Oliver, I didn't take any thing you said  as criticism, not at all,  and I doubt Joe would.
My thinking was more that OCP sets a good example for having a bunch, a large bunch, of defined sequences.
I see 2/1 as having many paths. If I am going to play with someone often, then we can hash these things out.
For just a few boards, say I am a sub, I think the fewer conventions the better. Up to a point at least.
Somewhere in between, with someone I hope to play with repeatedly but where time or distance or whatever keeps us from extended discussion, then having something like Joe's notes can be useful.
When I first learned bridge, rubber bridge, everyone played Goren. When I started playing duplicate, someone told me I should learn Max Hardy's Five Card Majors Western Style. Later a partner and I played,  using Bergen. Currently, and for quite a while, I am a Mike Lawrence fan. It matters less what you play than that you and partner are playing the same thing. I think Michael Rosenberg, and probably about a zillion other people, have also said such things. I just got back from a club game where we play Standard American.

The infinite variety of bridge makes  it a great game.

I think allowed questions depend on the circumstances. We often have a "friendly table" and sure, you can ask. Otoh, while I certainly think Hoki's tourney is a "friendly tourney", still  it is a tourney and I think the accepted style is to not ask and just take your lumps. At any rate, I think getting too loose takes some of the fun out of the game.

Here is something that happened today. The opps had an rkc auction, I think they agreed on 0/3 versus 1/4, anyway the response was 0/3. Passed out in 5S making 7. I had no keys and I almost injected a comment' You guys sure you want to pass" but I didn't.  With regular partners I have an agreement to keep this from happening. But here what could be said? "My response is 0/3 and, hint, it's not 0"?

I see no reason why "friendly tables" with all the conversation in the world cannot exist, but I am hoping we can also start to get make it less necessary.

Oliver mentions that his OCP has precise meanings. Exactly. I am sure there are lots of good things about super precision, but one thing that strikes me right off s is that that many many auctions have a laid out meaning. I doubt that even Meckwell never have a misunderstanding and they have been playing together for what, forty years? Perfection is not for mortals. But we can do better. Even if we 2/1 folks do not reach, or approach, what OCP has I think we could do better.

And the thing is, saying "Bergen" really does not always suffice. That's one reason that I often try to not play Bergen in pick up. The same applies to many conventions.
 
Anyway, I am sure this sort of discussion appeals to some more than others. I am hoping it catches on, at least a bit.

Added: Maybe this will show what I am thinking. My preference n 2/1 is that 1H-2m-2S shows extras, while 1D-2C-2M does not. But Joe has none of them showing extras. I think that there is something to be said for just having this written down. and then, as a default, that's what I do. Mostly it doesn't matter but it is good to know which choice has been made.   

I am really happy to see this forum. I have long thought it would be useful to have a place where we can discuss problems that arise.  Frequently we are unsure of what partner intends.

Yleexotee has recently written up a spreadsheet on suggested default agreements. His choices are not always the choices I would make, but nonetheless I can happily play them with the benefit that everyone is on the same page. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jO2sp_kWS5DJRveNIEZ0HNprxDUyzTcNgsd1ex-A-9U/edit#gid=864562715
I really advocate looking through this. Of course everyone can play what they want, but often neither partner is quite sure what they are playing.
 
I will give two examples from recent play.

Here is something that came up in Hoki's tourney today (April 5).

The deal is on my left, I hold

JT98
KQ
A762
Q82

We are vul, if it matters.

The bidding begins
Pass 1S  Pass ?
Ok, this is worth a limit raise to 3S.
BUT
Perhaps partner will take 1S-3S as Bergen?
I solved the problem by borrowing a point or so and bidding a Jacoby 2NT.
All was well, 4S making.

This happens often.

Here is a hand from the other day:
This time I am in third seat, everyone vul.

AKQ843
54
JT
A74

 P     P    1S    P
3D   P     ?

Ok, we have agreed to play Bergen. But by a passed hand? Well, what else could 3D be? But reverse Bergen or straight Bergen? Well, I should have a good shot at 4S no matter which, so I bid it. Making 5.

There was some friendly discussion after this one. Partner, yleexotee, had only three spades but just under an opening bid and we had not had enough discussion for him to be sure what I would take as what. So, in much the same way as I did in the first hand above, he took a practical approach.  BillHiggins, a kib, commented that many use Drury. I do so myself, but I know the coyote doesn't.

Comment: Whatever the relative merits of Bergen, or Drury, or neither after a third hand opening, clearly you do not want to be using both Bergen and Reverse Drury. If you do, then after a third hand 1S, the calls of 2C, 2D, 3C, 3D all show spades. That's overkill. So choices have to be made. And it's best if we agree.

The two examples that I gave above worked out fine. But sometimes the confusion is insurmountable.

So I am thanking Joe (ylee...) for writing his document and I am  suggesting that people consider using it as as a default when there has been no opportunity for discussion. I'm not fond of Bergen, I like Drury, I am ok with either, but what I really like is to know which one, if either, we are playing. And when. On over a double, for example?

Again I am really glad to see this Forum and I hope we can have many productive discussions.


Enjoy
Ken