[relknes]

I have been interested recently in Fanturnes 2 bids (constructive bids showing roughly 9-13 points and 6 cards or 5 cards and a side singleton/void). However, the document that I have that describes them has some artificial responses with less than game forcing values, notably the first step response being a relay bid showing invitational values and asking for clarification. I am not sure that this is legal in GCC controled lands.
Is there a place where I can find information on a form of these bids that is both playable and GCC legal?

[awm]

This should be general chart.

Under responses and rebids, number (7):

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS... after opening bids of two clubs or higher.

[bluecalm]

Btw, would you be so nice to post the followups you have after those ? I like their system a lot and would like to learn more about it

[Zelandakh]

You will probably find this helpful bluecalm.

[relknes]

 bluecalm, on 2011-February-18, 04:38, said:

Btw, would you be so nice to post the followups you have after those ? I like their system a lot and would like to learn more about it

This was the source that I found. It is a complete description of a system based on the Fanturnes model, though they apparently pulled in a few response elements from the Polish Club as well.
http://home.broadpar...ge/fantunes.pdf

[Free]

I played some modified Fantunes system a couple of years ago. We based our openings and main principles on the original (so no Polish club responses for example). We revised some of the stuff, like the relays after 2-level openings. In this case it was because we didn't have a full scheme of all responses.

As far as I remember, the only auctions that don't reach game after the relay are 2X - 2X+1 - 3X - pass (3X showed min with 6X and without a biddable 3 card M), every other rebid by opener makes the situation GF. I don't think Fantoni and Nunes changed that principle. So basically the relay is indeed INV+, but it's very rare that it's not a GF.

[MrAce]

Before u play 9-13 2 openings, i would like to warn you about a fact. They do not play this because they love it more than regular weak 2. They play it this way because they have to due to their system imo.

If you check their system, they do RESPONSE with 0 hcp because they do NOT have a forcing 1♣ or 2♣ opening in their system. Therefore they want to be able to show some hands at lower level than those of us who has to jump to 3 when pd responds. Basically i believe it has a lot to do with their system and they gave up on weak 2 bids in order to gain advantage somewhere else. If you or your system doesnt need that, it maybe good idea to think about it b4 u jump on it blindly.

[Zelandakh]

I believe 1C in the Fantunes system is indeed forcing, as are 1D, 1H and 1S. I assume what you mean is that they lack an artificial forcing bid which is something else entirely. There is a theory around that weak 2 bids are not as effective as intermediate 2 bids since it is too easy to place strength with partner after a weak 2. My guess is that Claudio and Fulvio subscribe to this view and thus do indeed regard their 2-level openings as winners. There are issues with the system in places due to the 0+ requirement for responding to 1-level openings. However, the OP has indicated (in a different thread) that (s)he is interested in Fantunes 2s as part of an artificial system without the natural, forcing 1 bid structure so here that issue is moot.

As it happens, within the system being discussed I agree with you. The proposal is for 1M to be 13-16 and 2M to be 9-12; I would personally much prefer 1M as 10-16 and weak 2Ms. But that is a decision for the OP and essentially irrelevant to the question of whether the responses are legal.

[Free]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-February-24, 05:15, said:

I believe 1C in the Fantunes system is indeed forcing, as are 1D, 1H and 1S. I assume what you mean is that they lack an artificial forcing bid which is something else entirely. There is a theory around that weak 2 bids are not as effective as intermediate 2 bids since it is too easy to place strength with partner after a weak 2. My guess is that Claudio and Fulvio subscribe to this view and thus do indeed regard their 2-level openings as winners. There are issues with the system in places due to the 0+ requirement for responding to 1-level openings. However, the OP has indicated (in a different thread) that (s)he is interested in Fantunes 2s as part of an artificial system without the natural, forcing 1 bid structure so here that issue is moot.

They open more solid at 1-level because the ranges are unlimited. It's impossible to distinguish between an offensive 10-count and a 24-count in a decent matter. Where normal systems use (11)12-15 and 16-19 ranges (and be creative with 20-21), they have to use at least 3 ranges: 14-17, 18-22 and 23+. Making the ranges bigger to allow openings from 12+HCP will bring them too high too often, so making them even lighter will only make things worse.

The 2-level openings are indeed a necessary evil which happens to work well enough for them. It creates big swings from time to time, and eventually they almost break even. They also play their weak NT more flexible (5M-4m-2-2 for example) to make their 2-level openings more unbalanced and offensive, and they took out the 10-13HCP 5-4M hands from 2M and open these 1M nevertheless. Basically they tweaked their 2-level openings a bit to make them more performant, at the cost of their 1NT and 1M openings.

I agree that you shouldn't adopt this part of their system if you don't need it.