[Aneffe]

Hi all,

I have the following point fr discussion in playing the Blue Team Club (probably similar situations occur in other strong Club / Canape Systems), so if you have a solution or an opinion, that would be very helpful:

In the classical Blue Team Club books, the descriptions are limited after the 2o1 Responses, especially to differentiate between forcing and non-forcing rebids, e.g.
1H-2D-? is 3D forcing or non-forcing? what would be the alternative bid to keep the bidding sequence open / announce weakness?

- the original text says, 1H-2D-3D Shows 12-16, and therefore it is not clear, if it is forcing or not
- one alternative chosen by Franco/Pancotti is to use an artifical 2C response used a) on 11-12 balanced hands, b) in classical Canape-style GF hands, or c) when interested in the distribution of the opener, with GF values. This is followed by 2D (4 cd H, further description pending and some rounds of artificial bids), while other rebids show specific hands e.g. 2H = 5+, 2S Canape 4 H + 5 S, 15-16, 2NT/3C = 5 H + 4C, min/max etc etc. Other bids of the responder on the 2-level are not 11-12 balanced (e.g. 2D = either GF or 6 cd D, invitational). While I understand the scheme, I could never bring my Partners to agree on it, as they find it confusing

- a second alternative is after the 2o1 Response to use the rebid of 2 Major (here 2H) to show an "interesting Hand" (i.e. would accept an invitation), but does not disclose yet anything about the hand - could be 4, 5, oder longer Hs. Other bids are than minimum, also the raises of Partners suit. Here, the flow of Information requires several bidding rounds and might be disturbed by opponents bids

- a third alternative would be to handle raises as strong, which would require the 2NT rebid to be made also with fit and/or unbalanced Hands.

So -
Does anyone have experience with one or more of these agreements?
What are the benefits or drawbacks other than the ones mentioned?
Any ideal or widely accepted solution?

Thanks for help

[kenrexford]

I my Modified Italian Canapé System, the approach I use and described in my book is a semi-strange one way force on Opener. And it is strangely counterintuitive but works well. With minimum canapé or minimum balanced Opener rebids his 4-card suit, passable by Responder. If Responder bids 2NT to ask Opener bids his longer suit if canspe (passable) or rebids the major a third time if balanced weak and 4 card or 3NT bal min with 5.

If opener has max he immediately completes canapé as gf. With one suiter (6 card or longer) opener bids 2NT or his suit at three level.

There's more to it, but the key to why this works is the one way force (which allows interesting light game tries with fits) and the counterintuitive repeat up to twice of a four card opened suit. Canape works smoothly and easily if one gets away from standard thinking and frees up one's mind to a completely new way of thinking. Ilder systems like neapolitan and blue imo had not severed the umbilical card all the way.

[johnu]

No matter how you play your 2/1 responses, opener's raise of responder's suit should be forcing. Otherwise opener may have to severely distort the bidding to show primary support with a better than minimum hand. I never adapted canape responses by responder because I thought they were unsound, unnecessary, and by far the weakest part of the system.

In my version of Blue Team, the 1NT response is semi-forcing, up to a bad 12, and 2/1 responses are game forcing. 1st or 2nd seat, 1♦ could be a doubleton with a 12-14 balanced hand. Using 2♣ as a possibly balanced response, with or without clubs, is a good idea IMO and there are several threads about this.

[kenrexford]

johnu, on 2013-December-04, 02:09, said:

No matter how you play your 2/1 responses, opener's raise of responder's suit should be forcing. Otherwise opener may have to severely distort the bidding to show primary support with a better than minimum hand. I never adapted canape responses by responder because I thought they were unsound, unnecessary, and by far the weakest part of the system.

In my version of Blue Team, the 1NT response is semi-forcing, up to a bad 12, and 2/1 responses are game forcing. 1st or 2nd seat, 1♦ could be a doubleton with a 12-14 balanced hand. Using 2♣ as a possibly balanced response, with or without clubs, is a good idea IMO and there are several threads about this.

Part of the problem cannot be addressed without knowing whether the systemic approach is pure canapé or tendency canapé.

If pure (like MICS uses), then the "raise" scenario is interesting. If I open 1♠ and hear 2♣, I will not have a club raise except in three scenarios:

1. I have a canapé into clubs and hence a wild fit,

2. I have a sixth spade with the nice addition of three (or maybe four) clubs, or

3. I have a spade-red canapé with a three-card club fragment (rare 4540-type).

If, however, the structure is tendency canapé (e.g., Neapolitan), I might have any of these but then I might also have a simple minimum with 5♠/4♣, which severely complicates things.

Blue and MICS both avoid this problem, but you still have some work to do. IMO, in the long run it makes sense for Opener to complete his pattern and to only raise when Responder's minor is his longer suit, delaying the fragment raise to the next round. This, of course, makes the entire concept of a "raise" somewhat illusory, because the bid would be the same regardless, with the "raise" only being a nice coincidence.

[NickRW]

All I can say is with Blue Club you have to remember that 1M-2m may be preparatory on as little as Kx with some whizzy rebid in mind. I've never raised partner's 2m response yet unless it was my reversing suit. i.e. it shows 15-16 and at least a good 5 card suit. Therefore it is not just F1 but GF.

Nick

[Balrog49]

The sequence 1♥-2♦-3♦ shows a minimum hand with four hearts and five or more diamonds. To show a reverse with longer diamonds, opener would bid 3♠, 4♣, or 4♦.

1♥-2♦-3♦ may not be defined as forcing but the logic of the situation makes it forcing. Usually, when these 1M-2m-3m sequences occur, responder intends to make a game forcing reverse.