Differences

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

--- system_basis [2017/04/06 02:14] – johnkinn
+++ system_basis [2023/08/03 21:20] (current) – john
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<html><a name=preface></a></html>
 ====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
 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
+opening. One of the drawbacks to the 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
+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
+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
@@ Line 23: / Line 21: @@
 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
+negative. This is part of the description of the Canary Club
 which appears in //The Encyclopedia of Bridge// too. It has also been a basis
-of Canary Club as described
+of the Canary Club as described
 in earlier versions of this document.
@@ Line 32: / Line 30: @@
   - 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.
+  - 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
@@ Line 39: / Line 37: @@
 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"
+suit) served as a way for the 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> |
+| **CANA**pé |
-| <html><span style="color:orange">R</span>ela<span style="color:orange">Y</span>s </html> |
+| **R**ela**Y** |
-| <html>strong<span style="color:orange">Club</span> </html>|
+| **Club**|
 <html><a name=openingbids></a></html>
@@ Line 57: / Line 54: @@
 ^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 |
+|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  |
+|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. |
+|2\H/2\S| 11 - 16 HCP 5\+ of bid major with 4\+\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) |
 |3\C|11 - 16 HCP 5\+ cards in each minor.  Hand has 4 to 6 (Roman) losers. |
@@ Line 86: / Line 83: @@
 |17\+HCP | 1\c||
-<html><a name=principles></a></html>
+===Principles of Canapé===
-===Principle of Canapé===
 With 2 - suited hands, the shorter of 2 suits is bid first. If the suits
@@ Line 96: / Line 92: @@
 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.
+canapé, the second suit is **always** longer than the first.
 ===Roman loser count===
@@ Line 126: / Line 122: @@
 or 6.
-==Strength==
+ * Removed strength requirements for an opening bid --- //[[John@Kinn.Org|John Kinn]] 2017/05/18 15:33//
-<html><a name=item2></a></html>
-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<html>&frac12</html> or more quick tricks; 7 or fewer losers