[han]

 semeai, on 2012-July-26, 09:35, said:

It's quite difficult to separate system wins from bidding judgement wins. It seems entirely possible, even likely, that the .29 imps/board Fantoni and Nunes apparently win in the bidding comes largely or entirely from their bidding judgement.

Yes indeed.

[Free]

It's well known that Fantoni can play the cards extremely well. When BBO used DF (Deep Finesse) instead of GIB, commentators used the term "Deep Fantoni" (he did better than Deep Finesse).

In theory the system performs good after 1-level openings and is high variance after 2-level openings. I used to play a modified version as well and we concluded that the theory is right. We did very well after 1-level openings, but the 2-level openings were too high variance for us.

Their style of overcalling and doubling isn't what you could call a standard approach. Somehow they are able to cope with that very well.

Their leads aren't popular either, but they make it work for them.

There has been talk about "Italian signals", but that's not confirmed. This is not meant as a cheating accusation, just a fact that there are/have been suspicions.

All things considered, they do a lot of things very differently than mainstream and are able to perform. This makes it's impossible to determine the reason why they do so well.

Something else that may be (slightly) important is the fact that they have good team mates, that must count for some of the imps as well.

[pigpenz]

I imagine this has been an age old question
the system or the the players?

we have had the Blue Club and look at what Granovettor and Rubin(I believe it was Ron, Read new Bridge World) did with their big club system, they
killed Bridge World in the 70's...but in reality who plays either of these systems today? the system helps
but having certain bids in any system gives you an advantage.....Belladonna, Forquet, Granovettor, Rubin, and
Fantunes they will succeed with any system they play even if its old fashioned Charles Goren Style.

[dake50]

Anyway, Bill Jacobs' analysis is a reasonable attempt to quantify the FANTUNES System. Doubters, can do their own analysis of the BBO vu-graph files and present their findings.

***
What reason is purported for this anecdotal comparison?
Has it statistical validity? I see none, nor none claimed.
Thus it is presented as a curiosity, NOTHING MORE!
Doubter's merely claim a peer review of "no basis".
To suggest that this comparison is valid BECAUSE doubters
have not done a disproving analysis is backward to any science.
The publisher has the burden of proof!

[EricK]

It seems a reasonable way to estimate the effect of bidding system. The number of IMPS gained when the contract is the same is a reasonable estimate of the difference in skill in the play. Obviously system has some effect here - if it reveals more about declarer's hand the defense will be easier, if it reveals less, defense will be harder; also it might make it easier or harder for the opps to enter the auction (but this can work both ways, sometimes bids by the defenders help the defense, sometimes they help declarer). All in all, though, these effects should largely cancel out. So given this figure, it is reasonable to assume that the difference in skill carries over to hands where they contract is not the same. So if they win more IMPS per hand on those hands, then it is reasonable to attribute those extra IMPS to the bidding system.

Or am I missing something?

[paulg]

The estimate would have more validity if it were compared with a similar pair who played fairly natural methods and typically also had good team mates, such as Versace and Lauria. And then with a strong club pair, such as Meckwell.

[aguahombre]

 paulg, on 2012-July-28, 05:56, said:

... a strong club pair, such as Meckwell.

[Siegmund]

I am just irritated I didnt know about this book until the week after I placed a big book order, so I likely wont see it until late fall.

[Cyberyeti]

Got my copy now, reading it and comparing it to Gerben's version, trying to work out what I want to play.

[SteelWheel]

Just got my copy of this in today's mail. Looks very interesting. In the past, I've played some EHAA in not-so-serious events (fast pairs, one-session IMP pairs, etc) with quite amusing results. Some very normal "blah" games, some well below average scores, and some incredible 68%+ or +79 imps type sessions. From what little I could see from Bridge World articles, Fantunes at its core seemed to be a sort of saner EHAA combined with some strong club/multiple-meaning club systems.

A couple of questions for the ACBL bridge lawyers amongst us:

Could the writeup in this book pass muster in a GCC event? If not, what could be changed to make it more agreeable to a TD (without sacrificing too much in the process)?

If GCC-compatibility is a totally untenable goal, I assume that Mid-Chart presents few if any problems?

And for the BBO community in general: Who might like to try such a system on some semi-regular basis? If anyone in ACBL-land is up to it, perhaps some online practice and then try to roll it out at a NABC or large Regional? I split my time between NY and Las Vegas these days..

[laststandb]

Fantunes is not GCC Compliant because it uses Transfer Responses to it's opening 1C bid, and also it fits 4441 hands into the 1NT bid.

I'd imagine a GCC Compliant Fantunes system would move 4441 Bids to 1D and 1C, and either change the 1C bid to 15+, or simply remove the transfer responses.

I'm interested in the system and I'd be interested if we (the forum) had an effort to try to convert Fantunes to GCC

[SteelWheel]

 laststandb, on 2012-August-01, 11:35, said:

Fantunes is not GCC Compliant because it uses Transfer Responses to it's opening 1C bid, and also it fits 4441 hands into the 1NT bid.

I'd imagine a GCC Compliant Fantunes system would move 4441 Bids to 1D and 1C, and either change the 1C bid to 15+, or simply remove the transfer responses.

I'm interested in the system and I'd be interested if we (the forum) had an effort to try to convert Fantunes to GCC

Transfer responses to a 1♣ open which promises 15+ are very definitely legal on GCC. Some Precision'ers use such a treatment. Millennium Club (a sort of Polish-like system with weak no-trump openings--and another system I'd love to try out in some real competition someday) also uses transfer responses, and is GCC-legal.

The 1NT opening obviously presents bigger problems--although I have trouble keeping up with ACBL regs on that one, since I play so little "live" bridge these days. Many times, I've overcalled (rather than opened) a one-level opening with a strong NT, having nothing but a stiff A or K in an unnamed side suit. Opponents generally call the cops, and the TDs are forced to admit that there is no rule about overcalling 1NT with a stiff; the insanity of the ACBL GCC never ceases to amaze me.

[Cyberyeti]

 laststandb, on 2012-August-01, 11:35, said:

Fantunes is not GCC Compliant because it uses Transfer Responses to it's opening 1C bid, and also it fits 4441 hands into the 1NT bid.

I'd imagine a GCC Compliant Fantunes system would move 4441 Bids to 1D and 1C, and either change the 1C bid to 15+, or simply remove the transfer responses.

I'm interested in the system and I'd be interested if we (the forum) had an effort to try to convert Fantunes to GCC

My understanding is that it's legal at level 3 in the EBU, and could prove vaguely interesting in some of the clubs I play in.

[Free]

 laststandb, on 2012-August-01, 11:35, said:

I'd imagine a GCC Compliant Fantunes system would move 4441 Bids to 1D and 1C, and either change the 1C bid to 15+, or simply remove the transfer responses.

Fantunes used to open 2m with 4441's (10-13HCP).

[PrecisionL]

 SteelWheel, on 2012-August-01, 16:29, said:

Transfer responses to a 1♣ open which promises 15+ are very definitely legal on GCC. Some Precision'ers use such a treatment. Millennium Club (a sort of Polish-like system with weak no-trump openings--and another system I'd love to try out in some real competition someday) also uses transfer responses, and is GCC-legal.

Hi SteelWheel,

I have been playing a version of Millennium Club for 3 years now locally and we are quite happy with it. 15+ hcp and transfer responses and a weak NT and parts of Miles Unbalanced Diamond. Don't get to Vegas much anymore, do visit New York state a few times a year.

Gerben's version of Fantunes is called E2HAA: Every 2nd Hand an Adventure:

http://web.archive.o...idge/mosca.html

[mycroft]

I would also look at the artificial responses to the 1 bids in case they are relays per the GCC definition.
If you find them, I would look to see if they are not 100% GF, in which case they are not Mid-Chart legal either.

[JLOGIC]

 PrecisionL, on 2012-July-25, 19:20, said:

CONCLUSION: Superior card play [both by declarer and the defenders] accounted for just over 57 % of the IMPs won, while superior bidding (bidding judgment & system) accounted for 42 % of the IMP gains.

Grunching, but huge lol as no doubt many people have said.

Nothing against Bill Jacobs, I like his commentary on vugraph, but this "conclusion" from this data is completely absurd and is not based on math or logic.

[PrecisionL]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-03, 23:34, said:

Grunching, but huge lol as no doubt many people have said.

Nothing against Bill Jacobs, I like his commentary on vugraph, but this "conclusion" from this data is completely absurd and is not based on math or logic.

So Justin, it is easy to criticize, but have you read the book?

What light can you shed on the topic?

I presume you have played against Fantunes, care to share how you have done against them?

And what about the book: WHY THEY WIN by Stephen Cashmore & Justin Corfield, Scotland, 2008. Their conclusion based on three 24 board IMP matches is that Bidding Judgment was responsible for the majority of the IMPs exchanged. One team involved Zia & Robson.

P.S. Jacobs has analyzed 2723 hands played on BBO vu-graph by Fantunes and he has played a similar system with over 1400 hands analyzed. So I don't understand how you can state his conclusion is not based on math and logic.

PP.SS. Even C.C. Wei in his analysis of world championship hands 1953 - 1965 concluded that 70% of the IMPs were won or lost in the bidding.

[kupi007]

I didnt read a book, but I watch fantunes a lot on vugraph, as well as I tried to play it for short period of time and in 1 partnership i play system that have a lot fantunes elements. Some things stroke me.
1. Its true that 2-bids are high variance and are entirely dependent on opps bidding jugment, if they treat it as just weak 2's, they will gain a lot, but against prepered opps i dont think its so great, i use to play weak 2's on same shapes but with more std 8-11 range, and it work for me, true you often force yourself to play in inferior partscore, but most of the time opps come to rescue and play in wrong strain or level. But i must disagree that 10-13 range is narrow, its not because with shapes ranging from 6332 or 5431 to 6520 and similar makes diffrance in playing huge, and imo bigger than std weak 2's 6 card 6-11.
2. Weak NT on shapes like 5M422, 6m322 or 4441. i think its gain, weak NT is great preempt, and having good playing strength allow easy escape if doubled, its also difficult to defend, and i dont think there is magic way to find 44 major fits on 24 or so HCP after weak NT, most of the time if opps have 44M game they are stuck after weak NT, and chances are bigger they have game in majors if you have some 6332 or 5422.
3. Biggest gains for Fantunes are in competition after 1x openings, knowing partner have extra shape or strength allows for more aggressive X-ing by responder, but i dont think their slam bidding is so great i found they often face known 2/1 problem, right strain, but wrong level(but can survive given excellent card play), most of their bidding focus on shape showing than point showing, so its innevitable, grands missing 1 ace happens to them a lot more often than what we may expect from WC pair.

[JLOGIC]

I do not know why you are so defensive. You can argue with emotion and appeals to non-relevant authorities all you want. You can even attempt to discredit me by pointing out directly or indirectly that I am not as good as fantunes, and thus rate to lose to them. That would be relevant if I was like LOL FANTUNES SUCK.

However, your op was very clear:

Quote

The chapter: Fantunes by the numbers, summarizes the results of 2723 deals played by Fantunes on BBO's vu-graph.

2723 deals, net IMPs won = 1817, or 0.67 IMPs per deal on deals Fantunes opened the bidding.
1676 deals, net IMPs won = 645, or 0.38 IMPs per deal where the contract was the same at both tables.

CONCLUSION: Superior card play [both by declarer and the defenders] accounted for just over 57 % of the IMPs won, while superior bidding (bidding judgment & system) accounted for 42 % of the IMP gains.

You even wrote CONCLUSION so I assume it was clear what I was talking about with my "criticism" I offered, that the conclusion was not based on math or logic. It is basically one big logical fallacy.

You see people attempt to use numbers in this way, but there is often a problem with causation. This is very common in many books, studies, etc where people try to analyze data.

I realize that the conclusion might have been your conclusion from data that bill jacobs offered in his book, but I took it to mean that it was a conclusion bill jacobs drew in his book. Whoever drew that conclusion, specifically that 42 % of bidding accounted for their gains is obviously wrong. Here is an example:

If my style is to bid scientifically, carefully catering to all possible slams etc, then I will sometimes find a good slam that the other table missed. Ok, great, I won the board with my bidding system/judgement, and that is factored in. However, how about the times that I do the same thing, and I give them lots of information to make the killing lead, or the winning defense. This is the tradeoff you make for bidding carefully rather than blasting when slam is unlikely. So now I got to the same game as the other table, but I went down and they made it. By the conclusion above, this would mean that my cardplay was inferior, but really it was my bidding that caused me to lose that swing, despite ending up in the same contract.

So the fallacy here is that if we get to the same contract, our system/judgement in the auction was irrelevant, and imps won or lost are based solely on the cardplay. See, that wasn't so hard! There are more things like that where the conclusion drawn does not logically follow from the data given. Ergo, the premise that because they win .67 imps/bd on hands where they open, and .38 imps/bd when they play the same contract, they win 57 % of their imps from superior cardplay and 42 % from bidding is just wrong. It is based on underlying bad logic/math, which is what I said.

For what it's worth, it's possible that fantunes are winning more than 42 % of their imps from bidding. It is possible they win less from bidding. I have no idea from the data provided, and I would not attempt to draw that conclusion from that data. I did not draw any conclusions from it, or offer whether the book was good or not, or whether fantunes were good or not, or whether I think their system is good or not, and what % of imps they win from bidding. I do not know those things. I do know that the conclusion given in the OP was ridiculous, which was the only thing I commented on.

The rest of your last post was pretty amazing and also filled with bad logic, but I'll just end it here.