S2000magic

4♥ seems pretty straightforward. Not even close.

My thoughts exactly.

I just want to be sure we're on the same page: North is declarer (and has the ♣K); South is dummy. You say to exit with the ♠Q; how are you coming to hand to do that? Or are you finessing the ♠Q?

I played this hand a couple of days ago, and the rust is showing: if I stop playing for a while my (bridge) brain goes to mush. You (North) hold: ♠ A Q 4 2 ♥ 5 ♦ A K 9 8 5 3 ♣ K 4 Partner holds: ♠ J 9 7 5 ♥ A 8 7 ♦ 10 ♣ Q J 9 5 3 East dealt, and the bidding was: East - South - West - North Pass - Pass - Pass - 1♦ 1♥ - Dbl. - 2♥ - 3♠ Pass - 4♠ - Dbl. - Pass Pass - Pass Opening lead: ♥4 (Trumps split 4 - 1; if you win the ♥A (West playing the ♥9) and lead a club, West wins the ♣A and returns the ♥3; when you play diamonds, East follows with the ♦J, Q.) How do you play 4♠X?

5♠

"Obviated"? I'm not sure that that's what you meant.

To the original question: yes, people still use strong 1-club systems.

I submit that it depends on where you play. If you play in the Charlotte (NC) Bridge Club, for example, you're better off learning 2/1. In other clubs, you might be better off learning SAYC.

That's a classic (15-17) 1NT opener. Weird.

How can you make a drop dead bid when partner is (essentially) unlimited? A strong suggestion? Sure. Drop dead? That seems a stretch. I like 5♣.

Wouldn't that limit the WJS to the specific auction 1♥ - 2♠? Or are we including minor suit openings (to which Bergen raises don't apply)?

My partner (in this game), while good (and getting better), has an aversion to learning "too many conventions". (He plays with three other partners at various stages of beginner / intermediate and finds it difficult to play vastly different systems with different partners.) So, we don't play Lebensohl (in any form, under any circumstances), and without explicit discussion I wouldn't use 2NT as anything but natural here. And I might not even with explicit discussion (lest he forget and we end up in a silly contract). I agree with your assessment that we should be playing Lebensohl in many cases; alas, it won't happen.

Why is 3♦ forcing?

Looks like a 1♠ opener to me.

By the way, for what it's worth, LHO had the ♦Q.