text:
In which positions would I open the following 11 point hand?
With only the opponents vulnerable, I have the following hand. No one before me has bid.

Spades
T6

Hearts
QT4

Diamonds
9642

Clubs
AKQ9

In which positions would I open one club. An expert (Frank Stewart) recommends opening "light" in third position as a lead-directing bid. (I would open this hand "freely" in any position if you changed my 2 of diamonds to a 2 of clubs, giving me a five card suit to go with my 11 points).
I was taught not to open with only four clubs and 11 hcps 50 years ago. But would modern players open in the first, second or fourth positions with the above hand and if so, which positions? Would this be because they evaluated this as a 12 point hand based on the good intermediates (tens and nines) or other factors?

‘Are there any experts’ is not really a good way to ask the question. Just ask if it’s reasonable to open or not.

@Joe: Ok, changed the wording.

Well, if I'm playing a 10-12 NT...  For that matter, I think almost all Precision partnerships playing 14-16 would open this 1D in any seat except 4th.  I wouldn't object to a partnership agreement to open good 11s in a standard system, and this qualifies.

@AlexanderWoo: Good points in regards partnerships playing weak NT and/or highly limited openings. My leaning is still against a 1D opening on this hand, but my experience with those systems is light. A 1NT opening however is attractive if in the range. There's always benefit to hiding opponents' Spade suit.

Even favourable vulnerability I am not opening this hand in any position. My reasons in first and second seat should be obvious, as the hand is simply not opening values. In fourth seat the hand is short several Pearson points due to the short Spade suit. In third seat the argument is more subtle.
If my Club suit was swapped with either major suit I see a third seat opening as being potentially valuable. There is a chance partner has sufficient values that we can buy a 2 Spade or 3 Heart contract profitably. However we are never buying this hand profitably in Clubs after two passes to me. Further, the 1 Club bid increases rather than decreases the bidding options for opponents. The possible lead directional gain is simply insufficient compensation.
Part of the reason is that Partner's only possible Club holding that is awkward for a Club opening lead is Jxxx: precisely 4 to the Jack. It's well known that making an opening lead from that holding, unguided, is a frequent lead of death. However the odds of Partner holding that is by my calculation only about 6%. A call that can only win about 6% of the time yet gives tangible benefits to the opponents, even if meager, the rest of the time is IMHO a losing option.

Good point about major versus minor suit for opener. And this may be the first time we caught Stewart being too "aggressive" as opposed to "too coutious" with bidding advice.

@TomAu: Note my reply to Alexander Woo above in regards systems with a weak 1NT and/or very limited openings of 1D through1S.

My style playing North American 2/1 is "look for reasons to pass 11 counts", not "look for reasons to open 11 counts".  On this hand, here are the reasons to pass:

no major suits (and I have a nice "maximum passed hand" raise of hearts, if it happens)
serious concentration of values (which means serious holes in other suits)

For me, if it's not a 1NT opener (more about that later), that's enough to get me to pass 1st and 2nd.
What would get me to change that?  Well, swap the spades and clubs and I'd probably open it 1D - my style is to bypass majors to rebid 1NT, but if we have a spade fit and game-going values, we will find it anyway.  Possibly even 3=3=3=4; yes, flat hands are bad, but here, 8-fourth is a 3-card suit anyway.
In third, my goal when opening light is to get a lead-director in and put them off their opening system (and possibly set up a "win the partscore" suit fit).  If I'm opening this, it's 1C.  Well, that gets the lead-director in - but we're losing the partscore fight, and we're not actually doing any preempting.  Opposite a partner who will "look for reasons to pass 11 counts", we're not missing game either (sure, we might be 2[he]= vs 2[sp]-1, passouts are crapshoots).  Note that if you switch the black suits, for me (very aggressive opening light third) this is an automatic 1S opener - same lead-director, plus preempt the red suits and now they're the ones going to the 3 level to win the partscore.
Now, if I'm not playing "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons"...

I play a weak NT in many partnerships.  Is this a "good 11" for my "good 11 to 14"?  Yeah, probably.  Note the difference here is that I'm taking the entire 1 level away from the opponents, and doing a much better job of describing my hand to partner (including limiting it).  Is it a "12-14"?  Probably not.
In a Precision system, is this an 11-13 NT?  Without thinking.
Playing 14-16 in a Precision, is this a 1D opener?  Yeah, probably.  Again, I'm not going to be giving partner false hope (limited to 15, will rebid "11"-13 NT almost certainly (okay, if I am allowed to raise 1H to 2 on 3, this is the hand I'd do it on)) and we open all "10s that look like 11s" NV, and "11-15" V.

A final note that comes back to the first: in my "12-14 NT" K/S system, what do I think about passing this out in fourth?  I do it, but I hate it.  Partner could have as much as 13, if there's no rebid, and those hands have a good minor fit (not sure which minor).  Of course, the opponents likely have a good major fit.  It could easily turn out that we're the only non-positive score.  Of course, it could turn out, even when we have 23 or 24 points together, that zero is average-very-plus (but it's not likely).  And if I do open it, I have to open 1NT.  In fourth, this is likely to lead to a worse score than pass.

Glad to see this show up as a complement to analysis above assuming strong NT.


text:
Is it ethical to "hesitate" (for thought) when a problem becomes foreseeable, but is not immediate?
There are probably numerous examples, but here is the one I'm using. You are defending a contract, and it is late in hand. Declarer is running a long suit, and you know (from seeing dummy) or believe (by inferring his hand), that he has one more of the suit to lead after this one.
You are down to two suits, call them spades and hearts with a holding like this: (s) Kxx (h) Qxx, with declarer leading diamonds. You have no discard issues on this lead, but you foresee having a problem on the next lead, when you foresee having to choose which suit to "unguard." So you stop to think now.
It's not unethical to hesitate on a choice, but my understanding is that it is unethical to hesitate to represent a quandary that doesn't exist. If you hesitated now (rather on the next lead) to decide what you want to do, do you have enough of a "problem" to ethically hesitate? Suppose it was a turn or two earlier, when South started to run the diamond suit? Put another way, are you allowed to stop now  to think about a looming problem "down the line" or does it have to be "this turn?"

Any setting that classifies thinking about your play, tactics, or strategy as unethical is a setting to avoid.

Unethical would be putting it too strongly.  A better question would be is it poor etiquette.  It would depend upon the accepted etiquette of your fellow players.

@L.ScottJohnson It's not the thinking itself that is the issue, it's the delay.

@Accumulation: The issue is that you may need to "delay" at some time to think about things (unless you are a "crack" player). So then the question is, at what times is this delay acceptable. Put another way, if you "delay" when the problem is right in front of you (e.g. when declarer is leading for a finesse), you are giving away "too much" information. So then, are you allowed to "delay" to think as soon as you see a problem in the future in order not to telegraph the timing of the problem?

It's quite common for a defender to have something to think about at their first discard, enough that tempo sensitive carding agreements (eg odd-even discards, which can cause unauthorized information when all of a player's choices of a discard give the wrong signal to partner) are permitted on the first discard but not at other times.
It's not deceptive when someone plans all their discards on the first discard, because that's a common thing everyone does.

Then it's OK, in fact  better, to hesitate on the "first encounter" with a problem (e.g. the first discard), rather than when it becomes "acute."

@TomAu - I wouldn't make a general principle out of it.  I think basically the times when a defender might make plans for the hand are on the first trick, the first discard, any time on lead, and any time something shocking (eg it is revealed declarer psyched) happens.

In bridge, Ethics are defined by the Laws (and Regulations, created as allowed by the Laws) in what used to be the Proprieties section (Laws 72-75).  The relevant part of those laws to coffeehousing (a slang term, meaning "varying tempo to pass a potentially misleading message to the opponents") are 73D and E, quoted in full here:

D Variations in Tempo or Manner

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner
in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).

E. Deception

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted haste or hesitancy, nor protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).
If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to their benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

"Demonstrable bridge reason" is given pretty big leeway, especially when dealing with "I don't have a problem yet" situations.  Partly because thinking on the first (or third-last) pitch of an expected suit run might just make it clear that, yes, you did have a problem on this trick - see how many "oops, you misplayed at trick 1, the hand is now hopeless" articles there are - but also because you do have a problem - "what pitches am I planning on making, what order of those pitches will be of best assistance to partner/least revealing to declarer/keeps my options open in case of declarer stopping running or partner making an unexpected discard?".
And if you play a special first discard style (like lavinthal or odd/even) then obviously you should be thinking not only which cards are going to be pitched, and which one gives the message you want, but whether you can afford the "right" first discard.  So you're even more expected to be "thinking about the rest of the hand" at this point.
Yes, it "masks" which are "easy" discards and which are "uncomfortable" discards to declarer.  See "the easy fifth" (which I first read about in Sabine Auken's I Love This Game) for instance.  But "thinking at the start" is not an "unwonted hesitation" - everybody knows that that's where you should be thinking, and the information it passes is "I need to find 5 discards".
Of course, you want to be careful when it's your last follow rather than the first discard.  Of course you don't want to be tanking on every trick.  But it is not required to telegraph your problems to declarer, and it is a valid bridge reason to be "thinking about all my discards" now.  That helps in "maintaining steady tempo and unvarying manner" - especially if you make a habit of always taking a little extra time before the first discard.
Postscript: @ruds mentions the face-to-face pattern of "refusing to quit the trick" to imply "I need to think about the hand now, but there was nothing to think about on that play".  It's a good pattern.  Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Laws that stops the winner of the trick from leading before the previous trick was quitted (yes, I was shocked when I found that out too!), just that your right to inspect the trick ceases when you turn your card over (66A).  And there have been multiple times when I said "I'd like to see the trick again" after the next lead (but before partner played); there have been multiple times when I was still thinking about trick 2, and they played trick 3 (to which I "followed" with the same card I played to 2) and then led to trick 4.  So, good pattern, but "It Doesn't Always Work".

The answer to this question differs a bit between online play and in-person play.
In person, if your problem isn't about your current play, you shouldn't hesitate now, but instead you should not turn over your card at the end of the trick so that you can think about the whole hand. In this case, you should have foreseen this issue on a previous trick, so you should not have signaled that you were ready to play on by turning over a card. If you had not foreseen that you would need to plan discard before, you should probably play in tempo to this trick and then keep your card face up at the end of the trick to plan ahead.
In online play, you can't stop play between tricks, so I think it is reasonable for you to plan all your discards at this point.

A good point about the difference between on-line and face-to-face. On-line you also have more options to ethically alert the opponents, when you notice that  you have done something you possibly shouldn't have. Like if you accidentally tank with a singleton (playing on-line there may be distractions at unfortunate moments, or simply because you were thinking about the future plays, and missed that it is your turn to play), you can send a private message to the opp(s). "Sorry about the delay, no problem in this trick".

Delaying ahead of time on an obviously straightforward play is even worse than delaying when you make the choice, because it suggests there will be a choice coming up.  That could communicate the information that you are at your last card in the suit!
The important thing is to not communicate information, and to play at a reasonable and consistent tempo.  There's plenty of time to plan your play if you're doing that; first, you can take a second or two to play every card (not too long so that you run long, but a second or two is totally fine).  Second, plan during everyone else's turn.  You should have at least 5-10 seconds from one play to the next, after all.
Finally, you should have an idea of how the play is going to go from the outset.  They're in 3 no-trump, I'm holding Sxx/HAQxx/DQT9x/Cxxx, declarer opened 1 spade - you can bet I've planned my three spade discards from the moment I saw dummy, with of course adjustments as I see the other cards and signals from partner.
So - no, don't hesitate earlier.  Play in tempo, that turn and every turn.  If you do hesitate, it should be on the decision, as that hesitation doesn't convey very much information - but it shouldn't be different from your play to every other first discard.  If it is, then you are conveying information to partner, and be prepared for a director call if it ends up helping your side.

Strong players consider foreseeable problems before they eventuate, rather than hesitating as each problem arises. Hesitating at critical moments telegraphs information about your hand, which often helps your opponents enormously, and can create ethical problems for your partner, or lead to adjusted scores.
Your example:
If you mindlessly signal that you are protecting a suit, you will sometimes be forced to unguard it as you make subsequent discards. Just as a chess player thinks a few moves ahead, it's often important to plan all of your discards before making the first one.

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How far should a partnership explore altnernatives to a no trump game that is clearly indicated at matchpoints?
Here is an example of what I mean:
With no one vulnerable at matchpoints, partner opened two clubs (strong) after three passes. I made the waiting bid of two diamonds, and partner bid three clubs with  ♠ A9 ♡ AK8 ♢AKJ ♣ AK764. That is to say, he had what I call a "weak preference" for clubs.
I raised three clubs to four clubs with  ♠ 865 ♡T765 ♢Q952 ♣ QT, which forced us into five clubs. With partner's hand, I would have not bid three of a minor after the two club opening with only five in the suit, because it takes 11 tricks to make game. So I presumed partner had six clubs, and a strong preference, meaning that my QT was more than adequate support. I also inferred from the three club bid potential weakness in one of the majors. (This was a relatively new partner, and we had not discussed these issues beforehand.)
Partner wanted me to bid three hearts to show my four hearts (even though he didn't have four hearts). His second choice was for me to bid three no trump instead of four clubs. We were outscored by other pairs who  made overtricks at 3NT and shared a bottom.
Was it a good idea for partner to explore alternative contracts with his hand? Or should he have gone straight to 3NT instead of sending us on a wild goose chase?
Edit: I now realize why I was confused. I had always thought that the opener's rebid (after a two diamond response) was "to play." That is, he wanted to play in clubs, presumably with a six card suit (for which my QT was adequate support) and shortness elsewhere in the hand. Apparently his three club bid was "for show," only five clubs not necessarily weakness elsewhere. I expected him to rebid 3NT "to play" with his holding.
Which is the more reasonable assumption/posture, rebid to "play" or rebid "for show."

I think a majority of serious expert partnerships play a 3D bid by responder in this situation as artificial, showing either a very weak hand OR an unknown four card major.  In the simplest structures, opener bids a four card major if they have one (hearts with both), and usually 3N or 4C otherwise (but they can jump with a very very strong hand).  The bids of 3N and 4C are passable if responder has the very weak hand.

But I agree your partner should treat their hand as a NT hand.  But you should have a way to get to 4H if partner has x AKQx AKx AKJxx and stopping at 3N (yes I think you should take that chance at matchpoints) when partner has AKQx x AKx AKJxx.  I don't know how without making 3D artificial.

@AlexanderWoo: I felt that it was pointless for partner to "fish" for a 3 Heart bid when he didn't have four hearts in his hand.

Partner wasn't fishing for a 3 heart bid. They were attempting to describe their hand in a way that might find a slam when you lack good bidding agreements. The auction 2C-2D-3NT is kind of a disaster. Opener's hand may be this one, where the right two queens with the right shape might make slam a good contract. On the other hand, opener may have AKQ KJxx AKQ KJx, where the wrong 11 points will still make slam dicey. Here opener chose to show a club one-suiter, hoping that you had a decent suit or a good fit and a card in the right place.

It seems straightforward to me. Partner is balanced and should bid 3NT. It is the most accurate description of the hand. Any other bid denies a balanced hand. Responder can then suggest going further with the required shape and points, or, as in this case, simply pass.

I differ with @ruds; I believe you and partner are both at fault.
Partner has a semi-balanced 26 (the fifth club is counterbalanced by heart jack not being in a longer suit) with all suits stopped; and that is exactly what a rebid of 3 NT shows. When one's hand can be described by a limited-range call in notrump, that should be preferred over all other calls except an equally descriptive raise of partner's suit. The 3 club call should be showing something more like x AKQx AKQ AKJ9x when holding 26 high with just 5 clubs.
On your side of the table, a rebid of 3nT is definitely called for. That bid shows a balanced minimum better than a double negative call. That's exactly what you have, so bid it. Just as for partner, only decline to show a limited-range balanced hand with a call in notrump when a raise of partner's suit is equally, or more, descriptive; here, to have bypassed 3 NT for a minor suit, that requires both 3 card support and positive interest in slam. You don't have the values to express enthusiasm for slam at this stage.
As for partner's expectation that your hand bid 3 hearts over 3 clubs: that's got to be some sort of support showing cue bid. There's simply no reason to be showing your 4 card suit on the auction - as it can only assist the defense.
Finally, there is a strong negative inference that both you and partner seem oblivious to: two suited hands don't open 2 clubs at any strength. A hand that opens 2 clubs either is a strong one suited hand that will only play in that suit; or is a hand suitable for play in notrump but of a range too strong for a 2 notrump opening. Those ranges, with their rebids, are:

2NT showing 22-24 HCP;
3NT showing 25-27 HCP; and
4NT showing 28-29 HCP; and
5NT showing 30-31 HCP.

Partner can then either place the contract or, over 2NT or 3NT, invite an appropriate slam; possibly invoking either Stayman, Gerber, or other agreed conventions on the way. Don't go looking for slam in some suit other than that bid by the 2 club opener as a rebid.

I generally agree with the idea of balanced hands making range-showing bids. However, I think the 5th club makes this too strong for the 3NT rebid. If I played Kokish I'd probably bid that and bid on after partner's signoff in game.

I also generally agree that two-suited hands don't open 2C, unless they have game in hand and can't afford a pass out of an opening bid, as this one does.

@ruds: Going by Sheinwold's old guideline for a strong two minor opening, namely at least 4 1/2 quick tricks and at least 9 1/2 playing tricks in the minor, partner's hand here is a full playing trick short. It qualifies for a strong 2 club opening only by virtue of being a notrump hand too strong for a 2 notrump opening. Yes the fifth club is an asset, largely compensated by the pathologically misplaced heart jack; the hand's not even a full maximum for a 25-27 notrump range, never mind being above that.

@TomAu: All of those reasons are exactly why you should bid 3NT - showing a balanced minimum better than a 2nd Negative. Your club Queen is golden in 3NT.

I took 3 clubs to be an "SOS" call for your example hand with a singleton spade. If I had bid 3NT with my "balanced" hand, we would have gone down against spade leads. I bid four clubs to show that my honors were indeed in clubs, and he was able to make 5 clubs with only seven  trump.

You should be pretty cautious about bidding beyond 3NT when it may be the best contract, particularly at matchpoints. That doesn't mean that you can never show a minor. If your hand were xxx xx Qxxx Qxxx, 6C and 6NT are both excellent. If your hand were better, you wouldn't even need cards so specifically placed. There are a number of hands you could hold that make slam easily that would never take a call over 2C-2D-3NT.
In this case, partner's 3C was reasonable; you should bid 3H and pass partner's 3NT.

In partner's shoes, I would have refrained from bidding three clubs to coax out a three heart bid with only three hearts in my hand. It's a case of "don't ask a question if the answer won't please you." I would have gone directly to 3NT with that hand.
But given that he bid three clubs, showing a "weak" preference for that suit, I would bid three NT in your shoes. You had a 3-4-4-2 hand with the "two" in your partner's strong suit.
You have a balanced hand with an ideal shape for bidding NT. If he had an unbalanced hand with a strong club preference, he should have gone to 4 clubs, which you would have raised to five. Partner has a lot of points, and while he can reasonably count on you for a "few," he should not expect you to have points in any given suit. He probably has all suits covered, and if he can't stand 3NT, he knows where to run to.

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


text:
Did I underbid or did my partner?
We were non-vulnerable versus vulnerable at matchpoint duplicate. Dealer passed to my right, so I opened one heart in second position with the following: ♠ AK86 ♡ T98654 ♢none ♣ K96. Only ten high card points but a sixth heart and something for the void. After an opponent's pass, partner bid two diamonds. (This is Standard American and therefore forcing for only one round.)
I re-bid two hearts, partner bid three hearts, and I passed with my minimum, and the looming diamond misfit. We made five hearts because partner had 16 high card points including AKQ of hearts and a balanced hand, but we got a bottom because we didn't bid game, and everyone else with our cards did so.
Partner feels that I underbid. If anything, I believe that I overbid. I had put partner on 10-12 high card points, and felt that partner could have bid the way he did even if your replaced the KQ of hearts in his hand with two little ones (giving him 11 points).
Who is more nearly correct?

I will dissent and say that your partner underbid, unless you knew you had an agreement that 3H is forcing (or perhaps even a convention on top of it).
Partner, with 16HCP added to your opener, knows quite well that your side has at least enough material for a game contract. Partner has seen you bid and re-bid hearts, and holds AKQ of the suit, so it is clear that the partnership holds at least AKQxxxxxx which is plenty for a major suit game. In hearts, the diamond misfit is an asset rather than a weakness, as it potentially provides ruffs. Finally, partner should have no reason to prefer 3NT (no information about the black suits yet, so possibly missing stoppers) or 5D (intrinsically harder and you have already clearly expressed disinterest).
Meanwhile, the 3H rebid is entirely reasonable with a much weaker hand for partner, since you haven't (necessarily, again depending on other agreements) fully characterized the strength of your hand yet. So a lot of people would play it as invitational here, and you certainly do have a minimum that should pass invitational bids. (IMO: You shouldn't have to do more advanced hand evaluation to find a game, just to be in a spot where you should bid the game no matter what - that defeats the purpose of having invitational bids.)
With partner's strength and the lack of other viable trump options, the only reason not to sign off at 4H immediately is to look for slam. That will probably fail to find the slam and require signing off at 5H - which, fortunately, can evidently still be made here.

This gives a convincing analysis that OP’s partner underbid — but it doesn’t at all contradict ruds’ analysis that OP underbid too.  It seems to me that both OP and their partner slightly underbid — neither of them blatantly or drastically, but both of them slightly, and that together is how they ended up missing out on game.

@PLL: OP indirectly contradicted Ruds, analysis with the following quote: "So a lot of people would play it as invitational here, and you certainly do have a minimum that should pass invitational bids. )"

It is arguable whether you underbid, but your partner definitely did.
when you open 1H, your partner knows that you have at least 26 HCP and eight hearts between you. This is enough that they should drive to game and not give you the option to pass at all, they should make forcing bids until you reach game. If anything, they should consider the possibility of a slam in case you have more than a minimum.
It doesn't matter how long the auction goes on for, until you reach game your partner should not make a bid that you can pass.
The 3H call from your partner is, in basic standard American, an invitational call, which indicates that partner needs something extra from you to make game. You do have a little bit extra in the form of the sixth heart, but you are dead minimum in HCP and while you have a void, it is in partner's suit. This will help you establish that suit by ruffing, but you may find yourself lacking entries to partner's hand once you do. It is arguable whether you should raise 3H to four, and the vulnerability and form of scoring might affect your decision.
To see why it is reasonable for you to pass 3H, consider that your partner might have
♠ T ♡ KJ ♢KQT842 ♣ Q853
or
♠ JT2 ♡ Q73 ♢AQT842 ♣ Q8
or many similar hands, and you will not be able to make 4 hearts between you. (With the first example hand, 4 hearts could quite easily go down three.)
vulnerability and scoring
You should bid close games more aggressively if you are vulnerable  and if you are playing IMPs rather than matchpoints.
vulnerable at IMPs, the score for making 4H is +620 and 4H-1 is -100. If you compare against the score for 3H= or 3H+1 then you gain 10 IMPs if the game makes, lose 7 if it goes one off and lose 3 if it goes two or more off (undoubled). So, roughly, any game with a 7/17 chance or more should be bid unless you think two off doubled is a real possibility.
Conversely, at matchpoints, you are just trying to get a better score than the field. Game should be at least 50% for you to bid it. (As always in bridge there are other considerations but they are far less important than "playing the percentages".)
what could partner have done instead?
The 2D call was fine because it is forcing, so partner knows you will not pass.
The 3H call was an error; you were allowed to pass it. Instead:

a new suit bid (such as 2S or 3C) would have been forcing. Then, whatever you bid, partner could bid 4H themselves at their next turn.
partner could simply have raised to 4H showing something like 14-17 HCP and three card heart support (they shouldn't have more than 17 or so, otherwise they should investigate a slam).

"You should bid close games more aggressively if you are vulnerable (not a typo, I didn't mean to write "non vulnerable"!)" - I think this answer would be better if you elaborated on the reasoning here.

@KarlKnechtel: This is well known, and has been since at least Culbertson. If you are unclear on why, or think the question important enough to be answered, you should be asking as a stand-alone new question so the answer doesn't get buried here in another topic.

@ForgetIwaseverhere who or what is "Culbertson"?

@KarlKnechtel: Ely and Josephine, renowned bridge players of the early 20th century and developers/authors of the "Approach Forcing" bidding style underlying most, if not all, natural and natural-ish (ie Precision et al) bidding systems in use around the World for at least the past 6 decades or so.

I added in a section anyway, since it is relevant to the answer of whether OP underbid.

As Alexander Woo mentions in his answer, there is no true Standard American anymore. In situations such as these I typically refer to the ACBL's SAYC booklet, which is as good a guide as any, I suppose. It indicates that responder's bid was invitational, not forcing.
Nevertheless, I think that you underbid. Partner's rebid of 3H promises 3-card support, so you have a good trump fit. You have only 6 losers (using the Losing-Trick Count), and that probably undervalues your hand in this case because you have no heart wastage. As against that, your partner may have diamond wastage. I think that these indicators probably cancel out, so you should do what a 6-loser hand is supposed to do when invited, which is bid game.

The duplication in diamonds could be a misfeature. Shortness in partner's suit is not usually helpful.

I agree; that's why I listed it as a negative, as opposed to the positive feature of no wastage in hearts.

Sorry, didn't read completely.

This answer isn't wrong, but it misses the point --- it is debatable whether OP underbid, but their partner very clearly did. Partner should have been considering a slam, not merely inviting game.

It is implicit in my answer that partner underbid: "responder's bid was invitational, not forcing." Presumably partner was considering slam, and that's why they took a call that they must have considered forcing. That is, I assume they were wrong in their bidding understanding, not their evaluation.

Almost no experts play Standard American (rather than 2/1) anymore, so there is no longer a standard Standard American, only various homegrown variants.
The question for you and your partner is: is 3H forcing in this auction?  This may depend on whether you think 2H is forcing in this auction, and on whether 1H-3H is forcing or invitational, and maybe even on whether 1H-2D-2H promised a sixth heart.
I can't answer this for you.  Only you and your partner can.
Generally, because of all these now undefined auctions, I refuse to play Standard American except when mentoring beginners for whom knowing whether 1H-2D-2H-3H is forcing or not isn't nearly the biggest gap in their bidding.

I think this is key. if your bidding system makes it possible to minorly mess up and not bid a game with 26 points, 9 card fit and other goodies, your system needs to be thrown out.

I think your bidding is fine and accurate. With 16HCP & Heart support, it is partners duty to drive to game. I would favor a Jacoby 2NT bid opposite your  1H opener. Although not entirely accurate, the top three honor cards justify the bid and nail the contract at 4H minimum.

I don't need "four" for a Jacoby two bid, unless they are 5432. A "good" three is enough for me (say Q9x or better), and AKQ is certainly a good three.

You didn't need to bid, although you could have.
Yes, you had six hearts but no face cards. I wouldn't count much for the diamond void until you and partner agreed a suit (his length was in diamonds). It would have been a good opener in third position but not so much in second. The main thing that allows a bid is the Rule of 20; your ten high card points, six hearts and four spades add up to 20.
The best sequence would have been to pass it around to partner, who would open 1NT with his balanced 16. You would respond 2 diamonds (transfer) he'd rebid 2 hearts, and you would raise to four. End of story. A much simpler and less error-prone bidding sequence than the one you used.

The way this answer is framed makes it sound objectionable; but you aren't wrong that opening this hand is not exactly mandatory. It does also sound like partner would have had an easy 1NT opening if it were passed around. On the other hand, we wouldn't have known that at the first decision point, and duplicate bidding is usually a bit more competitive. As a side note: while it's normal and good on Stack Exchange sites to answer your own question, it seems a bit strange to write the answer as if you were a different person.

@KarlKnechtel: Changed the first line in line with your suggestion. I have been informed (on more than one site) that when answering your own question, it is best to pretend that you are not the OP, but rather a "third party.


text:
Should I open the following hand differently in rubber bridge and matchpoint duplicate?
It's a 16 pointer, with five good spades:

Spades
KQJ85

Hearts
A72

Diamonds
Q7

Clubs
A82

An expert (Frank Stewart) opined in a column that he would always prefer a one spade opening to a 1NT opening. I emailed him and said that I agreed with him for rubber bridge (1 spade is the safer bid), but thought that 1NT should be the opening bid for duplicate, aiming for a NT contract over a spade contract (Stewart disagreed with me in his reply).
If I had only four spades and the bidding sequence were something like me; one of a minor), opponent passes, partner bids one spade, I would prefer a spade contract to a NT contract even in duplicate. The flexibility given by the (presumed)four card spade suits in both hands might yield an extra spade trick. But opening with the above, I'm looking at a 5-3 in spades (which could be a 5-2 or a 5-4). But in any event, my five spades are "long," which suggests to me that I would probably make as high a NT contract as a  spade contract. In this case, the 10 point differential for NT looms large in duplicate (it could be the difference between top vs. middle, middle vs. bottom, or even top vs. bottom). But it is meaningless in rubber.
Is there a way to determine who is more nearly correct? For instance, is there a body of expert literature that leans decisively in favor of either one spade or 1NT, or differentiates between rubber and duplicate in this case? Or would this be determined by a quantitative analysis of match results where similar hands ended up in either spade or NT contracts?

Most experts nowadays have ways of ending up in 4S rather than 3N after a 1N opening when responder has 3 spades and game forcing values.  That's going to skew expert practice in favor of 1N by quite a bit.

@AlexanderWoo: What I here you telling me is that it's easier to go from a 1NT opener to a spade game (when appropriate) than from a 1 spade opener to a NT game. Is that what you are saying?

I don't think that's it. He's saying that it's a lot easier to find the right level if your 1S opener excludes 14-16 hcp balanced hands. The methods Alexander mentions means that you can still play 4S in your 5-3 fit even after opening 1NT instead of 1S.

@TomAu - Many experts play that a 2N response to a 1N opening or a 3C response to a 1N opening is some variant of Puppet Stayman, asking opener if they have a 5 card major.

@AlexanderWoo: Basically, the advantage of a 1NT opening is that it makes the responder the  "captain" of the team, because partner is in a better position to judge whether to play at a spade or NT contract.

@TomAu - Outside of expert circles, no one usually plays the conventions to accurately describe a 16 hcp hand with 5 spades.  North American experts frequently play such conventions after a 1N opening (forms of Puppet Stayman), and some European experts play such conventions after a 1S opening (forms of Gazilli).  Of course playing such conventions do add to your memory load and make it more complicated to show other hands.  (But note that in either case, the conventions come in only if responder has enough to muster a game invitation.)

Experienced duplicate players who are not bad, but a long way from experts, playing with long term partners, will often have methods to handle a 5-card suit in a 1N opener. Puppet Stayman is one such method, there are others. Such methods are by no means limited to experts, but are not played by casual players or in pick-up partnerships. Given such a method, I would pretty much always open this 1N, as there would be no fear of losing a spade fit, and 1N describes the hand rather narrowly with a single bid.
Even without such methods, an agreement to open hands with 5-card majors in 1N simplifies later bidding for hands opened 1M, as a mid-range balanced hand need not be considered. But if good spade contracts are being missed too often, then a 1S opening, particularly with such a good spade suit might well be considered.  Playing with a pick-up partner with no detailed discussion, say the only agreement is "SAYC" I would incline to open 1S for fear of the spade suit fit being missed.
Playing IMPs, which has a strategy much closer to rubber bridge than matchpoints does, I would again open 1N if I had discussed and practiced methods for handling a 5-card major in a 1N opening, but otherwise would open 1S.
Under no circumstance would I open this hand in one of a minor. It seriously misdescribes the hand. It will be hard to convince partner of the good 5-card spade suit. It undervalues the hand, and leaves things much too vague. And if you have a habit of opening hands like this with 1m, partner will be too inclined to over-bid when you open a 12-pointer with broken suits.
If one is looking for literature on such openings, there is probably more on IMPs vs matchpoints than rubber vs matchpoints. IMPs are often played in team games, particularly Swiss team matches and knockout teams. There are also IMP pair events, although far fewer than matchpoint pairs.

Modern expert standard is "if it looks like 15-17 balanced, open 1NT".  There's one major reason for this - there's not enough space in the rebids for "12-14 balanced" and "15-17 balanced".  It's easier to see with the majors reversed:
A72 KQJ85 Q7 A82.  After 1H-1S, what do you do?  If you rebid 1NT, your 1NT rebid is effectively "12-17 balanced with 5 hearts".  How does partner resolve this for game? She doesn't.
The key to effective NT bidding is that NT (re)bids are limit bids.  Partner is able to, with possibly "are you min or max", decide how high to play.  But with (11)12-17 as a range, she just can't.
So many experts are going to "5332 is balanced, even 5M332".  Missing the 5-3 major fit is bad, so they add on a bunch of conventions designed to find it (sometimes, at least - 3C GF Puppet being the most common, but it requires game-forcing values).  But it's still less bad in the long run than the conundrum of 1H-1S-1NT or 1S-1NT (Forcing 1 round or not)-?  5-4s of course are comfortable rebidding their second suit, even if, had the 5-card suit been a minor, even (42)(52), they'd happily open 1NT.
Why is Frank bringing this up, then?  Well, it's a distortion to open 1NT with a 5 card major, but it's worth it not to have to either lie or totally misrepresent his hand next round.  But here he has a nicer lie: 2S.  Sure, it promises 6 (and I'm pretty emphatic about this one), but it's KQJ85.  Much better than KT842, possibly on the same level as KJ8542.
Now in a 2/1 base, if it goes 1S-1NT Forcing, we rebid 2C with this hand, and partner knows it could only be 3. But if it goes 1S-2D, what's your bid?  2NT?  Again, 12-17?  2S?  6-card suit?
There is no consensus on "which 5332s are opened 1NT", and Frank is giving his opinion.  Now you didn't quote his argument for why (and there might not have been one), so I'm guessing.  But I think it's a good guess.

I'm not entirely sure, but the impression I get is that this is modern North American expert standard but not modern European expert standard.  The European experts tend to open 1H or 1S and rebid an artificial 2C (Gazilli).

Stewarts reply was "The extra 10 points at notrump counts only if you make your bid, so finding the best contract matters most." I don't mind re-bidding two spades with KQJ85, which I consider "5.5", and barely weaker than KJ8542 because of the honor sequence

Interesting.  So he's a bit old-fashioned, which is neither surprising nor wrong, especially as the writer of a column for non-experts.  This is not a stealth insult - even if I were at a level to be considered worth notice should I make one, my partnerships also only rarely open 1NT with a 5cM (which is why I know only too well the problems thereof). I think Gazilli or equivalent may help, as well; I don't know how that impacts 5M332.  I do know that I read a Swedish pro say "5M332 is a closed topic.  Clear winner".  In a relay context, to be sure.

What if Stewart's range is 14-16? Or15 to a bad 17?

I think the other answers are good but they leave implicit something that's very important to understand. When the hand belongs to your side (almost always the case when you have these sorts of values), the most important thing to figure out in the auction is what level your side belongs at: part-score, game, or slam. When both partners hold a balanced shape (4333, 4432, 5332), that question is answered pretty well by the combined point count of the two hands. When both hands are balanced, a no trump contract is unlikely to be a disaster, even if a 5-3 major fit exists.
After determining the level, the next most important task is to determine the strain. But this question is more important to get right for game hands than it is for part scores. So again, we can sacrifice some part score accuracy to more accurately determine whether we should be in game, and if so, which strain to play game in.
All this leads to making sure that the strength of your 5332 hand is described accurately in your first one or two bids. This usually means opening 1NT for 5332s in range, even if you have a five-card major, unless you have agreed to a convention with your partner to untangle this (Gazilli was mentioned in a few comments and answers as a common convention in Europe).
The calculations may change a bit at matchpoints, in which accurate part-score bidding becomes much more important.

Good points raised by Mycroft and David; but one key point is missed: What is Frank Stewart's range for 1NT? 14-16 or 15-17?
This hand evaluates as a good 17 Points and just barely falls within a 15-17 NT range. I've played with experts over the years that would disdain a 1NT opening here, particularly in IMPS or Rubber Vulnerable, as the hand is too strong to be treated that way. Add just a round T and it is clearly too strong, and I doubt any quality player I've played with over the past half century would open it 1NT.
The reason for opening 1 Spade is to use the rebid of 2NT to show the range intermediate between a 1NT and 2NT opening. Then the opening of 1NT can be made on hands of this distribution only when the range is clearly within the 1NT range - which is questionable here.

Stewart uses 15-17. He's "conservative."

Perhaps I have missed something, the given hand: KQJ85; A72; Q7; A82 has exactly 16 HCP. I might add 1 point for the 5-card spade suit, but I would deduct at least 1/2 point for the Qx that is drop-able, and probably I would deduct a full point or more.. Where do you see a strong 17?.I would call it 16 to a bad 17 at most.

@DavidSiegel: The most salient point about the hand is the spade KQJ sequence, which is worth at least "7" points rather than 6. Eddie Kantar might add as much as two points for such a sequence., which would bring the total up to "18." Certainly, I would consider KQJT5 to be  "8" points, for 18 in all.

If we belong in NT, I think opening 1NT on this hand makes it harder to get to the right level than if I open 1S.

If I open 1NT playing standard methods, I'm stuck on how to proceed after 1NT-2C-2S-2NT. Did we already bypass the safe 2S contract? Is partner inviting game or just denying 4 spades? Does partner have 3 spades? Are we stuck in a no-trump contract without diamond length or stoppers?
If I open 1S, I can

Pass 1NT
Bid 2NT over 2C to deny a diamond stopper
Bid 3NT over 2D to show a club stopper
Bid 4H to sign off with a known 5-3 fit. (Or 3H if you think I'm being too conservative.)
Bid 3S to invite game over 2S

Other stopper-showing bids are possible as well, allowing us to look for game in NT without going over 3S.
If partner can/must bid again, they have far more information about my hand than I did about theirs following the Stayman sequence above.
At worst, we might miss a close game in hearts if partner deems their heart suit insufficient for a 2-over-1 bid and I pass their 1NT bid, but I think that's far less likely than us belonging in no-trump, and 1NT is safer than and scores the same as 2NT in duplicate.
(Your concern about the 10 extra points in NT is balanced by the very real possibility that your long spades are useless if partner has xxxx or worse in diamonds.)

The critical issue is that you have the same arguments with SQJTxx (save passing 1S-2S). And partner has no clue with an invitational hand.  That, and not "is it easier on this hand", is why players are moving to opening 1NT with 5M332.  (I will say I think your responses are highly non-standard, but play what you wish. You still haven't distinguished between 12 and 19 counts, and having to also deal with "15-17 balanced" just makes it worse).  Having said that, 1NT-2C; 2S-2NT is invitational - the only Stayman hand that doesn't have INV values is the one that passes anything opener bids.

1N-2C-2S-2N INVITES GAME.  Partner should not bid 2C over 1N unless they either (a) plan to pass anything you bid, or (b) have enough to invite game.

OK, but that's part of the problem. We may not even belong in 2NT with the terrible diamond holding, let alone 3NT, or 3NT might be cold if partner has good diamonds.  This auction has no way of finding out.

If opener has at least 15 HCP and a balancved hand, and partner at least 8 HCP and no more than 5-4 in the majors (otherwise 2C is wrong) 2 NT is not very likely to go down because of diamond looser. Yes it is possible, but they have to find the key suit with limited clues from the bidding, and have a running suit or re-entries. It will happen sometimes, but the improvement gained from stating this with 1NT is IMO worth such occasional looses. Id this is opened 1S, as so is QJxxx; AKxx; Kx; xx and so is AKJxxx; KQJx; -; KQx how is partner respondin with say 8-9HCP to tell the difference?


text:
Have I correctly identified "good" and "bad" 15 point 1NTs in the following?

Spades
Kx

Hearts
Axx

Diamonds
Axxx

Clubs
Axxx

With the above hand and equal or unfavorable vulnerability, (all xs are 7 or lower), I would not be inclined to open 1NT even with 15 hcp, opting instead for one club. The reasons are 1) short major suits, and 2) a lack of "intermediate" values (Ts, 9s, 8s), leading to a possible situation of "aces and spaces."
I would open 1NT if the above hand were upgraded to:

Spades
Kx

Hearts
Axx

Diamonds
A98

Clubs
ATxx

Here, I have my "statistical expectation" of  one T, one 9, and one 8, well placed, in addition to four face cards. I would value the second hand as at least one point, and maybe half a trick better than the first. Was I right to downgrade the first hand to 14?
Another example:

Spades
KQJ9x

Hearts
Qxx

Diamonds
Qxx

Clubs
Ax

I would open 1NT with this, after upgrading the 14 points to 15. My reasons are 1) The fifth card in my strong suit might be worth an extra trick. 2) The KQJ sequence deserves a premium, especially when followed by the 9 (never mind the T). 3) The Ax doubleton is a sure and not a shaky stopper like Kx or worse, Qx. Change the Q of spades to the Q of clubs and I would not open 1NT with 14 because of the broken spade sequence and the flat 4-3-3-3 distribution.
Are these reasonable ideas?

You want to open 1NT.  You want to keep it limited, but don't look for reasons to not open 1NT.  As the other answers are saying, if you don't open a control-rich (aces and kings, rather than queens and jacks) 15 1NT, you're not playing 15-17 (or at least, you're playing "really good 15-okay 18", assuming you're downgrading similar 18-counts).
As Joe said, AAAK balanced is a great strong NT.  Sure, if partner is totally bust, you're taking 4, maybe 3 tricks; but if partner has QJ anywhere, or QTxx and a card, you have a good shot at making your 7, with less than half the deck.  It doesn't really matter what 9 HCP they are, you have a good shot at 3NT if partner goes on 9.  And if partner has a long suit and some cards, you stop all suits once (in ways that QJxx opposite two small doesn't).
Sure, bad spots are bad spots.  Maybe you don't accept an invitation with 7 AK controls but nothing between Q and 8, the way you would with a ten or two.  But partner will pass 1C-1M; 1NT with a good 9 or average 10 and you will make game.  And it will be your fault for overthinking your system.
From a weak NTer's perspective, I'd expect to be taken to task by all three opponents if I decided to open that one a "12-14" 1NT.  Especially if partner passed a decent 10 and game was automatic.  And they'd be right (although I'd only listen to Centre Hand Opponent).
I agree the second hand is better.  But it's not "14 vs 15", it's "is this the 15 I should be accepting a game try with?" 1NT-2D; 2H-2NT, say - or straight up 1NT-2NT? (yes, this last one is susceptible to losing 4 spades-and-a-trick, as it's almost certain they have 8+spades, but still).
If any hand of the three shouldn't be opened 1NT it's the last one.  And that's because 5-card majors rule.  If you have the tools to find KQJxx in hearts or spades after opening 1NT, then go ahead and do so (you'd get a lot of support for "5M332 is balanced", if only to take them out of 1S openers).  But if you don't, you'll hate being in 3NT-1 when 4S is cold (or, at matchpoints, 3NT making vs cold 4S).

AAAK is a fantastic 1NT hand. You have three suits controlled and a fourth nearly so!  That’s basically the textbook 1NT hand. If you don’t open that 1NT then you need to put 16 as the bottom of your range.
In general 1NT ranges are strict point count. Don’t adjust them for length because you don’t know how the length will play. Don’t worry about 9s and 8s.  Open 1NT so your partner knows your point count and shape, period.
The third hand has 15 HCP, but if you dropped a jack then it would not be a 1NT opener for me.  1S describes that better. But I think a lot of people would disagree and consider that 1NT material.  Mostly it depends on if you have good enough systems to deal with a 5 card major in 1NT.

I'd open 1NT regardless. You give a good indication of points, and if partner responds, they'll have some of the honors you're missing. You should have sufficient tools in your 1NT responses to communicate the respective length of Major suits - in fact, the fact that you hold short runs in the major colors is an argument for 1NT as you're going for a better score than 1Minor.
I don't feel there's a significant difference in the hands you describe. As said, if partner responds, they'll have some points too., And if they don't, you're up for an interesting contract anyways (unless opponents enter the fray).


text:
What are the arguments for and against raising a "one over one" response with three to an honor?
The obvious danger is that you may end up in a 4-3 "Moyesian" fit if you do so. That appears to be why many members of my club hate that bid. Yet I feel that it provides useful information and induces the opener to bid again to define his hand. My other observation is that members of my club who do end up in 4-3 fits in major suits do well (at matchoints) because they have other things working for them, like extra high card points.
So in one hand, with only us vulnerable, partner dealt and opened a "convenient" one club with a 3-4-3-3 13-count. I bid one spade (one over one) with the following:
♠AJT954 ♡ 4 ♢ KQJ7 ♣ 54
Partner bid 1NT. I rebid 2 diamonds, partner took me back to 2 spades, and I passed him because I thought this was a preference bid. We missed a game in spades because partner didn't know that I had six, and I didn't know that he had Kxx in spades.
I was taught (by expert Frank Stewart) to raise a "one over one" bid to two with Qxx or better. Certainly, that would have produced a better result on this hand. But since every deal has to stand on its own, are there experts of comparable or greater stature than Frank Stewart who would argue against raising one spade to two with Kxx and favor a 1NT rebid instead? What are their reasons?
And was there a better way to get to four spade contract?

There are really two questions in this question: first, what are the merits and demerits of "raising on three," as it's called, and second, what went wrong in the auction on the given hand?
Raising on three has advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that it makes subsequent bidding somewhat more difficult. You should have good agreements about further bidding in auctions that start 1X-1M-2M, being able to answer questions like "which game tries by responder promise five cards in the major?". If opponents compete, it makes it somewhat more difficult to decide whether to compete further without game going values. It also risks playing in a major-suit partscore when no trump would be more appropriate.
The advantages include playing more often in 4-3 fits at the two level on partscore hands when it's right to do so, making it more difficult for opponents to compete, and reducing the variety of hands stuffed into opener's 1NT rebid.
The advantages are reduced and the disadvantages increase if opener raises on 3 even with very flat hands. Almost all pairs who raise on three don't do it with 4333 patterns; some do it only with 5431 patterns.
As to the second question, the bad result is 100% on you in this case. As a matter of evaluation, this hand should force to game. You have 11 HCP, but you have two excellent suits in which all your honors are concentrated, and the spade suit has good intermediates. This hand has a lot of offensive power. Probably you should just bid 4S, as Standard American lacks the tools to be more precise. The worst case hand for you is something like x KQJx xxx KQJxx -- would your partner open 1C and rebid 1NT with that hand? A doubleton spade and an ace or two make 4S considerably better than 3NT. You could try 3D after 1NT, but I think that muddies the waters of your spades.
But let's suppose that you evaluate your hand as invitational (I think this is a severe underevaluation, as mentioned). Without an agreement to play New Minor Forcing, 2D is not the correct rebid. 2D is nonforcing and suggests that you hold only four spades. To invite with this hand, you should bid 3S.

Frankly, a bidding system without some artificial bid(s) to look for a 5-3 fit after 1X-1Y-1N is unplayable at any serious level.

I agree, but I think it's not so bad for people to run into hands that give them that problem a few time before learning NMF or other similar convention.

"As a matter of evaluation, this hand should force to game." Agreed 100%. "Probably you should just bid 4S, as Standard American lacks the tools to be more precise." Slam seems so unlikely to me here that I can't see a reason to try. Maybe in some partnerships, a partner with more than the 13HCP shown could try fourth suit forcing or something... ?

Oh, I agree that you shouldn't be looking for slam. I think there's a chance that 3NT or 5D is a better game than 4S, but it would require more detailed agreements than basic Standard American.

To take off on Ruds' excellent answer, you should have bid game on your own, after 1NT (which promised at least two spades). The reason is that your hand is far stronger than its nominal strength because of the concentration of values in two suits.
It was Marty Bergen who advised people to bid a contract, if the cards they needed to make it could be contained within the minimum that partner showed in bidding. Here, you have a "stone cold" game if partner has KQ of spades and A of diamonds, which is well within the minimum for partner's opener. More to the point, you will likely make game if partner has even one of the three honors in question, because his holdings in the "round" suits will usually make up for the "missing" honors in your suits.
You'll go down only if partner has the most unhelpful opening hand around, something like ♠xx ♡ KQJx ♢ xxx ♣ KQJx, and only if the opponents take their three side suit aces and a spade honor early (you have 10 tricks but the opponents may get four first). Replace either of the QJ sequences with an ace (raising partner's point count from 12 to 13), and you should make four spades.

I should answer the original question...
EVERY single expert partnership has some artificial bid over 1X-1Y-1N to allow them to find a 5-3 fit.  Some prefer that the unbid minor is the artificial bid; some prefer that 2C is always artificial; some prefer both minors to be artificial in this situation (2C showing an invitational hand and 2D being game forcing).  This allows you to find the 5-3 fit without raising on 3.
After takeout and negative doubles and Stayman, such a convention is the most valuable convention.  (Yes, it's going to gain you more than transfers or any form of Blackwood.)
Now, even playing such a convention, some experts prefer more raises on 3, and some prefer fewer.  Some experts will raise on 3 only when there is no other possible bid (which is when they are 5431 with the 4 card suit being higher than the 5 card suit and lower than responder's suit, so that bidding it at the 2 level would be a reverse).  Other experts will raise on 3 as long as they have a small doubleton somewhere else.  Still other experts will always raise with 3 to an honor, or even raise on almost all 3 card suits.  However, this isn't for the purposes of finding game, but because 2M scores better than 1N.  There is a geographical bias, with Americans tending to prefer more 3 card raises and Europeans fewer.
EDITED TO ADD: The agreements on 3 card raises will have an effect on further bidding.  If you play that you never raise on 3, then responder will almost always rebid their major with 5 (and a weak hand) or make the appropriate artificial bid with 5 (and an invitational or better hand).  If you play that you always raise on 3, then responder will pass 1N (or raise to 2N or 3N) with a 5 card suit more often.


text:
In passing opposite a takeout double, is it merely enough to probably be stronger than declarer in his trump suit?
With the other side vulnerable, your LHO (South) opens one of a suit, your partner (West) doubles (takeout), RHO (North) passes. You (East) have KQJ97 of the bid suit and a bunch of small side suit cards (in a 5-3-3-2 distribution). That is to say, you have no side suit strength whatsoever.
Your suit holding is stronger than opener's likely ATxxx. Still, I can see a scenario where the opening bidder might make the one level contract (but without overtricks) for a score of 160 (50 part score, 60 for doubled contract, 50 for the double itself), meaning -160 to you. With them vulnerable, you will be +200 if they go down one, doubled.
With two suits of xxx (all x's 7 or lower), you fear that the penalty for bidding one of them opposite Hxxx (H is an ace or king honor) and going down will be greater than -160. This is particularly true if the bid suit is spades (or even hearts if your doubleton is in spades), and you need to go to the two level to bid a suit with xxx.
How do the risks and rewards of passing for penalty balance out? Given that they are vulnerable, how might your vulnerability figure in this calculation?

There is no overall answer.  Vulnerability is important.  I will frequently literally imagine good, average, and poor hands for everyone given the bidding so far and calculate how many tricks will be taken in each scenario, and then calculate scores in each case and average them to make a decision.  That's why experienced players can take several minutes to make a bid in some situations.

Please give the complete auction and distribution Tom. With just 5 cards in Opener's suit and otherwise a bust, I am going to bid 1H or 1S in a 3-bagger in preference to converting this double. However I will convert rather than bid 2 in a minor suit.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: This is a hypothetical, not actual situation. South bids one heart, West doubles, North passes, East has  ♠ 42 ♡ KQJ97 ♢ 753 ♣ 642. The question assumes N-S is vulnerable, and asks how and how much it matters if E-W are also vulnerable. Also, suppose the spade suit had a third card instead of both minors. Your comment is already very helpful,  "I am going to bid 1H or 1S in a 3-bagger in preference to converting this double. However I will convert rather than bid 2 in a minor suit"

In regards the commented clarification of the question, as here:

... a hypothetical, not actual situation. South bids one heart, West doubles, North passes, East has ♠ 42 ♡ KQJ97 ♢ 753 ♣ 642. The question assumes N-S is vulnerable, and asks how and how much it matters if E-W are also vulnerable. Also, suppose the spade suit had a third card instead of both minors.

With my spades swapped with either minor I will bid a simple 1S in tempo.

If Opener had opened a minor (and you swapped my hearts with that minor) I will bid my cheapest 3 card suit, again in tempo.

If Opener has opened 1 Spade (and my hearts were swapped with the spades) I have to choose between lying with a Pass or lying with 1 NT. Here game type and vulnerability matter. If opponents are Vulnerable AND the game type is Match Points then I will Pass; otherwise I will lie by a point with 1 NT. On a good day that is the last makeable contract by either side; and we're playing instead of Opponents. (It's not like LHO will have an obvious Opening lead.)

A key point to remember when Partner makes a Take Out Double: Yes, you may at times have other options; but Partner has asked you to make a preference between the suits he has shown. Doing so should be your first priority when no obvious alternative (or danger) exists.
Also: when passing, it's not enough for Doubler's Partner to contribute 3 or 4 trump tricks late - rather, it is imperative that he be able to take 3 or 4 trump tricks early, so as to take Doubler off the perpetual endplay; draw Declaring side's trumps before any ruffs get taken; and tolerate the force to get in with a ruff yourself. Hence it's desirable (at the one level) to have 6 trumps; and ideally a singleton as well.
Finally, I am going to strongly disagree with the comment by Alexander Woo: This is not a situation where breaking tempo is acceptable ethics. The only problem here is with a hand considering a Pass, and any pause identifies the hand as pretty much what you gave - strong 5 card suit in a 5332 hand not really quite strong enough to convert at the 1 level. Such a pause will put Partner in a very uncomfortable position, when I would really like to free his decisions as much as possible. So I would rather make the second best call here than tie Partner up ethically.

FWIW, I consider a KQJxx sequence to be worth seven points, rather than six, and therefore a 1NT bid would not be a "lie."

I took the liberty of amending your hypotheticals, because if you combined them with the original hand, I have easy heart bids.

@TomAu: Thank you for the heads up. That's a good catch.

The "social contract" is that the passer is responsible for beating the declaring side in the trump suit, and the doubler can handle the other three suits.
Here, East has admirable control of the trump suit, being able to contribute three tricks in it. The doubler should be good for at least three tricks in the side suits. That's enough for "book," or six tricks. The problem arises from the fact that East has nothing to contribute in the non-trump suits.
Where might the seventh trick for E-W come from? It's possible that the doubler has the singleton T, or more likely that dummy (North) has it, in which case it can be finessed by a trump lead from West.
It's worth noting that the doubler sits behind the opening bidder, who will have the bulk of N-S's high card points, meaning that finesses into declarer's hand will likely fail. This factor, plus N-S vulnerability, will lead me to pass rather than bid a weak three card suit the two level, opposite doubler's "average" holding of four high card points and four cards in each unbid suit.
Because you lack side suit strength, you need a slightly stronger trump holding, say KQJ972, or AQJ97 to consider converting if you can escape by bidding a three card suit at the one level, especially if non-vulnerable. In the latter case, if partner leads a singleton trump, you can take the ace and lead the queen to remove dummy's last trump. In the former, partner may not have a trump to lead, but you have prospects for four trump tricks.

The point you've missed is that it's not enough for Doubler's Partner to contribute 3 or 4 trump tricks late - rather, it is imperative that he be able to take 3 or 4 trump tricks early, so as to take Doubler off the perpetual endplay. That's why it's desirable for the long trump hand to have (at the one level) 6 trumps and ideally a singleton.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: You might add the comment to your excellent answer. In posting my "self-answer," I finally revealed the key assumption behind my preference for converting, and your comment pointed out why that assumption might be wrong.

Good point; done.


text:
Would you lead "fourth best from longest and strongest" from the following hands?
With neither side vulnerable at rubber, you are on lead against 3NT (1NT, 3NT bid).
I would refrain from doing the above with a Yarborough like
♠ 983
♡ 872
♢ 76432
♣ 85

Instead, I would lead one of the majors and hope to find partner's suit. Is this a good idea?
On the other hand, suppose I have
♠ J83
♡ Q72
♢ 76432
♣ K5

Would I still lead one of the majors because my suit and overall hand is too weak to lead fourth best from longest and strongest? (I have no probable and only two possible re-entries to my hand, and no high diamond. On the other hand, I have six high card points, nearly half of my partnership's total of 14 (assuming opponents bid 3NT with 26).
Note: In the actual example, the hand was
♠ J83
♡ Q72
♢ Q7632
♣ K5

and a lead of the 3 of diamonds worked well, but that's because the suit was headed by the Queen. Also, the extra two points means that I have 8 out of my partnership's presumed 14.

On the given auction, it is grossly incorrect to assume the Opponents have a bare minimum. You should assume they are holding 27-28 on average; and will make 10 tricks a good percentage of the time. They are quite unlikely to be going down unless:

you have a good suit and entries over Declarer; or

you have nothing and luck out finding Partner with a good suit in your lead, with entries, despite sitting under the Opponents' strong hand.

The latter is unlikely; and the former is ruled out by assumption.
Therefore: just lead Fourth best so as to minimize giving anything away.
One exception would be: Never lead away from Jxxx. If that's your one 4 card suit, then it's time to guess a three card suit.
The appropriate time for the analysis you are suggsting is on the invitational auction:
1NT Pass 2Nt Pass;
3NT all Pass
Now there is a reasonable chance of a set, and one can think about finding Partner's suit when holding a weak hand.

If I have Yarborough, there's a good chance that our partnership doesn't have 14 on the bidding, and even if partner did have it, the chances of setting the contract aren't very good because we have no transportation to my hand. Is that the point you were trying to make?

Yeah but it's rubber, which I've never played.  Is the payoff for setting the contract so large compared to the overtrick that it's worth going for it despite there being a very small chance?

@AlexanderWoo: I've played Rubber; the strategy here is that, with no obvious lead, there isn't one as you're on a pure guess: perhaps there's a miracle lead; perhaps the contract is down unless you give it back on the opening lead; but most likely it's either on Declarer's  50-50 guess or cold. Partnership confidence that you're not taking flyers on a wing and a prayer, so (s)he can trust your defense, is far more valuable IMHO.

@TomAu: Partly; but also that, a priori, Opener is more likely to be on 16 or 17 than just 15, by about 60-40, and Responder can have 11 or 12 instead of a bare 10. That makes these auctions much more likely to be cold unless you, on opening lead, can see a path to a set. With no obvious start, force Declarer to earn the tricks by not giving anything away.


text:
What are my better options in the situation below?
With both sides vulnerable, South opens one heart when I, West, have the following:

Spades
532

Hearts
K5

Diamonds
KJ753

Clubs
AK3

An expert (Frank Stewart) recommends that West doubles with 14 high card points, despite the weak three card spade suit. Switch the black suits so that I have three low ones in clubs, and I would do this. But I have a painful recollection of being forced to bid as East with three little spades, and would be appalled to see the above as dummy.
My choice is to pass, so as not to give away my strength. If forced to call, I would rather bid two diamonds than double. My belief is that South's having opened in hearts reduces my partner's chances of having a heart suit, and increasing his chances of having at least three little diamonds.*
Are either of the above two actions better than "double?"
*My nightmare scenario is that East is forced to bid 1 spade, South doubles, and I am forced to bid 2 diamonds to try a rescue when we are vulnerable.

Yes, double can go wrong.  It rarely does.  Partner averages about 6hcp in this situation.  They're usually able to bid a 4 card minor at the 2-level if they only have 3 spades.
2D can go very wrong, and goes wrong more often than X.  LHO could show up with AQTx of diamonds.  Opener having opened increased your partner's chances of having diamonds, but your having diamonds and not having hearts also decreases them.  Note opener almost automatically doubles (for takeout, but convertible) with short diamonds if it goes 1H-(2D)-P-(P) to them.
Also, don't bid 2D opposite me, because I auto-raise on Axx of diamonds, a little bit of distribution, and nothing else, just to get in the opponents' way a little more.
Pass will go wrong half the time.  It goes (1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P) to you.  What do you do now?  Pass again will result in being -110 instead of -100 (or +110) half the time.  Double results in -200 instead of -110 the other half.  The problem is that you now have to make a unilateral decision at the 2 level when doubling a round earlier would've allowed partner to make an informed decision instead.  (If I'm forced into this situation, I think double is slightly better - "Never let opponents play in 2 of a fit")
BTW, I don't know anyone who plays 1H-(X)-P-(1S)-X as penalty.  It's takeout.
When bidding, you really have to not worry about the 5% of the time things go very wrong.  Especially at matchpoints, because rounder 0s score the same as less round 0s, but even at IMPs, where what you gain the other 95% of the time is still a lot bigger.

Pass is absolutely off the table. Bridge is about communication, and holding that hand and not letting partner know what’s going on is borderline criminal. You could have a game! (Most likely not, but it’s not out of the question!)
I don’t mind the 2D over call, if you would feel uncomfortable leaving partner in 1S.  You probably can’t bid X then rebid 2D, though it’s close (usually a 16 count would be okay).  1NT is not a good idea, but it’s  not necessarily out of the question there - you do have one heart stopper. Put partner on:
KQx
QTxx
Qxx
Jxx
3NT is not terrible there! One spade two hearts four diamonds two clubs… not saying it’s likely but just pointing out that this is a hand you’d totally miss passing.
Double is perfectly fine though, and in nearly any case will play fine. What if partner bids 1S-PPP? Fine, odds are P has enough points you make 1S.  You have a good 14 HCP with plenty of transportation - the tricks will be there. And if not? Down one is a fine result If your side has 18 points and they have a heart fit.
Remember that bridge is a four player game where you have a partner. You are focusing on your hand alone here, and ignoring the other side and your partner.

Echoing Alexander Woo here, but if you play bridge looking at what could go wrong, you will be eaten alive the majority of the time it doesn't.
It could be a 3-3 spade fit you end up in.  Sure, and they defend 1S undoubled. Even at 100 a trick, they have to make 2S, defending, on a 7-card fit, to even beat their partscore (whatever that is - possibly 1NT making the same 8 tricks?)  That is very hard.
Oh, they might double?  Sure.  And someone will likely pull, or redouble "for doubt" which partner will pull.
And you're giving up the opportunity to find the right lead against 3H or 4H when partner responds to the double.
Pass just says "partner, I think we defend so much better than the field that I'm willing to give them a free run at their best contract."  Even if you get the "best result" and it goes 1H-p-p-X; p to you, what are you doing? (Okay, the actual best result is 1H-p-p-1NT (11-14, may not have a heart stopper; you can bid 3NT and hope Kx is enough, knowing where all the HCP are).  But that won't happen.  1H-p-3H (preemptive, they play Bergen)-p; p-?  1H-p-3H (limit raise, but 100% guarantees 4 the way 1H-X-2NT! or 1H-2D-3D doesn't)?  1H-p-2H-p; p-?  Now you have the same problem you had last round, and are one level higher.  1H-p-4H (5 hearts and a singleton, <6 HCP; probably in context a spade singleton)?  Tell me partner is going to find 4S with 5 (even 6) good and a heart void and little else. Opener could easily have the 20 and you have 3 rather than 14 and 11, or 17 and 6 and nothing makes now.
I have a soft spot in my heart for 2D, but would never do it.  No shape - 3=2=5=3 is way too flat to insist on my suit, especially in a minor - and the killer that again Alexander Woo mentioned, your trumps are awful (I'd much rather have QJT9x, even JT98x(x)).  Broken suits are a massive flag.  It is much easier to work out to defend a 2 level contract than a 1-level, and you have "nowhere to go" if it turns out this time AQTxx(x) is on your left.  I promise you, whatever score your 1S on the 3-3 gets you, it will pale before the 1100 that is really likely the times it goes 1H-2D-p-p; X-p-p-p.  Okay, maybe the transportation is bad, and they have to play the tapout game rather than "lead trumps through declarer" to take all their tricks, and you do have CAK, so it might only be 800.
There are players at the World Championship level who "get good results with frisky 2-level overcalls", and expert thought is moving toward "okay, this is not quite as dangerous as we all thought all this time", but when it's wrong, it's really wrong, and when it's really wrong, current bidding systems get this one right, almost by accident.
Is double a good call? No.  But I agree with Frank Stewart.  2D is dangerous, especially for a weaker declarer, and pass is pusillanimous at best.  And his column is aimed at the weaker players, who more often need to be led away from pessimism and conservatism than the opposite.  (I have an article in my so far unpublished bridge advice series called You Don't Bid Enough.  I'm not Frank's level as a player or as a teacher, but it's the most common flight C failing I see, bar none.)

My impression is that expert thought is actually moving away from this overcall.  Sure Mark Itabashi is going to overcall against me, but that's because (a) he declares at least a trick better than his client whoever it is that day, partly because: (b) he can read my body language to tell where the cards are; and (c) I'm more likely to get nervous and misdefend if he's declaring.

I believe the comment was made about Gavin Wolpert.  Can't find the quote at the moment, though.  Might even have been a throwaway during VuGraph.


text:
Was an expert right to advocate passing rather than doubling with the hand below?
I'm confused by the advice I've been getting on doubling from the column of a certain expert (Frank Stewart). In another column, he advised doubling South's one heart as West with this 14 point hand, where both sides are vulnerable. That barely makes sense to me.
But then Stewart advocates passing as West with the following 14 point hand, even when no one is vulnerable.

Spades
A952

Hearts
QJ7

Diamonds
AK62

Clubs
84

I would much rather double with the above hand (good spades and diamonds) than the other hand (good minor suits). Perhaps tongue in cheek, Stewart suggests that the "advancer" (partner of the doubler) mostly refrain from bidding two clubs over opener's one heart (or one diamond), and partner's double, favoring spades and diamonds/hearts instead. This is unless the club suit were at least 5 cards in length, or a four carder headed by a much better honor than other four card suits. That is, xxx in diamonds would do better opposite the above hand than xxxx in clubs, giving the doubler some leeway in having only two good unbid suits, rather than three; that is both majors or one major and one minor.
Are there any experts other than Stewart who would pass rather than double with the above hand? Or should I double more, rather than less, often than Stewart recommends.

As before, "Are there any experts..." is a strange question, and unanswerable, you really just want to know if in general this makes sense or not.

Did RHO open 1H?

@ruds: South opened 1H. I am (role-playing) West.

The major advance in competitive bidding over the last 30 years has been increasing understanding that what really matters in deciding how much you should compete is how distributional all the hands are, not how strong your hand is.
First, we have the Law of Total Tricks.  It says that, on most hands, the number of tricks they take in their contract plus the number of tricks we take in our contract is equal to the number of cards they have in their trump suit plus the number of cards we have in our trump suit.  It's not entirely accurate, but nowadays even good intermediate players like myself have a good idea of what adjustments to make.
Now let's think about the scoring implications.  Suppose there are 16 total tricks, and you are deciding whether to be in a 3C contract over their 2H contract.  Let's assume both vulnerable and undoubled for now.  If they take 8 tricks and you take 8, then 3C is -100, better than -110 for 2H.  If they take 7 tricks and you take 9, then 3C is +110, better than +100.  Now if they take 9 tricks and you take 7, 3C is -200 which is worse than -140.  However, if your partnership has somewhere between 17 and 23 of the 40 hcp available, chances are you'll score better by competing.  It does not matter whether you are making 3C or going down 1; either way you do better by competing.  (If both sides are nonvulnerable, the case for competing is even stronger.)
Now suppose there are 15 total tricks, and you have to make the same decision.  If they take 8 tricks and you take 7, then 3C is -200, worse than -110.  If they take 7 tricks and you take 8, then 3C is -100, worse than +100.  It gets even worse if it's more unbalanced.
The conclusion is - don't worry too much about how strong you are; rather worry more about how good a fit they are likely to have and how good a fit you are likely to have.  When you have 3 hearts and 2 clubs, it's much more likely there are only 15 (or only 14) total tricks.  Having a 3rd club and one fewer heart makes it much more likely there are 16 (or even 17) total tricks.

OK, I'll need to rethink the implications of LOTT, not having done so before. I was taught (50 years ago) to double on "strength" rather than length. Specifically, 14 hcps with three cards in the opening suit (hearts) 13 hcps with two, 12 hcps with one, and 11 hcps with a void.

One of the considerations on this hand is that QJx (or even Qxx) in the opponent trump suit is a negative adjustment on total tricks.

You answered my other, related, question by saying that double was a lesser evil than pass. Wouldn't Kx of hearts in West also hurt the total trick count?

No - if the finesse is on for you, then Kx is a trick for you both on offense and defense (unless they have 10 trump), and if the finesse is off, it's not a trick on either.  With QJx, it's quite likely to be a trick for you on defense but not on offense, because partner has a doubleton and ends up forced to ruff your winner.

Actually, I now believe that this hand is weaker than the other one under my own "rules." 14 hcps is "borderline" here because this hand has three cards in the opener's suit (Including two honors). I would still double, but "pass" now looks reasonable to me. With Kx of hearts in the other hand, I need only 13 hcps to be "borderline." With 14, double is better than pass. Thanks for your help.

One issue - if you double, partner bids clubs, now what?  There are people who play Equal Level Conversion, where 2D now doesn't show extras, and that's fine as far as it goes (but swap the minors, and you don't get to play that, and when you do have the 20-count with diamonds, you're stuck).  One of the Emperor's rules: Thy takeout doubles doth promise the other three suits.*
Other issue - three-card hearts is a big warning sign, having quacks in them even more so.  If they have a heart fit, partner is short, and will feel strongly encouraged to compete, "knowing" their fit is better than it is.  If they don't, most likely the first three tricks go HA, HK, H ruffed.  So much for your QJx.
I think what Stewart is trying to do is convince the "double with 13 flat, I've got too much to pass" people to stop (because it's bad, especially for newer players) and perhaps to start listening to Marty Bergen instead: "Points Schmoints.  Shape rules."
It's interesting that he presents two flawed hands and asks "which one should you double with?" back to back.  As I said on the last one, double isn't a good bid - apart from all the discussed problems, you're likely getting a spade lead from partner if opener isn't declarer, and that's really not good; and you'll be tempted to not lead a spade into an auction like 1H-X-2H-2S; 3H-p-p-p (well, after the obvious high club is discouraged.  Of course, partner will want a spade lead holding several hands he doesn't actually want a spade lead on, assuming you're Qxx or xxxx).  But it's better than this hand.  At least, that's Stewart's argument.
Now, let's split it down the middle and give you AT84 Q5 AK842 73...(To give you an idea how nasty this is, it's basically why ELC was invented.  Other pairs sacrifice the natural 1NT overcall for this hand).
* ObDisclaimer: some of the rules on that page are not intended to be taken completely seriously.  But not all.  And not this one.

jeff-goldsmith.org seems to be locked?

Fixed - thanks.  Unfortunately, the owner of the site has met The Gentleman at the End.

"Stronger" vs "weaker" is a red herring. You're not doubling with the other hand and passing with this one because the other hand is stronger, you're doing it because, given the information from the auction so far, the other hand is more offensive and this one is more defensive.
Take KQxx xxx KJxx AK as an example. It is clearly stronger than either of the hands mentioned, but I would argue that you should pass over RHO's 1H opening with this hand (over any other suit opened at the one or two level, I would bid NT as cheaply as possible).
Under standard agreements (at least in the US), doubling an opening bid is an advertisement to partner that (a) we have some strength and (b) based on the shape of our hand, we would rather declare than defend. If the hand doesn't have the strength to double and rebid, we promise 3-card support for all unbid suits so that partner can confidently bid their best suit at a level that indicates their strength.
Thus, neither the hand in your question nor the hand mentioned in this answer qualify for a takeout double of 1H. In both cases, you lack 3-card support for clubs. Because of that, you have a lower chance of improving the contract for your side. For example, you may get to a bad club contract, or scare your opponents away from bidding too much. You may even get to a bad contract in spades or diamonds when your partner also has three hearts and LHO scores heart ruffs.
At the same time, you are giving information away to the opponents. If you do end up declaring, by doubling you have given away the location of the bulk of your side's high cards. Your opponents may end up making a contract by playing you for high cards when the normal line of play when you've been silent would cause them to go down. While this is also a risk when you have a normal takeout double, in that case the upsides outweigh the downsides. By bringing more downsides into the picture with your unusual shape, you have changed the calculus.
While there are agreements that would allow you to take out with this shape (others have mentioned Equal Level Correction), they are not without cost. They are more complicated and make it more difficult to bid when you have a strong hand.

This is a matter of partnership agreement.  Most takeout double advice is to require three in each unbid suit.  The issue with this double is what partner will do with a hand like

Spades
84

Hearts
T932

Diamonds
JT8

Clubs
Q932

You're going to end up in 2 clubs with 17 points between you and a 6 card fit.  Some partnerships would prefer to take that chance, to avoid missing either better part scores (particularly over 1H, when you might play 1S) or even better results.  I've definitely seen people play both ways, but to be honest I wouldn't suggest someone at your level play it.
Think of it this way.  Your concern seems to be mostly that you'd prefer to favor the majors; but in the hand where you have 3-2-5-3, 1S is available, and if you do end up in a short fit, at least you only need 7 tricks!  On the other hand, in this case, the only thing "majors" really gives you is the possibility of 110 if you can make 2 - while 2C in a 6 card fit is the bigger risk, and requires an 8th trick.

Under the ground rules I have laid out, I would  bid two diamonds as "advancer," because JT8 of diamonds plays better opposite  Ak62 than Q932 of clubs opposite 84. Change the doulber's 2 of diamonds to a low club, and you're technically within the three card rule, but that is not a much better holding than 84 opposite Q932. I would pass as doubler if you switched my diamonds and clubs so I have weak diamonds and strong clubs.

Sure, you could make those agreements.  I wouldn't, though, as there's nothing special about diamonds over clubs; they're both minors, and in the all-important case of competitive auctions in the 1-2 level where there's 15-16 tricks for both sides available in total (see Alexander Woo's example), you don't really want to cut yourself out of half of those auctions just for one specific hand layout (4-3-4-2).

Even if advancer has 2-3-4-4, you'd want them to bid diamonds over clubs because... why?  There's plenty of situations where clubs are disfavored, but it's because of structural reasons (mostly, that 1c is a catchall bid for opening hands, and various systems that make club fits harder to find because the club bids are used for conventional responses).  In the particular exchange here, clubs and diamonds are equivalent - there's zero reason to construct a system around "try to play in diamonds over clubs".

The other issue is that with opener having five hearts and the doubler three, the chances of the advancer having four or five hearts is something like 16%. And cutting yourself out of half of that is 8%. I say "spades and diamonds" arbitrarily, another partnership could say spades ad clubs. The other 84% of the time, the advancer will have at most three hearts, meaning either a third spade, a fifth club, or a fourth diamond to break the logjam.

The gist of your question. was, if Frank Stewart advocates doubling with this hand that has a weak three card spade suit (and Kx in the opponents' hearts), why isn't the above hand also worth a double with much stronger three card side suits?
But that's not the point. You were close to the mark in a comment when you mentioned that "this hand has three cards in the opponents suit." Such a hand should not be doubled because "three cards in the opponents' suit" plays almost a trick better on defense (but not offense) than one with only two cards in the opponents' suit.
Put another way, you should expect to be doubled and go down at least two if partner is forced to bid with "nothing." That's -300 non vulnerable or -500 vulnerable. Let's say that vulnerabilities are equal, and the opponents' game scores are 420 and 620 respectively. A hand with two in the opponents' suit will often yield them game opposite a (near) Yarborough, while a hand with three in the opponents' suit will usually defeat it. Put another way, the (high) risk is considered by most to be worth it in the first case and not the second.
A hand with three in the opponents' suit would have to be worth 15 points or more to be strong enough for a double. If that includes a stopper in the opponents' suit, the proper call is 1NT. If it doesn't, you're still "behind the eight ball" with 15 and should wait for an even stronger hand to act.