Jinksy

What's GBK?

[hv=pc=n&w=sqjt42hakq86dj65c&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=5c]133|200[/hv] Pick your poison at a) MPs b) IMPs (vote as though it's MPs)

Ah, sorry. I'll experiment with it when I have some time. My instinct is that this won't solve the problem - if the hand comes back to responder at the four level (esp 4Ss), the difference between a balancedish hand with 4Hs, a distributional hand with 7ish broken Hs, or a distributional hand with 5+H/5+other is drastic, with plenty of room for 1-card differences to play very differently. Bidding 7-point hands at the two level would worry me - I suspect it wouldn't go too wrong much of the time, but semibalanced hands (esp 5431s and 5422s) seem like they could cause frequent headaches. I realise I'm being fairly negative here, though - Zel, what would you expect the main advantages of your approach?

I'm choosing between high and low D - if a S was setting this, P might have found a 1-level overcall. Probably going with AD to avoid blocking the suit/catch doubleton honour/give myself an outside chance of a killing switch if P discourages and I haven't already blown the defence. The GF 3♣ worries me since if their lower bids would have been artificial, it seems like there might be negative inferences available that we're not informed of. I'm assuming they had an invite of some kind available if they wanted it?

Ah, I think you're not familiar with the Fantunes openings? 1C is nat or balanced, about a king stronger than normal (or a queen stronger, depending on your exact flavour) and forcing for at least one round - so the 0-6 hands also have to find a way to express themselves - or at least keep the auction alive.

I went for the A♣ (at MPs). I figured if P had them it might give us an outside chance of setting the contract if he had such as QTxxx and someone had Kx or if someone had Jx and he could somehow muster an outside entry. If he didn't have them, it looked relatively unlikely to blow a trick.

Zel - my immediate concern about that scheme is the chance of an aggressive 4th seat bid doing serious damage to your auction. Here's a common sort of problem hand from when I was putting these together: Ax KJxx KQxx QJx vs x AQxxxx Jxx Axx N opens unfav: 1C P 1D 2S P 3S/4S ? Or, same auction, give S - ATxxx Axx KTxxx I found that if the distributional GFs with Hs didn't reveal a decent amount of detail on their first bid, they often found themselves under heavy pressure with their second.

Can’t load your link – the link html seems to have truncated along with the displayed string. (ETA - never mind, I remembered how Google works) I’ve heard of them, but not played them (though I might have come across examples of them when I was looking across various C response systems beforehand). I wouldn’t want to make drastic changes now though anyway, even if I was sure they were clearly better, since I’m playing it with three partners, none of whom are natural system-heads – and I would be fairly confident this would average as well or better as most of the continuation styles I looked at, if only because of the part score gains (it would prob suffer at Rubber or total points).

I've never heard of IMprecision (to the extent that I was thinking about renaming our system that, after all the changes. Arrrgh, damn the curs who stole my moniker! *cough* Anyway, if it's a strong C system, I know my dad spent a while trying to fit some responses to it, but found that the wider range was more fiddly than he'd expected. It also cost him a lot of major part scores. I don't know the details of the former issue though.

I think they're identical to those given for v1 - it's only in extended naturalish GF sequences that the limitation on H length matters. I had a look at 2-major options this when I was playing with v2, and couldn't find a configuration I was happy with. Those hands are generally much easier to bid than the H hands when they do come up (and the 5S 4H subinv hands are too rare opposite an opener this strong to be worth sacrificing a useful bid for, I found). I'd be interested to hear a wider view of how you'd rejig.

I know it's rare, but it was a major problem bidding these hands in V1, and the 1N bid frequently wrongsided the final 3N contract. I've spent quite a while bidding with myself on BBO (did I admit that out loud?) after 1♣ 2m sequences, and found that they're not nearly as difficult as I'd worried they might be. Obviously I make life harder on some hands, but after 2♦, we know we either have a great fit or opener is balanced which makes life relatively easy, and after 2♣, given that we know responder is unbalanced or super-GF, we normally have plenty of room to sort out our strain and consider slamhunting below 3N, so long as we have some well-defined follow-ups. I didn't include those, since they're not really settled yet and not wildly exciting. The logic of having lower bids be more frequent largely drove v1. The changes in v2 were largely driven by the ways in which I found other considerations more compelling than maximally efficient communication after playing v1 for a while. As I say, I'm far from convinced v2 is better, but I like it more so far.

Woops. The first one was an error (corrected). The second is to avoid wrongsiding 3N when, on that responsive hand (relatively weak with little to offer in the majors), it's highly likely to be the final contract.

Version 2 After 1♣ (~ means boundary falls between Milton-Work values) Responses up to 1♠ are similar to above: 1♦ 0-4 HCP or 4-5 hearts, continuations as above. 1♥ 4+ spades, 5+ points 1♠ - no 4cM 5-9 pts (except 7-9 with 6+ clubs); or 13+ bal, no 4cM Meanwhile, the higher responses to 1♣ have changed significantly: _ 1N = 6+♥, 5+ points _ 2♣ = 5+♦ 10+ points (if 10-12, unbalanced) _ 2♦ = 5+♣ 10+ points (if 10-12, unbalanced) _ 2M = 6+M, ~5-8~ points _ 2N = 5♥ 5♦ GF _ 3♣ = (still) 7-9, 6+♣ _ 3♦ = 5♥ 5♣ GF _ 3M = 10-12 balanced, 3M (with no 4cM) ----- _ After 1♣ 1♦ (0-4 points any shape or 4+hearts, 5+ points): __ 1♥ = 4 hearts bal or 3+♥s unbal or any 19+ NGF (except 23-24 bal) __ 2♦ = any GF (except 5 suit 6 clubs) __ 2M = 5M6♣, F1 __ 2N = 23-24 bal __ 3♣ = 18-20 points 6+ clubs, 3 hearts After 1♣ 1N (6+♥, 0-~5 or ~8+ points) opener assumes the weak hand, thus: _ 2♣ = to play, large ♣/♥ discrepancy _ 2♦ = F1 enquiry _ 2♥ = to play _ 2♠ = nat, forcing to 3C (if only inv, should have 6 good ♣s or 2+♥s) _ 2N = inv with ♣s and no ♥ tolerance _ 3♣ = nat inv, with ♥ tolerance _ 3♦ = splinter _ 3♥ = balanced GF __ After 1♣ 1♦ / 1♥ (4 hearts bal or 3+heartss unbal or any 19+ NGF (except 23-24 bal): ___ 1♠ = 0-4 points, <4 hearts ___ 1N = 0-4 points, 4 hearts ___ 2♣ = 0-4 points, 5 hearts ___ 2♦ = 8+ points, 4+hearts ___ 2♥ = 5-7 points, 4-5 hearts ___ 2N = 4 hearts 4 spades, bal GF ___ others naturalish GF After 1♣ 1♥ / 1♠ ___ 1N = ~9+ points, 4+♥ or 6+♠ ___ 2♣ = (still) 5-9 with 4-5♠ and <4♥ ___ 2♥ = ~5-9~ with 5+♠ 4+♥ ___ 2♠ = 0-5 ___ others = (still) naturalish, 10+ points After 1♣ 1N / 2♦ (F1 enquiry): __ 2♥ = 0-3~ points __ 2♠ = ~3-5 points __ 2N = ~8+ points, ♣ tolerance __ 3♣ = ~8+ points 6+♥, 4+♣ __ others ~8+ points, nat, no ♣ tolerance After 1♣ 2m, most continuations are natural, but the next step is a dustbin bid whose exact nature is still under review. *** With both versions, the general idea is to be able to stop lower than in Jfan or Ofan when responder is very weak (though a big reason for not playing the latter is its great complexity, + some unexplained or inconsistent-seeming sequences), and to be able to describe your shape on strong hands at (slightly) lower levels. The reason for all the H-showing bids is to defend against 1♣ P 1♦ (competition), which seem to damage your auction most when responder has a distributional GF. Both versions have elements I dislike (the wide range of 'intermediate' 6M hand in V1 and the difficulty of continuations after 2N and 3♦ in V1; in V2 the occasional hassle of continuations after 2m and the occasional difficulty of finding the right contract after 3M), but I'm pretty happy with both overall.

The 1♣ opening bid seems by far the most common in the Fantunes system, so it's nice to have a detailed set of responses. I started out using Gerben's (I'll refer to this as Gfan), since Jacob's book (Jfan) wan't out at the time. We got frustrated by frequent wrongsiding and part score imprecision, though, but I've never been a fan of Fantunes' own (Ofan) way of showing strength by leaping around, which Jfan seems to duplicate. It seems to leave very strong hands with no easy way of showing themselves, and sometime eat up a level of bidding to little obvious gain. I developed the first of these two systems as a sort of compromise. The second is really just v1.something (but I'll call it version 2), changing the less frequent bids to reduce the need for rare artificial sequences and make certain ♥y hand types easier for responder to bid - I believe it's slightly better and slightly easier to learn, though I'm not yet that confident of either claim. Anyway, I've spent a lot of time working on them (whereas the rest of my system is more or less a carbon copy of Gerben's, albeit without the 11-point 1M bids), so thought I might as well share the common sequences here for comment, criticism, questions or anyone thinking of adopting the system to try out if they're interested: (I'm not sure how best to lay this out? Everyone I've showed it to seems to have conflicting preferences... apologies if it's hard to read) After 1♣ Version 1 _ 1♦ = 0-4 points any shape or 4+♥s, 5+ points _ 1♥ - 4+♠, 5+ pts, if 6+ ♠s will be GF (so 2S rebid over anything but 1N shows a full GF) _ 1♠ - no 4cM 5-9 pts (except 7-9 with 6+Cs); or 13+ bal, no 4cM _ 1N - 5+♦, 10+ points unbal; _ 2♣ - 5+♣, 10+ pts, gf _ 2♦ - "multi", 6+M, 0-5 pts or 10-12 bal with no 4cM, paradox responses _ 2M - 6+M, 6-9 pts _ 2N - gf 7+♥, broken suit _ 3♣ - 6+♣, 7-9 points _ 3♦ - 5/5 ♥/m, gf _ 3M - gf, semi-solid sets suit *** _ After 1♣ 1♦ (0-4 points any shape or 4+♥s, 5+ points): __ 1♥ = 4♥s bal or 3+♥s unbal or any 19+ NGF (except 23-24 bal) __ 2♦ = any GF (except 5suit6♣) __ 2M = 5M6♣, F1 __ 2N = 23-24 bal __ 3♣ = 18-20 points, 3♥s __ After 1♣ 1♦ / 1♥ (4♥s bal or 3+♥s unbal or any 19+ NGF (except 23-24 bal): ___ 1♠ = 0-4 points, <4♥ ___ 1N = 0-4 points, 4♥ ___ 2♣ = 0-4 points, 5♥ ___ 2♦ = 8+ points, 4+♥ ___ 2♥ = 5-7 points, 4-5♥ ___ 2N = 5+♥ 4+♠, GF ___ others naturalish GF _ After 1♣ 1♥ (4+♠ 5+ pts, GF if 6+ ♠): __ 1♠ = any GF, others naturalish __ Others naturalish After 1♣ 1♥ / 1♠ (any GF): ___ 1N = 5+♠, 4+♥s, 10+ points ___ 2C = 4-5♠, <4 ♥s, 5-9 points ___ 2H = 5+♠, 4+♥s, 5-9 points ___ Others naturalish, 10+ points Version 2 to follow in second post.

You hold KQ87xx KJTxx xx - MPs, love all, second in. Right opens 3C. Your call?

How would you bid it in nat, anyway? 3H over 3D looks pretty pushy to me, esp at MPs.

We play 3D as showing something like 18-20 with a good suit and three card support for P (I think it came from Gerben's version).

2C is what it says in the tooltip - either Cs, or any other 2 suits. We have no further info except the opps' bids and our hand to tell us which. If the opps had doubled, he would have XXed, passed or bid again to clarify. I don't understand your last question.

[hv=pc=n&w=sk754hj42daj7ca86&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n(12-14%2C%20may%20be%204441)d(pen)2c(either%20nat%20or%20any%20two%20suits%20excluding%20Cs)2n(natural%20%5Blittle%20old%20lady%5D)p3nppp]133|200[/hv] What do you lead at MPs? What do you lead at IMPs?

x AJ965 QJT987 x Favourable, MPs, second in. S bids 3S. What's your call? Does it affect your final decision if you've visibly tanked first?

xx AQTxxx xxx xx vs AKT Xx KQT986 Ax S is dealer, favourable, matchpoints. After a Fantunes 1D opening (unbalanced, 14+, F1) we play a jump to 2H as 0-5. So after 1D 1H / 2D 2H N has basically shown his hand. Do you bid again as opener? If so, do you accept an invite as N? At one other table I spoke to, playing a natural system, they reached game after 1D 1H / 3D 3H. I don’t know yet what the room did. In theory, 3D here is virtually identical to the Fantunes hand type that would have bid as above, perhaps with a fractionally better suit (else in natural you might rebid some number of NTs if P was covering your weak spot), so I’m not sure what happened here. Did the ‘naturals’ overbid and get lucky, or did they judge the hands better than us? Or was the difference just that being a level higher gave them slightly less to lose by bidding on, and that actually all our actions were sound?

I play a basic version of it. Xferring to the fourth suit is 'natural' (suggesting canape with good minor), since with 4SF you can xfer to 3N. It's never come up, but it's worked nicely every time it has.

I am very interested in advice when it's accompanied by an argument that involves some concept of expectation and either some generalizability of either hand type or reasoning to other hands, since that's how I can actually learn from it. Otherwise what am I supposed to do? Just nod and remember that if that exact hand ever comes up again in the exact sequence I'll have the majority's approval for making a specific call? I'm much less interested when I either don't get an argument, or it simply repeats points I've explicitly discussed earlier in the thread or, better but still less satisfying, it consists solely of a couple of 'what ifs' without addressing the whole set of plausible outcomes. Even then, if I can extrapolate some actual practical advice to take from it, I'll try to do so - for eg, as a result of heavy majority view in the 'sandwiched' thread, I'll be overcalling 1N after two bids on pretty much any balanced 16 count with requisite stoppers. In this thread, I’m still struggling to see what to take from it to other hands, but I guess I’ll be less keen to make penalty Xes against suit contracts without harder controls as well as well-placed honours. (I'm still chewing over Gnasher's comment, so hopefully I'll be able to modify my future decisions based on that) I would hope people here are reasonable enough to differentiate between me probing their claims and dismissing them out of hand. If you can't do so, why do you bother posting answers?

For similar reasons to ahydra, I like the AC after auction 2 (perhaps only if S had dealt and N was unlimitedish?) At the table, we had auction one, I'd fallen into a stupor and read it as auction 2 (also forgetting the pass). That was the contract shipped. On auction 1, and, when I wasn't feeling experimental/looking for swings, on auction 2 as well, I'd lead a D.

I don't call K9xxx 'semi-decent'. And I still don't understand what I'm trying to achieve by bidding here other than to prove that I've heard of fit non-jumps. This hand looks like a misfit. Just because the points are split doesn't mean I want to compete.