[sakuragi]

allow me to sidetrack again .....

Quote

You are correct. The Blue Team opening is 1♠ because the hand is not strong enough to open 1♦ and reverse into spades. Blue Team canape differs from many other canape systems. Opener can certainly decide to pass 1NT, but the recommended rebid is 2♦ not 2♠.

thank you johnu for clarifying. I also recall the book recommend 2d. (sidetrack again i also remember the book put a lot emphasis on suit quality)

on 1st reflection, i think 2d should also be technical correct. afterall it is the blue team recommendation.

but lets call them option (a) stick with canape rebid 2s when 5s4d (b) classic blue team method

when opener is 4s5d both (a) and (b) rebid 2d but (a) shows clearly 4s5d
when responder is equal length sd (a) wins. because responder may likely pick wrong in (b) because 2s scores better
when responder has longer s it is nearly a tie with (a) having advantage. nothing appeals but (a) judge better.
when responder has longer d option (a) yet have advantage. (b) responder need to have 4d to be clear. if responder 3d2s he may try 2s.

when opener is 5s4d (a) rebid 2s and (b) rebid 2d
when responder is equal length sd (a) wins. (a) 2s already landed (b) likely pick right because 2s scores better
when responder has longer s a tie but (a) slight advantage. (b) responder 3s2d he may pass 2d but unlikely (2s scores better). (a) 2s already landed
when responder has longer d (b) wins (slight margin). (b) responder need to have 4d to be clear. if responder 3d2s its a tie. 3d1s (b) wins slight

Does (a) seem better method? may need mathematician.

Is it similar with 5CM when opener is 54 minors? there is a school where 1d-1M-2c shows 54 minors either way. but that school seems to be minority.

[sakuragi]

cont....
5s4d case classic blue team method allows room for 2h (when that is right)
5s4c case classic blue team method allows room for 2d/h (when that is right)
5s4h case ??

there is also many opening weak 2 on 5 cards, or 5 cards and unknown 4 side suit etc.

overall i guess rebid with 5 may not be too much disaster.

So sorry I am totally off topic now ... it would be my last post on this thread.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-August-26, 00:23, said:

Even the Blue Team switched to Precision Club which uses 5 card majors in the 1970's.

And were well compensated by Wei for doing so.

[johnu]

sakuragi, on 2019-August-31, 09:55, said:

cont....
5s4d case classic blue team method allows room for 2h (when that is right)
5s4c case classic blue team method allows room for 2d/h (when that is right)
5s4h case ??

there is also many opening weak 2 on 5 cards, or 5 cards and unknown 4 side suit etc.

overall i guess rebid with 5 may not be too much disaster.

So sorry I am totally off topic now ... it would be my last post on this thread.

Rebidding 2M after a 1NT response on a 5 card suit has a lot of ways to lose. As you mentioned, when responder can bid a new suit at the 2 level but wouldn't be able to after a 2M rebid. Responder can have a much better fit for opener's 2nd suit which was never bid. If responder has a maximum with 2 card support in the major, they may make a game try expecting/hoping for 6 cards in the major. Are you too high on a bad 5-2 fit? Is responder inviting with 2 or 3 card support? A 5-3 fit will be a good percentage game. A 5-2 fit may be hopeless or low percentage.

[johnu]

MaxHayden, on 2019-August-31, 02:18, said:

My main complaint with stock precision is the 2D opening because it seems to be a waste vs multi or mini Roman. In general,the other complaints don't really strike me as valid.

What do you open in Precision with 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5 (short in diamonds) hands? You don't have a 5 card major to bid. Do you want to open an unbalanced hand 1♦ on your 4th longest suit which is a singleton or void?

With a 5 card club suit, do you want to open 2♣ with a bad club suit? You can better define 2♣ openings in combination with the 2♦ openings on some hand patterns.

[PrecisionL]

One solution is to open 1♦ as artificial (0+♦) and promising at least one 4-card Major.
I played this in two partnerships and it works amazingly well.
See the Diamond Major reference: www.bridgeclublive.com

Now you can use an opening of 2♦ like 2♣, 10-15 hcp and 6♦ or 5♦ and 4♣.

[rhm]

MaxHayden, on 2019-August-25, 17:46, said:

I have some questions about the history of bidding systems. (That weren't answered by reading Wenble's _The Evolution of Bidding Systems_).

1) The history of Canape-style bidding.

I have copies of some Pierre Albarran books. The his version of canape is similar to ACOL but with a different (better) way of showing distribution. It looks like a reasonable alternative to 5-card majors.

But how did we go from there to the Italian systems? And why did professional players eventually drop canape entirely?

With so many competitive bidding situations and the demonstrable effectiveness of ambiguous/multi-way bids, I'd think that canape would be having a resurgence, especially at the highest levels of play.

So why isn't it?

I think the major reason is the popularity of 5 card majors, which are not very compatible with Canape system.
But it is not only popularity. 4 card major systems are more difficult to play than 5 card major systems requiring better judgement.
There are sound technical advantages as well.
5 card majors make major suit openings rarer and minor suit openings more common compared to 4 card majors.
If the objective is to exchange as much information as possible in constructive sequences, this is the way it should be done.
(Information about majors tends to be much more important than anything else)
There is a reason why Precision was developed even though strong club systems and 5 card majors do not provide such a good fit.
Expensive bids in constructive sequences should be specific while inexpensive bids less so, since there is room left to sort things out.
Before the advancement of negative (sputnik) doubles, 4 card majors had one big advantage over 5 card majors: You rarely missed a 4-4 major suit fit.
This all changed with the advancement of negative doubles. The advantage (not missing 4-4 major suit fits) did not disappear completely but was very significantly reduced.
All these discussions about the law of total tricks and making the right decision in competitive situations are much easier to apply when you play 5 card majors.
Of course there are also some advantages of 4 card major systems. They tend to be more obstructive and require more judgement to play against.

The fact that very few play 4 card majors and canape systems at the highest level is indicative that this is not only a fad.
These systems are probably not competitive any more in the modern world even if you try to soup them up with modern gadgets.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

MaxHayden, on 2019-August-25, 17:46, said:

I have some questions about the history of bidding systems. (That weren't answered by reading Wenble's _The Evolution of Bidding Systems_).

2) Origin of SA's non-forcing 1NT response.

KS, RS, and the like all used a forcing 1NT in concert with 5-card majors. Goren himself says they go together; his 1985 New Bridge Complete is a simplified 2/1.

So where did SA get the idea of using 5-card majors with a non-forcing 1NT? (And why don't we just teach it the "correct" way?)

I think you have it backwards.
The 1NT response used to be non-forcing. Then bidding theorists came along arguing the case for making it forcing. They had a point but they also oversold their case in my opinion. It is definitely not a black or white issue.
Once you have no game in general 1NT is quite often a desirable contract at any form of scoring.
Saying you can not play 1NT when you or your partner opens with one of a major create many problems, not least that opener has to respond with a balanced hand in a non-suit.
5M332 in a minimum hand is very frequent. 1NT may well be your last plus score.
If you do not play it forcing openers rebids when he does not pass tend to be better defined.

Quote

3) Good books/write-ups of more recent developments?

The book doesn't cover modern stuff in much depth, obviously. But it had enough to make me realize that I've been lax in keeping up.

Is there a good book cataloging recent conventions like Gazilli and Kickback? One that lets me explore and appreciate AMBRA without having to parse through system notes and back out the underlying reasoning from a table of bidding sequences?

Something that explains how SEF differs from standard American? (I keep hearing that they are similar, but that SEF makes some minor changes with significant payoffs.)

Thanks for the help!

I suggest you look at
Building A Bidding System from Roy Hughes (2005) (It does discuss bidding theory, but not specific systems like SEF or AMBRA)
The Notrump Zone from Danny Kleinman (2004) (which also discusses the 1NT response to a major)

Rainer Herrmann

[MaxHayden]

awm, on 2019-August-31, 03:46, said:

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. While it's true that people often play identical (or very similar) methods in first chair or in second chair after an initial pass, this absolutely should not apply against a forcing pass system! If I'm opening in first seat it doesn't much matter to me whether opponents play forcing pass or not; if I'm in second seat against forcing pass it makes no difference whether my first seat methods are strong club or 2/1 or forcing pass myself because I'm always playing my "defense after opponents action" methods (which obviously depend on what action opponents took) and not my general system.

Precision normally does well when it gets to take advantage of its range-limited openers. A forcing pass essentially eliminates this benefit except when you are sitting in the first seat. Forcing pass systems also tend to be *more* precise in their bidding than precision. So you don't have much of an edge when you are 1st seat vs them being 1st seat either. So you are getting less mileage on the bids that work best and still bearing the cost of the ones that are a weakness.

Could be 100% wrong here. But the effectiveness of a bidding system partially depends on what other people are allowed to play. So the prominence of some systems can be the result of other systems being restricted.

But maybe players from outside of ACBL-land will have better perspective on this.

johnu, on 2019-August-31, 16:53, said:

What do you open in Precision with 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5 (short in diamonds) hands? You don't have a 5 card major to bid. Do you want to open an unbalanced hand 1♦ on your 4th longest suit which is a singleton or void?

With a 5 card club suit, do you want to open 2♣ with a bad club suit? You can better define 2♣ openings in combination with the 2♦ openings on some hand patterns.

I play precision, I play with the 2♦ bid. I tried the unbalanced diamond system from Marshal Miles and didn't like some of the sequences. But the precision 2♦ is still a kludge. I wish there was a better way to handle it. But AFAIK, there isn't.

PrecisionL, on 2019-August-31, 18:47, said:

One solution is to open 1♦ as artificial (0+♦) and promising at least one 4-card Major.
I played this in two partnerships and it works amazingly well.

^This seems to complicate bidding 11-13 hcp balanced hands e.g. 5332. The website you linked says to just pass them. Maybe that works on-net, but I'm not a fan of the idea in abstract.

rhm, on 2019-September-01, 06:27, said:

I think the major reason is the popularity of 5 card majors, which are not very compatible with Canape system.
But it is not only popularity. 4 card major systems are more difficult to play than 5 card major systems requiring better judgement.

Most of what you are saying has been discussed above, but you seem to have misunderstood some of it. (Poss. language barrier?)

Canape and 5CM are both alternatives to "4-card majors"; they both try to solve the same problems by communicating more information about major suit distributions. They use different methods, but they seem to be informationally equivalent.

And in any event, my question is historical. How did we get from Alberan's system to the Italian ones? Their ideas are different enough that I don't think someone just made up Neapolitan Club after reading Alberan.

As far as the Italian systems themselves go, the "not competitive" argument was discussed above. I don't think it is convincing.

"Not popular enough for people to keep using" is *very* convincing. You can use negative doubles and the like for analogous situations in canape, but if the two are equivalent (or even if canape is slightly better), you'd be better off using 5-card majors just because that's what most of the conventions and literature are focused on.

rhm, on 2019-September-01, 06:53, said:

I think you have it backwards.
The 1NT response used to be non-forcing. Then bidding theorists came along arguing the case for making it forcing.

Both Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone had the forcing 1NT response. I can't find an early 5-card major system that does not. Do you know of one?

I'm aware that in "standard american" people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren. But my question is *why*.

Quote

I suggest you look at
Building A Bidding System from Roy Hughes (2005) (It does discuss bidding theory, but not specific systems like SEF or AMBRA)
The Notrump Zone from Danny Kleinman (2004) (which also discusses the 1NT response to a major)

Thank you for the suggestions, but I have read both of these.

[johnu]

MaxHayden, on 2019-September-01, 16:03, said:

Precision normally does well when it gets to take advantage of its range-limited openers. A forcing pass essentially eliminates this benefit except when you are sitting in the first seat. Forcing pass systems also tend to be *more* precise in their bidding than precision. So you don't have much of an edge when you are 1st seat vs them being 1st seat either. So you are getting less mileage on the bids that work best and still bearing the cost of the ones that are a weakness.

You could say this about any strong club system, not just Precision. In any case, forcing pass systems have pretty much been legislated out of existence in tournament bridge in most areas. So unless you live in a region where forcing pass is legal, this discussion is moot.

[rhm]

MaxHayden, on 2019-September-01, 16:03, said:

"Not popular enough for people to keep using" is *very* convincing. You can use negative doubles and the like for analogous situations in canape, but if the two are equivalent (or even if canape is slightly better), you'd be better off using 5-card majors just because that's what most of the conventions and literature are focused on.

I have clearly argued that Canape is not equivalent to 5 card majors .

Quote

Both Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone had the forcing 1NT response. I can't find an early 5-card major system that does not. Do you know of one?

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.
European 5 card major systems never incorporated it.
For example Polish club and it forerunners Vienna System, The French 5 card major systems as well as Italian players do not use forcing notrump repsonse.
It is my impression that nowadays "semi-forcing" notrump response is on the rise in the US, particularly at the top level.
That's why I think you have it backwards when you claim:

Quote

I'm aware that in "standard american" people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren. But my question is *why*.

Quote

Thank you for the suggestions, but I have read both of these.

That is surprising given that these books answer most of your questions
For example Danny Kleinman has a chapter in "The Nortump Zone" on page 202:

What's Wrong With The Forcing 1NT

and you keep asking "why people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren"

Maybe you do not want to hear or understand what other people tell you, because you are so convinced about your own ideas?

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

rhm, on 2019-September-02, 06:36, said:

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.
European 5 card major systems never incorporated it.
For example Polish club and it forerunners Vienna System, The French 5 card major systems as well as Italian players do not use forcing notrump repsonse.
It is my impression that nowadays "semi-forcing" notrump response is on the rise in the US, particularly at the top level.
That's why I think you have it backwards when you claim:

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.
But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

[rhm]

pescetom, on 2019-September-02, 07:54, said:

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.
But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

Fair enough.
What also should be noted, at least from a historical point of view, is that 1NT forcing was invented by Roth-Stone as a necessity, because Roth-Stone incorporates constructive raises (10-12 points).
This left responder with an impossible situation with weaker hands and support.
The "solution" was 1NT forcing.
Kaplan-Sheinwold, Eastern Scientific, Walsh also made the single raise constructive, usually with four trumps, while a preference after a 1NT response is weaker, often with three-card and occasionally with two-card support.

(cited from the 5th edition of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge)

Rainer Herrmann

[pescetom]

rhm, on 2019-September-02, 08:53, said:

Fair enough.
What also should be noted, at least from a historical point of view, is that 1NT forcing was invented by Roth-Stone as a necessity, because Roth-Stone incorporates constructive raises (10-12 points).
This left responder with an impossible situation with weaker hands and support.
The "solution" was 1NT forcing.
Kaplan-Sheinwold, Eastern Scientific, Walsh also made the single raise constructive, usually with four trumps, while a preference after a 1NT response is weaker, often with three-card and occasionally with two-card support.

(cited from the 5th edition of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge)

Interesting. I always imagined that the impossible situation was a hand with 5+m slightly too weak to force to game, and that constructive raises were a side benefit of 1NT forcing. Whatever, the three things fit together.

[MaxHayden]

rhm, on 2019-September-02, 06:36, said:

I have clearly argued that Canape is not equivalent to 5 card majors .

Stating it does not make it so. The entire point of canapé is that it saves bidding room. And if you calculate the bits of information it conveys, it is roughly equivalent to 5-card majors. If you think this is wrong, then show me how my use of information theory is incorrect, especially once you account for game theory adjustments that neither of your recommended books even consider.

Instead of doing that, you lumped the system I was asking about in with Goren, Culbertson, and "canapé tendancy" systems.

This is why I said that you did not understand what I was asking. You flatly asserted that my math was wrong without any explanation and proceeded to declare me ignorant. I have the books you mentioned in front of me. If they somehow answer my questions I do not see it. Given that this whole thread has been discussing these ideas, it is ludicrous of you to claim that I'm not aware of them and then to follow that statement with a series of claims that not only violates those principles, but ignores the entire thread until now.

If I'm incorrect, then show it. Don't get upset at me for failing to understand some point that you didn't spell out.

Quote

Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented.

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. I want to know where 5-card majors without a forcing no trump came from because I only know of early examples of 5-card majors with a forcing one. (Going back to the 50s.) And no, Kleinman does not answer my question. I already told you that. Yes, in the late 60s and early 70s, people started teaching a version of Goren with 5-card majors. I said that already.

It doesn't tell me a damned thing about why they chose to do that or where they got the idea. In other words, it specifically does not answer the question. Neither book explains why canapé got replaced with canapé tendancy or why my information theory calculations are off.

So instead of just insisting that I'm ignorant and lying, perhaps you could try answering my questions and actually spelling out your points so that I can understand them? What good does it do to blame me for your failure to communicate?

[MaxHayden]

pescetom, on 2019-September-02, 07:54, said:

I fully agree that OP has this backwards, non-forcing is the natural and traditional way to play any NT response and early 5-card major systems followed this logic.
But just to be precise, French style 5-card majors never had much success in Italy, where 4-card major and canape' were both still deeply entrenched. Nowadays 5-card major in Italy is synonymous with 2/1 GF and a semi-forcing 1NT, plus 2NT as a limit raise of 1M.

Okay, so what early (50s-era) 5-card majors system used a non-forcing 1NT? I don't know of one. If they didn't, why did later bridge authors just bolt 5-card majors onto Goren without the other pieces that tended to go with them historically?

[MaxHayden]

johnu, on 2019-September-01, 16:23, said:

You could say this about any strong club system, not just Precision. In any case, forcing pass systems have pretty much been legislated out of existence in tournament bridge in most areas. So unless you live in a region where forcing pass is legal, this discussion is moot.

My intention was to say that about (most) strong club systems. I would think that the modified versions of forcing pass stuff would create similar problems were they not also illegal.

I understand why you'd want to ban some elaborate systems at low-level play. At that level, it's play and defense that make the difference. But in social groups there are natural limits to this. If you are going to be playing with lots of people, you are confined to stuff that can be quickly explained anyway. So there's no real point to the regulations.

But at the advanced level, everyone's play is so strong that the only marginal benefit comes from bidding innovations. So I don't think it's wise to freeze the meta-game like they have. It more or less takes away the main thing that you can do to get an edge.

It was more or less a side point about the general situation.

[hrothgar]

MaxHayden, on 2019-September-03, 01:18, said:

Stating it does not make it so. The entire point of canapé is that it saves bidding room. And if you calculate the bits of information it conveys, it is roughly equivalent to 5-card majors. If you think this is wrong, then show me how my use of information theory is incorrect, especially once you account for game theory adjustments that neither of your recommended books even consider.

If you want people to critique your use of information theory then you need to present your calculations, not just make reference to the fact that you have done so...

[rhm]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-03, 03:05, said:

If you want people to critique your use of information theory then you need to present your calculations, not just make reference to the fact that you have done so...

Furthermore information theory as a mathematical theory to my knowledge deals with amount of information but has no concept that different information may have different value.
Its application to Bridge is quite limited.

For example knowledge about partners minor suit length is of different value than about his majors, subject of course that anyone holds 13 cards.
If we are looking at slams this difference diminishes, but in general there is a reason why we prefer to respond in a major suit rather than in a longer minor to a takeout double for example.

Almost any modern bidding system has at least one nebulous minor suit opening, where you could have three or less cards in this minor suit.
There are not many modern bidding systems where say a 1♠ opening is nebulous.

It matters whether you receive information on the first or later round of the bidding. For once there may be less bidding space left and any information after the first round is subject to disruption.
Timing in the bidding is very relevant.
Any bidding system and bidding method makes value judgements what information should be provided and in which order and how to consume bidding space.

Thus the claim that two different methods are "equivalent" is a very dubious one (equivalent in what respect?) and I doubt "equivalent effectiveness" can be proven or falsified.

The concept that bidding methods and systems evolve and establish their value in competition is a sensible one.
I do not think that any bidding system of yore would have a good chance to survive in modern high-level tournaments.

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

rhm, on 2019-September-03, 07:02, said:

Furthermore information theory as a mathematical theory to my knowledge deals with amount of information but has no concept that different information may have different value.
Its application to Bridge is quite limited.

In theory, we can treat our bidding as a channel and the opponent's bids as noise.

I think that it should be possible to measure how efficiently we are using this channel, however, its going to be god awful complicated...

Quote

I do not think that any bidding system of yore would have a good chance to survive in modern high-level tournaments.

How far back is "of yore"? I suspect that some of the Polish / Scandinavian / Aussie systems from the 70s would probably do quite decently...