[Jinksy]

I decided it would be fun to learn, but suspect I'll struggle to find many partners to practice it with...

[mgoetze]

There isn't really one unified system, anyone who plays it has put work into system notes and details. I gave up on learning MOSCITO for the same reason.

[Free]

I have played it for a few years, but it was very high variance imo. The system is technically unsound in many situations, which is something I really don't like. It was fun to play though. Like mgoetze says: it requires a lot of effort to make it work in all kinds of situations.

Gerben (also online and a BBF poster) modified some point ranges and responds similar to polish club. Personally I don't like that approach, but that's just my opinion (no offense Gerben ). You can easily find his system online, but you can't call it a standard...

mgoetze, on 2011-September-01, 16:16, said:

I gave up on learning MOSCITO for the same reason.

Paul Marston's writeup of MOSCITO 2005 is pretty complete, what are you talking about?

[Jinksy]

Free, on 2011-September-02, 02:14, said:

The system is technically unsound in many situations, which is something I really don't like.

What does this actually mean? I had a discussion with MickyB about a similar claim last night, and while in a few narrow cases it seems like you can say 'convention x is probably better than convention y' (or ditto for convention combinations) and no-one will really disagree with you, but I don't see any way that you conclusively demonstrate that one system is better than another, especially given that the paucity of decent rating systems for players in the bridge world means you can't even effectively gather data on how well pairs of equivalent ability do with different systems.

[Free]

I don't think comparing Fantunes with another system is a good idea. As I said, it's high variance, so it differs quite a lot from any standard system although it looks very natural.

For me, Fantunes being unsound means that it's very easy to construct hands that occur frequently which will cause a disaster for the system. The 2-level openings really are a sitting duck in that respect. Open 2♠ on a 5=3=1=4, partner having less than an invite should pass without fit, even with 6 ♥s. I'll sin and compare this with 'normal' systems anyway, because they'll have a simple auction 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♥ getting to a great spot, while Fantunes on such a simple hand will play 2♠ in a 5-1 fit while having 9 ♥s together. This is the theory.

In practice however they get away with such situations quite a lot because of the human aspect of the game. Opps make mistakes, they can't double every contract, they may have a simple overcall which will turn out badly,...

Every system has it's limits, and many systems won't perform well on goulash hands. But Fantunes will potentially fail on regular hands as well.

[wclass___]

Jinksy, on 2011-September-02, 03:14, said:

What does this actually mean?

JLOL, on 2009-April-12, 00:14, said:

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

gnasher, on 2009-April-12, 02:25, 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?

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.

awm, on 2009-April-13, 01:49, 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.

benlessard, on 2009-April-19, 11:20, said:

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)

However there are some surprisingly well working ideas you can find in their system that one could tweak into his own system.

[PrecisionL]

wclass___, on 2011-September-02, 04:33, said:

However there are some surprisingly well working ideas you can find in their system that one could tweak into his own system.

Yes, I agree. We have modified the 2 of a Major openings to 5332 or 6322 (Jxxxxx or worse) hands so that responder with a singleton in opener's major can play in responder's suit (5 or 6-cards) at the 3-level or in 2♠.

[mgoetze]

Free, on 2011-September-02, 02:14, said:

Paul Marston's writeup of MOSCITO 2005 is pretty complete, what are you talking about?

Sorry, that's not true at all IMHO. First of all, even the parts that are documented in there are hard to understand for people not in the know. I have often found when trying to learn by this booklet that I need to read very carefully to figure out which bids certain shapes go in. Sorry, it's too long ago, I can't remember which ones. It didn't help that the text wasn't very well organised. Secondly, there are no notes at all on what to do in competition. Seriously, can you play 1♣ as 15+ any and not even know what to do if the opponents double? (Note the "to come" heading at the very end...) Thirdly, whenever I actually tried to play with someone, they played something different which changed in 2004 or 2006 or whenever, it always felt like a very moving target.

Sorry for the threadjack but it had to be said.

[hrothgar]

mgoetze, on 2011-September-02, 15:47, said:

Sorry, that's not true at all IMHO. First of all, even the parts that are documented in there are hard to understand for people not in the know. I have often found when trying to learn by this booklet that I need to read very carefully to figure out which bids certain shapes go in. Sorry, it's too long ago, I can't remember which ones. It didn't help that the text wasn't very well organised. Secondly, there are no notes at all on what to do in competition. Seriously, can you play 1♣ as 15+ any and not even know what to do if the opponents double? (Note the "to come" heading at the very end...) Thirdly, whenever I actually tried to play with someone, they played something different which changed in 2004 or 2006 or whenever, it always felt like a very moving target.

Sorry for the threadjack but it had to be said.

I like to think that my notes were decent, though certainly not comprehensive.

Maybe I'll get back to them one of these years... (Though I have a feeling that 2012 will be lost to Diablo III)

[Free]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-02, 16:14, said:

I like to think that my notes were decent, though certainly not comprehensive.

I disagree, I learned the entire system from your notes, it was actually very well written for someone to pick up the system.

The reason why I think Paul Marston's booklet is fine is probably because I already have good knowledge about the system (although it's quite different) and relay structures. I can understand that it's not as comprehensive for someone who knows nothing about MOSCITO.

[Jinksy]

In any case, anyone up for a BBO game using it sometime?

[sectorzz9]

Jinksy, on 2011-September-03, 07:37, said:

In any case, anyone up for a BBO game using it sometime?

Send me a pm and I'll give you my e-mail - send me what notes you have and I'll look over it and I'll try to give you a BBO game some time.

[Jinksy]

Is your email one of the two on your FB page?

[Gerben42]

If you want to play Fantunes some time, just contact me.

(back from holiday)

[sectorzz9]

Jinksy, on 2011-September-11, 15:25, said:

Is your email one of the two on your FB page?

Either of those work.

[Jinksy]

Ok, I've added you both on BBO - will give you a shout if I see you on there.

[cccccttttt]

Suppose at match play you compile the results from many tournaments for boards that start with a Fantunes 2S opener.

Add up the match scores in percents, and divide by the number of boards.

Then multiply this by the number of hands in say 1000 deals that qualify for a Fantunes 2S opener.


Then do the same for the usual weak 2S.


My experience is that Fantunes will get a better rating.


As few cares enough to actually do these computations,

its more a question of finding a system that suits your personality.

ct

[Jinksy]

Seems like a biased data set - you'll only find relatively experienced pairs playing Fantunes.

[PrecisionL]

Try this URL: http://bridgewithdan...ntoni_Nunes.txt

or their convention card and notes: http://www.ecatsbrid...ntoni-nunes.pdf

[tingdon]

I am interested in learning this system. Please let me know if you want to learn together.

Tingdon