text:
When would you "slot" points in backgammon?
In backgammon, substantial value is placed on making consecutive points in your home board. So much so, that some players would use say, an opening 6-2 to place a lone, exposed, man on the five point, slotting it, and hoping to cover it on the next turn.
Suppose you got an opening 3-1 and "made" your five point. Would you then slot the four point with a 6-3 or 5-4, the way one might have slotted the five point with a 6-2?
I like to play an early 5-3 to the three point, because it increases the value of slots to the five and four points. Would many authorities recommend this play? Would they use 5-3 to slot the five point (like a 6-2)? Or would they play "safe" by taking two builders from the midpoint and putting them on the eight and ten points.

I'm not an authority, but I think this would depend very heavily on a few other factors: where are your opponents checkers- are there any blots? has he escaped both of his runners (on his 24 point)? what's the score in the match? has the cube been turned? who is the stronger player (hardest to answer)? So many things to consider :)

@cmhughes: Beginning of the game (no cube turned, opponent's checkers on the 24 point). In my case, I would slot the five point with an opening 6-2. But not the four point with a 6-3 or 5-4 (unless I had made the five point (3-1) or three point (5-3) on a previous turn). I would play 5-3 to the three point to improve the value of a subsequent slot to the four or five points.

This depends heavily on what the opponent has done so far with his runners. If both runners are still on your 1 point, or if only one runner remains in your home board, slotting forward from your 6 point often has a good risk reward. If two split runners exist in your home board (or one runner and one or more opposing men on the bar), you must be much more cautious slotting in your home board.
Additionally, the thickness of your wall to date allows more aggressive play moving it forward. If you have pointed on 5-6-7-8 already, slotting on 4 might be considered even against split runners, but the shape of your opponents home board is important also.
Weighing all these factors is good judgement, which comes only form the experience of having made decisions with bad judgement and learning form it.

You also need to consider the position of of your own two runners. Slotting with your runners split invites your opponent to attack should he miss the slot, in the hope of getting more chances at it - and is therefore much less desirable.

Generally speaking, you have to slot 5 pt with your 62 if you are trying for a gammon. Example would be a Crawford game at a score of 2-away, 1-away (or 6 to 5 in a 7-point match).
If we think outside the box, of course you can slot 5-3 too with the same idea in the same situation, but let's think what are you giving up for it in exchange: if you played 83,63 you would have made an early home point, which is crucial for the gammon wins (this is why at the same score, initial 64 would be still better to make your 2-point). and if on the next roll the hitting exchange takes place, you are much better off in such a battle with an extra home point. Its not only the extra dancing numbers, but the restricted options of your opponent with the dice that contains any 6 and now any 3. This is quite important.
At the same time, you have nothing to give up for the 62 slot. you would never establish anything substantial with this roll so the risk-reward ratio is much better for 62 than it is for 53. I have been experimenting a lot with this scenario and slotted the vital points and fwiw, I came to conclusion that in points-slotting the point is not of a paramount importance but unstacking the checkers is. I remember the days when computers "despised" the slotting with the opening 21. Now its a standard play. I am also inclined to slot the 41, when computers advise against it, but for me unstacking is the priority, and this is another factor what is to consider when slotting 53. You could have had a home point, and unstacked 6 point. with slotting, you have lost both of these advantages. Needless to say, with 62 you didn't have any opportunity to unstack any points, so no much extra loss there.

I learned all this in the 1980's from a couple of good books. I leave it to you to determine why computer programs took so long to catch up. "Backgammon for Blood" was one; I will look up the other later.

Perhaps Bill Robertie's Advanced Backgammon? that was my favourite. I would still recommend to read it for any beginner to intermediate players. Much more point to it than to simply waste hours with playeing against a Computer Programs


text:
In bridge, how can you "see" (locate) most of 52 cards halfway into the play?
Author Terence Reese wrote that the difference between amateurs and professional was that the former could "see" (locate) only 26 cards, while professionals could "see" 52 before the hand was over. Another commentator on this site once remarked that this could occur by the sixth or seventh round (out of 13).
Suppose you're declarer. An opening lead comes from West, and dummy goes down. Now you can actually see 27 cards. More to the point, West probably led from a suit in which he and partner hold 8 or 9 cards, meaning that they are likely distributed 5-3 if eight cards, and 6-3 or 5-4 if nine cards. By the rule of sequences or the rule of 11, you can probably guess WHICH five cards west holds, especially after East plays. So you can now "see" 34-35 by the time the cards reach your hand. If West led his partner's (bid) suit, that factors into the equation.
What happens next? That is, how do you bring your knowledge of 34-35 cards up to 52, and in (roughly) how many rounds. It might be fairly easy if one or both opponents bid. But what if they haven't?

Not sure this is an answer, nor am I sure it's not covered in the current answers, but one article years ago in the Bridge Bulletin had a pro give a lesson to newer players, showing two hands and the opening lead.  After finding out what the lead was from, and who had what missing honours, he asked the room "and who has the 8?"  From the opening lead.  And the experts do this every hand.  And every card.

OK, you can "see" 34-35 cards including essentially all of the first suit, after the first trick, so you should be able to see the whole hand after all four suits have been played (if not before). This typically takes place by the sixth to seventh trick.

To make a quick stab at this, first consider that there are distinct steps towards learning how to perform this visualization feat:

Train your memory to know (i.e. be able to recite exactly) where all 52 cards were at the end of the deal. The rest is irrelevant until you can do this (though it can be practiced simultaneously).
Practice (and practice and practice) visualization of the opponent's hands at every call and play. As each deal starts there will obviously be 13 blanks in each opponent's hand, but every bid, call and play should be adding constraints to each card. A 1-level overcall in spades by the opponent should immediately trigger a visualization like:
KJ9xx xx Axx xxx
in your mind.
Practice using the deductions you are making about the opponents' hands. This will help develop the habit of paying close attention, by providing yourself with an occasional carrot for good analysis.
Remember to always pay particular attention when you have a weak hand. Most of the field at almost any event will be asleep with those poor cards, so the opportunity to make a big gain on the field is greater than usual. Tournaments can be won on these hands.

Update:
Richard Pavlicek has an excellent online site chock full of useful lessons for Beginners, Intermediate Players, and Experts. Here are two links to an expert example of good card reading and to an analysis of some important considerations when reading the opponents actions:
(1) http://www.rpbridge.net/7c04.htm
(2) http://www.rpbridge.net/7z75.htm

This is a huge subject, and I think the answer is divided equally between experience and analysis. But to answer your last sentence: failure to bid can be as illuminating as an actual bid. Suppose you are missing three aces, and one opponent has shown up with two of them; with all three he would have bid something, so you can place the last accurately. More generally, if your side have 25 points and you reckon on 8 or 9 for an overcall, it's safe to assume that a lack of bidding indicates that the high cards are split quite evenly.

"High cards split quite evenly." So if one opponent shows up with "a bunch," (like two aces) figure on the other opponent for (most of) the rest. Is that right?

@TomAu: Yes. Obviously you have to take into account what opportunities each opponent had, but with two aces and two other honours, most people would bid. This person did not bid: therefore, he did not have two aces and two other honours.

If the opponents are using standard defense signals, there may be ways to read the count in the discards that they play.  High-Low being the signal for even count while Low-High is the signal for an odd count.  Thus, you need to get a couple of discards in various suits in order to get an idea of where other cards are as over the course of the first handful of rounds, it may not always be possible to look for the signals though there is something to be said for reading into what defense is playing and extrapolating from that.

Unless opponents are playing upside down discards; or odd-even discards; or upside-down odd-even discards. Yes, everything the opponents do is important data, but it is the process of understanding and cataloguing it that transforms it into information. The bidding, and lack of it, is even more important in analyzing the opponents cards because that information is available several tricks earlier than the opponents carding signals; namely as the opening lead is made.

Having the possible distributions of a suit in one's mind is a shortcut way of working out what cards a player has left in their hand.  So if you are declarer with 5 cards in your trump suit and dummy has 3 trumps, the remaining 5 trumps are probably divided 3 2 or 4 1 between the two opponents.  (You work this out quickly by having the patterns 5332 and 5431 in your mind.)
Now you test your guess. If both opponents follow to two rounds of trumps, there is only one trump left, whereas if one opponent shows out on the second round, his partner had 4 trumps initially, and still has 2 left.
On most hands it is usually only relevant to keep a count of two suits: your trump suit and the main side suit which you need to establish.
A further help for working out the missing cards is to focus on the missing key cards. For instance, if you have the A 10 5 4 of hearts and dummy has the K 9 3, the missing key cards are the Q and the J.  You need to focus on when these fall in order to determine if your 10 (or 9) is good.
The two more difficult types of hands that I face most frequently are those that require an end play and No Trump contracts where there are missing high cards in two (or even three!) suits.  With my present level of expertise, I cannot seem to anticipate where an end play is the technique required, but at least akqbridge.com has allowed me to practice these in retrospect.
Where an "end play" is needed to make the contract, you need to use one's knowledge of patterns such as 5431 to keep track of the cards remaining in the hand of the opponent you wish to end play. Basically, you are stripping them of the cards in their escape suits so that, when you "throw them in" (i.e let them win a trick), they are forced to lead the suit you want.

Your difficulty with endplays stems from your belief in this error: "On most hands it is usually only relevant to keep a count of two suits: your trump suit and the main side suit which you need to establish."

@PieterGeerkens
We are in agreement: for an endplay you need to track the distribution of all four suits. However, if I recall correctly, I only needed to use an endplay in 2 of the first 50 declarer play deals on akqbridge. In other words, most hands do not require all the cards and their distribution to be tracked. One of the aims of my web site is get a better feel for how frequently the different play strategies occur.

If you haven't counted the hand, how do you know what play strategies will work?

When I was learning the game, several senior players at the club would regularly comment, in awe, about the best card-reader in the club: "*To improve your card play, watch Ed - he's planning a squeeze or end-play on every hand."

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Would multiple Trepanation Blades Stack?
I have a couple of Trepanation Blades, and I was wondering if the effect would stack if I have multiple equipped to one creature.

Yes. When the equipped creature attacks, both triggers go on the stack at the same time (in an order of your choice), then are resolved one at a time.
So, for example, I attack with an Invisible Stalker wielding two Trepanation Blades. Both triggers go on the stack. We resolve the first: spell, spell, land; the Stalker gets +3/+0 until end of turn. We resolve the second: spell, land; the Stalker gets +2/+0 until end of turn. Now my Stalker is a 6/1.

are there any comp rules that support this?

Comp rules for what? For resolution of triggered abilities in general, look at section 603. For each permanent having its own triggered ability, I'm not sure there's any one specific rule I could point to -- it's kind of part of the general game logic. Maybe something in the rules for permanents & objects (109-110)?

Everyone so far is correct, I am only entering another answer to paste in the rules, because they wouldn't fit in a comment.
Basically since it is a triggered ability, as AndSoYouCode points out, they just all get addded to the stack and then the stack empties doing each effect one at a time.
Nothing is specifically mentioned about duplicate cards, just check for everything that triggers on the event and add it to the stack in APNAP order.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.
603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

Yes they do. You might confuse this triggered ability with a replacement effect. Replacement effects doesn't stack because, as the name suggests, they replace the effect.
A quick googling gave me this:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=317005

Why the down vote?

Yes, they do stack.  So:  Invisible Stalker + 4 Trepanation Blades = Mind Funeral + scads of damage every turn.

Hi Wayne, welcome to Stack Exchange's Board and Card Game forum.  You might have found this question when MaskedPlant added a new answer to a few week old question.  Comparing his new answer to what was already here you'll see that he added a great reference to the comprehensive rules that was missing elsewhere.  While your answer is right on, IS+4*TB = MF+scads of damage, it doesn't add too much over the answer Alex P posted on Oct 23.  Your answer might have been a nice comment on his answer.  I look forward to reading more answers from you, with lots of great insight. Cheers!

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


text:
Initial setup for a house game
I just bought a 300 piece poker set and none of the pieces have a denomination on them.  I have white (100 count), red (50 count), green(50 count), blue (50 count), and black (50 count) pieces.
I have about 6-12 people coming over this weekend to play.  How should I break up the chips and have them be assigned?  For value assignments I was thinking of: 10 (white), 25 (red), 50 (green), 100 (blue), 500 (black).

I thought Texas Holdem isn't recommended for more than 10 players. The chip denominations would be based on the blinds, the # of players, and the game type.

Are you playing for money?  $20 BB is a big game.  Typical buy-in is 100 BB or 200 BB.  If that is $0.20 then buy-in is $20 which is a small game.  You don't have enough chips for 12 players as you want at least 10 of the BB each.  And you don't want jump that are not multiple e.g. $10 to $25.

I've encountered several systems of marked denominations on poker chips...
The first is as follows, and is also what's listed at about.com:

White, $1
  Yellow, $2
  Red, $5
  Blue, $10
  Grey, $20
  Green, $25
  Orange, $50
  Black, $100
  Pink, $250
  Purple, $500
  Burgundy, $1000
  Light Blue, $2000
  Brown, $5000

The second is:

White $1
  Red $5
  Blue $10
  Green $20
  Black $100

and the third is

White $1
  Red $5
  Blue $10
  Green $25
  Black $100

a fourth is as follows, matching what's at EasyPokerChips.com:

White
  1
  Pink
  2.5
  Red
  5
  Blue
  10
  Green
  25
  Black
  100
  Purple
  500
  Yellow
  1000
  Gray
  5000

This fourth has gray high, and pink at 2.5...
Wikipedia has a good article on "Gaming Tokens" - it explains the why of $20 chips vs $25 - 5% commissions are common in Pai Gao and Baccarat, and that is aided by use of a $20 chip rather than $25. It's not uncommon in a couple other games, including Roulette and Craps, to have 20:1 payouts, also facilitated by having a $20 chip.

There is no official color scheme for chip values, and it varies from venue to venue and by country or governing body if any (Nevada does not regulate chip colors). New Jersey does have a Gaming Control board that does regulate the chip colors. (I couldn't find an official link). These colors match up with many of the standard colors you find in home sets. This site lists the same NJ chip colors, and has some recommendations for chip distributions based upon the number of players, the gametype, and the small blind. They recommend you use whichever colors you prefer.

$1 - white
$5 – red
$10 – blue
$25 – green
$100 – black

Green is often 20 rather than 25, especially in casual gaming or when chips are used for non-poker use.

The key to making this decision is if you are going to run a cash game, tournament, or both.
If it is a cash game the buy in and blinds will determine what the values are.  If the buy in is $10, then there is no reason to have a $100 chip.  The small blind/ante should determine the smallest value of the chip.  In my own home game, standard buy in is $25 and the blinds are .25/.50.  We have one color for .25, one color for $1, one color for $5, and another for $25.  In your case I would use white as the $1 chip for this scenario as it is the most common color.
If you are running a tournament then the values you stated would work depending upon the blinds.  My buddy has a poker clock that does the math for you on how long you want it to last, how many people you have and what chips each person gets.
Often times my group will run a tourney, then go to a cash game.  As players get knocked out they join the cash game.  For this scenario it is imperative to have two distinct sets.  My cash game set uses blue, white, red and gray.  My tourney set uses orange, black, green, and pink.  By having two different sets, it helps keep the books better organized.  No one mistakenly bringing over a tourney chip to use in the cash game.
I prefer chips without value because you can define your own game and change as needed.


text:
Rivals For Catan – How do you draw a card when playing the Library
In Rivals For Catan, the Library card says that:
"When you build the Library, you may immediately choose a card from a draw stack."
Does this mean that you look through a draw stack and select which card to take? Or do you take the top card from a draw stack of your choice?

I would say that "choose a card" indicates you may look through a stack; otherwise, they would have been more specific and said to take a card from the top, or take a card at random, or something like that.  Admittedly, they could have been a little clearer.
According to this BoardGameGeek link, Professor Easy's Interactive Online Tutorial has an example where one of the players is shown using the library to look through a stack.  I must have clicked 100 "Next" links and didn't see that, but I spaced out near the end.

Oh hey, that's your post over on BGG that I linked to, looks like you got the same answer there.


text:
Should one avoid making a negative double with a weak four card major?
Both vulnerable at matchpoints, I dealt and bid one spade with a J-high suit and a 13-count.
Left hand opponent overcalled two diamonds.
Partner made a negative double with the following: ♠AK ♥9843 ♦84 ♣K9543, signaling strength in the "round" suits. This put me in a spot, because I had ♠J8754 ♥AT7 ♦KQ ♣QJT.
In a previous discussion on this question, the point was made that the main point of making a negative double was to find a 4-4 major suit fit. But here, there was no such fit to be found, and even if you made my heart holding AT72, the combined "eight card" holding would have been AT987432.
Can it be right to try for such a fit with an honorless four card holding? Partner did have 10 high card points but 70% of them were in his spade suit. With AK of partner's five card suit, I would have raised that suit, even though it would only be a seven card fit. Would that have been a better idea? The combined spade holding would have been AKJ8754, much better than the actual combined heart holding of AT98743.

Negative double here doesn't show the rounded suits. In modern bidding, it only shows the unbid major(s). The only time it shows 2 suits is when the bid suits are both majors or both minors.

Decades ago, I read a newspaper bridge column that has stayed with me through today.
It was a hand where they found a 4-4 spade fit and ended up in 4♠, which would have made 4 on good play.
Why do I mention this?  Because "good play" was simply "pull trump, losing 3 tricks to the ♠AKQJT that broke 3-2, get the tenth trick by ruffing.  Oh, 3NT goes down because the trick ruffed would have gone along with 2 more in that suit."  At the table (according to the story), declarer panicked, didn't pull trump, and went down, losing the three trumps they were going to lose and a ruff.
Why does it stick with me?  Because every couple of months, I'm in a contract where everything works except the horrible trump suit.  Sometimes it's 4-x and  I go down; sometimes they get their ruff before I get to pull all the trump and I go down; but frequently "all I lose is 3 trump tricks".
So, yes, we should be looking for a 4-4 heart fit; even if partner also doesn't have any trump honours, it is frequently the only making game (and more frequently, the best making partscore with no game on - "they don't find the trump lead off the top, I crossruff 6 tricks and two Aces before they get back in, +110").
If it doesn't happen, like here, sure maybe the 5-2 plays better than the 4-3, but:

Maybe you get two spade ruffs with your small trump, or "pull trump" by threatening the ruff, and end up establishing either black suit.
Maybe they bid 3♦ with their 9 card fit, and play the misfit instead.
Maybe, when your partner bids 2♠ instead of doubling, they bid 3♦ on the 9-card fit:

so, do you take the push?
Would you have wanted to if partner was 3=5=2=3 with the same honours?
If so, how do you guess right?

Yes, 100% right to look for the H fit. (Even if opponents had all the H honours 2H is still first choice with a 4-4 fit. In H you should have 2 spare trumps to stop opponents running diamonds, and only 1 spare trump in S)
If opener doesn’t rebid H, responder can comfortably raise opener’s 2S, pass 2NT, or support 3C.
It’s difficult for opener, who’s forced to rebid a poor hand without a natural rebid, but they made the choice to open so must see it through.

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


text:
Which partner (if either) should overcall 2NT (and why)?
With no one vulnerable at matchpoints, my right hand opponent opened two spades (weak).
I passed with the following hand: ♠T ♥A74 ♦JT92 ♣KT763.
After the game, I said, "I was thinking of bidding 2NT (unusual), but I felt I needed a fifth diamond." An opponent said, "No, you were right to pass. The unusual 2NT applies only to one spade. Over two spades, 2NT shows a strong hand with a spade stopper.
Partner had ♠AQ97 ♥86 ♦KQ85 ♣A54, which sort of fits this bill. Is partner strong enough to bid 2NT with weak hearts and play there? (Two pairs did so and shared top scores.) And it was partner, not me, who should bid 2NT for reasons stated at the end of the last paragraph, right?

Yes, you are correct. Partner should bid 2NT, and frankly, you should raise to 3. Partner has essentially a minimum for the 2NT overcall, and you have good values and a source of tricks in the club suit. On anything other than a heart lead by the spade bidder, you are likely to make 3NT (and on a heart lead you are unlikely to make 2NT).

Given that partner is in balancing seat, they definitely have enough to bid 2N.  I would bid this in direct seat as well, but that's because the AQxx in opponent's suit is worth more than 6, and the hand has no uncovered queens and jacks - I would not automatically overcall 2N in direct seat on any balanced 15 with a stopper.


text:
Did I tell the smallest "lie" with my rebid?
New club, new partner, new game, with people I had met for the first time.
Neither vulnerable at matchpoints, I dealt and opened one heart with the following hand:
♠KT84 ♥AK984 ♦K9 ♣J3. Partner responded 1NT (forcing).
I rebid two hearts. Partner raised me to four with J5 of hearts and 9 high card points, which we made, but probably through a misplay on an opponent's part.
One of my opponents accused me of "lying" about a six card suit with my rebid and asked, "What about your three card minor?". When I said, "I had 4-5-2-2," partner said, "I would have bitten the bullet and bid a two card minor." Everyone agreed that the third theoretical possibility, a "reverse" to two spades was "out."
Is two hearts in fact the smallest lie? My suit was led by AK, and I had 14 high card points. Technically, a hand like ♠AJ8 ♥K98642 ♦K9 ♣J3 would fit my bidding better, but perhaps not be as playable. I thought partner's raise was aggressive, it was "successful," and partner got us top scores with several more similarly "stretchy" bids.

It's up to partnership agreement as always, but the most common agreement is that you always rebid 2C on 4=5=2=2 shape.  The reason for this agreement is that 2C is the cheapest bid, so it allows partner the most flexibility in continuations - in particular if partner has a weak hand with a 6 card minor they can get out in 2 of either minor.
In one partnership, I actually play that 2D always promises 4, so one would rebid 2C on 3=5=3=2 or even 4=5=3=1 shape.  (This is alertable.)

With a new partner I'd avoid the 2C rebid; but this auction should be the third one that you discuss with a new partner before pulling the first hand (after responses to 1NT and responses to 2C), for just this reason: knowing which rebid holds all the lies is important for partnership trust.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I consider rebidding 2C with 4=5=2=2 part of standard 2/1.

Perhaps it's standardized to 2C in recent years, but the lie of 2H was more common than that of 2C where and when I was playing regularly. This can also be a regional issue, and one should be cogniscient of the local preferences.

Note: since the new Alert Procedure removed the "no Flannery exception", 2C on 4=5=2=2 is also Alertable (in the ACBL).  I questioned it during the draft stage, and the removal was deliberate (in exchange for "forcing, could have 4 spades" for the Flannery pairs, I guess).  5 years in, I still forget.  And I bet 70% of the ACBL doesn't know.  Tom: agree, it's still "standard" to bid 2C.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: I'm trying to minimize "mean squared error." A two card minor is "two thirds" of a three card minor, while I consider AKxxx a "5.5" card suit.

@TomAu I'm with you.  I think the rebid of 2H was the least lie / best choice.  Especially with a new partner.


text:
Did it make sense for me to make a "clarifying" bid or should I have jumped directly to game?
With neither vulnerable at matchpoints, I opened one diamond in fourth seat with the following:  ♠87 ♥A964 ♦AKQT54 ♣6.
Partner raised to 2NT (10-12 points invitational) with the following: ♠KQ ♥KQ5 ♦9876 ♣QT85.
I felt the need to clarify my hand, so I rebid 3 diamonds, showing six diamonds and 12+ high card points. My two questions were: 1) "Do you have a full 12," and 2)do you have a stopper in every suit? I feared that he could have made the same 2NT bid with ♠KQ ♥KQ5 ♦9876 ♣T985.
Although he eould answer my questions in the affirmative, he passed and we got a bottom. In bidding as I did, I feared the weakness of my two black suit holdings. With better balance, say  ♠874 ♥A96 ♦AKQT54 ♣6, I would gone directly to 3NT.
Should I have done this anyway? Was it ok for me to clarify my hand? Or could I even have used a "gambling" 3NT opening (after clarifying it with partner).

What's your agreement on what your 3D bid meant?  In particular, is it forcing?  A re-invite?  Meant to be passed?

Many top pros would open a 15-17 1N with your hand, particularly if playing with a mediocre client.  Your hand is that good.

3H bid would suggest concern about C and/or S stoppers ( but this is also helpful information for the opposition), 3D normally indicates opener is light with 6 diamonds and suggests passing. It’s only worth using a clarifying bid when clarity is more useful to you than to your opponents.

Stop imagining disasters around very corner, and just bid 3NT. If you're going down there, you won't be alone. Bid with the field, and save "taking a view" for the play, when the facts are clearer and more abundant. You are already unlucky in that partner has only 4 clubs, rather than 5 or even 6 on this auction, and 3 NT is still icy. Game in diamonds is also ice cold, though it likely won't pay as well as 3 NT.
Further, your interpretation of 3 Diamonds is incorrect: it should show both a long broken diamond suit and minimum. You are neither.
As for opening 3 NT - just don't. That promises nothing outside the running suit, and you have a very nice heart ace.

If I have a six card suit, and they are AKQxxx, the suit is not "broken." If one of the top honors is missing, say the K, then the suit IS broken. I have seven high card points outside of diamonds, which can protect at least two, if not all three of the side suits. In this instance, if I have 13 hcps and hear 2NT (10-12), partner and I are 13-10, 13-11, or 13-12 in points, with all four suits likely covered.  Is 23 point enough for 3NT? Probably not,, So I bid 3 diamonds and ask, 1) do you have a minimum or maximum? and 2) do you have all four suits protected, since I am short in at least one?

@TomAu - If your partner has Axx xxx xxx Axxx, then you will make 3N (assuming diamonds don't split 4-0).  Actually, if partner has Axx Kxx xxx xxxx you probably make 3N (since clubs won't split worse than 4-3).  You have 7 tricks in hand.  Is partner likely to have 2 tricks even if they only have 10 points?  Yes.  Don't just blindly count points.  Visualize possible hands (bad ones as well as good ones) for partner and count tricks.

@AlexanderWoo: That would be the rationale for a "gambling" 3NT. Partner is expected to provide two winners and one stopper (Jxxx will do) in the two majors and in one of the minors, because I have seven winners, either seven diamonds, or six diamonds and a side winner.

Actually, four clubs for partner (and each opponent) is "average expectations" for suit length, given that I have one. But their average quality is something like KT73, which is better than both partner's actual holding, and my hypothetical T985.

Do you mean an actual "gambling 3N", as in the convention where opening 3N shows a hand with a running minor (and some agreement about strength outside the minor which varies between partnerships)?  Or do you just mean an ordinary odds-on gamble of 3N?

A lot depends on your style and understandings with partner. There are two basic styles in reaching game: the direct style and the "careful" style. While they both have their advantages, every partnership has to agree on its preferences and priorities.
I was with a new partner who favors the "direct" style. That is, he likes to go to the final contract, as soon as one reasonably can, based on a critical mass of bidding.. This style has the advantages of being "fast" and reasonably accurate. And it avoids the chance of misunderstanding as happened here.
Other good players in the club prefer to "dot the i's and cross the t's. These people would agree with me, that there was a specific concern, that is two wide-open black suits, and that partner would cover only one of them. This might be the case if partner held only  ♠KQ ♥KQ5 ♦9876 ♣T985, a minimum hand for his bid, instead of his actual holding. In this case, partner should choose a contract of five diamonds (although that would have shared a bottom if we had bid it).
My partner is one of the better players in the club, so I will do well to fit in with his style. With this partner, I will now go directly to 3NT.

At matchpoints, you want to be in 3N than 5m, even if it's sometimes wrong double-dummy.  Defenders will make the wrong opening lead or otherwise misdefend frequently enough for you to be ahead playing 3N.  You would rather be +430 55% of the time and -50 45% of the time than be +400/420 100% of the time.


text:
Why did we get a higher score for making a lower (doubled) contract?
This could apply to doubled contracts generally, but here is an example of what I mean.
At the top two tables on a particular board, the two pairs (mine and another) made the same number of tricks in the same denomination, specifically ten tricks in hearts. But here the similarity ends.
With both, E-W and N-S vulnerable on this board, we bid three hearts doubled, and made an overtrick, for a score of 930. The result at the other table was four hearts doubled, made on the nose, for 790.
If both contracts had been undoubled, the other pair would have received a game bonus and outscored us, because we would not have made game. But it seems that the vagaries of doubling caused us to outscore the other pair when both contracts were doubled.
Specifically, the other pair received a 500 point game bonus, 120 points for four of a major, double that to 240, and add a 50 point penalty. That gets me to 790.
We would have gotten a 500 point game bonus, 90 points for three of a major, double that to 180 and add a 50 point penalty. That gets me to 730. I'm assuming that the difference between that and 930 must be attributable to 200 points for the overtrick.
What brought about this paradoxical result? Specifically, is there a reason why our "tenth" trick scored more as an overtrick than the other pair's tenth trick scored as a contribution to game? We got a top that I consider "unearned."

Why shouldn’t it work that way?  Your opponents thought they could set 3H. You not only made but made an overtrick!  Overtricks are huge points in doubled contracts for good reason - they’re an indication defenders bid very poorly indeed.  Your top was more about your opponents getting a well deserved bottom,  but sometimes that’s how it goes in bridge.
In a doubled contract vulnerable, overtricks are indeed 200 points as you surmise. See for example Larry Cohen’s explanation of doubled scoring.


text:
When should someone make a minimum bid over a takeout double with 8 or more high card points?
There was this example cited by an expert (Frank Stewart}. On the hand ♠ 943 ♡A52 ♢AQJ ♣ 8732.the SE consensus was that "11" high card points were really more like seven because of the 4-3-3-3 shape, lack of honors in the four card suit (clubs), weakness in the major suits, and unfavorable vulnerability (vulnerable versus not). Under the circumstances, the indicated bid over an opposing bid of one spade and partner's (takeout) double was two clubs, not three clubs.
The same Frank Stewart also recommending downgrading the following hand to "seven" and holding back to one heart instead of two when partner had doubled a one club opening call with the following:
♠ T63 ♡KQT4 ♢QT82 ♣ K2.
Here the main problem is that the king of clubs is not pulling its full weight in front of the opening (club) bidder. But the shape is a better 4-4-3-2, the four card suits have honors, and about half the length and strength is in the majors, (And the bidder was not vulnerable.)
Are there "numerous" instances in which 10-11 high card points should be treat as "seven." More specifically in this case, does one defect warrant such a downgrading? Or was it multiple issues with the first hand that would bring about this treatment?

On the first hand:

I've got three high card tricks on the first three tricks of two (likely) flat suits. That's always worth 9 points, so no re-evaluation ever pushes me below that.
Vulnerable vs Not affects judgement, but not point count, and really should only affect decisions by the Partner making a pre-empt or an invitation to Game or Slam.
The diamond QJ are tentative values, and need to be discounted primarily due to not being in Clubs where they pull full weight. But neither are they in a two card suit. Median suit length is 3 cards, and that's the basis of the Worth Point Count, so I'm only discounting by a 1/2 point for now.
Yes, I deduct a full point for the 4333 distribution - for now. Partner has suggested shortness that may promote one of my 3 card suits into tricks, if we play clubs, so even that might lighten.
Finally: It's easy to focus on the negatives here, but let's not forget about those two aces. It's well understood that aces are undervalued by Worth Point Count in suit contracts (as are tens, to the point that some add a full point for each ace-ten pair in a hand), though by just how much is less clear. For the weaker hand to have two aces, thus guaranteed entries, under opponents' strong hand is worth at least a half point plus.

So in summary I am always bidding this as a 9+ point hand and jumping in the club suit. I don't need to refine my valuation beyond that until I hear more bidding.

On the second hand:

A reasonable deduction for the club King is more like -1/2 point for being doubleton and -1 point (maximum, only if opponents are playing Better Minor) for being under (presumed but unproven) Club strength.

That said, I'm most definitely peeking at Opponents' convention card to see if they play their 3 card minor openings as "Better Minor" or "Clubs if possible". And if neither Opponent has a convention card flat on the table for discrete perusal I'll consider calling the director to take my partner off of a potential ethical dilemma if I need to pick it up to read it.

So, again, I'm evaluating as 9 points on the first round and making my jump in the heart suit as requested by Partner.

I really don't see where Stewart is getting off suggesting these wild re-evaluations to intermediate and weaker players. A far greater hurdle for that level is development of partnership confidence - and that requires bidding in a manner that Partner can - and will - understand. Perhaps these re-evaluations can be made by Meck-well or a Zia - but it's insanity to recommend them to players well below that strength.

OK. Partner probably has 12-13 high card points, I've got 11 and 10 respectively that "devalue" to 9+. Even so, we have more than half the deck and I need to jump so partner doesn't put me on a average of 5-6 and wrongly believe that the opponents have the upper hand, right?

@TomAu: I've also amended my answer to the earlier question. I was taking a far too pessimistic view of the hand at that time.

I have too much strength to underbid as much as suggested.

The first hand has two aces. We may easily belong in 3NT, playing against a single opponent and those aces mean that we have the entries to finesse through the strong opponent's high cards. Having said that, the playing strength of this hand is not great, exactly for the reasons stated. Anyway, I want to give partner some encouragement in case they have extras. I can't bring myself not to bid 3C even though it may backfire.
The second hand has that king of clubs as a kind of a fault. I have been known to be overly pessimistic, but here I will bid 2H. At least I will likely be declaring and that king is protected from indecent exposure at the opening lead. True, one key finesse in another suit may fail, and the king lead through, but that would amount to assuming the worst. Against that, partner may have something in clubs, too, and we should not both devalue. 1NT might work (it promises something like 6-10 points and a club stopper), but a take-out-doubler is primarily looking for a fit in a major, and this hand wants to co-operate.

Partners are often more forgiving when you take a slightly optimistic view (as long as you don't overdo it). Do take the flashing warning signs into account, but don't spend too much time looking for excuses to underbid.
Even the good old Charles Goren gave the advice (to beginners) that partners of take-out-doublers should bid more, but the TOXers should show some restraint. True, his reasons don't quite fit these scenarios as his concern was chiefly that both partners should keep in mind that the partner of the doubler may have been forced to act on a very weak hand, and beginners on both sides of the table often forget this.

Not sure about seven, but the big concern in the earlier question was the 4-3-3-3 opposite a takeout double.  Two flat hands and no more than 7 card fit likely plus the AQJ in diamonds being so concentrated in a possible 3 trick suit make a NT game challenging to imagine.
In the hand at question here, assuming this was 1c-X-p-?, you have slightly better shape, but as said the king is poorly situated; I wouldn't stress too much about that shape given 1c doesn't mean a whole lot about the strength or shape of opener's hand, but certainly it's a little weaker than 3 points from that king.  If you're actually after the 1c bidder (1c-p-p-X-p-?), then the K is actually quite well situated, though I'd also be wondering other things in that auction.
The main question you need to ask is where this fits in the range of hands partner might expect.  You've got seven useful points and the Kc which is certainly not zero, but is not that much better than T2 in a suited contract.  If partner's towards the minimum (even 13-ish points, let's say), you're probably okay not being in game, right?  It's only if they're above the minimum for a takeout double that you really want to go to game, and if partner does respond after 1H, you should be ready to push it up pretty quickly.
That's the sort of thinking you need to use when deciding how to bid a hand - you can't just "count the defects", it's a more complicated bit of critical thinking that is needed.


text:
Should there be different standards for a strong two club bid depending on the expected rebid?
A strong two club bid indicates the ability to take something like eight and a half tricks, with a meaningful portion of that being tricks outside the main suit. The test that I use is something like, I can make game if responder has as little as "three and three," that is three well-placed high card points and three cards in my key suit.
The standard requirement is 22 high card points. That's adequate if opener plans to re-bid a major suit after a two diamond "waiting" bid, because 25 high card points and an eight card fit is a favorite for a major suit game.
I don't consider it an adequate holding for a 2NT rebid, because a 22-3 distribution between the two hands is an underdog for 3NT according to these tables of data. Open needs 23 high card points to be a favorite opposite "three."
But the biggest question mark arises when the opener has, say, six of a minor suit and 22 high card points and intends to play in that suit (the hand is not suitable for no trump). The worst problems arise with a diamond suit, because the two diamond response will expose the opener's hand as dummy. A rebid of three clubs is a bit less problematic, but it still rules out "double negative" responses such as 2NT or three clubs. To compensate for these problems, I need 25 points or more to open two clubs with a minor suit target.
Does such a three tiered structure (22 points for a major suit game 23 for 3NT and 25 for a minor suit game) make sense?

Especially for very strong unbalanced hands, you should count tricks, not points.  My usual standard is 22+ balanced or 8.5 tricks in a major or 9.5 tricks in a minor (but both of the latter require enough high card strength to set opponents' game contracts).

But let me note there are plenty of experts out there who play 22+ balanced or game in hand.

The answer to your headline question is yes, but the reasoning and some of the specific recommendations in the text of your question are a bit off.
First, for NT. The table you linked to recommends the following for 22-3 HCP distributions: when vulnerable, 3NT is optimal; when not vulnerable, it is better to be in 3NT than 2NT (1NT is optimal). You should follow the standard recommendation to open 2C and rebid 2NT when holding 22-24 HCP, since your alternative with a 22 HCP hand is to open 2NT; I'm not aware of any system that would allow you to stop in 1NT with 22 HCP.
Second, for minor suit openers. Just because you have a strong hand with primary diamonds, it's not the case that the hand is "not suitable for no trump." This is a partnership game; your partner has some cards in their hand as well, and the question is which contract is best for the pair of hands you have. You should describe your hand as well as you can so that your partnership can arrive at the best contract. It's true that 2C-2D-3D eats up a lot of space, so you may put some extra diamond hands in your 2NT rebid or your 1D opener, but I wouldn't say that you require 25 HCP to plan a 3D rebid.
Let's look at a few hands:

Ax KQx AKJTxx AQ: This hand should probably plan to bid 2C-2D-2NT. It's semi-balanced and in the right point range.
AQx KQx AKJTxx A: You might even plan to bid this one 2C-2D-2NT; that wouldn't be the worst distortion in the world. But it's also OK to plan for 2C-2D-3D.
x AQx AKJTx AKQx: This hand should open 1D and rebid 3C; two-suiters are easier to bid when starting at 1D. The short spade means that it is very unlikely to pass out in 1D.
AKQx AQx AKJTx J: This is probably 1D followed by 2S, but I could see an argument for 2C followed by 3D. The danger here is that you have concentrated values in the majors, so it's entirely possible that neither opponents nor partner will be able to bid, and you can make 3NT when partner has as little as Jx xxxx xxxx QTx, and 5D when partner has as little as xxx xx Qxxx xxxx (this hand makes 6 if the heart finesse succeeds).
A Kxx AKJTxxxx A: This is only 19 points but I can't see any reasonable opening sequence other than 2C-2D-3D.

One issue with your analysis is that you are focused on what happens when partner has exactly 3 points. This happens less than 10% of the time when you have 22 HCP. 2/3 of the time, partner has 5 points or more. But also, you have 22+ HCP less than 2% of the time. (a) it's not worth spending a lot of memory and effort optimizing your 2C bidding since it doesn't happen very often, and (b) it's certainly not worth optimizing closely for the situation where partner has 3 HCP since it's a low probability event even after you've opened 2C. When you open 2C, you're trying to find the right game or slam, and you're not worrying too much about the situation where partner is completely broke.

I think a simpler way to say this, could be:
Opener's job is to describe one of 4 shapes to partner, while Responder's job is to calculate how many tricks his hand adds to opener's and place the contract.
It's easier for responder to investigate opener's hand than describe their own wide-ranging hand (theoretically anywhere between 0 and 17 points), so opener trusts responder's judgement until they relinquish captaincy (and then opener may add any extra 'unrevealed' tricks)
Now it's clear opener describes, and since 2NT would show a balanced 20-22 points, then the 2C rebids show either:  (a) a balanced strong 22-24, or 25+, etc, (b) a Single-suited Major with 8.5+ tricks, (c) a Single-suited Minor with 9.5+ tricks, (d) a strong multi-suited hand - since multi-suiters are best opened at 1-level, then hands through 2C must be so strong they couldn't afford responder a chance to pass.  (One might also classify (e) A fit to Responder's suit as a 5th shape, but that's not really an initial objective)
So, I think 4 types rather than tiers


text:
Should I have done something other than open one heart in the following situation?
At matchpoints, with only us vulnerable, I opened one heart in third position (after two passes) with the following: ♠ AK ♡QJT98432 ♢3  ♣ K9.
Despite my eight hearts, I elected not to preempt in order not to shut out my partner. I let the opponents push me up to three hearts. We made four, but shared a bottom because most other pairs with our cards made four hearts.
I had eight tricks in hand. Partner, who did not bid, turned up with the ace of diamonds for the ninth. The tenth came from a club finesse to my king which I was then able to take, and which worked because the ace was "onside."
One opponent told me that I should have opened four hearts with the hand. I did not want to bid (without hearing from partner about the possible trick and resulting finesse).
Another opponent opined that I should have opened a strong two clubs. I had the required 8.5 tricks, but limited defense, so I did not consider that an option. Specifically, I was worried that I was missing to two top heart honors.
Were either of these options clearly better than opening one heart?

I don't think 1H is indefensible here as an opening. Slam is not out of the picture, e.g. is 50-50 if partner has Ace of hearts and Ace of clubs. I would probably open 4H though because it's matchpoints and you're vulnerable, which means missing a thin slam isn't a catastrophe (whereas letting the opponents find a spade fit might be).

In 3rd seat - yes I think you should open 4H.
If partner has 1 trick, then 4H has good chances.
If partner does not have 1 trick, then 4H is quite likely to be a profitable sacrifice undoubled, possibly even doubled.
Since partner is a passed hand, you don't have to worry about partner having 3 tricks for you to have a good slam - that's the big potential gain from opening 1H.
Given that you want to be in 4H pretty much no matter what, you should bid it right away.  You don't want the opponents to find their own making game (quite possible) or their own possible sacrifice (also quite possible), or find the double of 4H when it's right, all of which are much easier after you open 1H.
Don't open 2C - you're asking for the auction to go 2C-(2S)-P-(4S) - now do you bid 5H?  At least after 1H-(1S)-P-(4S) your partner knows what suit you have.

There are other reasons not to open 2C. This hand doesn't have nearly the defense partner should expect. Also it would be an illegal psych in acbl events, in which 2C must meet the minimum requirements for a Very Strong hand: one of (a) >= 20 hcp (b) >= 14 hcp and within one trick of game, (c) >= 5 control points and within one trick of game. This hand has 13 hcp, 4 control points, and is at least 2.5 tricks from game.


text:
At what point (if at all) does the "captaincy" revert to a 1NT opener?
Suppose I open 1NT. This defines my hand within narrow limits (typically 15-17 high card points and "balanced" distribution), causing my partner, who now knows a lot about my hand, to become 'captain" of the team and having the right to place the contract going forward.
Partner may bid 3NT. That's game, and basically the end of the story. But suppose partner raises to 2NT. Do I now have the liberty to bid three or four of say, a five card suit, or is partner's preference for a NT contract final (giving me only the options of pass or 3NT)?
Partner may bid a Jacoby transfer (two diamonds asking me to transfer to 2 hearts, or two hearts transferring to two spades, etc.). Partner is clearly in charge here, and I must comply.
Partner may bid two clubs (Stayman). I bid two of one major (showing four cards in that suit), and one partner bid three of that major. She said that she was offering me the choice of passing, going to four of the major or bidding 3NT. Was she, in fact, relinquishing the captaincy, and are there any (other) post-1NT sequence where the responder does this?

I'm not sure that it's so important to know "who is the captain" in those situations. It seems like getting hung up on semantics instead of focusing on your responsibilities and options in the auction.
Answering your subquestions:
If partner invites with 2NT, you may bid three of a major to indicate that you accept the invitation and have a 5-card major. Partner may bid 3NT or raise your major to game. Who's the captain here? Eh, nobody really. Both of you have narrowly limited hands and are providing information to give your partner an option.
When partner makes a Jacoby transfer, many pairs play that opener may bid something else as a "super accept," showing an unusually good hand for partner's major (there are a number of different agreements for this, so don't spring it on partner without discussion). Has captaincy been transferred? No, you're giving responder additional information to help make a decision.
When partner raises your Stayman response, she is showing 4 cards in that suit and invitational values. The ball is in your court. Does that mean that you are the captain now? Not sure it matters, but maybe? You now have a decision to make. If you think that makes you the captain, then I guess you are.
There are many invitational sequences after 1NT openings, e.g. 1NT-2H-2S-2NT, 1NT-2H-2S-3S, 1NT-2C-2D-2NT, 1NT-4NT, 1NT-5NT, 1NT-2D-2H-4NT. There are other sequences that ask opener to choose whether to participate in a slam auction. At some point, you both know about the same amount about each other's hand, and so neither of you is strictly the captain and you are participating in a cooperative auction. But even when partner is the captain, there is often scope for using judgment to determine whether to show additional information.


text:
How strong a suit do you need to impose a (minor) suit on a partner bidding Michaels?
Not vulnerable versus vulnerable at matchpoints, I opened with a pass, LHO bid one spade, and partner bid two spades (Michaels), showing 5-5 in hearts and a minor.
I bid three diamonds with the following hand (because my hearts were not long or strong enough to bid): ♠ 854 ♡Q8 ♢A6542 ♣ T94.
I "lucked out" because partner had JT987 of diamonds and a singleton club. We would have suffered if her minor suits had been reversed.
One of the opponents pointed out that my diamond holding wasn't strong enough to make a unilateral decision (I should have bid 2NT to let partner indicate the suit).
If I had it to do again, I would bid 2NT with my actual diamond holding, but I would bid 3 diamonds with AKxxx. Is this suit strong enough to bid diamonds unilaterally when I have three clubs? Suppose my minor suit holdings were ♢AK654 and ♣4? (In this case, I would have had only one club, if her suit were clubs, and my five diamonds would be decidedly stronger than her "average expectations" of KJxxx.)

Your analysis is entirely upside down Tom. The "stronger" your suit is, especially headed by AK, the better it is to have as a side suit (and in this case a quick discard) than as trumps. The key feature for deciding the trump suit is always length first and foremost. An eight card fit will almost always play much better than a seven card fit; and the stronger the seven card suit is, the better the eight card fit plays. Exceptions do exist - when both hands are very strong, so the tricks are being taken on sheer power and only limiting losers is a concern.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: What happens if my partner has a weak five card holding like JT987 opposite three little ones. of mine The opponents can take the three top trumps leaving only JT with partner. Or is that a rare enough occurrence not to matter.? As it turned out, my partner had strong hearts opposite my Q8 and that would have been our "side suit." I wouldn't bid hearts, but might believe that partner would use it as a side suit.

Perfect - Let's follow up on that a bit. You have ♠ 854 ♡Q8 ♢A6542 ♣ T94 opposite something like ♠6 ♡KJ952 ♢73 ♣ J8632. You quietly raise to a non-invitational 3 Hearts and let the opponents stew. They're cold for 6 Spades; and while the auction is already at 3 Hearts they don't even know for sure yet that it's their hand. Just collect your top board and quit complaining.

I have recently learned that expert standard in this situation is for 3D to be an artificial invitational bid inviting game in hearts.  (2N shows an invitational hand in either minor; 3C shows a hand that wants to play in partner's minor whatever it is; 3H is a non-invitational raise.)  Wanting to impose a minor is so rare that it's just made impossible.

Your partner has advertised that they are two suited. The only reason to bid your own suit is that you can play your suit across from a void and that your best fit in one of their suits would be a disaster.
An example: xxx xx AQJT9x xx is probably a 3D call - if partner's clubs are KQxxx or worse (a good bet) then 3C will probably be a disaster.
When you have three clubs or three hearts, you want to play in partner's suit regardless of how good your diamonds are. Your good diamonds will take tricks when clubs are trumps but partner's hand may not be good enough to provide tricks when diamonds are trumps, eg because they lack entries other than spade ruffs. When you have found an 8-card fit and you don't have the values for game, don't make a nonforcing bid in a new suit, hoping that it might also be an 8-card fit.

If partner's clubs are KQxxx or worse [is] a good bet." I once estimated that "average expectations" for a random five card suit was something like KJ852.

Partner has one or two in the other minor suit most of the time. Looking at your hand, you have to decide: are you better off in whichever of the minors partner has length in, or in your minor regardless, or in hearts?
If you know the answer then you bid it. If you don’t then you bid 2NT and find out more information.

Sorry; can't upvote this. You have missed that Tom's analysis is entirely upside down. A strong suit can readily take tricks as a side suit, while a weak suit might only be taking tricks as trump. Thus length is the key feature of a trump suit, while strength is the fey feature of a side suit. Just how to read and use this - that really should be the crux of a good answer.


text:
Did I bid properly against a (weak) 1NT opening?
With no one vulnerable at matchpoints, right hand opponent dealt and bid 1NT (which was alerted as 11-14).
I made a "big double" with the following 16 point hand: ♠ QJT ♡ 6 ♢ AKJT9 ♣ AJ54, intending to rebid diamonds, or lead them against an eventual NT contract.
Left hand opponent asked what that meant and partner said, "for penalties." LHO opponent then bid two diamonds (transfer to hearts). Partner passed, opener duly bid two hearts for her partner.
I doubled for "takeout." Left hand opponent passed, and my partner passed for penalties with
♠ A982 ♡ KJ875 ♢ 65 ♣ 92
The opponents went down four. They complained about being confused by my bidding sequence with the first double for penalties and the second double for takeout. They thought I was using, or should have been using Capelleti. This was my newest partner, but I thought she correctly characterized my bids.
Was the bidding sequence proper (if unfortunate for the opponents) or did someone misbid?

Congratulations on a nice result.
I see nothing wrong with the agreements, bidding, or explanations of the calls made by you and partner. Those who play a weak notrump  opening have to accept that, on occasion, they will go for a number. They were unfortunate, in this instance, to have both a very weak hand opposite Opener and no 8 card fit to run into.
The opponents have no basis for any "expectation" that you will be playing a particular defense against their system - unless that defense is marked on your convention cards or otherwise suggested by your explanations. The notion that you might be showing first general strength, willing to compete and or defend doubled, and then further showing willingness to play any suit other than the one they ran to, really ought to be expected by any partnership playing a weak notrump opening.

This is an example of why I don't like weak no trump. Opener actually had ♠ A982 ♡ ♠ K63 ♡ A3 ♢ Q84 ♣ KQT63, that is the top of a 12-14 range, only one point below the bottom of the 15-17 point range. But add any one of the four jacks to give her 15, and the value of her hand increases enormously. This may have been an extreme example, but even so.

@TomAu: I'm also a long time weak (12-14) NT player, but I'll tell you about the hand that sold me on playing mini (10-12) NT.    I opened 1N, vulnerable against not, with a 10 count, it went all pass, and partner showed up with a 4 count.  My 1N contract goes down four, for -400, and a top (at MPs), since at every other table, the opponents were in 3N, making an overtrick, for 430.  (The opponents had 13 each and neither was strong enough to double.)

I am a director and a weak NT player, for context.
One big issue with the weak NT is that you are sometimes too high at 1NT.  Not as often as people make out, and the strong NT goes for 800 into nothing too when responder's 4-count is a 1-count instead and the opponents' hands are the same.  In fact, the big losses (at matchpoints) are -200 into partscore, and +90 into +110 (or +120 into +140) when we preempt our own fit.  But sometimes it does, in fact. go for numbers.
One of the benefits of the weak NT (especially in a strong NT world) is that the opponents frequently let you off the hook, either in the auction or in the play, when you're "too high with the opening bid".  Sometimes they can't legitimately work it out.  Sometimes they have bad defences, or bid them poorly.  Sometimes they slip a trick in defence (and 1NT-X-all pass is very hard to defend, almost as hard as 1NT-all pass) and that's the difference between a -200 zero into a +180 top, or an -500 zero into a -300 top, or (if undoubled) a -150 zero into a -100 average-plus.
But not always, and you take what you're given.  If you aren't willing to take your system losses (and wins) with an even keel, stop playing an anti-field system. Don't take it out on the opponents.
Now, as a director.
You are allowed to play whatever defences are legal against their NT, provided you can explain them properly.  You are allowed to not play what they do, or to play their defence but with different continuations.
That includes a big double (which many, on both sides, think needs to be balanced.  No, it just has to take 7 tricks in NT with partner).  It includes playing that in a Cappelletti framework.
There's also nothing wrong with playing penalty doubles in one situation and takeout doubles in another, even on the same hand - in fact, a very common agreement is "XXX":

First double is cards
Second double (by either partner) is takeout
Third double is penalty.

So those playing that style would have the same auction.
Here, the weak NT pair got into a bad situation that your system was able to take advantage of.  No sympathy there, it happens.
However, note the "you can explain them properly".  That means Alerting as is proper, and explaining fully(*).  If they didn't ask about the double of 2♥ , and just assumed that meant that you had the trump stack, that's their lookout.  However:

if they did ask about the double, and
it wasn't clear from the explanation that it was for takeout, and
they played for you to hold the trumps rather than partner, and
they would have scored better (even if -500 instead of -800, but especially if -300 instead of -800) had they played for your partner to hold the trump stack;

then the Director should be called, and should award an adjusted score.  But note that they aren't entitled to that better score, unless all the conditions are met (and the Director was called, and the Director determined that all conditions were met).
"The opponents bid badly/didn't bid like we would and we got a bad score" - fine.  "The opponents didn't have what we assumed they would have for the auction" - fine.  "The opponents explained their agreement badly, and we played wrong as a result" - not fine.
(*) I think you play in North America? In the ACBL, the first double is "penalty or card-showing" and not Alertable; the second double is not Alertable, no matter what it means, except in very rare situations (neither "penalty" nor "takeout" fit those exceptions).  The rest of my statement assumes your partner Alerted neither double, and that that was correct.

The opponents asked my partner for the meaning of my first double. She said (correctly) that it was meant for penalties. They did not ask about the second (takeout) double.


text:
Was it reasonable for me to pass my partner's 2NT bid?
With both sides vulnerable at matchpoints, left hand opponent (LHO) dealt and bid 1 diamond. Two passes followed.
I doubled (takeout) with ♠ KJT5 ♡ AJT4 ♢ Q5 ♣ AT4. LHO rebid 2 clubs. Partner bid 2NT, and three passes followed. Partner was upset with me, because she made 3NT holding ♠ AQ7 ♡ Q86  ♢KT42 ♣ J98.
The reason I passed instead of bidding 3NT was that I had put partner on about 10 high card points for her bid of 2NT. Put another way, I expected her to have hand like the one she had, but with only one, not both of the major suit queens.
With both queens, she would make 3NT, with neither queen, she would go down, with one queen, she may or may not make 3NT. Overall, I estimated that our chances at 50-50.
We got a bottom because everyone else bid (and made) 3NT. That compares with the top we would gotten if everyone else had gone down one.
Was my estimate of 50-50 a reasonable one? Given this assumption, was it reasonable for me to pass 2NT?
Should partner have bid 3NT herself with 12 high card points opposite my presumed 13 (actually had 15)? Or did she reasonably believe that I might be doubling "light" in fourth position?

First, "whose fault" isn't a useful partnership tool, except possibly (some very good players will disagree) acknowledging one's own unprompted.
Second, agreements about doubles are different in different areas (and different experiences); agreements about how aggressive one balances are different in different places.  So, like many "should I" questions, there's no universal right answer.  I'll reply with "what I'd expect from a random Flight A player in North America" - but do read to the end!
Having said that, not getting to a 27 point game just because they opened (and rebid) is a partnership problem, and it is worth looking at the causes of that issue.
Pavlicek teaches (over bids - similar arguments would apply to doubles, I would say) that "you should use the same responding method[], except responder should add two points to all the point ranges."  Others say 3.
Does that take partner's 12 out of a 2♦ cuebid?  Possibly - 11 is "standard" minimum after a direct double, + 2 points is 13.  Does the 2♣ rebid, which means partner could pass and you'd get another call, mean that the free bid of 2NT is stronger than with a pass?  Or weaker (because she can no longer bid 1NT)?  Or the same?
Interesting questions.  You're probably not going to get much "the book says" or "the expert says" about this - I can't remember the last auction this was an option.
Remember, NT bids are not what a takeout doubler wants to hear; as a result, they're held to a higher minimum even at the 1 level.  "Standard", again, for 1♦-X-p-1NT is "decent 8-10", and 2NT higher than that.
Looking at your hand, you don't have a diamond stopper, but Qx is going to be a nice fill-in for partner's shown stop so it's not "waste paper".  It might not count its full 2 points, but it's not zero. And you have a club stop to help hers, which might not be solid - you "bid" the suit after all.  So, you have a "bad balanced 15" in the context of this auction.
What does partner have?  Even if 2NT isn't quite as strong as it would be without the 2-level overcall, the minimum "1NT" hands have a perfect, safe call - pass.  If you're on the 10-ish you could be, fine.  If you're on a "real" (would have done it direct) double, you'll double again and she can bid knowing partner has a good ceiling.
If you had opened this 1NT, the opponents overcalled diamonds, and partner showed at least a good 9 or 10, but possibly a little more, with diamonds stopped, would you want to be in game? I would say yes.
I would probably invite if she had bid a suit, though. Again, she can pass the minimums, but 2♥ "show fit with fit" could easily be a good 6 or so. And now your ♦Q probably is "waste paper".
I think the "fault" of this hand comes down to differing partnership understandings about "steal a king from partner" when balancing.  You expected partner to bid 2NT over 2♣ with effectively "minor stops and a card", and you can't see 9 tricks.  She expected you to pass 2NT with the shapely 10, and go to game with anything but the minimum of "direct doubles".  This, not "what should we have done", is what needs to be discussed, so that next time, you both are using the same assumptions.

This was a new partner (and a relatively new club). Last Saturday, I had been partnered with LHO (who bid diamonds and clubs with 1-2-5-5 distribution and 10 hcps. So my bidding was appropriate for my Saturday partner but not Tuesday's. With the actual partnership, we had at least Q too much between us for my pass.

I'm going to disagree with Mycroft here. Not because his analysis is unsound - it's great, in its proper place - but because his premise is. The nuances he discusses so well simply don't exist unless you are in a regular partnership where those nuances have been agreed upon; or you are both of such a skill level, and know each other to be of such a skill level, where such nuances can be assumed.
In this case partner has shown full values for a 2 notrump, creating a game invitational auction; and you are 5 points over your minimum with a fitting hand. Just raise to game. Don't go looking for nuances that are known to NOT exist.

I will disagree as well.  There is nothing in the question that states "pickup partner"; that only came out in the comment to my answer.  Perhaps that means I should edit my answer to reflect the comment, but unless one is playing one's first game in Dubai or Bangalore, if you don't have a feel for how the room - or even your new partner - plays, that's a bigger problem than "how strong is 2NT?" and should be worked on first.  In other words: I do agree with you - it absolutely is invitational.  The question is - does partner?


text:
If a responder to a strong 1NT bid is 5-4 in the majors, would it make better sense to use Stayman rather than a transfer bid?
At matchpoints, with only them vulnerable, I dealt and opened a strong (16 point) 1NT. Partner bid a 2 heart transfer (to spades) with the following: ♠ AT843 ♡ AQ87 ♢ Q5 ♣ Q7.
I duly made the forced two spade bid, and partner raised to four. We went down one despite our combined 30 high card points because I only had two spades.
Partner admitted, "I guess we should have been in 3NT. Should he have bid 2 clubs, (Stayman) on his first turn?
I would have denied with two diamonds, and he could then have bid two spades, showing five. I would have denied three with 2NT, and he could have bid 3NT.

You have discovered the problem that the Smolen convention was invented to solve. If you agree to play Smolen, after the auction starts 1NT-2C-2D, a bid of three of a major shows 4 cards in that major, 5 in the other, and game-forcing values.
In the linked article, Larry Cohen claims that in standard bidding (that is, without Smolen agreed), a jump to three of a major after 1NT-2C-2D shows a game forcing hand with 5 cards in the major. Hopefully partner will be able to work that out at the table, as this auction is rarely discussed by pairs that don't play Smolen.
Your suggested auction does not work; 2S is not a forcing bid in standard bidding.

With his actual hand, I believe partner should just go to 3NT on 14 points. But if you weaken his hand by replacing the AQ of hearts with JT (giving him 9 hcps), I would, in his shoes, bid 2S (non-forcing) to show five spades and let opener decide whether or not to go on. As opener, I would pass with only two spades but go on with 16 points, three spades, and the 5-3 fit.

9 points with 5-4 length in two suits is a game force across from a strong 1NT opener. If you have Smolen on your card I see no reason to forego exploration for a major with the given hand. You'd look pretty silly if you found partner with KJx KJx AKxxx Jx or similar, and had to lose 5 club tricks off the top in 3NT when 4S has chances of overtricks.


text:
Should bidders take "controls"into account when trying to bid a no trump slam?
By "controls," I mean the situation whereby an ace is worth two controls, and a king one. Given four aces and four kings, there are 12 controls in all.
If two partners have 31 (random) high card points between them, they are favorites to make 6 NT (35 points for 7NT). Therefore, if partner opened a strong 1NT, I would, in theory, raise to 4NT with 15 high card points (quantitative), asking partner to go to 6NT with 17 or a good 16, and pass otherwise.
One obvious danger is that even if a partnership has 31 points, it will still go down if the opponents have two aces, and may go down if they have an ace and king, particularly of the same suit), within their nine points. That's because the opponents have four and three controls, respectively, leaving the declarer with only eight or nine. The declaring side should have at least 10 controls to go with their 31 points (off only one ace or two kings) to bid 6NT.
So I would be happy to raise 1NT to 4NT with a 15-pointer like the following:
♠ Axx ♡ Axx ♢Qxxx ♣ AJx. This has six controls (more than my "fair share" of 4.5). Even if partner had all the remaining "quacks" (queens and jacks), it would be impossible to have 16 points without at least 3 controls, and nearly all 16 point hands would have 4.
On the other hand, there is only one control in this 15 pointer: ♠KQJx ♡ QJx ♢QJx ♣ QJx. Even with "17," partner could be off two aces. So I would be reluctant to raise to 4NT with this hand. In fact, I would prefer to raise to 4NT with a slightly weaker version of the first hand (remove the jack to reduce the point count to 14, but maintain six controls):
♠ Axx ♡ Axx ♢Qxxx ♣ Axx.
Is my concern about controls reasonable in this instance?

Of course you should be concerned about controls.  If you don't have control of all suits, and first round control of three, you're not making 6.
Control count is a good way to determine this, if your system has the tools available.  Standard usually doesn't.  Many strong club systems use it, but starting with the initial response (or ZZ/Queen points, where A=3, Kx=2, Qx(x)=1) to a strong club opener.
But there's another half of slam: you can have 0 or 1 loser, but not 12 winners.  Your 15 count takes tricks, if your partner has the controls.  Your 14-count - does not.  You could easily have two slow losers and no suit to set up.
I definitely would not be putting a "control count minimum" on my 1NT openers; history has taught that taking some balanced range (whatever one it is) out of the other bids improves the rest of the system, and having to deal with "what do I do with my control-poor 16 I didn't show last round in this auction" is a long-term loser.
How do you resolve this?  Traditionally, by requiring 33 for 6NT (so you can't be off two aces).  Yes, 31 will make 6NT more often than not (double-dummy, at least; I'm not 100% at guessing 2-way finesses for the Queen) as long as you have 3 aces.
How do you find that out?  Not by quant - but by Gerber.  If you need to know both - then you need a quantitative ask after Gerber (not 4NT - that's reserved for "oops, not enough aces.")
How do you do that?  Don't ask me - I don't play Gerber.  I find the temptation of partners to use it when it is wrong (i.e., except for "I know we have 12 tricks if we don't lose 2 first") loses me more than not having it the three times a year it is right[1].
But your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to work out how to Gerber then quantitative, keep the quantitative, and be able to Gerber with 8 K85 QJ6 KQT962 after partner's 2NT to get to 6NT opposite 3 aces (the traditional use)[2].

In addition, playing a weak NT in my primary partnership, being able to right-side 4M (using 4m to say "you play it" and 4M to say "I'll play it") is much more frequent.  In my strong NT partnerships, it's more of a "safety play".
Real hand.  We scored 4/13 for 6♣, because "everybody" just Gerbered and went.  They got lucky; they were missing ♠AQJ, where it could easily have been ♠AK.

Exactly! Don't let the (impossible) search for a perfect system stop onw from using a very good one. There are a very large number of the latter, all said and done, with sufficient variety in style to suit nearly all partnerships.

To answer this question from a different tack; The 1NT opening ought to be oriented towards finding games not slams, and there are far better tools to handle controls for a slam.
In No Trumps, obviously you can't lack control in any suit with 34+ points. (Long suits are helpful but don't substitute for absent control elsewhere).
With less points (30+) look for a suit-slam first. You must find your fit, but may upgrade it to NT later if your controls are sound. When you don't see the suit slam then a NT slam is extremely unlikely!  (The 33-point mark is a borderline and quantitative 4NT may help shortcut to a minor-suit fit)
In suits, control-showing may reveal whether 4NT (Blackwood et al.) is appropriate, but make sure you're 1NT response will set 4NT to RKCB instead of quantitative!. Then it's a question of whether you've got control over every suit and sufficient long tricks, rather than how many controls.
Holding a lot of controls in responder's hand just indicates opener must therefore have less than average controls, and it won't solve many problems.
Neither example looks appealing for a slam try. (There's a saying, when you need to hope partner holds perfect cards, its unlikely). However, add a doubleton, find a 5-3 fit elsewhere (eg with puppet stayman) and then find 5 keycards, and your suit or even NT slam has traction in either case.


text:
Would you rather play defense than offense with the following hand?
Non vulnerable vs. vulnerable in duplicate bridge, West dealt and opened a "weak two" (hearts), which an expert, Frank Stewart, called "cheesy" with the following hand:
♠ 2
♡ K98743
♢ J42
♣ KJ6

I consider the singleton spade for offense. Take away my two jacks and give me a queen of hearts in place of the nine as compensation, and I would open two hearts with a hand like this:
♠ 2
♡ KQ8743
♢ 642
♣ K96

But I would rather  pass and play defense with the actual hand (unless my partner bids strongly) because 1) because I have only one, not two, of the three top honors in my six card suit, 2) because I have more strength outside than inside my suit, and 3) because the jacks are good "nuisance" cards that interrupt potential sequences for the opponents, creating "impure" suits and "negative adjustments" to the law of total tricks, as described by Larry Cohen.
Is this hand in fact a better "defensive" than "offensive" hand?

Yes, the second hand definitely has a higher ODR (offense-defense-ratio) than the first.  The QH is definitely better for offense, and KJx in a side suit is definitely better for defense (though Jxx is pretty worthless either way unless partner has an honor).
Whether you preempt on the first hand, and how high you preempt on the second, definitely depends on your theory of preemption (as a partnership).  Some people like to play fairly constructive preempts.  This means they go down less when they preempt, and are also more likely to bid to game (or avoid bidding to game) accurately when they preempt and their partner has a good hand.  The downside is that they preempt less, so their opponents more frequently get to freely exchange information starting at a low level.
The games I care about doing well in are the ones where I'm playing against very good players - you might consider them experts, though they are two or three rungs below national or world champion caliber (and a couple rungs above me) - and, in my experience, they will bid very accurately and find their 21 point games and 25 point slams when you give them the room to do so.  Therefore, I tend to favor a more destructive approach to preempting.
Also, bridge scoring is pretty friendly to sacrifices - down 2 nonvul is a better score than letting them make a part score, and making a part score is a better score than setting them 1 vulnerable.  There are even more profitable sacrifices against games when you have the distribution.
In fact, nonvulnerable versus vulnerable, I would seriously consider opening 3H (in first or third seat) with the second hand, and I wouldn't think twice about a weak jump overcall of 3H against a 1S opening to my right.


text:
Opposite partner's opening bid, should I respond in a long minor or a shorter major?
At matchpoints, vulnerable versus not, my partner opened 1 heart with (s) QT963 (h) AKJ92 (d)Q4 (c)8.
I responded 2 diamonds with (s)A872 (h) 8 (d) KJT753 (c) KQ. Partner rebid 2 spades and we ended up in 4 spades, which went down one. A 5 diamond contract would probably have made because partner and I had a straight sequence in diamonds (K-T) versus a broken sequence in spades (with KJx "offside" partner's five card suit).
One of my opponents (the club expert) asked me why I didn't respond one spade instead.   of two diamonds. I said that I preferred the minor suit because it was two  cards longer (six versus four), and I felt that it would be easier to get a nine card fit in diamonds with partner having three out of the seven diamonds not in my hand than an eight card fit in spades with partner needing four of the nine spades not in my hand. (I prefer a nine card fit when playing for game in a minor.) As it turned out, we had only an eight card fit in diamonds, but experts such as Marty Bergen have opined that a good top sequence (e.g. K-T) is worth an extra card of length (e.g. nine instead of eight).
Was my opponent right to insist that I respond in spades, or did I do well to respond two diamonds? Also, could partner have made things easier by opening one spade instead of one heart.

It is perfectly normal to bid your longest suit first as responder when you have game forcing values. In fact, if you are playing a system in which a 2D response to 1H is forcing to game, it is much, much better to respond 2D with your hand than 1S. Even in Standard American, it is better to respond 2D than 1S when you have game forcing values and hold four spades and five diamonds.
A few notes on the actual hand:

I'm not really sure how you plan to make 5D. It seems you must lose a club, a diamond, and at least one spade, unless opening leader underleads a spade honor and declarer guesses which one. It seems in most cases, diamonds and spades make the same number of tricks unless defenders can arrange to ruff a diamond in a spade contract. Either way, diamonds goes down, and spades may or may not make.

With exactly 5-5 distribution in the majors, you open 1S, not 1H, regardless of strength. Depending on agreements, there are two ways that this auction should have gone in a fairly standard American system.

Option 1:
1S   2NT*   *Jacoby 2NT: game forcing raise with 4 or more trumps
4H*  4S     *Good 5-card heart suit on the side

Responder signs off with shortness in opener's side suit.
Option 2:
1S    4H*   *Splinter: 4-card support, shortness in hearts, GF
4S

Opener signs off with wastage in responder's short suit and no significant extras.
Some partnerships play that responder's hand is too strong for the splinter and so prefer the Jacoby 2NT response, and others do not.

Your partner should have opened 1S, as they don’t have sufficient points or the right shape for a reverse.
However, why not bid 1S yourself?  Sure, nine diamonds would be a nice fit, but 10 tricks is easier to take than eleven, and the nice unbroken sequence is several tricks no matter what trump is. Seems to me that even a 4-4 fit would be fine given your honor in spades.
Turns out you go down one, but that’s just bad luck (or bad play); you only go down if you lose two trump tricks, either to a singleton diamond lead and then ruff with the king protected beyond that, or KJx to your right in spades.  Both are unlikely.
In any event, you’re both wrong for not bidding spades. Bid based on shape more than suit quality at these stages.

It seems hard to believe that a 4-4 spade fit will be lost after a 2D response, and easy to believe that a diamond game or slam will be lost if you show your 4-card suit before your 5-card suit.


text:
If you are playing short minors, does the following sequence constitute a "reverse?"
Playing five card majors, I open one heart, partner responds two of a minor, and I bid two spades. That would be a "reverse," showing a five-four pattern, and at least 16-17 points.
But suppose I bid one diamond (with three or four), because I have only four cards in my major. Partner bids one spade, and I now bid two hearts (with four of them).
Are there some variations of standard American, or any other bidding system, whereby partners would agree that this sequence was not a reverse? And responder would not credit me with more than 12-13 points? The reason is that I was bidding a "convenient" minor at the one level, and I actually have no more diamonds than hearts.

A convenient minor should only ever be bid with a hand that guarantees to rebid either NT or a raise (with 4 card support) of a suit bid by Partner. If you cannot make that guarantee, you are abusing the convenient minor convention, and should look for an alternative opening.

Why wouldn’t it be a reverse?  Partner already denied four hearts (unless they have a weird distribution of their own). What’s the point of bidding 2H unless it’s a strong hand?
With 13 and x-4-4-y, you always have another bid. If x is 4+, you bid 2s.  If y is 4+, you bid 2c.  If neither is, then 1NT.

The sequence 1D-1S-2H is still a reverse, and promises extra strength (17+ is typical, but not universal). The reason why such a rebid normally promises extra strength is that it commits the partnership to the three level, should partner have a minimum hand and a preference for your first suit. This may be something you don't want to do.
So if you have 2443 shape and minimum strength (12-14), your proper rebid after 1D-1S is 1NT:

You have a balanced hand, so the NT rebid gets the message across.
You have a minimum opener, so you don't want to go higher without encouragement from partner.
And finally, if you belong in hearts, partner is still there. If they ahve extra strength, the bidding won't stop here.

Having said all that, a few problematic hand types do come to mind. If partner has 5 spades, 4 hearts and a weak(ish) hand, you might belong in hearts. There are various gadgets seeking to solve such problems such as Reverse Flannery and, of course, all forms of checkback, or new minor forcing. Discuss with partner before agreeing to use them. My experience with BBO suggested to me that nearly everybody in the US plays new minor forcing, but here I was told that's not the case. Caution!
Having such holes in the system is somewhat unavoidable, there simply is not enough room to tell everything you would like to, and you need to select bids least likely to leave your partnership in an awkward contract.

Thank you for the link. I used to play Flannery, but Reverse Flannery was new to me.

You are welcome @AlDante! I don't have an awful lot of experience with Reverse Flannery. With my current partner we played it for a whil about 10 years ago, but the problem disappeared, when we switched to Transfer Walsh + XYZ. I guess some good players do use RF, for otherwise it would not be known at all. It obviously depends on the rest of the system, whether it is needed.


text:
How, and how much do bidders downgrade their hands for weak spots?
Suppose you are the first to speak and have a hand like the following (with all x's being 7 or lower).
♠ Kxxx
♡ Ax
♢ Axxx
♣ AJx
That's 16 high card points, and normally one would bid 1NT (15-17) with it.  Would a good bidder treat the point count as more like "15"?
Replace the jack of clubs with an x. Now the hand is 15 on the Work count. But there are only four high cards, and NO intermediate cards, with the remaining nine being low cards. Would people refrain from bidding 1NT with it and bid, say, 1 diamond instead?

This hand fits your 1NT convention so that is what you should bid. Even if the J where another low card I would still bid it. In both cases you bid makes an accurate statement about your hand which is what partner needs to make a good answering bid.
Now once you have made this bid you can and should account for the particular shape of your hand within the range you described to partner. The example hand would work great if partner has 4+ spades for a spade contract or it would work well if partner has long clubs or diamonds for no trump. If partner promises something like that go ahead, otherwise try to keep the level low.
The same applies in the hand without J. You have a 1NT opener but it is at the bottom of that range. Respond accordingly to what partner says.

So your advice (without the J) is "bid 1NT," then treat it as a rock bottom minimum.

@TomAu Mostly yes. Again it depends on what partner tells you about their hand and how that fits with what you have. If partner has strong long spades this hand is a great fit even without the J.

A hand with 3 Aces and a King is worth more than 15 even without the J, frankly; sure, it's only 4 tricks, but it's 4 tricks!  Even in a 16-18 1NT range, this is absolutely a 1NT opener.  The J has some value, after all, when you consider your partner - if partner has a Q or a K of clubs, their hand is better now because of your J.
It's okay to downgrade cards that are truly absolutely worthless (Jx in opponents' suit, say), but most of the time it's very hard to tell what is absolutely worthless in first seat.


text:
When are good times to "lead dummy's first bid suit?"
This usually happens when your partner, East, doubles (and the double has no other meaning). The double may indicate one of several things. 1) East has a good tenace (e.g. AQ) behind' the dummy's suit. 2) East has a desire to ruff. A possible side effect of such a lead is that it may attack dummy's scarce entries.
Have I overlooked other valid reasons for leading dummy's first bid suit? Are there ways to identify (from the bidding and your hand) a time to lead dummy's first bid suit if East does not double?

Holding JD98x and side entries with a trump trick and length would be a good time. But if you're going to work on setting up Declarer's potential side suit tricks you'd better have a clear understanding from the bidding that this works for your side rather than Declarer's; and on just how you will be able to make this work.

Especially at matchpoints, when it's the only lead that doesn't look likely to give away a trick.  Partner might not be able to double because the contract is still making - the lead will just hold down the overtrick.

In NT, I will do it when I feel my partner does not have AKQ on that suit and I am holding Jx(x) (or even worst, in the case, you think there is a high chance of 3-3 break). The main theory on this is not to let the opponent gain anything from this suit given the high probability of betting a 3-3 break (in 5332/ 4333 distribution). Therefore, you may potentially gain 1 trick on another suit.
Another positive factor is that Suit is a major and is after a "weak" transfer and ends up getting an NT game. Therefore, you are betting the dummy is having A(Q)xxx, your partner has a K, and the declarer has (Q)Jx. But this is only worth it if you have another suit that needs to be established from your partner's lead.
If there is a trump suit, I will say I will only do it when I think there is a very high chance of ruff by my partner (e.g. I am holding xxxxxx on that suit, so the declarer should at least have a Q or J, hope that he/ she also has an x). The 3-3 break theory mentioned above for NT may sometimes work if you feel all players indeed have a balanced hand (from bidding etc.). However, my experience is it is usually better to find/ establish/ cash out your own suit first in this case.
In general, I think this works better in MP matches as +-1 trick is more influential. I personally seldom do fourth-best leads as I will always imagine (daydreaming) the best defense scenario (e.g. aim at cashing out my J in Jxxx).

Not one of these arguments looks even remotely sound to me.


text:
Was I right or wrong to value the following as an opening hand?
At matchpoints, not vulnerable vs. vulnerable, I opened one heart with the following (all X's are 7 or lower).
♠ J9x
♡ A9xxxx
♢ J9
♣ AT

Normally, I need 11, not 10, high card points to open even with a good six card suit. Here I "stretched" with 10 because of the two doubletons and good intermediates (three 9s and a T).
Partner raised to game with 12 points (opening hand), we went down one, losing one trick in each suit, and got a bottom on the board.
Was this an unlucky result? Or did I overbid?

Which seat were you in?

@ruds: Mine was first seat. Are you saying that the opening would have been more appropriate for third or fourth seat?

Jx is worth maybe at most 0.5 a high card point, though aces are worth more than 4.  I wouldn't open this in 1st or 2nd seat even in my light opening Precision partnership!  I think this is a fine weak 2 though.

@AlexanderWoo: If I had it to do over again, I would open this a "weak two" in first or second seat, and 1H only in third or fourth seat.

@TomAu: I'm a firm believer that your weak 2 range in 3rd seat should be about 0-14 hcp.  As long as game isn't a possibility, partner doesn't need to know how strong you are; any strength limitations only provides information to your LHO.  (Partner does need to know about your length to make Law of Total Tricks decisions.)  In 4th seat, most people play weak 2s show about 10-12 hcp and a 6 card suit (you just pass with weaker hands, which aren't really possible), though some play that 'weak' 2s show 13-15 and a 6 card suit in 4th seat.  So I would open this hand 2H in all seats.

@AlexanderWoo: You'd go as high as 14 for a "weak two" bid? My club considers "10" the max (except for my one, conservative partner, who liked my call with 12 points.) https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/49481/did-i-really-have-too-many-points-for-the-following-bid. And "Forget" had strong words about my "underbidding."

I think every partner I have had recently and I have made the standing agreement that 'preemptive' bids (including preemptive overcalls) opposite a passed hand can be made with any strength as long as there is no possibility of game.  Officially according to ACBL rules this does not require an alert but we do alert it for less experienced opponents who might not expect it.  It's a common treatment that makes a lot of sense.

@TomAu: The linked hand had enough distribution that game was a possibility opposite the right passed hand.  You don't just count points; you also have to imagine partner's possible hands.

What is a 14 point hand with six of a suit that has no possibility of game opposite a passed hand. I would pass with 10 points or a bad 11, and 14+10=24, which often makes one a candidate for game (if a slight underdog).

@TomAu: Yes it would have to be a terrible 14 - something like AJxxxx QJx QJ QJ (that's 8 losers!)

Opening that hand would be very aggressive, and not something I'd support.

You have maybe ten points.  J9 of diamonds is pretty much zero, that neither is likely to take a trick nor is likely to help anything partner has take a trick unless partner is long in diamonds (in which case you'd just ruff the long ones anyway).
You don't have a good heart suit.  You could easily lose three heart tricks with that suit.
Your spade jack is also pretty mediocre.

Don't count length AND shortness - count one or the other, if you're counting points.  This is the worst distribution with a six card suit, remember, from a distribution-point perspective - you have to have two doubletons (or shorter) with a six card suit.
I'd be pretty upset if you opened this 1h opposite me.  I also don't love 2h here (with only Ah and an outside ace, this isn't screaming "interfere") but certainly some would, especially in higher level competition.
Your partner needs to be able to trust that you're in a particular range when you open.  Your bidding with this hand either means your partnership ends up in slams/games that you shouldn't be... or it means your partner adds a point to ranges, but then ends up not bidding games/slams you should be in.  Both are not good.

If I had it to do again, I would open a "weak two" rather than at the "one" level. I consider A, KQ, or QJT equivalent "headers" for my six card suit, and I like the side ace in a short suit, as well as the top of the 5-10 range.

You're certainly welcome to, and I think some would value it that way.  I generally wouldn't, as I like my weak 2s to be a little more predictable.

Re "predictable," I believe my "weak twos" are pretty well defined. Six card suit. One sure "top" trick (A, KQ, or QJT) to go with three "long" tricks, and no more than one defensive trick outside. Point range is less important to me than "functionality."