Yet another 4 card major (canape) system..

[akhare]

Here's a strawman for something I had in mind (inspired by KL Precision, Ultra Club etc.).

 

Your feeback will be appreciated. The only real requirement is that it be GCC or MidChart legal (sigh).

 

1♣: 15+ any

1♦: 9-14, 4♦5♣ OR any 4441 OR 5-5 in the minors

1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced, either 4 with longer minor or 6+♥ or 5+♥, 4♠

1♠: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced, either 4 with longer minor or 6+♠ or 5+♠4+♥ (no major suit canape)

1N: 12-14, balanced, including 5M332

2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣

2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦

2♥: 10-14, 5♥, 4+ minor

2♠: 10-14, 5♠, 4+ minor

 

The responses over 1♣, 2♣ are pretty well defined (symmetric relay, etc).

 

Over 1M:

 

1N: Forcing -> either sign off or GF

2♣: 2+ with invite values, doesn't promise rebid

2♦: NF, possibly invite for ♥?

2♥: NF, possibly invite for ♠?

2M: Possibly bad raise?

 

Comments?

[awm]

Why?

 

You've lost all your weak two bids and put in a bunch of bids that seem to be relatively low frequency. Compare it to the same system modified to have five-card majors at the one-level, 1♦ including (43)(51) patterns, and weak two bids. It seems like:

 

(1) It's nice to have the weak two bids available, modification wins on those hands.

(2) The modified version opens 2m instead of 1M on 4-6 hands. But this might even be a win for the modified version; Moscito for example was recently changed to this type of approach.

(3) The modified version probably wins on hands with a five-card major, since partner gets to know you have a five-card major! It definitely wins with 5-4 in the majors. Unless you believe that 2M showing 10-14 with 5M-4+m is some super effective preempt (why?) you're probably better off here with the modified version.

(4) Hands with (43)(51) shape... well... I'm not convinced that opening these hands in the major is necessarily better than opening 1♦ (which usually shows a three-suiter). The canape approach might win on these hand types. But even if it does, these are no more common than the 5M-4m types where the modified approach is superior.

[akhare]

Your points are valid -- 2m openings can have a 4 card major. The real goal was to try and come up with a Moscito like system that could be played under ACBL regulations. The thought was that the loss of the weak two openings would be offset by the frequent light one level openings (technically you are losing only the 5-8 range that can preempt).

 

The canape was an attempt to design a solution that would make it easier to sort out the relative lengths of suits in competition after a 4 card major opening.

 

Perhaps there's a better way to approach that problem?

[straube]

Rough draft of a Moscito-type system that has to open 1M naturally. Various weaknesses, but the 1D opening bothers me most.

 

1C-15+

1D-four diamonds, no major, unbalanced OR 5M/4D canape

1H-four hearts, not four spades

.....1S-forcing, could have spades

..........1N-balanced or 1-4-4-4

.....1N-GF relay, sufficient room exists to relay out hand

.....2C-requests 2D

..........2D-

...............P-

...............2H-invite with 2-fit

...............2S-invite with 6 spades

...............3m-invite with 6 minor

.....2D-good raise

.....2H-bad raise

.....2S-9-11, six spades

1S-four spades, not four hearts

.....1N-nf

.....2C-GF relay (sufficient space exists to relay the hand)

.....2D-hearts

.....2H-good raise

.....2S-bad raise

1N-12-14, no major or 4M333 or maybe balanced with very bad major

2C-both majors, 4/4 or better

.....2D-asks longer major

..........2H-4/4 or 4/5

..........2S-5/4 or 5/5

2D-multi

2H-5H/4C opening

.....2S-GF relay

2S-5S/4C opening

.....2N-GF relay

2N-unspecified minor preempt

3C-single-suited club opening

[kenrexford]

Awful. Magnifies problems. My suggestion:

 

1♣: strong

1♦: 3+♦/5+MAJ, or 6+(rare5)either minor(usually not both)

1M: 6+, or 4+ with longer second, or 55MAJ, or poss.ly mini-NT(4-5MAJ)

1NT: 13-15(12-14?)

2♣: Any 4441(2♦asking)

2♦: Both minors

2M: Bid MAJ plus clubs

2NT: Mini Minors

 

If anyone insists on having weak twos, then use this at least in 4th seat. Possibly also if RvW.

[akhare]

Take 2 -- no longer resembles canape, but:

 

1♣: 15+ any

1♦: 10-14, 4♠, could be 4432, 4441, or 4♠ longer minor

1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced

1♠: 9-14, 5+ balanced or unbalanced

1N: 12-14, balanced, could be 5M332

2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣ OR 5+♣, 4+♦

2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦, 4 card side suit possible

2♥/2♠: Preempts

[kenrexford]

Take 2 -- no longer resembles canape, but:

 

1♣: 15+ any

1♦: 10-14, 4♠, could be 4432, 4441, or 4♠ longer minor

1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced

1♠: 9-14, 5+ balanced or unbalanced

1N: 12-14, balanced, could be 5M332

2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣ OR 5+♣, 4+♦

2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦, 4 card side suit possible

2♥/2♠: Preempts

Maybe...

[MickyB]

Take 2 -- no longer resembles canape, but:

 

1♣: 15+ any

1♦: 10-14, 4♠, could be 4432, 4441, or 4♠ longer minor

1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced

1♠: 9-14, 5+ balanced or unbalanced

1N: 12-14, balanced, could be 5M332

2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣ OR 5+♣, 4+♦

2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦, 4 card side suit possible

2♥/2♠: Preempts

Oi, that's my system :rolleyes:

 

[Try searching for Gemini - I'll try to put a link here when I have more time]

 

Interesting that we reached that having started in approximately the same place - a system with 1M as (usually) either 4 cards or 6+.

[straube]

Take 2...

 

Would you open 1D with longer hearts so that 1H-1S (1N) shows 5 spades?

 

What are the responses to 1D?

 

I experimented with something like that once, but 1H was overloaded compared to 1D and I didn't like that. I also wasn't sure I had legal responses to 1D...would 1D-1S have to be natural?

 

I assume 2D is possibly 5D/4C

[dake50]

Try MAF (Majors Always First).