Canape
Chris Ryall
times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
--
Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
Michael G. Hopkins
more space efficient than 1S-2H, 3D. This is of course not true of all
sequences.
Paul Friedman
>
> I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
> times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
> I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
> thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
> your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
> clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
> it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
> --
> Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
Aha, the old canape troll <grin>
Canape was developed before the advent of negative doubles and also
before
most players used weak jump overcalls, preemptive raises of overcalls,
etc.
(let alone "modern" obstructionist jumping around). Therefore, it was
rare
tht opener had a problem completing his canape at a reasonable level.
With that as history, advantages of canape:
1) It can steal the opponent's best fit. (So, in part, I disagree with
your statement that "theer is clearly a disadvantage in your
opening
is passed.") Futher, the fact that the opponents have to worry
that you have "stolen" there major suti fit makes constructive
defensive bidding harder.
2) When the 4-4 fit is found early in a quantitvie sequence, opener's
distribution is mostly hidden. (1S-3S;4S) Opener can have 4 to
7 Spades with or without another suit 4,5,6 or 7 cards in length.
Defensive play (and bidding, see above) against this can be
difficult)
3) Many seuqnces, not all, but many, bid in the canape fashion gain
space over longest suit first.
4) Little or no need for prepared minor openings on 3 card suits.
(talking pure canape here, some canape systems made/make extensive
use of 3-card suit openings).
5) Makes the opponents' LOTT bidding hit or miss.
Theer are obviously weaknesses, also. I've played several (many) canape
systems for the past 20 years. If I had my way in my canape
partnerships,
I would NOT canape as responder -- I think this is a clear loser over
long-suit-first on balance.
Alex Martelli
>I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
>times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
>I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
>thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
>your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
>clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
>it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
As briefly as I can: I can bid 1D-1S-2H on a weaker hand (thus much
more often) if partner will often pass 2H, because I'm showing hearts
longer than diamonds. Similarly, in competition, a side 4-card major
with a side longer minor is not going to be shut off, because it's bid
right off -- a side 5-card major is _unlikely_ to be shut off, because
I can risk bidding it with more hands.
So runs the theory -- which was developed when negative doubles
were unheard of (in Europe, at least -- but, I think, in the US too,
as yet), and most people still quailed at the idea of responding, even
a 1-over-1, on 4 tiny spot cards (ever heard of "biddable suits"?-).
I suspect the advantages get reduced when competitive doubles
are widespread and "biddable suits" a forgotten memory, which
may explain the decline of canape among natural bidders.
Brief enough?-)
Alex
Tim Goodwin
<pfri...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>With that as history, advantages of canape:
> 1) It can steal the opponent's best fit. (So, in part, I disagree with
> your statement that "theer is clearly a disadvantage in your
>opening
> is passed.") Futher, the fact that the opponents have to worry
> that you have "stolen" there major suti fit makes constructive
> defensive bidding harder.
Canape can also induce the opponents to attempt to steal your suit. I
remember collecting a four digit penalty when I opened (a possible
canape) and my partner responded (a possible canape). We both had
longer suits and strong hands, but it was a misfit. Fortunately one
of our opponents had a two-suiter (long on both of our main suits) and
came into the auction. While this is unusual, it is not unusual for
an opponent to overcall in your main suit. Short story: canape can
cause significant problems for the opponents' defensive bidding.
Tim
Michael Arnowitt
>
> I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
> times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
> I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
> thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
> your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
> clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
> it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
> Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
I once read that a possible advantage of canape is that LHO more often
has the wrong shape for a take-out double.
There's also the fun of opening your shorter suit and having the
opponents land in your longer suit. A friend of mine recounts the
following:
friend
1D 3S Pass Pass
Dble
"Alert," says friend's partner. "May have 5 or more spades."
"Five?" says LHO, ... eyes open wide with horror...
But yes, the whole canape philosophy does seem a bit weird to me,
too,...(if the opponents preempt strongly - you may not be strong enough
to introduce your long suit, which is the one in which you're most
likely to have a big fit). I have spoken to a few people who have tried
it, though, and they claim that it is playable and that in fact, you do
get to some pretty impressive contracts.
Playing a strong club system, you have to find a way to deal with
minimum two-suiters with clubs which you would open with 1C playing
standard. There are a bunch of possible solutions to this problem, but
canape-ing into clubs is, as another Michael pointed out, a space-saver
(if the opponents are nice and quiet).
Michael
pwi...@my-deja.com
Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
> times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to
confess,
> I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
> thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to
bid
> your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There
is
> clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
> it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
Disadvantage is minor in systems like Roman where 1D,H,S are forcing
with Herbert responses. In Blue, it tends not to be a problem because
opener is limited in HCP and when responder passes, odds are that you
have an opposing game to play with.
Advantages
1. You know right away if you have a 4-4 fit otherwise it tends not to
be a consideration.
2. Responder can pass openers rebid which can save a level in some
combinations & I don't believe that it ever costs a level. So you can
end 1 level lower than the rest of the field.
3. You can pick off the opponents suit & in the old days they'd never
recover. Not sure that they would today. Example sequence from Roman
days ( c 1970 )
1S (1) 2H * (2) 3D
* (2) 4C * (3) P
P 4H * P
P P
(1) 3-2-5-3 pattern with extras
(2) You bid my 5 card suit
(3) Seems right on principal.
Result 4H went down about 5. Seems that ( in spite of alerts and
explanation ) we picked off the opponents 4-4 fit with a 1S opening and
they never recovered. Both of them started in on the other about hiding
their 4 card spade suit to bid a 5 card suit. The fact that they
shortly thereafter got a divorce is purely coincidental ;-). On the
misfit that this hand was any plus score either way was golden.
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@my-dejanews.com
Robb's Law It's impossible to devise a foolproof system as Nature
will simply evolve a more perfect fool.
Naeser's Law You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it
damnfoolproof.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Chris Ryall
>Aha, the old canape troll <grin>
No troll, just an honest enquiry.
Chris Ryall
Paul Gipson
>Chris Ryall wrote in message ...
>>times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
>>I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
>>thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
>>your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
>>clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
>>it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
>
>
>more often) if partner will often pass 2H, because I'm showing hearts
>longer than diamonds. Similarly, in competition, a side 4-card major
>with a side longer minor is not going to be shut off, because it's bid
>right off -- a side 5-card major is _unlikely_ to be shut off, because
>I can risk bidding it with more hands.
>
>So runs the theory -- which was developed when negative doubles
>were unheard of (in Europe, at least -- but, I think, in the US too,
>as yet), and most people still quailed at the idea of responding, even
>a 1-over-1, on 4 tiny spot cards (ever heard of "biddable suits"?-).
>
>I suspect the advantages get reduced when competitive doubles
>are widespread and "biddable suits" a forgotten memory, which
>may explain the decline of canape among natural bidders.
>
Although I play Blue Club in one of my partnerships, as everyone is
extolling the virtues of canape in this thread I thought I'd mention the
auctions that I dislike.
Although Alex's example auction (1D-1S-2H) can be made on weaker than
standard, in Blue Club this still shows a good hand within the context of a
strong club system - namely 6-4, 5-5, or very concentrated 5-4 shapes.
The real problem hands are 5-4 (major + lower suit) hands that do not have
concentration in the two suits, where you have to open the five card major
and then rebid it, losing the second suit. Also is 1S-1NT-2H canape or not,
and should you play false preference ? Of course, many of us address these
problems by utilising 2D/H/S openers, but it is important to realise that
canape is an integral part effecting the entire system.
Minor two-suiters are a pain in all strong club systems, and canape does not
improve this imho.
Having said that, canape is fun to play and can be particularly powerful for
responder (which is where I disagree with another poster).
Cheers
paul
-- Paul Gipson
-- Sandhurst, UK
Bruce J. Moore
Club variant and my reading on several other systems including Roman
Club. A few items may be specific to a particular canape' system.
Actually, I'd like to point out one item that is *not* a disadvantage.
It is not a disadvantage that canape' systems are unnatural. They're
not unnatural, they're just different than non-canape' systems. The
first time I played a canape' in RLB, I studied the system notes on
Sunday and played after work on Monday. Besides a few relay sequences
specific to that system, it's quite natural.
Advantages:
- Sometimes you pick off opponents suit
- More likely to play in 4-4 fit instead of your 5-3 fit.
- More likely to play in 4-3 fit when it's right.
- Opponents get to play the misfit deals, sometimes doubled.
- Responder doesn't usually show fit on preference auctions:
- Opponents don't know there is a fit and don't balance.
- You sometimes stop a level lower.
- It's easier to bid both your suits.
- Opponents often have wrong shape for takeout double.
- Opponents need a stronger suit to overcall
- When the second suit is not shown, the opponents must
defend with less information.
Disadvantages:
- Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
- No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
This last is the main reason I don't play canape' systems more often.
I hate losing the opportunity to jam the opponents auctions.
Bruce
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
: times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
: I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
: thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
: your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
: clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
: it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
: --
: Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
--
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
Standard Blue Club uses weak 2 in the majors and wastes an entire opening
bid on a extremely rare hand. It gives up on showing the exact pattern
with 5M-4C v.s. 4M-5C, but nobody seems to bother about that.
The problem with the 2D opener (17-24, 4441 shape) is that almost never
comes up and when it comes up, there is no guarantee that one will reach
the right contract more often than not. If you want to have an opening to
show this hand type, then at least combine it with a few things that do
come up once a session or so.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was
lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19).
Chris Ryall
>Disadvantages:
>
> - Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
> - No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
> that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
> 3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
>
>I hate losing the opportunity to jam the opponents auctions.
Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so, and
needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
I guess I saw another chance to be aggressive and open the 4 card major
ahead of the 5 card minor.
And you still give preference on KJxxx x Kxx Jxx after 1H - 1S; 2C
rather than raise what should be a 5 card club suit? (or probably pass)
Any good Canapé books? I guess I'd need interlibrary loans unless
London Chess and Bridge has one. Could cope with a French one. chris
John Uchida
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> - Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
>> - No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
>> that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
>> 3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
>
>Standard Blue Club uses weak 2 in the majors and wastes an entire opening
>bid on a extremely rare hand. It gives up on showing the exact pattern
>with 5M-4C v.s. 4M-5C, but nobody seems to bother about that.
Reverse strength 4M-5C are opened 2C. After a 2/1 response, you
generally rebid your major with 5M-4C, so the problem sequences are
after a 1NT response or 1H - 1S. Definitely a problem in finding the
best fit on the part score level.
>
>The problem with the 2D opener (17-24, 4441 shape) is that almost never
>comes up and when it comes up, there is no guarantee that one will reach
>the right contract more often than not. If you want to have an opening to
>show this hand type, then at least combine it with a few things that do
>come up once a session or so.
>
And when it does come up, you can open 1C if you can't remember all
the sequences after 2D opener. I recall reading that Forquet opened
1C, and as he put down dummy, he told Garazzo 'I forgot'.
John
Chris Ryall
>Standard Blue Club uses weak 2 in the majors and wastes an entire opening
>bid on a extremely rare hand. It gives up on showing the exact pattern
>with 5M-4C v.s. 4M-5C, but nobody seems to bother about that.
>
>comes up and when it comes up, there is no guarantee that one will reach
>the right contract more often than not. If you want to have an opening to
>show this hand type, then at least combine it with a few things that do
>come up once a session or so.
We play 2C*-2D*; 2NT* as this shape, and also include 5440's.
Our range is a bit wider 16+ (provided when 16-17 5 it is 4-5 losers
and good controls). It *still* almost never comes up - 3-4 times per
season. But it does reach the right contracts unerringly. I have
said this before ... The greater benefit is that strong sequences eg.
1H-1S; !3D are reliably 5/4 (or presumably 4/5 in Canapé). chris
minus200
intermediate 2 bids showing 6+ suits with no other 4 card suit.
>
>
> Standard Blue Club uses weak 2 in the majors and wastes an entire opening
> bid on a extremely rare hand. It gives up on showing the exact pattern
> with 5M-4C v.s. 4M-5C, but nobody seems to bother about that.
>
> The problem with the 2D opener (17-24, 4441 shape) is that almost never
> comes up and when it comes up, there is no guarantee that one will reach
> the right contract more often than not. If you want to have an opening to
> show this hand type, then at least combine it with a few things that do
> come up once a session or so.
>
> Henk
>
David Stevenson
>Disadvantages:
No-one has mentioned the disadvantage I find greatest: preference
usually means passing.
With Jx
Jx
KQ9x
A9xxx
You respond 2C to 1S, and bid 2S over 2H, giving partner a chance to
progress. But if you are playing canape, what do you do over 2H? Pass,
and miss a game? Overbid with 2NT?
One "advantage" quoted is that 1D - 1S - 2H can be weakish, with
longer hearts. Great: what do you do now with 9 HCP? It seems to me
that you make game-bidding extremely difficult.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~
pwi...@my-deja.com
Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote -
> >Disadvantages:
> >
> > - Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
> > - No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
> > that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
> > 3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
> >
> >I hate losing the opportunity to jam the opponents auctions.
>
> Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so, and
> needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
> keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
Actually no. Roman works well without that HCP limitation. However,
you still end up giving up the 2C, Multi amd Dutch 2H,S ( well Roman
2H,S are remote relatives if I understand the Dutch correctly ). But
that is non-responsive. Look for Canape by Pierre Albarran ( never have
seen a copy in English - or French for that matter ) and Jais-Trezel may
have written a book on their canape style also. I think that both
worked within a 2C framework - though I can't swear to that. So you
probably can keep the rest of the toys.
>
> I guess I saw another chance to be aggressive and open the 4 card
major
> ahead of the 5 card minor.
>
> And you still give preference on KJxxx x Kxx Jxx after 1H - 1S; 2C
> rather than raise what should be a 5 card club suit? (or probably
pass)
> Any good Canapé books? I guess I'd need interlibrary loans unless
> London Chess and Bridge has one. Could cope with a French one. chris
> --
> Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
>
Regards,
Pete
John Uchida
<bri...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote
>
>>Disadvantages:
>
> No-one has mentioned the disadvantage I find greatest: preference
>usually means passing.
>
> With Jx
> Jx
> KQ9x
> A9xxx
>
> You respond 2C to 1S,
I bid 1NT when I don't have a suit worth rebidding or enough stuff to
rebid 2NT.
> and bid 2S over 2H, giving partner a chance to
>progress. But if you are playing canape, what do you do over 2H? Pass,
>and miss a game? Overbid with 2NT?
You wouldn't have that problem if you had a 'sound' 2C bid. To be
fair, you might have a different problem with a different hand.
>
> One "advantage" quoted is that 1D - 1S - 2H can be weakish, with
>longer hearts. Great: what do you do now with 9 HCP? It seems to me
>that you make game-bidding extremely difficult.
In BTC, this sequence shows a very strong playing hand, a maximum non
1C. Nothing is guaranteed, but you should be able to make an
intelligent decision if you know partner has say 15 or 16 HCP, and 9
or 10 red cards with at least 5 hearts.
If this sequence can be weakish or strong, you need to change your
system. You are doomed to a high percentage of bad results as you try
to guess whether opener is weak or strong.
John
Kent Feiler
>I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
>times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
>I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
>thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
>your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
>clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
>it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The biggest advantage of Canape is in the area of reverses. In SA,
when you open 1 suit and then reverse into a shorter, higher ranking
suit, your partner may have to return to your first suit at a higher
level. In Canape when you reverse into a longer, higher ranking suit
partner almost never returns to your first suit and so the whole idea
of reverses showing extra values can be discarded. Another way to
think of it is that it's harder to lose your long suit than your short
suit.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
http://www.enteract.com/~kfeiler/mypage.htm
kfe...@cpiusa.com
Douglas Newlands
:In article <ZrqykQAs...@cavendish.demon.co.uk>,
: Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote -
:> >Disadvantages:
:> >
:> > - Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
:> > - No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
:> > that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
:> > 3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
:> >
:> >This last is the main reason I don't play canape' systems more often.
:> >I hate losing the opportunity to jam the opponents auctions.
:>
:> Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so, and
:> needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
:> keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
:
:Actually no. Roman works well without that HCP limitation. However,
Ummm, yes but in Roman, 1D,H,S are forcing and there are two negative bids.
The one without a fit is the step bid so in effect you have many strengths
of canape (1D-1H*-1N is a canape into hearts as well as the heart bids
and even pass of the negative if you wish). Thus responder can push all
gruesome hands through the negative and then bid and opener has much definition
available. In effect the Roman 1C is also a (very) strong 1C system as well
since all the most powerful hands are opened that way.
I think in the Roman framework and in a strong club frame (BTC or moscito)
canape works well. I have no experience of it in a 2C system and don't find
it attractive (without thinking too much about it).
The auction 1D-1S-2H has got some discussion but in a Roman framework, the 1S
bid has promised about 9+ and 2H about 15+ so there is little danger of overbidding.
With 5+ hearts and 4 diamonds and 11-14 one simply bids and rebids hearts since partner
will have to have enough to keep the bidding open for the minor suit contract to
be interesting.
Douglas
John Uchida
wrote:
>Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I guess I must have held forth on Canapé methods at least a couple of
>>times in this group and no one has shot me down. But I have to confess,
>>I never really understood them. David Stevenson posted in another
>>thread that "It feels natural to bid your longest suit first and to bid
>>your next longest second". So why do it the other way round? There is
>>clearly a disadvantage if your opening is passed. What is the gain if
>>it isn't? (keep it brief if you can, Alex ;))
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>The biggest advantage of Canape is in the area of reverses. In SA,
>when you open 1 suit and then reverse into a shorter, higher ranking
>suit, your partner may have to return to your first suit at a higher
>level. In Canape when you reverse into a longer, higher ranking suit
>partner almost never returns to your first suit and so the whole idea
>of reverses showing extra values can be discarded.
How does partner take a preference with canape? Answer - they have to
raise the level of bidding one level, just like in SA. The exception
is if they pass your reverse which could also happen in SA. If you
force the auction up 1 level, why wouldn't you need extra values?
And if a reverse doesn't show extra values, how is partner supposed to
know whether to make a game going bid opposite the extra value hand,
or pass/sign off when partner has the minimum hand?
>Another way to
>think of it is that it's harder to lose your long suit than your short
>suit.
And possibly more painful. You open 1H with a good 4-6 in the reds,
and the auction is up to 4S or 5C when the auction gets back to you,
and you haven't shown your good 6 card suit.
John
Chris Ryall
>The biggest advantage of Canape is in the area of reverses. In SA,
>when you open 1 suit and then reverse into a shorter, higher ranking
>suit, your partner may have to return to your first suit at a higher
>level. In Canape when you reverse into a longer, higher ranking suit
>partner almost never returns to your first suit and so the whole idea
>think of it is that it's harder to lose your long suit than your short
>suit.
Now we're getting somewhere ..
pwi...@my-deja.com
Actually, no ( & keep in mind that I'm talking 'classic' Roman as
written up in B&A's 1959 book ). Strong 2 suiters tend to be opened
with one of the two suits. Opening 1C tend to deny a two suited hand.
The distinction is generally when one of the two suits is clubs. That
is
AKxxx AQxxx Ax x
would be opened 1S and jump in hearts over most responses. However
Kx AQJxx x AKxxx
would be opened 1C and you would make special asking bid in clubs and
hearts over responder call.
In other words, these hands have similar strength and distribution but
are treated differently due to the suits held. Technically, opening
1D,H,S showed a 4-7 loser hand. However, the 4 loser hands include a
fair number of SA 2C openings if you go over the Bermuda Bowl and
Olympiad records. I believe that I have seen examples where 1D,H,S was
opened with a 3 loser 2 suiter hand. So there aren't absolutes.
> I think in the Roman framework and in a strong club frame (BTC or
moscito)
> canape works well. I have no experience of it in a 2C system and don't
find
> it attractive (without thinking too much about it).
> The auction 1D-1S-2H has got some discussion but in a Roman framework,
the 1S
> bid has promised about 9+ and 2H about 15+ so there is little danger
of overbidding.
> With 5+ hearts and 4 diamonds and 11-14 one simply bids and rebids
hearts since partner
> will have to have enough to keep the bidding open for the minor suit
contract to
> be interesting.
>
> Douglas
>
Regards,
Paul Friedman
2C system (other 2-bids were almot Acol like but not completely forcing)
It works reasonably well. In principle, most normal srength hands
were opened in normal loner suit first style..only strong hands
canaped.
Bruce J. Moore wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
> big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
> because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
> hands through 1C (either 1C SAF or 1C AF, could be strong).
>
> The only popular exception of which I'm aware is Arno, which puts its
> huge hands through 1N.
>
> A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
> yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
> natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
> and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
>
> Actually, I don't see any reason why one couldn't play a canape' system
> with a SAF 2C. If you decide to do this, figure out how to show your
> three suited minimum hands. They're not real frequent, but if you
> don't reserve a bid for them, you'll have to be very careful bidding
> a second suit (since partner will expect 5 pieces).
>
> Bruce
>
Bruce J. Moore
big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
hands through 1C (either 1C SAF or 1C AF, could be strong).
The only popular exception of which I'm aware is Arno, which puts its
huge hands through 1N.
A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
Actually, I don't see any reason why one couldn't play a canape' system
with a SAF 2C. If you decide to do this, figure out how to show your
three suited minimum hands. They're not real frequent, but if you
don't reserve a bid for them, you'll have to be very careful bidding
a second suit (since partner will expect 5 pieces).
Bruce
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote -
:>Disadvantages:
:>
:> - Sometimes you play a 4-1 fit instead of 6-3 fit.
:> - No weak twos (can't open 1C to start a canape' since
:> that's the forcing bid; two level bids needed to show
:> 3 suited hands and 2 suited hands with shorter clubs.
:>
:>This last is the main reason I don't play canape' systems more often.
:>I hate losing the opportunity to jam the opponents auctions.
: Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so, and
: needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
: keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
: I guess I saw another chance to be aggressive and open the 4 card major
: ahead of the 5 card minor.
: And you still give preference on KJxxx x Kxx Jxx after 1H - 1S; 2C
: rather than raise what should be a 5 card club suit? (or probably pass)
: Any good Canapé books? I guess I'd need interlibrary loans unless
: London Chess and Bridge has one. Could cope with a French one. chris
: --
: Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
--
Julian Lighton
Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
>big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
>because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
>hands through 1C (either 1C SAF or 1C AF, could be strong).
>
>The only popular exception of which I'm aware is Arno, which puts its
>huge hands through 1N.
>
>A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
>yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
>natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
>and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
>
>Actually, I don't see any reason why one couldn't play a canape' system
>with a SAF 2C. If you decide to do this, figure out how to show your
>three suited minimum hands. They're not real frequent, but if you
>don't reserve a bid for them, you'll have to be very careful bidding
>a second suit (since partner will expect 5 pieces).
Well, as a player of a 2C-ish canape system that doesn't have a
three-suited opener, (The Maniac^H^H^H^Hmic mentioned above) they
aren't really any more of a problem than in most non-canape systems.
If you show a two-suited unbalanced hand, partner will expect one of
them to be five. Whether it's the first or second suit doesn't change
the problem much.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"Height, Hell, Time, Haste, Terror, Tension
Life, Death, Want, Waste, Mass Depression"
-- Metallica
Alex Martelli
> I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
> big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
> because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
> A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
> yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
> natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
> and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
The systems I am aware of that were published under the names
"Alpha" and "Gamma" (both French; "Alpha" was by world champion
Bertrand Romanet, also a popular author of a few excellent books on
intermediate/advanced-level card play technique) do meet the
descriptions you give (in Alpha, 1C is either natural, or a balanced
hand with 15-18 points specifically; it can also be used with some
super-strong hands, as an alternative to the 2C opening bid, which
is also reserved for super-strong hands, depending on what opener
wants to ask partner about); but, they are 5-card major systems,
therefore most definitely not "canape`". Homonimy perhaps, with
some strange coincidences to pepper it up...?
> Actually, I don't see any reason why one couldn't play a canape' system
> with a SAF 2C. If you decide to do this, figure out how to show your
Pierre Albarran, the inventor of canape` (he came up with the
concept, and the theory behind it, coined the term, published the
method...), is also associated with the 2C opening bid artificial and
strong (I think he was responsible for introducing it in France, and
for developing the Ace-showing responses that are still named after
him, at least by several [older] players in Northern Italy). The
system he first published as "Canape`" already, I believe, used the
2C convention.
Alex
Michael Arnowitt
are playing some sort of strong club system where some of the non 1C
sequences are canape, some aren't. Anyone know the details?
Michael
Paul Friedman
They are playing, basically, the Hamman-Wolf system with a bit more
science added to the mix. The system is based on Blue Team Club, but..
1) 1N is slightly expanded
2) respnder does NOT canape (opener still does, sometimes, in
fairly standard BTC fashion)
3) A few realys are introduced (after 1C and a 1D or 1H response)
4) Flannery 2H
Bruce J. Moore
Both systems employ relays and canape' in *subsequent* bidding, but not
in the opening.
I searched the document for any system containing the word "canape'" and
then looked for a strong 2C opening in the system. The problem is that
the "quick glance" was far too quick ;-(. My apologies.
That leaves MamiC, Breakthrough, and the original Canape' system
by Albarran. It seems that 2C SAF canape' systems are somewhat uncommon.
Bruce
Alex Martelli <al...@magenta.com> wrote:
: Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote in message news:e1Eb3.41$yO4....@iagnews.iagnet.net...
:> I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
:> big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
:> because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
: [snip]
:> A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
:> yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
:> natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
:> and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
: The systems I am aware of that were published under the names
: "Alpha" and "Gamma" (both French; "Alpha" was by world champion
: Bertrand Romanet, also a popular author of a few excellent books on
: intermediate/advanced-level card play technique) do meet the
: descriptions you give (in Alpha, 1C is either natural, or a balanced
: hand with 15-18 points specifically; it can also be used with some
: super-strong hands, as an alternative to the 2C opening bid, which
: is also reserved for super-strong hands, depending on what opener
: wants to ask partner about); but, they are 5-card major systems,
: therefore most definitely not "canape`". Homonimy perhaps, with
: some strange coincidences to pepper it up...?
: Pierre Albarran, the inventor of canape` (he came up with the
: concept, and the theory behind it, coined the term, published the
: method...), is also associated with the 2C opening bid artificial and
: strong (I think he was responsible for introducing it in France, and
: for developing the Ace-showing responses that are still named after
: him, at least by several [older] players in Northern Italy). The
: system he first published as "Canape`" already, I believe, used the
: 2C convention.
: Alex
--
Bruce J. Moore
as the inventor of the MamiC system. Any relation?
Bruce
Julian Lighton <jl...@nowhere.fragment.com> wrote:
: In article <e1Eb3.41$yO4....@iagnews.iagnet.net>,
: Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote:
:>I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
:>big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
:>because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
:>hands through 1C (either 1C SAF or 1C AF, could be strong).
:>
:>The only popular exception of which I'm aware is Arno, which puts its
:>huge hands through 1N.
:>
:>A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
:>yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
:>natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
:>and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
:>
:>Actually, I don't see any reason why one couldn't play a canape' system
:>with a SAF 2C. If you decide to do this, figure out how to show your
:>three suited minimum hands. They're not real frequent, but if you
:>don't reserve a bid for them, you'll have to be very careful bidding
:>a second suit (since partner will expect 5 pieces).
: Well, as a player of a 2C-ish canape system that doesn't have a
: three-suited opener, (The Maniac^H^H^H^Hmic mentioned above) they
: aren't really any more of a problem than in most non-canape systems.
: If you show a two-suited unbalanced hand, partner will expect one of
: them to be five. Whether it's the first or second suit doesn't change
: the problem much.
: --
: Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
: "Height, Hell, Time, Haste, Terror, Tension
: Life, Death, Want, Waste, Mass Depression"
: -- Metallica
--
Tony T. Warnock
> Alex, as usual, is correct.
>
> Both systems employ relays and canape' in *subsequent* bidding, but not
> in the opening.
>
> I searched the document for any system containing the word "canape'" and
> then looked for a strong 2C opening in the system. The problem is that
> the "quick glance" was far too quick ;-(. My apologies.
>
> That leaves MamiC, Breakthrough, and the original Canape' system
> by Albarran. It seems that 2C SAF canape' systems are somewhat uncommon.
>
> Bruce
>
> Alex Martelli <al...@magenta.com> wrote:
> : Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote in message news:e1Eb3.41$yO4....@iagnews.iagnet.net...
> :> I'm not sure I said that canape' only works in limited opening,
> :> big club systems, but I certainly implied as much. I suppose that's
> :> because most canape' systems with which I'm familiar put all huge
> : [snip]
> :> A quick glance through Jan Eric Larssen's "Bridge System Collection"
> :> yields a few other exceptions: MamiC (1C natural, 1N SAF), Alpha (1C
> :> natural or balanced, 2C SAF), Breakthrough (1C nebulous 17-22, 2C SAF),
> :> and Gamma (1C nebulous, 2C SAF).
>
> : The systems I am aware of that were published under the names
> : "Alpha" and "Gamma" (both French; "Alpha" was by world champion
> : Bertrand Romanet, also a popular author of a few excellent books on
> : intermediate/advanced-level card play technique) do meet the
> : descriptions you give (in Alpha, 1C is either natural, or a balanced
> : hand with 15-18 points specifically; it can also be used with some
> : super-strong hands, as an alternative to the 2C opening bid, which
> : is also reserved for super-strong hands, depending on what opener
> : wants to ask partner about); but, they are 5-card major systems,
> : therefore most definitely not "canape`". Homonimy perhaps, with
> : some strange coincidences to pepper it up...?
>
> : Pierre Albarran, the inventor of canape` (he came up with the
> : concept, and the theory behind it, coined the term, published the
> : method...), is also associated with the 2C opening bid artificial and
> : strong (I think he was responsible for introducing it in France, and
> : for developing the Ace-showing responses that are still named after
> : him, at least by several [older] players in Northern Italy). The
> : system he first published as "Canape`" already, I believe, used the
> : 2C convention.
I invented a canape system with mostly natural bids: strong 2C, Acol 2H/2S, Blue Team 2D, weak NT, etc. It worked
quite well. The only change I looked at so far is to replace the 2D with a type of multi.
Tony
Julian Lighton
Bruce J. Moore <moo...@NOSPAM.mail.oh.verio.com> wrote:
>Julian Lighton <jl...@nowhere.fragment.com> wrote:
>: Well, as a player of a 2C-ish canape system that doesn't have a
>: three-suited opener, (The Maniac^H^H^H^Hmic mentioned above) they
>: aren't really any more of a problem than in most non-canape systems.
>: If you show a two-suited unbalanced hand, partner will expect one of
>: them to be five. Whether it's the first or second suit doesn't change
>: the problem much.
>as the inventor of the MamiC system. Any relation?
Yes, though it should list Richard Lighton.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
Ia! Ia! Totoro fhtagn!
Donald A. Varvel
>> :In article <ZrqykQAs...@cavendish.demon.co.uk>,
>> : Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> :> Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so,
>and
>> :> needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
>> :> keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
As others have pointed out by now, there are 2C SAF systems
that use Canapé.
I think the reason it's popular in 1C SAF systems is that it
allows work-arounds to the problem of what to do with real
club hands, avoiding some of Precision's 2C unpleasantness
and almost all of Precision's 1D and 2D unpleasantness.
[Editorial note: I realize some don't consider Precision's
1D, 2C, and 2D openings to be weaknesses.]
-- Don Varvel
Kent Feiler
>
>>> :In article <ZrqykQAs...@cavendish.demon.co.uk>,
>>> : Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> :> Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or so,
>>and
>>> :> needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C system,
>>> :> keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
>
>As others have pointed out by now, there are 2C SAF systems
>that use Canapé.
>
>I think the reason it's popular in 1C SAF systems is that it
>allows work-arounds to the problem of what to do with real
>club hands, avoiding some of Precision's 2C unpleasantness
>and almost all of Precision's 1D and 2D unpleasantness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's true that if playing SAF-1C, canape solves many of your club
problems, but it also creates a new one, two-suiters with shorter
clubs. As:
S-Axx H-KQxxx D-x C-AJxx
I don't think there's any relationship between playing canape and your
SAF bid. SAF-1C causes club problems with or without canape and SAF-2C
eliminates them.
I suspect that the real reason canape shows up in French and Italian
systems and not in American systems has more to do with the climate
for innovation rather than bidding theory. France and Italy seem to
either encourage or, at least, have a high tolerance for new systems
while the USA regards them as being an exotic form of cheating.
pwi...@my-deja.com
kfe...@cpiusa.com (Kent Feiler) wrote:
> Donald A. Varvel <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>> :In article <ZrqykQAs...@cavendish.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> : Chris Ryall <chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> :> Are you saying that Canapé only works in the 11-16 range or
so,
> >>and
> >>> :> needs a strong 1C? I was thinking of trying it within a 2C
system,
> >>> :> keeping my beloved multi 2D and dutch 2 majors.
> >
> >As others have pointed out by now, there are 2C SAF systems
> >that use Canapé.
> >
> >I think the reason it's popular in 1C SAF systems is that it
> >allows work-arounds to the problem of what to do with real
> >club hands, avoiding some of Precision's 2C unpleasantness
> >and almost all of Precision's 1D and 2D unpleasantness.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> It's true that if playing SAF-1C, canape solves many of your club
> problems, but it also creates a new one, two-suiters with shorter
> clubs. As:
> S-Axx H-KQxxx D-x C-AJxx
Play Roman 2H,S ( your sample hand is a loser - or a half according to
Alex Martelli - light, but with 14 HCP so what ). You lose weak twos,
but we tended to open the at the 3 level anyhow except at unfav vul.
The only hands you then have a problem with are minimum ?-?-5-4 where a
Roman 2N might get you too high.
>
> I don't think there's any relationship between playing canape and your
> SAF bid. SAF-1C causes club problems with or without canape and SAF-2C
> eliminates them.
>
> I suspect that the real reason canape shows up in French and Italian
> systems and not in American systems has more to do with the climate
> for innovation rather than bidding theory. France and Italy seem to
> either encourage or, at least, have a high tolerance for new systems
> while the USA regards them as being an exotic form of cheating.
>
Regards,
Alex Martelli
[snip]
> > It's true that if playing SAF-1C, canape solves many of your club
> > problems, but it also creates a new one, two-suiters with shorter
> > clubs. As:
> > S-Axx H-KQxxx D-x C-AJxx
>
> Play Roman 2H,S ( your sample hand is a loser - or a half according to
> Alex Martelli - light, but with 14 HCP so what ). You lose weak twos,
??? 2H/2S are defined as "5-6 losers" in the Roman Club, and this
hand is "6 losers" according to the conventional count of Losers used
in the 1st edition of the Roman Club book (the only one available in
English, I think), so I'm not sure what you think makes it "light".
6 losers also happens to be a reasonably accurate, non-conventional
evaluation -- the "surplus" Ace makes it 5 1/2 losers in Rubens' count,
which generally yields good approximation, but the 4th club is really
worth closer to 1/2 a loser than to 0 losers, so 6 ends up being a closer
approximation than 5 and 1/2.
The last edition (that I know of) of Roman Club (Belladonna as
sole author, 1988 as year, Mursia the editor -- I think, I don't
have it handy to check) recovers "weak two's", in a sense, by
using a Multi 2D opening bid.
Alex
Donald A. Varvel
"Alex Martelli" <al...@magenta.com> wrote:
>The last edition (that I know of) of Roman Club (Belladonna as
>sole author, 1988 as year, Mursia the editor -- I think, I don't
>have it handy to check) recovers "weak two's", in a sense, by
>using a Multi 2D opening bid.
Wow. I didn't know there *was* such a book.
Yes, multiplexing weak 2's into Roman 2D is an obvious fix. I
never understood why Hamman-Wolff didn't do it, except possibly
for Wolff's conservatism.
As many of you know, I've considered the Roman/Vienna/Polish
family of systems fascinating for years. I even came up with a
Roman/Arno variant that I considered arguably playable under the
then-existant GCC. It multiplexed some strong balanced hands
and some club hands into the 1D opening, and used a 1H negative.
The first I think is still allowable (under the "catchall"
provision), but the second clearly isn't (artificial responses
to 1C or 1D are only allowed if the opening bid promises at
least 15 HCP). I had 1H and 1S promise 4+ cards and not be
forcing (requiring no artificial responses), put the minimum
3-suiter into 1C rather than 2C, and used 2C for several
leftover hands (including some minimum club 1-suiters). 1NT was
the artificial strong bid, as in Arno, taking some of the strain
off of 1C.
I played the system once and won. Then the new GCC came out.
The entire complex of "Canape Intermediate Clubs", the main
examples of which are Roman and Arno, is a fascinating although
currently unpopular field for investigation.
-- Don Varvel