HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:45:30 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Asya Kamsky <asya@ux5.lbl.gov> writes:
> *IF* East COULD have known at the time of hesitation that it might mislead
> opponent, then yes, adjust the score. For a GREAT example of this see the
> April or May Bulletin, where it's explained how a committee ruled on a nearly
> identical case (save for no LOL, this was the Vanderbilt).

Is the rule based on whether this particular East could have known, or a
"reasonable" East, or what?  In other words, if in the judgment of the
committee this particular East was not capable of understanding how the
hesitation might mislead, then is that a defense?  Is the question of
judging East's bridge ability---that is, whether East is capable of
knowing---an issue that the committee can and should consider?

A second question, of the opposite sort.  If East can demonstrate that
there could have been a legitimate bridge reason for preferring one card
over the other (say, a counting situation in which the card revealed
might change the probabilities for declarer's possible lines), then is
that a defense?  Does the committee have to judge the plausibility of
East's bridge reason?  Does it matter if that reason might not have
applied on this particular hand, but could have applied on a similar
hand, and it would have taken a reasonable player a similar length of
time to decide if the situation in fact applied?

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Secure(?) 3 NT
Organization: Rational
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:14:09 GMT

Dag.Ostvang@avh.unit.no (Dag stvang) writes:



>  When the deal arose, the west hand was S Q73 H J84 D AK3 C QT87. Yes,
>  LHO had made an irregular lead.
>  At one table, the secure line was found. At the other table, declarer,
>  playing the other way around, on receiving a low heart lead, proceeded
>  to take all the finesses for down one. 

West's strange lead of the heart J tells you he has the two black queens,
so it is no surprise that this declarer did not just rely on a finesse
working. (I know I am saying this after the fact, but the posting solvers
all seemed to draw the same inference)

It also reduced the problem of finding and 8th and 9th trick to one of
finding just a 9th trick. 

I am reminded of the story of the player who announced vehemently that 
he would not play with anyone who lead from an unsupported jack. 
Partway through the session, his LHO opened 1NT, his RHO opponent bid 3NT.
His partner, closing the auction with his pass, folded his hand and left.
He held Jxx Jxxx Jxx Jxx.
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Illegal Carding Agreement
Date: 4 Nov 92 04:37:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov4.043706.9919
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <32290004@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> mcmahan@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com writes:
> My partner and I play that when following suit, any card not
> intended to take the trick is a suit preference signal for all four
> suits.  2-4 denotes an honor in a minor, 7+ denotes an honor in a
> major, and 5 and 6 are neutral.  We play that this carding is only
> a signal while following suit, and that discards of other suits 
> carry no meaning.  We play that we may signal in this manner on any
> trick to which we can so play (through trick 11).
> 
> Is this illegal? If so, why?  If not, how can I get a 'definitive'
> ruling, so this does not happen again.
> 
> Larry McMahan
> mcmahan@cup.hp.com

It seems legal to me.  All this is saying is that the default message for a
follow-suit is suit-preference instead of attitude.  The ordering is
right-side-up, which is legal, so the only reason for disallowing it is if the
card carried another message.

I suggest you write Memphis with this.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:27:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <thijs.720951553@ei0> thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:
>
>We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
>GF.

Many posters seem not to have read this line.  I assume 1N is 6-9.


>I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):
>
>1. South      North
>   A8xxx      QJx
>   JTxx       Axx
>   AKxx       Qxx
>   -          xxxx
>
>  White vs. red:
>   1s         1NT
>   2h         3s
>   4s         all pass

Again, many posters say that in view of the 9 losers, North has
a poor hand.  Then they say that North should raise to 2S.
If you don't prefer 1N to the raise with 9 losers, when do you?
1N will not help in constructive bidding, but it will help point 
partner toward defending in a competitive auction.
 
Switch North's red suits and the jump to 3S is perfect.  That
unsupported Qxx in a side suit is suspect on the actual hand.
Change the hand to QJx,Kxx,Kxx,xxxx and I think it is worth the
jump to 3S, though maybe not even then.  QJx,KQx,xxx,xxxx would
be worth the 3S jump.

> Result: -2
> What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?

Most unlucky.  It looks like a fair contract.  If North had rebid
2S (South passes), and you made 4, you might be asking how to get there.

>3. South      North
>   Kxx        Qxx
>   KQ9xx      x
>   Qxxx       Ax
>   x          AKxxxxx
 
>  Red vs. white:
>   -          1c
>   1h         2c
>   2d         3c
>   pass
 
>  2d is roundforcing.
>  3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.

Of course, the bidding is the same if North holds xxx,x,Axx,AKxxxx.  
Then you really, really don't want to be in 3N.

Eddie Grove
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Mandatory Cue?
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:05:28 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1e10frINN8vs@agate.berkeley.edu> grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
:
:You hold
:QJ9xx,Jxxx,AKJ,x
:
:and choose to open 1S.  Perhaps this is wrong, but you figured
:12 hcp, 9 major suit cards, 2 quick tricks, and a stiff is enough.
:
:The auction continues:
:
:1S    2C
:2H    3S
:?
:
:Are you allowed to sign off in 4S, or is a cue of 4D required?
 
Most good players I know play that a cuebid below game is mandatory
when possible AND DOES NOT SHOW EXTRAS. It merely shows control.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Date: 10 Nov 1992 09:34:01 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solaris.astro.uu.se

In article <1992Nov9.222945.14874@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
|> My partner and I currently play that a takeout double guarantees 3+
|> cards of each unbid suit.  This was his idea, not mine, but I think it
|> is essentially sound.  It means that you can compete in any suit after
|> partner's double.
|> 
|> However, the downside of this is that you have to play essentially
|> unlimited overcalls (the ubiquitous "6+ HCP" on the card...).
|> 
|> My question is this, "Is this style playable, or is it necessary to have
|> an upper bound on overcalls?"

I've never met anyone plying UNLIMITED overcalls, it's just a matter
of where the upper limit is.

|> Overall, I am happy playing this way, but it does give you a problem on:
|> 
|> 	AKTxx,x,KQxx,Axx

This hand is a bordeline case, with one of my partners I would overcall
1S, and with another I would have to double. Partner needs to have about
8 points and a spade fit to make game, so 1S is what I would prefer.
Looking at the hand it seems like LHO is going to raise hearts very soon,
and then you'll be better placed after 1S: e.g.

1H - 1S - 2H - p 
p  - D!

*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Comments Please (without tabs)
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:19:13 GMT


We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
GF.
I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):

1. South      North
   A8xxx      QJx
   JTxx       Axx
   AKxx       Qxx
   -          xxxx

  White vs. red:
   1s         1NT
   2h         3s
   4s         all pass

 Result: -2

 What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?

2. South      North
   T          AKQJxx
   -          xxx
   AJTxxxx    KQx
   Axxxx      x

  All white:
  W     N     E     S
  1c    2s    3h    4d
  4h    4s    all pass

  Result: +3

  2s shows openingstrength and a good 6card. 
  7d and 7s allways makes. 

3. South      North
   Kxx        Qxx
   KQ9xx      x
   Qxxx       Ax
   x          AKxxxxx

  Red vs. white:
   -          1c
   1h         2c
   2d         3c
   pass

  Result: +1

  2d is roundforcing.
  3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.

 Thanks. Thijs Veugen.

P.S. I know now I shouldn't use tabs in postings. :-)
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bidding problem
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:25:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: Paris.9211090824.aa21965

No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
Now what?

  North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--

  South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 10 Nov 1992 09:18:44 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solaris.astro.uu.se

In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
|> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
|> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
|> > Now what?
|> > 
|> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
|> > 
|> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
|> 
|>     1S   2C
|>     2H   2S
|>     3C   3D
|>     3H   4C
|>     4H   5N
|>     6S   P

Please explain more thoroughly. What's 3C supposed to be? You're
cueing on the three level or what? I would take 3C to be fit
showing or something, but then I'm not to familiar with 2/1.

*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:09:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.132811.27285@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.174425.9960@sco.COM> Paul Jackson writes:
>
>* Club matchpoint game, you're vulnerable, opponents aren't. You're south and
>* hold
>* S A953 H 8532 D 32 C 732
>* 
>* Auction goes :
>* W	N	E	S
>* 2H(1)	3D(2)	3H	P
>* P	3S	P	????
>* 
>* 1) Weak, not specifically disciplined but not completely random
>* 2) In case it matters (negative inferences and all), you're playing
>* Lebensohl over take out doubles of a weak 2. A direct cue bid by partner
>* would be an undisclosed two suiter.
>*
>* What actually happened :
>* South passed in the above position
>* 
>* North's hand is :
>* S KQ874 H A D AT9864 C 6
>* 
>* On less than perfect defence 6 spades are made but 4 spades is a touch
>* frigid.
>
>Only brain-dead defense would let 6S make.
>
>* Please assign the blame between north and south
>
>Why didn't North cue bid 3H directly?
>Or aren't 6-5's distributional enough to be considered a 2-suiter? :-)
>
>South is sitting there wondering why North is showing a 2-suiter hand
>and didn't cue-bid 3H originally.
>
>I give North 67% of the blame for deviating from the agreed
>bidding system for no apparent reason.
>
>I give South 33% of the blame for failing to be imaginative enough
>to figure out that  S A953 H 8532 D 32 C 732 opposite partner's
>bidding merits a raise to 4S, regardless of the lack of a direct cue bid.
>North has bid to 3S without any assurance of a fit.
>South has a *huge* hand on the bidding.
>
>Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)


North could have some hand like:

Kxxx x AKQxxx xx   

and still justify his bidding. In fact, this is about what I would
expect; something like a 5 loser  6-4 hand.   South does NOT have
enough to bid 4S if this is what North can have.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.213334.5938@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
|> olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|> >|> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
|> >|> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
|> >|> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
|> >|> > Now what?
|> >|> > 
|> >|> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
|> >|> > 
|> >|> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
|> Yep, 3C should show a double fit -- something like 5-4-1-3 or even
|> 6-4-0-3.  As for the above auction, I would bid it something like..
|> 
|> 1S-2C(1)-2H-2S(2)-4S(3)-6S(4)-P
|> 
|> 1. 2/1 GF
|> 2. 3 card spade support
|> 3. Not interested in slam (with void in pards first suit)

You may have a void, but you have a 6 card suit and 3 big cards in hearts.
I don't think you do this hand justice by leaping to 4S.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: A few problems
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:56:30 GMT

In article 6019@tivoli.UUCP, taylor@tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
>South on all hands:
>
>First the simple one.  Playing standard 2/1 you hold :
>
>QJ10xxx
>Kx
>Kxxx
>x
>
>The bidding has gone :
>N         E          W         S
>1H        P          1S        P
>2N        P          3D        P
>3S        P          ??
>
>Do you make any slam peeps?

Yes, of course, how about 4C?

>Second one.
>K10x
>xx
>Qxxxx
>AKx
>
>The bidding has gone :
>N        E           W          S
>1C       1H          2D         2H
>2S       P           3C         P
>3S(1)    P           ??
>
>Partner's style is to bid Spades with 55 in the blacks.
>Therefore he is 56 in the blacks.
>How would you go about investigating slam (if at all.)?

5S, great black cards, no heart control. (Afterwards I can claim
that it showed exactly this hand)


>Describe partner's hand on the bidding :
>N         E         S        W
>1D        1H        X        P
>2H        P         3D       P
>3H        P         3S       P
>4C        P         4D       P
>6D

Depends on what 3H immediately would have been.

2H = Game Force
3H = Stopper asking
4C = 6+diamonds, 4+Clubs

Partner probably holds Axx/-/AKQxxx/AQxx


>
>Suppose you hold :
>98xx
>xx
>KJx
>Kxxx

Great, two diamond kings. Looks like 6D would be a great contract.
Unless partner holds AK/-/ATxxxxx/AQxx or Ax/A/AQxxxx/AQxx

I would be tempted to bid 7 Clubs...

>
>I did not like partner's 3S call since he
>already showed a 4 card spade suit and has now distorted

4C would probably have been better.

--lars


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley)
Subject: Euchre/500
Reply-To: wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:56:15 GMT

Quick question.  In those games which use a right and left "bower"
(jack of trump and jack of same colored suit), does the left bower
count as the trump suit?  For example, if clubs is trump, the jack
of spades is the left bower.  If trump is led would one be forced
to play the jack of spades to follow suit?  Conversely, if spades
is led can one sluff if the jack is your only remaining spade?

After reading this group for a while, wouldn't you know that my first
posting wouldn't be about bridge proper.  Sigh.

--
david wiley                        Currently under investigation by the
Intergraph Corporation            House Punamerican Activities Committee.
205-730-6390              
wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com  

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: nstraguz@atl.ge.com (Nick Straguzzi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Secure(?) 3 NT
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:20 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
NNTP-Posting-Host: dinsdale.atl.ge.com

In article <9211041316.aa01587@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>
>>[IMPs, all white, 3NT by S, HJ lead]
>
>>                     Dummy   S A 6 5 4
>>                             H Q T
>>                             D Q 7 2
>>                             C K 6 5 3
>>
>>                        You  S K J 8
>>                             H A K 7 3
>>                             D J 5
>>                             C A J 9 4.
>>
>>You take the heart queen, and cash the heart ten, everybody following. You
>>do not think it likely that LHO has a 5-card suit, given the lead.
>>If so, what is your line of play?
>
>I assume that the J lead was from Jx, hoping to hit partner.
>So I finesse the 9 of clubs endplaying West.

Very minor improvement to Dennis' line: cross to the club ace and
strip LHO of hearts, in case he started with Jxx(x) and made a very
unusual lead.  Throw one spade (not two!) and/or a club from dummy.

Once LHO is exhausted of hearts, go to the club king.  If clubs split,
duck one for nine tricks.  If RHO started with Qxxx(x), lead to the
club jack.  Finally, if LHO started with Qxxx(x), lead a spade and
cover whatever RHO plays.  A spade or club return gives you your ninth
trick immediately.  A diamond return allows you to set up your ninth
in that suit, losing at most two diamonds, one heart (if RHO started
with A-K of diamonds and five hearts), and one spade.

I don't see a 100% line that allows for LHO to hold Jxxxx of hearts.
Is there one?

Nick

-- 
 Nick Straguzzi / GE Advanced Technology Labs / Moorestown NJ / (609) 866-6646
---------- nstraguz@atl.ge.com ----------- #include <stddisclaimer.h> ---------
                "Got no use for the tricks of modern times..."
							- Al Stewart
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur)
Subject: re: individuals
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:48:44 GMT


I agree with everything Asya said about an individual, however...

consider that the Atlantic City Individual field was by and large very good.
If you have to have Asya's rules for a good field imagine what the rules are
like at a normal individual. The Boston individual I went to had 80% LOL's,
it was very frustrating (just think of playing with the worst player at
your club for 4 sessions of bridge.)

By all means play in the individual if you want but you should realize that 
it is not good bridge or even average bridge. It is pure luck.

reha gur
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Playing in an individual
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:05:40 GMT

> Bob Silverman wrote:
> 
> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
>  
> stuff deleted....
> 
> :	In this case, N/S were definitely damaged by the failure to alert
> :	and explain.  However, no reasonable result can be assigned (would
> :	they have sacked in 5S?  Would E/W then have competed to 6D, which
> :	makes?).  Hence I would award an A+ to N/S and an A- to E/W and
> 
> 6D does not make. Try A hearts, heart ruff.
> 
> 6H makes, but the auction shows that E-W were unlikely in the extreme
> to wind up in a heart contract.
> 
> It is also equally unclear that N-S will sack over 5 of a minor.
> They may already be getting a good score because the opponents are
> not playing in hearts.
> 
	Sorry about that.  In my next article, I amended that statement
	and included that 6D could go down and even supplied an alternate
	means of 6D going down...

I later wrote:
> 
> 	I don't think that this is reasonable.  As you mentioned above,
> 	why didn't E or W bid 6D?  If the N/S cards competed to 5S, then
> 	don't you think either E or W might take the push to 6D?  And on
> 	a spade lead, and the A hearts holding up for 2 rounds, 6D can
> 	go down.  Now, with a 5S sac (down 2 doubled) or 6D making or 6D
> 	down 1 on good defense, how is a reasonable score to be determined?
> 
> 	Law 12 specifically covers this situation, "...when, owing to an
> 	irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an
> 	artificial adjusted score according to responsibility..."
> 
	Sorry about the confusion in my first article.  This even adds
	more to my argument that no reasonable result can be obtained.
	There are two lines the defense can take to set 6D, 6D on other
	lines of play/defense can make and 5S can make.  Now, how do you
	arrive at a reasonable "assigned" score.  You don't.  Hence, you
	need to assign an artificial assigned score (A+/A-).

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:57:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
> > Now what?
> > 
> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
> > 
> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
> 
>     1S   2C
>     2H   2S   ...

Upon reviewing Hardy (Two Over One Game Force, Revised) and Lawrence (Workbook
on the Two Over One System), I see that 2S is Systemically Incorrect.  Lawrence
and Hardy agree on these systemic meanings for 1S-2C-2H-nS:

     4S   Good spades, good clubs, no first or second round control in the
          red suits
     3S   Slam interest, 16+, at least QJx in spades
     2S   Neither of the above (at least three spades)

I'm not entirely clear on why this exception to the principle of fast arrival,
but it does make possible the sequences 1S-2C,2H-2S,2N and 1S-2C,2H-2S,3S
offering responder a choice of 3N or 4S.

In any case, responder's Systemically Correct rebid on the above hand is 3S,
urging North to cuebid even with a minimum.  The auction might then proceed
as I originally suggested, but with the cuebidding one level higher:

     1S   2C (game forcing)
     2H   3S (16+)
     4C   4D
     4H   5C
     5H   5N (grand slam force)
     6S   P

Adam Beneschan, Olof Morell, Bharat Rao, and Don Varvel all suggested that
1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control.
That's certainly a possible interpretation.  If Lawrence or Hardy gives the
systemic interpretation, I can't find it.

If 1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control,
when DO you stop showing suits and start showing controls?  (Remember that
1S-2C,2H-2S has already established a major-suit fit and a game force.)

In any case, Lawrence and Hardy clearly state that opener should cuebid
after 1S-2C,2H-3S.


                                    Tim