[Dirk Kuijt]

A system that I'm looking for feedback on.

Little Canape (LC) combines a "little club", unbalanced suit bids (if less than 18HCP), and canape.
The system works best when opener gets to make an unimpeded rebid, so responder tends to
"stay out of the way" with less than game forcing strength,
though responder always can show spades cheaply.

1♣ 12-14 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
1♦, 1♥, 1♠ almost always at least a 4 card suit, always in the majors
If two suited, the second suit will normally be longer.
If one suited, the suit will normally be 6+ cards.
May be balanced only if 18-19 HCP, may have only 3♦ only if 18-19 HCP and 3=3=3=4.
1N 15-17 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
2♣ 12-16, 6+♣, always a one suiter.
2♦ game forcing, except 22-23 balanced
2♥, 2♠ show 12-16 with 5+M and 4+♣
2N 20-21 balanced
3♣ 17+ ♣ one suiter
3♦, 3♥, 3♠ normal preempts

After 1♣
P any awful hand, or clubs up to about 10 HCP
1♦ Stayman, but responder's second round 2♦ is just a weak diamond one suiter.
1♥, 1♠ 5+ cards, forcing, but may be no more than 6HCP.
Opener raises with 3+, bids 1♠ over 1♥ with 4+, otherwise bids 1N
1N to play
2♣,2♦ game forcing with the suit

After 1♦, 1♥, 1♠
The next step is neutral, basically denying the ability to show anything else below.
It promises 6HCP. The neutral bid may have as much as 15HCP in a balanced hand.
1♦-1♠ shows 5+ ♠, 6+ HCP
1♦-1N shows 5+ ♥, game forcing
1♦, 1♥, 1♠-2m shows 5+, game forcing
1♠-2♥shows 5+, game forcing
1♥-1N shows 5+ ♠, 6+ HCP
Major suit raises are fairly traditional: single raise weak, double raise invitational,
2N forcing. Responder must remember that opener will likely have only a 4 card suit
1♥-2♠ invitational with 5+♠, tends to have tolerance for ♥
1♠-3♥ invitational with 5+♥, tends to have tolerance for ♠
1M-3m invitational with 5+ in the other major, tolerance for the bid suit

Opener's rebid:
With the balanced 18-19, opener jumps to 3N.
With an unbalanced hand and enough strength to force to game over a neutral response,
opener rebids 2N
Responder must relay with 3♣, and opener bids or rebids his long suit, 3N shows ♣
With a one suiter, rebid, or jump rebid (invitational) the suit.
With a two suiter, bid or jump rebid (invitational) the second (longer) suit.
However, if opener has 3M and responder has shown that major, then opener should raise,
in preference to anything else.

[Dirk Kuijt]

My analysis

LC Advantages:
1. 11 of the 12 two suiters are shown at or below the level of 2 of opener's first suit.
2. The two suiter's strength can be shown as minimum, intermediate, or game forcing
3. Opener's rebid over the neutral response is always a "real" suit, unlike 2/1
rebids with 5332 hands
4. Opener can raise freely after 1♣-1M with three.
5. Responder can make negative doubles with a wide variety of hands, since opener will
have another long suit to bid, or a 6 card suit to rebid.

LC Disadvantages
1. 4441 hands aren't handled very well. You have to treat the hand as a two suiter,
and one of the suits can easily be lost and another overstressed.
2. The bad two suiter combination is 5♦-4♣. You can treat this as balanced,
with 2=2=5=4, or as a diamond one suiter. With a weak diamond suit, this is not good.
3. The 2♦ strong opening is one level higher than the standard 2♣.
4. Slam bidding is awkward, at best, after 1x-1y-3N
5. Many normal preemptive bids are devoted to something else.

LC Differences (unclear as to advantage or disadvantage)
1. Opener frequently buries a 5M suit in a 5332 hand. An LC pair can easily lose a 5-3 fit,
though they won't lose a 5-4 fit. Richard Pavlicek's statistics suggest that playing NT
with a 5332 hand with three card support wins about as much as it loses.
2. Since opener will often be opening with a 4 card suit, responder can get jammed out of
the auction by preemption, possibly losing a good fit in opener's long suit. On the
other hand, as noted above, responder can make negative doubles freely.

[TylerE]

IMO Capane' without strong club (And I've played it seriously both ways) is a big loser, but done right can work well in a big club context.

[awm]

Some issues:

(1) Not clear how you open 5♣-(332) hands in the 18/19 balanced range.
(2) Not clear how you open/rebid with 4441 type hands.
(3) Jumping all the way to 3NT on the 18/19 balanced hands makes it hard to look for slam.
(4) You have no two-level preemptive calls available.
(5) Canape-style openings often don't fare well in competition.
(6) Nebulous wide-ranging "relay" responses also don't fare well in competition.
(7) You rarely have the option to establish a cheap game force. Slam bidding will be tough.

I think these are pretty substantial disadvantages. I'm also not that convinced by the advantages here. Often it's better to let responder describe his own hand rather than just staying out of opener's way for example. I don't think the "inability to show all two-suiters below two of opener's first suit" is a big disadvantage of standard bidding for example. I'm much more concerned with competitive sequences (which are very commonplace) than you seem to be.

[glen]

Dirk Kuijt, on Dec 27 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

...
2♥, 2♠ show 12-16 with 5+M and 4+♣
...

Does this hand type open 1♠/♥ if 17+, opening the longest suit first?
and, from awm's first item, does 3-3-2-5 exactly 18-19 open 1♦ with just two diamonds?

[hrothgar]

glen, on Dec 28 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Dirk Kuijt, on Dec 27 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

...
2♥, 2♠ show 12-16 with 5+M and 4+♣
...

Does this hand type open 1♠/♥ if 17+, opening the longest suit first?
and, from awm's first item, does 3-3-2-5 exactly 18-19 open 1♦ with just two diamonds?

I'd expert that the hand type open's 1♣ and then reverses into the major...

[kenrexford]

Not a fan, largely because I don't get it at all.

I mean, the major problem with canape systems is when they are inconsistent and/or not pure. The weaker 1♣ opening would solve a heck of a lot, except that you have 1♣ unduly limited to just a balanced hand. Make 1♣ justy like the other three openings, or light balanced, and you can then make 2♣ handle all 4441 hands, with a completely pure canape, not tendance canape. You also can ditch the nonsense Schenken 3♣ opening.

I understand the need for the two-level openings, to create a tighter range, but then you might as well invert these to stronger openings (15+), where the minor can be unknown, it seems.

[akhare]

Seems like this might do much better in the context of a strong 1♣ opening (UltraClub is a good example)...

[keylime]

The 1♣ opening is prone to aggressive preemption.

Let's say it goes:

(1♣) 1NT* (three suited takeout of clubs) ?

On many hands that if opened 1M, there would be a comfortable raise and you know a lot more about the hand. Instead 4th seat here is going to bid 'em up and you miss your 5M suit fit (Obviously, the extension of (1C) 2H ? as well).

I'd also weaken the 1NT opening as well and instead, play more constructive openings.

The 1C - 1D sequence being either or doesn't allow for logical diamond invites, and is also weak against preemption.

It may also serve you since it's canape to play an art 2C GF over 1 bids.

[glen]

keylime, on Dec 28 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

The 1♣ opening is prone to aggressive preemption. ...

I'm dazed and confused (yes, not the first time, not the last time) - doesn't op say "1♣ 12-14 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M" - how is that prone to aggressive preemption given it is a single hand type? Also why does hrothgar "I'd expert [sic]" that 1♣ has some big hand types?

[Dirk Kuijt]

Trying to answer a few questions:

With 18-19 HCP and 3=3=2=5, I would open 3♣, or stretch to 2N. I don't want to be opening 2 card suits at all, and I don't want responder to worry about a diamond opener having only 3 diamonds.

LC definitely would not open that hand with 1♣. 1♣ is really reserved for 12-14 balanced only.

Yes, with 5M-4♣ and 17 HCP or more, you will have to treat the hand as a major one-suiter. Not the best, but not a horrible description.

4441 types get treated as two suiters. If you have both majors, then try to show those; if you have one major, then show your major and better minor. I admit this has flaws.

I confess that I don't get the worry about being preempted over 1♣. The hand definition is narrow enough that I don't see it as a problem, unlike the any shape strong 1♣. Being preempted after a canape opening, especially when opener has hearts and the opponents have spades, is a risk, though lots of systems lose suits when the opponents have spades and can preempt.

In general, I think responder is on fairly firm ground over interference (I don't think that responder is ever on solid ground after interference in any system), since opener has either a good new suit to bid or a 6+ card suit to rebid. Opener will never have some 5332 hand where responder has denied support for the five card suit.

I admit that I will have to think more about slam sequences and forcing raises.

[Amonias]

Interesting system .
But I think 1 club opening is underused.
Why not put the hands with 4+clubs and 5+other (or 5+major) and 17+ into 1club opening and also put 17+ one suiter in club in 1 club opening.
If you compare this 1-club opening to Swedish club type openings
( 1 club 12-14 bal or any 17+) these strong hands are more defined.

[gwnn]

1♣ as 12-14 balanced is very bad. it doesn't matter what the rest of your system looks like. my first reaction is to make it more or less like Polish club (include the 2♦ opener and the 3♣ opener) and then maybe it could work. not sure though.

[awm]

It's interesting that so much criticism of this system has focused on the 1♣ opening.

Comparing this opening to other methods, you lose a bit by not knowing opener's minor, but you gain a lot by knowing the opener is balanced. For example, in competition you can compete freely in a five-card major knowing partner has at least doubleton. You have a good idea of partner's point range and can blast games without giving away much information (or wasting time looking for slams). The opening is less preemptive than a weak 1NT, but also much less vulnerable to penalty doubles or reaching the wrong partials sans competition. When the 1♣ opening comes up this system should do fine.

On the other hand, there are many structures in this system which seem atrociously bad, and have gone nearly without comment. For example:

(1) The 3♣ opening is terrible. It destroys your own space, it's a forcing opening on the three level without even close to game values. Apparently it doesn't even guarantee six clubs. So basically you've forced to game on a balanced 18/19 hand, by making the same opening bid you'd make with a shapely clubs hand.

(2) The combination of canape with jumps to 3NT on 18/19 balanced is particularly poor. For example, say partner opens 1♦ and I hold ♠xxx ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♣Jxxx. Lousy hand. The problem is that if I make the 1♥ relay bid, partner will bash game with 18/19 balanced and we will be overboard and I can't even find a 5-3 heart fit. So I guess I'm supposed to pass, but 1♦ from partner is often a four card diamond suit with a longer major. If partner has 5♠/4♦ then we languish in a ridiculous partial, and if partner has 5♥/4♦ we could easily have just missed a game (say ♠AKx ♥AQxxx ♦Axxx ♣x and game is icy; if you think opponents are saving you with a balancing call you're dreaming -- they both have way too many diamonds to act).

(3) The observation that 5M-4♣ hands in the intermediate range must be treated as one-suiters seems like an obvious loss. Yet this has escaped without comment. It's easy to construct examples where you play 4M on a 5-2 or 5-1 fit when you're icy for a club slam.

[Dirk Kuijt]

A couple of clarifications for awm:

I agree that the 3♣ bid is not a thing of beauty. However, it is not in any way forcing. It shows clubs and a strong hand, but if partner has a blizzard, he can and should pass. As for how many clubs a 3♣ bidder has, I would guess at least 6 90% of the time, though I admit that I have no statistics to back me up. As responder, I would play opener for 6.

If you hold ♠xxx ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♣Jxxx over partner's 1♦ opener, you should pass. That much is clear, though I know one can easily lay out hands where 4♥ is cold. It is less clear to me that 1♦ will be a disaster, if the opponents let you play. Remember that 1♦ is the opener with all the one suited diamond hands as well, and the fewer diamonds you have, the more likely it is that opener has the one suiter, rather than a canape.

In any case, you are certainly on as firm ground as a Meckwell Precision responder: the LC opener will have at least 4, while the Precision opener may have a singleton (or fewer in some versions).

[awm]

Well, I ran a simulation of the 3♣ openings. I assumed that these openings are one of:

(1) 5♣-332 with 18-19 hcp.
(2) 6+♣, no four-card or longer side suit, 17-21 hcp.

My calculation is that 38.5% of the 3♣ openings contain only five clubs. If you open 1♦ on these hands whenever you have 3♦-5♣, you can get it down to 17.3%. Most other logical modifications you could make would increase the proportion (i.e. opening some hands with 6♣ with 2NT if in range). This is quite a bit worse than the "at least 90% of the time" suggested.

The situation in Meckwell is not at all comparable. While partner's 1♦ "doesn't show very many diamonds" you know that partner won't have:

(1) A big hand. This makes it quite safe to respond with a lousy four-count.
(2) A hand with a five-card major. This means even if you pass the four-count, you don't miss game.

In this system opener could easily have either or both of these possibilities. The point is that if partner is opening his longest suit, then passing usually leaves you in a reasonable partial. If partner frequently opens his second-longest suit, then passing is less likely to leave you well placed. My calculations, given that we have this shape and assuming opener has either a diamond one-suiter, or diamonds and a longer side suit:

Opener has diamonds only 38.8%
Opener has 5+♠ 32.6%
Opener has 5+♥ 9.6%
Opener has 5+♣ 19%

In other words, a pretty significant proportion of the time we missed a substantially better fit. This won't be the same calculation in a standard system -- in particular you virtually never miss an eight-card spade fit or a ten-card heart fit.

[glen]

Dirk Kuijt, on Dec 27 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

A system that I'm looking for feedback on. Little Canape (LC) combines a "little club", unbalanced suit bids (if less than 18HCP), and canape. ...

1♣ 12-14 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
1♦, 1♥, 1♠ almost always at least a 4 card suit, always in the majors
   If two suited, the second suit will normally be longer.
   If one suited, the suit will normally be 6+ cards.
   May be balanced only if 18-19 HCP, may have only 3♦ only if 18-19 HCP and 3=3=3=4.
1N 15-17 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
2♣ 12-16, 6+♣, always a one suiter
2♦ game forcing, except 22-23 balanced
2♥, 2♠ show 12-16 with 5+M and 4+♣
2N 20-21 balanced
3♣ 17+ ♣ one suiter
3♦, 3♥, 3♠ normal preempts

...

Something interesting is to shift ♦s for ♣s, as follows:

1♦: 12-14 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
1♣/♥/♠: almost always at least a 4 card suit, always in the majors
- If two suited, the second suit will normally be longer.
- If one suited, the suit will normally be 6+ cards.
- May be balanced only if 18-19 HCP, 1♣ may have only 2-3♣s only if 18-19 HCP balanced (option: have 1♣ open all 18-19 balanced, and/or expand to 18-20 or 17-19 with a 14-16 1NT).
1NT: 15-17 balanced; normally all 4333, 4432, and 5332, even with 5M
2♣: Strong, 16+ with ♦s OR 22+ balanced OR any game force. If ♦s unbalanced and below a game force, either one suiter or with longer major
2♦: 11-15, 6+♦s, always a one suiter
2♥/♠: 11-15 with 5+M and 4+♦s
2NT: 20-21 balanced

Lil' ♦ may not be the engagement one is looking for, but its playable. 1♣ can be played as forcing, ♣s or balanced, and if balanced 18-19 or 22+, and the 2♣ opening is unbalanced with a major and a game force, or ♦s and 16+ without ♣s. For spicing it up, when balanced not vulnerable 1st and 2nd, 1NT: 10-13-, 1♦: 13+-16, 17-19 opens 1♣/♥/♠.

[Dirk Kuijt]

awm

I admit to being corrected on the various percentage chances. My intuition failed me on this score, not for the first time. I'll confess that I don't have any software that would allow me to make similar calculations, and so had to guess.

What program did you use? Is it publicly available?

[awm]

Well, I use some C code that I wrote myself, and it's not really very user friendly. I think there's a program called dealer available that other people use. There are also hand type frequencies and such on Pavlicek's page, although this doesn't give the dependent probabilities given partner's hand type.

[dake50]

Don't canape just to canape! MajorsAlwaysFirst, MAF intends to 2M often. For that aim M-canape fits, eg. 4M5m hands.
Why on earth bid 1D/1C inviting opponents to find their Major with a cheap 1M overcall without compensating strong hand? Am I bidding to show my skilled listing of shape cases? Or to win 2M partials? Auction are not static solvable but enjoined by opponents.