Request: study material on Canapè ?

[Chamaco]

Hi all,

I would like to know whether some folks have some suggestions on where to start to study Canapè and "potential canapè" systems in a strong club context.

 

(I already have some material on the Blue Team Club approach BTW)

 

I am not looking for a documentation describing the sequences: sure, they are important, but I'd rather llok for a description of the phylosophy and a lot of commented examples.

 

When shifting from one system phylosophy, I am much more interested in learning how these difference change the inferences, as well as how to "re-tune" the hand evaluation. And this (in my experience) happens only when there are many concrete hands to discuss.

 

Maybe are there books/sources that address these things ?

 

 

A list of points that I suspect need to be dealt with for canapè systems is the following, but any further keypoints will be greatly appreciated ! :-) :

 

1) is it better to use 2/1 GF or 1-round force ? What and when do we lose (e.g. slam bidding) ? What and when do we gain ? If using 2/1 1RF only, how do you handle slamgoing hands for responder that need to keep bidding low ? If using 2/1 GF, how do you resolve opener's shape (e.g. is there a viable alternative to relays or not) ?

 

2) what NT range is best suited (in a big club system)?

 

3) if you open canapè with a 4531 hand, how do u bid more distributional 55 hands ? And how do you bid 65 hands (5 bagger first?)

 

4) is it best "MAFIA" canapè or absolute canapè ? what changes in the system, in responder's inferences, in the bidding of real 2-suiters (55 or better), in the partscore battle and competitive bidding ?

 

5) how is the partscore battle affected ?

 

6) how is competitive bidding affected (raises, doubles, etc) besides the obvious starting point that 1M opening can be 4 cards ?

And, for instance, how oes the canapè structure influence the decisions of opener and responder in the balancing seat if overcaller's side is buying a 2/3 level partscore ?

[whereagles]

Not quite related to what you're asking, but if you're going to play a canapè system, opps may haggle they need some defense to it. Here's something you can volunteer them:

 

(1x) pass (1y) pass

(1/2z) dbl

 

dbl = take-out of z, cards in suit x.

[dake50]

1) 2/1 GF loses to game try hoping C-stuff is promotable in 2/1 F1, unrecoverable.

2/1 GF must GF BEFORE noting C-promoting!

Save one/few slamtry rebids after 2/1 F1; Use 3oM as artificial slam try.

 

2) NT as light as dare since the 2M on 4-4M vs 1NT almost ceases to exist. Clear scrambles into minors.

 

3) With 1C force, jump on 5-5; simple rebid 4-5.

 

4) Mafia takes gas out of oppts OC/preempt. We started our M-explore already, do oppts think we miss this M-fit? We may over-/under-bid but NEVER mis-bid.

 

5) Big partial gain if willing to play 4-3M fits often and well.

 

6) Both fit/no fit decisions become easier after Mafia 1M opening, esp. as 1C force bounds top.

 

You hit near best that can be: 1C force+ 4cM+ 1NT light (no 4M).

Add descriptive 2m openers: 5+suit unbal (no 4M) or 6+suit (SS if NT rebid). Minor hands must play 3m unless game anyway, so bidding space is extraneous. Certainly not needing to open 1C/1D!

[bhall]

Hi all,

I would like to know whether some folks have some suggestions on where to start to study Canapè and "potential canapè" systems in a strong club context.

 

Each canape' opening has its own list of difficulties, even within the same system. I think the Blue Team philosophy was not to worry overmuch about reaching bad low-level contracts after a 1M opening. They concentrated on selecting the best game and devised special sequences to show slam interest (e.g., 1M-2m-2M-4 either m).

 

From my own studies, it appears inevitable that canape' bidders will either play some 4-2 or 5-1 "fits" at the two level, or will be forced to 2N or the three level on some indifferent (7-card) fits, when there is no 8-card fit. On the other hand, auctions like 1M-2M preempt the opponents, and they become frequent when one allows raises on three trump. Of course, such raises may bypass an 8-card minor fit for a terrible 7-card major fit. But, on balance, the raises are a plus.

 

I don't know of any books that discuss canape' philosophy. I suspect that you will have to look at examples from various websites devoted to such systems.

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments:

 

1. The best material on canape bidding is (probably) still the old books documenting Blue Club. If you're seriously interested in this topic then your best best is (probably) to find a partner who is willing to play Blue Club "by the book". Please note: Blue Club is a fairly sound opening system. There are lots of hands that get opened playing MOSCITO or other aggressive Major's first styles that you'll pass playing Blue Club. However, I think that there are strong advantages to learning a well tested / well integrated system. One issue that you might want to worry about is that there are some (minor) inconsistencies between different books on Blue Club. In particular, there's a lot of disagreement about what one should open holding 4-4 or 5-4 in the majors.

 

2. If you really want to focus on a strong club with highly aggressive openings, my MOSCITO notes provide a decent response structure over major suit openings. If you're willing to accept some of the assumptions of the system, there are some useful treatments. For example, one of the basic ideas in MOSCITO is that (virtually) any hand with three card support (and sufficient strength) should raise a 1M opening to 2M. Consider the implication for a auction like the following

 

1♥ - 1N

2♦ - 2♠

 

1♥ = 4+ Spades (might have longer minor)

1N = Natural and non-forcing (balanced pattern)

2♦ = two suited pattern with Diamonds and Spades. Opener's 2♦ response is ambiguous with respect to the relative length of the Diamond suit and the Spade suit.

 

Consider responder's 2♠ rebid. Responder 1NT bid has denied 3 card Spade support. The 2♠ preference implicitly promises a doubleton Spade. As such, the 2♠ response also promises 3+ cards in the other three suits. Opener is now well positioned to stop in a 5-2 spade fit or place the contract in a 5-3 minor fit at the three level.

 

The MOSCITO structure isn't for everyone. In particular, you pretty much need to be playing a relay structure after the 1M opening to offload weak unbalanced hands from the 1NT response. However, if you're seriously interested in a Majors first opening style, MOSCITO is (pretty much) state of the art.

[kenrexford]

Several years ago, I learned an unusual canape structure playing with a friend of mine from Croatia, where 1♦ was the strong, forcing opening and where there was a tendency canape (you made canape bids with five losers, straight with 6-7), unusual two-bids. I then learned Neapolitan from some Ohio players.

 

All of this was a mess, and few really got canape thinking. Books helped some, but they were miserable at describing what you found out at the table. The "table concepts" included things like when to respond in three-card suits, when 2NT in a partscore battle with 4333 was the best call, why the major-club hands were "LTT" protected (but not major-"minor"), why 2♣ as Roman is infinitely better than 2♦ Roman, how to lead against an overcalling-side 3NT, and the like. You cannot find that text, to my knowledge.

 

The canape approach we ended up with was a very pure canape. 1♣ strong (17+). 1♦ as a diamond-major canape (3+♦/5+major, no side 4-card major). 1♥ as 6+ hearts or 4+ hearts, longer second suit, or 4-4 majors/5332 weak NT. 1♠ as 6+ spades or spade canape or 4-5 spades and weak balanced. 1NT as 13-15 balanced. 2♣ three-suited (2♦ asking). 2♦ as minor two-suiter. 2M as major-club two-suiter (purifies 1♠...minor). 2NT as weaker, but more shape, minor two-suiter. 3+ major responses. 1♦...1NT/2NT guaranteeing 3-4 of each major, basically balanced. 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT guaranteeing 5/3/3-5/0-2. Lots more.

 

Anyway, in my experience, some suggestions to your q's:

 

1) is it better to use 2/1 GF or 1-round force ?

 

1-round force, sort of. 1♦-2♣ as GF works well, if Opener bids one-under his canape. Golady. 1M-P-2bid works best as GF on Opener, but Opener can repeat his suit three times if balanced and only four cards, passableat any point (e.g., 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♠(4-card, minimum)-P-2NT(asking)-P-3♠(balanced)-P-P-P).

 

What and when do we lose (e.g. slam bidding)?

 

One big loss is that it often takes longer to find the fit. With standard 2/1, 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♥ is the fit, at the 2-level. With canape, the second suit is the longer, hence the more likely fit. Hence, you more often need to raise to the three-level to establish the fit. Sometimes you win (the 4-4), sometimes you lose (the 5-3), but the frequency is the loss.

 

What and when do we gain?

 

You gain in a lot of competitive situations. An easily missed concept. 1♣-1♠-P-2♠-? Opener has 4♥/5♣ -- he's afraid to compete, for good reason, and Responder cannot help much. Switch to canape of 1♥-1♠-P-2♠-? First, Opener is more comfortable competing into an unbid long suit than into an unbid short-ish suit. Second, Responder, if 4333, likes his hand (strangely) and can more easily compete (2NT). Lots more examples.

 

You also find minor slams more often.

 

If using 2/1 1RF only, how do you handle slamgoing hands for responder that need to keep bidding low?

 

See above -- Opener is game forced, but Responder may pass Opener's bids.

 

If using 2/1 GF, how do you resolve opener's shape (e.g. is there a viable alternative to relays or not)?

 

I don't like this, except after 1♦. With less than GF, you need a flexible response structure, which includes some (rare -- for the GCC nazi's) 3-card responses. 1NT as guaranteeing 3-4 of each major (and 2NT for that matter) also helps.

 

2) what NT range is best suited (in a big club system)?

 

It depends. My experience and meddling proved that 13-16 worked well, so long as 16's were upgraded freely and 13's downgraded, and so long as there is a solution for the 12-13 balanced hands.

 

3) if you open canapè with a 4531 hand, how do u bid more distributional 55 hands?

 

Normally, treat the minor as four-card initially. 5-5 majors is tough. Typical solution is standard (1♠...2♥). However, this runs into the problem of the 6-4. We had some solutions, including 1♥-P-1♠ as 3+ and some Opener jumps. This problem is very complicated to explain to people, and the solutions are even harder to explain.

 

And how do you bid 65 hands (5 bagger first?)

 

Typically, yes. You use judgment, guided by an understanding of the highly-competitive problem. You also need some ideas as to how to rebid. When competition hits, for example, you may need Michaels-like bids. 1♠-2♣-X-P-? 3♥ would typically be a strong 6-4; 3♣ typically a strong 5-5.

 

4) is it best "MAFIA" canapè or absolute canapè?

 

Not sure of the term "mafia." However, I'm assuming tendency canape, perhaps an older term that I know. It sucks. You have no idea what is going on, especially in competition. Absolute works best. But, you cannot do absolute unless you adopt a structure different from Roman, Neapolitan, or any other mainstream canape. The one I layed out above solves the canape problems (major and clubs, minors, and 4441/5440's), such that all 1-L openings deny a four-card major unless it is the opened suit, with the sole (and much debated) exception of the 12-13 1♥ when 4432/4423, as well as guaranteeing a canape or a six-card suit (again with the exception of the 12-13 balanced major openings).

 

What changes in the system, in responder's inferences, in the bidding of real 2-suiters (55 or better), in the partscore battle and competitive bidding ?

 

See above. Good question, BTW.

 

5) how is the partscore battle affected ?

 

See above. Simple answer -- you win. You find more "hidden" fits, and you set the opponents in doubled contracts more often. A juicy one is 1♦-1♠-X-P-P-P, when Opener's LHO stepped into Opener's long suit. More exist, and frequently.

 

6) how is competitive bidding affected (raises, doubles, etc) besides the obvious starting point that 1M opening can be 4 cards?

 

Again, fewer hidden fits, easier competitive decisions, more lucrative doubles, better surprise leads, and the like.

 

And, for instance, how does the canapè structure influence the decisions of opener and responder in the balancing seat if overcaller's side is buying a 2/3 level partscore?

 

Good Q, again. See above. Restated, we are in much more comfortable shape. It is, simply put, easier to reopen when the second suit is the long suit. It is also easier for Responder to reopen when he is assured of that second suit or a sixth card in your first suit. Imagine having 3244 after 1♥-1♠-P-2♠-P-P-? No fit is known. Change to 2344 after a canape 1♥-1♠-P-2♠-P-P-? Now, Responder expects a nine-card heart fit (Opener has six hearts), or a nine-card minor fit (Opener has four hearts and a side 5-card or longer minor). Of course, the "12-13 balanced" hand poses a problem here, and hence the reason for the debate.

[Guest Jlall]

where have you been ken? we've missed you :)

[glen]

Ken has been on the victory tour, since scoring perfect in the May It's Your Call (see bottom right page 35 ACBL bulletin) - key was cuebidding of course.

[the hog]

Chamaco, Matula has a section on Mafia responses to 1C and 1D openings in his book "The Polish Club". In this he discusses the philosophy behind it and the ramifications thereof.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

The best system to study for canape bidding is Roman 'if' you want to 'understand' canape. I did play a lot of Blue Team Club in the 7Os. Blue Team is a canape 'tendency' sytem. One level openings and a rebid of new suit are 'either suit longer' after a limited reply(one over one or 1Z-1NT)

 

Roman is a closer to a 'pure' canape system. I changed the methods from three card major openings after I 'jump supported' the opened suit with 4 card support and we were still in a

4-3 fit. Roman opens a 3=3=2=5 hand with 1M and canaped into clubs.

 

1) I suspect that one round force 2/1 bidding fits the system better in Blue Team and Roman. I have always liked the 2/1 'forcing to 2NT method when playing Blue Team Club.

 

A modern method of bidding club canapes is to reverse the meaning of 2NT and 3Cs. 1M-2Red(Diamonds/Hearts)-3C*=strong NT type hand and 1M-2D-2NT*=club canape(if you have extra values, you bid higher after partner bids 3Cs.

 

Blue Team bidding solves some of the club canape problems by opening 2C with 15-16HCP and 4M with longer(or 5/6) clubs. Major Roman two bids show the suit opened(5+) plus 4(+) clubs.

 

The Italian systems tended to be very strong in slam bidding and a little weaker in part score battles. Game bidding is also very good. The Italians made a lot of IMPs over the years by playing many 4-4 major fits(weak?) in 3NT.

 

The Italian methods take great pride in long auctions 'if' they describe their hands.

A trademark of the Blue Team Club system is the fairly high number of 5M and 4NT contracts that they make the final contract.

 

Delayed raises to the three level in Blue Team club is often a slam auction. They play limit raises so a delayed raise to three is normally a slam try action.

 

2) Blue Team uses a 13-17HCP 1NT(mostly balanced 16-17HCP with some systemic 3325 or 3334 club hands that no other opening covers) Roman uses a 17-20 range.

 

Some Americans play Blue Team with a 15-17 range. I have played Roman with lower range than 17-20HCP 1NT. Whatever you like is my guess for your range.

 

I passed a pure canape forcing Pass system several decades ago with a 10-12 range 1NT in 1st/2nd seat. My 1C(the Fert opening)-1NT reply showed 15-17HCP.

 

3) You show 5-5 and 6-5 hands by following the system methods. Sometimes you are able to 'bid out' your pattern and sometimes the system prevents it. My feelings were that I was able to bid out my shape and range much better in Blue Team Club than many standard methods. The system(especially Blue TEam Club) often forces you to pick a certain bid.

 

4) Depending of the Blue Team book you read, opening major suits are either Q10xx or Jxxx. Roman opens three card major(3325 shapes) with no regard for honors in the opened suit.

 

5) Partscore bidding is likely the weakest part of Canape type system bidding. On the other hand, bidding 1M-2/3M-4M often conceals a 4-5 or 4-6 hand from the other side. The Italians played a lot of IMP type bridge and their systems were geared to good game/slam bidding.

 

6) I learned to play a lot of low level(read one level) penalty doubles while playing Blue TEam Club. It has served me well over the decades. The negative double after a one level opening is 1D-(1S)-X. 1Red-(1 level overcall)-X is penalty 'if' the auction does not go exactly 1D-(1S)-X

 

One player made a joke overcall after my partner opened 1H-(1S)-X(AQ10xx plus an opening bid and holding short hearts)-(2S) they did not get the joke. Pass by my partner(puzzled since he held xx of spades)-(p)-X(If I felt that 1S doubled was decent, 2Ss doubled should be even better) He sat and he went down a bunch. :)

 

7) I suspect that I would add a bunch of bells and whistles 'if' I tried to play a canape type system today. Competitive bidding would use more card showing doubles and 2NT would often be used in a Lebensohl like style.

 

Even my forcing Pass canape bidding used a lot of card showing doubles back in the 70s so not much is new under the sun. :)

 

George Coffin published his Natural Big Club system that also used Canape bidding with a weak NT and a couple of other toys several decades ago.

 

Regards,

Robert

[kenrexford]

Ken has been on the victory tour, since scoring perfect in the May It's Your Call (see bottom right page 35 ACBL bulletin) - key was cuebidding of course.

Sure, that's part of it. Once the world realized that I was THE definitive bidder, I had lots of tours and guest appearances to make, and lots of consultations. Rodwell and Hamman have been driving me particularly nuts.

 

Actually, two distractions. Yard and Garden, mostly. Then there is American Idol.

[glen]

Hamman and Soloway play a possible canape - see their links under System Information: USBF 2007 NICKELL TEAM

 

Ekeblad-Rubin play a stronger canape style, for their major suit openings, with a new twist for 2007. You can see their links under System Information here: USBF 2007 EKEBLAD TEAM

 

If you compare the 2005 WBF card they provided with their other forms, we see in 2005 that:

2♣: 10-16, 6+♣s OR 4+♣s with 5+♠s

2♦: 10-16, 4+♦s with 5+♥s

2♥: 10-16, 4+♣s with 5+♥s

2♠: 10-16, 4+♦s with 5+♠s

 

For 2007, we have

2♣: 10-16, 5+♥s with a four card or longer minor

2♦: 10-16, 5+♠s with a four card or longer minor

2♥/♠: weak two!

1♦ now can have 6+♣s

 

While their 2005 WBF card mentioned the word canape, their USBF summary does not - just "1M = 4+. Frequently have longer side suit"

 

Lately Hamman-Soloway and Ekeblad-Rubin have been using BBO to get ready for the US team trials, so there is the welcome opportunity to watch canape bidding in action.

[han]

Ken has been on the victory tour, since scoring perfect in the May It's Your Call (see bottom right page 35 ACBL bulletin) - key was cuebidding of course.

Sure, that's part of it. Once the world realized that I was THE definitive bidder, I had lots of tours and guest appearances to make, and lots of consultations. Rodwell and Hamman have been driving me particularly nuts.

 

Actually, two distractions. Yard and Garden, mostly. Then there is American Idol.

Hehe, wd Ken.

[keylime]

To answer the poster:

 

1. I use 2C as an art G/F in my canape method with Larry; the follow-ups are along the lines of Auken's method (assist to Gerben for helping me on this when I inquired last year). The tricky hands of this treatment are 2 suiters that do not necessarily show clubs to untangle after opener rebids to show a specific canape. It can take a touch longer to get into the right strain if you're not careful. I feel that you gain in the minor suit slam bidding without conceding much in the NT/major game arena. Due to this, we have 2NT and 3 level responses over 1M meaning specific things (we specifically play number of losers and Siebert Adjunct respectively). In the strong club arena, we've taken our approach one step further: 1M responses are 4 card xfers into the other major G/F, so that we maintain parallelism with our 1M structure.

 

2. NT ranges vary; Auken uses 10-12, I use 11-13, and some use 14-16. This is open for discussion.

 

3. The 5-5 diamond-major hands are easy to bid. The major-club hands tho are tricky. There are plenty of 2 bids I've seen that try to address this (we personally play balanced intermediate 2 bids to unload them from the 1M bids). With 6-5's, if both majors, the six carder first. If major-diamonds, shorter suit first. If major-clubs, depends.

 

4. In partscores, you'll need to have bids to show 5-4's and up to verify that you have a five card major. However, as alluded to by others, I've had the joy of them walking into my five card major more than once, and that is enjoyable when the "oh crap" looks come to their face. You also gain by the negative inferences more readily because there is a certain preemptive factor to opening 1S on 4-x-5-x hand and getting a raise to 2S and 4th seat wondering what to do with it. Some have suit floors with regards to quality; we tho open any 4 card major (recently in practice session I opened on 9753). In comp, we have a lot of artificial 2NT rebids, and we play xfer advanced.

 

5. We raise on nearly any 3 card support unless it's a shape that can cater to canape (i.e. 4333 starts with 1NT; 4432 starts with 1NT and then retreats to 2M if needed). Over 1D openings, we tend to suppress our 4 card majors since pard can't have one unless it's five cards in length and maximum. So leading to something like 1D - 3NT against a canape pair can be an adventure cause you simply don't know what the NT bidder can have for that bid.

 

All in all, the one thing of note is the fact that you have to change your mindset when you first start out, but I've grown to enjoy it a lot.