[doclands]

Does anyone here play the Fantunes system on BBO? We love it, but it took quite a while to fill in the FD convention card though

It could be great to link up with someone else who plays this system, swap ideas, maybe even team up for a match from time to time.

Also Slawinski spot card leads are excellent, far easier and more accurate than 3rd & 5th and 2/4.

Add in Turbo, Last Train and a few other slam gadgets and you are well on your way. Seriously, though, I'm just trying to provoke a discussion on the great system and carding played by the world number one pair - yes we do play the things mentioned all of the time.

I deliberately avoided saying what Fantunes and Slawinski are at the start - but here's an extremely brief summary.

Very Brief Summary of the Fantunes System
1 level bids are 100% forcing, 14+HCP
we play that 1♦/♥/♠ are 5-card and 1♣ is 1+

2 level bids are 10-13, either 6+card suit or 5+cards and a distributional 2-suiter (5431 at least)

1N is 12-14 and may contain a singleton

Slawinski Spot Card Leads
These sound very hard to read but in practice are very easy!
- your lowest spot card show an odd number of cards with an honour or an even number without an honour (hon = AKQJ only!)
- the highest spot card you can safely afford shows just the opposite i.e. an even number of cards with an honour or an odd number without

e.g. the 2 could be from: Kxxxx, xxxx, Qxx, xx! etc.
the 6 may be from Kxxx, xxx etc.

Play your normal lead when leading partner's suit.

You often know whether partner has an honour when he leads so you will know whether he holds an even or an odd number of cards. "How do you defend using these - it's a nightmare" - just assume that partner has lead from an honour - if it isn't already obvious whether he has one it soon will be.

If your response is - "this is silly and will do my head in" then read on!
You are playing standard methods and partner leads a 7?
This could be from
- singleton
- doubleton
- 2nd from 3 small
- 2nd from 4 small
- bottom from Hxx
- bottom from Hxxx
and many other possibilities!!! Now THAT does my head in

[PassedOut]

Quote

e.g. the 2 could be from: Kxxxx, xxxx, Qxxx, xx! etc.

How does Qxxx get into that group?

[paulg]

doclands, on Aug 7 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

Slawinski Spot Card Leads
These sound very hard to read but in practice are very easy!
- your lowest spot card show an odd number of cards with an honour or an even number without an honour (hon = AKQJ only!)
- the highest spot card you can safely afford shows just the opposite i.e. an even number of cards with an honour or an odd number without

In his book, Systems in Defence, Slawinski mentions this leading style as something that would be interesting to explore but he did not analyse it as he did with many other methods.

Did he ever publish more on this later, or is it Fantunes just picking up something that was a Fermat-like comment in the margin?

Paul

[bluecalm]

From what I understand Slavinsky did extensive analysis of effectivness of various leading systems and his system of choice (the one which was the most effective according to analysis) is different than the one Fantunes uses.

This is from his homepage

http://pikier.com/private/Kombajn.htm

(in Polish unfortunately)

[doclands]

Thanks for pointing out the typo Paul.

I've had a fairly long email exchange with Slawinski about his leads. I hesitated before calling those I listed above 'Slawinski leads' and eventually only did so because that is what Fantoni and Nunes call them on their convention card. Slawinski used them as a signalling method initially. And, yes you are right the leads that are sometimes named after him are more like 3rd and 5th with top of nothing, almost, if I remember correctly. I described the leads I described above and he was pleased to find someone playing them - he designed them but never put them into practice. Whichever way I went those who had read the 'other' way would have spotted it

All of which gets us away from my intention, which was to get some discussion going on the merits or otherwise of the methods I very briefly described

By the way, Roman Smolski translated and pubished Slawinski's book - no longer available. I asked Lukasz (Slawinski) if I could get a copy of Systems of Defence but he said it was no longer published anywhere and was surprised that I had found him via that route. He's a pretty amazingly inventive guy.

[bluecalm]

If you publish some kind of notes it would be easier to find a partner.
I would be willing to learn your system for example and try it sometimes on bbo.

[paulg]

doclands, on Aug 7 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

By the way, Roman Smolski translated and pubished Slawinski's book - no longer available.  I asked Lukasz (Slawinski) if I could get a copy of Systems of Defence but he said it was no longer published anywhere and was surprised that I had found him via that route.  He's a pretty amazingly inventive guy.

Luckily I have a signed copy of Roman's translation

Rob Forster in the US has scanned the pages of his copy and put it online.

[doclands]

Many thanks cardsharp, I will look forward to reading that.
Bluecalm, I have a very regular partner who I play this with on BBO - but thanks anyway. I was wondering whether there were any partnerships on BBO that play it.
We locked ourselves in for 2 weeks going through Daniel Neill's reverse engineered notes - he went through 1000's of hands from world championships, europeans championships etc. etc. and worked out what he thought the bids meant. Here is a link to his work.

Everytime they have a problem they add another layer of relays. We went so far and then improvised It can be played as a fairly straight forward system (if you are used to 'heavier' systems) and it is still extremely effective, natural and a joy to play.

Here also is a link to their convention card.

Also here is a link to Gerben's simplified version of Fantunes - we play our own version, mainly from Neill's notes but Gerben's is a good start.

[NickRW]

There certainly is mileage to be had by giving your lead style a hard look. I read Slawinski's book and did my own analysis - came up with a similar though not quite exactly the same system. In the short term it does your head in to get used to a new style - but definitely worth it in the long run.

Nick

[doclands]

Our full lead/carding system is as follows:

spot cards
- your lowest spot card show an odd number of cards with an honour or an even number without an honour (hon = AKQJ only!)
- the highest spot card you can safely afford shows just the opposite i.e. an even number of cards with an honour or an odd number without

honours
Basically top or 2 higher honours
A or K as you want to play them but K vs NT asks for count or unblock
Q = standard Q or AKQ (so AK type lead denies the Q)
J = standard J or KQJ (or AQJ if NT) (so K denies the J)
interior sequences have 2 higher honours e.g. T from KJT etc.

These leads are played throughout.

These follow the 2 card difference principle - you can almost always tell what the Q or J lead is from before another card is played

Signals are vital
We play all signals reversed (upside down I think is the term most of you use) - they are more efficient than standard i.e. you can afford a clearer card more often.

On partners lead we enc/disc unless it is known that we cannot have J of higher when we give count
- exceptions
AKx.. lead and Qxx or longer in the dummy - we give count
AKx...singleton in the suit in the dummy and at least 3 trumps - we give suit pref

Smith Peters
In NT a peter on the first suit declarer leads shows we like the way the defence is going - (a non-peter is neutral or dislike)
- exception - if there is a holdup situation in dummy's suit (possibly no entries), we give count

In a suit contract we use the trump suit as a Smith Peter
- exception - if we are known to be looking for a ruff - now a trump peter shows 3+ trumps

Finally - discards
We enc/disc (followed by suit pref if, say, 3 discards are made in the same suit - also suit pref if the suit we are discarding is known about.

Finally, carding is no substitute - it is never ok to do the wrong thing because partner 'told you to' - partner should be trying to be helpful, he can't see what you have got, you have the advantage of knowing what you have, also to some extent what partner 'seems' to have and a brain to help you tell what is needed to set the contract, what is dangerous or safe or necessary or unncessary - so if you get it wrong it is always your fault

In short, we tell partner what we think he/she needs to know at the time - but, we have agreed the more obvious situations and follow enc/disc in al others.

We found that most of the signals match Fantoni and Nunes, the spot cards we got from their CC, the honour leads we have played for years.

Whether building a system or putting together a lead/carding system, it is like packing a suitcase to go on holiday. You only have so much space and far too many tings to put in it. Whatever you do you will still have a bulging suitcase, some things hanging partly in and partly out and many things left out altogether. The trick is to make sure that you have it packed the best for you. All of the things you need most frequently are in, those that you wil never wear are left out, those that you cannot be left without are in and that which always tempts you, you take it and never wear it - that should be left out . If you pick up the wrong suitcase from the airport the clothes will neither suit not fit - everybody's choices are different. Make your choices the right ones for you, not me! These are hints to get you moving in the right direction for you.

The same with carding systems - look to see what you think is best in general (length, enc/disc, suit pref) and what you think are key situations when you should break from your normal method. Agree these with your regular partner - look at your list of exceptions from time to time to refresh your memory - you will feel better at the table defending with the knowledge that you re trying to tell partner what he/she wants to know - but none of this can replace the art of defending, it can only help.

[bluecalm]

Quote

In NT a peter on the first suit declarer leads shows we like the way the defence is going - (a non-peter is neutral or dislike)

I think better way to play is:

a)smith echo shows honor in lead suit and if it's clear that you can't hold any honor there you signal suit preference (with emphasis on obvious suit for shift)

b)give up smith echo altogether and just play suit preference (Krzysztof Martens likes this solution)

The reason is that more often than not information about suit of obvious shift is more important than information about lead suit (where situation is more often clear). Most cards played to declarer tricks should be some kind of s/p but you don't always have enough time and conveying this information at first opportunity is often vital.

I play a) in semiregular+ partnerships.

[doclands]

a) is what we play in principle

[zenko]

the "highest small card you can spare" principle seems very sound. I never quite get why, playing 3/5 the correct lead from say K432 is 3 (just like you have K43), why not 4? It is surely easer for pard to tell do you have K432 or 4x, as opposed do you have K43 or K432 (providing you are playing vs opponents capable enough to hide the 2).

My question is how those small card leads jive with ACBL regulations (see below). Seems dubious at best


CARDING
Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s
first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down
card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals (the order
and /or message is based on information known to the other defender
but not yet to declarer) are not approved.

[bluecalm]

You don't give any dual message here.
4 for example means that you have one of the hands from set A and 5 means that you have a hand from set B etc.
All the sets are proper subsets of all possibilities and don't depend on any other information than your hand (so no encryption).

[zenko]

Hmm, not so sure about it, the rule is : Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. The issues are:

a) does that it imply that you have to choose the one either "standard" or "reverse" way to show count, or you can use both depending do you have a honor in the suit or not. Or in another words it can be looked at like you are using, in the same suit, the upside down AND the standard count, depending on the possession of a honor which may or may not be allowed.

Furthermore, the possession, or lack of it, of a honor card can be looked at as the "code" or encryption "key" about the length of the suit led, sending a coded signal did you led from say 4-card or 5-card suit. Of course to make it "fully" encrypted the other defender should possess almost absolutely reliable "key" to the code. In this case that is not always the case, but the author this thread bragged that it is very often obvious to the other defender whats going on, probably not so much for declarer.

[bluecalm]

If you reason this way then standard 3/5 leads are "dual signals".

Low is either 3 small or 2 small with an honour.
High is either 2 small or 3 small with an honour but then also one smaller and one higher.

[doclands]

World Fed says they are not encrypted - and that is true - they are as readable to the opponent as to the defender. When you make a normal lead, as a defender sometimes the cards you can see make it obvious what the situation is but declarer can't read it , and vice versa. They have been passed for general usage worldwide - as leads anyway.