[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-September-30, 14:50, said:

Now we're getting into the detail. Does 2M promise 6? Does 2NT promise any extras? Does a jump shift after a 2/1 exist, or is it a splinter?

This gives me a good starting point for discussion before I can understand and accept the invitation to play this method.

What ‘method’? It’s universal in NA, in a strong notrump method, for 2N to show a balanced minimum range opener, leaving aside the tiny number of (almost without exception) non expert who think the Schuler Shift is a good idea. The main differences in opinion relate to whether opener needs at least a little something in the side suits or whether 2N is the only way to deny 6 major. I don’t hog hands and, in constructive auctions, I do care about stoppers when bidding 3N, although xxx opposite xxx is acceptable on occasion. So I play that rebidding 2M is ambiguous and 2N offers at least tye hope of a half stopper in the side suits. That it can be 18+ is simply standard and has been since before I began to play. Wtf else are you going to bid?

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2026-September-30, 12:01, said:

The imp odds for slam bidding are precisely the same as at mps. In both cases, you want to bid slams that have a greater than 50% chance of making, avoid slams that are at all less than 50% and don’t care one way or the other if the slam is exactly 50%.

So it makes little sense, to me, to assert that you’d bid on at imps and pass at mps.

Thanks for that important correction.
I had no doubt about 50% at IMPS but I remembered more at MP, for some reason.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-30, 13:28, said:

We are back to the debate of a "reverse" after a 2/1 showing extra strength or just shape

---

A jump shift after a 2/1 removes a lot of bidding space.

---

For me, the former is just shape and the latter is a picture bid showing 5-5 SI (3♠ to fix spades, control bid to fix hearts).

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-September-30, 15:52, said:

What ‘method’? It’s universal in NA, in a strong notrump method, for 2N to show a balanced minimum range opener, leaving aside the tiny number of (almost without exception) non expert who think the Schuler Shift is a good idea. The main differences in opinion relate to whether opener needs at least a little something in the side suits or whether 2N is the only way to deny 6 major. I don’t hog hands and, in constructive auctions, I do care about stoppers when bidding 3N, although xxx opposite xxx is acceptable on occasion. So I play that rebidding 2M is ambiguous and 2N offers at least tye hope of a half stopper in the side suits. That it can be 18+ is simply standard and has been since before I began to play. Wtf else are you going to bid?

Well, that's me, one of the definitely non-experts, who thinks the Schuler Shift is great. That belief may have been formed more through discussions with my SS partner than on the merits of the convention alone. I did learn this 2NT 12-14 or 18-19 style in the early days, but that's all, just the first bid.

I haven't used this style for years and, apparently, haven't missed it. What do I do with 18+ after a 2/1? I describe my hand, bid strongly, I cue bid. We have methods to show a flat 12-14 hand.

I do think it's useful for partner to know I have 6 of my major and potentially a 9 card fit. I dislike the ambiguity of 2M being 5 or more.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-October-01, 02:54, said:

For me, the former is just shape and the latter is a picture bid showing 5-5 SI (3♠ to fix spades, control bid to fix hearts).

Some say splinter, some say 5-5 Slam Interest - what could go wrong?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-October-01, 04:49, said:

Some say splinter, some say 5-5 Slam Interest - what could go wrong?

I prefer splinters to be illogical jumps, 3♥ would be logical in natural bidding.

In any case it seems a bit perverse to splinter a possibly fictious clubs suit. It's not as if you need to create a force or have no more economical way to show clubs.

[akwoo]

pescetom, on 2026-October-01, 05:43, said:

I prefer splinters to be illogical jumps, 3♥ would be logical in natural bidding.

In any case it seems a bit perverse to splinter a possibly fictious clubs suit. It's not as if you need to create a force or have no more economical way to show clubs.

Playing MPs, and playing 2C is almost always real clubs (i.e. not a 'clubs or balanced' bid), you basically have to decide whether you try for a club slam before you go beyond 3N. You need the splinter to help make that decision.

(Yes, I am one of those people who prefer to play that 1S-2C-3C shows extras.)

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2026-October-01, 12:02, said:

Playing MPs, and playing 2C is almost always real clubs (i.e. not a 'clubs or balanced' bid), you basically have to decide whether you try for a club slam before you go beyond 3N. You need the splinter to help make that decision.

(Yes, I am one of those people who prefer to play that 1S-2C-3C shows extras.)

Quite different from our methods, even if I too prefer to play that 1S-2C-3C shows at least mild extras.
For us 2C is 'clubs or balanced or spades', we have no direct game forcing raise of spades.
So now a rebid of 3C by Opener is 4+ cards non-minimum with at least some interest in slam.
That puts Responder in a good position to choose direction.

In general, I see little or no use for splinters in a game forcing situation, where useful space is paramount and control-bids are imminent once a promising fit is found.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2026-October-01, 04:44, said:

I do think it's useful for partner to know I have 6 of my major and potentially a 9 card fit. I dislike the ambiguity of 2M being 5 or more.

Forty-odd years ago, I was more concerned with distinguishing T5432 from KQT32 than between T5432 and T65432.

Apparently, everyone is now content to do that at the five level.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-October-01, 05:43, said:

I prefer splinters to be illogical jumps, 3♥ would be logical in natural bidding.

Why?

In the old days a jump might be needed in order to create a game force. Not these days, for most and, if 2C was game force, playing 3H as natural is silly. Tell me this: how does responder set hearts as trump while ensuring that opener doesn’t pass? And if you unexpectedly say that 4H is forcing, by responder, how does responder agree hearts denying any slam interest?

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-September-30, 15:00, said:

I would certainly start with asking
does rebidding the major after the 2/1 promise 6?

If at the club, they answer of course, what else, that answers a lot of questions.

What else? So they are bidding 2N with a bad, flat 12 count?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-October-01, 05:43, said:

I prefer splinters to be illogical jumps, 3♥ would be logical in natural bidding.

In any case it seems a bit perverse to splinter a possibly fictious clubs suit. It's not as if you need to create a force or have no more economical way to show clubs.

Agree, clubs is not necessarily clubs!
Both a splinter and showing 5 5 after we are in a gf seems uneconomical , 3H doesn’t exist in my repertoire.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-September-30, 15:52, said:

What ‘method’? It’s universal in NA, in a strong notrump method, for 2N to show a balanced minimum range opener

Tell us how you really feel. Here the opposite is universal. I'm glad there is enough room for two universes in this discussion.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-October-01, 19:20, said:

Agree, clubs is not necessarily clubs!
Both a splinter and showing 5 5 after we are in a gf seems uneconomical , 3H doesn’t exist in my repertoire.

Agreed. About 3H I was only saying earlier that it does not meet the (severe) criteria I erect for a splinter (I dislike implicit "it has to be X because it can hardly be Y" auctions, particularly if X is a convention I intentionally limit/deprecate in the first place).

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2026-October-02, 10:10, said:

Tell us how you really feel. Here the opposite is universal. I'm glad there is enough room for two universes in this discussion.

Did I say it was universal beyond NA? I must have missed that part of my post.

At the risk of creating more fuss about nothing, what are the common meanings for 1M 2C 2N? I am truly curious, unless it’s the Schuler Switch, lol.

[kerkido]

mikeh, on 2026-October-06, 15:10, said:

At the risk of creating more fuss about nothing, what are the common meanings for 1M 2C 2N? I am truly curious, unless it’s the Schuler Switch, lol.

Perhaps your statement was just misworded, since:

mikeh, on 2026-September-30, 15:52, said:

It’s universal in NA, in a strong notrump method, for 2N to show a balanced minimum range opener

and

mikeh, on 2026-September-30, 15:52, said:

That it can be 18+ is simply standard

are contradictory. It *includes* a balanced minimum range opener, responder should act accordingly until you show the stronger version later, but in the context of this thread where the question was whether 2NT can include both or is only a minimum, your first statement as written doesn't seem right, and based on the latter, not what you intended to suggest.

[mikeh]

kerkido, on 2026-October-06, 15:21, said:

Perhaps your statement was just misworded, since:

and

are contradictory. It *includes* a balanced minimum range opener, responder should act accordingly until you show the stronger version later, but in the context of this thread where the question was whether 2NT can include both or is only a minimum, your first statement as written doesn't seem right, and based on the latter, not what you intended to suggest.

Fair point. You correctly inferred that I intended to state that ‘it is universal….for 2N to be a balanced minimum or 18+, with responder to assume, as will be the case the vast majority of the time, the minimum. Obviously opener takes later action with the big hand. Thank you for pointing out my omission

[awm]

 mikeh, on 2026-October-06, 15:10, said:

Did I say it was universal beyond NA? I must have missed that part of my post.

At the risk of creating more fuss about nothing, what are the common meanings for 1M 2C 2N? I am truly curious, unless it’s the Schuler Switch, lol.

It’s very common in Europe for 2nt to be balanced and extras. I think this has its roots in SEF (where 2/1 is not GF but opener’s bids past 2M create a game force) but it’s in general a useful treatment especially if you don’t automatically open 1nt with a five card major (as most don’t here).

[WasWinM]

awm, on 2026-October-07, 09:03, said:

It’s very common in Europe for 2nt to be balanced and extras. I think this has its roots in SEF (where 2/1 is not GF but opener’s bids past 2M create a game force) but it’s in general a useful treatment especially if you don’t automatically open 1nt with a five card major (as most don’t here).

If 2NT is not forcing, you can't use it to show bigger NT hands. You risk getting passed, which is why that usage is originally a 2/1 game force system method.

[awm]

 WasWinM, on 2026-October-07, 13:23, said:

If 2NT is not forcing, you can't use it to show bigger NT hands. You risk getting passed, which is why that usage is originally a 2/1 game force system method.

Yes, if 2/1 is not GF then you must either play 2nt is minimum and NF, or 2nt is extras and minimum balanced hands bid 2M. The latter seems obviously better and is the solution used in SEF and Acol (and arguably SAYC, but somehow not in “standard American” as commonly played).

Anyway, a lot of Europeans who do play game forcing 2/1s have retained this use of 2nt showing balanced with extras and the balanced minimum rebidding 2M. I think this is clearly superior if “15-17 balanced with a 5M” is a possible 1M opening, since the American alternative of rebidding 3nt with this hand type is simply awful. But of course if you always open 1nt with this hand type then the split range 2nt makes some sense.