Canape(?) responding style

[MickyB]

In Chamaco's thread on the Precision 1♦ there was a mention of 1♦:1♥ showing 4+♠ and including 4♠5♥, so that 1♦:1♠ shows 4+♥ and denies 4♠. I have just started working on something similar (In response to 1♣, 1♦ showing ♠ and 1♥ natural) so I would be interested to see a write-up of this method or any discussion on it.

[Free]

I used to play this in a natural system over a 1♣ opening (opening with 4+♣ or NT 15-17 with 4+♣ - not 4-4♥-♣) or any NT 18-20 or 25+):

 

1♦ = negative or natural

1♥ = 4+♠, any longer suit possible

1♠ = 4+♥, <4♠

 

When opener rebids 1NT, we used checkback with invitational hands. We obligated partner to bid 1♠ with 4♥s, but then he was unbalanced since we opened 1♥ with 4432 4♣-4♥ ;)

 

1♣ - 1♥

1NT - ?

 

2♣ = checkback

2♦ = 5-4 ♠-♦

2♥ = 5+♥, 4♠

2♠ = 5+♠

 

1♣ - 1♥

2♣ - ?

 

2♦ = 5-4 or 4-5 ♠-♦

2♥ = 5+♥, 4♠

2♠ = 5+♠

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - ?

 

2♦ = GF relay (4th suit)

other natural

 

1♣ - 1♠

1NT - ?

 

2♣ = checkback

2♦ = 5-4 ♥-♦

2♥ = 6+♥

2♠ = GF 5+♥, 4+♠

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣ - ?

 

2♦ = 5-4 ♥-♦

2♥ = 6+♥

2♠ = GF 5+♥, 4+♠

[Chamaco]

I used to play this in a natural system over a 1♣ opening (opening with 4+♣ or NT 15-17 with 4+♣ - not 4-4♥-♣) or any NT 18-20 or 25+):

 

1♦ = negative or natural

1♥ = 4+♠, any longer suit possible

1♠ = 4+♥, <4♠

 

This is completely different from the responses to 1D opener :-)

 

When we open 1D and pard responds, we are not in a GF auction, so there is a chance that responder will not be able to rebid over 1NT.

So, if 1NT here is a passable rebid, responder may have still some distributional features leading to a better partscore, but not being strong enough to show them (or else risk a big misfit).

In this case the whole point is whether opener can rebid 1NT "hiding" a 4 card major in order to better describe the hand.

 

Totally different is this auction, when one opens a big club and responder gives a positive response.

When bidding goes 1C:1M (promising the other major), we ARE in a GF auction, so the structure can be more flexible, since both pards have the chance to show distributional features later; in other words, the 1NT rebid will NEVER be passed.

[david_c]

To Chamaco:

 

I don't think Free's method is a big club - it's a short forcing club, and I suspect 1♣:1M,1NT is non-forcing.

 

 

To Mike:

 

I don't see why it's so useful to have 1♣:1♥,1♠ free. Playing a strong no-trump then it would be useful for sorting out the balanced ranges, but playing a weak no-trump I'd be worried about wrongsiding 1NT after this sequence.

[MickyB]

I haven't actually decided on a NT range yet lol....am keeping my options open :P

[awm]

This sort of idea came up recently in the forums. As I mentioned before, there are two styles of rebidding after 1m-1M, depending on how frequently opener raises on three card support. If you're of the school that almost never raises on three, then canape response style may well be advantageous. But if you raise on three frequently, canape responses will create a number of issues. See:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...t=0entry61057

[Free]

To Chamaco:

 

I don't think Free's method is a big club - it's a short forcing club, and I suspect 1♣:1M,1NT is non-forcing.

If you can read, you'll notice it's a hybrid, a little PC-like B)

[Chamaco]

To Chamaco:

 

I don't think Free's method is a big club - it's a short forcing club, and I suspect 1♣:1M,1NT is non-forcing.

If you can read, you'll notice it's a hybrid, a little PC-like B)

Sorry Frederic,

I assumed you were talking of the Moscito version you play with Richard.

 

I should have read more carefully your post, I apologize for that :)