[Flame]

USA is great but sometimes they get inlove with themselfs which is kind of funny.

[Free]

Flame, on Nov 22 2004, 01:47 PM, said:

USA is great but sometimes they get inlove with themselfs which is kind of funny.

WTF is the connection between this post and the thread?? Isn't it enough your silly off-topic posts were deleted, and that MY thread was closed because of you silly boys??

Stop it ok!?! And if you realy realy realyyyyyyyy want to have a last word in this ridiculous discussion about nations, start a new thread, but don't abuse mine!

[Flame]

Free, on Nov 22 2004, 09:23 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 22 2004, 01:47 PM, said:

USA is great but sometimes they get inlove with themselfs which is kind of funny.

WTF is the connection between this post and the thread?? Isn't it enough your silly off-topic posts were deleted, and that MY thread was closed because of you silly boys??

Stop it ok!?! And if you realy realy realyyyyyyyy want to have a last word in this ridiculous discussion about nations, start a new thread, but don't abuse mine!

Ouch Free sry to make you angry like this.
I was saying something related to what other ppl said here, my post is not against anyone its more like a peace making post then anything else.
true it got nothing to do with the thread title but sometimes threads changes their topic, anyway sorry.

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Nov 17 2004, 10:57 PM, said:

The team we sent included some of the best players in the world. Gerben, if USA had beaten italy would they not be the overwhelming favorites to win the whole thing? I think most people realized early on it was between USA and Italy.

Well, I feel this Italy team wasn't in its best shape although they won. As far as I have seen, the overall quality of the game wasn't very high comparing with their performance in late nineties, although they didn't win a world title at that time, their bridge was better I feel. Another thing I want to mention is that this pair has been considered as the third pair since they joined the team. Their overall performance was not bad, their card play has been good, but does that mean their bidding system is superior? I really doubt so.
Still, nobody answered me from bridge logic so far. Do you think what I mentioned were holes of their system? Do you think they are fixable in their current frame work? I highly doubt so. You may not meet many 4-4-4-1 shape with about 12 HCP, but when you meet them, you would be in a worse position if you play their system. These holes may not show in a near future, however in a long run, if you have such kind of holes in your system, they will affect the overall performance a lot in your system.

[inquiry]

I can't really comment on their system, because I don't know it well enough to make judgements. Looking at one set of bids and saying, see big hole here, is not enough to judge the whole thing. I can look at the results, and they have EXTREMELY OUTSTANDING results, so my judgement is their system must be quite alright.

Ben

[Flame]

They play a very unique system and therefore it make sense that some "easy" games reached by normal system will be missed by their system, this doesnt mean the system is bad because they might win more "not easy" contracts which normal system miss.
So to mesure the effective of this system you shouldnt give weight to how easy was the game they missed , you just need to count the imps the system gain/lose and so far if i understand correctly it win more then it loses.

[pbleighton]

I find their system (at least the outlines, which I guess is all that is publicly available) to be fascinating. I prefer light one bids, but they have got me thinking - it is in a way a very disciplined system - very sound one bids coupled with aggressive but narrowly defined (in terms of hand strength) two bids. To look at it another way, what should be good slam bidding (because of the low requirement for game forcing bids), plus aggressive, in-your-face part score aggression (the two bids and weak NT). All this validated by excellent results at the top level. I hope more top pairs start playing this style, so we can learn more about it.

As an aside, I wonder how their results compare when they are NV versus vulnerable?

Peter

[keylime]

The more I look at this system, the more I like it. I like the feel of the two level openings especially, and the 1♣ opening doesn't seem to be too overloaded.

[Gerben47]

Fantoni was commentating Vugraph yesterday and there were some questions about his system. He said that first they started to play the Lauria - Versace system but they thought it was too complicated, and that what they play now is more fun to play. They do use a lot of the same conventions as L - V.

Having tested the system in a real F2F tournament I was surprised how well it works. The slam bidding was more accurate than in most system. The 2-bids give the opponents many problems and opener's partner is very well placed to use the red card. And in fact the 2-bids are more frequent than the classical weak twos. There are some situations where we had a tough judgement decision after the 2-bids, but those were for very close games which no one would argue about if you would miss them (except Walddk perhaps who likes them thin).

[mikestar]

FN looks very much like EHAA with a more disciplined two bid, five card majors and a bit of science.

[pbleighton]

Gerben -

When you played the system -

1) Did you use an artificial relay system after 2x, or did you just use 2NT as GF, "bid again, partner"?

2) The 10-13 range for 2x - what did you pass and what did you open? Would you open all 13 counts regardless of primary suit quality and vulnerability? What did you open at 10 hcp?

3) How did you handle opening 4441s 2m - apart from hoping it didn't come up

Peter

[Gerben47]

Peter, as I said it wasn't easy to fill in the blanks.

1) After the 2x we used the same bids as relay as F-N, i.e.
2♦ over 2♣, 2NT over 2♦ and 2♠ and 2♠ over 2♥. So only the 2♦ opening bid has a bit of a space problem, the others have a lot of space. Basically we ask for a 4-card major, a 6th card in the bid suit and min/max.
There is some danger missing a game in a side suit after these opening bids. We might bid 2♣ pass pass pass and others bid 1♣ 1♠ 2♠ 4♠. On the other hands these bids come up very often and put your opponents under a lot of pressure and give more definition to the 1-bids. I guess that's worth it.

2) 12/13 counts: open all of them, for 10/11 counts perhaps reconsider with awkward hands like hands with 5 small in the opening suit. In 3rd seat we bid more freely. Another problem is 5-5 majors. I have noticed that F-N tend to pass these. And probably for the best as now the odds of missing a game in the other major is large.

3) We pass 4441 hands in the 10-13 HCP range. Maybe I'd open 1NT if I can't stand it though but I have not had a 13-count 4441 with singleton minor yet.

Gerben

[Chamaco]

Is it possible to play a Fantunes-like system by simply playing a version of Kaplan-Sheinwold (weak NT, sound minor opening, 5cM) which uses F-N intermediate 2 openings (and forcing 1 level openigns) ?

How much do you rate this would lose the effectivenes of F-N but be easier to remember for the average nonprofessional human being ?

[pbleighton]

"Is it possible to play a Fantunes-like system by simply playing a version of Kaplan-Sheinwold (weak NT, sound minor opening, 5cM) which uses F-N intermediate 2 openings ?"

My thinking exactly, except of course that major openings would be sound, too, which I think you meant.

Perhaps bring the 1 bids down a point, to 13 (11) unbalanced, and keep 2C as strong, and have 2D/2H/2S as intermediate bids. Pass a lot of unbalanced natural 12 count club openers, open the better ones, upgrading a little more freely than you would with 12 counts in the other suits.

1x would then be strong but non forcing (you might respond with 4), and the intermediate bids would be 10(9)-12, a little tighter.

This way I would get to keep my 10-13 NT NV

Peter

[Chamaco]

pbleighton, on Nov 24 2004, 10:42 AM, said:

Perhaps bring the 1 bids down a point, to 13 (11) unbalanced, and keep 2C as strong,

Nah, the big plus of F-N is removing the terrible strong 2C while avoiding the preemption suffered by strong club openings.
To do that, we need a *sound* 1-level forcing opening, e.g. 14+ hcp OR at most 6 losers if holding an unbalanced hand with less than 14 hcp.

In my post I meant the following:

is it possible to use a K-S system development for 1 level opening (forcing) and a F-N system for 2-level openings ?

Basically that would mean avoiding the F-N relays altogether and:
- respnding naturally a la K-S over the 1-lvel forcing opening,
- responding natually to the "intermediate 2" with a scheme analogous to the weak 2 openings.

Using such hybrid scheme do we lose much compared to the gain in simplicity and memory burden ?

[Gerben47]

Yes it's a great advantage. In the tournament we had two SGF or better hands and both were solved by simple natural bidding to reach the top contract, for 17 and 15 of 18 MP respectively.

[pbleighton]

"Basically that would mean avoiding the F-N relays altogether and:
- respnding naturally a la K-S over the 1-lvel forcing opening,
- responding natually to the "intermediate 2" with a scheme analogous to the weak 2 openings."

Not sure which relays you are talking about

1) 1 level - do you mean that 1x-1y would no longer be 0-9, as in F-N (where 1x-2y is GF), but 1x-1y is unlimited and forcing? Their cc doesn't mention relays after 1 bids. What do you have in mind? F-N has some artificial responses, especially after 1C, but I assume bidding is natural after the response.

Do you just mean using better minor instead of 1C having all of the balanced hands with no 5cM? I think that would be fine.

If you keep 1x-1y as 0-9, then if all reponses are natural, does 1D-2S promise only 4? This would be a problem for reponding with 6 card suits.

How about: if 2 level responses show 5, then 2NT would be 4333 or 4432 or trump support, and with 4441s you bid the singleton at the 3 level. Or you can use F-N, where 1S-2C is clubs or balanced or supporting spades. I do think you are going to have a little structure in the responses, but bidding can be natural after that.

2) They do have relays after 2x, but I think Gerben's scheme of a "relay" bid, i.e. 2S-2NT, which just asks opener to rebid naturally, and is GF, is fine for those of us below World Class level A new suit, i.e. 2S-3D, would be natural and GF.

Peter

[Chamaco]

Quote

1) 1 level - do you mean that 1x-1y would no longer be 0-9, as in F-N (where 1x-2y is GF), but 1x-1y is unlimited and forcing?

Ye, 1x-1y unlimited and forcing, just as in KS or any natural system.
Not the best system possible, but has the great advantage of keeping naturality and avoiding memorizing relay responses.

Quote

2) They do have relays after 2x, but I think Gerben's scheme of a "relay" bid, i.e. 2S-2NT, which just asks opener to rebid naturally, and is GF, is fine for those of us below World Class level    A new suit, i.e. 2S-3D, would be natural and GF.

Yes, that is what I meant, that is more or less the standard over a weak 2 opening, so nothing new to meorize for most people used to traditional weak 2s :-)

I repeat, the main point is to avoid relays (not because they are bad but because -at least for my partners - they are difficult to remember and psychologically hard to accept)

[Gerben47]

You can use your favorite scheme after 1M, except that 1♥ - 2♠ must be free for GF hands with ♠.

[Chamaco]

Gerben47, on Nov 24 2004, 01:46 PM, said:

You can use your favorite scheme after 1M, except that 1♥ - 2♠ must be free for GF hands with ♠.

Can u use
- 1H-2S as strong JS and
- 1H-1S, forcing 1 Round, 4+ S, unlimted ?

Any problems with this ?