[cwiggins]

Does anyone have:
(i) A relatively complete set of competitive bids for a canape opening system?
(iib) Experience or thoughts on how well a canape system works in competitive sequences and why?

Competitive auctions are now the norm. In the two session event at a regional, the auctions were without competition on 5 of 52 hands. Perhaps that's extreme, but certainly the majority of deals involve competition.

Given that, the test of a system should be how well it gets to the right spot in competitive auctions. Non-competitive sequences are not a concern:
(i) They don't happen very often.
(ii) All systems have advanced in non-competitive sequences so that the difference between a forcing club system and a 2/1 system is much less than it once was.

Assuming auctions are competitive, do canape systems make less sense, more sense, or about the same? What sparked the thought was that if the opener's partner knows that opener has either a longer second suit (or maybe 6+ in his first suit), then it might be easier to compete on marginal values and shape.

One key to effectiveness in competition is good agreements. But having no experience with canape, I'm not sure whether you would use the same tools, the same tools tweaked, or different treatments.

[mike777]

i) A relatively complete set of competitive bids for a canape opening system?
(iib) Experience or thoughts on how well a canape system works in competitive sequences and why?



1) yes
2) yes......it works ok but not great.....super experts do better than....non.


See "simple club" which is based on 25-45 year old bridge........you may do better.

if you have any questions based on canape feel free to ask here.......

[rory74]

Maybe you mean 'The Simplified Club Cystem' by Larry Weiss. Not simple at all. Strong Club plus Canapé.

[mike777]

rory74, on Oct 24 2008, 04:55 AM, said:

Maybe you mean 'The Simplified Club Cystem' by Larry Weiss. Not simple at all. Strong Club plus Canapé.

Yes

[csdenmark]

cwiggins, on Oct 24 2008, 06:17 AM, said:

Does anyone have:
(i) A relatively complete set of competitive bids for a canape opening system?
(iib) Experience or thoughts on how well a canape system works in competitive sequences and why?

Competitive auctions are now the norm.  In the two session event at a regional, the auctions were without competition on 5 of 52 hands.  Perhaps that's extreme, but certainly the majority of deals involve competition.

Given that, the test of a system should be how well it gets to the right spot in competitive auctions.  Non-competitive sequences are not a concern:
(i) They don't happen very often. 
(ii) All systems have advanced in non-competitive sequences so that the difference between a forcing club system and a 2/1 system is much less than it once was.

Assuming auctions are competitive, do canape systems make less sense, more sense, or about the same?  What sparked the thought was that if the opener's partner knows that opener has either a longer second suit (or maybe 6+ in his first suit),  then it might be easier to compete on marginal values and shape. 

One key to effectiveness in competition is good agreements. But having no experience with canape, I'm not sure whether you would use the same tools, the same tools tweaked, or different treatments.

Canape' systems are very little affected of low level interference. The disadvantages are all of the side of opponents because they are in darkness of best suit and of real values. Take a look into Roman Club, Arno Club and Blue Club.

The same advantages are used by Bocchi-Duboin 2001/2003 using canape' overcalls.

[hrothgar]

cwiggins, on Oct 24 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

Does anyone have:
(i) A relatively complete set of competitive bids for a canape opening system?
(iib) Experience or thoughts on how well a canape system works in competitive sequences and why?

Few comments

1. I'm not aware of any good books that discuss competitive bidding in the context of a canape opening style. As you note, competitive bidding is becoming increasing important. Regretfully, I can't recall the last time anyone published ANYTHING about a canape bidding. Regretfully the old books on Blue Club and Roman Club are antiquated and simply didn't discuss these topics in any depth.

As I recall, Jan Martel relayed an interesting comment that Chip made. Chip said (something) like the following: One of the big problems with playing a 5 card major weak NT style that there are relatively few people working to improve the toolbox which slows down improvements to the base system.

2. The expression canape covers a whole lot of ground: People use this expression to describe everything from "pure" canape systems to opening structures that probably should be described as "majors first". You might benefit from trying to restrict your search somewhat. Start with some simple/common cases and try to figure out what you're comfortable with.

For example, I think that a lot of the folks playing canape these days are actually playing a majors first opening style in a strong club system. Focus on your 1M openings, since these are the bread and butter of the system.

I'd recommend starting with some VERY simple auctions like competition following

1M - (2m) - ???

1M - (P) - 2M

1M - (X)

[TimG]

cwiggins, on Oct 23 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

Given that, the test of a system should be how well it gets to the right spot in competitive auctions.

Don't forget "how well it prevents the opponents from getting to the right spot".

One of the perceived advantages of a canape system is that you are able to find your 4-4 major suit fits more quickly (because opener starts with 1M with many 4M5m hands), which makes it more difficult for the opponents to compete effectively. Some canape systems also allow for 1M-2M raises to made on three-card support, once again making it difficult for the opponents to judge when to compete -- they don't know whether you might be in a 4-3 fit -- even if this 4-3 fit isn't your side's "right spot".

In my experience playing canape, when opener starts a canape by not bidding a long major and there is competition, it is right, in the long run, for opener to introduce his major even without encouragement from partner and even at a mildly uncomfortable level. It may seem like you are sticking your neck out, but the chopping seldom takes place and the risk is often necessary to get back to even.

In many canape systems, negative doubles in the modern sense of showing 4 cards in an unbid major often don't make any sense, especially in a majors first canape approach where a 1m opening virtually denies a 4-card major. So, you'll probably want to tweak the expectation for a negative double and might even want to abandon them for penalty oriented doubles.

As others have suggested, it's not really enough to describe a system as canape, important considerations will be what hand types use canape methods and how limited the canape openings are.

[dake50]

Try Maf by Cheil Voorheis, Mafia Club by Ken Lindsay.

[akhare]

There are tidbits of information in the RGB thread on the topic:

Canape thread

[Tcyk]

Canape can be fun. Some even play canape responses and canape overcalls but those that I know that did have given them up. I still like canape transfers after 1NT but few play them. My favorite book that used canape was "Relay Club." I've lost the book but I think the author was Bose and he definitely was a Frenchman. He also used losing trick count extensively. I am now told this is the worst way of evaluating the playing strength of your hand. One of his more interesting methods was to evaluate the trump suit using 4-3-2-1 and other suits using 5-3-0-0.

[PrecisionL]

Tcyk, on Oct 26 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

My favorite book that used canape was "Relay Club." I've lost the book but I think the author was Bose and he definitely was a Frenchman.

The Relay Club by S. G. Bose Mullick, 1975. Author lived and played bridge in India.

Good discussion of Canape. 23 pages on interference.

Strong 1♣ = 17+

[Tcyk]

PrecisionL, on Oct 27 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Oct 26 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

My favorite book that used canape was "Relay Club." I've lost the book but I think the author was Bose and he definitely was a Frenchman.

The Relay Club by S. G. Bose Mullick, 1975. Author lived and played bridge in India.

Good discussion of Canape. 23 pages on interference.

Strong 1♣ = 17+

Thanks. I'm getting old. He also had a brief discussion of relay Precision and some other variations. Thirty years ago I had a partner with whom I played his complete 1NT treatment. I still try to convince partners that transfers should be invitational and all forcing hands should start with Stayman The exact shape of all 1NT opening hands (if you didn't open 1NT with 5422 shapes) could be described without exceeding 3NT using the method Bose described. I wish I still had the book. Balanced hands with 5-card majors were opened 1NT if the major was weak. This meant that an opening bid of 1H or 1S tended to promise a good suit. As I recall, 2H and 2S promised a minimum opening hand with four clubs because you couldn't canape with shorter clubs and a major. I think that's where I learned the "rule of 19."

[kenrexford]

Back around 2000-2001, a group of 5-6 people was growing into a group of about a dozen people who were all playing canape. As the main contributor to the specific approach, the task was placed on me to have a standardized set of system notes for our approach. I decided to write it in a book form, largely because I wanted to include answers to various questions like this -- how effective is canape in competitive sequences. One reason for that was the non-obvious ways in which canape could be incredibly effective, but only if understood. Some counter-intuitive concepts need to be understood and employed.

I lost the electronic version of the book, but I years later scanned the entire book into six pdf files. If anyone is interested, email me at kenrexford@hotmail.com.

A short example of how canape can be effective in comp. if understood. Standard opens 1♣ and hears 1♠-P-2♠. Reintroducing clubs with six of them is tough. However, if the same canape sequence started 1♥-1♠-P-2♠, Opener feels safer bidding 3♣, because now 9 of his cards will be on the table. But, say he is cautious. Responder can more easily balance as well, because he knows that Opener has some five-card or longer suit, or six hearts. So, Responder needs about 2♥/3♣/3♦ as his shape to reopen. But, back up. Responder could also have doubled with such a scattered mess, as a more flexible negative double.