canary_club
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| canary_club [2017/03/19 20:40] – johnkinn | canary_club [2023/07/31 01:04] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | The Canary Club system | + | < |
| - | was devised by Paul Heitner and John Lowenthal sometime in the late 50's or | + | |
| + | ====Preface==== | ||
| + | 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 | early 60's. There is a high level description of the system in //The Encyclopedia | ||
| of Bridge//. | of Bridge//. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
| As of version 3, we will substitute 1N as the first relay response. This serves | As of version 3, we will substitute 1N as the first relay response. This serves | ||
| two purposes: | two purposes: | ||
| - | | ||
| - | - 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 " | ||
| - | problems. | ||
| - | - Theoretically it probably is superior as well since it causes the hand which\\ | ||
| - | is more likely to be balanced to be declarer. | ||
| + | - 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 " | ||
| + | - 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 " | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | ==== Basis of the System ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^^ | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | ===Opening Bids=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^Opening bids ^Description^ | ||
| + | |1\C | 17 + HCP, all hand patterns except 23-24 balanced; (mostly) natural responses | | ||
| + | |1\D/ | ||
| + | |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/ | ||
| + | |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 Type^Opening Bid^Notes^ | ||
| + | |**Balanced**||| | ||
| + | |13 - 16 HCP |1N | Could have a 5 card major if it has only one high honor. | ||
| + | |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. | ||
| + | |Hopes of 9 tricks using a long suit | 1\C | 3N if 1\D response | | ||
| + | |**One suiters**||| | ||
| + | |11 - 16 HCP| 1\D/ | ||
| + | |17 +|1 \C|| | ||
| + | |**Two suiters**||| | ||
| + | |11 - 16 HCP| 1\D/ | ||
| + | |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). | ||
| + | |17+HCP | 1\c|| | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | ===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 " | ||
| + | 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 < | ||
| + | - A Queen with no honor higher than 10 is a < | ||
| + | | ||
| + | ===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. | ||
| + | level, cue bids will show Aces (in new suits).</ | ||
| + | controls (not singletons or voids) in partner' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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: </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 11 HCP or more; 2 or more quick tricks; 7 or fewer losers | ||
| + | * 14 HCP or more; 1< | ||
| - | < | ||
| - | - 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 & | ||
| - | 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> | ||
| - | < | ||
canary_club.1489956005.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/07/31 01:16 (external edit)