[cwiggins]

Given Fantoni-Nunes's record over the last few years, I would have expected that other pairs might try using their bidding system, but I don't see any (major) pairs doing so.

Any ideas why?

[TylerE]

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.

[glen]

TylerE, on Apr 11 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

4CM just doesn't catch on...

4CM <> Fantoni-Nunes

[JLOL]

Because their system seems both theoretically unsound and weird, so people stick with systems that are familiar and theoretically sound.

[1eyedjack]

Is their system published in the public domain in sufficient detail that another pair could run with it if they chose? Reading their convention card would not suffice. Reading their convention card and then watching it in action would eventually suffice, but would be rather a laborious exercise.

[gnasher]

Their system intrinsically has a high variance, because the two-bids sacrifice constructive accuracy for obstruction. Such methods are a bad idea against weaker opponents, because it increases the risk of an upset.

Most top pairs spend most of their time playing against players are are weaker than them (or who they perceive to be weaker). I doubt if anyone has the time or inclination to play different systems according to the strength of the opponents. Even if they did, switching from their low-variance system to their high-variance system would be an admission of inferiority. Who'd want to do that?

I don't think that lack of information is a problem. There's enough published in places like this to get you going, and given the basics any serious pair could devise suitable methods.

[Gerben42]

Quote

  Because their system seems both theoretically unsound and weird, so people stick with systems that are familiar and theoretically sound.

Yes, and because it forces you to think outside of the box. And because there is no real simple version that is popular. People play Precision variations because there are SIMPLE Precision systems. So far, a really simple version of Fantunes is not available.

I have created a simplified version here: Simplified Fantunes, but even that has some things to "make it work".

[Free]

The system is unsound and I find it really strange that they don't have much problems with it.

My experience:
I've played a home grown fantunes system which was based on the same openings and similar responses (so not polish club responses like Gerben's version), and found that 1m-2M showing GF with 5+ cards is a real headache. However Fantoni and Nunes haven't changed this throughout the years! We modified the system to make sure that 1m-2M was a 6 card and this was a lot better.
There were lots of problems, for example after 1♣-1♠ (0-9 without 4M) it's hard to show various hand types. With 5♣-4♦ you have a sure fit, but you don't want to play in a 5-2♣ fit if you have a 4-5♦ fit available.
Eventually we made the 1-level openings work really well, but the 2-level openings were still randomizing like hell. One day we played a marathon, and every 2-level opening except one were complete zeros. After that day we decided to stop playing fantunes, since it's near to impossible to make the 2-level openings work on a regular base.

[hrothgar]

Free, on Apr 12 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

Eventually we made the 1-level openings work really well, but the 2-level openings were still randomizing like hell. One day we played a marathon, and every 2-level opening except one were complete zeros. After that day we decided to stop playing fantunes, since it's near to impossible to make the 2-level openings work on a regular base.

I never spent much time playing with F + N's system.

I used to play a decent amount of EHAA which shares a few characteristics. My experience with the EHAA 2 level openings was mediocre at best. I never had much luck getting these to work right and they were VERY frequent.

My experiments with assumed fit type methods were (essentially) an outgrowth of this experience. (The assumed fit methods seems much more constructive)

My decision not to bother with F + N also falls out of this same experience....

[PrecisionL]

I have 5+ years experience playing 4cM and intermediate 2-bids in a strong club system.

I have found that some type of 2-level bids with 5-cards are needed to make a 4cM system easier to play. I have played since 1999, 2M = 5332 with a good suit, or 6322 with a weak suit and 10-14 hcp. (Note no singleton or void so partner can get out in his 5+ card suit with a singleton / void in your major). I have had good results in pairs and teams. We do not miss the weak twos! Opening 2 of a minor is usually 6-cards and 10-14 hcp. This is different than F-N system and I have looked at Gerben's 100 hands file to analyze their results.

I know Fred in a post said he had worries when the opponent's opened 2M at his table when his teammates (Ekeblad + Rubin) played intermediate twos: "But I can tell you that whenever I was playing at the other table and one of my opponents opened a weak 2-bid, I was terrified. We regularly lost IMPs on these hands." [4/13] http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...15&#entry310731

My experience is that we don't regularly lose IMPs on these hands [4/13]. In teams, the opponents often get to the 3-level when they compete for down 1, or they don't compete at all. We will open 8+ hcp 6-card majors at the one level nV, with good distribution to minimize the effects (?) of not being able to open 2M.

Larry

Notes from Ultra Club, a canape strong club system (URL below):

However, a 5-card major in a 5-3-3-2 shape of 10 to 14 HCP or a weak 6-card suit in a 6-3-2-2 shape of 10 to 14 HCP is opened 2M.

To summarize, if partner opens one of a major, then:

1) He never rebids it, he has only 4-cards,
2) He rebids it once, it has 6-cards, usually.
3) A 5-card major is shown by first opening in another suit [canape] then by calling the major on the rebid, or by opening 2 of the major with 5332 & some 6322 if the 6-card suit is not very strong [2M may have 4 clubs: 5M224]
4) In competitive auctions a rebid of the major may show only 5-cards.

[marcD]

Free, on Apr 12 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

The system is unsound and I find it really strange that they don't have much problems with it. 

My experience:
I've played a home grown fantunes system which was based on the same openings and similar responses (so not polish club responses like Gerben's version), and found that 1m-2M showing GF with 5+ cards is a real headache.  However Fantoni and Nunes haven't changed this throughout the years!  We modified the system to make sure that 1m-2M was a 6 card and this was a lot better.
There were lots of problems, for example after 1♣-1♠ (0-9 without 4M) it's hard to show various hand types.  With 5♣-4♦ you have a sure fit, but you don't want to play in a 5-2♣ fit if you have a 4-5♦ fit available.
Eventually we made the 1-level openings work really well, but the 2-level openings were still randomizing like hell.  One day we played a marathon, and every 2-level opening except one were complete zeros.  After that day we decided to stop playing fantunes, since it's near to impossible to make the 2-level openings work on a regular base.

I guess their system is not for the faint of heart. It is definitely high variance (their 2 level openings seem unsound and the breadth of their 1NT opening is scary) . They do not seem to mind occasional/not so occasional bad results and their main objective is to bring their opponents into unfamiliar territory and make them work (their lead conventions are in the same spirit I guess). They have declarer and defensive skills to survive most of the time.
In a different way Meckwell do the same thing : they are way ahead in the experience curve of playing ultra thin games.
I guess both pairs seem to think you can expect top level opponents to make mistakes if you do not push them around.

[bidule4]

gnasher, on Apr 12 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

Their system intrinsically has a high variance, because the two-bids sacrifice constructive accuracy for obstruction.  Such methods are a bad idea against weaker opponents, because it increases the risk of an upset.

Most top pairs spend most of their time playing against players are are weaker than them (or who they perceive to be weaker).  I doubt if anyone has the time or inclination to play different systems according to the strength of the opponents.  Even if they did, switching from their low-variance system to their high-variance system would be an admission of inferiority.  Who'd want to do that?

Another problem with their system is that it is made for teams.

At mps a good pair gains from declarer play / defense when
they play the same contract from the same side as the field.

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

[akhare]

I toyed around with a system that combined strong ♣ with F-N type 2 level openings (2♦ / 2♥ / 2♠ = 7-10).

It seemed to work OK, but I really haven't had sufficient mileage on it in serious competition to reach any firm conclusions.

Serapuff and PuffynPaw have been playing the F-N system for a while now on BBO...

[glen]

bidule4, on Apr 12 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Another problem with their system is that it is made for teams. ...

... but they won the 2002 World Pairs, an event which includes a five session final

[awm]

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.

[paulg]

Most summers, after I've been knocked out of the Spingold, I take the opportunity to kibitz F-N.

They are a very tough pair to play against. They defend extremely well and every trick seems to be difficult for the declarer. On top of that their unusual bidding methods mean that the opponents never get a rest as they have to concentrate harder during the auction that they would against standard methods. Their Slawinski-based leading style can be seen in the current Bridge World - it's more common in Europe but tends to create even more stress for those who are unused to it.

I have no idea whether it is intentional that all this combines to make them tough opponents, or whether they believe they are actually better methods, but they make world-class pairs work a lot harder to beat them.

Paul

[akhare]

cardsharp, on Apr 13 2009, 06:06 AM, said:

Most summers, after I've been knocked out of the Spingold, I Their Slawinski-based leading style can be seen in the current Bridge World - it's more common in Europe but tends to create even more stress for those who are unused to it.

Can you please post a summary of the Slawinski leads? I will try and obtain the issue in question, but it's likely going to take a while.

From what I understand, the gist is:

1) Low from doubletons
2) Low from interest
3) High from worthless tripleton
4) Potentially second best from worthless four card or longer suit

Are there more specific details?

[paulg]

I provided a brief summary in this thread.

[MickyB]

glen, on Apr 13 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

bidule4, on Apr 12 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Another problem with their system is that it is made for teams. ...

... but they won the 2002 World Pairs, an event which includes a five session final

How have they done in pairs events since? Any very poor MP results from when the hands didn't suit their methods?

You need quite an edge on the field before anti-field methods will reduce your chances of winning an event, I know very little of the World Pairs but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the field is strong enough that being anti-field is not a problem, even for a pair of that calibre.

[Gerben42]

Quote

How have they done in pairs events since?

They got close to prolonging their title in 2006 but ended up in 3rd position.