[kfay]

Playing a strong club canape system with one of my more normal partners I agreed to try out one of his crazy new schemes for 2-level openers. So far our results have been quite good on average and these bids seem to me to arise more frequently than normal, preemptive weak 2 bids (though I may be imagining things).

Any comments on this would be appreciated whether or not you play a system similar to this.



An opening 2♦/2♥/2♠ bid shows about 9-12 HCP (wider in 3rd seat, higher end in 4th) with either 6+ cards in the bid suit or 5 cards in the bid suit and a 4+ side suit. In general we open the longest suit or the higher-ranking if 5-5 or 6-6. However with a minimum hand containing 6 ♦s and a 5-card major, we open the major at the 1-level. Hands with 5-5 or better distribution should only be opened at the 2-level if they're relatively weak in controls. For example, AKxxx x Axxxx xx is a 1♠ opener.

Over 2♥/2♠, the emphasis is on determining the length of opener's major and the strength of his hand:

-- First step asks

-- Next four steps are natural, constructive, but nonforcing (2NT/2♠ is a 1-round force in ♠s)

-- 3M is primarily preemptive; opener needs a very good hand to continue

-- 3NT is to play

-- 4♣ is RKC

-- 4M is to play

-- Other jump shifts are natural with very strong suits, GF


After the first-step response:

Cheapest bid = 6-card suit
   Next step asks: 1st step = min., 2nd = good suit, 3rd =       good hand, higher = 6-4, extras
   Other new suit rebids are natural and gf

Next 3 steps = 5-card major, 4+♣s, middle unbid suit, highest unbid suit (ambiguous strength)

Higher suit bids = 6-card major, 5-card minor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example over 2♥:

2♠ asks:

2NT   6♥s
      (3♣ asks: 3♦ = min., 3♥ = good suit, 3♠ = max., 3NT = 4♠s, extras, 4m = 4♣s/♦s, extras ),
3♣/♦   5♥s, 4-5♣s/♦s, any strength
3♥   5♥s, 4♠s, min.
3NT   5♥s, 4♠s, extras (after 2♠ - 2NT; 3♣, 3NT would show 5♠s, 4♥s, extras)
4♣/♦   6♥s, 5m
4♥   6♥s, 5♠s


2NT 5+♠s, forcing 1 round

3♣/♦ natural, constructive

3♥ premptive

3♠ strong suit, GF

3NT to play

4♣ RKC

4♦ strong suit, GF

4♥/♠ to play
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 2♦, the emphasis is on locating a 4-card major or stoppers for 3NT:

2♥ asks:

2♠   6♦s, no 4-card major
      (2NT asks: 3♣ = min., 3♦ = good suit, 3♥/♠/NT = extras w/ ♥/♠/♣ stopper)
2NT    5♦, 4+♣
3♣/♦    5+♦s, 4♥s/♠s
3♥/♠    6♦s, 4♥s/♠s, extras
3NT    6♦s, 4♣s, extras
4♣    5♦s, 6♣s, extras
4♦    6♦s, 5♣s, extras
4♥/♠    6♦s, 5♥s/♠s, extras


2♠ natural, mildly constructive

2NT 5+ ♥s, forcing 1 round

3♣ natural, mildly constructive

3♦ preemptive

3♥/♠ strong suit, GF

3NT to play

4♣ RKC

4♦ Preemptive

4♥/♠ To play

[Echognome]

These are pretty similar to the modified EHAA openings I have played. (Which were 8-12, 5+ in the suit, but not 5332. This treatment meant they must either be 6+ or 5-4.) We played a very simple set of continuations after this and that worked fine for a partnership that didn't want to spend a whole lot of discussion on it. If you're looking for something more complicated, why not check out the notes on Fantunes?

[keylime]

We are going to use the following 2 bids once the Conventions Committee approves the 2D opening:

2D - an intermediate multi with side suit in clubs possible (hard to unravel in a canape)
2H/S - balanced hands, 5332 or 6 cards, intermediate range

We've had pretty good results with the openings.

[rbforster]

I like your methods over 2M, and I will point out that these are perfectly good methods to play over a weak 2M as well (adjusting responder's strength accordingly).

kfay, on Sep 12 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Over 2♦, the emphasis is on locating a 4-card major or stoppers for 3NT:

2♥ asks:

2♠   6♦s, no 4-card major
      (2NT asks: 3♣ = min., 3♦ = good suit, 3♥/♠/NT = extras w/ ♥/♠/♣ stopper)
2NT    5♦, 4+♣
3♣/♦    5+♦s, 4♥s/♠s
3♥/♠    6♦s, 4♥s/♠s, extras

Over 2♦, it's about twice as likely that you'll have a side 4M as not. This suggests, together with the typical priority given to major fits, that you want to put your major-showing responses to the 2♥ relay lower in the order. You might also want to be able to sign off with a weak hand in the major. As it stands now, 2♦-2♥*-3m*[showing 4M] is ambiguous about strength which seems poor. In particular, bidding that major must now either be a sign off or invitational (which will give you problems on weak hands with 3♦/4M or on 4M fitting invites, your pick). How about this?

2♦-2♥ relay

2♠ has a 4M
---2N asks further
---------3♣ 4♥ min
---------3♦ 4♠ min
---------3♥ 4♥ max
---------3♠ 4♠ max

2N 6+♦ no 4 card major, extras
3♣ 4+♣
3♦ 6+♦ single suited, no extras

[Gerben42]

Fantoni - Nunes (arguably the best pair in the world) play something similar, as do some forum regulars including myself:

http://www.geocities...fantunes145.pdf

[Free]

We play something similar, but we emphasize on length in the other Major first. A 3 card in a (/ the other) Major has priority to 6 card in the opening suit or a 4 card minor at the side.

[han]

kfay, on Sep 12 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Playing a strong club canape system with one of my more normal partners....

I disagree with that description of your partner.

As for the methods, these hands will indeed come up quite often, 9-12 point hands are very common. If you are planning to play these then it would be interesting if you kept track of the scores you get with these openings.

[Gerben42]

The next two weekends I will play large tournaments using these bids, I will keep a record about where we win or lose (total of about 200 boards).

[kfay]

Rob F, on Sep 12 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

I like your methods over 2M, and I will point out that these are perfectly good methods to play over a weak 2M as well (adjusting responder's strength accordingly).
How about this?

2♦-2♥ relay

2♠ has a 4M
---2N asks further
---------3♣ 4♥ min
---------3♦ 4♠ min
---------3♥ 4♥ max
---------3♠ 4♠ max

2N 6+♦ no 4 card major, extras
3♣ 4+♣
3♦ 6+♦ single suited, no extras

This seems very practical to me.

I'd like to try it out... although I just found out yesterday that this convention isn't allowed in regular ACBL games, you have to have 2 known suits! I guess it will have to wait until next year

[awm]

Just describe your bid in ACBL games as showing "five or more cards in the bid suit, not normally 5332." I don't think anyone will try to argue that a 2♥ opening showing some point range with five or more hearts is illegal.

They seem to have a problem with bids that promise a second suit without guaranteeing 10+ hcp. But your opening doesn't promise a second suit, it could be a one-suiter with the suit opened.

[Echognome]

I agree with Adam here. I have played this in the Acbl and asked the TDs ahead of time before playing. By not allowing 5332s, you are just using a treatment. I don't think it's rules lawyering either because I think 6322s and 54s are quite different hand types. I think if instead the treatment was no 5332s, no 6322s, no 6331s, no 7321s, no 7222s, no 7330s, but 8+ single-suited ok, then I think it would be rules lawyering.

Edit: If you don't allow treatments are you going to disallow weak 2s that deny a side 4 card major? that deny a void? that may have a side suit that you can ask for?

[bhall]

Lumping 5-4s together with 6s at the two level creates difficult problems for responding hands of roughly invitational strength. Since 5-4s will predominate by about 3:2, responder must be conservative when holding only two cards in opener's bid suit, which is nearly a third of the time.

The partnership will have an 8-card fit about 3/4 of the time, but where is it, and at what level should it be played? Do you want to doom yourself to a minus position almost 1/4 of the times when your side hold a slight majority of the high-card strength?

In practice, you will do much better than the bids deserve in matchpoint events, because opponents will enter the auction as though they are playing against standard weak twos, and thus they are likely to get too high. But in a serious KO, the opponents can adjust their bidding so that the disadvantage rests on your side.

If you choose to play these bids, I would recommend that you assign double meanings to the two cheapest responses to the relay, using a second relay to untangle them. For instance, the cheapest response could include a specific side suit and a minimum with no side suit; the second could show another side suit or any maximum 5-4. Then any higher rebid becomes nonforcing and natural.

[Echognome]

bhall, on Sep 15 2007, 09:12 AM, said:

Lumping 5-4s together with 6s at the two level creates difficult problems for responding hands of roughly invitational strength. Since 5-4s will predominate by about 3:2, responder must be conservative when holding only two cards in opener's bid suit, which is nearly a third of the time.

The partnership will have an 8-card fit about 3/4 of the time, but where is it, and at what level should it be played? Do you want to doom yourself to a minus position almost 1/4 of the times when your side hold a slight majority of the high-card strength?

In practice, you will do much better than the bids deserve in matchpoint events, because opponents will enter the auction as though they are playing against standard weak twos, and thus they are likely to get too high. But in a serious KO, the opponents can adjust their bidding so that the disadvantage rests on your side.

If you choose to play these bids, I would recommend that you assign double meanings to the two cheapest responses to the relay, using a second relay to untangle them. For instance, the cheapest response could include a specific side suit and a minimum with no side suit; the second could show another side suit or any maximum 5-4. Then any higher rebid becomes nonforcing and natural.

Whether or not they are "theoretically" unsound, I find it hard to believe that Fantunes would be so successful playing them. However, it is possible that these bids are negative expected imps, but because of them they make their other bids so much better. I just don't think that is true. I think the bid is fairly descriptive and puts a lot of pressure on opponents. They no longer have a cheap overcall at the 1-level. If they come in, it's much easier to punish them (because the opening hand is so limited). Obviously, with any of these bids, you need to build up judgment.

[bhall]

[quote name='Echognome' date='Sep 15 2007, 10:31 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Whether or not they are "theoretically" unsound, I find it hard to believe that Fantunes would be so successful playing them. However, it is possible that these bids are negative expected imps, but because of them they make their other bids so much better. I just don't think that is true. I think the bid is fairly descriptive and puts a lot of pressure on opponents. They no longer have a cheap overcall at the 1-level. If they come in, it's much easier to punish them (because the opening hand is so limited). Obviously, with any of these bids, you need to build up judgment. [/quote]
Someone who contributes to these forums reported the IMP results for Fantunes using their two bids, but I don't recall the numbers. They do help to "clean up" the one-level openings (along with their 1N), and they prevent easy entry into the auction by the opponents, as you say.

My gripe is not with preemptive/constructive two bids (which I use myself), but with overburdening the bids. Whatever net loss this causes must be made up by efficiencies gained elsewhere, and I just don't see those gains in the context of a conventional Big Club system.