FANTUNES REVEALED by Bill Jacobs Bidding & Judgment vs. Card Play
#101
Posted 2012-August-16, 11:31
#102
Posted 2012-August-16, 13:00
han, on 2012-August-16, 09:18, said:
I can imagine that they bid 3S (directly or indirectly) and then it makes sense to play it as canape. If you bid it naturally, you will get to the 4-level when partner has a preference for hearts.
Some of this doesn't make sense, you only get a very short version of their methods over 1N in the book as it's semi assumed you'll play your own (as Gerben says).
They like garbage stayman, but it appears 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ is not garbage but a puppet to spades so possibly they're bid through there or they're in the 1N-2♦-2♥-2♠ complex.
#103
Posted 2012-August-18, 17:29
ulven, on 2012-August-08, 06:59, said:
Uncontested auctions.
Fantoni opens the bidding (646 deals): -0.12 imps/board
Nunes opens the bidding (618 deals) +0.99
There might of course be something wrong with the filter but the author seems to have spent a lot of time to get it right.
Other forum members with collected data might want to double-check.
Is it possible that Nunes more frequently sits in the client chair? Of course it is also quite possible that Nunes is just better than Fantoni, or many other possible conclusions.
#104
Posted 2012-August-18, 17:45
Hanoi5, on 2012-August-16, 05:47, said:
Some flavors of KERI do that too. I play that with a couple of partners.
#105
Posted 2012-August-18, 18:21
Gerben42, on 2012-August-16, 11:31, said:
Their whole system could be replaced with my favorite system...
However, they are a successful pair with somewhat odd methods (including over 1nt), and I'd be interested to know what they play?
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#107
Posted 2012-August-29, 07:12
#108
Posted 2012-September-04, 19:46
One thing that book's statistics is missing is the (e.g. average) IMP exchange when Fantunes pass in the first or second seat. Does anyone happen to have statistics on that? An IMP pairs event would probably be the best measure for this - since having Lauria-Versace in the other room significantly biases pass-rate gains/losses.
#109
Posted 2012-September-05, 19:56
niks, on 2012-September-04, 19:46, said:
I don't have data for when Fantoni-Nunes passed in 1st/2nd seat, but I do have some data for my own partnership. The differential on 1st/2nd seat passes is when Fantunes passes with a weak-2 opening. We lost imps on average, but there weren't a lot of data points.
Fantunes also loses a small number of imps due to passes in 3rd seat. You can't make light 3rd seat openings at the 1-level (i.e. about 8-11 points), although you can at the 2-level.
I would warn against trying to infer too much low-level detail from the statistics. The board count is not high enough. I had to smile when I read the posts about results when Fantoni opened compared to when Nunes opened. Thinking through it logically, the outcome is surely meaningless, and simply proves that you can always find some weird conclusions to make from a limited data set if you look hard enough.
Statisticians have a name for this fallacy: it's called the "Look Elsewhere Effect".
Cheers ... Bill
#110
Posted 2012-November-26, 20:12
Thanks in advance!
#111
Posted 2012-November-27, 06:35
At the European champships in brighton (when? http://www.chrisryal...ohn.manning.htm), the mean square swing was 38.14 IMP^2, while a study on OKbridge data gave a variance of 31.7. Something must be wrong since it looks very weird that the variance is higher at a serious event than at OKbridge, maybe I am missing something.
Obviously the standard deviation for a particular player (say Nunes) across many boards will be a little lower than the standard deviation across the field, and it is also a bit dubious to use the field SD (in which some tables were opened by N, some by E etc) as a surrogate for the SD across boards where (say) Nunes opened, but anyway, let's set the SD to 5.5 and just keep in mind that the test will be a bit conservative.
OK, the standard error of each of the two players' mean IMP is something like 5.5/sqrt(630) = 0.22. The t-test gives us a p-value (two-sided) of 0.0004. Could it really be a statistical fluke? When I see extremely low p-values associated with very implausible effects my first thought is "data management artefact"..... but I like Mbodell's hypothesis. Can't really think of anything else that could explain it.
#112
Posted 2013-September-23, 02:21
#113
Posted 2013-September-28, 18:29
#114
Posted 2013-September-28, 18:56
#115
Posted 2013-September-28, 19:51
the hog, on 2013-September-28, 18:56, said:
Here is a comment by Fulvio Fantoni:
Risposta di Fulvio Fantoni
Dear Giovanni,
I'd like to precise that the book you quote hasn't been written by Claudio or me, but by a third person. This person watched our play and tried to deduce our system and was able to reconstruct many bidding sequences exactly, but not all of them. In the case in point, the bidding sequence you report is not correct. For us 2NT in that bidding sequence means 14+, 5+ e 4+ hand. Anyway, you should know that this is going to change very soon, because we want to introduce transfers at 2 level, too.
Best regards
Fulvio
#116
Posted 2013-September-28, 19:55
Thanks,
Dan
#117
Posted 2013-September-28, 20:16
DJNeill, on 2013-September-28, 19:55, said:
Thanks,
Dan
Now we find that Jacobs' book is based on someone else's notes on Fantunes' system...Where can I buy it???
#118
Posted 2013-September-28, 22:43
dboxley, on 2013-September-28, 20:16, said:
As Jacobs himself says:
"I should emphasize up front that the methods described in this book are a little different to what Fantoni and Nunes actually play - it is an adaptation of Fantunes with a slightly reduced level of complexity. In many ways Fantunes is a style rather than a system."
#119
Posted 2013-September-29, 17:43
#120
Posted 2013-October-02, 12:52
dboxley, on 2013-September-28, 18:29, said:
While you are waiting, keep a lookout for the official Meckwell system book.