[jillybean]

(Deal checked and double checked)

---

[ali quarg]

With a stopper in ♣ you can raise straight to 3NT.
3♦ shows 3+card support without a stopper in ♣.

[pescetom]

--

[DavidKok]

The auction until 3♦ is great, both hands are just patterning out. North shows 4♠5♦ with at most 2 hearts, South shows 5(+)♥3♦ and interest in not playing 3NT (either lacking a club stopper or extra shape in support of diamonds).
I think North should bid 3♥ on the third round - this typically shows a doubleton hearts, suggesting a 6-2 fit over 3NT and denying a club stopper. With the singleton king you can lie about the second card. Alternatively you can bid 3♠, for me this promises a 5-card suit but it might be the smallest lie on a good 4-card suit, and if partner raises the 4-3 fit is probably best anyway.

[jillybean]

Thanks, how does South bid with a 3523 hand, unsuitable for nt.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-16, 17:40, said:

The auction until 3♦ is great, both hands are just patterning out. North shows 4♠5♦ with at most 2 hearts, South shows 5(+)♥3♦ and interest in not playing 3NT (either lacking a club stopper or extra shape in support of diamonds).
I think North should bid 3♥ on the third round - this typically shows a doubleton hearts, suggesting a 6-2 fit over 3NT and denying a club stopper. With the singleton king you can lie about the second card. Alternatively you can bid 3♠, for me this promises a 5-card suit but it might be the smallest lie on a good 4-card suit, and if partner raises the 4-3 fit is probably best anyway.

The main problem with 3H over 3D isn’t that one may end up in a 6-1 fit. After all, give south AQJxxx in hearts, and the stiff King makes the suit solid, while AQxxxx may lose no tricks and Axxxxx may fetch a 3-3 break.

The main problem is that many 2/1 players rebid 2H on a 5 card suit, requiring some semblance of stoppers for 2N. Now, south may think that the 5-2 is the best strain, only to find that he’s violated Burns Law of Total Trump….one should always have more trump than do the opponents. AQJxx might solve that problem, of course.

The hand is, imo, a nightmare.

My own preference is for north to rebid 3S…sort of fifth suit forcing. Opener shouldn’t raise with fewer than 3 cards…and on these auctions, sometimes a moysian is the best strain.

But I think all but the best pairs in the world are going to struggle on these layouts. The good news is that the field, in mps, and the opps, at imps, are likely to struggle as well.

[jillybean]

Although we still end up in an impossible auction, this is how I think these auctions should go

Over 1♥ 2♦ is gf and a suit (5+) , 2♣/1M is our generic gf bid.
2♥ is either 6 cards or just a waiting bid, I've got minimum hand with 5 hearts, I deny 3♦ or the hand to bid nt, waiting for you to tell me more.
(whether we show 3 card ♦ support or the 6th♥ is up to partners discretion, suit quality?)
2♠:3♥ I have 6 hearts

[LBengtsson]

mikeh, on 2022-November-16, 20:34, said:

The hand is, imo, a nightmare.

That one sentence sums it up perfectly.

I doubt if many bidding systems would find the right spot given the combined point count. I do not think that North should bid 3NT with no ♣ stopper. If a small lie has to be made, I prefer 3♥ here (as DavidKok says).

[mw64ahw]

This is one of those style issues that have been debated in detail over the years

Firstly is ♦ modern style promising 5?
Secondly is GF absolutely forcing to game, forcing to 4m or passable on a 3m rebid.
This is the key issue for partnership to decide

The 3♦ bid says I don't have enough to force to game in ♦ and I don't have the ♣ stopper for 3NT.

North can make 3NT on certain layouts with key cards dropping and a 4-4 club split and likewise 5♦.
West isn't overcalling 2♣ so is either weak or unlikely to have 5.

Systematically, my bidding simulator will pass 3♦ with North's minimum and without 2 Aces.
Eagerly anticipating the reveal.

[sfi]

Even if you're playing a style where 2H is your default with nothing interesting to say, surely the 3D bid by South shows 6-3 in the red suits. Otherwise why not raise diamonds the round earlier?

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2022-November-16, 20:34, said:

The main problem with 3H over 3D isn’t that one may end up in a 6-1 fit. After all, give south AQJxxx in hearts, and the stiff King makes the suit solid, while AQxxxx may lose no tricks and Axxxxx may fetch a 3-3 break.

The main problem is that many 2/1 players rebid 2H on a 5 card suit, requiring some semblance of stoppers for 2N. Now, south may think that the 5-2 is the best strain, only to find that he’s violated Burns Law of Total Trump….one should always have more trump than do the opponents. AQJxx might solve that problem, of course.

The hand is, imo, a nightmare.

With only 5 hearts opener must have a 4-card suit outside or have 5♥332. With a 4-card spade suit opener raises spades, with a 4-card diamond suit opener raises diamonds on the previous round, and with a 4-card club suit opener should really bid 3NT now even if the suit isn't stopped. With 5♥332 without a good club stopper opener should bid 3♣ rather than 3♦ on the third round, preserving bidding space and showing more doubt. For me 3♦ shows 6♥3♦, although this isn't fully standard (some people might bid the same way with 3=5=3=2 with weak clubs).
I do think that, with 3=5=3=2 and weak clubs, opener should rebid 3♠, not 4♥, over 3♥. Burn's Law is never violated that way.
Personally I wouldn't even feel that bad about rebidding 2NT over 2♠ with 3=5=3=2, although it isn't my first choice. We lost the clubs years ago.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2022-November-16, 20:52, said:

Over 1♥ 2♦ is gf and a suit (5+) , 2♣/1M is our generic gf bid.
2♥ is either 6 cards or just a waiting bid, I've got minimum hand with 5 hearts, I deny 3♦ or the hand to bid nt, waiting for you to tell me more.
(whether we show 3 card ♦ support or the 6th♥ is up to partners discretion, suit quality?)
2♠:3♥ I have 6 hearts

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the strength-first approach to 2/1 GF. Since the major suit rebid does not promise a sixth, opener sometimes feels compelled to rebid the major suit another time at the 3-level. Almost always this is a mistake, it makes it impossible to tell the difference between a 7-card suit or self-sufficient 6-card suit, versus a hand that has nothing else to bid and look for doubleton support. Current expert standard is to make a cheap rebid in a fragment suit and hope partner voluntarily shows doubleton support. Sometimes you will play 3NT with a 6-2 fit available, but that is usually fine.
There are treatments to fix this (the Schuler shift, shape-first 2/1, nebulous 2♣ and artificiality on the third round of the bidding all help some) but personally I haven't had many issues with it once you are familiar with the 'rule' that opener should strain not to bid a 6-card suit a third time, especially if it is space-consuming.

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-17, 04:15, said:

There are treatments to fix this (the Schuler shift [...])

I had to look this one up. It turns out my partner and I came up with the same solution and we didn't realise someone else had named it. It works well though.

Article on it, in case anyone wants to know.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-17, 04:15, said:

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the strength-first approach to 2/1 GF. Since the major suit rebid does not promise a sixth, opener sometimes feels compelled to rebid the major suit another time at the 3-level. Almost always this is a mistake, it makes it impossible to tell the difference between a 7-card suit or self-sufficient 6-card suit, versus a hand that has nothing else to bid and look for doubleton support. Current expert standard is to make a cheap rebid in a fragment suit and hope partner voluntarily shows doubleton support. Sometimes you will play 3NT with a 6-2 fit available, but that is usually fine.
There are treatments to fix this (the Schuler shift, shape-first 2/1, nebulous 2♣ and artificiality on the third round of the bidding all help some) but personally I haven't had many issues with it once you are familiar with the 'rule' that opener should strain not to bid a 6-card suit a third time, especially if it is space-consuming.

The Schuler shift looks interesting but I don't think it's wise for us to add that complication - 2M = 6 it is.

edit: I've just spoken with someone whose partner wanted to play the SS but neglected to send them the complete system (isn't that a surprise) so they stopped playing it. Perhaps there is potential to add it with this partner.

[nullve]

sfi, on 2022-November-17, 04:28, said:

It turns out my partner and I came up with the same solution and we didn't realise someone else had named it.

Who hasn't invented the Schuler shift?

[pescetom]

nullve, on 2022-November-17, 10:57, said:

Who hasn't invented the Schuler shift?

I toyed with the idea, but I decided that with current partners it would be a high forget risk, apart from the cost of maybe wrongsiding NT.
Maybe in the future.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-17, 04:15, said:

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the strength-first approach to 2/1 GF. Since the major suit rebid does not promise a sixth, opener sometimes feels compelled to rebid the major suit another time at the 3-level. Almost always this is a mistake, it makes it impossible to tell the difference between a 7-card suit or self-sufficient 6-card suit, versus a hand that has nothing else to bid and look for doubleton support. Current expert standard is to make a cheap rebid in a fragment suit and hope partner voluntarily shows doubleton support. Sometimes you will play 3NT with a 6-2 fit available, but that is usually fine.
There are treatments to fix this (the Schuler shift, shape-first 2/1, nebulous 2♣ and artificiality on the third round of the bidding all help some) but personally I haven't had many issues with it once you are familiar with the 'rule' that opener should strain not to bid a 6-card suit a third time, especially if it is space-consuming.

jillybean, on 2022-November-17, 07:40, said:

The Schuler shift looks interesting but I don't think it's wise for us to add that complication - 2M = 6 it is.

edit: I've just spoken with someone whose partner wanted to play the SS but neglected to send them the complete system (isn't that a surprise) so they stopped playing it. Perhaps there is potential to add it with this partner.

Fast forward January 2024. My 10-13 NT partner, as above, and I have agreed to add the Schuler Shift to our repertoire. Giving me more hands to post.

2/1
Schuler Shift - 2M is 5c M, 13-15 balanced, or if unbal., minimum hand.
2N=6c+ M
Reverse shows “extras” (5-5 or better, or if 5-4, 15+)

[DavidKok]

The Schuler Shift is nice, though you do need some agreement on the continuations. My partner and I had a bidding misunderstanding a while back on the auction 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; 3♠-?, where I thought he showed 7 or a good six card suit with diamond weakness while he thought his failure to jump rebid 3♠ denied a good seven card suit so this had to be bad seven or any six. I still struggle with this topic, 'expert standard' 2/1 has several auctions like this that are simply ambiguous. I had a misunderstanding with a different partner yesterday where we missed a cold 3NT and settled for an inferior 5♦ on an auction where I thought I was patterning out and partner thought I was denying stoppers in the unbid suit.

I've recently been looking into the structure over 1M-2♣ again, my partner expressed an interest in playing full relay here. It won't help on the actual auction as we responded 2♦, but since both 1M-2♦ and 1♠-2♥ can be raised more frequently the other bids can be more specific (hopefully) so we'll manage.

One relatively mainstream treatment over 1♠-2♣* game forcing relay is:

• 2♦: Minimum, not 4(+)♥.
  
• 2♥: 4(+)♥, wide ranging
  
• 2♠: 6(+)♠ (exactly six or a poor seven), shows extras
  
• 2NT: 17-19 Bal
  
• 3♣: 4(+)♣, extras (denies 4♥ or 6♠)
  
• 3♦: 4(+)♦, extras (denies 4♥ or 6♠)
  
• 3♥: ??
  
• 3♠: 7(+)♠, extras, sets trumps.

One nice gadget is that over 1♠-2♣; 2♦-? responder can ask for shape with 2♥ with identical continuations, show a slam try in spades with 2♠, make a low-information ask for a sixth spade with 2NT (the followups are: 3NT = I have five, 4♠ = I have at least six) or make natural bids or jump to game if you know the best contract facing a minimum. Other coded schemes for 2♠+ exist and are likely better, e.g. the original AMBRA uses 2♠ to show diamonds, 2NT to show the one-suiter (6(+) or 5332) a la the Shuler Shift and 3♣+ to clarify shape on clubs hands (going through 2♠ now symmetrically shows diamonds hands).
I think there's room to improve on this, and have some ideas of my own but would love to hear what other people think.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-03, 02:16, said:

The Schuler Shift is nice, though you do need some agreement on the continuations. My partner and I had a bidding misunderstanding a while back on the auction 1♠-2♥; 2♠-3♣; 3♠-?, where I thought he showed 7 or a good six card suit with diamond weakness while he thought his failure to jump rebid 3♠ denied a good seven card suit so this had to be bad seven or any six. I still struggle with this topic, 'expert standard' 2/1 has several auctions like this that are simply ambiguous. I had a misunderstanding with a different partner yesterday where we missed a cold 3NT and settled for an inferior 5♦ on an auction where I thought I was patterning out and partner thought I was denying stoppers in the unbid suit.

I've recently been looking into the structure over 1M-2♣ again, my partner expressed an interest in playing full relay here. It won't help on the actual auction as we responded 2♦, but since both 1M-2♦ and 1♠-2♥ can be raised more frequently the other bids can be more specific (hopefully) so we'll manage.

One relatively mainstream treatment over 1♠-2♣* game forcing relay is:

• 2♦: Minimum, not 4(+)♥.
• 2♥: 4(+)♥, wide ranging
• 2♠: 6(+)♠ (exactly six or a poor seven), shows extras
• 2NT: 17-19 Bal
• 3♣: 4(+)♣, extras (denies 4♥ or 6♠)
• 3♦: 4(+)♦, extras (denies 4♥ or 6♠) extras
• 3♥: ??
• 3♠: 7(+)♠, extras, sets trumps.

One nice gadget is that over 1♠-2♣; 2♦-? responder can ask for shape with 2♥ with identical continuations, show a slam try in spades with 2♠, make a low-information ask for a sixth spade with 2NT (the followups are: 3NT = I have five, 4♠ = I have at least six) or make natural bids or jump to game if you know the best contract facing a minimum. Other coded schemes for 2♠+ exist and are likely better, e.g. the original AMBRA uses 2♠ to show diamonds, 2NT to show the one-suiter (6(+) or 5332) a la the Shuler Shift and 3♣+ to clarify shape on clubs hands (going through 2♠ now symmetrically shows diamonds hands).
I think there's room to improve on this, and have some ideas of my own but would love to hear what other people think.

or the following gives you the ability to distinguish between 6♠ semi-bal and unbal

• 2♦: Minimum, not 4(+)♥.
• 2♥: 4(+)♥, wide ranging
• 2♠: 4(+)♣ extras
• 2NT: 6(+)♠ unbal (exactly six or a poor seven), shows extras
• 3♣: 4(+)♦, extras (denies 4♥ or 6♠)
• 3♦: 17-19 bal or 6/7♠ semi-bal
• 3♥: 5♥ extras
• 3♠: 7(+)♠, extras, sets trumps., self-sustaining
• 3NT 17-19 unbid suits stopped

I use a similar structure over 1♥-2♦ except that 2♥ is now minimum or 4♠

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2024-January-02, 21:11, said:

Fast forward January 2024. My 10-13 NT partner, as above, and I have agreed to add the Schuler Shift to our repertoire. Giving me more hands to post.

2/1
Schuler Shift - 2M is 5c M, 13-15 balanced, or if unbal., minimum hand.
2N=6c+ M
Reverse shows “extras” (5-5 or better, or if 5-4, 15+)

In my partnerships we use the catch-all 2M for a bunch of 5-4 hands as well, leaving a new suit at the three-level as more of a pure 2-suiter (normally 5-5, but 5-4 if it really looks right). We like sorting out the shape at the expense of the immediate knowledge of extras.

I'm not saying it's better, but it may be something to consider at some point. We've been happy with it for a few years.