PrecisionL

I play several schemes depending on my partner's preferences: 1) 1♣ - 2♦ = 8-10 Balanced (may have a weak 5cd minor) per Rodwell 2) 1♣ - 2♦ = 8+ and 5+ ♣ Transfer-like. Now 2NT is Staymanish and 3♦ is Beta 3) 1♣ - 2♦ = 8+ one or both minors, denies a 4cd major You pays your $ and take your choice ... Whoops, you asked about 5+♦: 1♣ - 2♣ Transfer showing 5+♦ 2♦ = Staymanish 2M = Alpha (Support Asking) 2NT asking if 4M

Fluffy, I have a better method: If you want to make 2-level invitational bids in the Majors, then considered Klinger's Keri over 1NT. I have been playing this scheme for 5-years and am very happy with it. 2♣ > transfer to 2♦ (a) to play (pass) (b) Invitational with one major 4 or 5-cds, rebid the major {c} Game Force: Rebid 2NT for shape: Opener shows 5cd M or any 4333 hand (3♦) or 3♣ other 2♦ and 2♥ are transfers: usually 5-cd suits, occasionally 4-cd suit with both majors. 2♠ is size ask (2NT = minimum) or game force with a strong one suiter (rebid the suit = RKC) 2NT I forget? I have a 20 page summary in word if you want more details or buy Klinger's book: Bid Better After Opening 1NT

Thanks Adam, very interesting.

As I understand Walsh and teach it: With a one bid hand, show your lowest 4-cd or better major. With a hand worth two bids you bid up the line with 4-cd suits (not by passing diamonds] or bid your five card suit (even if it is diamonds). In ACBLand you cannot play transfer responses to an opening bid of 1♣ unless in Mid-Chart game / tournament unless the 1♣ opening is artificial and forcing with 15 or more hcp.

Thanks for the reply, I had never seriously considered Colin's idea for ACBL GCC games & tournaments because of its artificiality. It would be fun to play in Mid-Chart or A/AX events. I overlooked this from Colin's web page: "The last disadvantage is a thornier problem. The legality of the Toddler 2♦ in ACBL events seems to depend on who--and what time of day--you ask. One "solution" employed by many is to not play in ACBL events (ahem!). Another is to continue to petition the ACBL to permit any and all constructive methods. Our approach is to clear matters with a director before entering any ACBL event. Our experience is that most directors are very reasonable here."

I have tried Fit Jumps and hidden singletons and Hardy Raises and Bergen Raises but am unhappy with all of them in a limited 5-card Major Opening System (Precision). Any new ideas? Edited 10/20/12: Does anyone have experience with Siebert adjunct or Fit Jumps?

Interesting, Ken but RKC 1430 is hard enough for my many club partners. I don't think I will tell them about your idea(s). I gave up RKC with my tournament partner years ago. Now Kantar will have to revise his RKC book again! [6th ed. ?] Danny Kleinman self published a book on 100 RKC hands, it is in my libarary somewhere. Anyway, 50 bid by club players and 50 by experts and they both had accidents or used it incorrectly about the same amount, ~45% if I remember correctly. :ph34r:

Interesting, Ken but RKC 1430 is hard enough for my many club partners. I don't think I will tell them about your idea(s). :blink: I gave up RKC with my tournament partner years ago. Now Kantar will have to revise his RKC book again! :rolleyes: RKC: The Final, Final Word (6th edition, 2013?) - thanks to Ken

We don't have the 4-4 major problem because we do not open 2♣ with a side 4-cd major. However, Reese first proposed the transfer in Precision Bidding and Precision Play, 1981, ISBN 0-346-12501-4 (Paperback), Simon & Schuster, NY, Cornerstone Library: "2♦: Transfer to 2♥. Responder uses this bid freely when he has four hearts or more. Opener with a singleton heart and good clubs may spurn the transfer and bid 3♣. With a doubleton heart he will normally bid simply 2♥; responder who has only four hearts will then bid 2NT or advance in some other way. With three hearts and fair values opener will make a forward more of some kind. With four hearts opener will jump to 3♥."

, I have played 2♦ and 2 ♥ as conditional transfers for over 3 years now (in response to a Precision 2♣ opener). The 2♣ opener accepts the transfer with xx or better in the suit indicated by the transfer. Opener with 0-1 cards of the suit shown by the transfer bids 2NT if maximum or 3♣ if minimum. Responder with invitational hands or better knows what to do after hearing the opener's response to the transfer. Downside: With both partners minimum and no fit, you might get too high, 3♣. Thus, opener might want to have a good ♣ suit for the 2♣ opener. It is unclear if this is an ACBL GCC allowable treatment / convention.

OK Math majors and Statistical savy posters and conscientious objectors: DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT THAT ALLOWS ONE TO DISCERN STATISTICALLY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BIDDING, DECLARER PLAY, DEFENSE, LUCk and OPENING LEAD and whatever else you want to ascertain (and maybe System). I assume you are familiar with the Book this thread is based on and Richard Pavlicek's web page: http://www.rpbridge.net/rpme.htm

Thanks for all the constructive comments, especially data by bridgebrowser analysis. Here is a comment from the book to confound any conclusions or analysis: When opening 1NT, Fantoni sometimes passes 11 or 12 hcp hands when vulnerable while Nunes will open the same hands 1NT. {pg. 99-100). [8/9/12 Paraphrased]

Yep, there is always an exception and this is one. [Rethinking my system with a side Jxxx suit - it could be a minor instead of hearts.]

Yes, Fantunes played more than 2700 hands on BBO, what I posted was 2723 hands that they opened the bidding on. WHY THEY WIN as I understand the book did the analysis you propose - yes it is a small sample, and probably is not statistically significant, but both books present knowledge that is food for thought. So, who has better information / data to present that would cause those of us who are mathematically / statistically minded to consider other explanations?

Wow, I don't know what is going on here, I just posted interesting summaries of two recent books that do more than provide anecdotal evidence to support their conclusions and you suggest I am defensive and emotional. Justin, you are taking offense where none is intended. I was just pointing out that you dissed my posting and assumed what my intent was without providing any constructive criticism or data to discount Bill Jacobs book's conclusion. I did not present my own opinions and therefore there was no logic to criticize.

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.

1♣ (16+) - 3♥ (Semi-solid 6-cd transfer or better) Sorry, I posted after driving home from a Regional last night. Bids @ the 3-level are TRANSFERS into the next higher suit, so the above auction shows Spades.

♠: KQJT92 ♥: JT72 ♦: 5 ♣: A3 ♠: A5 ♥: AK63 ♦: J63 ♣: KQJ5 Newly Revised Copious Canape Club bidding of this 6-4-1-2 hand: 1♣ (16+) - 3♥ (Semi-solid 6-cd transfer or better) - 3♠ (asking for controls outside suit) - 4♣ (has-to-be-the ace) - 4♦ (old Precision CAB) - 5♣ (4 steps = 1) - 6♠ - - - If dummy has 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 clubs, there are NO ♥ losers! (Note for semi-solid and better suits we give up finding exact distribution.)

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

Keylime and I are auditing our Copious Canape Club System, C3, for improvements and the question of switching from Beta to AKQ points has been suggested for slam exploration. I have no experience with AKQ points (other than reading The Ultimate Club) and I am concerned that the switch would be difficult to accomplish. I prefer to readjust the Beta responses (1-2, 3, 4, 5 controls, etc). We solicit comments and suggestions from those who have experience playing either scheme. Thanks. Note: Currently use Turbo and Denial cue bidding.

I have been Unit 165 President for 2 years and am now involved in Youth Bridge Teaching. Our Unit also has a strong Easy Bridge Teaching Series run by others. We are able to interest some from both programs in trying duplicate bridge at some of the more social games. A new program is to have social bridge players attend for a few free lessons on duplicate. Jillybean, what exactly do you want to know? There are lots of teaching resources out there and I know about most of them, so ask away or e-mail me. Larry

Surely you jest about Blue Club in today's bridge environment ... 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. I am amazed at all the negative comments ...

Just received this book today from Amazon, Fantunes Revealed, 2012 by Bill Jacobs. Also available from Master Point Press in paper back or e-book. The author plays an adaptation of FANTUNES with a slightly reduced level of complexity. 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. {MY} CONCLUSION: Superior card play [both by declarer and the defenders - 7/26] accounted for just over {half} {57%} of the IMPs won, while superior bidding (bidding judgment & system) accounted for {under half} {42%} of the IMP gains. [Edited 7/26/12] {Edited 8/14/12 @ 3 pm EDT for better clarity}

I would ask a different question for playing such a 1♦ opening: Can responder limit his hand so that opener's rebids do not get us too high? My answer (playing such a 1♦ opening with two partners): 1♥ = Usually 4 or more ♥, may have longer ♠, may be very weak with 3♥ and 0-2 ♦ 1♠ = denies 4♥ and less than invitational values (limit raise) 1NT = 6-9 hcp 2♣ = 0-9 hcp and 9 cards or more in the minors: Pass or correct 3♣ = 10-11 hcp (LR) and 9 cards or more in the minors: G.I. 2♦ = LR with or without a 4-cd major or ♦ support 2♥/♠ = G.I. playable opposite a singleton trump 2NT = G.F. asking for singleton or void 3NT = To play Opener's rebids: 1NT = balanced or 4441 with 1 in responder's suit 2♣ or 2♦ = 5 or 6 in the minor and 4 in the other major

Yes, I do #1 to an extreme, but #2 is the stumbling block despite my 10,000 hours at the table. Perhaps too much intuition on defense and not pausing for thought at the tipping point in defense.