Dear Ed & Peter,

Do you open a weak two if you have a 4 card major, a void and only one honor in the suit bid?

Thanks,
Lynn Axelrod

Reply Ed Hoogenkamp (South)

S/EW		♠	J 9 3 2
		♥	10
		♦	8 6 5
		♣	K Q 10 6 4
♠	A Q			♠	7
♥	A 7 6 2			♥	K J 8 5
♦	10 9 3			♦	K Q J 7 4
♣	A J 9 5			♣	8 7 3
		♠	K 10 8 6 5 4
		♥	Q 9 4 3
		♦	A 2
		♣	2

West	North	East	South
—	—	—	2♠?

Some West players will double, some will overcall with 2NT, some will even pass, but that will not prevent EW from somehow get to 4♥ in the end — if North would let them! But of course North will save with 4♠, either directly or over EW's 4♥ bid.
West has a natural diamond lead and South will end up down two, doubled: −300.

If South passes, the auction will be either:

West	North	East	South
—	—	—	pass
1NT	pass	2♣	pass1
2♥	pass	4♥	pass
pass	pass

¹ It probably pays to be silent now that East is interested in a major suit contract (and if EW turn out not to have a major fit, the contract will be notrumps probably; South knows the distribution in East's major suit to be unfavourable, so he is not keen on saving)

...or something like:

West	North	East	South
—	—	—	pass
1NT	pass	2♣	2♠1
3♥	3♠2	4♥	pass
pass	pass

		♠	J 2
♠	A 10 8			♠	Q 5
		♠	K 9 7 6 4 3

I think partner (North) is going to lead the ♠J (he should, anyway!). And I don't think you are going to be happy with that lead...

 

The same applies here:

		♠	A 5
♠	K J 2			♠	8 3
		♠	Q 10 9 7 6 4

North's ♠A lead will make South think again about opening 2♠ on a suit like this.

Dear Peter*,

Recently I came up with this bidding problem:

I had 16 HCP and my distribution was 4-5-1-3. With 4-5 in spades and hearts I suppose I should have doubled. But I did not, I bid 1♥ and it really turned out disastrously! Despite hardly having anything at all, West raised his partner. My partner had four spades and bid 2♠. So far the bidding was:

I assumed my partner's 2♠ bid to be reverse and therefore showing 16⁺ HCP. My minor suit holding was a singleton in diamonds and ♣AKx. Seeing 32 HCP in the combined hands and holding both major suit aces as well (three aces and a singleton in diamonds therefore), I cut things short and at once bid 6♠.

Alas, partner turned out to have 11 HCP and ended up with 11 tricks and a bottom score.

Do you agree with me that partner showed a stronger hand?

Best regards,

Stig Rune Ofstad

* Comment Peter van der Linden: My good friend Stig Rune mailed this question to my personal mail address. Since I thought the question very suited for Bridgevaria.com I asked him whether I could publish it and he consented. Therefore I will answer first, not Ed. After all I don't want my friends to have to read Ed's usual nonsense first and my 'to the point' reply later...

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Stig Rune,

I think your bidding was sound, both the 1♥ bid and your decision to bid a slam were correct.
Furthermore I agree partner's 2♠-bid was reserve and showed a strong hand. Let's take a closer look:

You write: 'With 4-5 in spades and hearts I suppose I should have doubled.'
But you didn't. And rightly so, since doubling (negatively of course, showing both majors) is unpractical with your strong hand!
Let's explain that. Suppose you do double. If partner now bids a major suit, the rest is easy.
But what if he doesn't? Can you rebid 2♥? No!

¹ Not forcing (!): (6)7-11 HCP, 4-5⁺ in spades-hearts

...or:

¹ Not forcing (!): (6)7-11 HCP, 4-5⁺ in spades-hearts

This sequence is the best way to show a 7-11 hand with 4-5 in the majors. If you have 7-11 (especially 7-8) HCP, starting with a 1♥ bid is not ideal for if West raises to 3♦, you may miss a 4-4 spade fit and/or a 5-3 heart fit: you are not strong enough to bid again. So with 7-11 you start by doubling.

As a consequence: if you have started by doubling with your actual (16 HCP) hand, you cannot rebid 2♥ like in the two sequences above: partner may pass. That leaves only a 3♦ bid, a game forcing cue bid (bid in the opponents' suit). This bid is very unclear since it doesn't give partner a clue about your distribution.
We conclude that, holding 16 HCP, you do not start with a double. Your actual 1♥ bid was correct therefore. You plan the following stronger line of bidding:

¹ Reverse in responder's hand: game forcing (12⁺ HCP); 4-5⁺ in spades-hearts

...or:

¹ Reverse in responder's hand: game forcing (12⁺ HCP); 4-5⁺ in spades-hearts

A summing up of how to bid with 4-5 in spades hearts:
- If you have 7-11 HCP: double negatively first, bid hearts later: non forcing (your only forcing second bid after having doubled is a cuebid).
- If you have 12⁺ HCP: bid 1♥ first; if necessary bid spades (reverse) later.

So far so good. Now let's see what actually happened. Partner surprisingly made a strong bid: 

¹ Correct, as we have seen
² Reverse, 16⁺ HCP (after all: South may have as little as 6 HCP and four hearts; if he is short in spades and wants to give preference for clubs, he has to enter the three level — he is forced to do so by North's 2♠ bid; that bid has to be strong therefore).

It is absolutely right for South to head for a slam now. In fact, I would have investigated a grand slam!
(To be completely honest: there is one detail that worries South a bit: how many points are there in this deal? If we have 32⁺ HCP between us, how can they overcall and raise...? Still, in case of doubt always trust partner, not the opponents. Maybe East has overcalled very lightly and West has raised on nothing but a handful of diamonds).

Next question: so partner's reverse 2♠ bid over 2♦ was wrong. What should he have bid?

¹ According to plan: reverse in responder's hand: game forcing (12⁺ HCP); 4-5⁺ in spades-hearts
² A weak bid, North denies interest in a slam (according to the Principle of Fast Arrival: 3♠ would have been stronger since 2♠ made the bidding game forcing)
³ South might still consider a slam try, but holding 'only' 16 HCP passing is probably wisest.

Still more can be said about this deal: we have seen that with a strong hand and 4-5 in the majors, it is better to begin with a 1♥ bid rather than a double. The reason is that after doubling you are in trouble if partner does not bid a major.
In this particular case a double would not have caused any problems, since partner does bid a major:

¹ This time 2♠ is correct; South's double showed both major suits, so North's 2♠ bid is now a nonforcing minimal 'raise' of South's spade suit, establishing spades as trumps!
² This cuebid is a slam try in spades, the established suit (an alternative: 4♦, Splinter)
³ Sign-off (Principle of Fast Arrival); North might show a control here as well: after all his 2♠ bid has shown his minimum already; with some extra values he would have bid 3♠ — invitational! — instead of 2♠

A long but — I hope — instructive story!

En hils fra Orkanger

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Stig Rune,

What's left to say here? As always Pete is very thorough. But that is not a problem to me. Far from it: I take another sangria on my favourite terrace and enjoy the sun!
And of course I agree with him completely. One question only: was there no way to bid more slowly, investigating some more? 7♠ for example? 4♦ (Splinter) looks like a good bid over 2♠ .

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Dear Ed & Peter,

My question is about how well world class players (as some on this site:) ) count/remember the hand. I am working on improving and I need to know what to aim for :) So here are some questions:

A) Are the best players in the world able to tell where the every spot card was after the hand was played? (especially defence). Does it happen on all hands? The majority of them? Sometimes? Never?

B) Are they able to tell what is the shape and where all the HCP (High Card Points) were after the hand was played on every deal?

C) How does the thinking process work? Are they asking questions to themselves and work out everything, or do just they intuitively know who has what? I am interested about the thinking process and some guidelines of how good top players work in this respect (counting/reading hands).

Please add any information you think may be interesting :) Thanks for the great site! I really enjoy it :)

Greetings, Piotrek,

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Piotrek,

A) I think they only remember the relevant spot cards. But often they know almost all of them from remembering the tricks. 'He led the 6 and later played the 8 to show three...'etc.
This process takes place on all the hands.

B) Almost without exception. Maybe not on hands that were claimed... :-)

C) I speak for myself, but I understand my colleagues more or less think along the same lines.
The trick is not to count but to think in patterns. It becomes automatic to think in for example a 4-4 fit: 3-2, 4-1, 5-0. Not only doesn't it cost any energy to think like this, it also helps your play. You think more or less automatically about the possible distributions and how the affect your plan.

So basically there is a frame in your head of different distributions and location of HCP. A lot is already filled in based on the bidding. That frame fills up along the way.

This is the best way I can describe it...

Let's see what Peter has to add. Normally after the play he hardly remembers the name of his partner...

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Piotrek,

Difficult to answer!

(A) Very good players (not only world class players memorise 'all' the cards!) note the small cards and automatically note whether the opponents play their smallest spot cards. E.g. when the defenders play the two and five under declarer's ace, while he and dummy have the four and six as the two smallest cards, declarer will make a mental note: 'the three is missing.' At the next trick he will probably see the three come down and he notices whether it was (a) played by the opponent who originally played the two: he played two-three then so both opponents played low-high. But if (b) the three is played by the opponent who played the five first, that opponent has played high-low. That is the information he remembers during the rest of the deal, he may now 'erase' the information which exact cards the defenders played. 'Second-smallest, then smallest by East' is the thing to memorise. (But probably he can still reproduce the exact cards afterwards...). Suppose after those two rounds only one spot card in that suit is still out: there is no need then to figure out which card that is, the seven or eight - let alone memorise it, since that information is not relevant.
After the two tricks in the given example, declarer will probably be able to reproduce: 'East played second-smallest, then smallest, West played up the line, the highest of their spot cards is still out.'
There it is: experts 'just know' which information is important (they memorise it) and which information is not (they don't bother to memorise it).
This happens on most but not all hands, I think (therefore I do not agree completely agree with Ed here). E.g. when an expert declarer, after dummy has come down, realises his slam will depend on a finesse of the trump king in a 5-3 fit, with no extra chances, he will not bother to memorise the spot cards the defenders play at the first trick(s).
Again: experts 'just know' whether memorising is/can be important. If so they do, if not so they don't bother! Memorising unnecessary data is a drain on thinking power!

(B) Agree with Ed. Experts can reproduce the distribution and all the HCP's, unless... it isn't worth knowing. An example: when in a team match the bidding is 1NT-3NT and after the lead declarer claims ten top tricks, there being no real chance for a tenth, I don't think he will bother to study the opponent's hands afterwards. After all, this is an uninteresting board; it will almost certainly not generate a swing.

(C) In section (A) I have already tried to give an example of what an expert memorises. How he does it, is explained by Ed. Thinking in patterns is the concept. In my example I use a lot of words for a process that goes more or less automatically. 'The suit is 3-2, East second-smallest, then smallest.'
I cannot say any more about this. Maybe a nice topic for a PhD-paper by a bridge playing psychologist...?
By the way, Ed has written two interesting columns about this subject, read them here and here.

En hils fra Orkanger

PS: Talking about memory. Ed recently had this little conversation with an opponent at the bridge table. The latter told Ed he wanted to test his knowledge about great scientists.
Opponent: 'What was Newton's first name?'
Ed (proud): 'Isaac'.
Opponent: 'What was Einstein's first name?'
Ed (proud): 'Albert.'
Opponent: 'What was Alzheimer's first name?'
Ed: 'Don't know.'
Opponent: 'Yes, that's how it starts.'

Dear Ed & Peter,

What to do when someone doesn't have enough cards near the end of playing a hand. Is there a penalty?? For whom? If the players make their bid, do they get their score??
Help.

C Rampike

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear C Rampike,

I'm sorry to inform you that, yes, there is a penalty. The player who is missing a card very likely has revoked in earlier play. The director will first establish which card is missing and after that will replay the hand with you to see when this missing card should have been played. Then he will, if necessary, apply penalties (normally one trick or more to the party that didn't revoke).

I normally finish with all my cards, but Peter is the real expert here. They say once he ran out of cards in trick eight!
Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear C Rampike,

Typically Ed: suggesting I was five cards short while it was he who had five cards too many.
Yes, we were partners and defending: after thirteen tricks I, dummy and declarer were out of cards, while he still had five (from another deck). Until this day he maintains there is nothing wrong with a 5-4-4-5 distribution: 'An example of a balanced hand containing a black 5-5' were his exact words.

About your question: Ed's answer is correct. What to do:
1. Call the director, he knows what to do. He will act as follows:
2. The missing card must be located. Usually it is still in the slot of the board or on the floor (if another player turns out to have started with 14 cards, the director's job is going to be tough...).
3. The play must be reconstructed in order to find out whether the player in question has revoked (after all, often he will have shown out in the suit of the card that originally was missing). If so, the usual ruling applies (i.e. the transfer of one or two tricks, depending on the sort of revoke). I am not a director, so I suggest you ask a director about the exact ruling.

En hils fra Orkanger

Dear Ed & Peter,

I had a poor hand with 3 HCP. My partner doubled the first bid but his partner rebid so I passed. They bid again and my partner doubled again. I passed and we went down badly. Must I rebid after the second double? I thought it was for penalty?

Thank you,
Ray Ellis

To start with: we suppose that 'we went down badly' means: 'They made their contract with overtricks', since after the auction as Ray described it they play the doubled contract, -Ed & Peter

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Ray,

Without the exact bidding sequence it is difficult to answer this question (please send it to us)
Let me try to say some things in general:
- if the opponents show a fit the second double is 100% take-out
- if opponents last bid was in notrump, the second double shows a very strong hand and may be passed
- When in doubt I would treat a second double as take-out

Peter reads all my take out doubles as penalty and vice versa, let's see what he has to say.

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Ray,

I agree with Ed, without more information your question is hard to answer.
Still, let's have a look at a few examples, including the ones Ed mentions. You are South:

Partner's second double is 100% for take-out. So you'd better bid, unless you have a strong six (five?) card suit in clubs (hardly possible in view of West's bidding).

Partner's second double shows a strong hand and is, like almost any double of a notrump bid, for penalties. Holding 3 HCP (as you said) and a more or less balanced hand you pass and hope for the best. If you have a six card suit (or decent five card suit) you bid it.

Since EW have found a fit, partner's second double is 100% for take-out. So you should bid.

This is trickier. In principle North's first double promised three suits (diamonds, hearts and spades). However, his second double changes that message: it shows a very strong hand (although not 19-20 balanced, since he would have bid 1NT at his second turn instead of doubling again), meaning his hand does not have to meet the distributional demands of the first double anymore.
North can have a spade suit but even so the double is for take-out. Note that over North's second double East passed, giving 'preference' for spades. So EW will usually have seven or more spades between them. Therefore you probably do best to bid, unless you have a five card spade suit or longer (very unlikely in view of the bidding so far).

So we conclude that only if the second double is of a notrump bid, it is for penalties. In all other cases the double is for take-out.
(Unless Ed is the one who doubles twice, of course. In that case you will have no clue about what to do. But that is hardly surprising: Ed's partners never know what to do over any bid by Ed.)  

En hils fra Orkanger

Dear Ed & Peter,

Opponent to my right opens 1NT and I pass. Opener's partner bids 2♦ and his partner says "transfer" and bids 2♥ at his turn. The bidding continues until a contract of 3NT is set. Since I have five hearts (♥AJ...), I lead the ♥J. When the dummy hand comes down, there are only 2 hearts! What should be the ruling?

Thanks,
Gerry Bell,

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Gerry,

To answer this I need to see the complete bidding and the hands. The Laws say that you are allowed to make mistakes, but you are not allowed to give the wrong explanation of your agreement. This means that if the 1NT-opener has a doubleton hearts, basically nothing happened, if he has three or more, they are in trouble.

I'm not an expert in this field, but I think that if the dummy has bid 2♦ thinking it was natural, he might have said something before the lead was made.

I think in Norway, giving the ríght explanation is punished, let's see what Peter has to say.

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Gerry,

In his own complicated way Ed says some sensible things - some...
Your case is an important example of the small things that can go wrong in every day bridge but have a heavy impact on the play and players. Therefore I will look into the case thoroughly here.
Let's sum it up, supposing you are West:

¹ Explained by South as a Jacoby-transfer
² Possibly South has bid 3NT, this is not clear from your mail

Unless playing with table screens (only used during high level matches) correct procedure is that the partner of the conventional bidder alerts. Only if asked he explains. We will ignore the fact that a 'normal' Jacoby-transfer like this one does not have to be alerted*.

You do not mention whether NS have submitted convention cards. These cards are crucial, since they show whether NS had agreed upon playing Jacoby-transfers or not.

A. Suppose the convention cards showed that NS had agreed upon transfers.
North has made a mistake then end South's explanation was correct. In this case there is no problem according to the Laws.
On this provision though (!): South must have bid in agreement with his explanation, meaning he must have assumed North to have five hearts (South's 2♥ bid is an indication he has made that assumption, but read on). Since South has chosen to play 3NT (either by making that bid or by passing North's 3NT bid) he should have a doubleton heart only. If so, there is no case and the director will not change the outcome of the deal in any way.
If South has three or four hearts, something is fishy: he should have elected to play 4♥ then. The director should make a ruling against NS (exception: if South has three hearts and a 4-3-3-3 hand a choice for 3NT is acceptable on technical grounds).

B. Suppose the convention cards showed that NS did not play transfers. This is a far more serious case: South has given incorrect information. The director will certainly rule against NS.
He will hereby take in account also whether North's further bidding, after South's wrong explanation, is consistent with '2♦ is not a transfer' since that is how North meant that bid. If North has used the information from South's incorrect disclosure ('What's this? Partner South thinks I have made a transfer bid, so I'd better now change my bidding plan accordingly') he is violating the Laws as well.

In both cases I cannot tell you the exact ruling of the director, since:
- I am not a qualified director
- and mostly: there is a lot of information lacking (see PS). For instance: what were the NS hands? What did North's 2♦ bid mean? This kind of information is needed for the director's ruling.
Another point the director will mention: North should have warned you - after the bidding had ended, but before your opening lead - that in his (North's) view, 2♦ was not a transfer. After that you had best immediately called the director (by the way: díd you call him?)

To conclude with, some tips:
1. Always offer convention cards to the opponents. The above will make that abundantly clear.
2. Always call the director after any irregularity, even if you are not sure if anything out of order has happened. Calling the director is in no way an accusation of foul play towards the opponents (as - alas - many wrongly believe): the director knows best about the Laws, so why shouldn't he have a look at what happened?
Even if you are playing against good friends: call the director after any irregularity (and of course you accept his ruling courteously). This way you will remain good friends!
Calling the director is not what causes animosity. It's the trying to rule yourself, the bargaining with the Laws, that causes problems. Suppose a player draws the wrong card from his hand, he intended to play another one but the 'wrong' card is on the table already. Often his opponents will allow him to take it back. Next time they make a slightly more fundamental mistake (e.g. a wrong bid which they want to change) and expect a similar service in return. Where does it end? Do you see what I mean with 'bargaining'? Therefore: follow the Laws, call the director.

PS, for all our visitors: When submitting a problem to Bridgevaria (or any other forum): please give full information about hands, the bidding, convention cards, vulnerability. We find it very hard to answer questions when not having all necessary information.

En hils fra Orkanger

*Reaction from Martin Sinot (15 January 2010)

Hello Ed & Peter,

Regarding the question 'Transfer or not?' I need to make one correction.
Peter states that a normal Jacoby-transfer does not have to be alerted. This was the case in the Netherlands up to the 2008-2009 season, but it is no longer the case. As of September 2009, the rule is that every convention must be alerted, as well as everything of which you suspect that the opponents might not understand it. As far as I know, this is the case in most jurisdictions (don't know about Spain or Norway, though).

Apart from that, as a qualified director, I can say that Peter's story is correct: erring is no infraction, but the alert and explanation given by partner is unauthorized information and may not be used in the remainder of the auction. Wrong information is an infraction, though (and still there is the information problem).
In absence of convention cards, the TD will assume wrong information; in other words: the offenders need to prove that the given information is correct.
Concerning the TD ruling: I suspect that there will be no damage due to misinformation, since the opponent leads from his five-card heart suit, while knowing that a five-card suit will be left of him. No doubt it will also be the lead he chooses if he knows that there are not five hearts left of him. Therefore, the misinformation does not damage him.
There might be damage due to use of unauthorized information, but without knowing the hands there is no way of telling whether that is the case.

Regards,
Martin Sinot

Dear Ed & Peter,

After some questioning my opponents reveal that they have a system for opening leads whereby - a small odd card means one thing, a high odd card means another, a low even card means something else and a high even card has yet another meaning.
Is this legal?

Thanks,
Bill Macmillan

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Bill,

As far as I know you can play any system for signalling (and therefore opening leads as well) you want (except using parts of your body...). But there are some conditions:
Firstly: the method must be explained clearly on the convention card.
Secondly: if the method is very uncommon, like the one you describe, I think its users should alert their opponents before play starts - I think!

I am not sure whether this is the way it is described in the Laws all over the world, but I definitely think it should.

I think Peter signals as follows: left foot on the table, low club = spades preference. Right foot on the table, left hand on top of his head, low club = hearts preference.... or reverse, I always forget.

If he stands on his head and is moving his feet like a windmill, always play diamonds!

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Bill,

You do not give the meaning of every case you mention (e.g. what exactly does the lead of a small odd card mean?).
As long as declarer can 'read' the signals* and is given full disclosure about the methods of signalling (and therefore also of leading) I think anything goes - provided of course signalling is only done by playing cards, rather than by sounds and/or movements (this is what Ed is trying to say when writing 'using parts of your body' and all this stuff about my supposed use of legs and whatever).
However I do not think it is compulsory to alert opponents before the play. After all, declare can ask about the agreements in signalling at any time during the play.

* There is one exception. It concerns 'Veiled signals' ('Veil signals'?). This is a direct translation from Dutch ('Sluiersignalen') and therefore probably not known as such in English. I have not been able to find the English expression (on 15 December Martin Sinot informed us he has, read his addition below my answer, -Peter). These signals are illegal in most matches since they contain a message declarer cannot decipher as he lacks the 'key' - for these signals are coded!
I will try to explain: suppose declarer is known (from the bidding) to hold an even number in a particular suit (for instance: he has replied two in a major over his partner's Stayman-enquiry). The opponent who is to lead, playing 'Veil signals', will now:
- Either lead according to system A (e.g. fourth best) if holding an even number in the 'known' suit
- Or lead according to system B (e.g. odd leads) if holding an odd number of cards in the 'known' suit.
More concrete: Suppose declarer South is known to hold four spades. West leads the ♥2.
- This ♥2 is fourth best if West has an even number of spades.
- This ♥2 is an odd lead (third or fifth best) if West has an odd number of spades.
Note that declarer cannot 'decode' the message since he does not know whether West has an even or odd number of spades.
East, however, cán decode the message: he knows declarer has four (an even number) of spades and by looking at dummy's and his own number of spades he can deduct whether West has an even or odd number of spades and thus whether the lead is fourth best or odd.
Since declarer lacks full disclosure, this method is illegal in most matches (or even in all; I am not sure).
From your description I take it your opponents do not play veil signals, but I am not sure.

To conclude with: funny Ed should mention me supposedly moving like a windmill. After all, the link between windmills and Spain is - of course - Don Quixote.
That noble man is commonly considered to have been rather eccentric. But what is eccentric? Now read Ed's comment once more and I think you will agree the good Don was perfectly normal - compared to Ed that is.

En hils fra Orkanger.

PS: Ed is wrong by the way; I use finger-signals since these can be seen by partner when table screens are being used. Foot-signals are so passé, Ed... :-)

 Reaction from Martin Sinot (15 January 2010)

Hello Ed and Peter,

About the 'Illegal Signals': the term you are looking for when translating 'Sluiersignalen' is probably 'Encrypted signals': the signals are 'encrypted' such that partner can decode the signal, but declarer cannot.
They are mentioned under this name in the HUM/BSC regulations and indeed forbidden if you use those rules (strongly recommended).

Regards,
Martin Sinot

Thank you very much, Martin. 
For readers who wonder: HUM = Highly Unusual Methods, BSC = Brown Sticker Methods, - Ed & Peter

Dear Ed & Peter,

Someone asked me to comment on a very long bidding sequence. It started as follows (none vulnerable): 1♥ (11-15, 5-card) - p - 2 NT(Jacoby) - 4♣? and after that a lot more, which I might tell you another time.
What would you bid and be your plan with the following hand:

And what should in more general be your agreements here?
Thanks and I will let them know it wasn't me who came up with this brilliant scheme, though probably it is not necessary to do so, as they know me quite well.

Nanning van Mulken

Dear Ed & Peter,

If I bid 1NT and opponent bids 2♣ can my partner still do Jacoby transfer by bidding 2♦ or 2♥?
Thank you

Marc Rawitt