[jillybean]

Playing 2/1 the auction is quite different, assuming South decides to make a gf response.

---

2N = 6 cards

Knowing that you have a 9 card fit can either one of you make another try?

[DavidKok]

For what it's worth, in a Schuler Shift 2/1 style I think 2♠ makes more sense as a rebid. It's cheaper (well, not that much cheaper. But still) and shows more cards. Normally on the 1M-2♣ auction you'd rebid the cheapest suitable major, leaving room to explore a fit in the other one. Here I am not sure what's common, but to me it seems sensible to make the cheapest bid that matches our hand.

On the actual deal I would keep bidding as North. I have a 4 loser hand and partner shows a game forcing raise of my six card suit. I've got control of all suits. What more do we need, it's time to push to a high level!

[mike777]

Well said

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-May-06, 14:22, said:

Playing 2/1 the auction is quite different, assuming South decides to make a gf response.

---

2N = 6 cards

Knowing that you have a 9 card fit can either one of you make another try?

I detest 2N as showing 6 hearts. It’s anti-positional….believe it or not, there are hands on which 3N is the best contract, played by the hand with short hearts. Plus, here, it destroys the ability to bid intelligently should responder hold 4 spades. Does he bid 3 S over 2N and, if so, how does opener show a forcing spade raise? Btw, forget about the actual hands…consider how this would go were opener the same hand but with Kxx in diamonds, not AKx.

And there’s no need. Imo, using 2D over 2C to deny 6+ hearts, while making finding diamonds difficult on some hands, is superior to the schuler switch

As for making another try….take another look at the opener’s hand. After the 4C bid (which I would not make) the only question opener should be asking is ‘how can I best find out if seven is cold’.

Why wouldn’t I bid 4C? I’ve game forced with only 3 hearts and only 10 hcp and I don’t have the club ace. Any cuebidding sequence below game should not be considered as forcing cuebids. All a below game cuebid says is ‘I’m happy to cooperate if you’re interested’. It could be ‘we’re going to slam, let’s see if grand is good’ or ‘I’m really, really interested in slam so may take a call beyond game if you sign off’ but partner assumes the weakest of those options. Responder, having shown a gf hand with clubs and 3+ hearts, has bid his all. He has zero reason to encourage partner more than he has by his gf bidding to date. When you have nothing more to add, add nothing more.

Now, should opener quit over a 4H bid? I confess I’d bid 5D. That implies a hand that could not use keycard…and given that we’ve cuebid spades, it implies a club void. I’d expect to play 5H.

[mike777]

This is a tough hand, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Do your best..talk about it later over a beer

[DavidKok]

I agree with everything else you wrote, but I want to nitpick this part:

mikeh, on 2025-May-06, 14:56, said:

And there’s no need. Imo, using 2D over 2C to deny 6+ hearts, while making finding diamonds difficult on some hands, is superior to the schuler switch

On 1M-2♣ there are better systems (though by how much is up for debate). The advantage of the Schuler Shift over other methods is that it also applies to 1M-2♦ and 1♠-2♥ auctions (and can also be included on 1♦-2♣, if you wish). It combines reasonable effectiveness with reasonable simplicity. Of all the 2/1 GF styles I think fully artificial is best, playing what may as well be different systems on each of the six 2/1 GF auctions. But I also think this is a lot to ask on an uncommon sequence (only about 4-4.5% of all deals are our 2/1 GF auctions), and not a priority for many partnerships. I'd also argue that the Schuler Shift is less antipositional than shape first, and more space-efficient than standard. I consider it a nice upgrade over standard, and a completely reasonable compromise.

The suggestion to play 1M-2♣; 2♦ as denying a six card major is really intriguing to me. Locally it's somewhat popular to instead use it as a generic minimum, neither confirming nor denying extra shape. I've personally played that style and didn't like it at all - your shape-showing (well, shape-denying) use seems much better to me!

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-06, 15:08, said:

I agree with everything else you wrote, but I want to nitpick this part:

On 1M-2♣ there are better systems (though by how much is up for debate). The advantage of the Schuler Shift over other methods is that it also applies to 1M-2♦ and 1♠-2♥ auctions (and can also be included on 1♦-2♣, if you wish). It combines reasonable effectiveness with reasonable simplicity. Of all the 2/1 GF styles I think fully artificial is best, playing what may as well be different systems on each of the six 2/1 GF auctions. But I also think this is a lot to ask on an uncommon sequence (only about 4-4.5% of all deals are our 2/1 GF auctions), and not a priority for many partnerships. I'd also argue that the Schuler Shift is less antipositional than shape first, and more space-efficient than standard. I consider it a nice upgrade over standard, and a completely reasonable compromise.

The suggestion to play 1M-2♣; 2♦ as denying a six card major is really intriguing to me. Locally it's somewhat popular to instead use it as a generic minimum, neither confirming nor denying extra shape. I've personally played that style and didn't like it at all - your shape-showing (well, shape-denying) use seems much better to me!

We play it as adjunct to our intermediate 2M opening…6+ length, 10-13 hcp, with upgrades into and out of the range. It works ok in a normal weak two environment but really shines, imo, when showing the 6 card suit promises a good 13+. Makes slam auctions quite a bit easier, since responder needn’t worry about partner having a good 10 or 11 count.

Auctions in which opener has a 5 card diamond suit are rendered more difficult….even a 4 card holding isn’t as easy as it is in more normal methods. But all methods involve trade offs and compromises. So far….maybe 1000 hands or so since we adopted this….i think we’ve had one suboptimal result due to not being able to get into diamonds cheaply enough to be able to bid accurately. Meanwhile, we’ve definitely had a number of hands (I don’t keep track) where my impression has been that this method has led to a good result that we may or may not have achieved otherwise.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-May-06, 14:56, said:

I detest 2N as showing 6 hearts. It’s anti-positional….believe it or not, there are hands on which 3N is the best contract, played by the hand with short hearts. Plus, here, it destroys the ability to bid intelligently should responder hold 4 spades. Does he bid 3 S over 2N and, if so, how does opener show a forcing spade raise? Btw, forget about the actual hands…consider how this would go were opener the same hand but with Kxx in diamonds, not AKx.

B
I play Schuler Shift with 2 partners, more experienced than I. It’s on their card. I haven’t played it long enough to form any strong opinions.
However, after 1M 2C , responder often has a 3 card gf raise. How important is it for both partners to know of this 9 card fit?

Anyway, fortunately I didn’t play this hand. As you’ve seen I would have made a complete pigs ear out of it.

The play was another thing, 12 tricks available.

[mike777]

Definitely rebid 2S not 2NT
2S does not deny 6h
Granted rare auction
But the whole deal is tough and rare