays at. And then train to beat that level.
Computers are very good at looking deep into "branches" of moves. That's where they have an advantage over humans, and that's why the best ones can beat Gary Kasparov.
Computers aren't quite as good at certain "judgmental" aspects of chess, like when to sacrifice a pawn for a positional advantage. They tend not to do as well in a middle game as in either the opening (when there are few pieces out) or the endgame (when there are few pieces left).
Basically, you need to get to the point where your "branching" reading is almost (but not quite) as good as your computers. Then you have to steer for a complicated middle game, where the computer's branching algorithm may break down, while your better judgment prevails. (That's what Kasparov tried to do.) As good as they are, it's fun to see a computer get confused when you throw a "curve ball" at them, in any application.
That should happen to your computer at "some" level of play. Hopefully it won't be too much higher than yours.

There is no other option except to get better at chess, I believe. I have seen interviews with the grandmasters who have had experience playing against computers, and they have noticed certain patterns that differentiate a human from a computer player. One example I remember is that computers try to target uncovered valuable pieces, even if they are safely behind a line of pawns.
However, like in any activity, only the absolute top players can possibly benefit and exploit these differences, if at all. So until you are approaching grandmaster level, there is not much you can do except training, learn openings and their counters, training, and some more training.

Computers are really good at spotting getting material in a few moves.
Your best bet is to look into strategy and plan longer than the computer can see.

There are a few answers I can think of The easiest would be to run 2 simulators and plug the moves of one into the moves of the other.
The other is to get good at chess.  I mean get sit in the park and beat the old russians playing for money good.  Most good players will tell you that they recognize strategies and implement predetermined counters.  Most of the game is about determining which strategy is being used and employing the proper counter.  Get a few books on chess and read them to get a good base of knowledge to start from.

Pitting one program against another doesn't improve your game; even looking at the moves that program is considering, if that option is available, doesn't necessarily tell you anything about why that AI is considering them.

The goal is to "Get Close To Beating My Computer At Chess?" not get better at the game.  Getting better at the game can be a route to that goal but it does not have to be.


text:
What caused this world-class player' to respond inappropriately to her partner's transfer bids?
Zia Mahmood's Bridge column today relates an amusing tale of disaster at the World Championships.  A player on the apparently very talented Netherlands ladies team, holding the following 6-3-2-2 hand:
♠ 7 5
♥ Q J 5
♦ J 4
♣ A K Q J 8 2
First of all managed to open a strong 1NT; and then, more astonishingly, refused to transfer to spades despite no less than 6 consecutive calls to transfer from her poor partner!  (Follow the link for the full story.)
With partner holding 4 points, 7 spades and a singleton heart, the contract went 6 down in 4 hearts redoubled for a penalty of 3400, the largest ever recorded in world championship play.
My question is, this a world-class player we're talking about.  Is there any logical reason why she should have so doggedly refused to transfer to spades? Did she take the heart bids literally? Did she think her hearts are that much better than her spades, even though partner is rightly rather insistent that hearts are a terrible suit to be in.  So what could have been going on in South's mind?  Or had she just been paid money to throw the World Championships? ;)

I have voted to close as not constructive.

Isn't it the case that The Brits play 1NT differently from in the US? See: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1463/why-is-the-strong-1nt-so-prevalent-in-bridge

@Neal, these are Dutch players and it is specifically mentioned in the article that this is a strong 1NT - though perhaps not exactly the same as the American one, I guess.

They thought it was just "sporting" to spot their opponents 21 IMP's; ans still win?

This looks like one of those tantrums that happen when both partners want to control the hand.  The argument gets out of hand. Both partners think they know what is best and fail to yield until it is way to late.  I wonder if south thought "take that then" when she placed the last pass on the table.
I hate to admit it but I've been there done that.  Please never again.
I suppose it is possible that south thought the the redoubles showed hearts but i strongly doubt it.

It's not so rare that good bridge players bid with hands that are not textbook examples for that bid. For this hand 1NT is not terrible. However, one has to be prepared that something unexpected might happen after an unusual bid, and it seems that this lady wasn't.

Do you understand the hands well enough to say what happened?  I see not wanting to play in spades, and I see confusion in that the declarer thought his partner was stronger.

@Neal, I cannot give reasonable explanations for South's bidding (except for the first bid). I just offered a theory why bidding went this way.

I'm not a world class player, but I don't like to play transfers, so on a "bad" day, I'll interpret the heart bid literally, credit my partner with ATxxxx, and wonder why East keeps doubling with Kxxx. On hearing the redoubles, I'll decide that no, partner has AKxxxx, leaving East with Txxx. With 8-10 points for a two level bid, partner will have either spades or diamonds stopped, and we'll have an easy game.
And no, I'm not sensitive to redoubles and will take them literally, in this case credit partner with MORE than ten points, that is ACE of either spades or diamonds, plus AK of hearts.
All wrong, of course, but all plausible.

I ran the hand through WBridge5 (world-class Bridge AI) and it finished the bidding with 4 diamonds E/W.  Outcome being E/W down 1 trick.  This was because, as you noted, the AI (South) passed at E's strange behavior.

I would not open 1NT with 2 doubletons especially weak ones and not balanced..ref Audrey Grant.  Second time round when partner refused to bid spades since responder had such a long Suit and only 4 points, why not bid the spades herself?
They might make game if partner kept on pushing up and responder went to 4S, however, would not go down by so much if they did.


text:
What Are The Key Features Of The "Fantunes" Bidding System?
Zia Mahmood's Bridge column for the Guardian newspaper today tells of two players with world titles to their names, Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes, who apparently have an intriguing bidding system:

They play a bidding system that is unique in top-level bridge: opening bids at the one level are forcing, while opening bids at the two level are not weak - they just show not enough points to open at the one level.

In the example deal, Fantoni and Nunes quickly jump to 3S with 11 points between them (!) as North and South, stymying poor old West who is holding 21 points, and ends up in an unmakeable 6H due to lack of bidding space (6C or 7C would have been much better).  Score one for the rogue system!
What are the key features of this interesting system?  According to a link kindly provided by Aryabhata, some people are wary of "Fantunes" because of its high amount of variance.  It must be possible to get to the very top using it, but could this be more down to Fantoni and Nunes' playing skill than the strength of the system?

Note that other experts, Jeff Meckstroth in particular, suspected for years that FanTunes were cheating because of a belief that their system is fundamentally unsound. Numerous other experts, intrigued by their success, attempted to play the system and couldn't get consistently good results with it. LO AND BEHOLD - FanTunes are now disgraced as cheaters.and are banned for life as a partnership, and for three years individually, by the European Bridge Union.

Like the weak NT, these 10-13 two-bids not only deprive the opponents of bidding space when it is their hand, but they also define opener's hand well enough that responder can often place the contract when it is our hand.  They do play a very artificial system of responses over those two-bids in order to sort it all out.
Minimum 4441 openers don't fit in either their two-bid or one-bid openings, however.  They open them 1NT, but that is not ACBL legal.

Similar to MICS, all opening 2 bids are intermediate/preemptive.
2C = 10-16 4441, 4450 or 4432
2D = 14-16 5+,4+ in Minors
2H = 10-16 5+ Hearts and 4+ in Clubs
2S = 10-16 5+ Spades and 4+ Clubs
2NT = 10-13 5+,5+ in Minors
1NT = 13+ thru 16-

Cool, looks like a fun system.  What do you do with a really strong hand (i.e. how does the 1-level work, I guess)?

See my answer - the 1 level openers are sound and forcing.

In Bill Jacobs' book(1) on the system, the basics are:

"Sound" (15+, 1♣ could be weaker) opening hands: Open 1 of a suit
Minimum distributional opening hands: Open 2 of a suit
Minimum balanced opening hands: Open 1NT

As asked, what about the 25 (or 33!) HCP hands?  Their solution to that is to make the 1 openers Forcing for one round.
Now, effectively anywhere in the world besides the ACBL, that's all you need.  In the ACBL, it is illegal (except at the very top level) to agree to open 1NT with a 4441 and a small singleton; when they were allowed to play in the ACBL, they put those hands into their 1♣ openers if 12-14 and modified their responses to handle it.
(1) Yeah, I also won't use the name of those players.  Having said that, most of the issues with their "extra help" were around their signalling system and "what suit I want led" hints, not the bidding system itself.  Whether I would play it, simply because of its provenance, not sure; but others have, to good results (as witness the book!)

This system seems to follow the motto, "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing well." That is, it encourages a lot of "weak two bidding" for "pre-emptive" purposes. That could include two clubs, since one club is now forcing.
On the other hand, it might mean that "one" level bids need to be stronger, since they ARE forcing. Basically, you need to have a hand you're comfortable going with to the two level (or one no trump) opposite someone who has nothing. People who already play a forcing one club (one diamond means "I have nothing") might not mind this feature.
These features seem to follow the minority of players (including yours truly) who like to substitute trumps for high card points. Larry Cohen and his partner Marty Bergman are another example. The idea is if you have five good trumps, you can (statistically) expect partner to have three, so you don't mind going straight to the two level with five GOOD ones, such as AKJxx, or even AKxxx, and maybe one side honor.
Even if I were playing this system, I wouldn't open at the TWO level with Qxxxx, and (defensive) values OUTSIDE my suit. Fantoni was a bit lucky to find his partner with three, and the ability to continue the pre-empt to the three level. Even so, they did NOT have the balance of power in the spade suit (eight cards plus two HCP, ten total, out of the sum of 13 cards and 10 HCP, or 23). In my book, Qxxxx is barely enough for a conventional ONE spade call (with the usual 13 points).
True, they got away with it, but West should have doubled. East could have left it in (down four, 800 points), or more likely taken it out, ending in five clubs for the same 800 (100 points for game, 700 for a vulnerable rubber). they had a slam in clubs, but not necessarily a biddable one, so it didn't cost them that. But since East-West SHOULD have earned 800 points either way, Fantoni and Nunez were playing with "house" money when their bid "gummed up the works." (Heads I win, tails I break even.)

Mm, what appealed to me about the system is its strongly preemptive nature - just as I love the weak 1NT with its instant ability to deprive stronger opponents of bidding space, so these weakish-but-with-a-fighting-chance 2 bids are going to happen often enough to infuriate opponents a lot.  Sure, they'll go down sometimes, but these players are world-class, they must think that on balance the penalty points are worth the amount of frustration they create for their opponents.  I really want to get hold of the system and have a go with it!

Of course, given the difficulty other expert players have had attempting to get good results with the system, and the fact that they have been cheating on defense for years,  one has to wonder if they were cheating in the bidding all along also.

In many ways, one might almost say the system was designed to be played by cheaters; since it requires so much judgement on so many calls.

I have not played it, but if you want to read a defence to Forget...s comments, see here: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-fantunes-bidding-system/ . Bill has only represented Australia at the world level 4 times (it looks like, twice with this system).

@Mycroft: The world has advanced since this question was asked, and my comment made - but I did still word my comment well enough to disparage the system designers more so than those who have found a way to, ethically, make it work.

I did not mean to say you were wrong - it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some "help" used by that pair, or that it is only truly effective with "help".  it's "a defence", not "a disproof"; but there are (were, that article came out at the time, even before your comment) players with high-level results that weren't FN (and, we assume, not cheating).


text:
Is it unsportsmanlike to concede when you believe you cannot win?
I've had a long running debate with some folks I play with regarding concession. Some argue that is it is unsportsmanlike to concede a game if you are not doing very well. I contend however, that if it often more frustrating to sit there and be miserable if you know the outcome of the game; this is particularly true of longer games such as Catan with Cities and Knights.
Now, I'm not really talking about "just quitting" every time you don't get your way. And I'm certainly not talking about being rude, snide or otherwise contemptible in such cases. I've been on the other side of the fence too and it seem appropriate to "just call it" in many instances but some would rather drag it on.
Is there an acceptable middle ground or technique for dealing with these types of situations? Where one person has clearly won before they have actually won?

In a two-player situation I could see how this might be acceptable, but with more players I'd be very cautious. For instance, it may appear to you that player three is the foregone winner, but perhaps player two has a victory Development Card, along with a Road Building that could catapult him to longest road, if he can just get another brick to make one more road along with it. Let's imagine this would steal the longest road from player three, and result in the players being tied neck and neck. To you, it may look hopeless, but for player two to refute your assertion that such is the case, he will have to reveal that he sees a path to winning, which could cause player three to be more cautious, resulting in the spoiling of player two's plan.
The last time I played I won, and was ahead the entire time, and yet until the very end at least two of the other players (six-player game) had a fighting chance, one unbeknownst to me (two victory points from Dev cards conveniently left in his lap). It's not fair to the other players for you to decide it's time to call it.
EDIT: It's been awhile since I posted this, and I've played a lot more head-to-head games since. I think it should always be acceptable to concede in a head-to-head game. However, it can also be really fun as the player with the clear lead to actually play out whatever super cool plan you had. So, outside of tournament scenarios where time may be a limitation, I usually play it out even when I'm clearly losing. If I do want to quit and move on in a casual setting, I might say something like, "You've got this one, I concede, but we can play it out if you prefer."

Poor dev card counting can easily let you throw games. All unrevealed dev cards should be considered to be whatever is the worst possible thing that could happen to you.

I believe that a player should be allowed to concede, if it doesn't affect the game, or if it affects the game in a POSITIVE way.
In a two-player game, that's easy. Conceding shortens the game without changing the result, and is an act of good sportsmanship.
In a multiplayer game, it gets trickier. That's because the conceding player may have assets that would affect the balance of power between the REST of the players.
In Monopoly, it could be that there is a "stalemate" between two players, with a third clearly behind. Then what happens to his properties if he resigns? Do they go back to the bank? Does this open up the game for BOTH remaining players, or is one more likely to benefit than the other? If BOTH remaining players agree, then the third player will do well to resign. Maybe the resigner should distribute his properties in an equitable way before resigning.
But it might be that one player is benefiting from the stalemate, and will likely lose if the third player leaves. Then it's essential that he remains in the game. (Maybe he can leave physically, and let some other player "play" his game for him.)
In Diplomacy, a player resigns by declaring civil disorder. But his pieces remain in place, and other players can make alliances with the individual cities to defend them against third parties. So the resignation is "easy."
In Settlers of Catan, a person should be allowed to "resign in place" as in Diplomacy. That is, his cities and cards remain with him (and out of play), but he doesn't continue playing. Other players can use a Monopoly card or the robber to deprive "him" (his position, actually) of some of those cards. This deprives other plays of the chance to trade with him (a minus), but also puts him in the position of NOT having to play "kingmaker" (a plus).

I would rather a player concede than that they make plays that are not in their best interest and thus play "kingmaker".
I haven't played Catan lately so this may or may not be applicable there, but I personally would rather someone:

Keep striving to improve their own score OR
Stop playing entirely and let the rest of us finish the game

Rather than see them purposely cause the game to end early in a way that doesn't help them, or make unfavorable trades just to entertain themselves (which will favor whoever is the lucky recipient).
If all players think the winner is clear, I've occasionally had my group just start a new game, but that's rare and usually only done with the approval of the "winning" player.

I agree - it tends to be the case when my wife, myself and my teenage son play and she is beating the crap out of us :D - both my son and I can see that she has the strong lead and WILL win, but she always gets upset that we don't "finish it up". I think it tends to be selfish to others when you have a large lead and you continue on for your own benefit.

I agree regarding the kingmaker.  I don't like it.    In games that aren't inteded to play with factions and alliances having one player intentionally support another isn't enjoyable, especially if it is for out of game reasons.  If you know that two brothers at the table are going to team up so one or the other can win, it can really break some games that were not designed to support that kind of activity.

Andrew raised some very good point on which I'd like to elaborate.
I don't like the idea of declaring yourself the winner. In most games it is unlikely that you can do this with reasonable certainty. Thus it is presumptuous and - like Andrew explained - potentially unfair.
I do however see some use in conceding a game under certain circumstances.

Tournament play - Lots of CCG's play 3 games per round with a time limit of 20/30 minutes. In such situations it can be preferable to concede a bad game early in order to ensure you have enough time for that 2nd or 3rd game in which you might at least even the score.
In games without termination mechanisms - like Monopoly - it is possible that the last two players develop a sort of stalemate even though one player does have an obvious advantage in assets. Instead of playing until the table rots away one player could simply concede the game - or they could agree to end the game at a defined moment (X more turns, next full hour, etc) and simply call the player with the most assets the winner.
When a player has accumulated such a big disadvantage that it is highly unlikely for him to recover. When the remainder of the game is short I'd still recommend playing it out but if there are still an hour to play then I can understand why they don't want to go through that.

That said, in multiplayer games one player conceding can have a serious impact on the dynamics of the game so it is often worth exploring other options like playing for second and third place.


text:
Can you play Dixit cooperatively with only 2 players?
My son (age 5) enjoys Dixit, but often it's just the two of us. I've come up with my own variant, below, but I want to hear more from the community.
We play with a hand of four cards, and we take turns as active player. The active player gives a hint, as normal, and plays a card face-down. The other player plays, and then two cards from the top of the deck are added to the mix before we shuffle and deal face-up. We play co-op, aiming to have us both guess correctly what the other player chose.

I really like this question, but because of the amount of possible answers it's more suited for a forum and not a Q&A site, so I'm voting to close.

@freekvd - Agreed, but it feels like it could be narrowed down, and it already has a decent answer.

I re-worded the question. Ones with "best" are considered "subjective" and often get closed. I made the question a yes-or-no question that can be answered "objectively."

That doesn't sound too bad, except that the drawn cards could be really off.
Alternatively, you could try to play a cooperative variant.
These two are interesting:

The game is cooperative. Each player is the storyteller five times for
  a total of 10 turns and you go for a high score. The highest possible
  is
  70.
Neither player has a hand. Each turn, the storyteller makes up a story
  without seeing any cards, and then six cards are flipped over from the
  deck and arranged. Both players (must?) vote for two cards that they
  think best match the description, and color matters: use the red peg
  for your 1st vote, and the green peg for your 2nd vote. Then players
  reveal their votes.
For a card where you both voted red, you get 4 points. For a card
  where you both voted green, you get 3 points. For a card where you
  both voted but the colors didn't match, you get 2 points. For a card
  where only one player voted for it, you lose a point.

Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/700350/2-player-cooperative-dixit

How to Play

Deal cards to each player as usual.
Pick a scoring marker for the players (just one marker) and another as a failure marker.
Pick a player to be Storyteller first. I'll refer to 'Storyteller' and 'Player 2'.
The Storyteller picks a card from their hand and gives a clue or tells a story about it, then places the card face down.
Player 2 picks a card from their hand to try to match the clue.
Add 4 random cards from the deck to the chosen cards.
Shuffle them out and places them on the table as usual.
Each player now secretly makes a guess. The Storyteller wants to find Player 2s card. Player 2 wants to find the Storyteller's card.

Reveal your guesses!
If you both guessed the other player's card correctly, cheer and
  advance your scoring marker 1 space.
If either or both of you guessed wrong, pout and advance the failure
  marker one space.
Each draw a new card. If you still have 4 cards left in the deck, swap
  who is Storyteller and proceed to another round.
Try to have more points than failures at the end of the game!
What does this mean? When you are the Storyteller, you want Player 2
  to guess your card. This is easy. You could just say "A city made out
  of eggs", and your partner is sure to guess it.
But...you also want to guess Player 2's card. Give a clue too
  specific, and your partner won't be able to play any card you can
  recognize!
You need to give them enough room to play a card you recognize,
  without making it too easy to be fooled by a random card.
Spirit of the game: No giving "double" clues that are meant to
  describe your card and the card Player 2 is supposed to play
  separately. ("My card is a scarecrow, but your card has plants").
No setting up codes.
No repeating clues.
Remember, you are trying to play a 4+ player competitive game as a 2
  player co-op. Try to break the game and it will break. Go with it and
  have fun and it should provide some amusement. I've tried to make it
  resistant to "casual" abuse at least.

Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/676496/2-player-co-op-dixit-variant


text:
What do I need to consider when creating a new card game variant?
I came up with a card game variant, combining Texas Hold 'Em and Cribbage, with a friend.  You basically follow Hold 'Em play mechanics, and the best hand at showdown is the 5 card hand (2 hole cards + 3 board cards) with the highest cribbage score (counting runs, pairs, 15s, and 1 point for having any Jack.  4 and 5 flushes are allowed if both hole cards are used).
I ran several Monte Carlo simulations and there are definitely advantages to certain starting hands.
So, the questions:

What else do I need to think about/test to call this game final?
How can I determine the optimal betting structure, one that promotes skill over luck (limit/no limit/pot limit)?
How can I best share my game with people who will play it?

p.s. If you decide to talk about/play this game, I really love the tongue-in-cheek name "Gamblin' Cribbage Hold 'Em".

Wow.  It's nice to know I'm not the only one who's considered this!

I'll try to answer the two first questions :

What else do I need to think about/test to call this game final?

Try to keep it simple. The more complicated your rules are, the less entertaining it will be. Remember this famous phrase about poker : "It takes five minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master."
Generally this can be applied to every popular board and card game. Introducing too many variables will also confuse the players, who will find it harder to think about the current hand.
Don't give too much informations. If there are too many cards shown (like in 5-stud) the strategy will be easy, and boring. But if there are not enough cards shown (like in 5-draw) then there is no real strategy at all. Visible cards are not the only source of informations, there is also the number of common/private cards, the number of betting rounds, ... Texas Hold'em became popular because it achieves a very good balance here.

How can I determine the optimal betting structure, one that promotes skill over luck (limit/no limit/pot limit)?

Just try them all. But I don't think you have to choose now. Your players will choose it for you, and the optimal betting structure will become the popular one. Think about Omaha, which was first played in no-limit. Now almost everyone plays Omaha in pot-limit, because there is a better skill/luck balance.


text:
For one who likes trading games like monopoly what's the closest 2-player game with similar dynamics?
I've recently kindled my spouse's joy in board games but she has always enjoyed Monopoly as a child and tends to have that bias when selecting games.
We've played Carcassone and she genuinely enjoys it but is still looking for that trading like game mechanic but mostly in a two player setting. Are there any games that can be considered as such?
Monopoly is purely a chance-based game that involves trading and making money by earning rent and selling property. The main mechanic she tends to favor is the trading and money making. I'm not aware of two player trading games which involve some kind of score (like amount of money) to determine the winner. I would like to know if something like this exists and is worth buying/playing especially for two players.

This is not a true "recommendations" question. The difference is that it is a "close substitutes" question, which is much narrower. Which is why I voted to reopen. See my answer on the related meta question.

I'd try Easy Money.

How about Traders of Genoa?

This is a game of trading, wares, and negotiation. The players take
  the roles of traders in Genoa in the 16th century. They fulfill
  orders, deliver messages, and take ownership of buildings in the city.
  Of course, this is not possible without the help of the other traders
  - thus, the need for clever negotiation. And that can cost money and other valuable goods! The player who earns the most in the game is the
  winner!

http://riograndegames.com/Game/200-Traders-of-Genoa
It's a fair amount more complex than Monopoly, but much less random and there's a lot more negotiation and trading involved. It plays with two, although it is better with more, much like Monopoly. It'll probably take about 90 minutes to play to completion with two.
Currently officially out of print, but you shouldn't have too much trouble tracking down a copy. It's sometimes known as "Genoa" rather than "Traders of Genoa" but it's the same game.

authors: Александр Кобылко


text:
Bidding game (simple SAYC)
Partner opens 1D -- I respond 1H -- Partner responds with 2D -- (I have 3 spades, 5 hearts, 1 clubs, 4 diamonds, 13 hcp) --> I'm tempted to bid 3NT now. Should I always get to game with me and partner both having opening strength even if we don't have 8-card fit? In essence, what do I bid here?
- Bidding 2H shows 5 hearts, but not game values.
- Bidding 3NT - we and partner might not have both together NT distribution.

Do you mean that you have 1 diamond and 4 clubs? If you have 4 diamonds and partner has bid them twice, you certainly have an 8-card fit.

This hand has great potential, depending on the exact cards held. What is your full hand?

A good general principle is that when you have an opening hand and partner opens, you should get to a game.
Partner has advertised a 6+-card diamond suit (some people may rebid 2D with 2353 shape on this auction, but I prefer 2H) and has limited their values (with a good 17-count or better, partner would have a different bid). So you can see that you (probably) don't have an 8-card fit. You don't describe your hand completely, but if you have half a spade stopper or better, 3NT seems like the right place to play. If partner rebids 4D, this is game forcing and suggests some slam interest; it cannot be passed.
If your spades are bad, probably your best rebid is your 4-card club suit; if partner has a spade holding they can rebid 3NT. Rebidding your hearts is not very attractive because you only have 5 of them.

The partnership appears to have a 10-card diamond fit and 26-28 points; enough for 5D, surely?

It was also stated that the pair didn't (or probably didn't) have an 8-card fit and the suits were given out of the standard order, so my assumption was that the asker mislabeled the suits in the hand given.

The appropriate decision, ranging from (just possibly a) pass to investigating slam is critically dependent on the high cards in your hand. For instance, with these hands:
 Axx        xx
 AQxxx      Kx
 Kxxx       AQxxxx
 x          Axx

a grand slam is likely. Alternatively, with these two:
 KJx        xx
 AJxxx      Kx
 KJxx       AQxxxx
 x          Axx

3NT looks like the best contract, and if your 13 points includes distribution then this pair:
KJx        xx
QJxxx      Kx
KJxx       AQxxxx
x          Axx

should be in 5D.
In all three examples partner has the same hand, better than minimum for his bid. I can easily seeing many partners bidding the same way without the QD, in which case all actions have to be a bit more restrained. Give us your complete hand, and you will get better advice.

@woodchips: I'm leading spades on that auction, in a nice even tempo holding either AS or QS, and sitting as demurely as I can while studying dummy. However you are right, 6D is probably good at matchponts, or vulnerable at IMPS. Replace SJx with ST9 and it is a closer call.

@woodchips: Of course in all three cases partner might not have the DQ or equivalent, or CAxx might instead be CAJx

I'd head for game in diamonds. You have 13 high card points, but your singleton club is worth 2-3 more provided that you play in a sut contract.
Your partner probably has at least 13 high card points and 5-6 diamonds. You should have 26 high card points or more between you, plus 9-10 diamonds and the club singleton. Unless your opponents have A of clubs, plus A-K of another suit where you and partner both have at least a doubleton, you'll make five diamonds.
The main question is whether you have a good enough fit for slam. That would occur if your opponents had A, K, Q, J of clubs, and scattered values elseshere, say J, J, Q of the three other suits. On the other hand, slam is "off" if partner (or you) have wasted honors in clubs, meaning that your opponents may have useful honors elsewhere.


text:
Responder' rebid with unbalanced hand (system: Simple SAYC)
I have 1S-4H-4D-4C, 15 PTS. I open 1D -- Partner: 1S --> Now my options are:

I can't bid 1NT (no nt distribution).
I want to show that I have more than minimum (12-14 pts), so I don't want to bid 2C, so I bid 3C. Is my reasoning correct?

In a word, no. A jump shift shows a game forcing hand (something like 18 HCP with that distribution). 2C could be any strength that's not game forcing across from a minimum responder, and is probably your best bid here.

Probably? Undoubtedly! 2C describes the hand as best as a second bid can.

Agreed with Ruds; absolutely do not, under any conditions, bid anything other than 2C with the hand described..
It is important to realize that partner with 10+ support points can be expected to make a game invitation, or reveal the pending misfit by either a simple preference to 2D or a rebid of spades. Your responsibility is to describe your hand, which the simple rebid of 2C does perfectly.


text:
I open 1C -- Partner: 1D -- I bid 1S -- Partner bids 2NT - What 2NT means (System: Simple SAYC)
I open 1C -- Partner 1D -- I respond 1S -- Partner bids 2NT - What 2NT means, and how do I respond to it with this hand: Kxxx-Kx-xx-AQxxx?
Note: since I'm studying simple sayc what concerns me is whether I can bid "pass" here (my considerations were: I don't have 5 spades so we don't have fit, and also since the partner didn't bid 3NT - he doesn't have enough points for game together with my 12 so, nothing left for me to show else here).

In this context 2NT is an invitation to game. Your partner probably has around 11-12 points, so he doesn't know if you have enough points between you to make 3NT (you haven't bid anything that shows more points than the bare minimum needed to open).
As your hand is pretty weak you should pass. If you had 14 or more points then you would bid 3NT.

Assuming that you play 4th Suit Forcing (and possibly artificial), then partner has denied game-forcing values by choosing not to bid 2H. This means that the 2NT bid is invitational, and you should pass to show your minimum.
A hand only a bit better that could consider continuing to 3NT is KT9x-Kx-Tx-AQT9x. Now the extra T's and 9's significantly raises the chance of one black suit running quickly, and vulnerable at IMPs I think a shot at 3NT is justified. You are probably still short of the 50% likelihood needed to consider continuing to 3T in MatchPoints or white at IMPs.

In an auction that starts 1C-1D; 1S, responder might have any of the following types of hands:

Minimum responding values with...

Spade support (Often 4, but sometimes 3 with an unbalanced hand) (2S)
Long diamonds (6+, or possibly 5 with e.g. 1=4=5=3 shape) (2D)
Unbalanced with club support (4+) (2C)
Balanced shape (1NT)

Invitational values with...

4-card spade support (3S)
Long diamonds (6+) (3D)
Club support (4+ with unbalanced shape, e.g. 1=2=5=5, 1=3=5=4) (3C)
Balanced shape (2NT)

Game forcing values with no slam interest and...

4-card spade support (4S)
Balanced shape and a heart stopper (3NT)
Balanced shape and no heart stopper (2H)
Some question about the correct game to play (2H)

Slam interest with...

Self-sufficient diamonds (4D)
A freak two-suiter with diamonds and hearts (3H)
4 spades, excellent values, no suit with 2 quick losers (4NT Blackwood)
4 spades including one of the A, K, Q, plus 9 tricks outside of spades (5NT Grand Slam Force)
Most other hands (2H)

4D and 3H on this sequence are not mentioned in the SAYC, but it seems right to treat them as I have mentioned. 5NT grand slam force is old-fashioned but is required by the SAYC booklet.
You'll notice that 2H shows a lot of different hands; the rest of the auction should clarify your hand to your partner; it's important that they make negative inferences based on the fact that you didn't take a different bid on your second turn. In SAYC 2H is forcing for one round; many/most partnerships form an understanding that when responder bids the fourth suit, it is game forcing (except 1C-1D-1H-1S).
The bids listed in the minimum section are signoffs, though partner may correct to a different signoff based on their shape (e.g. they may pull 1NT to 2C or 2D).

With a response of 1d, partner may have as little as 6-9 points (minimum responding values).
When you rebid 1s, and partner said 2NT, he showed a two response hand of 10-12 points, just below values for an opening hand, but without four spades, since he didn't raise them. Probably a true balanced NT type hand with 2-3 spades opposite your four, 4-5 diamonds, 2-3 clubs, and the rest hearts.
There is a saying that an opening hand opposite an opening hand can make game. That is true if there is a "fit," and you both have something to spare.
In your case, you have a BARE minimum opening hand with 12 HCP points, and partner is showing a SUB-minimum opening hand of 10-12. You probably have 22-24 between you, and no major suit fit, with NT probably being your best spot. You should stop at 2NT, and hope to make eight tricks. Nine is possible, but a stretch.
With a bit more, say the Q of diamonds opposite his, or AQJTx of clubs instead of what you have, I'd raise to 3NT.