The 1m-2M thing is called 'Umjoomo" - Unusual Major Jump Over One Minor Opening (Reverse Flannery responses). Some play it just over a diamond opening in which case it is dubbed "Umjoodo". I play it with one partner - invitational hands.
Consider the auctions
Auction A:
1
- 2
Auction B:
1
- 2
At least in BWS these both show 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, so one of them needs to be stronger than the other.
BWS Section H: "A jump-shift to the two-level is limited with majors if two of a major (five-plus spades, four-plus hearts, game-invitational if two spades, weaker than game-invitational if two hearts), strong [see section G, above, for requirements] if two diamonds."
So B is invit, A is weaker than invit. I take this to mean that opener should pass.correct or, if needed because of extreme shape, he could rebid his minor. He should only rarely raise hearts even if he has four. Presumably sometimes he would do so.
Of course we also have
Auction C:
1
- 1
2
- 2
The meaning is covered in Section I: "(b) a third-suit non-reverse at the two-level is forcing for one round, and responder may pass if opener bids two of responder's first suit or three of opener's suit;"
Yes, may pass. But maybe not often. Bids that cannot be passed are potentially stronger than bids that cannot be passed. Here a pass is possible in both A and B, but not in C.
Auction A allows us to play in 2
: 1
- 2
- Pass. Neither auction B nor auction C allows us to play in 2
since in B we are already at 2
and in C the 2
is forcing for one round. But both B and C allow us to play in 2
.
But. Since C is forcing for one round, responder can use this route when he is strong, even very strong as long as we are on the same page that C is absolutely forcing for one round. This does not mean that C always will be very strong, but it could be.
So what I get from BWS is that B is invit, A is basically pass/correct but raise maybe sometimes, and C is forcing and thus potentially quite strong.
The work in writing up something for BWS is not just the work of a spreadsheet. There is the preliminary work of understanding what they are saying. It's not exactly that they aren't clear, it's more that there are a lot of things going on so it just inherently requires effort. No way around that.
This post illustrates a view of mine. I play bridge a decent amount. maybe an indecent amount, but I have no thought of someday playing in the Reisinger. Not beyond the first round or two anyway. In practice this means I am up for trying to at least partially understand and adopt a fairly extensively documented system such as BWS, but creating a system from scratch is more than I want to do. A bridge too far, I guess you could say. I enjoy the game, I sometimes enjoy hammering out agreements, but I have a strong tendency to look to a standard write-up, one that has been around for a while and worked over, and just say "Let's do that".