Best wishes to you Todd.
I'm having some medical issues myself, I know the fog you are speaking of. It can get frustrating.

Best wishes to us all on this nice day of the first of May.  Well, a bit of rain. But nice rain.

Jack, mostly (not completely) I agree with your guesses.  The problem is that it really does come down to guessing. If there are no further agreements then there are no further agreements. Since it is hard to imagine a 1NT response that is better suited for playing in 5 opposite a very shapely opening bid, and since it is hard to imagine why pard would bid this way if he did not regard 5 as at least a possible final contract, I figure I'll just bid 5 . I can imagine a hand where 6 comes in, but with "no further agreements" I will just forget about it.

If we were to set out agreements then the first thing is to decide whether 2NT is or is not Leb. After 1m-1NT (6-10, not 7-10)-2M I think 2NT is often, and perhaps best, played as natural. A modest hand that is not enthusiastic about anything. Opener can pass, or opener can rebid 3m and I'll pass.

But a big purpose for Leb is to give responder, when he wants to play in , to sign off in 3 , invite going on in , and force to game showing . With your agreements, 3 can be a fit with absolutely minimal values, it just says "no, I am not rebidding a passable 2NT if you have all those ,and 4 is forcing. I think this mighty be the right choice of agreements but does partner think so?

Now a quote from BWS

"  In response to one diamond: two clubs is forcing to game; three clubs is invitational. A one-notrump response shows 6-10 points."

So we have to include the possibility that responder, after 1 -1NT - 2 wants to bid 3 with 6 highs since he might well want to do this with too few to bid 3 over 1 . Also 1 - 1NT precludes a hand such as Qxx/xx/Qxx/KQJxxx since with that hand it would go 1 - 3 . Probably it would go that way with Qxx/xx/Jxx/KQJxxx. This makes it unlikely that, after 1 - 1NT - 2 , responder will want to invite game in . Not impossible, but pretty unlikely. Which, I suppose, means that 4 could show a good hand with a fit and a control. 

But I am not betting on what 4 would show.

In a sense, this problem is a good problem for IAC, or more generally for the typical player. Currently, I have no partner with whom I have discussed 1 - 1NT - 2 and, apparently, even if we have agreed to play BWS, we have not really discussed this auction (so long , something inn , but beyond that?). It's hardly unusual for me to say "I am not really sure just what would mean what here and I doubt partner is either so I think I will just make a guess. Bidding 5 will no doubt be taken as meaning I am up for playing in 5 ".

Perhaps. I note your use of the plural "suits". If he can bring in clubs and spade losing either 1 spade and no clubs or 1 club and no spades then yep, a slam is there.
So otherwise put, 5 says  "11 tricks for sure, absent some weird distribution, and 12 should be there if we can bring in the blacks with the loss of 1 trick".

One way to look at this: If we are going to be in slam on 30 highs we had better have some shape. Well, here we have shape, lots of shape, but the N shape and the S shape aren't working well together. So pessimism is warranted. Surely we do not want to play this in clubs, and if we play it in spades we might lose 0 or 1 or 2 spades and we will lose 1 club. Maybe the best shot would be 6 played by S since that eliminated the problem of a spade lead at T1, but there is no way to arrange that.

Some hands favor the optimists, some, like this one, favor the pessimists. Here they can ope 5 comes in. Maybe it does. Maybe not.

Note to Curls77: 

I have also posted the hand to BridgeWinners.com.  The url is https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/21-hand-what-are-your-thoughts-about-the-auction/.  If you pass the link to Cedar, he can view the poll and comments there as well.  He may have to join to view the poll results, but joining is free.

The poll might need fixing. I checked yes to Q1 and then when I checked yes to 2A the mark on 1A goes away. So it doesn't accept "one answer within each question number" it just accepts one answer overall.

Also questions 1 and 4, as stated, are not really suited for a poll. Eg Q1 is really 2 questions. If someone thinks S should bid 3 but does not think that it shows extras, should he answer yes or no? And Q4 is "What do you think..." I suppose he can answer no if he does not like the auction presented, but which part doesn't he like?

The auction will start 1 - 2 , no doubt about that. Now for the S rebid. If I had been dealt

A Q J x x
x
x x
K J x x x

I would have opened the bidding.
Well, KQJxx is a lot better than KJxxx.
It's not just 2 more highs, it is 2 well placed highs.
So 1 - 2 - 3 seens right

Now to the N hand . Despite all the highs, the hands are not fitting well. If we are thinking of slam, where? Partner has a lot of black cards. If partner has the Q things are looking up but why should he have that? And, looking for the moment at both hands even of we change xx in the S hand to Qx , slam is hardly a certainty on a spade lead.

I am inclined, as N, to bid 3 over 3 . If S now raises that will make me happy. If he bids 3 I might well settle for 3NT.  Partner does not have to pass 3NT but with the hand he has, I imagine he will. Ne has already announced a lot of black cards, I have announced some good diamonds, but nobody has said "I can see where 12 tricks are likely to come from".

It is not impossible for 6 to make, but it needs a lot.

N has a lot in the reds, S in the blacks, who is going to set up what suit? Our only 8 card fit is in , we need the Q. Time to get out. Let's just get 9 tricks through brute force.

The numbers are interesting.

I found the responses to 1NT a bit surprising. There are 140 1NT openings and 60 responses listed. I assume that the other 80 times the response was Pass. That's more often than I would have expected but I have never thought that much about it.

One of my thoughts about conventions is "what is gained, what is lost?" And then "How often does it matter".

Example: In the 1081 hands there were 324 1M openers, that's quite a few. And then 23 Bergen responses. But there are other uses for 1M-3m if not playing Bergen.

At a more primitive level, I will be playing in an hour or so with someone who does not play 2/1, it's more like SAYC. We will be playing 16 boards and from what I have seen it seldom matters that we are not playing 2/1. It can affect the auction and, of course, sometimes alters the final contract but not really very often. somewhere I have some comments from Mike Lawrence about that. As I recall ML thinks that playing 2/1 is something of a disadvantage in partscore auctions, is usually inconsequential in game hand auctions, and is very useful in slam auctions.

The guy I am about to play with also likes Flannery so we play it. My main objection to Flannery is that I think the weak 2 !d call is very useful when it comes up. You mention 68 weak 2 bids so I suppose about 33 were weak 2 bids. We would lose those. We get Flannery and yeah, I guess it has its uses, but I like having the weak 2 available.

Anyway, the results are interesting.

There are a lot of related situations. For example, suppose that your left hand opponent opens 1 , your partner bids a natural 1NT and your right had opponent doubles for penalties. It seems unlikely you could have a hand where 2 would be useful as a transfer to so what does it mean?  Probably either 2 or 2 is a transfer to but which one? Once one decides which one shows spades, the other could, I suppose, show . Or . Or 5-5 in the minors. Who knows?

I generally play that when the bidding goes 1something on my left and 1NT by pard then everything goes just as it would have if it had begun (pass)-1NT. So this leaves both  (1 ) -1NT -(Pass)- 2   and  (1 ) -1NT -(X)- 2 with no (useful) meaning at all. obviously not optimal, I just don't worry about it.

The solution for a regular partnership is you agree on source material. Hopefully some good or at least some decent source, call him X, has written these things down and you and your pard agree that it means whatever X says it means. Probably there is no X to handle everything but maybe you can find X, Y, and Z and use that to get agreements. No debate, these things don't come up often enough for debate, you just say "Whatever X, or Y, or Z" says". If X and Z both address the same issue but do it differently, go with X.

So a challenge: Who knows of an X source for the problem Jack describes? How about the  (1 ) -1NT -(Pass)- 2 ?  And other such?