[gwnn]

http://floyd.best.vw...ub/caroline.htm

So I've always wanted to try Caroline Club (which itself claims to be an improved version of Ekeblad club) but there were quite a few no-nos in it that I could never play. It just seemed convoluted to me. Well sure you could say canape approaches are inherently convoluted. Anyway, I really like the idea to have a strong club system where all openings show a suit and promise an unbalanced hand. So without further ado this is where I am currently in devising this hypothetical system.

1♣=15+ any
1♦=10-14, 4+ ♦ unbalanced, either one-suited (6+), or minors, or a 4441 hand with 4 diamonds or 4450 or 4+♦5+♠ (wow, that's a lot of hands)
1♥=10-14, 4+ ♥ unbalanced, either one-suited (6+), or 4♥5+other, or 4414.
1♠=10-14, 4+ ♠ (usually) unbalanced, either one-suited (6+) or 4♠5+other, or optionally 12-14 5♠332.
1N=12-14 balanced
2♣=10-14, 4+ ♣, either one-suited (6+) or 4♣5+ spades
2♦=10-14, 5+♥4+♦
2♥=10-14, 5+♥4+♣
2♠=weak two
2N=10-14, 5+♥5+♠ (I know, weird)

My main contribution is kaplan inversion over 1♦ and 1♥, sorting out spade length cheaply. I don't know if this has been done before, sorry!

1♦-?

1♥=4+ forcing 1 round (responses are rather easy over this one. 1NT could show 3 card support for example)
1♠=denies any 4-card major, over this: 1N=4-5 spades (2♣ asks), 2♣=minors (possibly 1444), 2♦=diamonds
1NT=4+ spades, over this 2♣=minors, 2♦=diamonds, 2♥=good raise (possibly with 5), 2♠=bad raise (possibly with 3)
2♣=GF shape relay (I have this sorted out but I don't want to make this post too long, it's based on symmetric relays)
2♦=single raise, I guess denying 3 spades, maybe not
2♥/♠=limit bids
2NT=forcing raise of ♦

1♥-?
1♠=0-3 spades, over this 1N=4-5 spades(2♣ asks), 2m=canape, 2M=single suited
1N=4+ spades, over this standard stuff. 5-card support should try to bid something more than 2♠ if at all suitable
2♣=GF relay (again, this is sorted out)
2♦=not sure
2♥=single raise
2♠=limit bid
2NT=forcing raise

1♠-?
1N=you know standard 2/1 response, over this 12-14 balanced can pass, canapes can show themselves
2♣=GF relay
2♦=I guess 5+ hearts inv+?
2♥=no clue
2♠=single raise
2NT=forcing raise

1N-?
whatever

2♣-?
2♦=non-value showing asking bid, over this 2♥=canape, 2♠..3♣=one suiter in various shapes (I guess 3♣=minimum, 2♠=maximum w/ singleton, 2NT=maximum without)
2♥/♠=limit bids
2N=dunno (I guess it could be forcing 3♣ and then you either pass or show a 5-5. opener should break the transfer if he has spades)
3♣=mixed raise

over 2♦ and 2♥ I am not sure what 2N should be used for? I am not a big fan of playing 2NT but in this case it might be worth it to play it as invitational. I know Ekeblad plays it as a GF relay though.

Two more little remarks: you don't have to play 1♠ as possibly 5332 but it just so happens to have a perfect spot in both the 1NT system (you pass) and the 2♣ relays. There was one free spot and I decided to put that in. And I know 5♠5♥ is ugly to open all the way up at 2NT but I'm not sure how you can ever show that if you open 1♠!

Yea so what's up people, what do you think? You can say you hate it as long as you admit it's better than Caroline Club?

BTW a nice name could be Petra Club (I'm a Wozniacki fan but also realistic).

[gwnn]

Yea yea where are the relays?

Easiest is over 1♠-?

1♠-2♣

2♦=diamonds or 5332 (2♠ rebid shows 5332)
2♥=hearts
2♠=spades
2NT+=two-suiter with clubs

1♥-2♣
2♦=diamonds or 4414/4405 (2♠ rebid shows the three suiter)
2♥=spades
2♠=hearts
2NT+=clubs

1♦-2♣ (sorry, this is a little convoluted!)
2♦=diamonds or three-suiter (2♠ rebid shows the one-suiter)
2♥=5 spades
2♠+=minors

The only tricky part is that there are still some three-suiters lurking around in some 5-4's but not in others. For example, if I show a ♠-♣ two-suiter, I can be 4045 but not 4405. I just put a simple rule for this: if you show a 5440 you can't have, it's just a maximum 5431.

one-suited relays are always announced by 2♠. Afterwards it's standard symmetric relay stuff. You lose a step but you regain it because you can't be 5332.
two-suited relays always announced by 2♠ (or start at 2NT, anyway) except the minors and ♦+♠, which are special anyway because they can be 5-5.

[gwnn]

Two more comments:

*it is probably a good idea to let opener decide to open 1M even on some 6M4m hands (and especially open 1♦ on 6♦4♣), in that case you would simply give up exact relays after you've announced your one-suiter.

*1♠-2♣; 2♦ should be hearts or balanced to rightside hearts but yea where will it ever stop if you want to fish out all these cases?

[straube]

gwnn, on 2011-November-26, 03:24, said:

http://floyd.best.vw...ub/caroline.htm

So I've always wanted to try Caroline Club (which itself claims to be an improved version of Ekeblad club) but there were quite a few no-nos in it that I could never play. It just seemed convoluted to me. Well sure you could say canape approaches are inherently convoluted. Anyway, I really like the idea to have a strong club system where all openings show a suit and promise an unbalanced hand. So without further ado this is where I am currently in devising this hypothetical system.

1♣=15+ any
1♦=10-14, 4+ ♦ unbalanced, either one-suited (6+), or minors, or a 4441 hand with 4 diamonds or 4450 or 4+♦5+♠ (wow, that's a lot of hands)
1♥=10-14, 4+ ♥ unbalanced, either one-suited (6+), or 4♥5+other, or 4414.
1♠=10-14, 4+ ♠ (usually) unbalanced, either one-suited (6+) or 4♠5+other, or optionally 12-14 5♠332.
1N=12-14 balanced
2♣=10-14, 4+ ♣, either one-suited (6+) or 4♣5+ spades
2♦=10-14, 5+♥4+♦
2♥=10-14, 5+♥4+♣
2♠=weak two
2N=10-14, 5+♥5+♠ (I know, weird)

I still prefer the ambiguous or 2+ diamond opening and your 1D will cover fewer hands than I would like. Nevertheless, I think you need to sacrifice your weak 2S bid to show something else...probably 5+S/4C as including this hand in your 2C opening is very poor imo. I also would use 2N for something else...probably to show a strong balanced hand; this might help you anyway because your 1C opening has to deal with a wider range of strengths. Notice that Meckwell use 2N as 20-21 or so and their club is stronger than yours by 2 points when balanced. Btw, I wouldn't want to open a 5/5 major suit hand in such a way as to force to the 3-level. The point of having majors is you don't have to bid as high.

[gwnn]

I think all your objections are valid. I don't want to meddle much with the original opening structure, though, at least not until I try these ones first (which are closest to canape, assuming we don't want responder to worry about two different hidden 5 card majors). I don't even claim that this system is superior to 2/1 or sayc, I do claim that this is probably a fun system to play and it is playable. It also seems to be superior to play 1D as guaranteeing 4 as opposed to dumping all 4441s and/or 5440s there.

[the hog]

I played the original CC with a regular partner. We thought it was an excellent system and worked very well.
"Well sure you could say canape approaches are inherently convoluted." No, this is not correct. Your changes inherently change the nature of the system and are not an improvement. Perhaps you should look at Auken and von Arnim's system instead.

[gwnn]

Why are my changes not an improvement?

[Fluffy]

Because you are a noone, someone without a name, how can you compare yourself to Auken?

On a serious note, I´ve seen 1♦-1♥-1♠ is 4441 in the original and I almost stop reading there, reserving the cheapest response to the most common sequence for a 3 suiters must be a mistake.

I have zero experience on canape except when I open 1♦ with 4-5, can´t help you at all on competitive sequences at least.

[chasetb]

gwnn, I recently came across the Caroline Club, and there's a few things I don't like about it (or your system). 15+ seems too low for me, 2♣ is CRAZY, and I have been smacked enough times in 2♥ or 2♠ with the Majors to greatly dislike your 2NT (though Symmetric a la Andrei Sharko uses it). I haven't gotten to the nitty-gritty and I admit to having little experience with canape, but here's what mine would look like:
1♣ = 16+
1♦ = 4+ ♦, includes single-suited (6+), or at least 5-4 in the minors, or a 4441 hand with 4 diamonds, or 4+ ♦ and 5+ ♠
1♥ = 4+ ♥, includes single-suited (6+), 4+ with longer ♦ (unless 4414), or 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♣
1♠ = 4+ ♠, includes single-suited (6+), 4+ with a longer red suit, or 5+ ♠ and 4+ ♣
1NT = 12-15, usually denies a 5-card Major
2♣ = 10-15, either 6+ ♣ or 5 with a 4-card Major
2♦ = 10-15, 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♦
2♥ = 10-15, 4+ ♥ and 5+ ♠ (deals well with Anti-Flannery and the Majors... I hope). Similar to Truscott's Symmetric Relay.
2♠ = Weak 2
2NT = what you want, 19-20(21) like Meckwell would work

[Fluffy]

1♥ is long hearts, medium hearts with clubs or short hearts with another, this looks like a lot of fum but I have the feeling that competition will put you in a guess way too often.


BTW how do you open 5-5s and 6-5s on canape?

[gwnn]

chasetb that sounds a little confusing, yikes. And I hate 12-15 and 2C on 5c4M. I wanna play real canape

[Fluffy]

but his 2 level openings seem like an improvement over yours, 2♦/♥ to show 5♥ 4m looks like an overkill to me, if you lose some precision and put both on one opening, then throw in a weak hand like weak 2 in hearts, or weak 2 suiter with hearts and another you will open more hands.

[gnasher]

Opening 5M-4m at the two-level isn't great, because it makes it hard to deal with invitations, find 5-3 and 6-2 fits in the other major, etc.

In an attempt to solve that problem, I once experimented with this:
1C = Strong, or 11-13 balanced
1D = Unbalanced without a major, or 14-16 balanced without a major
1M = 6, or Canape with 4, or 14-16 balanced with 4, or 4441-type
1NT = exactly 5 hearts
2C = exactly 5 spades, without 4 hearts
2D = exactly 5 spades, 4+ hearts

but that doesn't meet Gwnn's requirement for a suit bid to show an unbalanced hand.

Another possibility is to put all the 14-16 balanced hands into 1D. Then you'd have:
1C = Strong, or 11-13 balanced
1D = Unbalanced without a major, or 14-16 balanced
1M = 6, or Canape with 4, or 4441-type
1NT = exactly 5 hearts
2C = exactly 5 spades, without 4 hearts
2D = exactly 5 spades, 4+ hearts

[kfay]

gwnn, on 2011-November-28, 03:59, said:

chasetb that sounds a little confusing, yikes. And I hate 12-15 and 2C on 5c4M. I wanna play real canape

+1

Trading 15+ for a 12-15NT is a big loss. 15+ is fine anyway.

[akhare]

kfay, on 2011-November-28, 09:41, said:

+1

Trading 15+ for a 12-15NT is a big loss. 15+ is fine anyway.

+2 -- play this range only if you want to live in the constant dread of "what if..." when holding 10/11 point hands...

[gwnn]

I'm not sure if opening 1NT with all sorts of hands with 5 hearts is an improvement on opening 2D/2H on a specific kind of hand with 5-6 hearts. Why is it?

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2011-November-29, 04:17, said:

I'm not sure if opening 1NT with all sorts of hands with 5 hearts is an improvement on opening 2D/2H on a specific kind of hand with 5-6 hearts. Why is it?

After the 1NT opening, there is room to investigate strength and spade contracts at the two-level. Like this, for example:
2♣ = 4+ spades, but not a one-suiter unless FG. Opener bids: 2♦ with 0/1 spades, 2♥ with 2 spades, 2♠ with 3 or a minimum with 4, higher with 4 non-minimum.
2♦ = puppet to 2♥. (Signoff in hearts, signoff in spades, invitation in notrumps, invitation in a minor, or game-forcing raise.)
2♥ = constructive, 3 cards
2♠ = constructive, 6 cards
2NT/3♣ = transfer, signoff or FG
3♦ = invitational raise
3♥ = weak raise

In addition:
- I've given you back your weak two in hearts
- I've got rid of the revolting 2♣ opening and the scary 2NT opening
- I've taken away the major-major Canapes, which will make your competitive sequences rather easier.

[gwnn]

Looks like your structure really really hides minor suit length. I guess I am a purist for disliking that. Also practically all of your openings seem to be forcing and easily value-showing-doubled.

[MickyB]

Just a random idea, not really thought it through.

2C = 4+C5M
2H = 5S4+H [or possibly 4+S5H or just 5S5H]
3C = natural
2N = something else

or possibly

2C = 5S4+round
3C = natural
2N = something else

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2011-November-29, 08:07, said:

Looks like your structure really really hides minor suit length.

Yes, my main objective was to be able to get to game without giving away unnecessary information. I think that's one of the two main reasons for playing Canape. The other is the preemptive value of opening one of a major.