A choice of three continuations

[Jinksy]

So I'm just seeking a show of hands/explanation of preferences here. If you were to play 1C openings as 14+ natural distributional/15+ balanced (unlimited either way), what basic continuations would you pick?

[Free]

looks like a fantunes opening. I've played 1♦ as 0-9 with 4+♥ or GF with exactly 5♥. This worked very well without having to adjust anything of their standard structure, so I'd advise that. I voted 4+♥ 0+HCP.

[benlessard]

Hs or inv(semi pos) or GF bal. This may seems to overload 1D but it lead to highly efficient others responses. By getting all the semi pos hands out early you get very nice auctions since opener doesnt need to worry about showing extras or asking for strenght. GF bal can be elsewhere but since they are "competition safe" I prefer to let opener describe his hand at a low level.

[mgoetze]

This surely depends on how much work you are willing to put into developing your system and how much you and your partner are going to be able to memorize. Theorizing about what must be optimal if you had unlimited time to develop a system which is going to be played by 2 computers is kind of stupid.

 

If I were dead-set on playing a Fantunes style system I would start by trying to reverse-engineer the actual Fantunes system (fortunately djneill has already done much of this) and see if I can get it to work. Even if I later decided to scrap parts of it and rewrite I would then have a much better understanding of the issues involved.

 

However, personally I don't consider the Fantunes framework so sexy that I would be willing to invest such huge amounts of time.

[Jinksy]

looks like a fantunes opening. I've played 1♦ as 0-9 with 4+♥ or GF with exactly 5♥. This worked very well without having to adjust anything of their standard structure, so I'd advise that. I voted 4+♥ 0+HCP.

 

It is. My big issue with their continuations is you either have to have umpteen conventions or (/and in their case, as far as I can see from Neil's stuff) you often have to jump around opposite a P with 0+ points. I don't mind bidding high on fits when the opps might own the hand, but doing so when I'm fairly confident *we* do seems pointless.

 

This surely depends on how much work you are willing to put into developing your system and how much you and your partner are going to be able to memorize.

 

Sure... that's a prominent factor. It's one of a few though, so I don't just want 'simplest system' or 'most complex system below the threshold of too complicated' as my decision algorithm.

[Free]

It is. My big issue with their continuations is you either have to have umpteen conventions or (/and in their case, as far as I can see from Neil's stuff) you often have to jump around opposite a P with 0+ points. I don't mind bidding high on fits when the opps might own the hand, but doing so when I'm fairly confident *we* do seems pointless.

Don't play Fantunes if you're looking for a theoretically sound system. B-)

[Jinksy]

I've never bought the concept of 'theoretically sound' bidding. There are far too many variables, and I'm not even sure what it implies testing for.