Decline of Canape and other bidding history questions

[rhm]

"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 have clearly argued that Canape is not equivalent to 5 card majors .

 

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?

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.

European 5 card major systems never incorporated it.

For example Polish club and it forerunners Vienna System, The French 5 card major systems as well as Italian players do not use forcing notrump repsonse.

It is my impression that nowadays "semi-forcing" notrump response is on the rise in the US, particularly at the top level.

That's why I think you have it backwards when you claim:

 

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*.

 

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

That is surprising given that these books answer most of your questions

For example Danny Kleinman has a chapter in "The Nortump Zone" on page 202:

 

What's Wrong With The Forcing 1NT

 

and you keep asking "why people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren"

 

Maybe you do not want to hear or understand what other people tell you, because you are so convinced about your own ideas?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.

European 5 card major systems never incorporated it.

For example Polish club and it forerunners Vienna System, The French 5 card major systems as well as Italian players do not use forcing notrump repsonse.

It is my impression that nowadays "semi-forcing" notrump response is on the rise in the US, particularly at the top level.

That's why I think you have it backwards when you claim:

 

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.

But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

[rhm]

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.

But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

Fair enough.

What also should be noted, at least from a historical point of view, is that 1NT forcing was invented by Roth-Stone as a necessity, because Roth-Stone incorporates constructive raises (10-12 points).

This left responder with an impossible situation with weaker hands and support.

The "solution" was 1NT forcing.

Kaplan-Sheinwold, Eastern Scientific, Walsh also made the single raise constructive, usually with four trumps, while a preference after a 1NT response is weaker, often with three-card and occasionally with two-card support.

 

(cited from the 5th edition of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

Fair enough.

What also should be noted, at least from a historical point of view, is that 1NT forcing was invented by Roth-Stone as a necessity, because Roth-Stone incorporates constructive raises (10-12 points).

This left responder with an impossible situation with weaker hands and support.

The "solution" was 1NT forcing.

Kaplan-Sheinwold, Eastern Scientific, Walsh also made the single raise constructive, usually with four trumps, while a preference after a 1NT response is weaker, often with three-card and occasionally with two-card support.

 

(cited from the 5th edition of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge)

 

Interesting. I always imagined that the impossible situation was a hand with 5+m slightly too weak to force to game, and that constructive raises were a side benefit of 1NT forcing. Whatever, the three things fit together.

[MaxHayden]

I have clearly argued that Canape is not equivalent to 5 card majors .

 

 

Stating it does not make it so. The entire point of canapé is that it saves bidding room. And if you calculate the bits of information it conveys, it is roughly equivalent to 5-card majors. If you think this is wrong, then show me how my use of information theory is incorrect, especially once you account for game theory adjustments that neither of your recommended books even consider.

 

Instead of doing that, you lumped the system I was asking about in with Goren, Culbertson, and "canapé tendancy" systems.

 

This is why I said that you did not understand what I was asking. You flatly asserted that my math was wrong without any explanation and proceeded to declare me ignorant. I have the books you mentioned in front of me. If they somehow answer my questions I do not see it. Given that this whole thread has been discussing these ideas, it is ludicrous of you to claim that I'm not aware of them and then to follow that statement with a series of claims that not only violates those principles, but ignores the entire thread until now.

 

If I'm incorrect, then show it. Don't get upset at me for failing to understand some point that you didn't spell out.

 

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.

 

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. I want to know where 5-card majors without a forcing no trump came from because I only know of early examples of 5-card majors with a forcing one. (Going back to the 50s.) And no, Kleinman does not answer my question. I already told you that. Yes, in the late 60s and early 70s, people started teaching a version of Goren with 5-card majors. I said that already.

 

It doesn't tell me a damned thing about why they chose to do that or where they got the idea. In other words, it specifically does not answer the question. Neither book explains why canapé got replaced with canapé tendancy or why my information theory calculations are off.

 

So instead of just insisting that I'm ignorant and lying, perhaps you could try answering my questions and actually spelling out your points so that I can understand them? What good does it do to blame me for your failure to communicate?

[MaxHayden]

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.

But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

 

 

Okay, so what early (50s-era) 5-card majors system used a non-forcing 1NT? I don't know of one. If they didn't, why did later bridge authors just bolt 5-card majors onto Goren without the other pieces that tended to go with them historically?

[MaxHayden]

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.

 

My intention was to say that about (most) strong club systems. I would think that the modified versions of forcing pass stuff would create similar problems were they not also illegal.

 

I understand why you'd want to ban some elaborate systems at low-level play. At that level, it's play and defense that make the difference. But in social groups there are natural limits to this. If you are going to be playing with lots of people, you are confined to stuff that can be quickly explained anyway. So there's no real point to the regulations.

 

But at the advanced level, everyone's play is so strong that the only marginal benefit comes from bidding innovations. So I don't think it's wise to freeze the meta-game like they have. It more or less takes away the main thing that you can do to get an edge.

 

It was more or less a side point about the general situation.

[hrothgar]

Stating it does not make it so. The entire point of canapé is that it saves bidding room. And if you calculate the bits of information it conveys, it is roughly equivalent to 5-card majors. If you think this is wrong, then show me how my use of information theory is incorrect, especially once you account for game theory adjustments that neither of your recommended books even consider.

 

 

If you want people to critique your use of information theory then you need to present your calculations, not just make reference to the fact that you have done so...

[rhm]

If you want people to critique your use of information theory then you need to present your calculations, not just make reference to the fact that you have done so...

Furthermore information theory as a mathematical theory to my knowledge deals with amount of information but has no concept that different information may have different value.

Its application to Bridge is quite limited.

 

For example knowledge about partners minor suit length is of different value than about his majors, subject of course that anyone holds 13 cards.

If we are looking at slams this difference diminishes, but in general there is a reason why we prefer to respond in a major suit rather than in a longer minor to a takeout double for example.

 

Almost any modern bidding system has at least one nebulous minor suit opening, where you could have three or less cards in this minor suit.

There are not many modern bidding systems where say a 1♠ opening is nebulous.

 

It matters whether you receive information on the first or later round of the bidding. For once there may be less bidding space left and any information after the first round is subject to disruption.

Timing in the bidding is very relevant.

Any bidding system and bidding method makes value judgements what information should be provided and in which order and how to consume bidding space.

 

Thus the claim that two different methods are "equivalent" is a very dubious one (equivalent in what respect?) and I doubt "equivalent effectiveness" can be proven or falsified.

 

The concept that bidding methods and systems evolve and establish their value in competition is a sensible one.

I do not think that any bidding system of yore would have a good chance to survive in modern high-level tournaments.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

Furthermore information theory as a mathematical theory to my knowledge deals with amount of information but has no concept that different information may have different value.

Its application to Bridge is quite limited.

 

In theory, we can treat our bidding as a channel and the opponent's bids as noise.

 

I think that it should be possible to measure how efficiently we are using this channel, however, its going to be god awful complicated...

 

I do not think that any bidding system of yore would have a good chance to survive in modern high-level tournaments.

 

How far back is "of yore"? I suspect that some of the Polish / Scandinavian / Aussie systems from the 70s would probably do quite decently...

[pescetom]

Okay, so what early (50s-era) 5-card majors system used a non-forcing 1NT? I don't know of one. If they didn't, why did later bridge authors just bolt 5-card majors onto Goren without the other pieces that tended to go with them historically?

 

If you want a precise answer I suggest you post the same question to Barry Rigal and other historians on BridgeWinners. But Goren and others were playing "Standard American" in the late 1940s. Whenever that became 5-card majors based, it's hardly surprising that they retained a "normal" non-forcing 1NT response and non game forcing 2/1, just as Jais and Lebel did later in Europe. Kaplan Sheinwold was just too far ahead of its time to gain widespread acceptance.

[PrecisionL]

Goren's 1980 book, Goren's Bridge Complete included for the first time 17 pages on 5-card majors written by Omar Sharif. Goren was not yet recommending 5-cd majors.

 

However, in 1985, he joined the crowd with Goren's New Bridge Complete with verbiage on 5-cd majors and the forcing notrump response.

 

THe 1985 edition also had 25 pages on forcing club systems.

 

 

 

 

[MaxHayden]

Okay. This thread is starting to go in circles. So let me try to refocus and wrap this up.

 

If you want a precise answer I suggest you post the same question to Barry Rigal and other historians on BridgeWinners. But Goren and others were playing "Standard American" in the late 1940s. Whenever that became 5-card majors based, it's hardly surprising that they retained a "normal" non-forcing 1NT response and non game forcing 2/1, just as Jais and Lebel did later in Europe. Kaplan Sheinwold was just too far ahead of its time to gain widespread acceptance.

 

Okay. I didn't know that was the better place to ask that question. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

Should I just post a question to their intermediate forum? Or is there a better way to do it? I don't normally read their forums like I do here.

 

If you want people to critique your use of information theory then you need to present your calculations, not just make reference to the fact that you have done so...

 

I did a non-mathematical version above. I can do the math precisely if you guys really need it. But it seems to me that the problem is more that people keep lumping a bunch of different things together. So let's try to clear that up and then I'll do a sketch.

 

Goren (and Culbertson and ACOL) are all 4-card major systems. They have different rules for continuing the bidding (limiting vs forcing bids), but it is very hard to know the precise distribution and they do in fact have the problems that people keep attributing to canape.

 

There are "canape tendency" systems where normal bidding is (effectively) 5-card majors and reverses are canape. I don't understand why you'd want to do this. But multiple top-level systems have. And the Blue Team's version is super-complicated because it has a bunch of exceptions and special sequences. Internet folklore says that the point of "tendency" is to let you show strength better at the cost of distribution. I don't know if that's true or where it came from; tendency just shows up in the Italian systems. But whatever the reason, Blue Team is *not* Alberan's method.

 

Alberan's system is a pure canape system. The bidding solves exactly the same problem that 5-card majors does and for exactly the same reason. The bids you say are different but you are communicating the same information give or take a symmetry transformation.

 

So if you want to say that there's some flaw with Alberan's approach that 5-card majors doesn't have, then you'd have to show why he and everyone else missed it. Simply referencing what is popular doesn't work -- people once bid 4-card majors instead of the older strong club. And they swapped from limit raises (Culbertson) or forcing ones (Goren). I could go on. But the history of the game is rife with examples of this stuff.

 

So it's a facially bad argument to say, "it isn't popular and therefore doesn't work despite all of the theorists considering it to be just a different way to show 5-card majors."

 

OTOH, saying, "All of the theorists say that Alberan's canape is just a different way to show 5-card majors. Since the bids are more or less equivalent, there's no point in playing his version instead of the 5-card majors that we use. So no one bothers since it has no advantages and would leave you without the benefit of everyone else's bidding developments."

 

This is what people said above. And I think that's a completely sound reason for why it would have fallen out of use.

 

===

 

As for the information theory stuff, rhm is the one who cited two books that made very primitive (i.e. flawed) use of the idea.

 

His claim that canape gives less information is false. In most sequences it gives more. This isn't necessarily good or bad. (Bidding a careful slam that only goes down on a particular, very unusual lead is not going to work if you spell out which card that needs to be.)

 

Those books more or less say that each higher bid in the ladder should eliminate 50% of the remaining possible hands. If you had no competition to worry about, this *might* be kinda true. But you don't want to lump together raw hands; "Open 1 club with an odd number of black cards," and "Open 7NT on exactly 4321S 321H 321D 321C," both satisfy that criterion.

 

Similarly, it's not just about grouping hands by your score or even the differential; you care about the optimal contract: a 4S sacrifice and a 4S game don't actually need to be distinguished in theory. If your bidding system always gets you to 4S when it is the best outcome, the rest doesn't matter.

 

If it was just you and your partner, then the ideal bidding system would always maximize the variance reduction per bit of information the bidding conveyed; modulo making sure that you don't overshoot the correct bid. The books he's suggesting acknowledge this more or less, but they don't really account for it in a proper way. (You'd want to account for it with the same math that lets you use different cost/penalty functions for Bayesian estimators to trade-off type I and type II error; except you be trading off between expected points vs penalties.)

 

And since this is a competitive game, you actually have a more complex task: you want to minimize the variance that you and your partner have when estimating the correct contract. But you want to maximize the variance of the opponents. It's generally impossible to do both with crypto methods disallowed, so the trade-off depends on seating position, vulnerability, whose hand this really is, and a host of other factors.

 

So this is why "on paper" a 15-17 1NT opening is "right", but people get positive IMPs with a weak one. The same is true of a lot of other bids as well.

 

=====

 

Now that brings us to Alberan's canape system vs. 5-card majors.

 

Essentially, the rule is that if you bid the major second it has exactly five cards. (Rare things like 6-6 hands excepted.)

 

If you have a 4-4 fit, you discover it immediately and find a 5-3 fit on a rebid. So all you did was just swap these two sequences.

 

You end up with more information in canape on both auctions. With the 1M opening, you know that if opener has a minimum, it includes a 5-card minor and is unbalanced. If you have a super-fit because opener had 6+ in the major, you'll discover it on opener's rebid and he'll be able to easily deal with competition.

 

If he doesn't open a major, then you know that he doesn't have one except in one special circumstance. And in that circumstance, you'll end up in the same place in the bidding after opener's rebid on an uncontested auction and he'll be in a better position to deal with interference knowing that you have *at best* a 5-3 fit (as will you when he bids the major since you'll know if you have a fit at all and exactly what it is.)

 

With the other sequences, things are mostly a wash: With canape, you can find one 5-4 fit on responder's first bid and the other on opener's rebid. Both of these are slightly sooner, however you find out about 5-5 and other extreme fits a bit later.

 

If you are a rigorous adherent to the LoTT, then canape is slightly better. Otherwise, then I'm not seeing how the differences matter. You end up at the same bid. You give away slightly more information, for good and bad. And you can compete about as well. It changes who the captain is on some bids, and needs somewhat different conventions for a few situations. But on the all, it's just a matter of which fit you find first: 4-4s or 5-3s.

 

5-3 is less desirable. And given your cards, it's more likely to find a 4-4 fit than a 5-3 one. Canape finds the 4-4 faster and leaves the minor nebulous, so it makes the opening lead more challenging. It makes over-calling 1M slightly riskier because it means that the canape bidder will immediately know that you don't have a fit or that you have a really bad trump break. On the flip side, while canape lets you compete better in lots of auctions, in the close part-scores with dueling 5-3 fits, you are going to probably come out behind.

 

So this stuff cuts both ways. We can run the exact numbers if you really need me to, but I don't really see any basis for believing that this slight change of bidding emphasis is going to make any noticeable difference. (And per the discussion above, that's probably why no one is using it.)

 

P.S. Having written all of this out, it occurs the me that there is actually a way in which canape would be better or worse that we haven't considered.

 

If canape communicates the same information with fewer principles and conventions, then it would be superior in some sense. I.e. we should be looking at the information necessary to use the system itself. Alberan's canape was made to be an ACOL variant with the distributional precision of 5-card majors. He justified having to change major principles of the system on the grounds that doing that would result in fewer special sequences and artificial conventions.

 

AFAIK, no one has seriously tried to evaluate this claim. But now I want to figure it out.

 

If he's right, then there's an argument that ACOL players should be using his distribution showing rules instead of their current ones. If he's wrong, then that's the answer -- his system uses more natural bids without covering the corner cases that standard American covers with special understandings in the unusual bidding sequences.

[hrothgar]

 

I did a non-mathematical version above. I can do the math precisely if you guys really need it.

 

 

The devil is in the details, so please indulge us by actually showing your work...

[MaxHayden]

The devil is in the details, so please indulge us by actually showing your work...

 

I literally just did that. You asked me to do it. So I made a long post that did it. It says that I'm doing it right in that post.

 

If you think I'm wrong, show me where you disagree. Ya'll are the ones who wanted to invoke statistics and theory. So now that I've explained my reasoning, it's time to give me yours.

 

Otherwise, I don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who isn't interested in participating in one.

[Winstonm]

The reason canape' did not gain wide use is simply because it is only really effective in a forcing club system, as the reverses in canape' are non-forcing, i.e., 1D-1N-2S. The advantage to canape' is finding the 4-4 major immediately while concealing distribution.

[awm]

There seem to be some pretty serious problems with canape in competitive auctions. Say opener has some (5431) with singleton heart, and you hear the auction:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass

 

You want opener to double with this shape and a bit extra; this is necessary in case responder has a penalty pass, and in any case bidding above 3♥ on a hand without extreme shape is quite risky. So suppose you get:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass - Dbl - Pass

 

Playing standard methods, responder knows which is opener's five-card suit. He's basically one card from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 4 and which is the 3 in opener's 5431). Of course opener doesn't HAVE to be (5431) but this is more or less the expected hand type in the auction given. So responder is pretty well placed to select a contract.

 

Playing canape, responder knows which is opener's FOUR-card suit. He's now two cards from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 5 and which is the 3 in opener's expected 5431). This is a substantially worse position and makes it quite a bit harder to reach the right spot!

 

On a related note, suppose opener has a SIX-card spade suit. After 1♠-3♥ in standard methods, he can rely on partner to raise with three-card support. This is a huge help in deciding whether to bid game and also whether to balance after 1♠-3♥-Pass-Pass (in the last auction, you know partner either lacks three-card support or has a really lousy hand, so you are comfortable passing on most minimums). But again playing canape, after 1♠-3♥ partner will expect a FOUR card suit and therefore cannot be relied upon to raise with three-card support. So partner will pass on a lot of hands that would raise opposite five-card majors, and opener is put to a guess with his six-card suit and minimum.

 

Back in the old days, people didn't preempt to the three-level nearly so frequently so this was less of a concern... and a lot of doubles that modern players consider takeout were penalty anyway, so maybe a few of these auctions didn't exist.

[rhm]

There seem to be some pretty serious problems with canape in competitive auctions. Say opener has some (5431) with singleton heart, and you hear the auction:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass

 

You want opener to double with this shape and a bit extra; this is necessary in case responder has a penalty pass, and in any case bidding above 3♥ on a hand without extreme shape is quite risky. So suppose you get:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass - Dbl - Pass

 

Playing standard methods, responder knows which is opener's five-card suit. He's basically one card from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 4 and which is the 3 in opener's 5431). Of course opener doesn't HAVE to be (5431) but this is more or less the expected hand type in the auction given. So responder is pretty well placed to select a contract.

 

Playing canape, responder knows which is opener's FOUR-card suit. He's now two cards from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 5 and which is the 3 in opener's expected 5431). This is a substantially worse position and makes it quite a bit harder to reach the right spot!

 

On a related note, suppose opener has a SIX-card spade suit. After 1♠-3♥ in standard methods, he can rely on partner to raise with three-card support. This is a huge help in deciding whether to bid game and also whether to balance after 1♠-3♥-Pass-Pass (in the last auction, you know partner either lacks three-card support or has a really lousy hand, so you are comfortable passing on most minimums). But again playing canape, after 1♠-3♥ partner will expect a FOUR card suit and therefore cannot be relied upon to raise with three-card support. So partner will pass on a lot of hands that would raise opposite five-card majors, and opener is put to a guess with his six-card suit and minimum.

 

Back in the old days, people didn't preempt to the three-level nearly so frequently so this was less of a concern... and a lot of doubles that modern players consider takeout were penalty anyway, so maybe a few of these auctions didn't exist.

These are good examples why it matters whether you get information on the first or in later rounds of the bidding.

The information content is not the same.

Timing matters a lot

 

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

I literally just did that. You asked me to do it. So I made a long post that did it. It says that I'm doing it right in that post.

 

If you think I'm wrong, show me where you disagree. Ya'll are the ones who wanted to invoke statistics and theory. So now that I've explained my reasoning, it's time to give me yours.

 

Otherwise, I don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who isn't interested in participating in one.

 

At the most basic level, I think that discussions involving Information Theory start by defining channel capacity and proceed from there.

What you are doing is using a term very imprecisely in an attempt to give credence to your arguments.

[MaxHayden]

There seem to be some pretty serious problems with canape in competitive auctions. Say opener has some (5431) with singleton heart, and you hear the auction:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass

 

You want opener to double with this shape and a bit extra; this is necessary in case responder has a penalty pass, and in any case bidding above 3♥ on a hand without extreme shape is quite risky. So suppose you get:

 

1X - 3♥ - Pass - Pass - Dbl - Pass

 

Playing standard methods, responder knows which is opener's five-card suit. He's basically one card from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 4 and which is the 3 in opener's 5431). Of course opener doesn't HAVE to be (5431) but this is more or less the expected hand type in the auction given. So responder is pretty well placed to select a contract.

 

Playing canape, responder knows which is opener's FOUR-card suit. He's now two cards from opener's distribution (he doesn't know which is the 5 and which is the 3 in opener's expected 5431). This is a substantially worse position and makes it quite a bit harder to reach the right spot!

 

On a related note, suppose opener has a SIX-card spade suit. After 1♠-3♥ in standard methods, he can rely on partner to raise with three-card support. This is a huge help in deciding whether to bid game and also whether to balance after 1♠-3♥-Pass-Pass (in the last auction, you know partner either lacks three-card support or has a really lousy hand, so you are comfortable passing on most minimums). But again playing canape, after 1♠-3♥ partner will expect a FOUR card suit and therefore cannot be relied upon to raise with three-card support. So partner will pass on a lot of hands that would raise opposite five-card majors, and opener is put to a guess with his six-card suit and minimum.

 

Back in the old days, people didn't preempt to the three-level nearly so frequently so this was less of a concern... and a lot of doubles that modern players consider takeout were penalty anyway, so maybe a few of these auctions didn't exist.

 

This is helpful. Thanks.

 

At least for Alberan's system, whether you are opening a major or a minor matters.

 

In the 1m - 3♥ auction, you know that your partner either has exactly 5 spades or has no 4 card major and is unbalanced in the minors. So you can bid spades with at least three and something in one of the minors. Partner will raise or correct. Or you could double without spades and let partner pick a minor or pass.

 

If partner opens 1♠, then things are more complicated.

 

So I'm not sure if it's a matter of sending the wrong information or a matter of not having good conventions for modern situations. Either way, you've done a good job of explaining the problem.

 

 

At the most basic level, I think that discussions involving Information Theory start by defining channel capacity and proceed from there.

What you are doing is using a term very imprecisely in an attempt to give credence to your arguments.

 

We all know the number of possible bidding sequences, the number of possible hands, and the number of final contracts. You can take all of this log-base2 and do all of the computations that you want. But you have moved the goal posts multiple times by now. So I'm quite sure that you'll move them again. So there's no point in continuing.

[MaxHayden]

Has anyone read Ken Rexford's _Modified Italian Canape System_? (Thanks to the person who suggested it.)

 

It uses a canape closer to the original, and addresses a lot of the objections people above have to the original Italian ones. He also spends time talking about competitive auctions in ways that seem relevant to this discussion.

 

He makes some good arguments that it still works.

 

Agree or disagree, my key take-away is that canape is more about negative inference and our current methods are more about positive information.

 

That fits with the "lack of popularity" idea quite well -- it's a lot harder to teach a new player how to reason about what their partner *didn't* say and to make inferences about probable hand distributions accordingly.

[blackshoe]

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

-- A. Conan Doyle, "The Adventure Of Silver Blaze", 1892.