Jinksy

Likewise, I think it takes a bit of getting used to, but not so much as to make it wildly impractical. If you think their theory is poor that's another question, but it seemed much more reliable than LoTT to me. That said, they don't seem to overlap as much as much as Mike Lawrence claims. LoTT seems like a decent approximation when you don't have much info, and don't have strength/room to convey it. Lawrence's approach seems to work better when you have the relevant info (and is more relevant for constructive bidding). I suspect a decent part of the reason for the law's relative success is better marketing by Cohen and Bergen, who never seem to shut up about it, and are incapable of writing it in lower case (to my consternation as well as whereagles'), not to mention came up with a much catchier name. Also, while they're overly ebullient (at least to us restrained British folks), Lawrence comes across as being unnecessarily spiteful in his criticism, which probably didn't do him any favours.

I believe the only two expert/advanced books in that series are Bridge with the Blue Team and Adventures in Card Play. So yeah - when you're at Forquet's level, you're allowed to stop calling yourself an intermediate. Someone should notify the BBO population.

Interesting read :) I'm not at all shocked that Mike Lawrence hates them - they basically seem to turn on what you think of the LoTT. Has anyone reviewed Lawrence's anti-Law books on these forums, btw? I read it recently and it became one of my favourite bridge books, so if not, I should write something.

I opted for 2♣ at the table, though still don't have strong feelings. My objection to 1N is that, while it might not theoretically promise a stop, this being MPs, I don't want the opps to be able to run 5 tricks against us in 1N and then find they have another somewhere if we could make 2♣+1 or 2♠=, esp if P has Kx or similar in Ds. I dislike pass for the reasons given, but still wonder if it isn't the pro-% MP action, given that a) I think a ♠ contract has highest expectation of the partials, b) if a partial is our limit any bid risks getting us too high or to a worse-scoring denomination and c) by my estimate about 7/8 of the time P will only have as much as 15 points, in which case I don't really want to be in game.

Just edited the OP, but to clarify for those who've already commented, this was a pickup partnership on BBO, with no discussion about rebid style (although P was from the US).

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5hkj84d763cj76&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp1sp]133|200[/hv] What now? [ETA] - pick up partnership on BBO, with no agreements on rebid style.

Do you have commentary on the play of the hand anywhere? I played it in a stupor and made 7N, but don't know if I deserved to.

Am I doing something stupid? All forums claim to only have one page, as do lists of users posts when I look at their profiles. Presumably older posts are still there, but how do I see them?

Yeah, I guess I mentally class 64nn as single suit, which doesn't help for the explanation (I've corrected it in the OP now, thanks). Re those suits, I'd expect opener to bid neither under most circumstances. Jxxx isn't much of a suit for slam purposes, and 4 of the points in AQx will probably get cued at some stage.

Unless they've changed it drastically it would be the only systemic bid for a 12-14 4441, though I suspect they liberally upgrade 14 counts and somewhat less liberally downgrade 12 counts on it.

Naturally - after 3m, higher 3-level bids show a 4(or 5) card suit. It's not very precise for slam bidding, but I've found I peeled more and more slam-hunting sequences back in favour of better game (and occasionally part score) bidding.

The difference is that the opening bids are forcing. Perhaps I needn't have asked, but having done so now it would be daft to ignore their response.

Like I said, I sought advice directly from the EBU on this. That's what they told me.

Ok, then I think we agree that it's a downside, except I don't think it's a big a downside as you say. It essentially randomises the results, and I have no evidence or strong sense about whose favour it does so in. So did your P. That means (unlike it first), the opps could still have game or even slam on, whereas your side can all but rule out either. I would say you're about equally as likely to preempt P with a 'fairly precise' 10-13 opening when that hand could be eg 5134, 7222, 5350, 7132 etc (for us it could also include the other major, so could be 5521, though you might not want to focus on that case if you'd prefer to focus on more typical Fantunes variants).

In first seat that's a Fantunes 2-bid and a SAYC 1-bid. In third seat it's still a Fantunes 2-bid and a SAYC 1-bid. Maybe we agree? I can't make sense of what you've written. As for reduced cost:benefit ratio of preempting in third seat, that seems to fly against all received wisdom. Yes you're only preempting one opp, but he's likely to be the stronger one, and meanwhile you've lost the risk of preempting yourself out of game (or slam).

Not sure why you conclude this. For one thing, Fantunes 2-bids in third are wide ranging. They basically just tell P you're not interested in game - so can be 0-13ish and IMO should be near identical to third seat 'weak 2s' (given that the latter also become wider ranging with a higher top end, and frequently a 5 card suit)). The differences are only that we have one more of them, and hand 3 above and similar will also be included in them. I would say if anything you're at a slight disadvantage over regular 2/1 slam hunters since opener has so much wider a possible range (as does a 1N responder, and to a lesser degree a responder who 2/1s). I find it more useful in competition, where responder can be more optimistic after an overcall, eg bidding games on most 10 counts, whereas an SAYC (or worse yet Acol) opener with a 15ish count might have a tough decision about showing their extra values (although this advantage would go if they used my variant). It has a slight benefit for finding games when you're just shy of a 2♣ opener and P isn't good enough to respond to a normal 1-bid, or similarly when in a natural system you'd have to open a dubious 2N to get your values across. None of these really change opposite a passed hand. Well yeah - that's the gap I'm trying to shrink. Like I say, I don't really have a view on whether it's at a comparative advantage. I think the preemptive 2♣ is a moderate gain and not being able to open light is a moderate loss, hopefully now a smallish loss.

My reference for this is an email correspondence with one of the primary EBU laws people (I can't remember who now, though could prob find it out if of interest), where I asked much these questions. From memory, the answer to each of them is: 'what makes a system different from another' - judgement rather than science. It typically needs to be systemically different, rather than have a couple of tweaks. In his view, Fantunes counted as different to standard primarily because of the forcing 1-bids. 'light openings in third seat must be legal in UK (since you want to play it) and I guess different responses by a passed hand is legal too (since you play Drury)' - yeah, both legal (well, we have different levels, but both level 4 legal IIRC, which means in practice most of the time you can play it) 'Is it legal to play a different NT-range in third seat in the UK?' - yep Given that, I think both your examples would be illegal :huh: The exception was playing 7+ board rounds (and I'm guessing level 5, where almost anything non-highly-unusual goes), where system switching would be allowed.

Re Kungsgeten: Playing a different system in third is illegal in most UK events (where I live), otherwise that would be a sensible alternative. I used to think regular Fantunes was distinctly inferior to standard systems in third seat - after several gains from opening a wide-ranging 2C I'm not so sure now, although I still suspect it of matching up poorly fourth in. Re Free: I agree to some extent about hand 3 (would like to have the option, but won't miss it too much, hence not allowing for it). I don't agree about hand 2 - a weak NT puts pressure on opps in first and, to a lesser degree second, but in third it's much easier for them to scramble to a fit and somewhat easier for them to penalise you. In 4th (which this system is also meant for), it seems to lose pretty much all of its value. In the long run any hand on which you think 1N might keep them out of their part score or make on the lead is just as well passed, at least inasmuch as my judgement can discern such hands. I think it does very little harm to game bidding - ie when opener would have a Fantunes 1-bid anyway. If P responds at the one level, system is unchanged; if he responds 2♦ and you have game interest you can find out how many cards he has in support below 3M (where we'd play opposite a normal hand); and you gain some precision by the negative inferences from having not opened a 14-16 NT. You might lose a tiny bit of precision for slam-hunting, but you still can get extremely high definition on P's hand type after a forcing enquiry of some kind - and a slam-seeking hand opposite a passed hand is very rare anyway. That only leaves the hands you'd otherwise have passed, so it seems like free money in constructive auctions. I think the main loss comes from P not being able to rely on you for a full opener when 4th hand bids, but I bid perhaps a few dozen sequences like this while testing the sequence out and it might have cost one or two part scores (and gained significantly more in return), otherwise I don't think it had any major adverse swings.

What would you guess is/are the primary gain(s) of it over a regular Stayman system (assuming both being used for a weak NT)? (I'd be interested to compare a few hands dealt with just the most salient criteria, and see how they play out with me bidding opposite myself) Btw, why not 1N 2♥ / 2N to show the 4441 after the xfer? That gives you room to find where the shortage is reliably, which unless I'm missing something, you don't have room to do otherwise.

Do you think it (or some subsection of it) fits the Fantunes 1N well? Or are you just offering it as a complete NT package that you think works well with any NT opening? If the former, can you explain why? I'm not too concerned about 4441s - I've yet to see a hand where any such distribution has obviously led us to the wrong contract, and I must have practiced on hundreds, possibly thousands of NT opening hands by now. Much more frequently, in the Keri-derived system I used before this, not being able to safely find out about 4-4 (or occasionally 5-4) major suit fits cost us a game/hoping for one caused us to bid to a poor NT contract. Also at matchpoints, Garbage Stayman is pretty much essential for us - without it we'll often miss the 5-4 major part scores the rest of the room is playing in.

I have a couple of recurring complaints playing Fantunes when sitting third in: 1) with such as KJxx KQTx xx xxx I'd like to be able to open 1H for lead (without P driving me on to game/doubling aggressively if the opps get involved). 2) with such as QJxx KQ Jxxx KJxx I'd like to be able to open, but don't want to bid a weak NT and have P raise me to 2, or get doubled (esp vul) by a powerful hand on my left. 3) with such as KQxxx Qxx Axxx x I'd like to be able to open at the one level and find our best fit when the part score is ours. So I spent a while trying to modify the system for third and fourth seat openings. With what I've come up with, you'd still do better out of such hands playing a normal system (esp on hand type 3, which I haven't really satisfied myself about), but I've at least been able to give a few options: 1♣ is still full strength (in fact stronger, since the 1N range has changed. If balanced, it's now 17+) 1♦♥♠ can now all be arbitrarily weak, so long as you have enough tolerance to pass any natural call P might make. 1N is now 14-16 bal. 2-bids are unchanged (ie very wide ranging in 3rd) P of course assumes in competition that you have a weak hand. In constructive auctions, these bids are still F1. If P responds at the one level (inc 1N), raises your suit or bids 2♣ over 1♦ or 2♥ over 1♠, any call other than pass promises a full strength Fantunes 1-bid, and system is still on. *** After a 1M opening, we have two Druryesque bids: 2♣ shows 10-11 points with 2 cards in your suit* 2♦ shows 9-11 points with 3 or more cards in your suit * The key here is that with a singleton and this point range, P would normally have opened a Fantunes 2-bid. With a misfitting 4441 and 10-11, he has to content himself with a semi-forcing 1N response. *** After 1M 2♣, opener's 2 of a new suit is to play (inc after a reverse!), and responder should almost always pass. With 4♣ and a min balanced, opener will pass. This guarantees a 4-3 or better fit unless responder is exactly 5422 with doubletons in both opener's suits. After 1M 2♦, bidding can be fairly natural, obv with 2M as a hard sign-off, though you might have 2N as a forcing enquiry since opener is still unlimited and responder has a narrow range of hands. *** Anything else is fairly flexible. For eg, after 1♠ 2♥ / should opener's 2♠ rebid be GF? I actually ended up thinking it should be NF inv (opener would have opened 2♠ with a weak hand, is guaranteed 2-card support, and can force with various higher bids if he so chooses). So on the hands above 1) can open 1H, planning to pass 1♠ or 1N, pull 2♣ to 2♠(!), or 2♦ to 2♥. 2) can choose: a 1♠ opening (planning to pass 1♠ or 1N, or pull 2♣ to 2♦) a 1♦ opening, planning to pass any response Possibly your answer would depend on the form of scoring. 3) doesn't really have its problems solved - with this shape it could open 1♠ planning to pull 2♣ to 2♦, but that might land you in a 4-3 rather than a 5-2, and possibly worse, you'd have to pass p's 1N. I would probably still just open it 2♠.

Where could I see it? I would be wary of using any 2♣ bid that partitioned opener's rebids less evenly or less naturally than Stayman, since I've found Garbage Stayman an invaluable part of the system here.

I've been meaning to post this for a while - my second attempt at putting together a suitable system for the Fantunes 1N. General observations: There's nothing wildly original about any part of the system, but it's put together with a few salient characteristics of the Fantunes 1N in mind, so hoped it would interest other Fantunes players: 1) that opener has a wide enough set of hand shapes to make asking bids relatively better than shape-showing bids by opener (this is why we ditched our original Keri system) 2) that unusually in our version, opener can have either 5-4 or 2-2 in the majors (this was originally a big worry for me, but I spent several hours testing out deals on BBO and didn't find any where it seemed to do any harm at IMP scoring) 3) that (as with weak NT in general), game-hunting is more important than slam hunting, hence several NF bids after a Stayman response 4) if in doubt about which options are most useful, I've tried to keep it simple 5) that we largely ignore the possibility of P having a singleton in our suit. Also couldn't fit the single-suited minor invites of our Keri system, and some of the rightsiding. Can't have everything <_< Anyway, onto a more detailed summary of the bids: 2♣ = regular Stayman, though with 5-4 in the majors, opener should bid his longest first, since this will be Garbage Stayman relatively often 2♦♥ = regular Xfers. Slam-seeking single-suiters will only go via these if they can splinter afterwards. With 5-5 in the majors gf and no slam interest, you bid 2♦ 2♠ = range finder, inv (with no 4cM) or slam interest 2NT = GF 5 card Stayman (details completely ripped off from MickyB other than the 3♦ response* and major inversions, though I think he took it from Meckwell?) 3♣♦♥ = nat, slam try (with no shortage if in ♥s) 3♠ = GF with 5-5 in the minors 3N, 4♣♦♥♠ all to play (ie preemptive for minors) After 2♣ 2♦: 2M is to play 2N invites 3♣ to play 3♦ doesn't exist atm 3♥ NF inv with 5-5 in the majors 3♠ single suited game try (no shortage) After 2♣ and a 2M response, 3m is to play, the cheapest oM bid is a slam try in ♠s, others are what you'd expect. After xfers most bids are standard meaning, except after 2♦2♥/ 2♠ is nat inv+, then: 2N, 3♥, 3♠ are natural mins 3m is an accept with a ♥/♠ fit Then responder's 3♠ is 5-5 gf, allowing you to stay below 3N when opener has 22. After 2♠ (range-finder): 2N is any min 3♣ is max no 5cM 3♦ is max with 5♥s 3♥ is max with 5♠s After 2N (5 card Stayman): 3♣ just denies a 5cM (more below) 3♦ shows (54)22 3♥ shows 5♠s 3♠ shows 5♥s After higher responses, bidding is natural. Finally, after 2N 3♣, 3♦ forces 3♥, after which responder bids 3♠/3N to show 31(45)/13(45) * This was non-existent for MickyB last I heard, but nicely filled a gap for us that he doesn't have :P

Given the above responses, the hands I'm uncertain of or surprised by the responses to are 4 and 5. On 5), I didn't anticipate the X doing much good. It feels like there's a decent risk P will pass and we'll take them for 3-800 with 6-2200 available our way. If we had some decent system after the X it would gain more, since we'd have space to explore, but in an individual tournament I doubt we'll be able to confidently use the space. To me, 5♣ was a workman's bid, probably showing a void, and asking P to bid something sensible (which I planned to respect). I defer to the consensus, but would like to hear more about why double on a void is so popular here. Would anyone's answer be different at different vul, where P would be more likely to pass? On 4), I was N, and was really stuck for a bid after 3♦. I agree with everyone that 5♥ should show 5-5, but it seemed like a lesser evil than bidding 3N, which could easily have no play on the obvious ♣ lead, and feels unlikely to be a good game if P doesn't have some extras for her GF and/or a club fragment too. Disregarding slam auctions for a moment, if P has 3♥s and nothing in ♣s, I expect the Moyesian to play as well or better (give P something like her actual hand without the K♦. With something in ♣s and a ♠ fragment, P might well bid a nebulous 3♠, after which I can bid 3N better (I think) expressing unease about my own ♣ stop. Or, with a really good ♦ suit, she might occasionally pass my direct 3N when my controls might make 5♦ a better game. For slam purposes I'm more worried about overemphasising my Hs, but I might be able to suggest Ds or pull to NT further down the line.

(Individual, IMP scoring) 1) [hv=pc=n&s=s765hk98432d74caj&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1dp1sp2dpp]133|200[/hv] Do you protect? 2) [hv=pc=n&s=s84ha9432dj53cat3&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1nppp]133|200[/hv] What do you lead? (this isn't meant to be a trick question - 8 months ago I would have reached for a ♥ without thinking, but Bird and Anthis's book left me really uncertain on this kind of hand) 3) [hv=pc=n&e=sk8643h65dt2ck754&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1h2dp3d3h3sp5dpp]133|200[/hv] Do you X? Would you have Xed when the bidding first reached you? 4) [hv=pc=n&s=sa2hj76dakj742ckq&n=st9875hakq4d63cat&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2dp2hp3dp3hp3sp3np6nppp]266|200[/hv] Right place, but I suspect not the most sensible route. Starting from the top down, which bids would you change, and to what? 5) [hv=pc=n&n=sak98hk842dakq32c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp3c]133|200[/hv] How would you rank X, 4C, 5C, other?