Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Balancing Doubles in Canape

Another thing I’ve been thinking about is what does a balancing double in a canapé system show. Like 1D-(2C)-P-P-X? In standard, you would tend to have almost any non-freak hand without length in clubs. Maybe 3-4-4-2 or 4-4-4-1 or 4-3-5-1 shape, possibly even 3-3-5-2, and it could be an absolute minimum. In canapé, when 1D guarantees having not exactly 4 in either major, but guarantees an unbalanced hand, double as takeout doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. None of the 4 hand shapes I mentioned above are possible after a canapé opening. I mean, 4-3-5-1 is a possible shape but with 4 in the suit already bid, so 5-3-4-1 in this auction would be a possible holding. Do we really want to suggest that partner bid either major when we are 5-3?


But using insinuating doubles (basically negative doubles that only guarantee 3 in unbid majors) and negative free bids (1D-(2C)-2M = constructive w 5+), the need for opener to show any sort of major suit length when it is passes back to him isn’t so important. Perhaps it should be a penalty double but that doesn’t make sense because on the hands where you will want to defend 2CX, partner will have made an insinuating double. Maybe it should imply canapé with 5 in the suit below the overcaller’s suit plus tolerance (2 or 3) in the other suit. So, after 1D-(2C)-P-P, X can be 5-2-4-2 or 5-3-4-1 or 5-2-5-1. And After 1S-(2D)-P-P, X = 5 clubs (4-3-1-5 or 4-2-2-5). I think I’m gonna go with the latter for now. I think.


  1. It seems to me that the canape system is primarily designed to make life difficult for the opponents.

  2. No, it is primarily designed to bid specifically 5-4 hands that are so frequent.