# BBO Discussion Forums: Z Club, canapé version - BBO Discussion Forums

Page 1 of 1

## Z Club, canapé version

### #1nullve

• Posts: 1,857
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2021-March-05, 14:31

I don't have very detailed knowledge of Zelandakh's system, Z Club, so maybe I shouldn't have a very strong opinion about it. But I've always thought, even after a lengthy discussion about it in a thread back in 2017, that the non-forcing two-over-one responses to 1 must be one of the major problem areas in the system. (I might have adopted his INV+ 1N relay already if I didn't.)

So here's an idea:

Turn the system into a true canapé system except that 1 still covers most 10-17 minor 2-suiters.

The point is to be able to play

1M-2 = < INV, 2+ C, P/C,

especially when M=. Responder will then be able to respond 2 to 1 on the vast majority of positive-but-less-than-invitaitonal hands without spade support, and Opener should have an easy rebid (or pass) on virtually all minimum hands. The non-forcing 2 and 2 responses can then also be more defined, which must be a good thing.

I may have had some experience with such a 2 response to a canapé 1M opening already. As a junior I invented a Swedish Club-like system ("Suicide Club") that at one point had an opening structure that looked something like

1 = 9-11 BAL, 4S3-H OR 16+ unBAL or 17+ BAL
1 = 11-15, (exactly) 5 M OR 12-13 BAL
1 = 11-15, either 6+ H, 4H5+m, 4H(441) OR 13(54)
1 = 11-15, either 6+ S, 4S5+O, 4144 OR 31(54)
1N = 14-16 BAL
2m = 11-15, 3-S3-H6+m
2M = 6-10, 6M3-OM (massively abused, I'm afraid)
2N = 11-15, 5+D5+C
others: more or less standard.

In response to 1M I used 1N as a (INV+?) relay and 2 as P/C (and < INV?) and I seem to recall that that was very easy to play. (Why wouldn't it be?)
0

### #2nullve

• Posts: 1,857
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2021-March-08, 05:34

From https://www.bridgeba...n-2m-openings/:

wank, on 2015-July-28, 08:12, said:

I see they play or played 2C as 6+ clubs or club/spade canape and 2R to accommodate the Hm hands. Obviously they lose a weak 2H which seems like a bit of a catastrophe to me and they are still stuck with the 5+S4+D hands to open at the 1 level.

I was wondering whether it would be too overloaded to play both 2m openers as 6+ without a major or canape with an undisclosed major, limited HCP obviously.

DinDIP, on 2015-August-01, 04:02, said:

I know people play them but openings like 2 showing a C single-suiter OR 5+M and 4+C are unplayable IMO. Responder has so many difficulties with simple hands (for example a 5-4-3-1 9 count where you want to be in game if opener has S>=C, possibly invite game if opener has H>=C, and 2C if he has a C single-suiter). Yes, the odds favour the C single-suiter option but the costs of getting the decision wrong are high.

Do others agree with DinDIP here?

2 on a 5-1 fit with a 5431 9-count opposite a classic Precision (6+ C or 5C4M) 2 opening is already so bad at the forms of scoring I care the most about (not IMPs!) that getting this decision right more often is really what counts.

I wonder if Zelandakh's transfer structure over a Polish/classic Precision 2 opening could be modified to work also over a canapé version.
0

### #3nullve

• Posts: 1,857
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2021-March-08, 07:01

Obvious first try (based on https://www.bridgeba...post__p__633108):

bizarro-Zelandakh said:

I am one of those that plays transfers over a 2 opening that includes the 54M4+5+M hands. In my case the opening is 10-14 but I don't think it makes much difference - more than a 5 point range starts to get unwieldy though. The way I play the transfers Opener accepts with 0-2 cards in the suit and "super-accepts" with any 3-43/5+. This gives some Law safety to weak hands that are just trying to take out into 2M. Some system data:-

2 = 4+3+ hearts, either a weak hand with long hearts or INV+
... - 2 = 0-2 hearts
... - ... - 2 = 4+3+ spades, F1
... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV
... - ... - 3 = nat, INV
... - ... - 3 = art GF
... - ... - 3 = 6+ hearts, INV
... - 2 = 3 hearts, 45+ spades
... - 2NT = 3 hearts, 0-3 spades, min
... - 3 = 3 hearts, 0-3 spades, max
... - 3 = 45+ hearts, min
... - 3 = 45+ hearts, max
2 = 4+3+ spades, either a weak hand with long spades or INV+
... - 2 = 0-2 spades
... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV
... - ... - 3 = nat, INV
... - ... - 3 = art GF
... - ... - 3 = 5+ hearts, INV
... - ... - 3 = 6+ spades, INV
... - 2NT = 3 spades, min
... - 3 = 3 spades, max
... - 3 = 45+ spades, min
... - 3 = undefined (play it as 45+ spades and mid-range if you like)
... - 3 = 45+ spades, max
2 = no major, INV+
2NT = 5 spades, 43-4 hearts, INV
3/4 = weak, nat
3 = weak, nat
3 = slam try with long diamonds
3 = slam try with club support

On the sample hands, the first begins with 2. If partner responds 2 (0-2 hearts) then we can just about make a natural 2NT invite - if we did not feel strong enough to invite then best just to leave it in 2. If partner has a fit then obviously we are looking for 4. With the second hand the first response is 2. If partner responds 2 (0-2 spades) then we leave it there; if partner shows a fit then we should be ok at the 3 level.

The first hand shows quite well, I think, why increasing the range is so bad. You only have one invite range here so you are not only making bidding less accurate but also playing many more (unnecessary) 2NT and 3 contracts with a bigger range. Even 5 points is awkward sometimes. The second hand, as well as similar hands that are also weaker, show one of the advantages of transfers. With these weak hands with a long major you often have to leave it in 2 when playing 2 as a relay. Transfers give you the ability to make the weak take-out with an elemant of safety and without messing up your constructive bidding. On the other side, knowing partner has a 4 card fit for you in addition to 5 clubs can (very) occasionally allow you to bid 4M based on shape where other systems are left in a part-score.

The down side of transfers is that you give up on relays, which hurts your slam bidding quite a lot, and that there is more to remember. The latter is somewhat mitigated if you can make the responses mirror your 1NT structure. I doubt you can ever make slam bidding as good as pure relay-based methods though, you just hope that standard methods such as splinters and RKCB will get you to the right spot more often than not. Overall I think transfers are better since I prefer better game bidding over slam bidding. The stronger the 2 opening the more important are the slams though.

Edit:

It should have occured to me that this modified structure will work poorly on most hands where Responder has positive-but-less-than-inviational values, 2-5 S, 2-5 H and 3-4 C. Will post more about it later.

Martin Johnson's Fab Roman system contains a canapé 2 opening, but I can't find a good link to the system anymore.
0

### #4PrecisionL

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 874
• Joined: 2004-March-25
• Gender:Male
• Location:Knoxville, TN, USA
• Interests:Diamond LM (5500+ MP) District 7, Unit 165, E. Tennessee

Posted 2021-March-08, 12:07

https://bobbybridge....abroman2005.pdfhttps://bobbybridge....abroman2005.htm

https://bobbybridge....abroman2005.pdf

2 opener: 6 or 4 + 5cd M

The 2♣ opening is not forcing, though it is rarely passed in an uncontested auction. The 2 response promises at least 6 HCP and two cover cards, it is a relay asking opener to further describe his hand. With a long major, opener rebids the major, other rebids show long clubs (2nt=max, 3♣=min, 3x is singleton with running clubs). Responses of 2 or 2♠ are natural, not forcing and warn of a possible misfit. With a nearly solid six card major and around 7 sure playing tricks, you may prefer to open and jump in the major. Keep in mind that if you start with 2♣ you can only show the major with a 2 level rebid, there is no jump to show strength, and the 2M rebid is not forcing.
Ultra Relay: see Daniel's web page: https://bridgewithda...19/07/Ultra.pdf
C3: Copious Canapé is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)

Played Mosca (Nightmare-Fantunes-Millennium like) system with Canapé, 11-14 NT.

Santa Fe Precision published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail Club. 2020: C3 Reborn - T-Precision with Relays & 4cd M. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified (Canapé & Relay). 2022: Canary Modernized.
0

### #5nullve

• Posts: 1,857
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2021-March-09, 06:47

Thank you!

So like Precision (and Blue Club) but unlike Z Club, Fab Roman doesn't have a good solution when Responder has invitational values and a 5c major.

----

The above minimally modified transfer structure (meant to be used over the canapé version of Z Club's 2 opening) is really unplayable since Responder will frequently need to bid but have no bid available on hands where he would have an easy pass opposite the non-canapé version.

E.g. hands such as

Kxxx
Txx
AJxx
9x

or (even, at MPs)

Kxxx
Tx
AJxx
9xx.

To solve this very basic problem it might be a good idea to treat the canapé version as a kind of Multi and use the 2 response as P/C. Or maybe as "P/C or INV w/ 5+ H", as some do after a more standard Multi. The latter option frees up space after 2-2 that could be used to accomodate some or all of the ("transfer to spades" type) hands that are currently in 2.

Another try (work in progress):

Spoiler

0

### #6PrecisionL

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 874
• Joined: 2004-March-25
• Gender:Male
• Location:Knoxville, TN, USA
• Interests:Diamond LM (5500+ MP) District 7, Unit 165, E. Tennessee

Posted 2021-March-09, 15:27

Some Precision players use transfers over an opening bid of 2 which is 6+ and no 4cd M. Terence Reese proposed this in 1981 in his paperback book: Precision Bidding and Precision Play, Cornerstone Library, NY.

I used this approach at the 2-level and opener with 2cd support accepts the transfer. If not, he can show a M stopper at the 2-level, bid 2NT with a maximum, or bid 3 with a minimum.

Several Precision Pairs only use the transfer at the 3-level as a GF.
Ultra Relay: see Daniel's web page: https://bridgewithda...19/07/Ultra.pdf
C3: Copious Canapé is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)

Played Mosca (Nightmare-Fantunes-Millennium like) system with Canapé, 11-14 NT.

Santa Fe Precision published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail Club. 2020: C3 Reborn - T-Precision with Relays & 4cd M. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified (Canapé & Relay). 2022: Canary Modernized.
0

### #7Kungsgeten

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 921
• Joined: 2012-April-15
• Gender:Male

Posted 2021-March-10, 12:54

I haven't seen anyone play the following structure, but to me it seems like it could work:

1C = Strong.
1D = 4+D. If diamonds + major then canapé. If diamonds + clubs then "natural" (diamonds longer or equal to clubs).
1M = Canapé style.
1NT = Weak.
2C = Denies major. 6+C or 5C and 4D.
2D = Multi.
2M = Roman (5M and 4+C).

Another more crazy idea:

1C = 15+
1D = 11-14 NT or 6+m no major 10-14.
1M = Canapé, 10-14.
1NT = 5 hearts and 4+m, 10-14.
2C = Minors, 10-14.
2D = 5 spades and 4+m, 10-14.
2M = Weak.
0

### #8nullve

• Posts: 1,857
• Joined: 2014-April-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Norway
• Interests:partscores

Posted 2021-March-12, 04:20

Kungsgeten, on 2021-March-10, 12:54, said:

Another more crazy idea:

1C = 15+
1D = 11-14 NT or 6+m no major 10-14.
1M = Canapé, 10-14.
1NT = 5 hearts and 4+m, 10-14.
2C = Minors, 10-14.
2D = 5 spades and 4+m, 10-14.
2M = Weak.

A more Z Club-like system, also with an ART (but now Boring Club-like) 1N opening:

P = normal or 12-14 BAL*
...P = normal but with 0-7
...1+: must cover 8-11 (quasi)BAL.
...E.g. something like:
...1 = Z Club 1 OR 8-11 (quasi)BAL**
...2 = Z Club 2***
...others: as in Z Club
1N = Z Club 2
...P: possible
...2 = ART?
...(...)
2: freed up
others = ?

Or a canapé version of this to enable 1-2(P/C).

* I'm still experimenting with a similar pass opening in my own 2/1-like system, but with < 14 if BAL. It seems to work great in competition (nullve-nullve vs. nullve-nullve) and may even have a more preemptive effective on average (due to frequent preempts in third seat) than if 11-13 BAL is in 1. The biggest problem has been to come up with a 3rd/4th seat system that doesnt't look much worse than the one in 1st/2nd seat.
** But treated more like a Swedish Club-like 1 opening. (It helps that partner is a passed hand.)
*** Should be easier to handle now that partner is a passed hand.

---
EDIT:

If

1N = like a Z Club (Polish) 2 opening, but canapé,

then one possibility is

1N-?:

P: possible
2 = P/C
...P = 3-S3-H6+C
...2M = 5+M4+C
2+: as in the "minimally modified" transfer structure (post #3)

This post has been edited by nullve: 2021-March-12, 07:07

0