BBO Discussion Forums: Decline of Canape and other bidding history questions - BBO Discussion Forums

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-27, 16:46, said:

It's likely that the documents you found describing Polish Club have been translated from Polish, which can make them seem unnecessarily complex. Additionally, it is different than what most people play, so some of the ideas are foreign at first. Polish Club is much easier to pick up and play at a good level than most other systems. For example, I told someone I could teach him the basics in 10 minutes - it took eight.

If you want to start somewhere, look at the WJ2000 document (not WJ2005, which is a description of the author's favoured version rather than standard Polish Club, or WJ2010, which is harder to read). At its heart it is a strong NT, 5-card major system so you can ignore everything they describe over 1D, 1M and 1NT. You can also play whatever two's you want to play. Start by concentrating on the sections for 1C and 2C openings. Once you have that structure, you can happily say you're playing Polish Club.

You can find this and many other systems at https://bridgewithdan.com/resources/ .

 sfi, on 2019-August-28, 04:39, said:

Thanks. I had only looked at WJ2010 and WJ2005 so that's probably the problem.

I'm still curious about AMBRA. Does anyone have anything that can enlighten me? I can read the system notes and gradually incorporate pieces, but that's not the same thing as understanding the thinking behind it. (You have this with, e.g., Roman Club -- the descriptions of the system are just bid sequences. There's a very straight forward logic to them, but the book never explains it. The whole thing drives me crazy. It's like we *want* the game to be hard on people.)

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-28, 22:03, said:

I don't think you should be surprised at this in bridge or any other field of human endeavour. Creators of systems have little to gain and a lot to lose by sincerely explaining the underlying design choices, and mere scribes may not even understand them.

canape makes a lot of sense to me.

1. for uncongested 1s - 1nt - 2d. in blue team club one is not clear if opener has longer s or d. unsure if "more canape" system e.g. roman club solve this?

2. for congested 1s - (3C) -?. difficult to deal with opp preempt. i assume there is similar thing for 5CM. in 5CM, 1d - (3C) -?. responder is stuck if he has 4 card S. whereas in canape opener if holding 4s5d the seq is 1s - (3C) - 3s. does it boil down to whether 44 fit and 53 fit is more often?

3. canape could not easily deal with 5s4h. similar with 5CM could not easily deal with 4s5h?

4. negative X for 5CM gadgets they could be tweaked correspondingly and similarly deployed to canape?

5. i am unsure if canape should work together with strong C? personally my favourite would be no need strong C. just plug canape into your 2/1 and i do not quite see anything not compatible?

6. i recall reading about some merit of canape being (1) it is safer at higher/later bidding level announcing your longer suit. (2) the other one being one could more often open 1s/1h. both makes sense.

7. canape diff for 5s4d not strong enough for reverse. similar happens in 5CM with 5d4s not strong enough for reverse?

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

IIRC, Roman Club canape is more "pure" than Blue Team Canape so the relative length of suits is less of a problem after opener's canape rebid. IIRC, the strength of the Roman Club canape is ambiguous. In Blue Team, opener's reverses and jump shifts have well defined limits on strength and relative suit lengths.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

The difference is that when the opening bid is 1 of a major, failing to get to a major suit game is likely to be a disaster. Also, the sequence 1♦ - (3♣) is also a problem for classic Blue Team canape in the same way it is for 5 card majors so that is a clear advantage for 5 card majors. While classic Blue Team opens most balanced hands 1M with a 4 card major if present, sometimes 1♦ is opened based on rebid problems.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

IMO, not similar at all. In canape, the problem is determining the lengths of the 2 suits (not necessarily hearts and spades) and getting to the best fit. In 5 card majors, there is no 4-4 or better spade fit after a 1NT response so the problem is opener's rebid. Responder knows that opener has at least 5 hearts from the 1♥ opening bid.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

That is always a possibility

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

Certainly possible. I play a version of Blue Team with 2 over 1 responses game forcing. Of course, opener's canape rebids need to be taken into account.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

I've heard that theory. Certainly if you have a good 5+ card side suit, and partner doesn't have support for your first suit, you have a better chance of catching adequate support from partner since you have a 5+ card side suit. As noted, 1♥/1♠ have some preemptive value, even more when you have bid the opponents longest suit.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-29, 09:16, said:

Different problems. After a 1NT response, the Blue Team canape problem is sorting out relative suit lengths. Besides finding the best fit, responder could have a maximum with 3 spades which makes game a reasonable prospect opposite 5 spades, but a partscore hand opposite 4 spades.

In 5 card majors, after a 1 NT response to 1♦, you know there is no 8 card spade fit. After a 1♥ response, if you play 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand, perfect, you are showing 5+ diamonds and 4 spades. If 1♠ doesn't show an unbalanced hand, you have plenty of space to investigate further.

For most common seq. No matter canapé 5cM there is a meaning associated with it. It is a matter of how one distribute those.
There is a Chinese saying "a good general would not send the best soldiers at their first move". Canapé seems just doing that.
For why 5cM gains traction. I would think that it's easier. It happens everywhere, not just in bridge game.

😀😀😀

Yet another saying "deploy your resources to where it is most needed"
For locating 53 fit which i think 5cM is better at, there is not much diff playing nt
For locating 44 fit which I think canapé is better at, one would be better off playing suit
Canapé seems just doing that


😀😀😀

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-27, 16:46, said:

Well, one of the reasons Flannery was invented was to "solve" a problem with 4 spade-5 heart hands where opener didn't have a good rebid over a response of 1NT. With Blue Team canape, opener has a very convenient rebid of 2♥ after a 1♠ opening, but adds the problem of ambiguous suit lengths.

Of course you could add on Flannery to your convention card, or reverse Flannery (5 spades and 4 hearts) and you would reduce some ambiguity. But Flannery isn't part of Blue Team Club so you are creating your own variation, and Flannery doesn't help at all in all the other 2 suited hands that have ambiguous suit lengths after canape sequences. e.g.



or



The suit lengths are ambiguous and responder may have to just guess what to do.

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-27, 16:46, said:

Blue Team has its own version of canape with different rules for minimum hands and reverse strength hands (within the context of a strong 1♣). Blue Team canape is definitely not the same as French canape.

Are you talking about a strong club system? Blue Team doesn't use weak NT. Suppose you switch to weak NT. What do you bid with a 5-3-3-2 hand with 15-16 HCP with 5 cards in the major (Blue Team 1♣ shows 17+ for unbalanced hands or 18+ for balanced hands). Would you have to canape with a 3 card suit since 1M specifically does not show 5 cards? (In Blue Team, a reverse shows a maximum and strong playing hand. 5=3-3-2 with 15 HCP is not a strong playing hand by Blue Team standards).

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-27, 16:46, said:

Common sense says that the more you have to guess, the more likely you are to guess wrong. Obviously you want to minimize the guessing part of a system and without special tools, you can't do more than guess. Of course, preempts usually work, that's why there is more preempting these days.

In classic Blue Team, opening 1 of a major shows 4+ cards in the major, but does not promise a 5+ card side suit if opener only has 4 spades. So, with 4=3=3=3 or 4=2-3-4 you would normally open 1♠. You can't make the assumption that opener either has 5+ spades or a 5+ card side suit playing classic Blue Team. (FWIW I open balanced hands that are not in the 1NT HCP range with 1♦ so I don't have that particular problem)

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-27, 16:46, said:

If you are talking about about the wide range 13-17 HCP opening 1NT, I don't think many played that since soon after Garozzo and Forquet published their book on Blue Team Club. There are too many theoretical problems with playing a 5 point HCP range. I think most Blue Team players switched to a "standard" 15-17 1NT although some may have gone to a weak NT.

FWIW, I play 15-17 1NT which can include a 5 card major.

FWIW, my preferred bidding system is MOSCITO which uses a four card majors based approach with a majors first bidding style.

As a result, there is some ambiguity with respect to the relative length of a major and a minor following auctions like

1♥ - 1NT
2♦

The way in which we typically sort this type of thing out is

1. We use relays for hands where we really care about relative length of the two suits
2. (Almost) all constructive hands with 3 card support for openers major will make an immediate raise

As a result, if we have an auction like

1♥ - 1NT (Note: The 1!H opening shows 4+ Spades)
2♦ - 2♠

Opener is showing a balanced hand with precisely two Spades, and by implication must have 3 cards in Diamonds.
(If opener had 4+ Diamonds, he would have passed or raised)

apology if i have hijacked the thread. the title suggests that it is more on history than merits

it is very well said in the wiki page for advantage of canape.
wiki page

there is one hand in the wiki page that does not match with my understanding (from the book blue team club chinese translated, tons of web, hamman/wolff/soloway cc, hand records etc)

Quote

For this hand my understanding is that it would be opened 1s. because from my understanding

• in canape opener reverse or jump shows max similar with standard.
  
• lowest level nt rebid shows min, may be diff with standard (when the nt rebid is reverse e.g. 1s-2c-2nt. 2nt yet shows min in canape)
  
• lowest level rebid suit generally shows min

for this hand (considered min) after 1s - 2c (2/1 forcing till 2nt) the opener rebid 2s. the opener may opt to pass after 1s - 1nt (non forcing), or he may opt for 2s (but not 2d).
edit: I recall that in the blue team club book there is a section for after 1nt. 2d is possible and result in unclear s/d length. responder may also canape. etc. making things very confusing e.g. responder canape into opener 2nd (long) suit.....
2d not possible seems to be from roman or other materials.

i also note the below statement from wiki page.

Quote

wonder about your canape understanding on this hand?




addendum: I guess this post explains quite well why canape decline lol

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-30, 10:27, said:

I reject the notion that Canape declined. The Blue Team only won like what? 13 championships? Were they in a row? I know there was a cheating controversy, but that was literally the new pair that was added after the regular pair that was present for the first 12 left the team. The only reason they stopped playing the Blue Team Club is because they were paid to play Precision (a truly horrible system). Consequently, they never won a championship again... Not surprising... 5-card majors and a strong club is such an inconsistent set of agreements. It's great when you get dealt 5-card majors... 5-card majors are obviously better when you get dealt 5-card majors all the time. It's just not frequent enough to clearly claim they are better, and certainly not frequent enough to undertake the difficulties of 5-card majors with an artificial 1♣ opening bid.

Also, I don't think you understand Canape very well. So, I'd really slow down on asserting any correctness in your opinion on it. I think you're being very inflexible with your understanding of Canape, for example, here are my agreements with partner.

1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ > ♦. Weaker than a 3♠ raise.
1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠ = at least 4♠, at least 4♦. If more than 4♠, ♠ > ♦. It says nothing about strength. 90% forcing-ish... But I'm limited in strength by not opening 1♣.
1♦-P-1♥-P-2♠ = 6♠ (so rarely is it ever more), exactly 4♦. I had a 1♠ bid available, so partner would prefer that given my definition of the sequence above, I should be even longer in ♠, not stronger.

1♠-P-1NT-P-2♦ = At least 4♠, at least 5♦ #♠ <= #♦. Partner should raise ♠ with a hand that is 3541 for example. 1NT is not forcing, and certainly shouldn't be bid with a hand that doesn't want to play NT. Opener will hold something in the range of 4.65-->4.70 ♥/♠ on the average 1♥/♠ opener.. There is just no problem here, as long as you're aware that you've agreed to raise with 3-card support sometimes.

1♠-P-1NT-P-3♦ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, not a maximum.
1♦-P-1♥/1NT-P-3♠ = Some 6-5 (or better) in the two suits, maximum.

2♦ opener = 5-6 ♦. 4♣
2♥ opener = 5-6 ♥. 4♣
2♠ opener = 5-6 ♠. 4♣

We've just never had a problem patterning out. If your partner is remotely competent at balancing when you have to take a pass with a concealed 5-card suit, you're just fine. When opponents preempt with a long suit, your opening hand almost always tends to be two-suited. There are so many inferences that can be taken in Canape auctions, and knowing how to properly handle competition is required, but also not difficult.

 sakuragi, on 2019-August-30, 10:27, said:

You are correct. The Blue Team opening is 1♠ because the hand is not strong enough to open 1♦ and reverse into spades. Blue Team canape differs from many other canape systems. Opener can certainly decide to pass 1NT, but the recommended rebid is 2♦ not 2♠.

Blue Team canape reverses/jump shifts have fewer points than standard because 17+ HCP hands are opened 1♣. Having 15-16 HCP in an unbalanced hand is not enough to reverse if lots of points are in the short suits (i.e. not enough honor cards in the long suits). The longer suit needs to be very good. With 10-11 cards in 2 suits, the HCP requirements can be relaxed.

Rebidding 2NT after a 2/1 response is not considered a reverse. In classic Blue Team, you might open 1♠ on 4=3=3=3 or 4=2=4=3. 2NT just shows a minimum balanced/semi-balanced hand. Otherwise, you don't have a good rebid. If you can't bid 2NT with those hands, you would have to represent having 5+ spades by rebidding 2♠ or a 5+ card side suit by rebidding 2 of a red suit. With a maximum balanced hand you would have opened 1NT.

You can have maximum HCP and make a minimum rebid in a lower ranking suit. This hand has 16 HCP but the diamond suit is not good enough to jump shift in diamonds.


This 16 HCP hand is not good enough to open 1♦ and reverse into hearts

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. They may well have been paid to play Precision, but Taiwan gave them a close run in the 1969 Bermuda Bowl playing Precision - and consequently they won the 1972 Olympiad and the 1973, 1974 and 1975 Bermuda Bowls playing Precision.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

There are several versions of canape. You play your own version of canape. That's great, but it is not Blue Team Canape.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Blue Team canape shows at most 4 spades. With 5+ spades you would have a spade reverse hand and make a stronger rebid than 2♠ which shows a minimum hand.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Blue Team canape shows 4 spades exactly. With a minimum 2 suited hand with 9+ cards in the 2 suits you open the higher ranking suit. With 5+ spades you were intending to reverse so your rebid would be 2♠

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Blue Team canape shows 5+ spades, and 4+ diamonds.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Blue Team canape can also show 4 diamonds, 5 spades. You can raise 1M to 2M with 3 card support, but you aren't required to raise with every hand with 3 card support.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Blue Team canape implies only 4 spades with reverse strength.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

Not addressed in Blue Team canape. Another possible meaning is long running diamonds with a self splinter in the jump bid suit. My interpretation is that if showing a 2 suiter, spades should be at least 6 cards long. Responder should discount minor honors in the other suits when evaluating a suit contract.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 14:04, said:

I don't necessarily agree with you but I like your confidence.

 johnu, on 2019-August-30, 15:01, said:

Haha fair enough, I wasn't claiming that these were the Blue Team agreements for Canape, just that we play a system that is inspired by some of their agreements. It works well in my opinion, I'd encourage others to try and judge for themselves. Regarding my statement on balancing, it's just so obvious when you're in a two-suited auction. We also play a Baby NT (10-12), so often you're protected either way. A legit two-suiter or a "strong" NT is opposite you.

 pescetom, on 2019-August-30, 14:26, said:

And there was a group of relatively unknown American players (including Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel) who became a dominant team in the ACBL along with the Dallas Aces for several years in the early 70's. Also many top pairs today are playing a Precision based system, including Meckstroth-Rodwell.

 pescetom, on 2019-August-30, 14:26, said:

There could be so many reasons why Taiwan was successful. Was precision just better? I don't personally believe it for a second. Was it because they didn't play precision as well? Did the Blue Team just decline as players as they aged? I'm not the greatest scholar on bridge history, so I won't state with any authority. I just think we should be skeptical of claims suggesting that Canape fell off a cliff. The best team to ever play it was in fact paid to move away from it, and never had success on the same scale again. 5-card majors have been adopted in recent years without much analytical consideration. They're just not as good as purported. People make the argument that "everyone plays it, so it must be better" here in North America. I literally had someone who won a NABC pairs event tell me something to the effect that, "4-card majors are a relic of the past and there's a reason everyone plays 5-card majors". As soon as you ask for the reasons why.

I mean, 5-card majors are great, when you're dealt 5-card majors. And they're still okay when you're not. You'll get dealt a lot of hands with 5-card majors... But, whether they're better.... They may be marginally worse. Either way.... I just hate them with a strong club. Systems with fundamental flaws are a bad foundation to make new agreements upon... You're always stuck with those flaws.

 KingCovert, on 2019-August-30, 15:10, said:

13 points is a strong NT? OK, it's not the weakest hand you can have but I would categorize 13 as weak NT strength. Even if you have 16-17 points, points do not always make up for lack of trump support.

To clarify, my original question was how did we get from Alberan's system to Blue Team's very different take on canape.

Alberan's system, cleaned up with modern conventions would be pretty similar to modern 2/1 GF. It would have to be. His system focuses on showing shape at the expense of strength.

I do think they are equivalent more or less. Maybe someone who has played the original can chime in?

I'm honestly not that familiar with blue team and find a lot of what they changed confusing. I would think that you could make a strong club version of Alberan's system, but I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile. I do think it would help with a lot of post-1C auctions where people use 4 card suits, bypassing longer minors.

My main complaint with stock precision is the 2D opening because it seems to be a waste vs multi or mini Roman. In general,the other complaints don't really strike me as valid.

As for the Italian systems, I wonder if you could clean up Roman and make it usable...

I'll add this, from playing around casually, strong club systems don't do well against forcing pass systems. The cert bids and others generally negate the advantages and make the interfere over a strong club opening that much stronger.

 MaxHayden, on 2019-August-31, 02:18, said:

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. While it's true that people often play identical (or very similar) methods in first chair or in second chair after an initial pass, this absolutely should not apply against a forcing pass system! If I'm opening in first seat it doesn't much matter to me whether opponents play forcing pass or not; if I'm in second seat against forcing pass it makes no difference whether my first seat methods are strong club or 2/1 or forcing pass myself because I'm always playing my "defense after opponents action" methods (which obviously depend on what action opponents took) and not my general system.