Alerting Canape (ACBL)

[matmat]

Are canape openings alertable under acbl regulations?

[peachy]

In ACBL, canape is prealertable before every round, but not alerted during the auction.

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

 

Edit: I misinformed! Jan is right. Alert a canape rebid during the auction.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html says:

A rebid in a suit that tends to be longer than the opening bid suit (canapé) requires an Alert.

Edited March 24, 2010 by peachy

[JanM]

My conclusion from the ACBL alert chart Peach references is that canape openings are alertable. The Alert chart says:

 

Natural Calls Not Specifically Noted -> Alert -> Highly unusual strength, shape, etc

 

I think an opening one bid where it is normal for the suit opened to be shorter than another suit (except for 1 of a minor, which is specifically announceable if it can be 2) is a highly unusual shape.

 

Certainly most pairs I know who play canape openings alert them.

[mjj29]

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html says:

A rebid in a suit that tends to be longer than the opening bid suit (canapé) requires an Alert.

"tends to be" - does that mean "could be", "frequently is" or "always is"?

[Trinidad]

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html says:

A rebid in a suit that tends to be longer than the opening bid suit (canapé) requires an Alert.

"tends to be" - does that mean "could be", "frequently is" or "always is"?

With my knowledge of the English language I would say "frequently is" comes closest to "tends to be".

 

Rik

[campboy]

"Always is" is clearly not what is intended, as it would rule out the normal canape situation where the second suit is at least as long, but may be equal length.

[blackshoe]

Some people, playing SA or 2/1, will open some 4=5 minor hands 1♦, where the diamond suit is "chunkier" than the clubs. Does this happen frequently enough to be considered an agreement to open "canapé"? I'm not sure about that, but I do think it's not infrequent or unusual enough to be "highly unusual or unexpected".

 

I agree with Peachy: canapé requires a pre-alert, and an alert of the opener's rebid, but not an alert of the opening bid itself.

[keylime]

Requires both a prealert and alert in the auction.

 

Larry and I have preprinted placards that address the prealert, and alert during our bidding.

[blackshoe]

Requires both a prealert and alert in the auction.

 

Larry and I have preprinted placards that address the prealert, and alert during our bidding.

I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with me about the (non) alert of the opening bid? If so, on what basis?

 

Note: if the opening bid might not be natural (e.g., systemically opening a 3 card major), then that requires an alert — not because it's canapé, but because it's artificial.

[kenrexford]

Ask the director in charge of the event, for your mental health. I have received all sorts of screwy rulings, things like the first bid not being alerted but the second being alerted (if canape). IMO, the pre-alert, then alert everything, approach seems best, but then you do that and some people get mad that you alerted too much.

[blackshoe]

Ask the director in charge of the event, for your mental health. I have received all sorts of screwy rulings, things like the first bid not being alerted but the second being alerted (if canape). IMO, the pre-alert, then alert everything, approach seems best, but then you do that and some people get mad that you alerted too much.

Some people will "get mad" whatever you do. :P

 

My reading of the regulation is that alerting the rebid, but not the original bid, is what's required, so I object to calling a ruling that you should do that "screwy".

[jdonn]

There are definitely some people who alert too much. But most don't have the judgment to know when that is so I suppose it's the best alternative.

[kenrexford]

Ask the director in charge of the event, for your mental health.  I have received all sorts of screwy rulings, things like the first bid not being alerted but the second being alerted (if canape).  IMO, the pre-alert, then alert everything, approach seems best, but then you do that and some people get mad that you alerted too much.

Some people will "get mad" whatever you do. :blink:

 

My reading of the regulation is that alerting the rebid, but not the original bid, is what's required, so I object to calling a ruling that you should do that "screwy".

I understand the general theory. If 1♥ promises 4+ hearts, that's normal enough. (Few actually play 4-card majors any more, but whatever.)

 

The issue that I have is that no one expects a 1♥ call to show 4+♥, possibly with a seven-card spade suit that is hidden from view at the moment. That seems fairly unusual and unexpected, and I think people should know that NOW, not later, as they need to have their defense thinking on immediately.

 

But, the rule is the rule, I suppose.

[peachy]

Some people, playing SA or 2/1, will open some 4=5 minor hands 1♦, where the diamond suit is "chunkier" than the clubs. Does this happen frequently enough to be considered an agreement to open "canapé"? I'm not sure about that, but I do think it's not infrequent or unusual enough to be "highly unusual or unexpected".

 

I agree with Peachy: canapé requires a pre-alert, and an alert of the opener's rebid, but not an alert of the opening bid itself.

I don't deserve the credit, I was just posting a link and a quote from the actual ACBL regulation that covers canape.

[blackshoe]

The issue that I have is that no one expects a 1♥ call to show 4+♥, possibly with a seven-card spade suit that is hidden from view at the moment. That seems fairly unusual and unexpected, and I think people should know that NOW, not later, as they need to have their defense thinking on immediately.

 

But, the rule is the rule, I suppose.

I guess you should lobby the ACBL to change the rule. :blink:

[kenrexford]

The issue that I have is that no one expects a 1♥ call to show 4+♥, possibly with a seven-card spade suit that is hidden from view at the moment.  That seems fairly unusual and unexpected, and I think people should know that NOW, not later, as they need to have their defense thinking on immediately.

 

But, the rule is the rule, I suppose.

I guess you should lobby the ACBL to change the rule. B)

LOL ;)

[barmar]

Some people, playing SA or 2/1, will open some 4=5 minor hands 1♦, where the diamond suit is "chunkier" than the clubs. Does this happen frequently enough to be considered an agreement to open "canapé"? I'm not sure about that, but I do think it's not infrequent or unusual enough to be "highly unusual or unexpected".

I've never heard of anyone alerting this as Canape, nor of anyone being penalized for failing to alert it.

 

My understanding is that they're essentially treating the poor quality club suit as if it's only 4 cards. Responder practically always bids as if the first suit was longer, taking preference to it with equal length in the suits, and even with 2=3 minors. Bidding the suits like this isn't really a Canape agreement, it's considered the "smallest lie"; it's used simply to avoid other sequences that also misdescribe your hand. I think it's also more of a style issue than partnership agreement (I prefer not to bid like that, but I'm sure I've sat opposite partners who do, and it's not something we usually discuss when filling out a CC with a new partner).

[mycroft]

I don't pre-Alert (and think I'm right about that), but I do Alert 1D-1M; 2C in my Precision system as "could be longer than diamonds, does not encourage a preference." That one can be 1435, but 1D-(1S)-X; 2C could very easily be 3325, or (bad 4)225, and it's important that the opponents know.

 

I don't pre-Alert the system as "some canape", because that's the only situation.

[aguahombre]

Opening 1D with an unbal hand and 4 5 in the minors is not restricted to hands where the diamond suit is sgnificantly stronger. It is merely a prepared opening, so to limit the number of hands which rebid clubs without six of them. This is style, not system, for a lot of us. And it does not preclude a false preference with 2-3 in the minors (thus, no alert). A 3C third-round call by opener should be alerted, if it guarantees 4-5 and is not constructive.