[barryallen]

awm, on Apr 13 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

There are a few things that may be worth mentioning here.

Fantoni-Nunes system is very much designed around the competitive auction. It includes a number of methods which are not particularly conducive to reaching the best contract in an auction where opponents are silent; for example the two-level openings are error-prone, the 1m-2M GF sequence is clunky, and so forth.

This means their methods don't shine in bidding practice, and you don't see a lot of spectacular bidding sequences to reach a slam scientifically that other top pairs couldn't reach.

Bridge players seem to mostly fall into two categories -- those who aren't that excited by bidding methods and prefer to just play something familiar and well-tested and focus on card play, and those who love to tinker with methods and tend to be fans of "science" rather than bashing contracts and competitive-style methods. Neither group is likely to be enamored of the F-N approach which is highly non-standard and high variance and also not very scientific...

There is also a point that getting good results from some of F-N methods rests on having more experience playing those methods than the opponents have playing against them. A pair more used to some other system that just "takes F-N methods out for a spin" is not going to get this advantage.

Very good post. I have been fascinated with Fantunes bidding system and it's application in the competitive / part score arena, some where the majority of the hands are played out. What really piqued my interest was the assertion that their system was less than perfect where opponents remain silent, something I have difficulty picking out when they go past the 4 level. Be interested to hear any further comments on this.

[benlessard]

I had the chance to ate with the italian teams during the Montreal world championship in 2002.

What i remember the most is ...

when Fantoni told us what kind of system hes designing. It did seems more like something he wanted to try more than a carefully designed system (but its only a feeling)

The sponsor of the team was a doctor and was in a good mood because he and my ex partner managed to finish in a top 3 for a pair game, Fantoni and my partner obviously knew how bad the sponsor was and they were laughing. I had to chance to play with him the next day and luckyly for me he didnt spoke english or french and i didnt spoke italian wich was a good thing otherwise i would have wasted my time explaining waht did go wrong on each the deals . But we had a great time.

I also remeber that Garozzo wasnt in a happy mood that evening because of a bad bridge day.

I did wish i spoke italian that evening

The wines were excellent.

[Gerben42]

Quote

There are a few things that may be worth mentioning here.

Fantoni-Nunes system is very much designed around the competitive auction. It includes a number of methods which are not particularly conducive to reaching the best contract in an auction where opponents are silent; for example the two-level openings are error-prone, the 1m-2M GF sequence is clunky, and so forth.

This means their methods don't shine in bidding practice, and you don't see a lot of spectacular bidding sequences to reach a slam scientifically that other top pairs couldn't reach.

I noticed this also while playing the system. We do not have endless auctions, rather try to get in early and get out early.

Quote

Bridge players seem to mostly fall into two categories -- those who aren't that excited by bidding methods and prefer to just play something familiar and well-tested and focus on card play, and those who love to tinker with methods and tend to be fans of "science" rather than bashing contracts and competitive-style methods. Neither group is likely to be enamored of the F-N approach which is highly non-standard and high variance and also not very scientific...

I think I'm for the third group. I like non-standard systems but somehow all the sequences showing the big hands never come up, so instead of that I try to optimize the first round of bidding, sequences that DO come up.

Quote

There is also a point that getting good results from some of F-N methods rests on having more experience playing those methods than the opponents have playing against them. A pair more used to some other system that just "takes F-N methods out for a spin" is not going to get this advantage.

If you try that, you will have great judgement problems. You especially need to have a feeling for the 2-bids, and also that your balance of strength is way different than in "standard". Consider something simple like 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥. You have to get used to the fact that you must use a simple raise on hands like

♠ 5
♥ AK74
♦ AKT43
♣ 843

and, as a responder with

♠ A83
♥ Q843
♦ 42
♣ QT92

have to make a game try.

[helium]

Hehe I just found this tread when i searched for fantunes on google.

The answer to ops questions is: Fantunes bidding system is nothing spesial, they're success is in the leads.
Smith on steroids, Slawinsky leads whit Horizontal&vertical placements, unbeatable.....

[Vampyr]

 bidule4, on 2009-April-12, 14:46, said:

(of course it is not allowed to play two systems at the same time,
fantnunes vs. strong opps, standard vs. weak ones)

Where is this not allowed?

[akwoo]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-15, 10:32, said:

Where is this not allowed?

I'm too lazy to look this up right now, but I'm sure the ACBL requires you to play the same system throughout a session.

[mycroft]

From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

Quote

1) “TWO-SYSTEM” METHODS

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and “two over one” vulnerable.

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents’ methods.

Italics in original, but here, it's equally the emphasis of the situation.

That doesn't mean I haven't seen "Your Card" or "Caddy Club" - just not in any game where we actually care.

[Trinidad]

 mycroft, on 2015-September-16, 11:36, said:

From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

Quote

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents’ methods.

Italics in original, but here, it's equally the emphasis of the situation.

That doesn't mean I haven't seen "Your Card" or "Caddy Club" - just not in any game where we actually care.

One could argue that "Caddy Club" is not a variation of system for subjective reasons. It can easily be determined objectively what system is used.

Rik

[steve2005]

OK i'll bite. What's Caddy club? never mind found
A few years ago, it was common in the NABC midnight zips for junior experts/pros to play with caddies who barely knew how to play. They played asymmetric systems where the caddy's bids were all transfers, the pro's were all natural, so the pro would always declare.

[kwiktrix]

 TylerE, on 2009-April-11, 22:00, said:

4CM just doesn't catch on, with many players. You can play EHAA and have a largely similar system... 1X isn't forcing, but it's close.

Wasn't aware that their system used 4cM openings...

[mycroft]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-16, 12:25, said:

One could argue that "Caddy Club" is not a variation of system for subjective reasons. It can easily be determined objectively what system is used.

True, of course. However, it is varying the system based on "which member of the partnership is making the call."

Sorry for expanding the context without warning.

[cherdano]

Oh man. The title of this thread has such a nice ring to it now