[WellSpyder]

Prompted by a comment from mjj29 in another thread, I decided to re-read the section of the Orange Book about alerting possible canape sequences to see whether I, too, would learn something new. This is what it says:

Quote

5 G 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:  [......]
  (b.) Canapé or possible canapé:
      (1) The first bid in a canapé or possible canapé sequence.
      (2) The rebid if in a suit that may be shorter than the first suit, following a possible canapé opening.
      (3) The rebid in no trumps if it may conceal a suit longer than the first suit.

I play a largely Precision-based system with 5-card majors and 1♦ showing at least 3. But 1♦ may include longer ♣s (1♦ 1x 2♣ says nothing about which minor is longer). And we would also quite often consider opening 1M with 5M + 6m. So which opening bids and rebids are alertable as possible canape and/or possible non-canape after a potential canape opening?

A strict reading of the quote above suggests to me that
a.) 1♦ is alertable since it may be canape with both minors
b.) 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ is alertable since the rebid is in a suit that may be (indeed will be) shorter than the first suit, following a possible canape opening
c.) 1♦ 1M 2♣ is alertable since ♣ may be shorter than ♦ (as well as maybe longer)
d.) 1M is alertable since it may conceal a longer minor
e.) 1M any 2any is alertable since the second suit may not be longer than the first (and indeed most of the time won't be)

However, this also seems to involve an awful lot of alerting for rather little help to the opposition! Given that 1♦ can only be canape if it has both minors and that opening a 5-card major rather than a 6-card minor is the sort of thing that players of a standard system might choose to do anyway, would a more sensible interpretation of the above rules be that
a.) is alertable since 1♦ may conceal a longer ♣ suit
c.) 1♦ 1M 2♣ is alertable since this may NOT be canape
but
b.) is not alertable since 1♦ was never a possible canape incuding a major
d.) & e.) are not alertable since these sequences are not expected to be canape and the fact that it might be convenient to disregard the 6th card in the minor is no more than how anyone else might treat the same hand?

I am entirely willing to do whatever alerting may be regarded as necessary to ensure opponents are not misinformed, but I am also conscious that if we alert all opening bids and most rebids in what is essentially an entirely natural system then we are not exactly helping oppo....

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Mar 22 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

I am entirely willing to do whatever alerting may be regarded as necessary to ensure opponents are not misinformed, but I am also conscious that if we alert all opening bids and most rebids in what is essentially an entirely natural system then we are not exactly helping oppo....

I agree with your current reading, in fact I also play a strong-minor system with possible canape majors (in one case only with a minor, in the other may be with the other major) and so alert all of those sequences as well. Whether or not you _should_ alert them is another question. Certainly alerting the suit which is guaranteed to be shorter by the description of the first canape bid seems a little odd. Depends if it was explained as "canape" or "possible canape with a minor but not the other major".

Matt

[helene_t]

Under the rules cited I would alert the 1♦ opening and the 2♣ rebid. Maybe not if 1♦ followed by 2♣ would almost always show 5+ diamonds. But if it is the normal way to bid 4♦5♣ then yes, alert.

I wouldn't alert 1♥-1♠-2♣ on the basis of the fact that it may be 5♥6♣. Sure, the rules seems to say you should, but I think they are meant to apply to 4-5. 5-6 isn't really canape as I understand the concept. And anyway it comes up so rarely that it isn't worthwhile to alert for it.

1♦-1♥-1♠ I see no reason to alert unless it could be 4♦5♠. I suppose it could be 3♦4♠ but you already alerted 1♦ so if opps bothered to ask they will understand that clubs may be longer, so 4135 should no surprise them when you rebid 1♠.

[campboy]

helene_t, on Mar 22 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

Under the rules cited I would alert the 1♦ opening and the 2♣ rebid. Maybe not if 1♦ followed by 2♣ would almost always show 5+ diamonds. But if it is the normal way to bid 4♦5♣ then yes, alert.

This is the wrong way round -- the rules say that if it is the normal way to bid 5♦4♣ then it needs an alert. So if you are playing a genuine canape system you don't alert any rebids, but "possible canape" has to alert everything.

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on Mar 22 2010, 11:25 AM, said:

1♦-1♥-1♠ I see no reason to alert unless it could be 4♦5♠.

No, it can't be 4♦+5♠. But it can be 5♦+4♠, which appears to be alertable under 5G2 (b.) 2 given that the 1♦ opening is potentially canape (albeit not with these two specific suits...)

EDIT I see campboy has made a similar point regarding hands with both minors.

[Vampyr]

This regulation seems to suggest that any pair playing 5-card majors, holding a balanced hand outside their NT range, must alert their 1NT rebid if their minor was potentially 2 or 3 cards and they are bypassing 1 or 2 4-card majors. Surely this cannot be correct.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on Mar 22 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

This regulation seems to suggest that any pair playing 5-card majors, holding a balanced hand outside their NT range, must alert their 1NT rebid if their minor was potentially 2 or 3 cards and they are bypassing 1 or 2 4-card majors. Surely this cannot be correct.

Opening up a whole new set of good questions, which I would like to see discussed in a non-canape thread, and one which includes ACBL. You want to open it?

[WellSpyder]

Any of the EBU directors or members of the Laws & Ethics Committee on these forums willing to express a view as to which of the bids outlined in the OP should be alerted in England?

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on Mar 22 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

This regulation seems to suggest that any pair playing 5-card majors, holding a balanced hand outside their NT range, must alert their 1NT rebid if their minor was potentially 2 or 3 cards and they are bypassing 1 or 2 4-card majors. Surely this cannot be correct.

There is another entry in the OB (which I don't have to hand to give you the reference) which says that 1NT rebid is not alertable if it could contain a 4 card major, so no, it is not alertable. If they would open 5332 1C and rebid 1NT, then I think it is.

[gnasher]

Vampyr said:

This regulation seems to suggest that any pair playing 5-card majors, holding a balanced hand outside their NT range, must alert their 1NT rebid if their minor was potentially 2 or 3 cards and they are bypassing 1 or 2 4-card majors

Orange Book said:

Canape: "Bidding the shorter of two long suits first by agreement."

"long suit" isn't defined, but I imagine it means 4+ cards. That was from the definitions section, but in the main body there is also:

Orange Book said:

Note: Canapé means that if the hand held is a two-suiter the bid major is the shorter of two suits, both of at least four cards. Possible canapé is similar but if the hand held is a two-suiter either suit might be longer.

[aguahombre]

Gnasher has effectively eliminated 1NT rebids from the canape discussion, which is a good thing. Alerting or not alerting "bypass" agreements is a whole different subject, in any jursiction IMHO.

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on Mar 24 2010, 11:30 AM, said:

Gnasher has effectively eliminated 1NT rebids from the canape discussion, which is a good thing.  Alerting  or not alerting "bypass" agreements is a whole different subject, in any jursiction IMHO.

More to the point (now that I have my OB to hand):

OB 5G3 said:

Players should not alert....
(g) A 1NT rebid that may include a four card major

which I believe covers 5 card major systems.

Systems where you open 1C and rebid 1NT with a balanced hand even if it contains a 5 card major probably do have an alertable 1NT rebid.

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on Mar 24 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

More to the point (now that I have my OB to hand):

OB 5G3 said:

Players should not alert....
(g) A 1NT rebid that may include a four card major

But OB 5G3 clearly contradicts OB 5G2b3. So I would interpret 5G3 to mean that this 1N rebid should not be alerted just because it might include a 4-card major, rather than that it should never be alerted even if it would otherwise be alertable under a different heading.

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Mar 24 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

mjj29, on Mar 24 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

More to the point (now that I have my OB to hand):

OB 5G3 said:

Players should not alert....
(g) A 1NT rebid that may include a four card major

But OB 5G3 clearly contradicts OB 5G2b3. So I would interpret 5G3 to mean that this 1N rebid should not be alerted just because it might include a 4-card major, rather than that it should never be alerted even if it would otherwise be alertable under a different heading.

Well, I find that a more compelling argument than gnashers, given that 3 cards is defined to be a 'suit' and this could equally apply to people playing better minor.

[FrancesHinden]

The purpose of the alerting regulations is to alert your opponents to something that they may not be expecting.

To my mind there are three types of canape sequences:

1. Those that are systemically or possible canape which are special to your system. This covers e.g. Blue Club canape style where 1M openers where 1M is opened with 4 cards even with a 5- or 6- card side suit (including opening 1S with 4 spades and 5 hearts in some approaches). These definitely need alerting. There is also a special rule in the EBU that you have to alert a 1M response to 1C if it might have longer diamonds.

2. Those that are not systemically canape but you might choose to bid a shorter suit first. Typically 1=5=6=1 type weak opening bids where many people would open the major. These don't need alerting.

3. Those that are common to nearly all modern systems. The obvious example is as responder if you have 4 spades, 5 diamonds and minimum responding values you would respond 1S to 1H because you don't have the strength to bid 2D. Not playing any methods, uncontested 1H - 1S - 1NT - 2D could easily be canape but no-one bothers alerting it. These aren't alertable.

So to answer your original sequences:

A strict reading of the quote above suggests to me that
a.) 1♦ is alertable since it may be canape with both minors
b.) 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ is alertable since the rebid is in a suit that may be (indeed will be) shorter than the first suit, following a possible canape opening
c.) 1♦ 1M 2♣ is alertable since ♣ may be shorter than ♦ (as well as maybe longer)
d.) 1M is alertable since it may conceal a longer minor
e.) 1M any 2any is alertable since the second suit may not be longer than the first (and indeed most of the time won't be)

a.) Yes it is
b.) No it isn't. (If you explain your 1D opening as "possible canape" with no further information than arguably it should be, but if you explain it as "possibly longer clubs" then it definitely isn't)
c.) Yes, it is.
d.) No it isn't unless you opening all 4-5s 1M
e.) No it isn't (a consequence of d)

[WellSpyder]

Many thanks, Frances. I shall follow this procedure and hope TDs see it the same way if it ever becomes an issue (which seems extremely unlikely). Your recommendations also fit my own instincts of what could genuinely help the oppo as opposed to mere legal pedantry.