[Gerben42]

Hi, if you want to try a GCC version of the Fantunes system, start here:

http://www.geocities...2/fantunes.html

The non-GCC parts are:

* Kaplan Inversion (which you can probably survive without)
* 1♣ - 2♠ showing 5+4+ minors, probably cannot sell that one as a raise. I guess you can respond 1NT with such hands too then you have 2♠ for something else.
* Opening 1NT with 11-13 HCP, 4441 and a small singleton: Well those hands are not THAT frequent so passing is fine. In fact with 11-12 I pass and 13 I can't remember it coming up.
* Pass - 1♠ - 2♦ showing ♥ and Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ showing a good raise (Drury-like). I guess you can switch those then it's ok in GCC.

[bjacobs]

JLOGIC, on 2012-August-10, 15:13, said:

The fact that you are a good player that has played their system and think it is a good system is a good argument that it is a good system. The fact that fantoni/nunes play it to the success they have had is evidence supporting that it is a good system. I have not read your book, but I'm sure you make some arguments based on your own logic/experience on why it is good both theoretically and in practice.

Yes, the statistical tables occupy 2 pages out of a 170 page book. To get a real sense of the argument, it might be best to read and digest the other 168. To describe the inclusion of the data as the equivalent of a cheap gimmick is quite a stretch. It's not as though I am using it in the marketing of the book or system.

Cheers ... Bill Jacobs.

[han]

Bill, I'm confused. Are you saying that the statistical claim that is being discussed in this thread is part of a long and complicated argument that can only be fully understood in its entirety? Are you also saying that while the statistical claim looks to be a faulty when regarded in isolation, this is only because it should be considered in the context of the full argument?

[bjacobs]

han, on 2012-August-13, 06:34, said:

Bill, I'm confused. Are you saying that the statistical claim that is being discussed in this thread is part of a long and complicated argument that can only be fully understood in its entirety? Are you also saying that while the statistical claim looks to be a faulty when regarded in isolation, this is only because it should be considered in the context of the full argument?

I'm not really saying anything except that the extract from the book reproduced in this thread is being quoted inaccurately and out of context.

There are a couple of tables of data in the book about imp results that Fantoni and Nunes have achieved. But the main objective of the book is to describe the system in detail and discuss why it works so well. Virtually all that discussion is of a qualitative nature. To suggest that I am claiming that Fantunes is a good system becuase of the two tables of data presented is completely wrong.

Cheers ... Bill Jacobs

[han]

Good to hear, still looking forward to reading your book!

[straube]

Bill, thanks for writing your book. I know it takes a lot of effort, and books on system are not the easiest to get published. I've been curious about Fantunes since I first learned about it, and I'm happy to see a description of it in print.

[bluecalm]

This annoys me because I didn't quote anything out of context and from what I saw nor did other posters. Also you are in fact are claiming that this is good system because of the numbers presented in the tables.

Here is the quote:

"However you slice these numbers, there can be little doubt that the Fantunes bidding system generates a net IMP gain for its proponents".

This quote ends the chapter with the reasoning in question.

Your reasoning is incorrect and the numbers don't show anything.
Instead of owning up to it you start criticizing posters for fair assessment of the little chapter about Fantunes stats.

Still it might be a good system and this might a good book (I am a little disappointed by it because I hoped for more details but apparently I am not target audience as it turns out the book is more of an overview than description of serious/pro level system).

[mycroft]

Gerben42, on 2012-August-12, 04:30, said:

The non-GCC parts are:
* 1♣ - 2♠ showing 5+4+ minors, probably cannot sell that one as a raise. I guess you can respond 1NT with such hands too then you have 2♠ for something else.

If you can get 1♣ to min 15, you're good. If you can't, if you can guarantee which way the minors are (with two bids, I guess), you're good.

Now, I actually have to see if my stealing of one of Lall's tricks (1♦-3♣ showing a competitive raise in opener's minor, playing Precision) is actually GCC legal. I couldn't believe it wasn't, but reading the chart... If it is, so is this one :-)

Quote

* Pass - 1♠ - 2♦ showing ♥ and Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ showing a good raise (Drury-like). I guess you can switch those then it's ok in GCC.

That'll do it, yes.

[semeai]

bluecalm, on 2012-August-13, 10:27, said:

Here is the quote:

"However you slice these numbers, there can be little doubt that the Fantunes bidding system generates a net IMP gain for its proponents".

This quote ends the chapter with the reasoning in question.

This quote is a bit unfortunate. In Bill's defense, he did acknowledge the problem two paragraphs prior in the parenthetical portion of:

Fantunes Revealed by Bill Jacobs said:

Therefore, just under half of their gain is due to superior bidding (a combination of bidding judgment and system), and the remainder relates to superior card-play.

Also, this clarifies a complaint of Justin's:

JLOGIC, on 2012-August-10, 15:13, said:

I am glad to hear that the quote from the OP in this thread is not verbatim, because that would be ridiculous. If you said "approximately" rather than use exact numbers like 42 % and 57 %, ok.

It's pretty standard for books on bidding systems to make some somewhat overblown throwaway claims about the superiority of the system. I don't think we should fault Bill that his book has some fun numbers to look at (in a short chapter, fairly deep in) and even mentions the problem of bidding judgement (though not other issues brought up here) before concluding a chapter with a throwaway overblown claim.

[aguahombre]

So, for truth in advertising sake, Mr. Jacobs should have worded his hype in a way acceptable to all:

"THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE BIDDING OF FANTONI AND NUNES GENERATES A NET IMP GAIN FOR THEM. SOME OF THAT GAIN MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SYSTEM ITSELF, KNOWN AS FANTUNES."

"This book presents an overview of the Fantunes style of bidding. However, they have developed much more detailed agreements. Readers are invited to create their own half-assed adaptations to make it work for them or to make it GCC compliant."

That might not get across his enthusiasm for the subject.

[dake50]

Coming to bridge from poker, expert at reading 'tells'.
So I want a 'table feel' system.
Coming to bridge from progamming, expert at decision trees.
So I want a 'clear boundary' system.
Which results are 'system' and then which are 'my skill'?
Has Jacobs determined which aptitudes Fantunes start with
to separate *system* from *skill* ??

[AdamL3]

mycroft, on 2012-August-13, 11:10, said:

If you can get 1♣ to min 15, you're good. If you can't, if you can guarantee which way the minors are (with two bids, I guess), you're good.

Now, I actually have to see if my stealing of one of Lall's tricks (1♦-3♣ showing a competitive raise in opener's minor, playing Precision) is actually GCC legal. I couldn't believe it wasn't, but reading the chart... If it is, so is this one :-)
That'll do it, yes.

1♦-3♣ as a competitive raise is certainly GCC legal, under:
5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.

Same reason Bergen raises are legal.
And this also covers the Fantunes 1M-2N as a raise.

[glen]

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

vugraph 24811

Board 1
Fantoni opens 1C 14+ with 11 HCP but great playing value

Board 2
1H-1S(Nunes)-2S-?, Fantoni vul and 5-2-4-2 two jacks bids 3S

Board 4 (edit, was incorrectly 3)
Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

Board 7
Fantoni bids 2S over 1H, natural and game forcing

Board 10
Nunes passes 4-2-2-5 12 count vul

Board 11
Nunes opens 10-13 2H with 1-6-4-2 8 count (Hoftaniska believed Nunes had at least 10, and tried to drop singleton king of trumps, going down when a trump coup was possible)

Board 13:
Over Hoftaniska’s 1C(2+), Nunes bids 2NT with the reds, Charlsen doubles, Fantoni jumps to 4H on 3-4-3-3 and 8 points in the blacks, and this returns to Charlsen who bids 4S on 5-1-3-4 which implies flexibility if partner is short. Fantoni doubles but Hoftaniska has four spades and +990

Board 14:
Nunes 10-13 2C with 3-1-3-6 13 (singleton K), Fantoni non-forcing 2H with 11, reach 3D on 4-3 fit (Hoftaniska tried an underlead from an ace costing two tricks)

[mycroft]

AdamL3, on 2012-August-14, 08:39, said:

1♦-3♣ as a competitive raise is certainly GCC legal, under:
5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.

Certainly, if it were a diamond raise. But it's not. It's a raise of my minor, whichever it is. Remember that 3=3=2=5 is a 1♦ opener in (my pretty vanilla) Precision - and 3♣ is going to get passed, as partner expects.

That's where the question lies.

[chasetb]

Even with a 1♦ (2+), the average is just over 3.5, so expecting 4 and bidding at the 3-level isn't too far off. If it means that much, just set 3♣ as 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs and occasionally "forget" which way it goes...

6. JUMP RESPONSES TO AN OPENING BID OF ONE IN A SUIT that show one known suit with a minimum of five cards and one other known suit with a minimum of four cards.

I haven't had an opponent yet worry whether I was 5-4 or 4-5, and if they do, I'll just say I expect longer Diamonds than Clubs. I think that Rule 5 applies more than Rule 6, but either way since you aren't going past the 3-level (except on freakish double-fits), it doesn't matter.

[Hanoi5]

glen, on 2012-August-14, 14:51, said:

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

vugraph 24811

Board 3
Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

Nunes transferred to spades holding 4 spades and 5 hearts??? I really want a link to that. And a video of how it happened. The link in your post leads to a match where Fantunes NEVER played at the 2 level, and in board 3 they went down in 3NT. Could you correct your information, please?

[Hanoi5]

glen, on 2012-August-14, 14:51, said:

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

vugraph 24811

Board 3
Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

Nunes transferred to spades holding 4 spades and 5 hearts??? I really want a link to that. And a video of how it happened. The link in your post leads to a match where Fantunes NEVER played at the 2 level, and in board 3 they went down in 3NT. Could you correct your information, please?

Edit: Wow! It was board 4!!! is it part of their system to transfer to a 4-card suit and then bid a 5-card suit naturally? Is it a canapé transfer or something? That was really some weird bidding sequence.

[han]

The advantage of the canape is not visible here, but when you consider the auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2S it is quite natural to play this as invitational with 5 spades and 4 hearts, as you will play at the 2-level more often.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

Edit: Wow! It was board 4!!! is it part of their system to transfer to a 4-card suit and then bid a 5-card suit naturally? Is it a canapé transfer or something? That was really some weird bidding sequence.

According to the Bill Jacobs book:

2♥ = 5+♠ or invitational 4♠/5 other

It appears 1N-2♦-2♥-2♠ is some sort of relay for them (although not walsh) and GF hands with 5+ spades are bid this way, invitational hands with 4♥/5 other kick off with 2♦.

[han]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-16, 07:00, said:

invitational hands with 4♥/5 other kick off with 2♦.

What do they rebid with 5♠-4♥ invitational hands?

I can imagine that they bid 3S (directly or indirectly) and then it makes sense to play it as canape. If you bid it naturally, you will get to the 4-level when partner has a preference for hearts.