canape preempts?

[rbforster]

If you've got some two-level openings free for weak bids, what do you think about some sort of canape 2 suiters, perhaps showing 4 cards (or 4+?) in the suit opened and a longer higher ranking suit?

 

2m 4+ that minor, 5+ in a major

2M 4+ in that major, 5+ in a minor

 

I'm unsure whether it would be better to have these show exactly 4 cards in the suit opened vs 4+ cards and a longer higher suit. It seems in particular that the 2m preempts would be hard to defend since having takeout shape for a double is going to be pretty unlikely with opener having a 5 card major.

[the hog]

Why?

[straube]

I think the 2m preempt would be successful, but you'd have to compare it to other uses for those bids; good point that the opponents will often not have the right shape for a takeout double. The 2M doesn't have law protection; you're too high.

[rbforster]

I think the 2m preempt would be successful, but you'd have to compare it to other uses for those bids; good point that the opponents will often not have the right shape for a takeout double. The 2M doesn't have law protection; you're too high.

Yeah, it's possible the 2M versions aren't nearly as good as the 2m ones, I just threw them both out there for consideration without tons of thought. There's overlap with the 5M/5m hands, so that's probably a bad sign. It's possible one might want to play the 2m ones as canape 2-suiters, but 2M as natural weak twos or something else weird (2H majors, 2S bad minor preempt?).

[straube]

I'd just look at hundreds of hands and see how it works out. Like I've said, your present use of 2m is really obnoxious to defend against, so this similar idea might work out, too. Also, I'm not sure how to put this, but your odds of fit-finding may increase if you're playing canape than say opening 2D with 4M/5D because advancer will be less afraid from removing the contract to the major when the minor is not a fit.

 

I mean, if advancer has 5215 and hears 2D, he'll probably sit if pd advertises 4M/5D (even though a 9-cd spade fit is possible) but he'll remove if pd has 5M/4D.

[rbforster]

your odds of fit-finding may increase if you're playing canape than say opening 2D with 4M/5D because advancer will be less afraid from removing the contract to the major when the minor is not a fit.

 

I mean, if advancer has 5215 and hears 2D, he'll probably sit if pd advertises 4M/5D (even though a 9-cd spade fit is possible) but he'll remove if pd has 5M/4D.

I think it's actually going to be worse for fit-finding to have the known, cheaper suit be the shorter one. Figure that opposite 4D/5M it's most likely you belong in the major, so what do this mean? First, it means responder is going to be correcting a lot, which is generally bad since it gives the defense two bites at the apple. Second, the longer suit is unknown, which means that responder may want to take a chance to improve the contract by correcting since he only needs 33(4=3m) shape to think that correcting is better, maybe even (32)(5=3m) is still worth it if you'd rather play the 5-2 2M contract over the 4-3 minor and it's certainly going to be right when it's a 5-3 fit you find. In short, it seems like if you respond conservatively to just find the best fit, I think you're going to bid 2M as pass/correct a lot and sometimes have to recorrect back to 3m which is clearly unfortunate.

 

All that said, I think IF responder was willing to pass a lot these canape preempts would be quite difficult to defend. I guess in some way, it's almost like playing both 2♣ and 2♦ as "multi" with a 5cM, but you bid your better minor so partner can pass if he wants.

[Free]

Never tried it, and never felt the need to try it either.

[32519]

If you've got some two-level openings free for weak bids, what do you think about some sort of canape 2 suiters, perhaps showing 4 cards (or 4+?) in the suit opened and a longer higher ranking suit?

 

2m 4+ that minor, 5+ in a major

2M 4+ in that major, 5+ in a minor

 

I'm unsure whether it would be better to have these show exactly 4 cards in the suit opened vs 4+ cards and a longer higher suit. It seems in particular that the 2m preempts would be hard to defend since having takeout shape for a double is going to be pretty unlikely with opener having a 5 card major.

 

I believe that this idea is certainly worth some deeper analysis. Compare -

1.) This suggested opening (4 cards in that minor and a 5 card major), to

2.) Muiderberg (5 cards in that major and 4(5) cards in a minor

 

When responder sees a looming misfit the hand probably belongs to the opponents. You can bail out sooner. On the other hand I would like to know what your suggested continuation bidding structure looks like when a fit is known (found) e.g. Getting the weaker hand on table as dummy.

[rbforster]

I believe that this idea is certainly worth some deeper analysis. Compare -

1.) This suggested opening (4 cards in that minor and a 5 card major), to

2.) Muiderberg (5 cards in that major and 4(5) cards in a minor

 

When responder sees a looming misfit the hand probably belongs to the opponents. You can bail out sooner.

Certainly showing 4(5) minor cards and 5+ major cards has to be safer opening the hand 2m vs 2M. I'm less clear whether this makes it a more effective preempt (since responder may quite often correct to 2M and that puts you back in a similar situation as Muiderberg). However, if you think the Muiderberg M+m hands are worth opening preemptively, this might give you a way to open these hands with your 2m openers while still having a natural 6+ weak two for 2M.

 

 

On the other hand I would like to know what your suggested continuation bidding structure looks like when a fit is known (found) e.g. Getting the weaker hand on table as dummy.

So I normally play 5+m/4+M for my 2m openers, but I don't think the basic responses would need to be that different. We play:

 

2♣ weak two with ♣ + Major

 

2♦ relay, usually invitational. Opener bids his other major (which can be passed), after which 2N invites.

---> 2C-2D-2OM-2N: 3♣ min (NF), 3♦+ max with shape relays for the 2 suit lengths

2M pass or correct

2N GF relay. 3♣ spades, 3♦ hearts (transfer), 3OM 6M-4m, 3N+ extreme shapes

3♣ preemptive raise

3♦ GF natural

3M pass or correct

4♣ preemptive raise

3N, 4M to play

 

2♦ weak two with ♦ + Major

 

2M pass or correct

2N invite relay. 3♣ = hearts min, 3♦ spades min, 3M that major max (or maybe opposite major?)

3♣ GF relay. 3♦ = hearts (transfer), 3♥ = spades (transfer), 3♠+ extreme shapes

3,4♦ preemptive

3M pass or correct

4♣ GF natural

3N, 4M to play

[the hog]

You still have not said why you want to do this. What are the advantages? The only advantage I can see is if you are playing a big C system. Nardin and Lodge used to play that 2M showed 4 in the M and longer Cs with 10-15.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I used to play an assumed fit preempt style in which

 

2♦ showed 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major

2♥ showed 4+ hearts and (4+ spades or 5+ clubs)

2♠ showed either 4+ spades and 5+ clubs OR 6+ spades

 

I thought that it worked pretty well

[rbforster]

You still have not said why you want to do this. What are the advantages?

I'm not sure I want to do this. However, in terms of advantages, it occurs to me that:

 

1. 2-suited preempts are often "safer" than 1-suited ones, which is good (statistically you get more law level fits)

2. 2-suited preempts are equally or more frequent than 1-suiters (by about 2x for the 4+m/5+M shapes compared to a weak two)

3. 2-suited preempts, especially ones with an unknown major, can be hard to defend against

 

Of course arguments #1 & #2 have nothing in particular to do with a canape preempting style, as opposed to my current style or Muiderberg where you open in your longer suit.

 

That said, most defensive bidding methods over preempts tend to assume the bid suit is the long/anchor suit and are aimed at finding fits in the unbid major(s). This means that if people use standard methods to defend against your canape preempts, they probably will have some hard bidding problems - isn't that the point of preempts? Alternatively, if they want to use a better defense, they're going to be facing a "Multi" type problem where there's a long unknown major that complicates their takeout methods and would involve quite detailed methods to handle decently. In addition, responder is a lot more able to pass the natural minor openings than he would over 2♦ multi having his own long suit. I would judge that something like this is intermediate in difficulty for the defense between a normal 2♦ Multi and a non-forcing 2♥ Multi. Either is going to be hard.

[awm]

I'm not convinced that 2m openings are really that hard for a good pair to deal with, regardless of meaning. What's tougher is the 3-level (or higher). The reason we open 2x preempts is to a great degree in the hope that partner can raise (or perhaps to protect against partner being the one preempted). So I'm not convinced about these 2m bids (which are hard to raise since they show only 4). It may be worth mentioning that Sam did some analysis of Muiderburg in high level competition and found that it wasn't a significant winner when it came up. Polish twos (5+/5+) are a lot better.

[straube]

I'm not convinced that 2m openings are really that hard for a good pair to deal with, regardless of meaning. What's tougher is the 3-level (or higher). The reason we open 2x preempts is to a great degree in the hope that partner can raise (or perhaps to protect against partner being the one preempted). So I'm not convinced about these 2m bids (which are hard to raise since they show only 4). It may be worth mentioning that Sam did some analysis of Muiderburg in high level competition and found that it wasn't a significant winner when it came up. Polish twos (5+/5+) are a lot better.

 

I think that's a great point. It's important to be able to further the preempt.

[Finch]

One of the top English pairs (Crouch/Patterson) play something similar. They play a strong 1C system with a 1D opening as 0+ diamonds (either 10-13 balanced, or diamonds, or non-single-suited clubs). Their 2-level openings are

 

2m = weak with 4(+) cards in the minor, 5 cards in one of the majors OR minimum opening bid, single suited in the minor opened

2M = natural & weak

2NT = either 14-15 (ish) with long diamonds or a good 3M opening

 

(their card is at http://www.bridgewebs.com/bgb/PattersonCrouch.pdf )

 

I don't know how well these pre-empts actually work... the 2m opening only came up once against us and they bid to 4S and went off on a bad trump break.

 

We agreed to treat the 2m opening more like a multi than weak with the minor opened (i.e. double balanced-ish)