If I wrote the System Regulations...

[Cascade]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

This just can't be true.

 

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

 

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

 

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

 

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

[straube]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

This just can't be true.

 

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

 

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

 

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

 

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

1D allows more room than does 1H whatever its meaning.

 

The opponents aren't really doing me any favors by opening 1D when they have hearts. What they appear to be giving me they take back again if they open 1S (or whatever) to show diamonds.

 

Also, I have to play transfers (or something good) over their opening transfers to use the available space efficiently.

[awm]

I should note that I've previously suggested a much simpler approach to this, which potentially keeps two major groups (the "no regulations" group and the "restrict fert bids and similar" group) happy.

 

Legalize all methods (assuming proper disclosure). However this should be accompanied by a slight change to the scoring table. This change will increase the penalty for undoubled undertricks, such that "stealing" from the opponents by playing in a ridiculous strain when they can make game becomes unprofitable. More specifically, I suggest keeping the score for down one (and incidentally down two) the same. When a contract fails by two or more tricks, the score is the same as the current scoring for a doubled contract failing one trick less. So NV the scores are -50, -100, -300, -500, -800, etc. The V scores are -100, -200, -500, -800, etc.

 

This removes the incentive to (for example) try to play in 2♥ with very few hearts between us and very few values in case this makes it hard for the opponents to bid properly, since 2♥-5 will be worse for us than their heart game making, even if we are undoubled and favorable.

 

Note that the scoring tables have changed as recently as 1987 (within most of our lifetimes!) so it's not like these tables are somehow sacred or tampering with them somehow breaks with the long history of duplicate bridge. I also suspect that this change will have little effect on relatively "normal" bidding and play (occasionally it might be a factor if deciding whether to go all out to make and risk going down a lot, or play safely for one off). However, it would tend to deter the fert bids and chimera preempts that many people (including me) feel should be restricted. Even though nominally "all methods are allowed" I suspect that few people would want to play these type of things and risk "undoubled down four, -500": currently many pairs who do use such methods where they are permitted do so only at NV after all.

[TimG]

This just can't be true.

 

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

 

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

 

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

 

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

One thing the defending side loses is the ability to pass with the suit shown by opener and know that they will either get another turn or have opener play in their suit.

 

If RHO opens 1♥ canape (promising only 4) and I hold a decent hand with hearts, I can pass with the knowledge that either I will get a second chance to act or they opponents will be playing in my suit.

 

If RHO opens 1♦ showing the same hand and I hold a decent hand with hearts, I can't pass with the same safety. Even though I have an extra option to show my hand, something has been taken away from me.

 

I don't think your conclusion that 1♦ must be easier to defend because of the extra option available is necessarily correct.

[CarlRitner]

This change will increase the penalty for undoubled undertricks, such that "stealing" from the opponents by playing in a ridiculous strain when they can make game becomes unprofitable.

This is what I was thinking of when I mentioned the "destructive double" earlier. But changing the scoring table is so much easier than inventing a new call.

 

Not nearly as revolutionary, or enticing, but simpler.

[blackshoe]

It seems rather disingenuous to say "all methods are allowed" while simultaneously arranging the scoring table to discourage those methods you don't like.

[Bbradley62]

Responses are allowed if:

 

They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit

They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit

They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences

They are Game Forcing

I like bidding Stayman with a 3-4-5-1 yarborough (and passing a 2♦ response). Would this be allowed?

[Mbodell]

Responses are allowed if:

 

They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit

They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit

They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences

They are Game Forcing

I like bidding Stayman with a 3-4-5-1 yarborough (and passing a 2♦ response). Would this be allowed?

For that matter regular stayman wouldn't be allowed unless it was game forcing or unless it shows a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences.

[Dirk Kuijt]

First, sorry not to have answered awm’s question sooner; I have been traveling.

 

Let me try to explain why I think that full disclosure is impossible.

 

1. As awm hinted at, style matters, and getting this information is hard. Look at the discussion held earlier in this forum about what to open with 4-4 in the minors. Frank Stewart generally favors 1C while I believe I’m right in saying that most of the people on this forum favor 1D. Stewart’s choice is going to mean that 1D will tend to be a better suit that the other choice. Obviously, when RHO opens 1D I *can* ask this question, but I’m not likely to. There are countless examples of this; sequences that may be defined by a practiced partnership (or might not be) whose meaning in terms of strength or distribution is likely to differ from my definition. While this doesn’t affect bidding all that much, simply because one side so often just passes, it will affect the defense.

 

2. As pointed out in a Bridge World editorial (which I can’t lay my hands on, so this is from memory), there is a serious risk of passing unauthorized information to partner *simply by asking about a bid*. Hence, even if I can get all the information I want perfectly (which I don’t think I can), I can’t ask the question. For example, this sequence, starting with LHO: (1H)-Pass-(2C)-?. Sounds simple, right? But, if this is against an Acol pair, where 2C might be only 8 or 9 HCP, I want my double to be takeout; this might be our hand, especially if we have the spade suit. On the other hand, if this is against Auken-von Arnim, where 2C is a semi-artificial game forcing response, then our side is outgunned in high cards; we can outbid them only with extreme distribution. But, double as a lead director is attractive, since responder doesn’t promise clubs. But, can I ask? Not really. If I have clubs, and want to consider the lead directing double, what will happen if I ask about 2C, and get the answer “long clubs, 10+”. Now, I have to pass; double risks them redoubling 2C and making overtricks. But, partner now knows that I had a problem, and it isn’t going to be hard to figure out what that problem is. Under the current laws, I don’t see a way out of this legal trap. Note that the same situation arises in point 1. If I ask, “what do you open with 4-4 in the minors?” over their 1C bid, partner knows I’ve got something good in diamonds, and partner and I have to spend the dinner break explaining our defense to a committee.

[minimonkey]

For that matter regular stayman wouldn't be allowed unless it was game forcing or unless it shows a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences.

 

Yes this would be an issue in what I wrote, I think i could just about convince people that stayman was a catchall (no 5H/S or 6C/D or Some Other Shapes or 9+ HCP no 4cM) but I like awm's solution better of allowing any forcing response.

[Free]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I disagree with your point of view. Basically you claim it's harder to defend, just because you can't let them play 1♥. However, if they open 1♦ and pass you can let them play 1♦...

 

Plus you get an extra call. You say that if they open a 4 card suit you might well belong in that suit. Well, here's your chance! You can just overcall your good 5 card suit naturally, so you'll play in that suit if you belong in it. After a natural 1♥ opening you can hardly play in ♥ ever.

 

You get some, you lose some, that's all. Just because you can't do everything you normally can, doesn't make it harder to defend. You just have other possibilities. Compare this with weak vs strong NT: which one do you want to disallow? The strong one because you can't penalty double, or the weak one because you can't show as many hand types?

 

I must admit that a 1♠ opening showing ♦ is more difficult, because you have less options as a defender, and opps will land in a good spot most of the time. But you have even fewer options if opps open 2♦ with the single suiter, and 2NT with 54+m...

[straube]

It seems rather disingenuous to say "all methods are allowed" while simultaneously arranging the scoring table to discourage those methods you don't like.

It's much better than barring methods you don't like. Right now they bar methods that don't show a suit, are designed to take up space without contributing anything useful and are designed to destroy the opponents' methods. But all those things are good bridge under the current scoring table. Of course you want to destroy the opponents' methods when the risk of doing so is small and the reward is potentially great.

 

I'm just wondering if that's the sort of game we really want to have. I'd rather have constructive bidding aimed at getting to game or slam when it's right. And sacrificing when it's right, too.

 

I held something like xx Kxxx KJxx xxx the other day and overcalled 1H against a strong club. Bad bid probably, but I was experimenting. We were favorable vulnerability. It went dbl (5-7) P P and the longest tank before a final pass. They got 500 and could have had 620. In other words, it was a real crap shoot. Opener had to make a big guess with hardly any information. They could have had slam. They could have had a fun auction to slam. Perhaps they had gadgets all prepared to get there and now they wouldn't be used. I bid 1H not because I thought it was our hand or that we might have a useful sacrifice, but to take up bidding room (much more so if partner can raise).

 

That's part of the game now, but I'd rather there was less of it.

[straube]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I disagree with your point of view. Basically you claim it's harder to defend, just because you can't let them play 1♥. However, if they open 1♦ and pass you can let them play 1♦...

 

Plus you get an extra call. You say that if they open a 4 card suit you might well belong in that suit. Well, here's your chance! You can just overcall your good 5 card suit naturally, so you'll play in that suit if you belong in it. After a natural 1♥ opening you can hardly play in ♥ ever.

 

You get some, you lose some, that's all. Just because you can't do everything you normally can, doesn't make it harder to defend. You just have other possibilities. Compare this with weak vs strong NT: which one do you want to disallow? The strong one because you can't penalty double, or the weak one because you can't show as many hand types?

 

I must admit that a 1♠ opening showing ♦ is more difficult, because you have less options as a defender, and opps will land in a good spot most of the time. But you have even fewer options if opps open 2♦ with the single suiter, and 2NT with 54+m...

Free, you don't get an "extra call" over an artificial 1D. You get the same number of calls whatever 1D means. Also suggesting that 1H (over their 1D showing hearts) should also show hearts is a really bad use of that bid. Probably transfers are best.

 

1H-spades

1S-NT

1N-clubs

2C-diamonds

2D-michaels

2H-spade preempt

[helene_t]

Agree with Straube (and AWM).

 

If the aim of the system regulations is to avoid players going for a number undoubled, then of course it is much better to target that strategy directly.

 

But: I think system regulations have other purposes. If I open 2♥, nonforcing, showing either hearts or spades, then part of the gain is that both opps have too many hearts to double so I go 6 down undoubled against a cold 4♥ their way. But it is also that sometimes opps will have misunderstandings as to whether 3♥ is a cuebid or natural in various situations. And I suppose that those who favor system regulations want to prevent me from gaining that way, also.

 

Another problem is that while system regulations are not very controversial (few people notice, let alone care, when they change), lots of people will object to a change of the score table. Especially if it is not done by WBF but by local NBOs so that the scoring table will vary between countries. Software written for the English market will give wrong scores in Scotland. BBO would probably use ACBL scoring, and people from other NBOs who use other scorings will be upset.

[blackshoe]

First, sorry not to have answered awm’s question sooner; I have been traveling.

 

Let me try to explain why I think that full disclosure is impossible.

 

1. As awm hinted at, style matters, and getting this information is hard. Look at the discussion held earlier in this forum about what to open with 4-4 in the minors. Frank Stewart generally favors 1C while I believe I’m right in saying that most of the people on this forum favor 1D. Stewart’s choice is going to mean that 1D will tend to be a better suit that the other choice. Obviously, when RHO opens 1D I *can* ask this question, but I’m not likely to. There are countless examples of this; sequences that may be defined by a practiced partnership (or might not be) whose meaning in terms of strength or distribution is likely to differ from my definition. While this doesn’t affect bidding all that much, simply because one side so often just passes, it will affect the defense.

 

2. As pointed out in a Bridge World editorial (which I can’t lay my hands on, so this is from memory), there is a serious risk of passing unauthorized information to partner *simply by asking about a bid*. Hence, even if I can get all the information I want perfectly (which I don’t think I can), I can’t ask the question. For example, this sequence, starting with LHO: (1H)-Pass-(2C)-?. Sounds simple, right? But, if this is against an Acol pair, where 2C might be only 8 or 9 HCP, I want my double to be takeout; this might be our hand, especially if we have the spade suit. On the other hand, if this is against Auken-von Arnim, where 2C is a semi-artificial game forcing response, then our side is outgunned in high cards; we can outbid them only with extreme distribution. But, double as a lead director is attractive, since responder doesn’t promise clubs. But, can I ask? Not really. If I have clubs, and want to consider the lead directing double, what will happen if I ask about 2C, and get the answer “long clubs, 10+”. Now, I have to pass; double risks them redoubling 2C and making overtricks. But, partner now knows that I had a problem, and it isn’t going to be hard to figure out what that problem is. Under the current laws, I don’t see a way out of this legal trap. Note that the same situation arises in point 1. If I ask, “what do you open with 4-4 in the minors?” over their 1C bid, partner knows I’ve got something good in diamonds, and partner and I have to spend the dinner break explaining our defense to a committee.

One of the problems with this whole "asking questions gives UI" business is the very common practice of asking initially about specific calls. It's got to the point where, if I ask about the whole auction they, instead of answering, call the director, whose first question to me is "which call did you wish to ask about?" :) Yet the Law still suggests that one should start, at least, with a request for an explanation of the entire auction. The implication is that doing so at least mitigates the UI. I grant this seems a bit silly when a call is alerted, or early in the auction. Yet even after long auctions, people pick out particular calls, instead of following correct procedure. :)

[awm]

I think I've made a clear case that over a canape transfer opening, you rather need a way to show the suit they are transferring to. Several people have suggested that the defense of overcalling their suit as natural and otherwise "bid as if they opened the suit they have." Here's why that's substantially worse than defending a natural opening.

 

(1) Suppose RHO opens 1♥ (showing spades) and I have a good hand with spades. If I overcall 1♠ natural then I'm vulnerable to going for a number if it's a misfit hand and LHO has values. If RHO had opened 1♠ natural, then it's their side that often goes for a number in an auction like 1♠-P-P-X or 1♠-P-1N-P-P-X and so forth. In other words often my way to "get in" later is to make a penalty-oriented double, not to bid my spades. But if I pass the 1♥ opening I could easily get 1♥-P-P to partner who's on a total guess and might pass it out (or at least rescue them from a misfit).

 

(2) Suppose RHO opens 1♥ and I double as "takeout of spades." Partner has a moderate hand with a stack of spades. If RHO had opened 1♠ natural, we would see 1♠-X-P-P and either opener sits (and goes for a number) or runs to an alternative suit which we can decide to double or not double based on our hands. However, RHO opened 1♥ and we see 1♥-X-P, and now partner has to guess whether my heart holding is sufficient for him to sit this double, or whether he should bid spades opposite my known shortage or what. Basically it's either a total poker game, or opponents just got completely off the hook. The situation is especially bad if I made my double on a "strong one-suiter" because the opponents could actually have quite a heart fit; we could be cold for game and defending 1♥X making. Note that this won't happen over the natural 1♠ because if we defend, it's based on partner's strong spade holding and not based on partner's "guess" of what my heart holding was for the double.

 

In other words, I think we're substantially worse off than if opponents had opened a natural 1♠. Perhaps there is some different defense that is better, but it really has to be a different defense. The "extra step" turned out to be illusory because we had to have a way to show their suit (which we didn't over the natural opening) so there's no obvious reason why it should be easier to defend the transfer call.

[Fluffy]

many people are banning my 2♦ opening to show 5-4 majors weak :).

 

in fact under most of the rules I've seen here, what do people expect a 2♦ openign to look like? how do they plan to handle the 23 balanced hands? only with a complex 2♣ opening?

[TimG]

I think I've made a clear case that over a canape transfer opening, you rather need a way to show the suit they are transferring to.

I don't think you've made that case -- I think you've said it is so -- but I don't think you've made a case that the defending side will often need a way to show the transferred to suit.

 

It would be interesting (to me, anyway) to see how often a no-suit-quality-requirement four-card opening picks off the opponents' only game strain (or only partscore strain). You'd also have to factor in how often the opening reveals the correct line of play to declarer (whether playing the suit opener showed four-cards in or in another strain) which is rather difficult to do with a double-dummy analysis.

 

If your case has been made elsewhere, I apologize, but in this thread it seems your case amounts to:

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

[Stephen Tu]

Adam, I think you are vastly exaggerating the utility of being able to double a natural 1M for penalty. How often are you really playing 1s-x and 1h-x vs. natural systems these days? I go dozens of sessions without remembering playing those contracts.

 

I think you will still get plenty of times to double them after (xfer opening)-p-(1nt)-p-p-x, and (xfer opening)-p-(2M raise on 3)-p-p-x. Yes, the xfer opening pair can occasionally fix your side by passing the xfer opening, but I think way more often they will fix themselves, being in a silly partial in your trump suit when no game your way.

 

Occasionally being fixed by opponent's weird different system is simply part of bridge IMO. I don't see anything special about xfer opening being worse than getting fixed by some other unusual currently legal method.

[jdonn]

Additionally Adam your comparison should be between transfer canape openings and normal canape openings, not 'standard' openings.

 

Sorry as I go back and read maybe you were doing that.

[awm]

Occasionally being fixed by opponent's weird different system is simply part of bridge IMO. I don't see anything special about xfer opening being worse than getting fixed by some other unusual currently legal method.

Of course to some degree this is true.

 

The point I am trying to make is that:

 

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

 

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

 

(3) The defense of "just do whatever you would do over a natural canape opening" is really not a good defense to the transfer canape opening. There are a substantial number of hand types where you will expect to get an inferior result against a transfer canape opening using this defense to the result you would've obtained against a natural canape opening.

 

With that said, it could be that transfer canape openings are "just better" or that there is some more involved defense against them which is extremely effective. But I see a number of people arguing that "natural canape openings are allowed, this is a step cheaper so it is easier to defend, what's the problem" and I do not think their point is a correct one.

[mgoetze]

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but I think you've mentioned... one?

[straube]

I see the problem when the transfer opening is passed out or when one makes a takeout double and responder passes.

 

I still think if I were defending this, I'd want to play transfers. Maybe against 1D, I'd need 2D to show my own better hearts, but I obviously am going to need a pretty good suit for this. I just can't see devoting my first bid to showing the enemy suit...especially if it is 4+ and not 4-only.

[akhare]

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

 

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

I think it will help to have a concrete example.

 

Since natural canape openings include 4-card majors, how about comparing playing against 1♥ = 4+ vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥?

 

As I see it:

 

Vs. 1♥ (4+ natural, may have longer minor):

============

 

X: Takeout

1N: NT overcall

Others natural

2♥: Presumably Michaels type cue bid

 

Vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥, may have longer minor:

===============

 

X: Power X

1♥: Limited takeout of ♥

1N: NT overcall

Others: Natural

2♥: Michaels type cue bid

 

If 1♦ get passed around, we can still presumably play X as takeout with 4+ ♦ (or a better hand) and 1♥ as takeout.

 

Of course, we have a slightly bigger problem defending against 1♠ = ♦, but I would rather play against it than 2♦ = intermediate, natural...

[straube]

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

 

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

I think it will help to have a concrete example.

 

Since natural canape openings include 4-card majors, how about comparing playing against 1♥ = 4+ vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥?

 

As I see it:

 

Vs. 1♥ (4+ natural, may have longer minor):

============

 

X: Takeout

1N: NT overcall

Others natural

2♥: Presumably Michaels type cue bid

 

Vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥, may have longer minor:

===============

 

X: Power X

1♥: Limited takeout of ♥

1N: NT overcall

Others: Natural

2♥: Michaels type cue bid

 

If 1♦ get passed around, we can still presumably play X as takeout with 4+ ♦ (or a better hand) and 1♥ as takeout.

 

Of course, we have a slightly bigger problem defending against 1♠ = ♦, but I would rather play against it than 2♦ = intermediate, natural...

That's a good structure, but would you leave any provision for showing opener's suit? Adam is concerned that 1D will get passed out when he has a good heart suit.