Leaderboard

1. 2♣* gf clubs or balanced 2. 1♠ is 100% forcing There is a lot written about 2♣ in a 2/1 auction, here and other forums, I will try to find it

2♣ can be a 3card suit so that is what you probably bid on 1. On 2. It's a question of style whether you bid 1♠ or 2♣. 1♠ doesn't deny a strong hand but nevertheless you might prefer to show your strength by bidding 2♣.

I think your basic axiom is simply untrue. The Fibonacci distribution of hands in relay systems is only valid because these auctions are game-forcing and thus we know that the available space runs to 3NT. In a more general bidding situation we have to have the ability to stop in a part-score when that seems advantageous. So you first have to deal with those hands, and only once you have gotten down to the pure game-forcing sequences can you switch to the suggested hand division. In addition, while less important under the assumption of no interference, there are certain principles that make bidding systems more resilient, such as homogeneity. I also strongly disagree with your first addendum, that we should make bids designed to allow partner to pass as often as possible. It should be noted that mechanisms like transfers, relays and puppets, that have massively increased in their usage since the days when bidding systems actually did have more non-forcing calls, are explicitly non-passable. Many of these allow us to pass the response but that is quite a different thing from allowing partner to pass directly. In general, too many non-forcing calls make a bidding system less efficient. So I would suggest you relax this stipulation - we need to be able to pass when we reach a sensible contract and do not want to go to a higher level (PS-game-slam). There are different ways to achieve that and you should probably allow your (presumed) iterative process to decide for itself the best one.