[mw64ahw]

You can right side with 5♥4♠ by playing
1N-2♦
2♥-2/3N/4♣ GI/GF/SI

with 6M
1N-4R GF
1N-2R-2M-3M GI
1N-2R-2M-1st/2nd round control SI

with 4/5♥5♠ and 2♣ asking for a 5cM
1N-2♣-2♦-3♥ GI
1N-2♣-2♦-4♥ GF
1N-2♣-2♦-4♦ SI
1N-2♣-2♥ 2/3♥2♠-2♠ 5♥5♠

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2024-May-04, 08:06, said:

Did it post and not require a test message?

After some thought (and increasing impatience with BBO who promised they were looking into the forum bug) I decided that the mikeh original "test" is inappropriate as it almost always succeeds, even if a direct reply would not. I prefer "stub" or "watch this space", which better reflects the bug

[helene_t]

thepossum, on 2024-May-04, 08:06, said:

My only concerning issue when playing transfers are rare occasions when as the opener you feel that accepting the 2 level transfer risks missing game, but you do not have the requirements for super-accept.

You have the same issue when you don't play transfers, though:
1NT-2M (natural)
?
If opener has a hand that would have accepted a transfer, say a 17-count with 3-card support, they will pass here and you can miss game when responder has a 7-count.

To avoid this, you will have to play some scheme that allows responder to show a hand just short of an invite. When the major suit is spades it is easy, regardless of whether you play transfers or not you can agree that Stayman followed by 2♠ is invitational with a 5-card suit, and you can then afford to do that with a 7-count.

But most pairs prefer Stayman followed by 2♠ to mean something else, and with hearts it is even less attractive.

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2024-May-04, 08:06, said:

My only concerning issue when playing transfers are rare occasions when as the opener you feel that accepting the 2 level transfer risks missing game, but you do not have the requirements for super-accept.

I think that worrying about this would be poor advice to Novice/Beginner and maybe at a higher level too.
You won't lose a tournament because you did not play a super-accept, let alone the right one.
For a few years I played a dazzling array of super-accepts including even a 3 card maximum, any marginal gains were outgunned by occasional forgets (nowadays in hearts I play 2♠ as the only superaccept, in spades 2NT as max and 3♠ as non-max, but again way OT for N/B).

[mycroft]

"test" works, because editing a message doesn't (seem to) trigger the bug.

So you "test" a reply - which works - and then spend the time you need editing your test message, "secure" in the knowledge that you won't lose it.

I still copy my messages before posting though.

[jillybean]

Ticked off

mycroft, on 2024-May-04, 22:09, said:

"test" works, because editing a message doesn't (seem to) trigger the bug.

So you "test" a reply - which works - and then spend the time you need editing your test message, "secure" in the knowledge that you won't lose it.

I still copy my messages before posting though.

If you do forget to copy your text, once you encounter the problem you can use the back button which will take you back to the text where you can copy it before going through the whole “test” rigmarole.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-May-04, 22:09, said:

"test" works, because editing a message doesn't (seem to) trigger the bug.

So you "test" a reply - which works - and then spend the time you need editing your test message, "secure" in the knowledge that you won't lose it.

I still copy my messages before posting though.

Sure, only that you missed my (admittedly SB) point... if you know it will work it is not a test

jillybean, on 2024-May-05, 07:46, said:

If you do forget to copy your text, once you encounter the problem you can use the back button which will take you back to the text where you can copy it before going through the whole “test” rigmarole.

Agreed about back button and copy, although on a phone you have to be very savvy to do either