Decline of Canape and other bidding history questions

[sakuragi]

For most common seq. No matter canapé 5cM there is a meaning associated with it. It is a matter of how one distribute those.

There is a Chinese saying "a good general would not send the best soldiers at their first move". Canapé seems just doing that.

For why 5cM gains traction. I would think that it's easier. It happens everywhere, not just in bridge game.

 

😀😀😀

[sakuragi]

Yet another saying "deploy your resources to where it is most needed"

For locating 53 fit which i think 5cM is better at, there is not much diff playing nt

For locating 44 fit which I think canapé is better at, one would be better off playing suit

Canapé seems just doing that

 

 

😀😀😀

[johnu]

Isn't this the converse of the problem that Flanery exists to solve?

Well, one of the reasons Flannery was invented was to "solve" a problem with 4 spade-5 heart hands where opener didn't have a good rebid over a response of 1NT. With Blue Team canape, opener has a very convenient rebid of 2♥ after a 1♠ opening, but adds the problem of ambiguous suit lengths.

 

Of course you could add on Flannery to your convention card, or reverse Flannery (5 spades and 4 hearts) and you would reduce some ambiguity. But Flannery isn't part of Blue Team Club so you are creating your own variation, and Flannery doesn't help at all in all the other 2 suited hands that have ambiguous suit lengths after canape sequences. e.g.

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1np2dp]133|100[/hv]

 

or

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1np2c]133|100[/hv]

 

The suit lengths are ambiguous and responder may have to just guess what to do.

 

The original French version's rule is that if a major is 4 cards, you open it before showing a longer suit. If the major is 5 or more cards, it is named second unless it is the only suit.

 

So 1S means either exactly 4 spades with a 5 card or longer side suit. OR 6+ spades. I.e. specifically *not* 5.

 

And if you are playing with a 12-14 no-trump, then you also know that partner either has extra strength or a singleton or void.

Blue Team has its own version of canape with different rules for minimum hands and reverse strength hands (within the context of a strong 1♣). Blue Team canape is definitely not the same as French canape.

 

Are you talking about a strong club system? Blue Team doesn't use weak NT. Suppose you switch to weak NT. What do you bid with a 5-3-3-2 hand with 15-16 HCP with 5 cards in the major (Blue Team 1♣ shows 17+ for unbalanced hands or 18+ for balanced hands). Would you have to canape with a 3 card suit since 1M specifically does not show 5 cards? (In Blue Team, a reverse shows a maximum and strong playing hand. 5=3-3-2 with 15 HCP is not a strong playing hand by Blue Team standards).

 

The competitive bidding rules have to be adjusted as well. In standard, what happens if you open 1 club and get over-called 3 diamond? It's the same issue, it just crops up in a different place. And negative doubles and the like can deal with them just the same.

 

The two situations are about equally as likely and worth equally as many points. That's what I meant when I said that the systems were equivalent in a strict way. (Which could be the issue -- if they are strictly equivalent, there's no benefit to using the less popular one.)

 

We could go through a bunch of cases if we had sets of example hands. But you know the over-caller has 6+ clubs and limited HCP. So you can make a reasonable inference from your distribution to figure out what is probable for your partner and 4th seat.

 

If you have a lot of clubs, you know that the over-caller has a misfit and would bid accordingly.

 

If you don't, then you probably have diamonds-hearts, a negative double would communicate that. And partner will be able to find a fit in either or he'll repeat the spades to tell you it's a single suited hand which you can then raise to game if you have the values. Or if his 5-card side suit was clubs, then he'll leave the double in place and you'll play for penalties.

Common sense says that the more you have to guess, the more likely you are to guess wrong. Obviously you want to minimize the guessing part of a system and without special tools, you can't do more than guess. Of course, preempts usually work, that's why there is more preempting these days.

 

In classic Blue Team, opening 1 of a major shows 4+ cards in the major, but does not promise a 5+ card side suit if opener only has 4 spades. So, with 4=3=3=3 or 4=2-3-4 you would normally open 1♠. You can't make the assumption that opener either has 5+ spades or a 5+ card side suit playing classic Blue Team. (FWIW I open balanced hands that are not in the 1NT HCP range with 1♦ so I don't have that particular problem)

 

You could probably do some adjustments with Blue Team Club's no-trump structure and opening bids to get a similar result. (Because the real problem is that the ambiguous nature of their 1NT bid has resulted in inferences about 1S being convoluted.)

If you are talking about about the wide range 13-17 HCP opening 1NT, I don't think many played that since soon after Garozzo and Forquet published their book on Blue Team Club. There are too many theoretical problems with playing a 5 point HCP range. I think most Blue Team players switched to a "standard" 15-17 1NT although some may have gone to a weak NT.

 

FWIW, I play 15-17 1NT which can include a 5 card major.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, my preferred bidding system is MOSCITO which uses a four card majors based approach with a majors first bidding style.

 

As a result, there is some ambiguity with respect to the relative length of a major and a minor following auctions like

 

1♥ - 1NT

2♦

 

The way in which we typically sort this type of thing out is

 

1. We use relays for hands where we really care about relative length of the two suits

2. (Almost) all constructive hands with 3 card support for openers major will make an immediate raise

 

As a result, if we have an auction like

 

1♥ - 1NT (Note: The 1!H opening shows 4+ Spades)

2♦ - 2♠

 

Opener is showing a balanced hand with precisely two Spades, and by implication must have 3 cards in Diamonds.

(If opener had 4+ Diamonds, he would have passed or raised)

[sakuragi]

apology if i have hijacked the thread. the title suggests that it is more on history than merits :lol: :lol:

 

it is very well said in the wiki page for advantage of canape.

wiki page

 

there is one hand in the wiki page that does not match with my understanding (from the book blue team club chinese translated, tons of web, hamman/wolff/soloway cc, hand records etc)

 

With the spade and diamond suits reversed (♠AQJ94 ♥5 ♦KQ73 ♣J54) the prescribed opening is 1♦ followed by a spade bid in the next round.

For this hand my understanding is that it would be opened 1s. because from my understanding

• 
   
  
• in canape opener reverse or jump shows max similar with standard.
  
• lowest level nt rebid shows min, may be diff with standard (when the nt rebid is reverse e.g. 1s-2c-2nt. 2nt yet shows min in canape)
  
• lowest level rebid suit generally shows min
  

for this hand (considered min) after 1s - 2c (2/1 forcing till 2nt) the opener rebid 2s. the opener may opt to pass after 1s - 1nt (non forcing), or he may opt for 2s (but not 2d).

edit: I recall that in the blue team club book there is a section for after 1nt. 2d is possible and result in unclear s/d length. responder may also canape. etc. making things very confusing e.g. responder canape into opener 2nd (long) suit.....

2d not possible seems to be from roman or other materials.

 

i also note the below statement from wiki page.

The following examples apply to some canapé systems but not all:

wonder about your canape understanding on this hand?

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

addendum: I guess this post explains quite well why canape decline lol

[KingCovert]

apology if i have hijacked the thread. the title suggests that it is more on history than merits :lol: :lol:

 

it is very well said in the wiki page for advantage of canape.

wiki page

 

there is one hand in the wiki page that does not match with my understanding (from the book blue team club chinese translated, tons of web, hamman/wolff/soloway cc, hand records etc)

 

 

For this hand my understanding is that it would be opened 1s. because from my understanding

• 
   
  
• in canape opener reverse or jump shows max similar with standard.
  
• lowest level nt rebid shows min, may be diff with standard (when the nt rebid is reverse e.g. 1s-2c-2nt. 2nt yet shows min in canape)
  
• lowest level rebid suit generally shows min
  

for this hand (considered min) after 1s - 2c (2/1 forcing till 2nt) the opener rebid 2s. the opener may opt to pass after 1s - 1nt (non forcing), or he may opt for 2s (but not 2d).

edit: I recall that in the blue team club book there is a section for after 1nt. 2d is possible and result in unclear s/d length. responder may also canape. etc. making things very confusing e.g. responder canape into opener 2nd (long) suit.....

2d not possible seems to be from roman or other materials.

 

i also note the below statement from wiki page.

 

wonder about your canape understanding on this hand?

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

addendum: I guess this post explains quite well why canape decline lol

 

I reject the notion that Canape declined. The Blue Team only won like what? 13 championships? Were they in a row? I know there was a cheating controversy, but that was literally the new pair that was added after the regular pair that was present for the first 12 left the team. The only reason they stopped playing the Blue Team Club is because they were paid to play Precision (a truly horrible system). Consequently, they never won a championship again... Not surprising... 5-card majors and a strong club is such an inconsistent set of agreements. It's great when you get dealt 5-card majors... 5-card majors are obviously better when you get dealt 5-card majors all the time. It's just not frequent enough to clearly claim they are better, and certainly not frequent enough to undertake the difficulties of 5-card majors with an artificial 1♣ opening bid.

 

Also, I don't think you understand Canape very well. So, I'd really slow down on asserting any correctness in your opinion on it. I think you're being very inflexible with your understanding of Canape, for example, here are my agreements with partner.

 

1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ > ♦. Weaker than a 3♠ raise.

1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ > ♦. It says nothing about strength. 90% forcing-ish... But I'm limited in strength by not opening 1♣.

1♦-P-1♥-P-2♠ = 6♠ (so rarely is it ever more), exactly 4♦. I had a 1♠ bid available, so partner would prefer that given my definition of the sequence above, I should be even longer in ♠, not stronger.

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-2♦ = At least 4♠, at least 5♦ #♠ <= #♦. Partner should raise ♠ with a hand that is 3541 for example. 1NT is not forcing, and certainly shouldn't be bid with a hand that doesn't want to play NT. Opener will hold something in the range of 4.65-->4.70 ♥/♠ on the average 1♥/♠ opener.. There is just no problem here, as long as you're aware that you've agreed to raise with 3-card support sometimes.

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-3♦ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, not a maximum.

1♦-P-1♥/1NT-P-3♠ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, maximum.

 

2♦ opener = 5-6 ♦. 4♣

2♥ opener = 5-6 ♥. 4♣

2♠ opener = 5-6 ♠. 4♣

 

We've just never had a problem patterning out. If your partner is remotely competent at balancing when you have to take a pass with a concealed 5-card suit, you're just fine. When opponents preempt with a long suit, your opening hand almost always tends to be two-suited. There are so many inferences that can be taken in Canape auctions, and knowing how to properly handle competition is required, but also not difficult.

[johnu]

With the spade and diamond suits reversed (♠AQJ94 ♥5 ♦KQ73 ♣J54) the prescribed opening is 1♦ followed by a spade bid in the next round.

 

For this hand my understanding is that it would be opened 1s. because from my understanding

• 
   
  
• in canape opener reverse or jump shows max similar with standard.
  
• lowest level nt rebid shows min, may be diff with standard (when the nt rebid is reverse e.g. 1s-2c-2nt. 2nt yet shows min in canape)
  
• lowest level rebid suit generally shows min
  

for this hand (considered min) after 1s - 2c (2/1 forcing till 2nt) the opener rebid 2s. the opener may opt to pass after 1s - 1nt (non forcing), or he may opt for 2s (but not 2d).

edit: I recall that in the blue team club book there is a section for after 1nt. 2d is possible and result in unclear s/d length. responder may also canape. etc. making things very confusing e.g. responder canape into opener 2nd (long) suit.....

2d not possible seems to be from roman or other materials.

You are correct. The Blue Team opening is 1♠ because the hand is not strong enough to open 1♦ and reverse into spades. Blue Team canape differs from many other canape systems. Opener can certainly decide to pass 1NT, but the recommended rebid is 2♦ not 2♠.

 

Blue Team canape reverses/jump shifts have fewer points than standard because 17+ HCP hands are opened 1♣. Having 15-16 HCP in an unbalanced hand is not enough to reverse if lots of points are in the short suits (i.e. not enough honor cards in the long suits). The longer suit needs to be very good. With 10-11 cards in 2 suits, the HCP requirements can be relaxed.

 

Rebidding 2NT after a 2/1 response is not considered a reverse. In classic Blue Team, you might open 1♠ on 4=3=3=3 or 4=2=4=3. 2NT just shows a minimum balanced/semi-balanced hand. Otherwise, you don't have a good rebid. If you can't bid 2NT with those hands, you would have to represent having 5+ spades by rebidding 2♠ or a 5+ card side suit by rebidding 2 of a red suit. With a maximum balanced hand you would have opened 1NT.

 

You can have maximum HCP and make a minimum rebid in a lower ranking suit. This hand has 16 HCP but the diamond suit is not good enough to jump shift in diamonds.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak2hkq32dkj532c2]133|100[/hv]

 

This 16 HCP hand is not good enough to open 1♦ and reverse into hearts

[hv=pc=n&s=sak2haj632dk532cj]133|100[/hv]

[pescetom]

The only reason they stopped playing the Blue Team Club is because they were paid to play Precision (a truly horrible system). Consequently, they never won a championship again...

 

I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. They may well have been paid to play Precision, but Taiwan gave them a close run in the 1969 Bermuda Bowl playing Precision - and consequently they won the 1972 Olympiad and the 1973, 1974 and 1975 Bermuda Bowls playing Precision.

[johnu]

I reject the notion that Canape declined. The Blue Team only won like what? 13 championships? Were they in a row? I know there was a cheating controversy, but that was literally the new pair that was added after the regular pair that was present for the first 12 left the team. The only reason they stopped playing the Blue Team Club is because they were paid to play Precision (a truly horrible system). Consequently, they never won a championship again... Not surprising... 5-card majors and a strong club is such an inconsistent set of agreements. It's great when you get dealt 5-card majors... 5-card majors are obviously better when you get dealt 5-card majors all the time. It's just not frequent enough to clearly claim they are better, and certainly not frequent enough to undertake the difficulties of 5-card majors with an artificial 1♣ opening bid.

 

Also, I don't think you understand Canape very well. So, I'd really slow down on asserting any correctness in your opinion on it. I think you're being very inflexible with your understanding of Canape, for example, here are my agreements with partner.

There are several versions of canape. You play your own version of canape. That's great, but it is not Blue Team Canape.

 

1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ will always be longer than diamonds. Weaker than a 3♠ raise.

Blue Team canape shows at most 4 spades. With 5+ spades you would have a spade reverse hand and make a stronger rebid than 2♠ which shows a minimum hand.

 

1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ will always be longer than diamonds. It says nothing about strength. 99% forcing... But I'm limited in strength.

Blue Team canape shows 4 spades exactly. With a minimum 2 suited hand with 9+ cards in the 2 suits you open the higher ranking suit. With 5+ spades you were intending to reverse so your rebid would be 2♠

 

1♦-P-1♥-P-2♠ = at least 6♠, exactly 4♦. #♠ > #♦. I had a 1♠ bid, so partner would prefer that given my definition of the sequence above, I should be even longer in ♠, not stronger.

Blue Team canape shows 5+ spades, and 4+ diamonds.

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-2♦ = At least 4♠, at least 5♦ #♠ <= #♦. Partner should raise ♠ with a hand that is 3541 for example. 1NT is not forcing, and certainly shouldn't be bid with a hand that doesn't want to play NT. Opener will hold something in the range of 4.65-->4.70 ♠ on the average 1♥/♠ opener.. There is just no problem here, as long as you're aware that you've agreed to raise with 3-card support sometimes.

Blue Team canape can also show 4 diamonds, 5 spades. You can raise 1M to 2M with 3 card support, but you aren't required to raise with every hand with 3 card support.

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-3♦ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, not a maximum.

Blue Team canape implies only 4 spades with reverse strength.

 

1♦-P-1NT-P-3♠ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, maximum.

Not addressed in Blue Team canape. Another possible meaning is long running diamonds with a self splinter in the jump bid suit. My interpretation is that if showing a 2 suiter, spades should be at least 6 cards long. Responder should discount minor honors in the other suits when evaluating a suit contract.

 

We've just never had a problem patterning out. If your partner is remotely competent at balancing when you have to take a pass with a concealed 5-card suit, you're just fine. When opponents preempt with a long suit, your opening hand almost always tends to be two-suited. There are so many inferences that can be taken in Canape auctions, and knowing how to properly handle competition is required, but also not difficult.

I don't necessarily agree with you but I like your confidence.

[KingCovert]

There are several versions of canape. You play your own version of canape. That's great, but it is not Blue Team Canape.

 

 

Blue Team canape shows at most 4 spades. With 5+ spades you would have a spade reverse hand and make a stronger rebid than 2♠ which shows a minimum hand.

 

 

Blue Team canape shows 4 spades exactly. With a minimum 2 suited hand with 9+ cards in the 2 suits you open the higher ranking suit. With 5+ spades you were intending to reverse so your rebid would be 2♠

 

 

Blue Team canape shows 5+ spades, and 4+ diamonds.

 

 

Blue Team canape can also show 4 diamonds, 5 spades. You can raise 1M to 2M with 3 card support, but you aren't required to raise with every hand with 3 card support.

 

 

Blue Team canape implies only 4 spades with reverse strength.

 

 

Not addressed in Blue Team canape. Another possible meaning is long running diamonds with a self splinter in the jump bid suit. My interpretation is that if showing a 2 suiter, spades should be at least 6 cards long. Responder should discount minor honors in the other suits when evaluating a suit contract.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with you but I like your confidence.

 

Haha fair enough, I wasn't claiming that these were the Blue Team agreements for Canape, just that we play a system that is inspired by some of their agreements. It works well in my opinion, I'd encourage others to try and judge for themselves. Regarding my statement on balancing, it's just so obvious when you're in a two-suited auction. We also play a Baby NT (10-12), so often you're protected either way. A legit two-suiter or a "strong" NT is opposite you.

[johnu]

I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. They may well have been paid to play Precision, but Taiwan gave them a close run in the 1969 Bermuda Bowl playing Precision - and consequently they won the 1972 Olympiad and the 1973, 1974 and 1975 Bermuda Bowls playing Precision.

And there was a group of relatively unknown American players (including Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel) who became a dominant team in the ACBL along with the Dallas Aces for several years in the early 70's. Also many top pairs today are playing a Precision based system, including Meckstroth-Rodwell.

[KingCovert]

I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. They may well have been paid to play Precision, but Taiwan gave them a close run in the 1969 Bermuda Bowl playing Precision - and consequently they won the 1972 Olympiad and the 1973, 1974 and 1975 Bermuda Bowls playing Precision.

 

There could be so many reasons why Taiwan was successful. Was precision just better? I don't personally believe it for a second. Was it because they didn't play precision as well? Did the Blue Team just decline as players as they aged? I'm not the greatest scholar on bridge history, so I won't state with any authority. I just think we should be skeptical of claims suggesting that Canape fell off a cliff. The best team to ever play it was in fact paid to move away from it, and never had success on the same scale again. 5-card majors have been adopted in recent years without much analytical consideration. They're just not as good as purported. People make the argument that "everyone plays it, so it must be better" here in North America. I literally had someone who won a NABC pairs event tell me something to the effect that, "4-card majors are a relic of the past and there's a reason everyone plays 5-card majors". As soon as you ask for the reasons why.

 

I mean, 5-card majors are great, when you're dealt 5-card majors. And they're still okay when you're not. You'll get dealt a lot of hands with 5-card majors... But, whether they're better.... They may be marginally worse. Either way.... I just hate them with a strong club. Systems with fundamental flaws are a bad foundation to make new agreements upon... You're always stuck with those flaws.

[johnu]

Haha fair enough, I wasn't claiming that these were the Blue Team agreements for Canape, just that we play a system that is inspired by some of their agreements. It works well in my opinion, I'd encourage others to try and judge for themselves. Regarding my statement on balancing, it's just so obvious when you're in a two-suited auction. We also play a Baby NT (10-12), so often you're protected either way. A legit two-suiter or a "strong" NT is opposite you.

13 points is a strong NT? B-) OK, it's not the weakest hand you can have but I would categorize 13 as weak NT strength. Even if you have 16-17 points, points do not always make up for lack of trump support.

[MaxHayden]

To clarify, my original question was how did we get from Alberan's system to Blue Team's very different take on canape.

 

Alberan's system, cleaned up with modern conventions would be pretty similar to modern 2/1 GF. It would have to be. His system focuses on showing shape at the expense of strength.

 

I do think they are equivalent more or less. Maybe someone who has played the original can chime in?

 

I'm honestly not that familiar with blue team and find a lot of what they changed confusing. I would think that you could make a strong club version of Alberan's system, but I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile. I do think it would help with a lot of post-1C auctions where people use 4 card suits, bypassing longer minors.

 

My main complaint with stock precision is the 2D opening because it seems to be a waste vs multi or mini Roman. In general,the other complaints don't really strike me as valid.

 

As for the Italian systems, I wonder if you could clean up Roman and make it usable...

 

I'll add this, from playing around casually, strong club systems don't do well against forcing pass systems. The cert bids and others generally negate the advantages and make the interfere over a strong club opening that much stronger.

[awm]

I'll add this, from playing around casually, strong club systems don't do well against forcing pass systems. The cert bids and others generally negate the advantages and make the interfere over a strong club opening that much stronger.

 

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. While it's true that people often play identical (or very similar) methods in first chair or in second chair after an initial pass, this absolutely should not apply against a forcing pass system! If I'm opening in first seat it doesn't much matter to me whether opponents play forcing pass or not; if I'm in second seat against forcing pass it makes no difference whether my first seat methods are strong club or 2/1 or forcing pass myself because I'm always playing my "defense after opponents action" methods (which obviously depend on what action opponents took) and not my general system.

[sakuragi]

allow me to sidetrack again ..... :lol: :lol:

 

You are correct. The Blue Team opening is 1♠ because the hand is not strong enough to open 1♦ and reverse into spades. Blue Team canape differs from many other canape systems. Opener can certainly decide to pass 1NT, but the recommended rebid is 2♦ not 2♠.

 

thank you johnu for clarifying. I also recall the book recommend 2d. (sidetrack again i also remember the book put a lot emphasis on suit quality)

 

on 1st reflection, i think 2d should also be technical correct. afterall it is the blue team recommendation.

 

but lets call them option (a) stick with canape rebid 2s when 5s4d (b) classic blue team method

 

when opener is 4s5d both (a) and (b) rebid 2d but (a) shows clearly 4s5d

when responder is equal length sd (a) wins. because responder may likely pick wrong in (b) because 2s scores better

when responder has longer s it is nearly a tie with (a) having advantage. nothing appeals but (a) judge better.

when responder has longer d option (a) yet have advantage. (b) responder need to have 4d to be clear. if responder 3d2s he may try 2s.

 

when opener is 5s4d (a) rebid 2s and (b) rebid 2d

when responder is equal length sd (a) wins. (a) 2s already landed (b) likely pick right because 2s scores better

when responder has longer s a tie but (a) slight advantage. (b) responder 3s2d he may pass 2d but unlikely (2s scores better). (a) 2s already landed

when responder has longer d (b) wins (slight margin). (b) responder need to have 4d to be clear. if responder 3d2s its a tie. 3d1s (b) wins slight

 

Does (a) seem better method? may need mathematician.

 

Is it similar with 5CM when opener is 54 minors? there is a school where 1d-1M-2c shows 54 minors either way. but that school seems to be minority.

 

:lol: :lol:

[sakuragi]

cont....

5s4d case classic blue team method allows room for 2h (when that is right)

5s4c case classic blue team method allows room for 2d/h (when that is right)

5s4h case ??

 

there is also many opening weak 2 on 5 cards, or 5 cards and unknown 4 side suit etc.

 

overall i guess rebid with 5 may not be too much disaster.

 

So sorry I am totally off topic now ... it would be my last post on this thread.

[Winstonm]

 

Even the Blue Team switched to Precision Club which uses 5 card majors in the 1970's.

 

And were well compensated by Wei for doing so.

[johnu]

cont....

5s4d case classic blue team method allows room for 2h (when that is right)

5s4c case classic blue team method allows room for 2d/h (when that is right)

5s4h case ??

 

there is also many opening weak 2 on 5 cards, or 5 cards and unknown 4 side suit etc.

 

overall i guess rebid with 5 may not be too much disaster.

 

So sorry I am totally off topic now ... it would be my last post on this thread.

Rebidding 2M after a 1NT response on a 5 card suit has a lot of ways to lose. As you mentioned, when responder can bid a new suit at the 2 level but wouldn't be able to after a 2M rebid. Responder can have a much better fit for opener's 2nd suit which was never bid. If responder has a maximum with 2 card support in the major, they may make a game try expecting/hoping for 6 cards in the major. Are you too high on a bad 5-2 fit? Is responder inviting with 2 or 3 card support? A 5-3 fit will be a good percentage game. A 5-2 fit may be hopeless or low percentage.

[johnu]

My main complaint with stock precision is the 2D opening because it seems to be a waste vs multi or mini Roman. In general,the other complaints don't really strike me as valid.

What do you open in Precision with 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5 (short in diamonds) hands? You don't have a 5 card major to bid. Do you want to open an unbalanced hand 1♦ on your 4th longest suit which is a singleton or void?

 

With a 5 card club suit, do you want to open 2♣ with a bad club suit? You can better define 2♣ openings in combination with the 2♦ openings on some hand patterns.

[PrecisionL]

One solution is to open 1♦ as artificial (0+♦) and promising at least one 4-card Major.

I played this in two partnerships and it works amazingly well.

See the Diamond Major reference: www.bridgeclublive.com

 

Now you can use an opening of 2♦ like 2♣, 10-15 hcp and 6♦ or 5♦ and 4♣.

[rhm]

I have some questions about the history of bidding systems. (That weren't answered by reading Wenble's _The Evolution of Bidding Systems_).

 

1) The history of Canape-style bidding.

 

I have copies of some Pierre Albarran books. The his version of canape is similar to ACOL but with a different (better) way of showing distribution. It looks like a reasonable alternative to 5-card majors.

 

But how did we go from there to the Italian systems? And why did professional players eventually drop canape entirely?

 

With so many competitive bidding situations and the demonstrable effectiveness of ambiguous/multi-way bids, I'd think that canape would be having a resurgence, especially at the highest levels of play.

 

So why isn't it?

I think the major reason is the popularity of 5 card majors, which are not very compatible with Canape system.

But it is not only popularity. 4 card major systems are more difficult to play than 5 card major systems requiring better judgement.

There are sound technical advantages as well.

5 card majors make major suit openings rarer and minor suit openings more common compared to 4 card majors.

If the objective is to exchange as much information as possible in constructive sequences, this is the way it should be done.

(Information about majors tends to be much more important than anything else)

There is a reason why Precision was developed even though strong club systems and 5 card majors do not provide such a good fit.

Expensive bids in constructive sequences should be specific while inexpensive bids less so, since there is room left to sort things out.

Before the advancement of negative (sputnik) doubles, 4 card majors had one big advantage over 5 card majors: You rarely missed a 4-4 major suit fit.

This all changed with the advancement of negative doubles. The advantage (not missing 4-4 major suit fits) did not disappear completely but was very significantly reduced.

All these discussions about the law of total tricks and making the right decision in competitive situations are much easier to apply when you play 5 card majors.

Of course there are also some advantages of 4 card major systems. They tend to be more obstructive and require more judgement to play against.

 

The fact that very few play 4 card majors and canape systems at the highest level is indicative that this is not only a fad.

These systems are probably not competitive any more in the modern world even if you try to soup them up with modern gadgets.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I have some questions about the history of bidding systems. (That weren't answered by reading Wenble's _The Evolution of Bidding Systems_).

 

2) Origin of SA's non-forcing 1NT response.

 

KS, RS, and the like all used a forcing 1NT in concert with 5-card majors. Goren himself says they go together; his 1985 New Bridge Complete is a simplified 2/1.

 

So where did SA get the idea of using 5-card majors with a non-forcing 1NT? (And why don't we just teach it the "correct" way?)

I think you have it backwards.

The 1NT response used to be non-forcing. Then bidding theorists came along arguing the case for making it forcing. They had a point but they also oversold their case in my opinion. It is definitely not a black or white issue.

Once you have no game in general 1NT is quite often a desirable contract at any form of scoring.

Saying you can not play 1NT when you or your partner opens with one of a major create many problems, not least that opener has to respond with a balanced hand in a non-suit.

5M332 in a minimum hand is very frequent. 1NT may well be your last plus score.

If you do not play it forcing openers rebids when he does not pass tend to be better defined.

 

3) Good books/write-ups of more recent developments?

 

The book doesn't cover modern stuff in much depth, obviously. But it had enough to make me realize that I've been lax in keeping up.

 

Is there a good book cataloging recent conventions like Gazilli and Kickback? One that lets me explore and appreciate AMBRA without having to parse through system notes and back out the underlying reasoning from a table of bidding sequences?

 

Something that explains how SEF differs from standard American? (I keep hearing that they are similar, but that SEF makes some minor changes with significant payoffs.)

 

Thanks for the help!

I suggest you look at

Building A Bidding System from Roy Hughes (2005) (It does discuss bidding theory, but not specific systems like SEF or AMBRA)

The Notrump Zone from Danny Kleinman (2004) (which also discusses the 1NT response to a major)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MaxHayden]

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. While it's true that people often play identical (or very similar) methods in first chair or in second chair after an initial pass, this absolutely should not apply against a forcing pass system! If I'm opening in first seat it doesn't much matter to me whether opponents play forcing pass or not; if I'm in second seat against forcing pass it makes no difference whether my first seat methods are strong club or 2/1 or forcing pass myself because I'm always playing my "defense after opponents action" methods (which obviously depend on what action opponents took) and not my general system.

 

Precision normally does well when it gets to take advantage of its range-limited openers. A forcing pass essentially eliminates this benefit except when you are sitting in the first seat. Forcing pass systems also tend to be *more* precise in their bidding than precision. So you don't have much of an edge when you are 1st seat vs them being 1st seat either. So you are getting less mileage on the bids that work best and still bearing the cost of the ones that are a weakness.

 

Could be 100% wrong here. But the effectiveness of a bidding system partially depends on what other people are allowed to play. So the prominence of some systems can be the result of other systems being restricted.

 

But maybe players from outside of ACBL-land will have better perspective on this.

 

What do you open in Precision with 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5 (short in diamonds) hands? You don't have a 5 card major to bid. Do you want to open an unbalanced hand 1♦ on your 4th longest suit which is a singleton or void?

 

With a 5 card club suit, do you want to open 2♣ with a bad club suit? You can better define 2♣ openings in combination with the 2♦ openings on some hand patterns.

 

I play precision, I play with the 2♦ bid. I tried the unbalanced diamond system from Marshal Miles and didn't like some of the sequences. But the precision 2♦ is still a kludge. I wish there was a better way to handle it. But AFAIK, there isn't.

 

One solution is to open 1♦ as artificial (0+♦) and promising at least one 4-card Major.

I played this in two partnerships and it works amazingly well.

 

^This seems to complicate bidding 11-13 hcp balanced hands e.g. 5332. The website you linked says to just pass them. Maybe that works on-net, but I'm not a fan of the idea in abstract.

 

 

I think the major reason is the popularity of 5 card majors, which are not very compatible with Canape system.

But it is not only popularity. 4 card major systems are more difficult to play than 5 card major systems requiring better judgement.

 

Most of what you are saying has been discussed above, but you seem to have misunderstood some of it. (Poss. language barrier?)

 

Canape and 5CM are both alternatives to "4-card majors"; they both try to solve the same problems by communicating more information about major suit distributions. They use different methods, but they seem to be informationally equivalent.

 

And in any event, my question is historical. How did we get from Alberan's system to the Italian ones? Their ideas are different enough that I don't think someone just made up Neapolitan Club after reading Alberan.

 

As far as the Italian systems themselves go, the "not competitive" argument was discussed above. I don't think it is convincing.

 

"Not popular enough for people to keep using" is *very* convincing. You can use negative doubles and the like for analogous situations in canape, but if the two are equivalent (or even if canape is slightly better), you'd be better off using 5-card majors just because that's what most of the conventions and literature are focused on.

 

I think you have it backwards.

The 1NT response used to be non-forcing. Then bidding theorists came along arguing the case for making it forcing.

 

Both Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone had the forcing 1NT response. I can't find an early 5-card major system that does not. Do you know of one?

 

I'm aware that in "standard american" people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren. But my question is *why*.

 

I suggest you look at

Building A Bidding System from Roy Hughes (2005) (It does discuss bidding theory, but not specific systems like SEF or AMBRA)

The Notrump Zone from Danny Kleinman (2004) (which also discusses the 1NT response to a major)

 

Thank you for the suggestions, but I have read both of these.

[johnu]

Precision normally does well when it gets to take advantage of its range-limited openers. A forcing pass essentially eliminates this benefit except when you are sitting in the first seat. Forcing pass systems also tend to be *more* precise in their bidding than precision. So you don't have much of an edge when you are 1st seat vs them being 1st seat either. So you are getting less mileage on the bids that work best and still bearing the cost of the ones that are a weakness.

You could say this about any strong club system, not just Precision. In any case, forcing pass systems have pretty much been legislated out of existence in tournament bridge in most areas. So unless you live in a region where forcing pass is legal, this discussion is moot.