text:
How should partner have followed up his takeout double under the following circumstances?
With only them vulnerable at matchpoints, RHO dealt and passed as did I. LHO opened one club in third seat. Partner doubled (takeout) with the following: ♠ KJ5 ♡AKQJ ♢KJ2 ♣ T53.
I bid one spade, my longest suit. (With the benefit of hindsight, I should have jumped to two spades given my eight high card point, but that's another story.)
Opener rebid two clubs. Partner doubled again. I bid my second suit, two diamonds.  LHO bid three clubs, buying the contract. Partner thought about bidding three hearts but elected to pass.W e got a bottom for "selling out" so low.
I was puzzled by partner's second double. Shouldn't he have raised to two spades with his hand? I would have put him on 16-18 points and raised him to three, which was the lowest level where we belonged. Alternatively, he could have bid two hearts treating his strong four card sequence as "five" (Marty Bergen recommends this.). He might also have raised my diamonds later.
Was any of these actions better than his last "pass?"

Partner surely can't raise to 2 spades with only 3 spades!  You've "promised" only 4, and there are some hands where you might have only 3 - e.g. Qxx xxx xxx xxxx

I think we can rule out 3 spades; with no 4-card suit outside of opener's I think it is common to bid the cheapest 3-card suit to keep the auction as low as possible.

I could agree to bidding a 3 card heart suit in preference to spades but surely not a 3 card diamond suit - people these days commonly make takeout doubles of 1C on something like KQJx KQJx Qx xxx (without agreeing to make offshape takeout doubles in general)

Stop being so coy; and tell us your hand. Partner has bid the points off his hand; so explain exactly how Partner's 7 loser hand is turning into an expected 9 offensive tricks opposite your near bust two-suiter.

I figured it out: you're embarrassed to admit you hid your five diamonds Queen in order to show your 4 spades Ace first - completely earning the very well-earned bottom. When will you learn to stop gaming auctions? You must have held something like Axxx x Qxxxx Q9x to make even 3NT playable if the defense isn't sharp.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I had Qxxxx 8xx AQxx x. (All x's are 7 or lower). So picked the right "first" suit to bid with longer spades but stronger diamonds. I plead guilty to miscounting points (seven instead of eight) but not to "gaming." I expected partner to raise spades with my five and his three strong ones and 18 high card points. Certainly a second double was the last thing I expected since I ad bid my longest suit. My bidding was "deficient" but not to the extent that you believe

@TomAu: Goren counts your hand as 10 points. Sheinwold would evaluate it as merely 9+. You underbid your hand by a full king on the response to partner's first double; and by making a minimum call after partner's second double you've denied holding even 4 points, and underbid by two full kings. No partner in the world can recover the partnership after that.

@ForgetIwaseverhere:Now we're getting closer. So you're saying that I essentially removed the ace of diamonds from my hand and bid only the two queens. Is that right? And why would partner double the second time instead of raising spades?

@TomAu: Your 1S bid only promises 4 - how can partner raise spades with the 3 they already promised by doubling?  Especially since, in response to a takeout double, you should bid 1S with 4-4 in the majors (because partner is overwhelmingly likely to have 4 in at least one of them).

@TomAu: It's worse than that. The hand you showed was Qxxxx 8xx 9xxx x.

@AlexanderWoo: Partner had 18 high card points. Opposite my presumed "four," we'd have 22, which has a fighting chance of making two spades even with a seven card fit. And I might have five. AT which point I would probably have woken up and bid three spades saying, "Oh, I have ore than four points." I'm still puzzled as to why partner doubled a second time. Was he hoping I'd name another suit, perhaps hearts?

@ForgetIwaseverhere: What second bid should I have made to say, "I claimed no more than seven high card points the first time, but I have the very top of that range, am within shouting distance of "eight" Could I have gone to three spades or even four with my five spades and my "super seven" points?

@TomAu - yes - the second double hopes you would name a second suit, possibly hearts.  After all,, you could very well have 4-4 in the majors.  It also shows some extra strength, about a king better than a minimum takeout double.

@TomAu - also, your partner is too strong in high cards for a bid of 2S - in competition that should limit his hand to about 15.

@AlexanderWoo: According to Goren, a 2S bid over my one spade would show 16-18. Partner's hand was at the top of that range. Or do "moderns" think differently?

@TomAu - Moderns think differently in competition (when RHO has stuck in a bid) but not otherwise.  Just like everyone now plays 1H-(2D)-3H as showing 2-6 hcp (or 0-9 hcp) and 4 hearts (with stronger raises bidding 3D).

@TomAu - read my response below - all direct raises in competition (i.e. when partner will have another chance to bid if you pass) are based on Law of Total Tricks if that makes sense (but jumps are still strength showing if you couldn't have that many trump based on previous bidding).

I would have bid 1NT instead of the initial X with your partner's hand. I don't have a club stopper, but Systems On, so the likelihood that if they really have a long club suit you will bid Stayman or transfer to a major are high.

It's one thing to overcall 1H on AKQJ, and another to double and the bid hearts. I'm sympathetic to partner's course of action. Would you like to play at the three level across from Qxxx xx xxxx Qxx, with trumps likely breaking badly? 2S at the second turn might work out, but wouldn't you like to keep the hope of game alive in case partner has eg Qxxx xx xxxx AQx (many would choose to bid 1S rather than jump with a minimum, a terrible 4-card suit, and wastage in clubs). If partner has a bust with 5 spades, they can rebid them.
No, the fact is that partner has a difficult hand to bid with more defense than offense. If your partnership was supposed to compete another level higher, it's your fault for misbidding your hand and putting partner in an impossible situation.

After (1A)-X-(?)-1B-(P), a raise to 2B does indeed show a king better than a minimum.  However, after (1A)-X-(?)-1B-(some bid), a raise to 2B no longer shows such a strong hand; it just shows a hand with 4 B's.  That's because letting the opponents play a 2 level contract when you have an 8 card fit is very likely to get you +50 (or -90) instead of +110, a disaster at matchpoints.  In the first case, you have a possibility of buying the contract at 1B (and a second chance to come in if the opponents bid again); in the second case you don't.
All direct raises in competition are weak if you can have sufficient undisclosed length.


text:
Did I have enough information to "balance" in the following situation?
With only us vulnerable, I dealt and passed, as did my left hand opponent. Partner opened 1  diamond, right hand opponent overcalled one spade, and I passed a second time with the following: ♠ QT42 ♡ JT732 ♢T3 ♣ Q8. Left hand opponent raised to two spades, partner passed, as did right hand opponent. This placed me in the "cut off" seat and I passed.
Partner had 20 high card points, and asked me why I didn't "balance" with my five hearts. I said that he should have doubled with his strong hand. WE got a bottom because everyone else with our cards made four or five hearts.
Partner had opened, but in third position, so he might be "light." Diamonds was his longest suit but it was not genuinely long since did not rebid it. I figured out after the hand that partner had to be short in spades (he had a singleton, but it was the ace), since both opponents and I obviously had length. I could therefore figure partner for three or four hearts (he had four), but I didn't know if he had any high cards in the suit; all his values might be in the minor suits.
Was it therefore incumbent on me to bid three hearts with my five hearts but otherwise weak hand? Or should I wait for an actual double before doing so, especially since we were vulnerable versus not?

Your initial pass was absolutely correct. An aggressive bidder might make a negative double at your second turn. But I don't think you had any reason to come in at the three level on your third turn.
Partner has to act again with 20 hcp.

Correct. I'd add further that it's generally agreed only a partner with shortness in the opponent's suit is to be aggressive. That's another reason why a negative double on the second round is overly risky.

There are times when the partner with 15 hcps (or more) should pass,and the person with 5 hcps should balance (or double). This is not one of them.
The issue is the bidder or doubler should be the one with shortness in the opponents' suit. Here you have length in the opponents' suit, which deters you from bidding. Partner also likes to bid with five card suits but here your heart suit is nothing special. Opposite say Qxx of hearts and a 12 point opener, you will go down, perhaps badly, at three hearts.
Partner should have been the one to act with 20s hcps AND the singleton spade ace. The position cried out for a double from him. You would have made three of your best suit with 25 high card points between you.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How far should one go in preferring an eight card major suit game to a no trump game?
Both vulnerable at matchpoints, I dealt and bid one diamond (planning to rebid 2NT) with the following:
♠ JT8 ♡A6 ♢AK76 ♣ AKT4.
An opponent overcalled one heart, and partner bid one spade, showing five. (he would have made a negative double with four.) I followed my plan and bid 2NT. Partner then passed with seven high card points in the following hand: ♠ K7642 ♡K972 ♢J2 ♣ 95. A 3NT bidder got the best score, we got the second best score (out of four pairs), and two spade game bidders (one on each side) went down one (perhaps because the overcaller held AQ95).
Partner later said that he was upset that I didn't raise his one spade bid instead of bidding 2NT, so he miscalculated our point total. While we technically had an eight card fit, I considered our spade holdings to be on the weak side, as evidenced by the failure of the two pairs (we were missing AQ98, four of the top seven cards, despite having eight cards in the suit).
Did it make sense for partner to insist on a major suit game based on the eight card fit? Are there other considerations  (such as our rather balanced hands or partner's lack of intermediate cards) that argue for either a no trump or spade game try? Could it be that with the same cards, one contract is better at one form of bridge, and the other is better at another form?
Or could it be that 2NT was the proper (informationally) bid and partner might have used a three level transfer to get me to bid a spade game with three spades and 3NT with two spades?

Your hand should rebid 3 spades.  The hand with the same shape that would rebid 2N would be JTx; AQ; KQJx; KQJx

@AlexanderWoo: So you're saying I need a stronger heart holding, AQ or AK to bid 2NT? (Or A64, taking a way the club 4 and "flattening" the hand?)

@TomAu: It also helps if both hands listed have 13 cards, rather than 12 and 13. 5-3-2-2 distribution isn't really a thing.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I said, give me A64 of hearts, and take away the 4 of clubs to make the hand ♠ JT8 ♡A64 ♢AK76 ♣ AKT, a 4-3-3-3 shape.

You need one extra trick in 4S.  With your original hand, there are plenty of possibilities for where that trick comes from.  With my hand, there are fewer possibilities, since the heart you might ruff in your hand can now be discarded on the third trick in a minor suit.

If you are not an expert or very close, you should always prefer an 8 card major suit fit to a notrump game.
Experts know better, but it requires a good deal of experience, factors too subtle to explain in a page(*), and (at matchpoints) the ability to judge when you need to gamble to make 10 tricks at NT because +600 would be a bad score.
(*) If I remember correctly, Woolsey's Matchpoints book devotes a whole chapter to this topic.  Judgement and luck (it's not always clear which is which) on 3N vs 4M decisions frequently decide national championships (at MPs or BAM), so it's an important topic.

I think there is a lot to be said for the four of a major contract at matchpoints. At rubber or IMPS, I consider the nine-trick 3NT contract safer, and I'm much less worried about the extra 20 points.

But having only one heart stopper is worrisome at 3N, especially since you can't hold up more than once.

My experience with no trump is that if you get that "first" trick with one stopper, you can rattle off six or seven tricks, going down one, maybe two at worst. If partner has a "second" stopper in the opponents' suit, you will actually make 3NT. Also, if you and partner have a good fit that allows you to take eight tricks on the run.

@TomAu - At IMPs, unless the opponents are making something, down 1 is not so good and not much better than down 3.

This isn't really an answer, but rather an opportunity to brag.  This hand more or less won us the District 19 Flight A NAP qualifier a few weeks back - a nice occasion for my first open 2 session game win ever.
As dealer, vulnerable against not, I hold S: KT H: AKQ863 D: J53 C: A7.  We're playing a version of Precision, so the bidding goes
1C (16+ any) 2D (9-11 or 15+ balanced)
2H (natural) 2N (<3 hearts, 4+ controls (so 2 aces or ace and 2 kings))
At this point, I think about all the hands where partner could have exactly 2 hearts, 9-11 hcp, and 4+ controls, and conclude that most of them will make as many tricks in NT as in hearts.  We're the only pair in 3N, for a top, which turned out to be just a little less than the winning margin.

Very nice. Congratulations! I do think there is more to be said on this hand though, particularly as to how it applies to the OP: (1) It's hard to imagine a hand where hearts will make more tricks - one is really putting some very specific combinations in Partner's hand. (2) If it was a close call, apply Hamman's Law: If 3 NT is one of the reasonable choices being considered - then just bid it. (3) Certain inferences are available from LHO's silence over your 1 club opening that suggest the opponents hands and points tend to be more evenly distributed than not, despite your own six card suit.

I don’t think your partner should have passed. Your jump in NT must show a hand just short of an opening 2NT, so they know game is on. Then whatever mechanisms you have (transfers, etc.) should let you find out whether 3NT or 4S is the better resting place.
Of course, when partner’s hand goes down, the opponents will call the director, because dummy only has 12 cards

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


text:
Can you use Stayman (or other means) to rescue an inadequately protected 2NT bid?
This is a followup to a previous question.
Neither vulnerable, I opened 2NT after two passes with the following: ♠ AKQ ♡ Q72 ♢AK872 ♣ Q8. This is a "conventional" holding with the a weak spot in clubs.
An answer to the other question showed that partner should have passed with his actual holding, but Stayman was the correct bid if his hand were upgraded by adding at least another jack, giving him something like ♠ J842 ♡JT95 ♢QJ ♣ 732. So let's say this was the case.
My responses to Stayman would be the following: I would bid spades or hearts if I had four of either major. With my actual hand, I would bid three diamonds, showing five of the suit. I would bid 3NT with either a 3-3-4-3 shape (four diamonds), or long clubs.
The problem was that left hand opponent had AKxxxxx of clubs and AK of hearts, and was able to run nine tricks. Give me Q82 of clubs instead of Q8, I would have had third round control of clubs, taken the queen, seven tricks in the "pointed" suits (diamonds split 2-2), and only gone down one, instead of "many." IMHO, partner should have been inclined to play in diamonds since he had four and my bid would indicate five (with a stronger hand, partner could raise to five diamonds).
So after a 2NT bid, should the partners probe for alternatives using Stayman (or other means) and plan an escape suit unless responder is so balanced that 3NT is clearly indicated?
Edit: I just realized that the convention I might want is called "Puppet Stayman". It may or may not work for this hand, but it could help others.

Presumably LHO had long clubs, not long spades as you write. Also, partner has only two diamonds in every hand you've given. How would they break 2-2? And why would partner prefer to play diamonds over no trump with QJ tight?

It's disingenuous to state that LHO had AKxxxxx [of clubs and presumably not spades] when a simple inspection of the hand makes clear that it was one of AKJT9xx, AKT9xxx, AKJ9xxx, or AKJTxxx. The outstanding middle cards make all of these holdings much stronger than you imply.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: IMHO, the salient point of  LHO's club  holding was the length, not the middle cards. AKJT9 wasn't nearly as threatening as the actual holding, because with two fewer clubs in West, I would hopefully had Q8x for a third round stopper, after which I could take seven pointed suit tricks and go down only one.  On the other hand, if you give me Q8, West AK, and specify that West has five more and my partner has three more (at random), West is a favorite to have the Jack and drop partner's three cards, even if they were T97.

When evaluating a bidding agreement, you should consider the following factors:

Utility: What do we gain when we use it?
Opportunity cost: What do we give up by changing to this agreement?
Frequency: how often does it come up?
Memory load: How difficult is it to remember?

I think that your proposed Stayman responses give up far more than you gain.
What you gain is sometimes playing 3D instead of 2NT or 3NT. Some of the time that will actually improve your score, and sometimes it won't, so the gain is questionable to start with. When you do end up play 3NT, defenders have more information about the shape of declarer's hand, which will aid their defense. For example, if the clubs had split 4-4 instead of 7-1 against the hand in your question, your 3D response might push LHO to lead a club instead of a heart from xx Kxxx xxx Kxxx.
What you give up is accurate game and slam bidding when partner has some values and both majors. Your responses preclude the use of the Smolen convention, which allows responder to show 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors after opener's 3D response to Stayman. This is a clear loss that must outweigh the dubious gains.
I also think the memory load is a little more than you may give credit for; Stayman is one of the best-known and earliest-learned conventions, and reflex may cause you or your partner to bid 3D without a 5-card suit.

Many other pairs play some form of Puppet Stayman over 2C, allowing them to open 2N with 5332 hands with a 5 card major and still find 5-3 major suit fits.  (Note, without being able to open 2N, 5332 hands with 20-21 points and a 5 card major are quite difficult to handle.)

Yes, and they forget so often that ACBL's alert procedures prohibit an alert of 3C when it is puppet (which may allow one partner to remind the other, or the 3C bidder to "forget" when partner fails to alert).

And I would say that they aren't so difficult to handle; you just end up playing 3NT even when you have a 5-3 fit in a major (with the strong hand holding the major). This isn't such a disadvantage, as a suit contract is not as important to find when the strong balanced hand is the one with 5 trumps.

I am studying a system whereby one can open 2NT with ANY 20-21 high card points--may be unbalanced (and therefore must be alerted). In these kind of systems,  you need a rescue sequence to keep you out of of NT when one suit is inadequately protected (here clubs, even though the hand is technically balanced). The main point of the bid is "I have 20-21 high card points. Do you have the 6 or so that we will need to make game in NT or a major assuming a reasonable fit?" Responder will act with a minimum or 5-6, otherwise pass.

@TomAu but why? It's already difficult to place a contract appropriately after a 2NT opening when it's narrowly limited as to strength and shape. What do you hope to gain by opening it up further?

@ruds: Because I want to make it an all purpose" bid. IMHO, the gain in flexibility offsets the loss in "accuracy." It's BECAUSE the 2NT bid is so hard to place that I seek compensation in flexiblity.

I think this is not the right way to think about it. All else being equal, the more room you take up with a bid, the more constrained it should be. That's because there's less room for followups to untangle the different hand types. This is maybe survivable because 20-21 HCP hands are so low frequency, but what do you gain? "Flexibility" is not really a benefit. The reason that we use doubles so flexibly is that it takes up the least possible space in the auction, so that our bids can be better defined. That's also why strong 1C systems gained popularity: maximum room for followups.

Realistically, the right sequence there is going to put you in 3NT, and you’ll make nearly every time. Yes, you’ll have weird situations where everything is against you as this was; but so many more times you find the right game by bidding correctly.
Will you have perfect stoppers in every suit? No.  But you don’t really have room to find out if clubs is covered - you give that up, but in exchange you get a much simpler bidding sequence for a LOT of games.
Don’t be discouraged by a single sequence where you drew the short end of the stick. I suspect in duplicate you’ll find most tables were in 3NT down a bunch.


text:
Is a 4-3-3-3 shape as negative in a no trump as in a suit contract?
With a "12 point" hand like ♠ QJ2 ♡K64 ♢A42 ♣ Q852, I might pass, rather than open in first or second seat because of its "flat" shape, for which I would deduct a point. It also has no four card major.
But upgrade the hand to ♠ QJ2 ♡K64 ♢A42 ♣ KQ85, and I have a 15 pointer that I would open 1 NT with. Put another way, I would not deduct a point for the flat distribution because I consider it an advantage in no trump (all four suits are guarded). I worry less about the "flatness" of the hand because I need only nine tricks, not ten, for game.
Is it reasonable to treat flat hands this way? Or should I be more "consistent" and deduct one point for no trump hands with 4-3-3-3 distribution as well, and therefore open one club?

You should downgrade balanced hands (or not) consistently. Bidding systems are generally designed for opener to be able to show a balanced hand and its narrowly limited range by the second round of bidding at the latest. Your partner should have a good understanding of what those narrowly limited ranges look like. Opening 1C and rebidding 1NT is just as much a balanced action as opening 1NT, so there's no real call to use different evaluation methods for the two auctions.
My advice would be not to downgrade. Bidding systems have tended toward opening more aggressively, not less, over time. This is because getting into the auction has way more upside than downside.

When bidding one of a minor, there might not be a problem when that is not my real suit. But the lack of a five card suit is a handicap when bidding a major.

I added the words "balanced hands" to the first sentence to clarify what I meant. I'm not sure what bidding a major has to do with these sequences.

I would definitely pass with your first hand. Not only is it flat, but it doesn't match rule of 20, and the unsupported Q is not really worth 2 points.
But I'd open 1 NT with your 2nd hand. Yeah, it's flat, but here the lesser honors are supported and all the suits are at least somewhat protected.

Your second point in the first paragraph is completely inaccurate. There is no reason to devalue unsupported quacks in suits of 3 or more cards. Not only are these cards adequately guarded, but the chance of developing a trick from Qxx or Jxx is vastly improved, in both cases, over having just 9xx. It's vital to recognize that the value counted for high cards also includes their effect on promoting length tricks in their suit. That's a key factor in why short honour holdings are devalued.


text:
What is the most expeditious way to defeat this (overbid) slam?
With nobody vulnerable (at matchpoints), I opened two spades (weak) as East. Partner, West, who had a big hand, raised me to six spades. (All other pairs stopped at four spades.) South doubled with ♠7 ♡KQJ9 ♢AQ95 ♣ JT84.
If one were playing South, it seems like the most logical way to defeat the contract was to lead the King of hearts, force out the ace, and hope to take a second round heart trick, followed by the ace of diamonds. A similar method (recommended by the club expert) would be to take the ace of diamonds first, followed by the king of hearts lead. South actually led the Jack of clubs, captured by dummy's ace, which allowed me to make the hand, because I had gained a valuable tempo to set up discards.
So was the king of hearts or the ace of diamonds the theoretically better opening lead, or didn't it matter? (Either would have worked as the cards lay.) Put another way, does South need to save his ace of diamonds as a potential entry to his hearts?
And should South have doubled at all? In his shoes, I would have felt lucky that the opponents overbid to six spades and not risked telling declarer where all the opposing strength lay. (North had nothing so East-West had the balance of the points.) If East had gone down, East would have gotten a "rounder bottom" instead of the "rounder top" but it would not have affected the matchpoints score.

What are your agreements on weak 2's?  What investigative tools did West have at their disposal that they chose not to use?  (What would 2N by West have meant?  Did E-W have some ace-asking (or keycard-asking) bid available?  Did West have a splinter available?)  The point is that, if West is a good player, there is some reason they just bid 6S rather than investigate if partner had an appropriate hand, and I would definitely ask questions before choosing an opening lead.

@AlexanderWoo: There were no (operative) agreements in place. This partner bids using the "guess" method.

@Alexander Woo raises excellent questions, that should be asked before choosing a lead against good opponents - but I've seen you and partner around the club before, and won't bother. God gifted me the heart Jack; so lacking a second spade I will pass in tempo and place heart King (or Queen playing Lavinthal-ish leads) on the table.
Either this hand is cold; or West is hoping to steal a fast one on either a cross-ruff or a running second suit. Without a second spade (and one in partner's hand without an entry does no good), my only hope is to get my two red tricks before clubs set up.

OK, so no need to double and give out information. And South's best chances are in the red suits, hoping that "dummy" miscalculated by jumping to directly six. And South should avoid clubs at all costs, right?

@TomAu: Yes. Regardless of any specific agreements that may (or may not) be in use, opponents are taking a flyer based either on anticipated ruffs or running the club suit. I can only defend the latter, so I do.

Actually,  Wests overbid  may have been a miscalculation tat was less egregious than I originally thought. She had two weaknesses, a doubleton Ax of hearts, and only  second round control of diamonds. Take away the low heart or upgrade the K of diamonds to the ace, and 6 spades would have been cold. As for South, leading out his big red cards on which he had doubled was "a chance against a certainty" (of loss with a club lead),


text:
How should I choose which game to bid with this strong but misfit hand?
With only us vulnerable at matchpoints, I opened one club in second seat with this powerhouse: ♠ Q52 ♡AQT5 ♢void ♣ AKQ852.
Left hand opponent passed, partner bid one diamond, right hand opponent bid one spade.
I made a negative double showing four hearts and zero to limited tolerance for diamonds and spades. Partner rebid three diamonds, which under our system showed seven diamonds and 12-13 high card points.
I froze at the misfit and passed. We got a bottom because all other pairs with our hands bid and made either five diamonds or 3 NT. The five diamond bidders got average minus, and the 3NT bidders shared tops on the board.
With the benefit of hindsight, five diamonds at least, was cold. I could count on partner for at least six diamond tricks and one side trick or five diamond tricks and two side tricks. I had at least four in my hand (the AKQ of clubs and the A of hearts), making a total of 11.
Can I reasonably venture 3NT with my shaky spade stopper? Or should I have gone for the "safe" game with five diamonds. And would my "pass" have been reasonable if my hand had been slightly weaker, say with hearts headed by the KJ rather than AQ? (I believe I had a reasonable fear of lack of "transportation" to my hand in the club suit, but should not have feared this lack to both the club and heart aces.)

You still have the psychology that overbidding is worse than underbidding.  That's not how duplicate bridge scoring works.  If you don't go down half the time, you're not bidding enough.

@AlexanderWoo: Yes,in the 1960s,  I was taught to "bid to make"  and to shun "50%" contracts (depending on a finesse or slightly better). Nowadays, the ethos seems to be "bid to go down one," on the theory that the penalty, unless doubled and vulnerable, is less than the value of the opposing part score.

One more thing: I hold this more extremely than most - always prefer 3N to 5 of a minor at matchpoints, even when it's wrong and you're playing for the opponents to misdefend.  The times you make 430/630 (sometimes because the opponents fail to cash the first 5 tricks when they could have) rather than 400/600 will more than make up for the times 3N goes down.

@AlexanderWoo: I am somewhat on that page. When I bid NT, I (almost) always have at least a "half stopper" in every suit except the ones that partner bid. I expect same from my partners if they leave me in NT. Two "half stoppers" make a whole stopper (e.g. Qx opposite Jxx). If every suit is thus stopped, two hands that can make 11 minor suit tricks can make nine or more tricks at NT.

At matchpoints, being +630 2/3 of the time and -100 1/3 of the time is better than being at +600 (or +620 - it's almost the same score in this situation) all the time.  Even when you don't have a stopper, they might not find the right lead.  IMPs is different of course.

@TomAu: Yes, your "bidding to go down one" makes sense if the opponents have something on themselves. Competition bridge doesn't score how many contracts you made. It scores what your result is in comparison with the rest of the room. So you can go three down, doubled, at favourable vulnerability, if the opponents can make a game; one down, doubled, against a part score.

There are a number of things to unpack here.
First, your double was not "negative." A negative double is a convention used by responder. Your double does not promise four hearts in standard bidding agreements. It suggests extra strength and no clear direction. Your second call should have been 2 hearts, not double. You have a textbook hand for that action: significant extras, four or more hearts, and longer clubs.
Second, you must not pass short of game. According to your rather specific agreement about partner's jump in diamonds, you have 29-30 high card points between your two hands. You must, must, must, must be in a game, not a partscore.
Third, your stopper is not shaky, given the auction. How could opponents possibly be able to cash five spades? It is unlikely in the extreme for LHO to hold Kxx or Axx in spades, and in my book impossible to hold four to an honor; after all, they didn't raise. I suppose you might find yourself guessing if RHO wins a small spade lead with a high honor and then continues with the J or ten; is your RHO the sort of player who would find that defense holding AKJT4 in spades? This is all assuming partner comes down without any help, like Jx(x).
Follow Hamman's rule: if you have a choice of bids and one of them is 3NT, bid 3NT.
That's still the case if you have KJxx in hearts instead of AQxx (where your double instead of 2H is justifiable, though I still think it's an underbid). In order for 3NT to go down, you need partner to have something like Jx Axx KQJxxxx x (their 3D bid precludes having less), with clubs breaking badly. It's still an OK contract across from partner's worst possible hand. More likely, partner will have two or more clubs, a spade card, the ace of diamonds, or other cards that make 3NT a virtual laydown. Just bid the game.

Good answer. I think you should emphasize the final point more though: If Partner's worst possible hand still is playable - bid the contract.

@ForgetIwaseverhere good suggestion, done.

This is the setup I feared would defeat 3NT. RHO (overcaller) has AJxxx Kxx xx xx. (She would overcall with this holding) LHO has Kxxx xxx xxx xxx (the T of spades could be in either hand). LHO leads fourth highest, spade taken by the ace. RHO shoots back the J through my queen for a finesse. Partner could (and in fact did have) AKQ of diamonds, which implies one side king. If it is the K of spades, we're fine. If the king of hearts, spades would be fatally weak. And as for why I doubled instead of reversing in hearts, I miscounted my 17 high card points as "14."

If you're worried about your spade stopper, you can bid 3S, which asks partner to bid 3N with a spade stopper.

@TomAu - what's the likelihood that the opponents have that holding and find that defense?  If it's less than 50%, then you should bid 3N (or you can bid 3S to try to find out).  There are no weird matchpoint odds things going on here - the amount you lose by passing when 3N is right is exactly the same as what you lose by bidding 3N when passing is right - so you should do what is more likely.

@TomAu that defense isn't fatal, it's a guess. If lho started with Kxx, you duck the jack. Opponents get three spades but can't get to rho's hand for any more. If lho started with eg Txx, then rho started with AKJxx and is attempting a swindle.

Oh, I see that you're giving 4 spades to lho including the K. This seems unlikely in the extreme to me.

@ruds - of course if i were LHO i would bid 2S on xxx x xxxx xxxxx and 3S on xxxx x xxxx xxxx - but I wouldn't count on the players at his club understanding how good a score -100 is.

I'm going to add one further consideration to those already mentioned in the answer by ruds and comments by Alexander Woo: Your additional strength, beyond minimum, both interferes with defensive communication making the setting defenses more difficult, and gives you and partner additional threats that may allow a squeeze or endplay to exist. Don't discount those. They can be considerable (at least for sufficiently accomplished declarers), even if they are not identifiable during the auction.
Yes, pathological card-lies exist - but don't fear them when all evidence suggests they are unlikely to rare. Especially in match points, you wish to bid with the field; except when your particular system gives you information that the field lacks.

Go for 3NT.
The obvious misfit is disconcerting, but the sheer high card strength makes up for it.(And this matters less in a no trump contract.) You have solid club strength, substantial heart strength, and a modicum to strength in spades, with weakness only in partner's diamond suit.
Partner has solid or near solid diamonds. Even so, to get to 12-13, partner would need either the king of hearts or the ace or king of spades. Any one of these three honors would establish communication between the two hands. Worst case: partner's side honor is the king of hearts. Your queen of spades is probably a stopper with the opening lead to your hand. Barring Forget's "pathological card lie" which could happen on any hand, the opponents will make two spade tricks and the rest are yours.
You asked what would happen if your hand were weaker,specifically in hearts.
That would not be a problem. Only the absence of the spade queen would fatally weaken the hand for three no trump, and only if partner also had no spade stopper. Many people would take the chance of this happening.


text:
What are the minimum requirements for a one level overcall?
I was taught that you need at least eight high card points to "overcall" at the one level against an opposing opening bid. In a pinch, "seven" would do if they were all in your (five card) overcall suit, like AKxxx or AQJxxx. That is, a maximally strong suit with no "stranded" or otherwise wasted honors.
In an article by an expert (Frank Stewart), a non-vulnerable player overcalled one spade over a one club opening bid with
♠ QT975
♡ A3
♢ KJ53
♣ T6

That's ten high card points, but on the other hand, the spade suit is much weaker than AKxxx. In fact, both the hand, and the suit are basically "average," not above average.
Is is OK to overcall like this with only an average hand and average suit? And is a strong suit adequate compensation for only 7-8 high card points?

I would consider it mandatory to overcall with that hand at the 1 level; it's a fairly good 10 count.
Lots of fairly likely bad things can happen if you pass.  Partner can show up with something like KJx; xxx; Qxx; xxxx, where both 2S makes your way and 2H makes their way, and passing has just cost you 6 IMPs.  Partner could even show up with AKxx; xxx; Axx; xxx and you have missed a 50+% (opener is more likely to have the QD) game by passing.  Not much bad can happen from a bid at the 1 level; it takes very unusual distribution for the opponents to be able to set you for more than the value of what they can make.
It's also not bad for partner to lead the suit; a lead away from their Kxx won't hurt you.
I'll overcall 1S over 1C, nonvulnerable, with something like KQxxx xx xxxxx x - that's aggressive but not the most aggressive I've seen.

There are essentially three things that you might be trying to do with an overcall: guide the defense, show values, and get in the opponents' way. You're generally not trying to do all three things every time.
With something like AQJxx x xxx xxxx, you're telling partner where you live. You'd like a spade lead (especially from a holding of Kx or Tx, which aren't usually attractive holdings to lead from), and you wouldn't be terribly upset to find yourself declaring 2 or 3 spades against opponents' partscore, possibly going down one into their +140. If partner takes some strong action, you will take whatever the weakest action is at your turn to bid.
With this hand, when partner has an average hand, the hand belongs to you. You have a fairly offensive hand, but you still have some defense. Again, you would be happy to declare a partscore in spades, but you're also willing to defend or even make it to game if partner has a suitable hand. You wouldn't be thrilled to see partner lead the SK, but it probably won't destroy the defense. If you pass, partner won't think you have values this good and a 5-card spade suit.
This overcall is especially attractive over 1C. 1S preempts responder's most likely call of 1H, and if the auction continues (X)-2S, opener will not know whether responder has good values or good hearts (or neither). The call is somewhat less attractive over a 1D opener (although your diamond honors would be well-positioned in that scenario), but still attractive over 1H, because you want your partner to compete with a spade fit. If you swapped your majors, 1H is less attractive because your spade doubleton suggests that you'll lose any partscore battle, but it's still worth getting in there because of the values.
Note: If you rearrange the suits so that you hold Ax KJxx QT9xx Tx, this is not nearly good enough to overcall 2D over 1S, but still worth 1D over 1C.

One point not yet mentioned is the strategic (not just tactical) importance of the two round-suit doubletons. These are not just a significant offensive value: but indicate that you are most likely shorter than Partner in the opponents longest/best suit. One key way to avoid misfits in competitive auctions is for the partner with shortness in opponents suit(s) to get your side into the auction, removing the burden from a Partner with 3 or more cards; and here that is likely you. So overcall 1S.
If RHO has happened to open 1D, there is no reason to discount the above. If that call was made short then opponents' best suit remains likely to be be Hearts or Clubs; and if that call was made long you are sitting over it with length and strength that can be expected to play well both offensively and defensively. It would not be unusual for the auction to continue:
  1D  1S  2/3D  *

on a hand bad for either side on offense, which you could comfortably choose to convert for penalty.
An auction like this suggests that Opener has at most 4 Hearts (since didn't open 1H), and LHO has at most 3 Hearts ( no Negative Double), which with your doubleton means Partner has at least 4 and most likely 5 Hearts. Why not 6 Hearts? Because Partner has also shown Club support, which suggests both opponents may be close to 4333 hands playing against unfavourable breaks. Open the play with A and a small Heart and read Dummy and Partner's play for clues to Partner's early entry.


text:
Which of these hands should be opened in which late positions?
With no one vulnerable at matchpoints, I passed in first position with ten high card points. Ditto for second seat with eight high card points.
Partner passed in third seat with eleven points and a weak five card spade suit: ♠ 97642 ♡75 ♢KJ3 ♣ AK3.
Then fourth seat passed with eleven high card points and a slightly stronger heart suit: ♠ K5 ♡JT964 ♢AQT9 ♣ J5.
My understanding is that third seat should usually open after two passes with 11 high card points and a five card major but is ♠ 97642 too weak? For instance, if partner can't tolerate spades, can s/he bid and reasonably hope to make INT with 8-10 high card points? How about 11 high card points and five hearts in fourth seat?
Switch the third and fourth seat hands so that five hearts were in third seat, and five spades were in fourth seat. Should they both open, both pass, or one open and one pass?
(We got a bottom because others with our 21 high card points and eight spades made two spades.)

This hand highlights the 3rd seat dilemma well! Partner opens 1S then you push to 3S with 10-points and go off 1, donating 50 to opponents on a hand getting passed out. Drury is useful to keep responder in check, but what if 4th seat bids 2H and you feel obliged to cue bid 3H? And, How does it compare with waiting to see whether opponents do open 1H and partner bids or doubles later?

I would not open in 4th seat with the five heart hand - the traditional rule is to add your high card points and your spades, and open if you have 15.  This hand is a good example - you should not open that hand in 4th seat because chances are opponents can make 2S over your 2H, which means 4th seat's par score is -50/100 for going down 1 in 3H.
I would open the five spade 3rd seat hand even in 1st seat in most of my partnerships.  Maybe not 2nd seat.  I'd definitely open 3rd seat.  It's not a good suit, but the preemptive effect of a 1S bid is too much to pass up.  On average, 4th seat will be stronger than you, and making them overcall 2H instead of opening 1H - and giving partner a chance to compete to 2S (or 3S if they have 4) is a big deal.
If partner can take a joke and LHO is looking eager, I might open that hand 2S in 3rd seat.
Switch the hands and I would open both, that is the five heart hand in third seat, and the five spade hand in fourth seat.  I would give more consideration to opening 2H with the 4th seat hand in 3rd seat than I would to opening 2S with the 3rd seat hand in 3rd seat - it's got more distribution and 1H is less preemptive than 1S - but I still wouldn't normally do it.

So with these borderline hands, "seat" becomes a very important consideration. That is a hard concept to grasp.

@TomAu - consider that each seat progressively has more information at hand (pun intended) so the calculus changes. Sort of like the Monty Hall problem - when the goat is revealed you now have better information. As each person passes, you know more about possible point/card distributions.

@JonCuster: So it's like poker: A later position player has an advantage over an early position player with the same cards.

Other than never playing an aggressive enough game to think of opening this (spade) hand in 1st seat, I concur with everything stated here. (Some of my partners might have though, especially white against red.) @TomAu: Perhaps ask a question about the changing calculus of second, third, and fourth hand, where the subject could be given its proper due.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I did ask about the "calculus" of the third and fourth positions. I thought introducing second position would complicate the question too much.

@TomAu - correct - so third seat with hearts is weaker than third seat with spades because of the (likelihood) that 4th seat can overcall spades, but not vice-versa. And 4th seat has the added info of knowing you are long in hearts, so that eliminates one of the opponents from being long, and increases the likelihood that partner has spades.

People often open significantly light in 3rd seat -- last night I opened a 9 count, which kept the opponents from finding a slam. It helps to play Drury if you do this regularly.

Seconding the Drury recommendation -- you need to have a way to slow partner down when you open these hands (and seconding everyone else that you need to open these hands at matchpoints).


text:
Why is the rationale for requiring a minimum 5-4 distribution for an "unusual" 2NT overcall?
At least, that's the understanding I got from this source on conventions (clause 4 of the "overcalls" section).
My preference is for 5-5 in the minors or the two lowest relevant suits, and a minimum of eight high card points in the two suits. If the distribution were 5-4, I'd want two extra high card points, a total of 10. Taking this way of thinking to its ultimate conclusion, I would be satisfied with a 4-4 distribution and 12 high card points.
One way of looking at it is that you need 5-5 distribution for such a weak bid. Another way is that 4-4 is "enough" if your high card strength is sufficient to compensate. To me, the 5-4 requirement is "neither here nor there." Put another way, if four cards was adequate for one suit, it should be enough for both suits. It seems like a "compromise" between the two positions. Are there "playing" reasons for such a posture (that is, are people more likely to get into trouble if they use the "4-4" standard that I advocate)? Or was "compromise" the reason this standard was adopted to make things easier for "Basic" players?

The convention chart document that you were reading is in no way a suggestion of how conventions should be played, or even necessarily a description of conventions that are actually played. Instead, it provides four charts setting out rules of which conventions are legal to play when the chart is in effect.
The clause you refer to is within the Basic Chart, which is intended only for limited events with beginner players. It says that an overcall of 2NT that shows at least 5-4 in the minors or in the two lowest unbid suits is legal. That also allows the much more common agreement wherein 2NT shows at least 5-5 in the minors or in the two lowest unbid suits.
Beginners will almost certainly never see this document; in my experience, most bridge players have at most passing familiarity with the laws of bridge and with additional regulations provided by national bridge organizations. If they do see this document, they must not take it as an instruction of how to bid; its only purpose is to restrict the legal bidding agreements in bridge games conducted under the aegis of the ACBL.

Why can't I have any bidding agreement I want, as long as I "alert" appropriately and am willing to accept the consequences of ending up in bad contracts? In the extreme case, if my partnership agreement is to open or overall 7NT regardless (or to pass regardless), isn't it enough of a consequence that we get a match bottom every time because of how bad a strategy that is?

The short answer is that there are agreements that are effective and destructive that make the game less entertaining, and the ACBL disallows those agreements because they think it makes the game worse. This is not an uncontroversial statement.

Notably, most national organizations put some limits on legal bidding agreements but the ACBL is more restrictive than most.

Can you give a source where this concept of effective and destructive agreements is discussed and explained, with some examples of such agreements?

You can get a definition of "Purely Destructive Initial Action" from the document itself. There are many discussions online about whether the convention charts are too restrictive, e.g. here. A comment in this thread specifically talks about actions that are both destructive and effective.

A holding of 5-4 in two suits is considered a "two suited" hand. So is a holding of 6-4, and also 5-5.
So 4 cards is considered a sufficient holding in a "second" suit. But it is not considered enough for a "first" suit (except in a three suited 4-4-4-1 distribution.
What separates a 4-4 holding from a 5-4 or 6-4 holding is that the latter two have only four and three cards respectively outside their main suits. The first has five cards outside.


text:
Should I have opened the following hand in fourth position?
With everyone vulnerable at duplicate, there were three passes to me. I passed in fourth position holding the following: ♠ QJT642 ♡4 ♢K95 ♣ KJ3. We got a bottom because everyone else with our cards bid and made two spades.
Did I make a mistake to pass? While I had a "weak two" bid, I didn't see the merit of taking chances when I could get a zero score with a hand that was average in high card points (10). One consideration is my understanding that opening this hand at the one level is "barely legal" under ACBL rules. Take away a jack, and it would not be.

Stop it with the irrational loss aversion.  Getting 0 when everyone else your way is +110 is just as bad as getting -500 when everyone else your way is 0.

@AlexanderWoo: From what i understand, opening this hand at the one level is "barely legal" under ACBL rules.  The minimum requirement under the rule of 19 is high card points plus the length of the two longest suits. 10+6+3 barely qualifies, 9+6+3 does not. Take away one of the jacks, and you'd have to open a weak two. The main point of many of my questions is that they are "right at the edge" of one limit or another, and the question is, if this is barely "in bounds, is it "too close to the edge?" Here is another "edge" question. https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/59428/which

Natural opening bids have to meet rule of 19 under the Basic chart. However, under the Basic+, Open, and Open+ charts, natural opening bids only have to meet the rule of 17.  Only games restricted to newer players are under the Basic chart; by default games are played under the Open chart.  (To be precise, these are not rules about what you can bid but about what you and your partner are allowed to agree; though repeated usage constitutes implicit agreement.)  Many experts consider these rules silly and, if allowed, think they would improve their results by opening lighter in some situations.

@AlexanderWoo: One ACBL rule application I consider silly is that you can't open 1 of something with AKQxxxx xx xx xx (although you can do so with AKQxxx xxx xx x (that is a 7-3-2-1 and nine high card points), even though this is clearly a "bid to make" situation. Even so, the presence of ACBL rules impacts my thinking.

I'm ineligible for games played under the Basic chart, so every game I play in allows me to open AKQxxxx xx xx xx.

On the Basic chart natural opening bids must be of at least average strength, which is defined as either 10 high card points or meeting the rule of 19. Your hand satisfies both conditions.

A general idea in bridge (like many games) is that you should take actions which maximize your expected value. Sometimes fourth seat openings provide a very pure version of that problem. If you pass, you end the auction and score zero. Therefore, you should open when you expect to achieve a positive score.
One rule of thumb designed to evaluate that question is the rule of 15. This instructs you to add your hand's point value to the number of spades in your hand. If the result is at least 15, open the hand. This hand clearly passes that bar. Why is the rule structured this way? If you have 10 or 11 points, the fact that the three other players have passed indicates that (a) the high cards are fairly evenly distributed among the four hands, and (b) the limit of the hand is probably a partscore. When you control the boss suit (spades) you are likely to win a partscore battle. On the other hand, if you have 14 or more points, there's a decent shot your partnership can make a game, so you're willing to open to try to find that game even if you sometimes allow the opponents to win a partscore battle.
As for weak twos, there are no weak openings in fourth seat. What would be the purpose when you can just pass? Instead, you have an intermediate opening, showing something like 10-14 with a six-card suit. This is still preemptive, as it makes it much more difficult for opponents to find a profitable partscore contract, but it is not weak: you expect that the contract will make most of the time.

I believe the use of intermediate in the final paragraph is incorrect. That adjective should still remain as describing the 15-17 point range, just as in other positions. The 10-14 point range you give for that is the range of a minimum opening in the other three positions, and so is again appropriate here.

If one follows the rule of 15, I should open even with a point less (take away my Jack of Clubs), because I have six spades. Would you agree?

@ForgetIwaseverhere: If you agreed to play intermediate jump overcalls (which is nowadays a rare but not nonexistent treatment), I would expect them to be in the range of 13-15, not 15-17.

@AlexanderWoo: Agreed; I'm talking openings rather than overcalls. Openings: Minimum is up to 14 Pts; intermediate is 15-17 or 18; and strong is above that. Overcalls, as you note, are Minimum range is up to 12; intermediate 13-15; and strong above that. These adjectival descriptions go back many decades, and are roughly a king wide for a very good reason. Mixing up the adjective use "because it's fourth seat" just sows confusion.

As regards being "barely legal", the current (May 2023) ACBL Basic Chart, it's most restrictive, specifies:

 Allowed Bidding Agreements
Opening Bids
:
9. Any Natural opening bid in a suit at the 2-level showing at least 4 HCP and with a Range not greater than 7 HCP.
:

This 11 HCP hand passes any Weak Two opening range legal under this chart (and, by extension, all other charts as they are pure extensions of this one).
There has never been, at any level of competition or at any past time, an intent to create a miniscule range that lies between the Weak Two range and the Opening Bid range. The bottom end of the allowed range is deliberately set to ensure this.
This hand is clearly in the range that, according to circumstance, some partnerships might open one of a suit, others might open two of a suit; and some might pass. All of these actions are legal - not "barely legal" - as long as partnership understandings are clearly outlined on one's convention card and in response to opposition inquiries.

Firstly, “barely legal” is legal. So you are not prevented from bidding by the tournament rules.
Whether you should bid is always a judgement call. ACBL rules do not serve the same purpose as a bidding system and are no substitute for it. Being worried about being exactly on the defined limit is like being worried about competing in an over-18 competition on your 18th birthday.
So, what is our judgement? You have 10 high card points (HCP). On average, given the (lack of) bidding, you expect the remaining 30 points to be evenly divided amongst the remaining three players. Which is a long-winded way of saying partner probably also has about 10 HCP. They don’t have a 6 card suit, or they would have opened, so you would be unlucky not to find two spades in partner’s hand (5-4-3-1 is the most likely way this could happen). And your suit is not only pretty standalone, it is spades, so you can outbid the opponents.
All things considered, the odds are that you will make a positive score by bidding, as opposed to zero by not. At teams the difference is not so tragic (unless you miss a freak game), but at match points it is more serious. A bottom is a bottom, whether by 10 points or 500.

Count your tricks, not your points. You can reasonably expect to make a one (spade) contract under the circumstances.
First, you have a solid six card suit headed by QJT, which guarantees one "top" trick. You can also expect to make three "long" tricks with the suit as trump. The two side kings are worth half a trick apiece; count them as one trick bringing the total to five.
With everyone passing, partner will have between 8 to 11 points (someone would probably have opened with 12). That represents about three tricks, within a range of two to four. You're quite safe at the one level, and if an opponent sticks in an overcall, you can compete at least to two. Moreover, your suit is spades, so the opponent's can't outbid you at the one level, and probably not at the two level.
It's true that a non-descript ten points might be worth only three tricks with a flat 4-3-3-3 distribution, and partner's presumed three would bring the total only to six. In this case, you have five tricks in hand, not three, and are in a position to bid (and make) a low level contract.
Relative to its point count, your hand's only weakness is that it has no aces, but otherwise it is highly upgradeable. Give your partner the two minor suit aces (eight points), and your two hands are worth eight and a half tricks (versus five in your own hand). A contribution of QJ of diamonds and Q of clubs (five high card points) by partner also improves you hand by nearly four tricks, leaving a fifth trick for a king or ace. Give partner 11 points in the form of A of hearts, king of spades or hearts and two minor suit queens, and game is not out of the question.
Take away the jack of spades, and I would not open. It's "only" one point, but a critical "connector" in a critical suit. On the other hand, take away the Jack of clubs or downgrade one of the minor suit kings to a queen (also leaving nine points), and I would open one spade unless this was an event where this was not "legal."


text:
How should partner and I have gotten to 3NT?
Dealing, and with only us vulnerable at matchpoints, and holding ♠ 84 ♡AK5 ♢AKQT96 ♣ A6,
I opened a timid one diamond, planning to bid 3NT if partner bid one spade or 1NT.
Partner passed with six high card points (and a 4-3-3-3 distribution), instead of bidding 1NT. His three relevant cards were ♠ QJ9. The rest of his hand could have been all "twos" and we would still have made 4NT. We were left in one diamond, made four, and got a bottom because others bid and made 3NT.
Can I open 2NT with such an unbalanced hand? Or was it incumbent on partner to bid 1NT which I would have raised to 3NT?

@Allure: A very good question. Actually, the so-called "gambling" 3NT describes a WEAKER hand than mine, something like ♠ 84 ♡765 ♢AKQT96 ♣ A6, That means, I have a seven trick hand with a long, strong, solid minor (six diamond tricks and one club trick). I need help in the two majors and maybe the other minor. Partner is supposed to leave the bid in 3NT with a hand like ♠ QJ9 ♡A93 ♢J52♣ Q985, If  s/he doesn't have stoppers in three suits, s/he should remove the bid to four clubs, which I would pass if my suit were clubs. I would bid four diamonds with the actually hand.

@Allure: I was playing "possum" with a strong hand. With 18-19 points, you're supposed to bid one of a suit, preferably a minor, wait for a response, and then bid 2nT. With my actual hand, I would bid 3NT. The danger is that I will go down at say, 3NT if partner has "nothing" and the opponents take, say, five spade tricks. I'm not entitled to assume that partner has a stopper in spades (which is all I need) until s/he says so.

@Allure This depends on your agreements. Some partnerships play that 3NT is a strong, balanced opening, showing perhaps 25-27 HCP in a balanced hand. In the US, this is considered something of an old-fashioned agreement. The arguments against it are (a) it is difficult to find a 4-4 or 5-3 major suit fit, when it will often play better in four of the major instead of 3NT, especially across from a very weak dummy, and (b) it is more difficult to find slams, which are much more likely when you have a very strong hand. Most US pairs now play 3NT as "gambling" or as some other preemptive bid.

Your hand is by no means unbalanced. It may be described as semi balanced.
Your hand is difficult to bid, no doubt. I think there are 3 reasonable ways you may choose to bid the hand.
First, you can open 2NT, showing 20-21 balanced. I think your hand is fine on shape for this bid, but perhaps a bit too strong.
Second, you can open 2C, planning to rebid 2NT, showing 22-24 balanced. I think this is a pretty reasonable course of action. You'd be happy to play in 3NT, or 4H after a transfer. It gives up on 6D, but that would be difficult to bid. I think this is clearly the best course of action at matchpoints, and probably best at other forms of scoring as well without some agreements that would make it easier to find a diamond slam if it exists.
Third, open 1D, planning to "invent" a reverse into hearts or a jump shift into clubs. This is the traditional way of bidding a one suiter too strong to jump rebid and not strong enough to open 2C. I'd feel better about this course of action if my hearts and clubs were swapped, as it's more palatable to misrepresent minor suit length.
Opening 1D then rebidding 3NT is not appropriate. That should show a this hand with two fewer top cards outside of diamonds.
Opening 2C and then rebidding 3D requires considerably more strength; you should generally have game in hand to consider that sequence.
There is no 6 count that would convince me to pass partner's opening 1D.

I don’t think I would be happy if partner opened 2C and rebid 2NT to show 22 HCP when they are short by two points and only semi-balanced.

@AlDante you're entitled to your preference but I can't believe you'd be happier to see xxx AKx AKQJx AJ

I’m not sure I understand your comment. If you promise me 22 points I can put you in 3NT with only 3 points. If you are 2 points short of your bid, that’s not going to be a fun contract. Your example hand is cherry-picked, but as long as we have a spade stopper - say four small in my hand, any 3 points I may have are working, which is not the case without the two additional jacks.

The point that I'm making is that the original hand and the hand in my comment need a spade stopper and favorable diamonds to make game. If you hold xxx xxxx xx Kxxx, game is unlikely across from either hand; if you hold QJT xx xxxx xxxx, game is excellent across from either hand. Playing any system with forcing openings at the 2-level, it's impossible to find out whether responder has a spade stopper. The excellent controls and the extra trick from the sixth diamond make up for two jacks.

I think what bothers me is that your way conceals two pieces of information from partner - your shape and your high-card strength. And obviously you and your partner should bid however you like. But let’s say partner raises you to 3NT. What do you do next?

And, at least with good old-fashioned Acol, after a 2D opening partner knows that their diamond holding is probably important, and has room to show their own features. Of course, if they have less than eight points, they are going to respond 2NT and you’ll have the strong hand on the table…

If partner raises me to 3NT, I pass. That was the whole plan with this hand: play in 3NT, almost regardless of partner's hand. Very occasionally, we may miss a diamond slam, but at least I won't be playing 1D with essentially 9 tricks in hand. If I have a strong 2D in my toolkit, I would use that instead of 2C. For this hand, I'd love to have it! However, almost any other agreement for 2D is both more frequent and has more gain when it comes up than separating out strong two bids from 2C.

Sounds like a reasonable plan for match points. And your comments regarding 2D are why almost nobody plays Standard Acol anymore.

First off: Partner has no excuse for not responding to your 1 Diamond opener holding 6 HCP. That's inexcusable, and even more so with a good feature in ♠QJ9.
Presumably Partner passed because of subtracting a point for having a 4333 hand. This conflates two quite different combinations of evaluation and bidding structure. Goren choose 26 points as the standard for game - and designed a matching evaluation system combining points for short suits, where 6 HCP + distribution was the standard for a response. Modern treatment chooses 24 (evenly between partners) or 25 (unevenly between partners) as the game standard; subtracts one for the 4333; and sets 5 HCP + distribution points as the standard for a response. In other words: any 6 HCP, or any 5 HCP with a doubleton, or any ace, is worth a response.
Second: What is a fair evaluation of the hand. it has the 20 HCP of course, but is worth considerably more:

Goren suggests evaluating the shape power of the hand by counting the doubletons at 1 Point each. I would suggest also counting 1 for the diamond AT combination in this case for a 23 count, as the T in a long suit headed by the ace is definitely a countable asset.
Sheinwold suggests counting 1 point for the 5th card, and 2 for the 6th card, in the strong (relative to the hand) diamond suit. This again comes to 23 and, since already implying a good suit relative to the hand strength, counting the ♢T as well would be excessive.
In judging a minor-suit based 2♣ opener, Sheinwold suggests a standard of 9½ playing tricks and 4½ Quick Tricks. This hand counts at 9 and 5; which with the additional ♢T I would go up instead of down with. So this hand (just, barely) qualifies. (Note that for a major-suit based hand, the recommended standard is 8½ and 4½.)

Third: Deciding on the correct opening depends entirely on how you plan to rebid, and what structure you have in place:

2 NT: You are both too strong, and too flawed, for this opening. Two doubletons, one empty, combined with a full count of 23+ is well beyond the 21 upper limit on that even before recognizing near 9 solid tricks in your own hand.

1♢: This is the call you made, and should have received a response with. However you have no intention of playing below 3 NT even opposite a bust with Partner's hand. Why take a risk of missing the 3 NT attempt f partner has not quite enough to respond. This shouldn't have been an issue on this hand, but the risk was there. This opening does have the advantage of (likely) right-siding the 3NT contract if partner is a balanced minimum and responds 1NT.

2♣: This call gives flexibility at the start; at the cost of less flexibility later. If partner makes a 2♢ waiting call you can rebid 3♢, intending to convert into 3NT unless partner shows diamond support with some values. If Partner rebids 2♠ I would jump to 3 NT and put the onus of discovering a slam on Partner; and on any other positive response I will show my diamond suit with a 3♢ call.
After opening with 2♣ you must sacrifice some description of your hand. Upon making the choice between bidding as a diamond one suiter or as a NT hand you pretty much have to abandon attempting to describe the other. Opening 1♢ instead may give you more time, and information, before making the choice; and greater opportunity to switch.

If you have additional structures in place, perhaps there is reason to modify the above recommendations.

IMHO, the Milton Work system undervalues aces and tens, so yes, I would count an AT combination as "five" rather than "four."

@TomAu: It's not that simple. The Work Point Count is more accurate for no trump than for suits, and for balanced hands over unbalanced hands. The decision to count extra for a ten, or an ace-ten combination, should consider much more than just ann opinion on deficiencies of Milton Point Count. As I noted above, it also depends on the rest of your evaluation  system.

Re your reference to "right-siding" the NT contract. You want the opening lead to come to the QJ9 of spades, right? Because the opponents don't benefit from seeing my big hand as dummy.

@TomAu: It's simply advantageous to have the spade situation, whatever Partner's holding, both uncertain to opponents when dummy comes down and with all values in fourth seat.

You don’t say what system you play, nor what a 2D opening would mean.
I think each of you undervalued your hand. Although your partner has enough to respond at the one level, it is incumbent on you, with a powerhouse of a hand, (only four losers!) to bid it to the full.
Open with a forcing bid; in Acol 2D would be perfect; and partner will then be better able to judge the value of their miserable hand.
PS: I’m not a fan of opening NT with semi-balanced hands, though I play regularly with someone who would consider it a valid alternative. 2NT in that case would show the points but undervalue the playing strength.

Your trailing comment above belongs in the answer.

Under the so-called "three and three" guideline, this hand qualifies for a 2 club opening. The "three and three rule is, can I make game if partner has three points and three cards of a key suit.
For a no trump game, the answer is clearly yes. The question noted that all that was necessary was the  ♠ QJ9 of spades that was actually in partner's hand.
The hand can also make five diamonds if partner has three small diamonds and QJxx of hearts. Possibly the K of clubs will do as a side honor if you can ruff or get rid of the third heart in hand.
Your hand is worth more than "20" points because of the solid six card diamond holding, because the suit can usually be cleared in three rounds. Adding two points for the sixth diamond brings you up to 22.


text:
Would most modern experts decline to raise one of a major with the following hand?
Vulnerable versus not at rubber, South opened 1 spade. West passed, and North passed with the following: ♠ KJ9 ♡ 63 ♢ 9762 ♣ 8743.
One raises with "six" points. In the old days (50 years or more ago), that might have meant six high card points. The modern style has a more elastic definition. In this hand, I would rate the KJ as five points rather than four, because of the fit with South's hand (which included the ♠AQT84), with the "sixth" point coming from the heart doubleton.
Yet the pass has the endorsement of an expert, Frank Stewart. Would many modern experts agree, or is Stewart's view an outlier that is conservative, even for me? And could vulnerability have been a fator in the decision/endorsement?

Frank Stewart is generally a conservative outlier, partly because he assumes a less skilled and less aggressive opposition.

This is a fairly marginal hand. I think if RHO interferes, a raise is indicated. Also, if your agreements allow you to differentiate between a weak raise and a constructive raise, I think this hand is definitely worth a weak raise. Otherwise, I think this hand is marginal, and pass is probably the better choice.
Again, if you pass and opponents enter the auction, you should bid 2S if the bid is available at your next turn.

Suppose the J of spades were the Q. Would the raise still be borderline in your opinion?

It would be difficult for me to pass with KQ9 in trumps.

At matchpoints in a decent field, I raise.  In a mediocre field with a mediocre partner, I pass.
With this few points, we're never ever going to be allowed to play 1S.  Since I'm going to bid 2S anyway, I might as well bid it now and make it harder for them to find their fit.
I could propel my partner into bidding 4S, but for every hand where 4S turns out unmakeable because I'm too weak, there is a hand like AQxxxx xxx AKQx void where 4S is very good, and unfindable if I start with a pass.  (The hands where partner bids 4S (or an unmakeable 3S) are less likely than the hands where opponents have a fit in any case.)
(In a mediocre field, LHO might fail to balance, and partner might misplay the example hand (by drawing trump first).)
I've never played rubber.


text:
In match points, do you need to be more aggressive about doubling when your opponents are not vulnerable?
In a duplicate game today, my partner and I set our non-vulnerable opponents two for a score of +100. We got a bottom because other pairs with our cards earned part scores of 140. On the other hand, we would have earned a top if "down two" meant +200.This could come about if the opponents were vulnerable. And of course, down two doubled, non-vulnerable would be +300.
Is this result peculiar to the one game, or do good players follow a pattern of doubling in these types of situations when the opponents are non-vulnerable, while refraining from doing so when they are vulnerable. (The danger is that doubling may help the opponents make the contract or go down less.)
Also, would good duplicate players be more inclined to double non vulnerable opponents when the opposing contract was two of a major (+110) rather than two of a minor (+90)? (Rubber bridge players would be less inclined to double two of a major because of the risk of doubling the opponents into game)

You need to go buy and read Kit Woolsey's book Matchpoints - MP scoring should make you do all kinds of strange (to you) things like doubling contracts you're not so sure are going down (in certain situations).  (and also not bothering to double contracts that you're almost sure will go down in other situations)

You haven't told us the details, but, at any vulnerability, this could be a situation where you should double without even looking at your cards.
Let's suppose you magically know that every other pair playing your cards has been allowed to play 2S, but your opponents have bid 3D.  Consider the scoring.
You don't know if 2S will make or go down, but suppose it's very unlikely to go down more than -100 (whether that's down 1 vul or down 2 nonvul).  In that case, if they make 3D, then -110 will score 0 matchpoints for you.  If you double and they make 3D, then -470 or -670 will score exactly the same 0 matchpoints for you.
On the other hand, suppose 3D goes down.  Now of course if 2S goes down, it doesn't matter what you do, but if 2S makes for +110, doubling might take you from 0 matchpoints for +100 to all the matchpoints for +200 or +300.  (It could also take you from 0 matchpoints for +50 to 0 matchpoints for +100.  In fact, it's more important to double if opps are vulnerable because it's reasonably frequent that it actually improves your score.)
This means, in this situation, doubling is free.  It will never hurt your matchpoint score (the lingo I learned is that it turns your 0 into a rounder 0), but can improve it.  Hence you should double without looking at your cards.
Now of course, in reality, probably not all other tables will play in 2S, so the odds are not quite as dramatically in your favor.  (Also, in reality, bidding 3S is an option if you think both 3D and 3S are likely to make.)  You should still double when the odds are slightly against setting the contract - what is meant by 'slightly' depends on your estimate of what the other players playing your opponents' cards will do.

"This means, in this situation, doubling is free. It will never hurt your matchpoint score,,,, but can improve it. Hence you should double without looking at your cards." Good point. Basically the gist of the question. As you said previously, "110 is better than 100" so if the opponents deprive you of 110, you must make them pay 200, not 100 for doing so, in order to come out ahead.


text:
Was I wrong to open with a singleton lead in this situation?
At matchpoint duplicate bridge, not vulnerable vrrsus vulnerable, and sitting West, I held
♠ AK32
♡ J643
♢ 6
♣ JT82

Partner (East) opened one heart, South overcalled one spade, I raised to two hearts, North bid two spades, and there were three passes, giving me the opening lead.
I led my diamond singleton, and (FWIW) dummy came down:
♠ JT95
♡ A
♢ JT92
♣ KQ64

Partner asked me why i didn't lead her heart suit. I pointed out, with the benefit of hindsight, that dummy had a singleton ace, meaning that we would not take tricks in that suit. Even without the "look," I feared that given my partner's and my heart length, one of the opponents would have a singleton (or void).
Given my singleton, I wanted to be able to ruff diamonds with my little spades. I had two trump "stoppers" and I wanted to save partner's (presumed) heart entry so she could lead diamonds.
I might not have done this with the spade KQxx or QJxx because I would need the "little" cards to protect my honors. But here, I thought best use of the 3 and 2 would be as ruffers.
Was I right to lead my singleton? Or was partner right to insist on a heart lead? Or perhaps the mistake was that neither of us bid three hearts earlier?

Can we talk about that overcall!?! The lead here is not the interesting issue….

I am pretty sure that 90% or more of experts would lead the singleton diamond, and at least close to that percentage would not have passed 2[spades].
There are hands where you lead your suit instead of a singleton, but this is not that kind of hand nor that kind of bidding.

Exactly. Even more useful for roughing small diamonds would be the Heart 6, 4, and 3.

There is an adage, that when you have long trumps you should lead your side's longest suit. The objective being, that you can force declarer to use up enough trumps ruffing your long suit and they  will loose control of the trump suit which can often produce more tricks than ruffing low diamonds.
This would seem a reasonable strategy to start with, even though it is quickly becomes apparent their heart shortage is in the short trump hand so unlikely to work, but you can still switch strategies later - So your partner does have a point about leading their suit.
Although with your 4 hearts I think they should have a bigger issue that you should respond 2S (forcing to 3H)  rather than 2H - or at least raise to 3H over their 2S (Either would probably push opponents up to 3S rather than let you play 3H)! Then 3S would extract more penalties for you.
I suspect you saw diamond ruffs and chose to defend even before you explored whether your side had game on, or had got to a position where you might double the opponents for penalties!

You have 11 points in support of partner, so a raise to 3H would be standard. If you play Unassuming Cue Bids, then a cue bid of 2S would show a sound raise to 3H, again interfering with the opponents' normal bidding.
The fact that dummy had a singleton ace was not a helpful answer to partner's question about your opening lead, as you could not have known that.
PS: It is always helpful, when asking bidding questions, to mention the system you and your partner play, as well as the opponents, if they bid. Even with US-American players there is a great difference between SAYC and Two-over-One, to say nothing of the various add-ons played.

I do not know a single good player who would play 3H as a limit raise in this situation; it's universally played as weak.  Given partner opened, not opponents, 2S is unambiguously a raise of hearts, not unassuming.  If my only choices were 2H, 3H, and 2S, I would raise to 2H on this hand but wouldn't object to 2S.  If my partnership had a bid for a mixed raise I would make that.  I wouldn't let the bidding die at 2S though - at MPs with opps vulnerable, I might venture a double but would never pass; +100 looks like a terrible score.

Hi Alexander,
2S as a sound raise to 3H is the Unassuming Cue Bid convention, which may be so common in the USA as to be counted as part of the system. They do not require the opponents to open.
https://www.bridgewebs.com/alton/Unassuming%20Cue%20Bids.pdf
I don't play any form of Standard American, so I checked with some sources online before answering. https://kwbridge.com/2over1.htm
For SAYC, Downey & Pomer's "Standard Bidding with SAYC" (p. 69): "Your partner opens 1♥. With 3- or 4-card support for partner’s major and 10-12 points, your response is a limit raise of 3♥."

Oh, and if you are playing Unassuming Cue Bids, then yes, of course 3H would be weak. That's the point of the convention.

this is a difference in terminology - "Unassuming Cue Bids" is usually used (in US and UK) to refer to the cue bid when partner overcalls - it's "unassuming" because it does not assume support for partner's suit, as, in that situation, new suits are nonforcing and so the cue bid has to be made with a forcing strength hand even without support.  Almost every good player in the US is now playing 2/1 - the few playing Standard American are playing a very sophisticated form.

It's rare that I think that I'm right and you're not, but in this case I beg to differ. Unassuming refers to the difference between a pre-emptive raise and a full-strength raise. Directly raising partner's suit is competitive; a sound raise is shown by cue bidding the opponent's suit. And that can be done regardless of whether partner opened or the opponents. SAYC and other forms of Standard American are still played in the US; as the OP didn't specify their bidding system, I felt that mentioning SAYC was ok. Really, as SO is global, any bidding system answer should be fine.

I believe the opener-responder cue bid of opponent's suit is usually termed a Limit+ raise ( clue is in the name!). It must be merged with another bid eg a stopper ask, to justify the label Unassuming Cue Bid (which should then result in contracts in other suits, with some regularity). Generally I find the former use more common than the latter.

An unassuming cue bid is a bid of the opponent's suit after their opening and partner's overcall. Other conventions may use the same bid for different things, but an unassuming cue bid does not, and indeed cannot require a stopper ask beforehand. https://www.andrewrobson.co.uk/article/tips_for_intermediates/1389

@AlDante, I thought it was you suggesting the UCB and Alexander the Limit+ raise meaning?
Obviously UCBs don't guarantee a fit nor a stopper, but a 'something' since forcing, and warrant markedly different 2NT responses from opener (UCB replies more 4SF-like, than trial-bid-like).
Responder's cue bid can be either (Limit+ raise or UCB), even in the UK - just see Neil Rosen's EBU article. https://www.bridgewebs.com/chislehurst/EBUNRUnassumingCueBidsJune2012.pdf       ...
(PS for Responder's Uncontested initial raise to 3H, Bergen usually dictates 3H as another a weaker-than-10-point bid)

Possibly we should take this offline, I'm getting confused :-)
My understanding is the following:

Alex posted a comment.
I clarified that the convention that he is referring to is the UCB.
He proposed alternative terminology.
I respectfully stuck to my guns.
You added a friendly postrational interpretation that it might be called Limit+. You also posited that "It must be merged with another bid eg a stopper ask, to justify the label Unassuming Cue Bid".
I respectfully disagreed that UCB has anything to do with stoppers.
(Continued in next comment)

You then say "Obviously UCBs don't guarantee a fit nor a stopper". They definitely guarantee a fit, that's their whole point. You also say "Responder's cue bid can be either (Limit+ raise or UCB), even in the UK ". Yes, exactly. People play different conventions. And I did say "Other conventions may use the same bid for different things".

All of this, both your and Alex's comments, are in response to my answer showing that UCB's give the OP a chance to distinguish between a sound raise of partner's suit and a competitive raise. (Continued in next comment)

I really like discussing bridge theory and the various merits of different questions, and I will certainly read the article you posted a link to, but I really don't understand what all the discussion has to do with my original answer. Yes, a cue bid can have a different meaning. But it is definitely a UCB if you've agreed to play UCB's with partner, as opposed to Limit+ or Bergen or whatever else.

It was right, or at least alright, to lead the singleton, given that you elected to defend. But you should not have elected to defend.
Partner has at least 12-13 high card points and five hearts for her opening bid. You have 9 high card points and four hearts, giving the two of you slightly more than half the deck (probably), and nine hearts. Given your spade length, the opponents probably have eight, and there would be 17 total tricks under the law of total tricks.
With your preponderance of strength, you are solid favorites for nine tricks in hearts, and game is by no means out of the question. The opponents can probably make eight tricks in spades. You should not give them the opportunity, and should shut them out. Even if it cost you down one, it would be worth it to prevent their part score (unless you were both doubled and vulnerable). You should force them up to three spades if they want to declare, because that's where you have a chance of beating them.

I'm confused. Didn't you ask the original question?

@AlDante: Yes I did. But in answering our own question on SE, we're supposed to pretend that we didn't.

But why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer?

@AlDante: Because I figured out the answer after asking the question. SE encourages this by awarding a "self-learned badge for such answers that get three or more upvotes.

It just looks like you took the answers already given and repeated them in your own answer. Which doesn't seem sporting.


text:
When are nine and ten hcp point hands worth opening at the "one" level?
With a holding like AKQTxx in one suit, and no side honors, I could usually open with a "weak two." But suppose the suit were clubs. Then I can't open with two clubs because that is a much stronger bid. And suppose I don't believe in "preempting" with only a six card suit. Is this holding strong enough to open one club if I have limited distributional values with a 6-3-2-2 hand? (I would open one club with a 6-3-3-1 distribution?
Would the addition of a side jack (bringing to total hcps to 10) make a difference when one has a six card suit? How about AKQJx in a five card suit (no side honors), and a 5-3-3-2 distribution.
And how about AKQxxxx with no side honors? Here I only have nine hard card points, but I have two extra cards in the suit, and IMHO, each extra card is worth at least two points, bringing the total to 13. I've seen experts open with 11 points and a somewhat "random" hand. Here, I have only nine points, none of them "wasted" and highly concentrated values that could take seven tricks. If a major, all I need from partner is three extra tricks, that is about 10 points, and we can make game with about 19 hpcs because so many tricks come from my trump suit.
There are some modern experts like Barry Crane who will open with eleven hcps and a "good" suit. So how about 10 hcps and a "great" suit. Or nine hpcs and a "tremendous" suit?

So you open 1S with AKQxxxx x xx xxx and the auction proceeds 3H-Pass-Pass back to you? Partner very likely has a trap pass of 3H and expects a balancing Double from you, because you promised some (now non-existent) defense for your opening bid. Or maybe RHO isn't bidding because of a Spade stack, and can't raise LHO to game. Why are you insisting on trying to guess these situations at your first call rather than practicing simple sound bridge?

@ForgetIwaseverhere: YOU quoted Barry Crane as saying "Open any 11 point hand containing a king. With good distributional hands open lighter." https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/56266/was-this-takeout-double-sound-or-borderline/56275#56275 That includes 10 point hands with a suit of AKQxxx, and a side jack,  and I was asking if this could be extended to nine point hands of AKQxxxx. Also, there was the issue of a 2 club bid being ruled out.   Are you telling me that I must pass with AKQxxx of clubs as opposed to either 1 club or 3 clubs?

Are you playing Crane's (4 card Majors) system? Crane didn't just open light - he built an entire system around the concept of early entry and early exit, and deliberately sacrificed slam accuracy as the trade off. If that's not YOUR system, or not YOUR approach to the game; or even if you're simply not the best matchpoint player ever - perhaps be more realistic about your bidding.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: OK, I think Crane's four card trump suit system a bit extreme. But I like his idea of "deliberately sacrificing slam accuracy for early entry." In my question, my compensation for an inferior point count is a vastly superior trump suit and distribution. In the question cited in my last cooment, you moved me in that direction (philosophically) by  advising me to "double [light] and be done with it," and pass all subsequent non forcing bids. I assume that there is merit to this kind of approach since you endorsed it.

Just open 3C on 6 card suits.

@AlexanderWoo: So you think 3C is the "lesser evil?"

@TomAu: I prefer wide-ranging undisciplined preempts, because I believe that, in a decent field, they cause the opponents more trouble than they cause partner.  In a poor field where the opponents frequently get themselves into trouble without your help, it's different.

@AlexanderWoo: I think I understand. I play in a weaker field " where the opponents frequently get themselves into trouble without your help," I pre-empt with 4-8 hpcs, a genuinely weak hand. With AKQxxx, I have a "near average" hand in high card points, no stranded values, 2 quick tricks, and a long suit for partner to build on.

I think I need to register an objection to calling Barry Crane a "modern" bridge expert. He was murdered almost 40 years ago, and bidding theory has not stood still.

If you have nine or ten points, and not a two level bid, you pass.  Not every hand is biddable; AKQTxx clubs plus a jack somewhere is one of them.  If you actually have a game, partner will be able to open; you also may well have a chance to bid after opponents open the bidding.  Both of those actions will describe your hand adequately.

Specifically to ♣AKQxxx and out, 1♣ is not (really) a preempt.  The opponents will get in if they should, at the 1 level usually, and anyone over C flight can get to game (or slam!) if they see a 30 or 34-point deck and 23+ of them.  Frankly, I'd rather bid at the 1 level with ♠AKQxxx and out than with clubs (although with most partners, I'd bid 2).
It does do a good job of preempting partner, though. Okay, more likely over-encouraging her, but still. You will pay with a bunch of 4Major -1s where the clubs can't be used because of entry issues.  On the other hand, you will get to some 3NTs that run 9 tricks that will be harder to get to with a pass, because partner with xx won't take you for 6 (or 5-with-safety-play) tricks.
Your other option - which I guess from your other questions you may not take - is 3♣.  Same as you would (if you play it) bid "4♣" (by Gambling 3NT) with one more club, bid 3 with 6-reasonably-solid and out.  If you have the policy that 3M in 1st or 2nd "is happy to put dummy down in 3NT", well, you'll still get to 3NT (yes, I know there are some that won't bid 3NT without an honour.  They lose to this, while winning opposite the more common AQJxxx(x)).
I am not denigrating Pass.  Pass is the best call in bridge, and needs to be made more often.  Yes, Bridge is a bidder's game, but that's "bid on these hands, and pass these ones you're currently bidding.  They're awful".  I definitely rank it higher than 1♣ on this hand.  But I like 3♣ more yet.
Yes, this is not something to spring on an unsuspecting partner.  OTOH, even with pickups, "preempt style" is one thing I discuss, because decisions like this (whether to preempt, whether to raise preempt, whether to bid game, what does a 1 bid look like) come up so often.

You'd do well to embrace Pass as a functional and enhancing part of the bid-system, it's not just a 'last bid'.
Often overlooked, but Pass-and-Rebid is a valuable set bids for describing many hands to partner, including the ones you mention. Moreover, it helps to retain the 'purity' in your opening and pre-emptive bids.
It's best to think of Pass as equally important to other opening bids rather than a worthless hand. Use Pass to show less useful hands, indeed many two-suiters may be described more efficiently by Pass-and-Rebid, whether through Overcalls or Responder-bidding.
Perhaps its beneficial to think of Passes more as range-bids that let you qualify your hand more precisely, whether it's Pass-and-overcall, pass-and-respond, or Bid-and-Pass.

It's definitely a matter of partnership style. If you have very sound preempts, AKQTxx and out could be a two bid and AKQxxxx could be a three bid. If your preempts are more destructive, both of these are worth an opening bid at the one level in the partnerships I play in. My general rule is that there is no gap between a two bid and a one bid.
With AKQxxxx x xxx xx (mentioned by @Forget in the comments), if the auction starts 1S (3H) P (P), I'll put down the 3S card and not feel bad. In some partnerships, that would be unacceptable. Many styles are playable, and the main thing is to have a partnership understanding.
On that point, preempt style is one of things I would bring up in the first conversation with a new partner, even if we have only a few minutes before the game starts (along with the meaning of opener rebidding their suit after partner's 2 over 1, defensive signaling agreements, and a quick checkin on conventions over our 1NT opening and their 1NT opening).

Most experts would open with 12 high card points and a reasonably good five card suit. They would also open a hand like AQxxxx Kx xx Qxx with 11 high card points and a six card suit. By linear extrapolation, I could see opening a hand like AQxxxxx x xx KJx or AKQxxxx x xx Jxx with a 10 high card point hand and a seven card suit. But taking the point card down to nine is probably going "a bridge too far."