canape system

[Zelandakh]

Are natural systems so simple? They have overlapping cases and often no call that accurately describes what we hold. Many artificial systems divide hands so that each hand has only one possibility, which actually simplifies matters enormously. It is also possible to create an artificial system using rules that are not really any more complicated than natural other than because of familiarity. I am completely on the opposite of this argument from you - I would regard a system without artificial calls as handicapping a pair enormously through self-affliction.

 

What you do need from your system, particularly on opening bid, is good homogeneity. Natural is one way of achieving this but not at all the only one. If you look around the internet you can find some excellent articles on the theory of building a system. I would recommend you familiarise yourself with this concept before you write off artificial opening bids completely.

[kugw]

Are natural systems so simple? They have overlapping cases and often no call that accurately describes what we hold. Many artificial systems divide hands so that each hand has only one possibility, which actually simplifies matters enormously. It is also possible to create an artificial system using rules that are not really any more complicated than natural other than because of familiarity. I am completely on the opposite of this argument from you - I would regard a system without artificial calls as handicapping a pair enormously through self-affliction.

 

What you do need from your system, particularly on opening bid, is good homogeneity. Natural is one way of achieving this but not at all the only one. If you look around the internet you can find some excellent articles on the theory of building a system. I would recommend you familiarize yourself with this concept before you write off artificial opening bids completely.

 

Why have you assumed I have written off artificial opening bids completely? I think I said that all the one bids are natural and that the two calls are a different story. In my case all the 2 openings are artificial with weak and strong options attached to all of them showing all manner of hand types.

[kenrexford]

A "natural" opening bid is illusory. As a simple example, I could design a system where a 1H opening shows 11-20 HCP with at least 5 spades. That would be called artificial. I then change my 1H opening to 1S, and it is natural. Either call shows the same thing, so the "natural" option is just a choice.

 

If what you mean is that all opening bids should have an anchor, a known suit, ok. But, that is the real point, with the fact that the anchor is the suit named being arbitrary coincidence.

 

In MICS, one of the benefits, however, is the increase in anchors. 1H and 1S openings have the same anchor as in a natural system, coincidentally the suit named. But, the MICS 2-bids of 2D, 2H, 2S, and 2NT have two anchors, generally the suit named (coincidentally) and clubs. Hence, up to this point, MICS, and Roman Club for that matter, is "superior" if you desire anchors. In fact, these calls are powerful for that very reason.

 

The sacrifice, if you will, are the 1D and 2C openings. Continuing with the thinking, these openings, in a sense, are tadically anti-anchor, by intent. It is the very fact of the divergent hand types that makes these openings safe and effective. Similarity would cause problems. Dissimilar options are easier to manage.

 

These calls end up replacing 1 or even 2 anchors with a different type of "anchor", that of dissimilarity. The dissimilarity can be thought of geometrically, or at least that is how I envision it. The 2C opening is like a three leaf clover, with the stiff being a stem. The 1D opening is more obscure. I envision two balls on a table, one with Mickey Mouse ears partially emergong. That is a little surreal, but the idea is a vision of pattern dissimilarity. Anti-anchor.

 

The interplay of these is seen in a strange place, the double. A one-suit anchor call, like standard, has a tough double. A negative double might mot seem tough, but it really is. Think about how many bridge problems, and mistakes, involve the negative double. Think about negative free bids. One suit anchors have a strain at the double.

 

Two siit anchor openings have an easy double, because it leans easy penalty.

 

What about the "anti-anchor?" Divergent openings have a strange, non obvious tendency. The antianchor opening is at the other end of the spectrum. No where near penalty. No need for an anchor itself. Values, suitable. You double with holdings like, say, 3-2-2 in the remaining suits. That is easy.

 

This may be obscure to most. MICS players may not have thought along these lines, but they will agree. The combination of two anchor openings and anti-anchor openimgs is ideal. A "natiral canape" approach, which would increase the number of one anchor openings, is not all that ideal.

[kenrexford]

I thought about this more, and I realized something else. The double after a teo anchor opening is penalty. The double after a one anchor opening shows an anchor. The inability to double after an anti anchor opening will be an anti anchor pattern, and anti anchor patterns are easier to bid than hands that lack a single, specific anchor. Hence, in a very strange way, the anti anchor opening can be seen as safer and effective because it moves the "problem hands" for Responder away from generally balanced or semi balanced messes to dovergent holdings, where there is no problem.

 

Thus, while a "natural" approach might seem easier from opener's perspective, it leaves Responder with trouble. Most trouble in bidding is on Responder's side. Think about how many bidding problems incolve what the heck Responder does.Think about the complexity of solutions, like forcing 1NT, xyz, Bart, and the like.

 

Now, consider the anti-anchor, divergent opening, creating ease for balanced or senibalanced junk, easy calls for complimentary divergent holdings.

 

The MICS approach, played, proves this. Responder almost never has a problem. Responder has a problem learning to let go of trained insanity from "natural" systems like standard, but once that is past, all is easy.

[kugw]

A "natural" opening bid is illusory. As a simple example, I could design a system where a 1H opening shows 11-20 HCP with at least 5 spades. That would be called artificial. I then change my 1H opening to 1S, and it is natural. Either call shows the same thing, so the "natural" option is just a choice.

 

If what you mean is that all opening bids should have an anchor, a known suit, ok. But, that is the real point, with the fact that the anchor is the suit named being arbitrary coincidence.

 

In MICS, one of the benefits, however, is the increase in anchors. 1H and 1S openings have the same anchor as in a natural system, coincidentally the suit named. But, the MICS 2-bids of 2D, 2H, 2S, and 2NT have two anchors, generally the suit named (coincidentally) and clubs. Hence, up to this point, MICS, and Roman Club for that matter, is "superior" if you desire anchors. In fact, these calls are powerful for that very reason.

 

The sacrifice, if you will, are the 1D and 2C openings. Continuing with the thinking, these openings, in a sense, are tadically anti-anchor, by intent. It is the very fact of the divergent hand types that makes these openings safe and effective. Similarity would cause problems. Dissimilar options are easier to manage.

 

These calls end up replacing 1 or even 2 anchors with a different type of "anchor", that of dissimilarity. The dissimilarity can be thought of geometrically, or at least that is how I envision it. The 2C opening is like a three leaf clover, with the stiff being a stem. The 1D opening is more obscure. I envision two balls on a table, one with Mickey Mouse ears partially emergong. That is a little surreal, but the idea is a vision of pattern dissimilarity. Anti-anchor.

 

The interplay of these is seen in a strange place, the double. A one-suit anchor call, like standard, has a tough double. A negative double might mot seem tough, but it really is. Think about how many bridge problems, and mistakes, involve the negative double. Think about negative free bids. One suit anchors have a strain at the double.

 

Two siit anchor openings have an easy double, because it leans easy penalty.

 

What about the "anti-anchor?" Divergent openings have a strange, non obvious tendency. The antianchor opening is at the other end of the spectrum. No where near penalty. No need for an anchor itself. Values, suitable. You double with holdings like, say, 3-2-2 in the remaining suits. That is easy.

 

This may be obscure to most. MICS players may not have thought along these lines, but they will agree. The combination of two anchor openings and anti-anchor openimgs is ideal. A "natiral canape" approach, which would increase the number of one anchor openings, is not all that ideal.

[SteelWheel]

All this discussion of canape and MICS..yet it still seems hard to find someone willing to give it a go. I have one local pard with whom I'm messing about with it; unfortunately he's a little travel-restricted, so not really able to blaze the tournament trail with him/it.

 

Anyone interested in trying some MICS with an eye toward hitting some Regional or NABC competition? I spend half my time in the Northeast, other half west coast-ish...

[kugw]

All this discussion of canape and MICS..yet it still seems hard to find someone willing to give it a go. I have one local pard with whom I'm messing about with it; unfortunately he's a little travel-restricted, so not really able to blaze the tournament trail with him/it.

 

Anyone interested in trying some MICS with an eye toward hitting some Regional or NABC competition? I spend half my time in the Northeast, other half west coast-ish...

 

 

Am willing to play canape system but not MICS and can only do so online.

[SteelWheel]

With a light balanced hand (11-12) and no 4 card major, you don't open in MICS.

 

With a light balanced hand and a 4 card major, you open the major.

 

With a 5 card major and 5332, MICS offers three options, depending on strength and card location. If light, 1M is an option. If concentration of values in the major and diamonds, opening 1D as a canape works. Or, open 1NT.

Hey Ken:

 

I don't mind slightly sounder opening bid requirements than you. What do you think of 12-15 HCP for all 1 NT opens (including 5cM, and eventual thoughts of playing Keri to sort out min/max and other issues quickly), maybe along with a meta-understanding that any hand with an A and an AK (AQJx, other similar) looks like a 12 count when NV.

 

The immediate suggestion that opening a one bid (other than 1♣ = "shape will be found here" is a very compelling part of the approach, for me,

[kenrexford]

Hey Ken:

 

I don't mind slightly sounder opening bid requirements than you. What do you think of 12-15 HCP for all 1 NT opens (including 5cM, and eventual thoughts of playing Keri to sort out min/max and other issues quickly), maybe along with a meta-understanding that any hand with an A and an AK (AQJx, other similar) looks like a 12 count when NV.

 

The immediate suggestion that opening a one bid (other than 1♣ = "shape will be found here" is a very compelling part of the approach, for me,

I don't see a problem with 12 to 15.

[PrecisionL]

I see a problem with 12-15 NT, the range is too wide. I have converted to 11+ to 14, better constructive bidding. Put 15 hcp hands somewhere else. I like Keri, new improved with 2♣ being puppet stayman for a 5cd major only.

 

Steel Wheel: How about canapé in a strong club system? Looking for 2nd tournament partner.

[Balrog49]

I just rewrote the Wikipedia article on canapé. Not all canapé systems were (or all) the same, as implied by the previous article, the examples in particular.

 

What you (the OP) play sounds vaguely like Roman Club except that 1♣ is artificial in that system: 12-16 balanced or a very strong hand. Everyone who plays canapé should read the Roman Club book along with the Italian Blue Team Bridge Book (Blue Team Club) by Garozzo and Forquet. Even if you have no desire to play those methods, the thinking that went into the systems is still valuable.

[nullve]

A real treat:

 

http://www.members.shaw.ca/kaltica/valintro.htm

[Zelandakh]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/kaltica/valintro.htm

Have I read the system notes correctly that a 12hcp 53(32) hand has to pass?

 

System designers should also probably be made aware of the first piece of advice from the site:

Holding a flat hand a person can open a natural 1C, 1D or 1H

and then rebid 1NT over an 1-of-a-suit response. Only with Spades

is this impossible. We may draw two conclusions from this: the 1S

opening should promise an unbalanced hand; and, 1NT should be used

to show 4 or 5 Spades in a flat hand.

 

Sadly I will have to wait until I have more time before I can update my system to take advantage of this insight.

[nullve]

Have I read the system notes correctly that a 12hcp 53(32) hand has to pass?

Yes, and I think hands with with 12 hcp and either 4333, 43(42) or 44(32) have to pass as well. As conservative as that sounds, Valentines actually tends to open lighter on balanced hands than Blue Club and many contemporary systems did.

 

System designers should also probably be made aware of the first piece of advice from the site:

 

 

Sadly I will have to wait until I have more time before I can update my system to take advantage of this insight.

Faulty logic aside, I think the real reason why 1♠ is unbalanced is to to be able to use the 1 step response as F1, just like in the Roman Club system, which, after all, must have been the main source of inspiration.

Edited December 4, 2015 by nullve

[Zelandakh]

Yes, and I think hands with with 12 hcp and either 4333, 43(42) or 44(32) have to pass as well. As conservative as that sounds, Valentines actually tends to open lighter on balanced hands than Blue Club and many contemporary systems did.

Not opening 12hcp hands with pure balanced shapes is a small negative but ok in the grand scheme of things. Not opening the hand with a 5 card major is a bigger issue, hence my picking out this case.

 

 

Faulty logic aside, I think the real reason why 1♠ is unbalanced is to be able to use the 1 step response as F1, just like in the Roman Club system, which, after all, must have been the main source of inspiration.

I have no problem with the idea of the 1♠ opening being unbalanced and use it myself in my favourite (admittedly 5cM) system. It makes perfect sense when you examine the number of hand types and compare with the number of bidding sequences. Indeed, my unbalanced 1♠ opening is even slightly overloaded.

 

That it logically follows that 1NT should contain 4-5 spades is simply a case of blinkered thinking - a better methodology is to try to match the number of hand patterns to the number of available (game) auctions while maintaining a solid frequency and homogeneity for each opening. At the end of the day though, what really matters is how often you reach a good contract, how resilient the system is against interference and how often you can cause difficulties for the opponents.

 

An unbalanced 5cM 1♠ opening is usually good at the first two of these, depending on what is done with the excess 5(332) hands, but bad at the third. With canapé I would expect the homogeneity to go down and thus the performance in the second category to suffer while getting a boost in category 3 - but I do not have a lot of experience with it and would trust, for example, hrothgar when he would tell me this was wrong. A 1NT opening showing spades is also good in the second category and bad in the third - the 13-16 range possibly makes it poor in the first although again it is difficult to say without having tried it out.

[nullve]

Ken, do you know how old the Valentines system is? I know it's used by some of the characters in Ward's 'Session from Hell' series (http://bridgewinners.com/article/series/the-session-from-hell/), which a Google search indicates goes back to 1997 at least. But some of Ward's remarks in his Valentines write-up suggest it's much older.

For example:

Systems use one of two methods of introducing bidder's long suits. North Americans are more familiar with the Long Suit First method. Europeans tend to prefer a canape style whereby players bid their four card suits before their five carders.

If the latter statement (about Europeans and canape) has ever been true, and then presumably only at the topmost level, it must have been many decades ago.

Another example:

Imagine the benefits of knowing that 1NT Opener has a "core" of 4-3 in the majors! Responder can compete with as few as four Hearts or as few as three Spades. Responder need not worry about competing in or running out to 2-of-a-major on a 4-card suit--only to discover that 1NT Opener has a doubleton there.

That doesn't sound like coming from someone addressing an audience whose default meaning of 'double' is takeout. That again suggests the system is quite old.

[kenrexford]

It was a while ago that I played this. Maybe 15 years ago. I had forgotten that the 1C bid was so messed up. If I recall correctly, I convinced the people I played it with to seitch to a tendency canape with the weaker club-other hands, making 1C more purely stronger when canape. The original version seemed odd after playing MICS for about two years by that point. I had remnants of Rosso e Nerro, a variant of Leghorn/Livorno on the brain and was versed in two way canape, where canape was used if sound but not if light. We also thereby dropped the two bids slightly lover somehow. Regardless, whatever the tweaks, all canape seems to work much better with Roman 2s and 2D as minors, IMO.

[all loomis]

canape has its moments, but in the end you are more likely to have strength in your long suit, so i abandoned short suit openings. i like pd to lead my suit against nt.

canape responses are more valuable: we played 1m 1s,2m 2h as 6-9 hcp, and canapeed with 10+

[Zelandakh]

canape responses are more valuable: we played 1m 1s,2m 2h as 6-9 hcp, and canapeed with 10+

What benefits do you feel you get from this approach over natural? The more common advantages given for a canapé approach seem to be missing here and, in general, most prefer either a natural or a coded (relay) approach for game and slam investigations.

[all loomis]

My regular partner and I play a canape system.

 

I know that canape systems are not a new idea. However, the way we play it is that all one suit openings are natural and do not deny a longer suit. If we have two four card suits of the same rank (minors or major) we open the lower ranking and if we have a 4 card major and a 4 card minor we open the 4 card major. This opening does not deny holding a longer suit.

 

To date we have not had problems.

long suit is better than canape. you are more likely to want your long suit led, if opps seize the auction. if you open your long suit, there is much less to be gained from substandard response. and negative x loses its value, since opener will not know if 4 are opposite, or 3, or 1.

canape was an attempt to solve a problem which the neg x solved much better.

[Zelandakh]

canape was an attempt to solve a problem which the neg x solved much better.

Negative doubles have been popularised since the 1950s (hence the old term Sputnik) but are still used at the highest level today. Do you think those expert pairs still using canapé are so out of touch with bidding theory not to be aware of this alternative?