BBO Discussion Forums: Defensive Approach versus Canapé Openings - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Defensive Approach versus Canapé Openings

#1 User is offline   dokoko 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 197
  • Joined: 2017-May-30

Posted 2019-January-02, 01:38

I posted this a few days ago on BridgeWinners (https://bridgewinner...anape-openings/) and got some useful input. Nonetheless there might be other stuff around here:


Standard defensive bidding methods focus on opponent opening his longest suit. This might not be optimal when opponents don't open in their longest suit. Some structures have been suggested versus "nebulous" 1m openings.

I am interested in concepts when the opponent opens a real suit when he is sure (or likely) to have a longer side suit. Are there any sensible approaches around covering this situation?
0

#2 User is offline   The_Badger 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,123
  • Joined: 2013-January-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, Chess, Film, Literature, Herbal Medicine, Nutrition

Posted 2019-January-02, 04:47

View Postdokoko, on 2019-January-02, 01:38, said:

I am interested in concepts when the opponent opens a real suit when he is sure (or likely) to have a longer side suit. Are there any sensible approaches around covering this situation?


None that I can think of, though I have played against Canape rarely. In many 2/1. SAYC, Acol, etc. hands opener is likely to have a second suit that is just as long as the opening suit and won't be disclosed until the second round of bidding. Does it stop us doubling, overcalling, and the like on the first round?

As Craig Biddle says on BW, Canape is a neat system but with players nowadays aggressively overcalling and raising, the Canape player is more at a disadvantage than the overcaller.
0

#3 User is offline   nullve 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,215
  • Joined: 2014-April-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:partscores

Posted 2019-January-02, 08:26

It might be important to be able to discover a fit in Opener's suit (M) after

(1M)-P-(1N)

and

(1M)-P-(1N)-P; (P),

e.g. by using a good NT defence.
0

#4 User is offline   DinDIP 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 2008-December-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne (the one in Australia not Florida)

Posted 2019-January-06, 06:28

View PostThe_Badger, on 2019-January-02, 04:47, said:

None that I can think of, though I have played against Canape rarely. In many 2/1. SAYC, Acol, etc. hands opener is likely to have a second suit that is just as long as the opening suit and won't be disclosed until the second round of bidding. Does it stop us doubling, overcalling, and the like on the first round?


I think there is a difference between defending against a pure canape system (such as BFUN) and "may be" canape systems like Moscito and Blue Club. I suspect that defending against pure canape openings where opener has a longer side suit more than 70% of the time and rarely five cards in the opened suit (only with 55 or 56 two-suiters) is challenging as LHO will often have hands suitable for a takeout double of opener's long suit.

View PostThe_Badger, on 2019-January-02, 04:47, said:

As Craig Biddle says on BW, Canape is a neat system but with players nowadays aggressively overcalling and raising, the Canape player is more at a disadvantage than the overcaller.


I agree when the canape systems are impure but responder is often better placed opposite a pure canape system (because he never has to worry that opener has a balanced hand or 54 with a longer major). However, that is just based on bidding a very small sample of deals; I'm planning on looking at much larger samples, if time permits.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users