canape

[onoway]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

[TylerE]

I've played two Canape' systems with different partners over the last year or two. I'd need to know more about the exact system to offer exact recommendations. However, I'd say don't get too hung up on it. Assuming the opening suit shows 4+, just treat it as a 'normal' opening. Opening 1♦ (in a standard system) with 4♥ and 5♦ doesn't cause any real problems for the defense. Opening that same hand 1♥ doesn't either.

 

If the opening is a potentially short 1m, with a possible longer suit, I'd use whatever you use against a Precision 1♦. (2 of openers suit = Good suit, 2OS+1: Micheals, for instance)

[kenrexford]

For the one-level openings, I'm not exactly sure what the "best defense" will be. However, a few observations might help you along on the process of deciding how to handle this style.

 

The "obvious" first issue is that the opponents might pick off your trump suit. For example, after a 1♥ opening, you may well want to play with hearts as trumps. I would sort of think along the lines of how a 1♥ response in standard does not necessarily mean that you do not overcall. If 1♣-P-1♥-2♥ is a natural call, then somehow you should also be able to suggest hearts as a strain if a canape player opens 1♥.

 

A more subtle issue is in takeout doubles. With standard, for example, the opponent might open 1♣ with 2425 shape, but he will open 1♥ canape. Your likelihood of being short in hearts is lower than your likelihood of being short in clubs, and your likelihood of having enough clubs to have takeout shape is lower than your chance of having enough hearts to have takeout shape. Hence, you often have the "wrong pattern" for a takeout double of a canape opening. A typical solution is for a takeout to show any three suits, including the opened suit, with E.L.C. concepts.

 

Also, consider a problem of notrump bidding. 1♥-1NT-P-3NT is a sequence where you feel somewhat comfortable with standard sequences. In a canape sequence, you might get shocked by a diamond lead and the opponents cashing the first five diamond tricks. So, you somewhat combat this by (1) not being so rigorous about stops in the first suit necessarily and (2) making more sniffing noise checking on side controls. The first issue is interesting. Suppose a 1♥ opening canape to your right and you have 3343 shape with 16 HCP but only xxx in hearts. Over a standard 1♥, 1NT would be insanity. Over a canape 1♥, 1NT is not completely insane, not just because you might lose just four hearts and then the opponents are done, but because LHO may lead an inspired guess of RHO's "other suit."

[the hog]

I would suggest you get hold of some of the books on Italian systems - Blue Team Club, Roman and Neapolitan Club. Also look up the Caroline Club for a more modern approach.

Also look up rgb on the discussion regarding canape overcalls. This was some years ago, but Ono Eskes posted some interesting stuff in reply to a couple of my questions.

[nige1]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

Interesting question :) We have no special defence but I suppose that you might consider adopting...

• Natural overcall in their suit.
  
• Double on flattish hands with opening values (Italian Xs).
  
• Undisciplined weak jump overcalls.
  
• 2N overcall = any 2 unbid suits.
  
• 1N overcall = weak 3 suiter.
  

[csdenmark]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

The reasons for why you cannot find are that there is no weaknesses and there are many kind of canape' systems. It is quite different to play against Suspensor, Regres or Blue Club.

 

Play your own cards. CRASH, Robinson and Truscott are solid conventions against unknown.

[TimG]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

The reasons for why you cannot find are that there is no weaknesses and there are many kind of canape' systems.

No weaknesses must be an overbid.

 

In my experience playing canape, one weakness is that opener may have a tough decision about whether to introduce his second (primary) suit at a high level in a competitive auction. Suppose opener is 2641, opens 1♦ intending to canape into hearts and sees: 1♦-1♠-P-2/3♠. Introducing the heart suit at the three or four level is dangerous, but not bidding it at all could be a disaster.

[csdenmark]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

The reasons for why you cannot find are that there is no weaknesses and there are many kind of canape' systems.

No weaknesses must be an overbid.

 

In my experience playing canape, one weakness is that opener may have a tough decision about whether to introduce his second (primary) suit at a high level in a competitive auction. Suppose opener is 2641, opens 1♦ intending to canape into hearts and sees: 1♦-1♠-P-2/3♠. Introducing the heart suit at the three or four level is dangerous, but not bidding it at all could be a disaster.

Tim - 6 carders in major are 1-suiters.

[ArtK78]

No weaknesses is a significant overbid.

 

Many years ago, my regular partner and I played Blue Club. I had a strong hand (short of a 1♣ opener) with 6 hearts and 3 diamonds. I opened 1♦, planning to make a strong canape into hearts. Partner had a very weak hand with 5 hearts and 3 diamonds, so he passed. We played in 1♦ on a 3-3 fit going down one. And, while 4♥ on the 6-5 fit was not a great contract, it made and our opps got there.

 

Given the choice of contracts, I would have preferred 4♥ to 1♦.

 

As for defending against canape, it is not something I give much consideration to. It is like saying "how do you defend against a standard one of a major opening?" Just play bridge.

[Finch]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

There's more than one type of canape.

 

The one I am most familiar with involves opening 1 of the shorter suit (4+ cards) in a 2-suiter, and one of your long suit in a one-suiter.

 

Against that it's not worth changing your methods particularly, their 1-level openings are more natural than a SA 1 of a minor, and it's certainly not worth changing the direct cue bid to be natural. The 'obvious issue' that they might pick off your trump suit is the same as against a prepared minor opening, or against a 4-card major opening.

 

Against a very aggressive canape (e.g. opening a 3-card suit with 3-6) you probably need to have a complete rethink - such methods aren't legal in the EBU so I've never had to defend against them.

[TimG]

Against a very aggressive canape (e.g. opening a 3-card suit with 3-6) you probably need to have a complete rethink - such methods aren't legal in the EBU so I've never had to defend against them.

That's interesting. In the ACBL a three-card minor suit opening is considered natural (and thus has been exempt from most regulation). I seem to think that the Laws have recently changed in regards to whether SOs can regulate natural calls. But, I'm curious, does the EBU consider a three-card minor suit opening natural? If so, how is it that the 6-3 canape types are made illegal?

[Finch]

Against a very aggressive canape (e.g. opening a 3-card suit with 3-6) you probably need to have a complete rethink - such methods aren't legal in the EBU so I've never had to defend against them.

That's interesting. In the ACBL a three-card minor suit opening is considered natural (and thus has been exempt from most regulation). I seem to think that the Laws have recently changed in regards to whether SOs can regulate natural calls. But, I'm curious, does the EBU consider a three-card minor suit opening natural? If so, how is it that the 6-3 canape types are made illegal?

That's actually a very good question.

 

Under the new Laws the RO can regulate whatever they like (simple summary), so the EBU regulation is certainly legal now.

 

The EBU have always had a specific regulation covering canape openings where a 1-level opening may have a longer suit elsewhere as long as the 1-level opening is 4+ cards (there's a different regulation for balanced hands allowing prepared minor openings).

[hrothgar]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

The reasons for why you cannot find are that there is no weaknesses and there are many kind of canape' systems. It is quite different to play against Suspensor, Regres or Blue Club.

The expression canape was coined to describe a style of natural bidding.

 

It seems peculiar to say the least to use this expression to describe largely artificial bidding systems like Regres and Suspensor.

[skjaeran]

Against a very aggressive canape (e.g. opening a 3-card suit with 3-6) you probably need to have a complete rethink - such methods aren't legal in the EBU so I've never had to defend against them.

That's interesting. In the ACBL a three-card minor suit opening is considered natural (and thus has been exempt from most regulation). I seem to think that the Laws have recently changed in regards to whether SOs can regulate natural calls. But, I'm curious, does the EBU consider a three-card minor suit opening natural? If so, how is it that the 6-3 canape types are made illegal?

I don't think the ACBL consider open a 3-card minor natural if you can systemically do this holding a 6-card major suit. If they really do, that's pretty insane IMHO.

[david_c]

But, I'm curious, does the EBU consider a three-card minor suit opening natural?  If so, how is it that the 6-3 canape types are made illegal?

There is no rule which says a "natural" bid is allowed. So if you want to know whether a canape on 6-3 is allowed, it's irrelevant whether it is defined as "natural". Instead you have to look at the specific rules for what is allowed for 1m openings, and these say that you can play canape but only if you promise four cards in your first suit when holding a two-suited type.

 

This is very different to the ACBL, where the convention charts only deal with conventions, and it is implicit that anything not conventional is OK.

 

I'm actually not sure whether canape is considered natural. The EBU OB isn't terribly clear on this point. However there is no need for them to make it clear, because it doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. (But "normal" 3-card minor openings are certainly natural, as of 2006.)

[csdenmark]

Anybody have any info or links to someplace which discusses how to deal with canape bidding? I have found sites which touch on what they are but nothing which offers strategies  to deal with them or where the weaknesses are.

The reasons for why you cannot find are that there is no weaknesses and there are many kind of canape' systems. It is quite different to play against Suspensor, Regres or Blue Club.

The expression canape was coined to describe a style of natural bidding.

 

It seems peculiar to say the least to use this expression to describe largely artificial bidding systems like Regres and Suspensor.

Correct Richard.

 

* Suspensor uses major opening 0-2/6+ for minors.

* Regres uses major openings as ordinary canape'(3-4 major)

 

Canape' is mostly 4 major + 5 minor.

[TimG]

There is no rule which says a "natural" bid is allowed.

I thought the old Laws allowed SOs to regulate conventions, but not natural bids (except for initial actions that could be a King or more below average). This is why the ACBL can't ban 8-10 NTs, but they can bar any conventional responses to an 8-10 NT.

 

But, as I suggested, and has been confirmed by Frances, it doesn't really matter anymore since the new Laws broaden the SO's scope for regulation.

[david_c]

There is no rule which says a "natural" bid is allowed.

I thought the old Laws allowed SOs to regulate conventions, but not natural bids (except for initial actions that could be a King or more below average). This is why the ACBL can't ban 8-10 NTs, but they can bar any conventional responses to an 8-10 NT.

"Natural" is not the opposite of "conventional".

 

- "Conventional" is a term defined in the 1997 Laws.

- "Natural" is a term defined by the EBU (or ACBL, or other authority).

 

A sponsoring organisation can ban any conventions. Some of these banned conventions might well be "natural", depending on how "natural" is defined.

[TimG]

There is no rule which says a "natural" bid is allowed.

I thought the old Laws allowed SOs to regulate conventions, but not natural bids (except for initial actions that could be a King or more below average). This is why the ACBL can't ban 8-10 NTs, but they can bar any conventional responses to an 8-10 NT.

"Natural" is not the opposite of "conventional".

 

- "Conventional" is a term defined in the 1997 Laws.

- "Natural" is a term defined by the EBU (or ACBL, or other authority).

 

A sponsoring organisation can ban any conventions. Some of these banned conventions might well be "natural", depending on how "natural" is defined.

Well, is a 1♦ opening that promises three or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit, conventional? What about a 1♦ opening that promises four or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit?

[rbforster]

I don't think the ACBL consider open a 3-card minor natural if you can systemically do this holding a 6-card major suit.

If by "natural" you mean normal, no one things opening x63x hands in the 3 card suit is normal. But the GCC is very clear that an opening bid or response is consider natural if showing 3+ in a minor (or 4+ in a major), without regard to length of any other suits held. You may even find some ACBL experts choosing to open certain 1435 hands 1♦ intending on rebidding 2♣ over partner's likely 1♠ response!

 

Of course unless you are systematically opening hands with less than 10 points, under the ACBL you can open 1m on absolutely anything you want including exclusively 3m-6M hands if you're really so inclined.

[benlessard]

A simple and straitfoward vien on Canape is that its stronger when the bidding is at the 1 and 2 level because you are pretty sure of being able to show your 2 suiter but is weaker at higher level because you might not show your longest suit.

 

Long S + D

1D-----(2H)------p--------(P)

vs

1S------(2H)------p--------(P)

 

here canape is better placed then in standard.

 

But

 

1D-----(2H)------p--------(3H)

vs

1S------(2H)-----p--------(3H)

 

here you prefer to not play canape.

 

The same thing happen if you open 1M instead of 1m.

 

long D + 4M

if you are able to show the minor than opeing 1M will make thing harder for opps. But if opps raised to the 3 level your long minor will be buried more easily than the 4M would have been if you would have opened 1m.

[rbforster]

Well, is a 1♦ opening that promises three or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit, conventional?  What about a 1♦ opening that promises four or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit?

No one treats these bids as "conventional" and they are part of standard bidding in many areas.

 

- Almost all 2/1 players open 1♦ 3+ with a longer suit - just look at those 12-14 hands 4432. They've got 2 longer suits, somebody ban that method! If you want a two-suited example (instead of a balanced one), look at my above post on 1435 shapes.

 

- Likewise, it's also 2/1 standard (and in many other systems too) to open 1♦ with minimum hands that are 4=5 in the minors, intending on rebidding clubs.

 

First it was "open your longest suit", then came the canape players who open their 2nd longest suit. I think we should just cut to the chase and open our shortness. :blink:

[david_c]

Well, is a 1♦ opening that promises three or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit, conventional?  What about a 1♦ opening that promises four or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit?

Unfortunately the definition in the 1997 Laws leaves plenty of room for argument, and the WBF never issued any interpretation. So it is up to the national authorities to interpret it. Which is a rather daft state of affairs - the national authorities are supposed to be bound by Law 40, but they also get to interpret what Law 40 means. But that's the way things are.

 

So, when the EBU bans canape bids, they are (implicitly) saying that they interpret them as being conventional. We could argue about whether this interpretation makes sense, but at the end of the day the EBU has the right to interpret it however they like, unless a higher authority (the WBF or EBL) says otherwise.

 

To answer your question, I expect the EBU would say that canape bids are always conventional, whether or not they promise four cards in the suit. However they have chosen to allow canape bids that promise four cards and not allow ones that promise only three.

[guido]

No weaknesses is a significant overbid.

 

Many years ago, my regular partner and I played Blue Club. I had a strong hand (short of a 1♣ opener) with 6 hearts and 3 diamonds. I opened 1♦, planning to make a strong canape into hearts. Partner had a very weak hand with 5 hearts and 3 diamonds, so he passed. We played in 1♦ on a 3-3 fit going down one. And, while 4♥ on the 6-5 fit was not a great contract, it made and our opps got there.

 

Given the choice of contracts, I would have preferred 4♥ to 1♦.

 

As for defending against canape, it is not something I give much consideration to. It is like saying "how do you defend against a standard one of a major opening?" Just play bridge.

Well, one problem is that you were not playing Blue Team ... which does not open 3-card Diamond suits to invent a canape into a major. Roman does that, of course, but 1D is forcing in Roman.

 

As to defense ...

 

Almost everyone devises their defenses to play against their own methods. For extreme canape (e.g., 3-card majors), you might want to look at Roman's approach:

a) Cue bid is natural

;) double is often balanced or off-shape.

 

Against a more moderate type of canape (Blue Team, for example), I would suggest just using whatever you use against 4-card major standard systems.

 

Paul