Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- canary_club [2017/03/19 16:35] – johnkinn
+++ canary_club [2023/07/31 01:04] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<p> The Canary \C system
+<html><a name=preface></a></html>
-was devised by Paul Heitner and John Lowenthal sometime in the late 50's or
-early 60's. There is a high level description of the system in <i>The Encyclopedia
+====Preface====
-of Bridge</i>.
+The Canary Club system was devised by Paul Heitner and John Lowenthal sometime in the late 50's or
+early 60's. There is a high level description of the system in //The Encyclopedia
+of Bridge//.
+The system is really Roman Club
+with a strong 1\C opening
+rather than the Roman weak 1\C
+opening. One of the drawbacks to Roman Club
+was the necessity to create the suggestion of strength by bidding two suits
+rather than bidding and rebidding one suit. In addition there was no way to
+show a \C one suiter
+with the opening bid - one always had to bid a shorter suit first. As a consequence,
+there frequently were opening bids in 3 card suits.
+Canary avoids that problem altogether. In fact there is no bid in the system
+of a suit less than 4 cards in length unless the bid is pre-defined as artificial.
+There is no illusion of naturalness as there is in Roman Club
+or in so-called natural systems.
+A second feature of Roman Club
+was the use of a step response to 1\D/1\H/1\S as an artificial
+negative. This is part of the description of Canary Club
+which appears in //The Encyclopedia of Bridge// too. It has also been a basis
+of Canary Club as described
+in earlier versions of this document.
+As of version 3, we will substitute 1N as the first relay response. This serves
+two purposes:
+  - This puts us more in line with what the ACBL considers legal. The 1N response to 1\D being treated as forcing is unique to this system, I believe, but probably causes no "legal" problems.
+  - Theoretically it probably is superior as well since it causes the hand which is more likely to be balanced to be declarer.
+There is a problem introduced with this change. Auctions such as 1\D - 1\H - 1N (which showed
+a \D suit with a \H suit at least as long as the \D
+suit) and 1\H - 1\S - 1N (which showed a \H
+suit with a \S suit at
+least as long as the \H
+suit) served as a way for opener to show that he didn't have "true"
+reversing values in the old method. There no longer is a means to show the distinction
+between reversing values and weaker hands. Experience will show whether this
+is a problem or not.
+<html><a name=basis></a></html>
+==== Basis of the System ====
+^^
+| <html><span style="color:orange">CANA</span>pé</html> |
+| <html><span style="color:orange">R</span>ela<span style="color:orange">Y</span>s </html> |
+| <html>strong<span style="color:orange">Club</span> </html>|
+<html><a name=openingbids></a></html>
+===Opening Bids===
+^Opening bids ^Description^
+|1\C | 17 + HCP, all hand patterns except 23-24 balanced; (mostly) natural responses |
+|1\D/1\H/1\S | 11 - 16 HCP unbalanced or semi-balanced hand.  Suit of at least 4 cards.  Natural in the canapé sense |
+|1N | 13 - 16 HCP 4333, 4432, 5332, 4441 (if singleton is A or K).  Could have a 5 card major if the suit has only one high honor  |
+|2\C| 11 - 16 HCP 6 card \C suit, no secondary major |
+|2\D|11 - 16 HCP 3-suited hand (4441/5440)  544 hands with a major suit void are opened 1 \H/\S rather than 2\D |
+|2\H/2\S| 11 - 16 HCP 5/6 or bid major with 4/5 C.  The hand has 5 or 6 (Roman) losers. |
+|2N|23 - 24 HCP balanced (note: we do not open the slam-buster 2N bid very often! :-D) |
+|3C|11 - 16 HCP 5+ cards in each minor.  Hand has 4 to 6 (Roman) losers. |
+^Hand Type^Opening Bid^Notes^
+|**Balanced**|||
+|13 - 16 HCP |1N | Could have a 5 card major if it has only one high honor.  A hand pattern of 4441 is also allowed if the singleton is an A or K. |
+|17 - 20 HCP |1\C |Rebid 1N if 1\D response|
+|21 - 22 HCP |1\C |Rebid 2N if 1\D response|
+|23 - 24 HCP |2N|||
+|25+|1\C|Rebid 2\H. if a 1\D response.  Responder will usually rebid 2\S to find out whether opener has a \H hand or a strong balanced hand.  Opener rebids 2N with the balanced hand.  |
+|Hopes of 9 tricks using a long suit | 1\C | 3N if 1\D response |
+|**One suiters**|||
+|11 - 16 HCP| 1\D/1\H/1\S/2\c||
+|17 +|1 \C||
+|**Two suiters**|||
+|11 - 16 HCP| 1\D/1\h/1\s|normal Canapé|
+|11 - 16 HCP | 3\c | minors |
+|11 - 16 HCP |2\H/2\S | major and secondary \cs|
+|14 - 16 HCP |2\c|\cs and secondary \ds |
+|17+ HCP | 1\c||
+|**Three suiters**|||
+|11 - 16 HCP | 2\D | singleton in any suit, Can be 544 with void in a minor (and 5 cards in the other minor).  No Major suit void, please! |
+|17+HCP | 1\c||
+<html><a name=principles></a></html>
+===Principle of Canapé===
+With 2 - suited hands, the shorter of 2 suits is bid first. If the suits
+are of equal length, the lower ranking is bid first (hands with secondary
+\Cs are an exception to this rule). There are two "types" of canapé, ascending
+and descending. When the lower ranking suit is bid first, then the sequence
+is called an ascending canapé when the higher is bid first it is
+descending. In an ascending canapé sequence, the second suit is at
+least 5 cards long and is //at least// as long as the first. In a descending
+canapé, the second suit is //always// longer than the first.
+===Roman loser count===
+Roman loser count (see [[Courtney|Courtney Losers]]) is used
+for the purpose of evaluating an opening hand. This is the Courtney loser
+count as modified by Giorgio Belladonna and Walter Avarelli.
+    - No one suit can have more than 3 losers
+    - Each missing Ace, King or Queen is a loser
+    - A King with no honor higher than 10 is a <html>&frac14</html> loser
+    - A Queen with no honor higher than 10 is a <html>&frac12</html> loser
+===Cue bidding===
+Throughout the description
+of this system, when describing cue bidding or the showing of controls, a
+control will mean a K or A or singleton or void indiscriminately.  <del>At the five
+level, cue bids will show Aces (in new suits).</del> Cue bids will show high card
+controls (not singletons or voids) in partner's known 5+ card suit.
+===Other points===
+With a 2 suited hand of 4\Ds
+and a major, the \D
+suit should be suppressed with a weak (\D)
+suit and a weak hand.
+The loser count for the opening 2\H
+or 2\S should be 5
+or 6.
+==Strength==
+An opening 1\D, 1\H or 1\S in 1st or 2nd chair shall consist of: </font>
+  * 11 HCP or more; 2 or more quick tricks; 7 or fewer losers
+  * 14 HCP or more; 1<html>&frac12</html> or more quick tricks; 7 or fewer losers
-<p> The system is really Roman \C
-  with a strong 1C opening
-  rather than the Roman weak 1C
-  opening. One of the drawbacks to Roman C
-  was the necessity to create the suggestion of strength by bidding two suits
-  rather than bidding and rebidding one suit. In addition there was no way to
-  show a C one suiter
-  with the opening bid - one always had to bid a shorter suit first. As a consequence,
-  there frequently were opening bids in 3 card suits.
-<p>&nbsp;
-<p> Canary avoids that problem altogether. In fact there is no bid in the system
-  of a suit less than 4 cards in length unless the bid is pre-defined as artificial.
-  There is no illusion of naturalness as there is in Roman C
-  or in so-called natural systems.
-<p>&nbsp;
-<p> A second feature of Roman C
-  was the use of a step response to 1D/1H/1S as an artificial
-  negative. This is part of the description of Canary C
-  which appears in <i>The Encyclopedia of Bridge</i> too. It has also been a basis
-  of Canary C as described
-  in earlier versions of this document.
-<p>&nbsp;
-<p> As of version 3, we will substitute 1N as the first relay response. This serves
-  two purposes:
-<ol>
-  <li>This puts us more in line with what the ACBL considers legal. The 1N response
-    to 1D being treated
-    as forcing is unique to this system, I believe, but probably causes no &quot;legal&quot;
-    problems.
-  <li>Theoretically it probably is superior as well since it causes the hand which
-    is more likely to be balanced to be declarer.
-</ol>
-<p>&nbsp;
-<p>There is a problem introduced with this change. Auctions such as 1D
-  - 1H - 1N (which showed
-  a D suit with a H
-  suit at least as long as the D
-  suit) and 1H - 1S
-  - 1N (which showed a H
-  suit with a S suit at
-  least as long as the H
-  suit) served as a way for opener to show that he didn't have &quot;true&quot;
-  reversing values in the old method. There no longer is a means to show the distinction
-  between reversing values and weaker hands. Experience will show whether this
-  is a problem or not. <a name=basis>
-<p>&nbsp;