[Shugart23]

Partner and I are thinking of throwing out all our 11-15 HCP precision opening bids and learn/cross over to a canapé style of bidding (keeping 1C as strong).

In our current methods, we have developed a pretty comprehensive forcing and unlimited 1NT response to Partner's opening of 1H or 1S.....(see Oliver Clarke's Pigpen Bridge link).

Having never played canope, do we have to give up forcing NT over partner's opening of one of a Major ?

Totally independent of that question, when Opener bids canope style, say opens 1S and Partner does not have 4 Spades, does Partner Respond canope style as well or does partner respond in a more standard fashion.

Thank you for any response

[B Psyches]

Simple answer is No and No from my experience: You can play a forcing NT & responder bids their longest suit first.

[Shugart23]

B Psyches, on 2015-December-08, 12:46, said:

Simple answer is No and No from my experience: You can play a forcing NT & responder bids their longest suit first.

I get different answers on how Responder answers...From what little I know of Blue Team Club, responder answers canope. I guess I need to go out and just try it. thanks

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-08, 15:46, said:

I get different answers on how Responder answers...From what little I know of Blue Team Club, responder answers canope. I guess I need to go out and just try it. thanks

There are many different styles of canape bidding.
Blue Club's response structure is one such approach.

Blue Club does use a canape response style, however, the 2m responses to 1M can be used to show a bunch of weird hands including

1. You have a hand that is strong enough for a Strong Jump Shift, but the suit quality of your primary suit is too weak
2. You have a slam invitation raise of partner's major and want to clarify controls in both minors (Neapolitan 2C/2D)
3. You have a limit raise for partner's major, but values in the minor
4. You want to invite game in NT

[PrecisionL]

Playing canapé with a Strong Club is my favorite system:

Open 1 of a major as in natural systems. Do not canape from one major into the other major.

Only canape into a minor after one of a major or into a major after opening 1♦.
Style decision: how weak should the 1 of a major? Recommend Qxxx. (Blue team majors could be xxxx)
Do not play a forcing 1NT response to an opening bid of one of a major.

4441 hands are a problem. Open 1♦ if out of range of 1NT. Rebids at the one level are not canapés.

Responder should bid normally, until you have experience with canape of about 1000 boards ( hands).

Edit 12/9/15: See Ultra Club Relay notes (link below) for a discussion on page 38 of canape / 4-cards first bidding strategy. Thanks to George Coffin's book, Natural Big Club, 1969.

[SteelWheel]

I'm crossing over to the dark side myself right now--using Ken Rexford's MICS (Modified Italian Canape System) with good results so far.

MICS uses a "semi-forcing" NT response to opener's 1♥/1♠--theoretically passable by opener, but rarely passed in practice.

Generally MICS uses "natural" responses to 1♥/1♠ openings. 2/1s are not GF, but rather more or less SA-style. The only possible exception is that sometimes a 1♠ response to a 1♥ open might be preferred to a 2♣/2♦ response, even with GI+ values--but that's not so radical.

[johnu]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-08, 09:51, said:

Having never played canope, do we have to give up forcing NT over partner's opening of one of a Major ?

Totally independent of that question, when Opener bids canope style, say opens 1S and Partner does not have 4 Spades, does Partner Respond canope style as well or does partner respond in a more standard fashion.

Thank you for any response

Find a copy of Garazzo and Forquet's Italian Blue Team Bridge book. Their style of canape bidding is pretty well explained. The Blue Club by Garazzo and Yallouze isn't quite as comprehensive but worth looking at. There are also some more recent and good innovations in Franco and Pancotti Blue Team Club which can be downloaded as a Word doc.

Forget about responder using canape bidding. This is one of the weakest points of the original Blue Team Club and I can't think of any reason why you should adapt this. By the time you can get suit lengths straightened out, you can be dangerously high and have to stab at a final contract.

Even 5 card major proponents are abandoning forcing NT responses and going to semi-forcing (whatever that is really supposed to mean) NT responses. I would use semi-forcing NT responses since I don't really want to bid with a 12 count and 5-3-3-2 as an example. Canape complicates the bidding since you don't have a 5 card major to anchor your responses.

[steve2005]

Always been interested by Canape in conjunction with a strong club. The people who advocate are very strong believers.
I just can't get my head around and have tried. I've even played 4-card majors successfully but I cant Canape.

[kenrexford]

steve2005, on 2015-December-08, 19:55, said:

Always been interested by Canape in conjunction with a strong club. The people who advocate are very strong believers.
I just can't get my head around and have tried. I've even played 4-card majors successfully but I cant Canape.

This may be a tad esoteric, but math might help explain how to think canape and why we love it.

Imagine partner opening 1H standard, 2D overcall. If yoy have no heart fit, what do you need in the three non-diamond suits to have law of total tricks safety in any situation? You need a combined 8 hearts, 8 spades, or 9 clubs, or an ability to convert a double for penalty. What number of cards in each suit guarantees this? I do not know, and I do not know if it is possible to even answer this question. You might be scratching your head as to what I am even asking.

Now, suppose, instead a canape 1H opening and the same 2D overcall. Now, this same question makes sense and is easily answered. Opener has either 6 hearts or 4 hearts with a longer (5+) second suit. Thus, to have safety at the law of total tricks level, you need 2 hearts (if partner has 6), 3 spades (in case that is his second suit), and 4 clubs (in case that is his second suit), meaning at least 2-3-4 pattern in those three suits, an easily answered and easily met question. Plus, a conversion to penalty is easy when partner's second suit is diamonds (he has a 5-card stack).

The beauty of canape, and the understanding of canape, is, IMO, in this math example.

The same math example also explains why a pire canape approach, as opposed to tendency canape, is ideal. Tendency canape does not yield this ease as reliably.

[nullve]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-08, 09:51, said:

do we have to give up forcing NT over partner's opening of one of a Major ?

If the 1M opening includes balanced hands: Yes, probably. Try e.g. 13 hcp, 42(43)/4333/43(42)/5(332) opposite 8 hcp, 2(443). I don't think you can scramble to a playable 7-card or better fit reliably, and not one that plays better than 1N, anyway. That said, I knew a (strong) pair that did play a forcing 1N response (actually an inv+ relay) to their potentially balanced canape 1M openings, and their solution was to let Responder pass all balanced hand without support and less than inv strength and accept the occasional (anti-field) 1M contract on a 4-2 fit philosophically.

If the 1M opening is always unbalanced: No. See e.g. Roman Club or Valentines.

[Shugart23]

nullve, on 2015-December-09, 03:23, said:

If the 1M opening includes balanced hands: Yes, probably. Try e.g. 13 hcp, 42(43)/4333/43(42)/5(332) opposite 8 hcp, 2(443). I don't think you can scramble to a playable 7-card or better fit reliably, and not one that plays better than 1N, anyway. That said, I knew a (strong) pair that did play a forcing 1N response (actually an inv+ relay) to their potentially balanced canape 1M openings, and their solution was to let Responder pass all balanced hand without support and less than inv strength and accept the occasional (anti-field) 1M contract on a 4-2 fit philosophically.

If the 1M opening is always unbalanced: No. See e.g. Roman Club or Valentines.

..I think the balanced hands are probably opened 1NT .....Today, our forcing 1NT is unlimited ...could have 25 HCP so bidding could go: 1S-1NT(forcing) - 2 of anything. and responder has lots of choices including control asking bid , honor holding (in Spades)bid , various game tries, and weak responses.....

I have ordered Ken's book, having seen it once and I believe can help a canapé novice get his feet on the ground...(I seem to think his 2D bid might be better used as Flannery, but maybe I am way off base on this thought). Ken, if you are reading this, what are your thoughts on UNLIMITED forcing 1NT response to 1H or 1S ?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2015-December-08, 22:26, said:

This may be a tad esoteric, but math might help explain how to think canape and why we love it.

Imagine partner opening 1H standard, 2D overcall. If yoy have no heart fit, what do you need in the three non-diamond suits to have law of total tricks safety in any situation? You need a combined 8 hearts, 8 spades, or 9 clubs, or an ability to convert a double for penalty. What number of cards in each suit guarantees this? I do not know, and I do not know if it is possible to even answer this question. You might be scratching your head as to what I am even asking.

Now, suppose, instead a canape 1H opening and the same 2D overcall. Now, this same question makes sense and is easily answered. Opener has either 6 hearts or 4 hearts with a longer (5+) second suit. Thus, to have safety at the law of total tricks level, you need 2 hearts (if partner has 6), 3 spades (in case that is his second suit), and 4 clubs (in case that is his second suit), meaning at least 2-3-4 pattern in those three suits, an easily answered and easily met question. Plus, a conversion to penalty is easy when partner's second suit is diamonds (he has a 5-card stack).

The beauty of canape, and the understanding of canape, is, IMO, in this math example.

The same math example also explains why a pire canape approach, as opposed to tendency canape, is ideal. Tendency canape does not yield this ease as reliably.

Its a real pity that most of the canape systems will open 1M with a balanced hand.
If not for this pesky little fact, your elaborate theory might bear some relation to bridge as it is commonly played.

[kenrexford]

With MICS, 1NT covers all 13 to 15 balanced hands. The problem from the double perspective, as you mention, if the 1M opening when weak balanced, 11-12. This does not affect the 1D openings, but it does create discomfort and inconsistency when Responder doubles.

This reality is why I use semiforcing.

It also, however, brings up the thinking behind balanced openings. You tend to predict, in a sense, the trouble double. 5332 weak is not terrible, because you pretend 6 and end up 5-2 at the 2 level. 4-card anchors are best with 44 majors or 44 major clubs.

[kenrexford]

The other thing in canape to consider is that many sequence self unwind. The one up overcall causes few problems because Opener can always reopen easily, rebidding a 6 card suit or introducing a new 5. The 3 up is the toughest, conversely, which is why both majors or clibs 4 piece is ideal if wk balanced.

[Shugart23]

kenrexford, on 2015-December-09, 06:14, said:

The other thing in canape to consider is that many sequence self unwind. The one up overcall causes few problems because Opener can always reopen easily, rebidding a 6 card suit or introducing a new 5. The 3 up is the toughest, conversely, which is why both majors or clibs 4 piece is ideal if wk balanced.

so Ken, you don't think an unlimited forcing 1NT response over 1H or 1S is playable ?

[kenrexford]

Now that I am at the office and not rushing to take my daughter to school, a more complete explanation might be better. After 1♦ openings in MICS, canapé or a long minor is assured, so reliability on doubles is present. As hrothgar pointed out, balanced hands are sometimes opened 1M in canapé, at least in MICS, which creates a problem. That problem requires thinking and understanding.

As I mentioned earlier, the double tends to be a 2-3-4 proposition after a minor overcall. Only 2-3 in the opened major, 3+ in the other major, 4+ in the other minor. Think of it as a progressive snapdragon. In a sense, the double strangely favors the unbid MINOR rather than the unbid MAJOR, in a sense. Hence, 2-3-4.

Back to Opener. If he was balanced and 5332, rebidding the major, ostensibly 6, is not a problem opposite 2-3 of his major. Might hit an 8-card fit. Might be 5-2 at the two-level. OK. If he has only 4-card in the original major, and balanced, he is 4333 or 4432, obviously. 4333 sucks and is a good reason for a discretionary pass with 11-12 HCP only. 4432, now we are talking. With 4432 or 4423, knowing that partner has 3+ in the other major solves all problems, as a 4-3 or better fit at the two-level is fine. The problem, then, is when the majors are 4-3 or 4-2 and the minors 4-3 or 4-2, because you end up bidding a minor. If the overcall is 2♦, rebidding 3♣ with balanced garbage sucks. However, being able to rebid 2NT with balanced garbage and 4M/4♣ is OK, because Responder has good choices -- pass or bid 3♣, the latter being at worst a 4-4 fit, and Responder might have 5+ to know better. When the overcall is clubs, holding 4-3-2-4 or 4-2-3-4 sucks. 4-2-3-4 sucks less, as a 2♦ gulping rebid is at least tolerable. With 4-3-2-4, you might even pass and cross your fingers. Same with majors 2-4.

There is a solution, though, when the overcall is 2♣. 1M-2♣-X-P-? Here, inverting 2♦ and 2NT makes sense. 2NT as a diamond canapé (weaker than 3♦) is effective, as we have a known 9-card fit. That allows 2♦ as simply weak balanced, getting partner into the action. Thus, with this tools, the only real need is to have four of the original major coupled with four clubs or four of the other major.

What about 4243 or 4342? If you decide to open 1M, and hear 2♣-X-P, you can enjoy the 2♦ rebid as weak balanced if you use the inversion. If, however, you hear 2♦-X-P, you have a problem unless you can sit. Thus, 4243 and 4342 hands might opt a discretionary pass in first seat unless you feel like a conversion pass later seems right.

What about, then, other-major overcalls? 1♥-1♠-X-P is so easy of an auction that there is no concern. 1♠-2♥-X-P is more of a problem if you are weak, balanced. Responder, however, should cater to this problem, where a new minor call on 4-4 is fine. Incidentally, you also would likely use "good-bad 2NT" here, a strange situation for good-bad perhaps.




BTW, in my book, I said that 4-4 with a major and diamonds is better that 4-4 with a major and clubs because of the ability to rebid 2♦ naturally after 1M-2♣-X-P. I have since changed my mind because of the addition of the inversion of 2♦ and 2NT as the solution and because 1M-2♦-X-P leaves a problem if major-diamonds and unwilling to pass. Innovations sometimes change the mathematics.

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-09, 06:27, said:

so Ken, you don't think an unlimited forcing 1NT response over 1H or 1S is playable ?

Opener has, say, 4324 with 11 HCP and opens 1♥. Partner bids 1NT. If forced to bid, you bid 2♣, I suppose. But, partner will expect a normal holding of the same minimum 11 HCP but with 5431-type, longer clubs. While this is only one card of extra length in clubs and only one card of shorter length in the side suit, and while 5422 type is possible, partner is likely to overbid. That said, it is not that much of a problem in that sequence.

What about 44 majors, 32 minors, and 11? That is the death holding for a forcing 1NT. You always open that 1♥, though.

So, a forcing 1NT after a 1♠ opening is workable. A forcing 1NT after a 1♥ opening is a problem, IMO.

[Shugart23]

kenrexford, on 2015-December-09, 06:46, said:

Opener has, say, 4324 with 11 HCP and opens 1♥. Partner bids 1NT. If forced to bid, you bid 2♣, I suppose. But, partner will expect a normal holding of the same minimum 11 HCP but with 5431-type, longer clubs. While this is only one card of extra length in clubs and only one card of shorter length in the side suit, and while 5422 type is possible, partner is likely to overbid. That said, it is not that much of a problem in that sequence.

What about 44 majors, 32 minors, and 11? That is the death holding for a forcing 1NT. You always open that 1♥, though.

So, a forcing 1NT after a 1♠ opening is workable. A forcing 1NT after a 1♥ opening is a problem, IMO.

and clearly I need to read your book, because I had presumed the balanced hands 4432,4333, and many/most 5332 hands open 1NT (or open 1D and rebid 1NT)

[Shugart23]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-09, 08:22, said:

and clearly I need to read your book, because I had presumed the balanced hands 4432,4333, and many/most 5332 hands open 1NT (or open 1D and rebid 1NT)

as an after thought...the answer about forcing 1NT over a 1H bid might also be dependent upon whether one is playing IMPS or Match points

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2015-December-09, 08:22, said:

and clearly I need to read your book, because I had presumed the balanced hands 4432,4333, and many/most 5332 hands open 1NT (or open 1D and rebid 1NT)

In MICS, you open 1NT with 13 to 15 and balanced. You can upgrade 5332 12 counts as well, if appropriate.

Consider, then, 11 to 12 HCP hands and balanced. You could pass these in MICS and have a pure canape expectation, or one suit 6+. Most of us don't like that idea. You could pass the 11 counts, open the 12s 1NT if you like the hand, and expand the range to 12+ to 15. Some don't like that large of a range.

For those like me who like to open a lot of 11s and 12s, an option is to add these into 1M openings. With no major, pass unless you consider the hand upgraded to 13, at least plausibly. Some trouble pattern 12s with a major might also be stretched to plaudible 13 upgrades.

With good pattern 11/12 and a major 4-5, or 44 majors, opening 1M is ok in MICS. There is an unwind described in my book to cater to this.

Never in MICS would you open 1D with balanced, with one exception. There is a lot to be said for treating a cov 5332 with 5M/3D as two suited, opening 1D planning to complete canape into the major.