[benlessard]

A simple and straitfoward vien on Canape is that its stronger when the bidding is at the 1 and 2 level because you are pretty sure of being able to show your 2 suiter but is weaker at higher level because you might not show your longest suit.

Long S + D
1D-----(2H)------p--------(P)
vs
1S------(2H)------p--------(P)

here canape is better placed then in standard.

But

1D-----(2H)------p--------(3H)
vs
1S------(2H)-----p--------(3H)

here you prefer to not play canape.

The same thing happen if you open 1M instead of 1m.

long D + 4M
if you are able to show the minor than opeing 1M will make thing harder for opps. But if opps raised to the 3 level your long minor will be buried more easily than the 4M would have been if you would have opened 1m.

[rbforster]

TimG, on Sep 1 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

Well, is a 1♦ opening that promises three or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit, conventional?  What about a 1♦ opening that promises four or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit?

No one treats these bids as "conventional" and they are part of standard bidding in many areas.

- Almost all 2/1 players open 1♦ 3+ with a longer suit - just look at those 12-14 hands 4432. They've got 2 longer suits, somebody ban that method! If you want a two-suited example (instead of a balanced one), look at my above post on 1435 shapes.

- Likewise, it's also 2/1 standard (and in many other systems too) to open 1♦ with minimum hands that are 4=5 in the minors, intending on rebidding clubs.

First it was "open your longest suit", then came the canape players who open their 2nd longest suit. I think we should just cut to the chase and open our shortness.

[david_c]

TimG, on Sep 2 2008, 02:21 AM, said:

Well, is a 1♦ opening that promises three or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit, conventional?  What about a 1♦ opening that promises four or more diamonds, but could also contain a longer suit?

Unfortunately the definition in the 1997 Laws leaves plenty of room for argument, and the WBF never issued any interpretation. So it is up to the national authorities to interpret it. Which is a rather daft state of affairs - the national authorities are supposed to be bound by Law 40, but they also get to interpret what Law 40 means. But that's the way things are.

So, when the EBU bans canape bids, they are (implicitly) saying that they interpret them as being conventional. We could argue about whether this interpretation makes sense, but at the end of the day the EBU has the right to interpret it however they like, unless a higher authority (the WBF or EBL) says otherwise.

To answer your question, I expect the EBU would say that canape bids are always conventional, whether or not they promise four cards in the suit. However they have chosen to allow canape bids that promise four cards and not allow ones that promise only three.

[guido]

ArtK78, on Sep 1 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

No weaknesses is a significant overbid.

Many years ago, my regular partner and I played Blue Club. I had a strong hand (short of a 1♣ opener) with 6 hearts and 3 diamonds. I opened 1♦, planning to make a strong canape into hearts. Partner had a very weak hand with 5 hearts and 3 diamonds, so he passed. We played in 1♦ on a 3-3 fit going down one. And, while 4♥ on the 6-5 fit was not a great contract, it made and our opps got there.

Given the choice of contracts, I would have preferred 4♥ to 1♦.

As for defending against canape, it is not something I give much consideration to. It is like saying "how do you defend against a standard one of a major opening?" Just play bridge.

Well, one problem is that you were not playing Blue Team ... which does not open 3-card Diamond suits to invent a canape into a major. Roman does that, of course, but 1D is forcing in Roman.

As to defense ...

Almost everyone devises their defenses to play against their own methods. For extreme canape (e.g., 3-card majors), you might want to look at Roman's approach:
a) Cue bid is natural
double is often balanced or off-shape.

Against a more moderate type of canape (Blue Team, for example), I would suggest just using whatever you use against 4-card major standard systems.

Paul