Kaitlyn S

I have never been afraid of looking odd :D

I sent this idea privately, but decided that there might be others in the same dilemma as the opening poster. If you're looking for somebody to play a non-natural system, you're probably looking for a fairly serious bridge player. Many of these populate BridgeWinners. Perhaps if you post your desires for a BBO partnership on BridgeWinners, it will be seen by more serious players and be more likely to have the desired result. Many more serious players look at BridgeWinners than at these forums (just look at the number of responses to a poll there as opposed to here.)

Thanks, Winston! I believe what you're telling me is that I'm following the wrong conservatives. And while I am actively seeking the liberal viewpoint on many subjects, the conservative counterarguments frequently do come from the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. who have made their living riling up people. I've seen many responses to this article but yours got me thinking in a different direction and was quite informative, and ultimately probably beneficial for me. I'm currently examining the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" I'm hoping that we all do that. For while I frequently accuse American universities of imposing their liberal ideas on young people, and robbing them of the very same critical thinking talent that they should be instilling, I have to take a look at my own education (which includes the media I follow and the people I converse with) and wonder if the same thing has happened to me. Indeed, as I have branched out and entered forums populated mainly by liberals (or at least by people that don't think like I do), I have become convinced that at least two of my substantial beliefs were wrong (I now believe in those cases that the "liberal side" is on firmer ground on the issue.) It has taken some research and the reading of material that didn't fit in well with my current thinking but to me, the truth is much more important than stubbornly sticking to an ideology. There are certain things I will probably never come over to the other side on. For example, I will never buy into the fact that I should be ashamed to be an American or a Christian, and I still strongly urge those people who think I should be to challenge their beliefs, to ask themselves why it is that they believe that and what it is in their education or upbringing that makes them believe in such an absurd idea. Challenging one's beliefs can be quite enlightening. It certainly has been for me.

I received this email recently. Doug Casey does not favor any political party to the best of my knowledge - he is a money manager (speculator) who frequently opines that most people spend too much time with politics. I'd like to hear this largely liberal forum's take on this article. Doug Casey on Why Millennials Favor Communism Justin’s note: Communism is better than capitalism. At least, that’s what a growing number of young people in the U.S. think. I wish I were joking. But a recent study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, found that half of the millennials it surveyed would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist society. And 22% of those surveyed had favorable views of Karl Marx… while 13% viewed Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-un as “heroes.” To figure out what’s behind this disturbing trend, I called Doug Casey… Justin: So Doug, about half of U.S. millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country… What’s gotten into the youth? Doug: The youth are being corrupted, and it’s more serious than ever. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, however. That’s because one of the two charges against Socrates when he was executed in Ancient Greece was corrupting the youth. Older people always think the youth are foolish, ignorant, lazy, crazy, and generally taking the world to hell in a handbasket. And of course many of their charges are, and always have been, true. But as kids get older, they generally get wiser, more knowledgeable, harder-working, and more prudent. Nothing new here. The world has survived roughly 250 new generations since civilization began in Sumer 5,000 years ago. And it will likely survive this one too. That’s the bright side. And, as you know, I always look on the bright side. But, on the other hand, the American university system has been totally captured by Cultural Marxists, socialists, statists, collectivists, promoters of identity politics, and people of that ilk. These people hate Western Civilization and its values, and are actively trying to destroy them. Justin: How’d that happen? Don’t young people go to college to learn how to think critically? Doug: When the average 18-year-old goes to college, he knows very little about how the world works in general. He’s got vague ideas he picked up mostly from TV, movies, and people who got a job teaching high school. They know roughly nothing about economics, government, or history. Worse, what they think they know is mostly wrong. That makes them easy prey for professors with totally bent views to indoctrinate them. It’s not so much that they’re taught inaccurate facts. There are plenty of “factoids” (artificial facts), of course—like the War Between the States (which shouldn’t be called the Civil War) was mainly fought to free the slaves. Or that Keynesian economics is correct. And many, many more. But that’s just part of the problem. It’s not the factoids they’re taught. It’s the way the schools interpret actual facts. The meaning they infuse into events. The way they twist the “why?” of events, and pervert concepts of good and evil. The real problem, however, is that, contrary to what you suggested a moment ago, they’re not taught critical thinking. Rather just the opposite—they’re taught blind acceptance of what’s currently considered politically correct. Instead of questioning authority in a polite and rational manner—which is what Socrates did—the current idea is to prevent any divergent views from even being discussed. The profs are basically all socialists, and the kids tend to believe what they’re taught. Those views are buttressed by the other sources of information available to them—Hollywood, mass media, and government. These bad ideas usually start with “intellectuals.” Intellectuals typically despise business and production, even though they envy the money the capitalists have. Intellectuals feel they’re not only smarter, but much more moral. That gives them the right, in their own eyes, to dictate to everyone else. That’s one reason why they’re usually socialists, and approve of a “cadre,” like themselves, ordering everyone else. Intellectuals naturally gravitate to the university system, where they’re paid to hang out with each other, be lionized by kids, hatch goofy ideas. This has always been the case. But it’s becoming a much bigger problem than in the past. Justin: How come? Doug: A much, much higher percentage of kids go to college now than have ever gone to college in the past. In the recent past, maybe five or a max of ten percent of kids went to college. These days, almost everybody goes. So a much higher proportion of the youth are being infected with memes that the leftists have put in there. So yeah, some kids will grow out of it, and will realize that most of what they’ve paid an exorbitant amount of money to learn is nonsense. But most will reflexively believe and defend what they were taught in the cocoon. And I’m afraid those people now make up a big chunk of the U.S. population. So yeah, I think the numbers that are quoted in that article, about how many kids think socialism is good, are probably accurate. And if they don’t think it, almost all of them feel it. Few know the difference between thinking and feeling… Justin: Today’s universities aren’t just teaching bent ideas about politics and economics. They’re also dispelling insane notions on race. For example, an anonymous student at Tulane University in New Orleans recently posted a sign that read “It’s okay to be white.” Nothing wrong with that, right? Well, apparently the Tulane administration wasn’t pleased. Here’s an official response from Tulane’s public relations department. We have no idea who posted these signs, but that person is obviously not speaking for Tulane University. I got a chuckle reading that. But it’s a disturbing sign of the times. Wouldn’t you agree? Doug: Yeah, it borders on the unbelievable. The insane, actually. Most whites have been indoctrinated, both indirectly and directly, subtly and overtly, over the years. They’ve bought the propaganda that being white is bad. They believe Western Civilization is a bad thing…that white people have destroyed the world. Even if they don’t want to believe it, because the concept is so stupid and so utterly contrafactual, they end up believing it just because they’ve heard it over and over. It’s very bad news across the board. Justin: The mainstream media seems to be peddling these bad ideas, too. Wouldn’t you agree? Doug: Absolutely. The memes that originated with intellectuals in universities have thoroughly infiltrated the mass media and the entertainment industry—places “thought leaders” gravitate towards. And you’re getting no defense at all from so-called capitalists and business leaders. All they’re interested in is making money. And—absolutely if they’re wired with the Deep State—they don’t really care how they do it. They’re happy to work with and for the government. They self-righteously make charitable contributions to universities and NGOs, subsidizing the source of the poison. So, there’s almost nobody to defend the ideas that have brought us Western Civilization. And—with the exception of a few anomalies like Taoism, yoga, and Oriental cooking—it’s responsible for about everything that’s good in the world. Without it the whole world would resemble Africa, or Cambodia, or Mongolia—not even today, but 200 years ago. Western ideas are things like individualism, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, science, rationality and capitalism. These concepts no longer have any defenders anywhere. They’re under attack everywhere. Justin: This can’t be good for the economy in the long run. Doug: No. It’s one of the reasons I’m generally bearish. I mean, how can the markets be healthy when what’s left of the ruling class in the country actually hate themselves? When the middle class is collapsing? When political entrepreneurship is valued more than making money through production? In fact, the economy and the markets are the least of our problems. The very foundation of civilization itself is under attack. The acceptance of destructive ideas is getting to be as serious as what we saw in Russia under the Soviets, in Germany under the Nazis, or China under Mao. More serious, since civilization is under serious attack in the U.S., which has been the bulwark for the last century. So, excuse me for my bearishness, but I think it’s warranted. Justin: Thanks as always, Doug. Doug: You’re welcome.

This reminds me of something ironic and hilarious. While I realize that you probably had to try hard to be civil to me, the coincidence of your post makes me want to post this anyway. A person was trying to explain to my normal circle of friends the value of safe spaces, sanctuary cities, reparations, and one of my friends says something very much like: "Why don't you stop reading all that fake news spewed like the media and pay attention to some real news and come back and tell us what you think after doing that." The thing that seems so ironic is that you and I could be in exactly the same circumstances depending on which group of people we are talking to, with both groups being mature, intelligent, and moral human beings.

You're right! To me, it appears that the only way I could have avoided this was to not vote (or at least not vote for one of the majors.) Clearly I didn't expect him to do that. Of course, the decision between the two evils would have been a lot closer if I had expected it.

Do you think that the Democratic base is any more swayed by advertising than the Republican base that voted in Trump? When the Democrats bus poor voters, do you think those poor voters are going to be influenced by the Republican advertising? And since when do minority votes count less? Last I heard, a white vote and a black vote and a Hispanic vote and a dead person's vote (always Democratic) all counted the same. Except where Black Panthers showed up at polling places. I feared that one more liberal vote on the Supreme Court would be the first step towards "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Great in theory, but in practice, it robs people of ambition and makes us all dependent on Big Brother. Probably also a hop-skip-and a jump away from disallowing criticism of the government (read: FEDERAL government), a First Amendment right. Meaning that only liberal voices can be heard because conservative voices would be subversive and probably a criminal offense. And, no, it's not the automatic weapons I'm worried about - it's all guns. I don't trust Hillary Clinton - I think she has the morals of a bridge player who uses foot signals. I really believe that she intended to sway our nation toward total government control. Contrast this with Obama who probably thought he was doing the right thing for the country. With Hillary Clinton in charge, gerrymandering would not be an issue because I think the election process would be fundamentally changed to never allow a conservative to win again. I'm sure nobody here agrees with me and it all sounds like conspiracy theory. However, I think it's very likely that a pretty large chunk of the people that put Donald Trump in office had the same fears that I did. Many of them thought that Trump was not a great choice but that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for our country. Unless you like government control - then she's be pretty awesome. Yes, but voters would get upset with Congress if they refuse one outlandish judge after another. As mentioned above, I think that her morals were far worse than those of Obama and that she would do whatever it took to get her total government control agenda done. That's not what I'm worried about. Wall Street was just her pawns to do what she really wanted, and I suspect that Wall Street would have been quite unhappy with the result. Yes. I disagree with a lot of what Donald Trump does. And yes, Hillary would make us "safer" if you don't mind living in George Orwell's Animal Farm.

I assume you're talking to Winston only because he's the only one that's not too far gone? Most of the board dismisses me (and probably the other conservatives; I know JonOttowa got trashed here) as a raving lunatic whose education was lacking (to put it nicely.) And yet, I am arguably intelligent (average 135 on IQ tests), and well principled and moral enough to go to the director after I "won" a tournament event and convince him that he had factored so that boards we did well on counted more than the others and that we should only be second (it might be pointed out that most people wouldn't even notice.) I have recently been labelled as nauseating (this comment got a positive reputation from one of your more respected and supposedly nicer members), uneducated, lazy, a troll, and uninformed. And to be honest, this shabby treatment of me is extremely mild compared to how most treated Jon. However, even though I catch a little of that from Winston, he seems to be among the most reasonable in the discussions. It's no surprise that conservatives who which to discuss issues usually go elsewhere. The same initial post from Ashley Johnson on another, usually more caustic, board has led to a serious discussion in how to eliminate the disadvantage that blacks currently suffer in our society. Being conservative on a mostly liberal board makes my posts more valuable since I can offer input into which ideas would be palatable to conservative voters.

Answers: 1. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj6ha742dj54cqj3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2hp?]133|200[/hv] Hint: With 11 points, you would normally invite. Is this hand worth 11 points with this auction? Answer: While you have 11 HCP, when you picture how your hand fits with partner's, it's not pretty. Partner has a doubleton or shorter in least one black suit so your black high are likely close to useless. Other than the ace, your trumps are poor so there is a lot of potential for trump losers. Picture some hands where partner might accept a game try opposite this hand: S-85 H-KQJ3 D-AK763 C-92; This is a maximum 2H raise, yet you have four inescapable losers in 4H plus a potential diamond loser. In 3NT, you need the queen doubleton of diamonds, not a good game. 2H is plenty. S-K85 H-KQJ3 D-K7632 C-5; Now I've made your spade honors useful. Partner can't have any more; if the ♦K were the ♦A, partner would have raised to 3H. In 4H you lose two black cards and at least two diamonds. In notrump, even if you get a spade lead to the ace and a spade continuation and the ♦A is onside, you will only score two spades, four hearts, and a diamond before losing the four top tricks and either a second diamond or the fourth spade. If the opponents set up a club trick for you, that's still not enough. S-K85 H-KQ86 D-AQT9 C-64; This is about the best dummy you can see on this auction opposite your hand. Still, 4H requires a 3-2 heart break and a diamond finesse. Because partner has the ♦10-9 (both are needed because your jack can be covered), 3NT will also make with a working diamond finesse and a 3-2 heart break; however if clubs are 4-4, you can still win a spade trick if hearts are 4-1 but the diamond finesse works. Game requires a lot to make here, and as you can see, even 3H or 2NT could be too high on some of these maximums, and will more often be too high when partner doesn't have an accept of a game try. I recommend you pass 2H. 2. [hv=pc=n&s=skqj9ha873daj8c72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp2hp?]133|200[/hv] Hint: Is it possible that partner doesn't have four hearts? Answer: Even if partner virtually guarantees four-card support with his raise, there will be instances in which all other choices are less palatable than a raise on three cards. For example, S-2 H-Q65 D-KQ43 C-AQ865, rebidding the clubs risks playing in a 5-1 fit since responder almost always passes this auction with a minimum without six hearts, and 2D should show extra values (a reverse) because you are forcing partner to go back to the three level to return to your first suit. 1NT would be ridiculous with a singleton spade. So partner bids 2H with this hand, and if you bid 4H, you risk losing three trump tricks and a spade (and possibly a club on a club lead.) You can bid 3NT to cater to the fact that partner may have needed to raise on three cards. Partner knows you have four hearts and can return to 4H with a real fit. What about bidding spades? If your partner might raise hearts with four spades and three hearts, then you may need to bid spades here. I don't recommend that approach; in fact, if I bid 2S, most of my partners would interpret it as a game try in hearts needing help in spades. That being said, some posters have pointed out that 4S may play better than 4H if you have two eight-card fits. While I don't disagree, I think that bidding 2S helps the opponents defend on the hands that your partner does not have four spades, and most of the time, both eight card fits will take the same number of tricks in either trump suit; i.e. any heart losers will have to be lost in spades also. Bidding 2S is going to get you a diamond lead most of the time because it's the unbid suit (assuming it isn't a game try asking for help) and if partner has no diamond honor, that appears to be a pretty deadly defense. I recommend 3NT.

Irma's eye came within 15 miles of me but I was one of the lucky ones, only losing power for four days. Power restoration vehicles came from all over the country after helping our friends in Texas after Harvey struck. Could we ferry some of those vehicles and their workers to Puerto Rico? If so, it should be done. These suffering people are American citizens. I'd like to see any infrastructure bill have a major provision for Puerto Rico so they can live like American citizens. Some might say that PR shouldn't get infrastructure help because they don't pay federal tax. This is a silly argument as most Puerto Rican families would receive a credit and it would not surprise me if the IRS would lose money if PR were "taxed".

I am very disappointed in the way we are handling the crisis in Puerto Rico - maybe worse than King George III treated the American Colonies.

I'm not sure if I was posting here when the primaries were going on, but I wanted anybody but Trump to win our primary. My actual primary vote went for Ted Cruz but in retrospect he probably would have been a disaster for the LGBT community who should have the same rights IMO as Christian straight people do. Probably Rubio or Kasich would have been a better choice. However, Trump won and faced off against Hillary. Trump could easily be a disaster, but I thought the country could survive Trump. I did not think the country could survive Hillary Clinton who I thought would pack the Supreme Court with several judges who would ignore the intent of our Founding Fathers. Say whatever you will about the vision the Founding Fathers had, but America went from thirteen fledgling colonies to the most powerful nation on the earth, which has enjoyed so much growth that if you pick a random disadvantaged black person that is in the 80% percentile (poorer than 80% of other blacks), he still enjoys a much higher standard of living that an average person of any race in probably half the world's nations. I am not saying "yeah they have it good, why should we improve their lot?" because I do not feel that way, and am all for fixing injustices in our own country, I only point this out to show that the principles put forth by the Founding Fathers have worked pretty well for us as a country, and would prefer that neither Hillary Clinton try to fundamentally change those principles, or to have Bernie Sanders try to replace it with socialism. which some scholars believe is the stepping stone to Communism which really hasn't worked all that well in practice in other nations. Many of you have stopped reading already because you disagree so vehemently with my ideas, but for those of you who are still with me, I believe that Trump is less of a disaster than I expected so far. As long as we can keep him tweeting about the NFL players (and I agree that he looks pretty stupid there!), he isn't going to do any real damage. His overhaul of Obamacare went nowhere and I suspect the same is going to happen to his tax plan as that has even less Republican support than the healthcare bill. So, we might have four years where nothing gets done, which is usually a glorious time for investors who pay taxes, and we can use some deficit reduction. On the other hand, I still shudder to think about how worthless our Constitution would have become if Hillary Clinton had won the election and then picked up some seats in the midterm, although if she got to appoint two or three judges, checks and balances might become a moot point in this day of executive orders and legislating from the bench.

I thought exactly as you did, and was doing a reality check. When a player of hrothgar's stature said that 4D was a reasonable bid, I wanted to give up the game, figuring that I must be suffering from early dementia.

duplicate post

Winston, let's say our intelligence told us that North Korea had nuclear weapons that could wipe out a major American city with 90% probability, and that they planned to use them somehow in the next week on New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix, how would you suggest it be handled? Plus, do you consider the possibility that the poll stating that 46% of Republicans support a preemptive strike against North Korea might has as much polling bias (or maybe just blatant lying) as the poll that states that 51% of Muslims in America support Sharia law? https://www.centerfo...-shariah-jihad/ Note: the article implies this but I don't believe it. I would guess it's closer to 1 in 10 and that the owners of the site want you to believe that it's much higher than it really is. I only posted this to show you that your poll results could be very skewed. Whoever took your poll probably has an agenda that is advantaged by equating Republicans with lunatics.

That is a legitimate criticism. My reason for doing so is that answering the personal remarks is easy, where answering the genuine responses requires research. I appreciate the genuine responses, and both have to think about them, and make sure they don't coincide with ideas listed as "fake news" elsewhere. This takes time - probably a lot more time for me than you because where these ideas are second nature to you, many of them are ideas that would be considered bull manure by most of the people I converse with. I am currently at the stage where I considering that some of what is being said here has a lot of merit, despite being led to believe that it's liberal nonsense being spewed by people who wish to keep minorities down so that they can keep them dependent on government and will be reelected forever. I hope you realize that it takes a lot of study to go from the mindset which I had to a mindset where I can read these posts and believe them.

I am assuming that partner doesn't raise with 4=3=2=4. If you need to cater to your partner raising with 4=3=2=4 then your answer to problem 2 may be significantly different than mine.

Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, or do you think that I really agree with you and am posting garbage on purpose? If you look at my "Bidding Problems for I/N players" series, I think you can eliminate the second option, for as a troll, wouldn't I try to confuse the novices by giving believable nonsense for answers? I think everyone will agree that this isn't happening. You could say it is happening but then you might be labelled the troll by the rest of the site.

Problem set 27 is available. Problem set 27

Hi - these problems should be very easy for experienced players but an I/N player needs to think about the right things in an auction. If you get them wrong, don't feel too bad as long as you understand the rationale for the answers. I'll provide the answers later but I'll put a hint as a spoiler. Try to solve the problem without the spoiler. Also, let me know if you would be interested in seeing more of these from time to time. Assume you are playing Standard American (a natural system with 15-17 1NT openings and 5-card majors), IMPs and nobody is vulnerable. Previous problem sets can be linked to from here: Previous problem sets On these hands, you responded 1H and partner raised, showing a minimum opening hand. What do you do? 1. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj6ha742dj54cqj3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2hp?]133|200[/hv] 2. [hv=pc=n&s=skqj9ha873daj8c72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp2hp?]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&w=s42hajtdj63cak765&e=skqj5hkq98d2cqjt3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1hp2hp4d(splinter)p6cp6hppp]266|200[/hv] This is bad. I was West. 4D was a splinter, and I thought 6C would say I was accepting but had only three hearts. Should I have bid differently? (If I had bid Blackwood, and then 6C, it would have a different meaning.)

Nice. I knew I could get an intelligent discussion here. I posted this because while I constantly hear the conservative side of the issue, something just didn't feel right about it and I wanted to hear the liberal side to see if it made more sense. Trust me, the conservative stance supporting a president who tweets wrong things instead of doing his job makes a lot more sense than "Kaitlyn is nauseating." I do appreciate that at least a couple of you were willing to discuss the issue and avoid an ad hominem attack.

We have a different circle of Facebook friends. It's likely that one of mine picked up the one calling the NFL boycotters racist and the many of the rest of them shared it, giving me the impression that the opinion is prevalent among liberals. FWIW, I think the NFL protesters are exercising their First Amendment right. The NFL boycotters are doing the same, but I don't think they understand the issue as most of them feel that the NFL protestors are anti-America and I just don't see that. Also, while it may not surprise you that I agree with Trump a lot more than any of you do, I've gotta say that I don't agree with him on this one, and even if I did, I would be a lot happier if he worried more about issues like Puerto Rico and North Korea than tweeting about the NFL.

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy. Anyway: A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America by Ashley Johnson A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist. Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn’t be equally incensed if those players were white? Many of the persons sharing this post are highly intelligent people. Do they really think it’s racism when someone disagrees with a black person because he is black? If one would take issue with the same idea if the protester was white, calling the act of disagreement racism is disingenuous at best. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with those angry with the NFL protesters, in fact, I would take no issue with them saying the “boycott the NFL” crowd is wrong; indeed it is easy to support the argument that the protesters are invoking their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and air their grievances. However, there is a difference between calling someone wrong and accusing them of racism – one implies being human and the other connotes evil. Calling this racism demeans the word, letting real racists get away with blatant racist acts by lumping them in with normal proud Americans. After all, if you call me a racist, I’ll probably ignore you when you correctly use the term. If any intelligent person thought for a moment before sharing this post, he would have realized that he was propagating an incorrect notion. This didn’t happen, so it can only be assumed that the posters did it out of habit, like washing their hands after using the loo. How has it become second nature for otherwise smart people to use the term racist in such a senseless manner, essentially using the label on anybody that disagrees with current liberal thinking? Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren’t thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive? This would be the time for all liberals to start thinking critically and searching their soul for the answers to those two questions. For whatever the motive is, the force that is causing young Americans to stop thinking has to be evil.

Stayman is used to find a 4-4 fit without the responder having to bid (or transfer to) four-card suits in auctions where it is valuable to have the responder be able to show a five-card major. Transfers are used to make the stronger hand the declarer. 1D-(p)-1N-(p)- Opener wouldn't use Stayman to ask for responder to show a four-card major that responder has already denied. 2C is natural, showing four or more clubs and at least four diamonds. There is no reason to transfer even if opener has a five-card major (and six or more diamonds) because opener can bid the suit naturally. 1H-(p)-1N-(p)- Again, opener has shown five hearts already, and most responders have denied four spades so neither convention is necessary. 1D-(p)-2N-(p)- I play that 2NT denies a four-card major so no reason for Stayman (and not for transfers either.) Even if responder could have a four-card major by agreement, I think it's better to have the opener (the less described hand) declare to keep opener's shortness (if any) in the dark from defenders. 1S-(p)-2N*-(p)- *Assuming a natural 2NT, not jacoby 2NT. Here responder can have four hearts but opener can show four hearts by bidding them. 2N-(p)- It is normal to play Stayman and transfers here. 2C-(p)-2D-(p)-2N-(p)- This is just like a notrump opening so Stayman and transfers are normal here. 2C-(p)-2H-(p)-2N-(p)- Since responder is already declaring a heart contract, there is no reason to transfer. Also, since responder can just bid 3S to show spades, it's more valuable for responder to be able to use 3C to show clubs. 1D-(p)-1S-(p)-2N-(p)- Again, responder is playing a spade contract so there is no reason to transfer. Some pairs play "Checkback Stayman" or "New Minor Forcing" to look for a 5-3 spade fit or a 4-4 heart fit. In the absence of such an agreement, I would assume that 3C is natural and forcing (there is some merit to having it be a weak hand with 4 spades and 6+ clubs by agreement.) The responder can bid 3H to show hearts. Many pairs that do play Checkback Stayman or New Minor Forcing say that 3H here is non-forcing (choosing to bid the convention with game-going hands.)