[Winstonm]

4-card majors to my knowledge were based on the principle of preparedness, that is always having with weaker hands a bid available that was a non-reverse bid if partner responded in your shorter suit. This made bidding simple and convenient, but was not very precise.

Then along came Canape'. The idea in canape' is to bid your short suit first and then your long suit.

The next step was five card majors, bringing a whole new set of problems.

Somewhere in this mix, I believe it was Jais and Trezel, used something called "Canape tendency", which was a mixture - bidding weaker hands naturally but using Canape' on stronger hands.

This has led me to wonder if major suit Canape' reverse tendency in standard bidding wouldn't help eliminate a lot of problems inherent in standard bidding styles. If one were to use Canape major reverses, many of the headaches of opener's jump shift problems would be solved as the strength and shape is shown at the 2-level.

---

Standardly, we have to bid this 1S-1N-3C. But if we used Canape' for major reverses, the auction could begin 1C-1D/H-2S. Not only would we save a level but could here partner's call along the way.

Has this been tried?

[dogsbreath]

hi
my team-mates play Canape within a modified Blue Club system with considerable success. ( canape is an inherent element of Blue Club). ..so I dont think this is a new idea but i have no idea of it's effectiveness -v- alternate methods.

Rgds Dog

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 16 2006, 03:48 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AKJ93 ♥ A43 ♦ 4 ♣ AQJ3

Standardly, we have to bid this 1S-1N-3C.  But if we used Canape' for major reverses, the auction could begin 1C-1D/H-2S.  Not only would we save a level but could here partner's call along the way.

The obivous question is the following:

If the auction 1♣ - 1N - 2♠ shows a maximum opening with 5+ Spades and 3+ Clubs, how do you show a maximum opening with 5+ Clubs and 4 Spades? Playing Blue Club, minimum strength hands with 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major get opened 1M. However, the strong hands are routed through a natural 2♣ opening. (On occasion, 2♣ is the correct systemic bid with 5-2-1-5 hands...). Other systems, like Roman Club used a 2♠ to show a weak hand with 4 Spades and long clubs.

In short, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we assume that the starting point is a reasonably well designed system, you probably can't get significantly more bidding space for one sequence without a corresponding loss somewhere else.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 15 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

4-card majors to my knowledge were based on the principle of preparedness, that is always having with weaker hands a bid available that was a non-reverse bid if partner responded in your shorter suit.  This made bidding simple and convenient, but was not very precise.

Then along came Canape'.  The idea in canape' is to bid your short suit first and then your long suit. 

The next step was five card majors, bringing a whole new set of problems.

Somewhere in this mix, I believe it was Jais and Trezel, used something called "Canape tendency", which was a mixture - bidding weaker hands naturally but using Canape' on stronger hands.

This has led me to wonder if major suit Canape' reverse tendency in standard bidding wouldn't help eliminate a lot of problems inherent in standard bidding styles.  If one were to use Canape major reverses, many of the headaches of opener's jump shift problems would be solved as the strength and shape is shown at the 2-level.

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AKJ93 ♥ A43 ♦ 4 ♣ AQJ3

Standardly, we have to bid this 1S-1N-3C.  But if we used Canape' for major reverses, the auction could begin 1C-1D/H-2S.  Not only would we save a level but could here partner's call along the way.

Has this been tried?

See the "Simple Club" which is in the Bridge Encyclopedia. This system derived from Blue and Roman Club.

A strong club, 4 card major, Canape system and weak NT system.
1c=strong
1d,1h,1s=2 suited hands, 4 card canape very often
1nt=weak nt
2c=3 suited int. hands
2d,2h.2s, 2nt,3c=one suited int. hands.

example:
1s=1nt(sort of a strongish relay)
2c=4+s and 5+c, longer clubs than spades and 11-16 hcp.
1s=1nt=
3c=6+c and 4+s and 14-16 hcp
1s=1nt
2s=5+s and 4-5c and minimum hand.
1s=1nt
2nt=5s and 4-5 clubs, 14-16 hcp.

1s=2c(think weakish relay)
p=minimum hand with 4s and longer clubs
1s=2c
2s=5+s and 4+clubs
etc...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 15 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

---

as almost everyone knows, i'm a big proponent of guaranteed canape bids, *if* they're limited in strength... i think your thoughts are good and running in the right direction, i'd just prefer that you put them in a strong 1C framework

[Codo]

Winstonm, on Jul 16 2006, 09:48 AM, said:

This has led me to wonder if major suit Canape' reverse tendency in standard bidding wouldn't help eliminate a lot of problems inherent in standard bidding styles. If one were to use Canape major reverses, many of the headaches of opener's jump shift problems would be solved as the strength and shape is shown at the 2-level.

---

Standardly, we have to bid this 1S-1N-3C. But if we used Canape' for major reverses, the auction could begin 1C-1D/H-2S. Not only would we save a level but could here partner's call along the way.

Has this been tried?

Sorry I did not get the point:
If you reverse your club and spade holding in your example, you will bid 1♣ 1 any 2 ♠ in normal bidding, but must bid 1 ♠ 1 NT 3 ♣ in canape. So you win exactly nothing with your method, you just switch it.

And in anyway you do not save "one level", the gap between 2 ♠ and 3 ♣ is quite small.

Of course any given bidding systems solves some problems and creates others. So Canape is a usefull system, but it is not the best system in the world, simply because there is no simple best system.

[barmar]

Codo, on Jul 17 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

And in anyway you do not save "one level", the gap between 2 ♠ and 3 ♣ is quite small.

You preserve 2NT as an available call by responder, which could be useful. It could be used as a relay, and then the whole 3 level is available for responses.

[Free]

Well yes, you switch the problem, but after a 1M opening you already know if partner has a fit or not. So starting 1♣-...-2♠ showing 5♠-4♣ and a strong hand and 1♠-...-3♣ showing 4♠-5♣ seems more useful since your partner already denied ♠ support.
With weak hands it seems better to bid your longest suit, since for example 1♠-2♥ would give you rebid problems with 4♠-5m.
But the problem may be with intervention - not sure about that - to show the strong hand or the weak hand, especially after takeout doubles.

It looks better to play canapé on strong hands in natural systems.

I prefer full canapé in a strong ♣ system, because competitive bidding is a lot easier for opener, and you sometimes take away their fit by bidding your 4 card suit first.

[keylime]

As a new inductee into the canape world, I agree wholeheartedly with Free and Lukie there - being able to bid any 4 card major in front of a five card minor defeats the takeout double. Recently Larry and I were discussing suit quality that the major should have and ran into some interesting veins of thought:

1. We felt that if we were forced into opening 4 carders with restrictions on suit quality that it could overburden our 1NT opening on the heart-club combination. So we decided to open both 87xx and AKQx.

2. As byproduct, we realized that we better have a way to ask for major suit quality early in a G/F auction.

3. Lastly, 1M-2NT with us is a Scanian style raise. We had to modify it somewhat to cater to min/max canapes. It also lent to the idea of what is really a minimum versus a hand like Kx xxxx AKJxx Qx where 3NT might be the right spot.

All and all, I'm enjoying being able to open 4 card majors. It has definitely required me to rethink certain auctions, but then again, Larry makes it easy on me.

[Winstonm]

I wish I knew this better but I don't. I remember reading it years ago and again believe it was Jais and Trezel who were credited with "canape' tendency".

I don't know exactly how it worked but do remember for sure that it meant that canape' was only used on hands of more than minimum strength. And please bear with me as I am quoting with a 55-year-old brain from a book I read once 30 years ago that the definition from Blue Team Club started with "with hands of more than minimum strength...."

The Europeans have much more history playing canape' style than we Americans, so I thought it interesting that this style seems to have been modified to be used only on hands of "more than minimum strength."

Without much thought to the "ripple effect" (my term for how changing one bid affects all other bids), I wondered if canape could be used only on reversing strength or stronger hands holding longer majors.

It seemed to me that on this hand it would be easier to bid:

AKJxx, x,AKx, KJxx. If using canape, one could start with a 1C bid, and over any response (hoping there is one), bid 2S. That leaves 2N as a waiting type bid for responder to allow opener to clarify his hand, possibly with 3D to complete the shape? Anyway, standardly one would have to bid 1S-1N-3C, which now murks up the responses - is 3D a suit or a wait? Is 3S 2-card or 3-card support? A lot of nasty questions to answer due to lack of room. However, after 1C-1N-2S(canape)- opener would know that 3S is definately 3-card support as 2N is available as a waiting type call.

Of course, there would be little benfit of this style if holding KJxx, x, AKx, AKJxx as you would still have to bid 1S-1N-3C - hence, the thought that canape' tendency only on longer major hands might work, as the opening execpt for a heart/spade hand would not interfere with the 1N forcing structure of 2/1.

The auctions of 1H-1N-2S and 1H-2H-2S would have to be designated canape' reverses it seems.

Anyway, it is a thought, albeit not necessarily a good one.

[luke warm]

well taking as a given the fact that all systems have weak and strong points, i think one major weakness of your proposition is that too much bidding room is taken too early on the strong hands... it seems intuitively more efficient to open your example hand 1♣, not because of any canape principle but because it has 19 hcps... true, strong club systems also have weak spots (preemptions, etc), but all in all i'm convinced that canape limited openings coupled with a strong club is superior... and i agree with dwayne on the quality of the 4 carder... i even saw hamman open 1h once with 8632

[awm]

There are a lot of factors to consider here. For example:

(1) Does partner raise 1M with three card support?
(1a) If yes, then if you open 1M with four small and a minimum, you will often reach a very poor contract. 4-3 fits play okay when the four card suit is robust, not so well when it's 8632.
(1b) If yes, and you only open a four-card major with extras, then presumably your three-level bids need to be natural and show more cards in the second suit than the original major. But what if the hand is actually a misfit and partner is minimum? Are you now committed to 3M on a 4-3 when the field is playing 2NT?
(1c) If no, and you open 1M with a minimum and five, then you lose a lot of the advantage of five card majors (the ability of partner to immediately raise on three, which helps in competitive decisions, preempts the opponents, and reduces information about opener's hand).
(1d) If no, and you always open something other than 1M with five cards (i.e. always canape) then even finding a 5-3 major fit in competition can be difficult. What if opener is too weak to introduce the heart suit after 1♣-1♠-P-2♠, but you have an eight-card fit there and a making partial?

(2) Can partner ever raise a minor?
(1a) If yes, and you open 1m with a minimum holding a longer major, then partner could easily raise the minor suit when you have also a 5-3 major suit fit.
(1b) If yes, and you only open 1m with a longer major when you hold extras, you risk preempting your own side. The main issue is that in standard after 1m-3m you know you're playing in the minor and can use new suit bids as stopper-showing or cuebids to reach the best spot. With canape, after 1m-3m you need the major suit bids as "I have five cards here" and this reduces the accuracy of your exploration when opener has a strong hand without a major.
(1c) If no, then you lose a lot of ability to preempt.

There are certainly some advantages to canape, but I think it's not as clearcut as people are making it sound. One method I do like (and have not seen people play much) is opening four card majors with very strong balanced hands (like 18-19 balanced). This seems very unlikely to get you in trouble: it can prevent the opponents from getting a cheap lead director in, it reduces the information the opponents have on many auctions, and you always have an easy rebid no matter what partner does (usually the rebid is 2NT). This also avoids playing "silly" contracts when you open 1m on three and partner passes.

[luke warm]

awm, on Jul 18 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

There are certainly some advantages to canape, but I think it's not as clearcut as people are making it sound.

right, if there was one perfect method i guess most would play it (or try to)... even so, imo canape advantages far outweigh disadvantages, but only when the bid is known to be a certain strength... in my kibbing career i've rarely seen a hand that limited canape bidding didn't improve (not never, obviously, but rarely)

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 10:01 AM, said:

awm, on Jul 18 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

There are certainly some advantages to canape, but I think it's not as clearcut as people are making it sound.

right, if there was one perfect method i guess most would play it (or try to)... even so, imo canape advantages far outweigh disadvantages, but only when the bid is known to be a certain strength... in my kibbing career i've rarely seen a hand that limited canape bidding didn't improve (not never, obviously, but rarely)

You bring up my point, Jimmy, when you say "limited canape' bidding." That has been my question. Is it possible to incorporate "limited canape' bidding" into the standard structure to be used on reverse-strength hands? 1S-1N-2C would not be canape but 1C-1N-2D/2H/2S would be canape'.

[luke warm]

anything i say on that subject will be off the cuff, cause i've never really thought it through... but yes, i think if you play an otherwise standard system you can use canape for hands in the 17-21ish range... you have to accept some ambiguity though... for example, with a 4135 17 count, after 1S : 1NT : 2C, how would partner know of your shape/strength? wouldn't you bid the same way with a 5134 13 count?

i might not be stating it clearly, but imagine you're responder and i open 1S... you bid 1NT and i bid 2C... am i 5134 with a 12 count or am i 4135 with a 17 count? do you pass with your 2533 six count or do you take a spade preference? or do you foresee 1S : 1NT : 3C on the 17 count? if so, i think the hand's a little weak for that... that's why it seems (to me, but you've thought these thnigs thru and i haven't) to be better for the canape bids to be on the lower end... of course that also is impossible in a standard system, you have no bid to show the strong hands

having said that, i do prefer canape bids in a 2/1 framework for one hand type only... the 4 heart/5 minor hand that is too weak to reverse...

i don't know how you see the treatment tying in with the rest of your system, so it's really hard for me to get a grip on it

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

You bring up my point, Jimmy, when you say "limited canape' bidding." That has been my question. Is it possible to incorporate "limited canape' bidding" into the standard structure to be used on reverse-strength hands? 1S-1N-2C would not be canape but 1C-1N-2D/2H/2S would be canape'.

Personally, I think that this is unplayable:

Assume that you use the sequence

1♣ - 1♥
2♥

to show a canape reverse with 5+ Spades and either 3+ or 4+ Clubs....

What bidding sequence are you going to use to show reverse strength with 5+ Clubs and 4 Spades?

You can't fit this into a "natural" 2♣ opening (you're playing standard and 2♣ is strong artificial and forcing)

In theory, you could use a 2♠ to show this hand type, however, I think that you'd be wasting a very valuable bid.

The only other alternative would be fitting this hand into a 1♠ opening, intending to rebid 3♣ with this pattern. Here, you start running into trouble with the strong Black 5-5s.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 18 2006, 02:30 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

You bring up my point, Jimmy, when you say "limited canape' bidding."  That has been my question.  Is it possible to incorporate "limited canape' bidding" into the standard structure to be used on reverse-strength hands?  1S-1N-2C would not be canape but 1C-1N-2D/2H/2S would be canape'.

Personally, I think that this is unplayable:

Assume that you use the sequence

1♣ - 1♥
2♥

to show a canape reverse with 5+ Spades and either 3+ or 4+ Clubs....

What bidding sequence are you going to use to show reverse strength with 5+ Clubs and 4 Spades?

You can't fit this into a "natural" 2♣ opening (you're playing standard and 2♣ is strong artificial and forcing)

In theory, you could use a 2♠ to show this hand type, however, I think that you'd be wasting a very valuable bid.

The only other alternative would be fitting this hand into a 1♠ opening, intending to rebid 3♣ with this pattern. Here, you start running into trouble with the strong Black 5-5s.

You bring up good points, but my thinking is that with major/minor 4/5 you are no worse off than at present by bidding 1m-1any-who knows. Stonger jump shift hands of this ilk would still have to jump shift to the 3-level - but it seems that with 54 and a longer major, you could open the minor and reverse canape'. I haven't thought the whole thing through, mind you, but just toying with the thought.

As for 5/5 hands, my understanding is that in canape' you still open the lower ranking, bid then higher, then rebid the lower - but I could be wrong here.

It just seems to me that if Jais/Trezel found a way to use canape' tendency that perhaps this tendency could be used in other systems as well?

I don't profess to know, but thought it an interesting question.

[tlgoodwin]

I am not aware that a definitive published description of "canape tendency" (as played by Jais-Trezel) exists. Accordingly, it seems that a partnership that wants to play this general style must "roll its own" in defining the sequences. These are the rules we apply in one natural-system partnership:

1. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit, then a higher-ranking suit, that is canape (at least five cards in the second, higher-ranking, suit) if it is a reverse (or a jump-shift). If it is not a reverse (that is, opener rebids the higher-ranking suit at the one-level), it might or might not be canape; if opener next rebids the higher-ranking suit, that confirms that the rebid was canape, and implies the extra values that would be associated with a reverse. (To see why a sequence like 1C-1D; 1S-1NT; 2S must show extra values, consider what opener was going to rebid over 1C-1NT: clearly he was going to bid 2S, because he wouldn't have organized the bidding to conceal a five-card major suit. 1C-1NT; 2S would have been a reverse, so opener clearly has reversing values.)

2. If opener bids a higher-ranking suit, then a lower-ranking suit, that is canape (four cards in the first, higher-ranking, suit) if the rebid is a reverse (that is, opener rebids at the three-level after a two-over-one response) or a jump-shift. But if opener bids the second, lower-ranking, suit at the two-level, that is not necessarily canape. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit at the two-level, then rebids that suit, he confirms canape but denies extra values. To show an extra-values canape after a sequence like 1S-2C; 2D-2NT, opener rebids 3S -- the first, higher-ranking, suit -- conventionally. (We think this convention is original with us, but somebody else might well have thought of it first.)

3. With a minimum non-canape type (that is, the longer or equal-long suit is higher-ranking than the second suit), opener starts with the higher-ranking suit. He can rebid in the second suit if he can do that without reversing; but he must then be careful not to rebid either suit, because that would imply canape (as in par. 2). (He might be able to bid notrump on the third round, or raise a suit bid by responder.) Or he might just decide to open and rebid his long suit, ignoring the second suit for the time being.

4. With a minimum canape type (four cards in the higher suit, five or more in the lower suit), opener might not be able to bid the four-card suit first because of rebid considerations. With 4-2-2-5, for example, a 1S opening bid might be unprepared for a response in either red suit. So opener bids 1C, then 1S over a red suit. When he next fails to rebid 2S, that means 1S wasn't canape after all.

We call this style "canape tendency," although it almost certainly differs from the Jais-Trezel style. (That has been summarized elsewhere as "canape with extra values, but not with minimum hands." Our version is more like "canape with extra values, and sometimes with minimum hands.") We don't have a lot of experience with the style, as the one partnership that employs it has been inactive, so we don't make any claims about its actual viability.

T.L.Goodwin

[Winstonm]

tlgoodwin, on Jul 20 2006, 10:10 AM, said:

I am not aware that a definitive published description of "canape tendency" (as played by Jais-Trezel) exists. Accordingly, it seems that a partnership that wants to play this general style must "roll its own" in defining the sequences. These are the rules we apply in one natural-system partnership:

1. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit, then a higher-ranking suit, that is canape (at least five cards in the second, higher-ranking, suit) if it is a reverse (or a jump-shift). If it is not a reverse (that is, opener rebids the higher-ranking suit at the one-level), it might or might not be canape; if opener next rebids the higher-ranking suit, that confirms that the rebid was canape, and implies the extra values that would be associated with a reverse. (To see why a sequence like 1C-1D; 1S-1NT; 2S must show extra values, consider what opener was going to rebid over 1C-1NT: clearly he was going to bid 2S, because he wouldn't have organized the bidding to conceal a five-card major suit. 1C-1NT; 2S would have been a reverse, so opener clearly has reversing values.)

2. If opener bids a higher-ranking suit, then a lower-ranking suit, that is canape (four cards in the first, higher-ranking, suit) if the rebid is a reverse (that is, opener rebids at the three-level after a two-over-one response) or a jump-shift. But if opener bids the second, lower-ranking, suit at the two-level, that is not necessarily canape. If opener bids a lower-ranking suit at the two-level, then rebids that suit, he confirms canape but denies extra values. To show an extra-values canape after a sequence like 1S-2C; 2D-2NT, opener rebids 3S -- the first, higher-ranking, suit -- conventionally. (We think this convention is original with us, but somebody else might well have thought of it first.)

3. With a minimum non-canape type (that is, the longer or equal-long suit is higher-ranking than the second suit), opener starts with the higher-ranking suit. He can rebid in the second suit if he can do that without reversing; but he must then be careful not to rebid either suit, because that would imply canape (as in par. 2). (He might be able to bid notrump on the third round, or raise a suit bid by responder.) Or he might just decide to open and rebid his long suit, ignoring the second suit for the time being.

4. With a minimum canape type (four cards in the higher suit, five or more in the lower suit), opener might not be able to bid the four-card suit first because of rebid considerations. With 4-2-2-5, for example, a 1S opening bid might be unprepared for a response in either red suit. So opener bids 1C, then 1S over a red suit. When he next fails to rebid 2S, that means 1S wasn't canape after all.

We call this style "canape tendency," although it almost certainly differs from the Jais-Trezel style. (That has been summarized elsewhere as "canape with extra values, but not with minimum hands." Our version is more like "canape with extra values, and sometimes with minimum hands.") We don't have a lot of experience with the style, as the one partnership that employs it has been inactive, so we don't make any claims about its actual viability.

T.L.Goodwin

Very good information and I thank you for the response.