[shugart24]

Playing a canope system in ACBL world, I'm sure we pre-announce that to the opponents. Case 1. Now assume opponents are silent and bidding has gone 1D (announced, 'could be short') - 1H (alert, may only have 3) -1S -4S all pass Is the 1S bid alertable? Case 2 . bidding goes 1H -1S (alert, may only have 3) -2C -all pass. Are any of opener's bids alertable ? Thank you

[barmar]

Yes, in both cases. From ACBL Alert Procedures

Quote

2. After a Natural Opening Bid, a rebid by Opener that shows a suit that is routinely longer than the suit opened.

[mycroft]

Not sure. Is 1♣-1♥; 1♠ Alertable on a 4333 in standard for those who play that way? What's different if it's 1♦ "could be 2"?

In the OP's auction, is 1♠ *definitely longer* (i.e. "routinely longer"), or would they bid the same way with 4261? If yes, then Alert (and Pre-Alert). But if "we don't bid 4-card majors, but we don't bypass them to bid NT, even though sometimes we have to open our shortest suit with 4324", what makes that different from "standard"? What if it was only 4234 or 4333?

The second auction is more likely to be an Alertable canapé auction, but again, it's only if we would bid that way with 1435 but not 1534.

The way the ACBL C&CC has decided to treat canapé players shows itself clearly, but the intent is equally clearly "if you show the short suit before the long suit by preference, Alert. If it happens sometimes, but is not expected, that's different."

Anybody who wants to disagree with me on this one is likely technically correct, but had better be calling the director on every mom-and-pop who bid 1♦-1♠; 2♣ on their 1345 12 count "because I can't reverse, partner" or the equivalent pairs who do bid 1♣-1♥; 1♠ instead of 1NT on a 4333 13-count. Or maybe even the pairs who bid 1♣-1♥; 2♥ on the 3433 13-counts. Oh wait, that's *everybody*, isn't it?

[mycroft]

To be clear with my previous, "we all know" that "canapé" systems are systems that are *designed to* bid two-suiters short-long rather than long-short; where responder *expects* the second suit if bid to be longer than the first one. BUT, that both suits are of Length (to steal from the Convention Charts); yes, rarely they will have to open a 3-card suit and "pretend" the hand is a two-suiter because they can't treat it as one-suited or as balanced, but the *expectation* is at least 4-5.

Since "we all know" this, "we're" good with writing it out the way it is; it's Obvious™ that this applies to traditional canapé bidding and not to "potentially, but not expected-to-be longer" bids in normal systems.

Which of course it 100% isn't, especially given the level of care to avoid creating Bridge Lawyering situations taken the rest of the time.

Thankfully the Blue Club players and devotées of Trézel are a small enough minority as to never be seen at the table, and not enough people recognize borderline auctions like 1♦-1M; 2♣ "both minors, at least 4-4, either could be longer" out of Precision to be an issue.

Because, as I mentioned in the previous, if they do, the world caves in, at least if you're a 5-card majorite or ever play against them :-).

[shugart24]

mycroft, on 2025-October-17, 15:35, said:

To be clear with my previous, "we all know" that "canapé" systems are systems that are *designed to* bid two-suiters short-long rather than long-short; where responder *expects* the second suit if bid to be longer than the first one. BUT, that both suits are of Length (to steal from the Convention Charts); yes, rarely they will have to open a 3-card suit and "pretend" the hand is a two-suiter because they can't treat it as one-suited or as balanced, but the *expectation* is at least 4-5.

Since "we all know" this, "we're" good with writing it out the way it is; it's Obvious™ that this applies to traditional canapé bidding and not to "potentially, but not expected-to-be longer" bids in normal systems.

Which of course it 100% isn't, especially given the level of care to avoid creating Bridge Lawyering situations taken the rest of the time.

Thankfully the Blue Club players and devotées of Trézel are a small enough minority as to never be seen at the table, and not enough people recognize borderline auctions like 1♦-1M; 2♣ "both minors, at least 4-4, either could be longer" out of Precision to be an issue.

Because, as I mentioned in the previous, if they do, the world caves in, at least if you're a 5-card majorite or ever play against them :-).

Thanks. Here's a bit more detail and let me know if you have any additional comments...Our 1D bid shows one of several hands: 6+ Diamonds, no 4-card side suit OR 6+ Clubs, no 4 card side suit OR a Diamond-Heart canope OR a Diamond-Spade canope OR a NT shape (5332,4333,4432) where point count was such that we couldn't open 1NT. Opening 1D could actually be void in Diamonds. When Responder hears partner open 1D,one thing is certain. He knows Opener has either Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades or a NT shape hand.

(If 5-5 or 6-6 with Diamonds and a Major, open 1D)

[mycroft]

That, I would say, is clearly canapé (at least in part). Having said that, according to the Alert Chart, the rebids are not Alertable. I would feel very uncomfortable not Alerting them, though, because.

I would start by pre-Alerting it (you have to, even if it weren't a canapé bid, because it's not Natural. But you know that). And saying basically this. But you should make clear that it will be 2+ if balanced, and 4+ if two-suited; only 0-1 if 6+clubs.

P.S. What do you do with both minors?

I assume 2♣ rebid is the "6+clubs, 0-3 diamonds", and 1M (and 2♥/1♠) rebids, or raises, are "as long or longer" M.

Also that leads me to believe that you play 4cM, and 2m rebids are guaranteed longer? How about 1♠ then 2♥ or 1♥ then 2♠?

And yes, any call where you will *presume* the second suit to be "no shorter" is Alertable - if the first bid is Natural. So that last paragraph. But after 1♦, which "can be zero" and is therefore Artificial, nope, doesn't match the rule BarMar quoted above (or any other, for that matter).

It's arguable that you can agree to Alert it because "this confirms the opening bid is at least 4 diamonds" - i.e. "also shows Length [] in another suit" and after that, adding that the major is longer is "full disclosure".

I am guessing that no matter what the OP does with this one, they're going to get director calls. And if it happens in a Championship Sectional or higher tournament, might just generate a "ruling from on high" (probably a TD, but I'd love to punt this to the C&CC: "*You* tell us what you meant here - yes, I know you didn't think about this case. Have fun.")

[blackshoe]

Canapé is a way to show two suited hands. 4=3=3=3 is not two suited. When the bidding with this hand goes 1m-1♥-1♠ it has nothing to do with canapé.

[mycroft]

You are supporting my point that "we all know" what bids are required to be alerted because "[the] suit [] is routinely longer than the suit opened" and which we all know frequently are "just because the system requires it".

If they had said "rebid that is canapé", then...

But I see I made a mistake above, which I shall fix. Not sure the correction will make anybody feel better (including the OP), though.

[Shugart23]

Yes. We open 4 card Majors. An opening of 1M usually shows 4 with a longer suit OR 6 plus with no 4 card side suit. 3g 6331. If 5+-5+ in the minors we open 2Nt. If 5+ with a 4 card Minor we open 2D. 5clubs and 4 Diamonds is sort of a problem hand. We open 2C to show 3suited hand and we open 2M to show 5 + Major with 4+ clubs

[pescetom]

 Shugart23, on 2025-October-18, 13:34, said:

Yes. We open 4 card Majors. An opening of 1M usually shows 4 with a longer suit OR 6 plus with no 4 card side suit. 3g 6331. If 5+-5+ in the minors we open 2Nt. If 5+ with a 4 card Minor we open 2D. 5clubs and 4 Diamonds is sort of a problem hand. We open 2C to show 3suited hand and we open 2M to show 5 + Major with 4+ clubs

Wow.
Am I the only one still waiting to hear a synthetic explanation that clear of such a system, even if only in a pre-alert or on a system card? Often I haven't been able to obtain such clarity even about a specific opening and after a Director call.

And if they are not the right places for such synthesis (not everyone is capable of digesting it all on the fly, including me) how about nige1's idea of a summary card where one taps the relevant opening on the list?

[blackshoe]

One of our club directors here, playing with a local player, they decided to use 2♣ as an artificial response to 1 of a major (I don't remember the details). They made up a couple of nice pre-alert cards which they would show. After a couple of months, they stopped pre-alerting. When I asked why, I was told "we figure you're used to it by now". :-(

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-October-19, 15:47, said:

One of our club directors here, playing with a local player, they decided to use 2♣ as an artificial response to 1 of a major (I don't remember the details). They made up a couple of nice pre-alert cards which they would show. After a couple of months, they stopped pre-alerting. When I asked why, I was told "we figure you're used to it by now". :-(

That sounds like Biggels, 2♣/1M artificial, gf, clubs could be as short as 0

[blackshoe]

I don't think that was the agreement. IAC they certainly didn't call it Biggels.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2025-October-20, 02:48, said:

I don't think that was the agreement. IAC they certainly didn't call it Biggels.

Around here it's fashionable to put a weak raise of the major through the 2D response and to play a relay after the 0+ 2C response. A card would certainly help hlin this case, if only to force them to be clear about what "weak" really means (0-7 non vulnerable anyone?).

[Shugart23]

 pescetom, on 2025-October-19, 15:31, said:

Wow.
Am I the only one still waiting to hear a synthetic explanation that clear of such a system, even if only in a pre-alert or on a system card? Often I haven't been able to obtain such clarity even about a specific opening and after a Director call.

And if they are not the right places for such synthesis (not everyone is capable of digesting it all on the fly, including me) how about nige1's idea of a summary card where one taps the relevant opening on the list?

Hi. I just saw this. I am not understanding your comment. I was responding to ‘how do we handle 2 suited minors, and threw in the remaining opening bid ( 1c is strong and 1Nt is variable). This was just the opening bids, the responses to opener are very unusual. PS. IF 55or66 on the majors, open the weaker one

[mycroft]

• 1♣ is our strong bid, 16+ any distribution. All other openings are good 10-15.
  
• 1♦ is a catchall, showing either a 1-suited hand with *either minor*, or 11-13 balanced (including all 5332s), or 4 diamonds with a longer second suit.
  
• 1 of a major promises 4+, and if two-suited, the second suit will be 5+ and at least as long as the major.

Yeah, it's long and probably is better as a Pre-Alert card, with the spoken bit being "we play a strong 1C, 0+ 1D and canapé. Details on the card; we will Alert when it comes up and are happy to answer questions now".

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2025-October-18, 11:17, said:

Canapé is a way to show two suited hands. 4=3=3=3 is not two suited. When the bidding with this hand goes 1m-1♥-1♠ it has nothing to do with canapé.

Canapé is only mentioned specifically in the Pre-Alerts section of the Alert Procedures. The sections on alerts just uses descriptive language about the second suit being longer then the first, so it's not restricted to Canapé.

But as others have said, this only applies when the second suit is systemically expected to be longer. Not when it merely could be longer, as is often the case when opening a minor then rebidding a major.

[pescetom]

 Shugart23, on 2025-October-20, 10:28, said:

Hi. I just saw this. I am not understanding your comment. I was responding to ‘how do we handle 2 suited minors, and threw in the remaining opening bid ( 1c is strong and 1Nt is variable). This was just the opening bids, the responses to opener are very unusual. PS. IF 55or66 on the majors, open the weaker one

Hi, don't worry about it, I fully understand what you said and am happy with it. We just have different writing styles and interests in the matter. My point was about disclosure levels in general.