[mgoetze]

straube, on 2010-October-30, 13:25, said:

I've been pretty critical all along of this system. I recognize, however, that there are tradeoffs here and that there are many instances where a canape system will win.

Huh? If mikestar13 had meant this to be a canapé system, he would surely be playing Antiflannery rather than Flannery, would he not?

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2010-October-30, 13:46, said:

Huh? If mikestar13 had meant this to be a canapé system, he would surely be playing Antiflannery rather than Flannery, would he not?

You're fond of asking rhetorical questions, aren't you? And you like to use more than one question mark, don't you??

Mikestar13 explained how he would handle his major suit disparities (not canape) but not how he would distinguish his 5M/4m from 4M/5m patterns. I suggested this was a problem when I wrote...

Quote

Mike's structure is fundamentally flawed in that it has no way to distinguish such patterns as 5M/4m from 4M/5m, let alone differentiate the strength of the hand.

I'm not sure whether Mikestar13 intends to canape with 4M/5m. I think he would want to be able to mention a 5-cd suit.

I don't think I'll revisit this thread, but good luck Mikestar13 on your system development.

[mgoetze]

OK, I guess you have a different understanding of what a "canapé system" is than I do ("rhetorical" questions are great for figuring out these hidden definitions). I wouldn't call a system a "canapé system" just because you open 1♦ with 4♦5♣, for instance. A "canapé system" is, for me, one where you systematically open your second-longest suit most of the time (e.g. Blue Club).

[mtvesuvius]

http://en.wikipedia....p%C3%A9_(bridge)

Wikipedia said:

Canapé is a bridge treatment which refers to a system of bidding where the second suit bid is always longer than (or at least as long as) the first.

[mikestar13]

This system is not canape, it is majors first. The major is opened with 4M/5m and with 5M/4m.

[mikestar13]

Another excellent bid I forgot to mention: 1M-4M is either preemptive or "game but no slam". This is only possible opposite a limited opening. Let fourth hand with some good values guess what kind of raise it is--we don't need to know.

[matmat]

How does this differ from precision with 4cM?

[PrecisionL]

foobar, on 2010-October-30, 10:22, said:

It might be interesting to look at another strong ♣ system with canape that doesn't use an ambiguous ♦:

http://bridgewithdan...stems/Ultra.pdf

Apparently, there's an update coming up soon -- Keylime can chime in if he's around..

Yes, we have upgraded Ultra to C3: Copious Canape Club and are testing it one more time at the Virginia Beach Regional (after a go at Reno). After that we will probably post it so that Dan Neill can have it on his site.

We only canape minor into major or major into minor. With both majors we bid them naturally (longer first). All our two bids are 10-14 hcp 5-cd Major and usually 6-cd minors.

Larry

[mtvesuvius]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-30, 20:00, said:

Another excellent bid I forgot to mention: 1M-4M is either preemptive or "game but no slam". This is only possible opposite a limited opening. Let fourth hand with some good values guess what kind of raise it is--we don't need to know.

Anyone who plays Precision can use this, as well as Polish Club etc... You're missing the point. Your system is fundamentally flawed, and no matter what responses you use, especially treatments that are used in a standard precision or 2/1 context, it will not change the fact that this system just plain will not work... No matter how many times you make a raise to 4M that I can do the same with. No matter how many weak jump raises you make.

[mikestar13]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-30, 20:59, said:

Anyone who plays Precision can use this, as well as Polish Club etc... <snip>

Of course. I said "limited opening" not "in this system." I've mainly been disputing the notion that my system provides no preemption. By the way,
if you like aggressive openings, try ditching Flannery and opening all constructive bids 2 points lighter than my specifications.

[glen]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-31, 14:58, said:

...I've mainly been disputing the notion that my system provides no preemption. ...

They are not saying that - they are saying the system has no more preemption than a 2/1 system.

[mikestar13]

glen, on 2010-October-31, 18:10, said:

They are not saying that - they are saying the system has no more preemption than a 2/1 system.

Fair enough. No more preemption than 2/1 but also no less.

[nigel_k]

I think this system is ok.

Probably 1♣ 16+ if unbalanced would be better and I would like flexibility to choose not open 1NT with a five card major, especially a weak NT. And you will have to work out the continuations after 1♥/♠ which will not be easy. I would ditch flannery and accept the rebid problem with 4513 - either passing or bidding a 3 card minor. The majors first approach means all of these sequences will be an adventure as responder will be guessing whether to pass or give preference. As long as you're playing a 4-2 sometimes, a 3-3 with a ruffing value won't be much worse.

It's definitely more preemptive than 2/1. What about all the hands where you open 1♠ while 2/1 opens 1♣/♦ and the next hand has enough for 1♥ but not 2♥?

[mtvesuvius]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-31, 18:34, said:

Fair enough. No more preemption than 2/1 but also no less.

Next time I am designing a system, I'll design it so it has no advantages over standard, but plenty of flaws

[mikestar13]

I routinely bid 1M-3M with four trumps and a stiff--I won't bid it with a balanced hand. Similarly 1M-4M (when preemptive) may be five trumps and a stiff.

[mtvesuvius]

I routinely pass hands with 0-5 HCP and no 6 card suit. Ooooooooh, aaaaaaaahhhh.