FANTUNES REVEALED by Bill Jacobs

[hrothgar]

YES! Precision is relatively similar to Neapolitan / BTC

 

This is laughable

 

I will readily admit that Blue Club and Precision both use a strong club opening, however, the two systems are light years apart

 

Blue Club uses

 

4 card majors

Canape

A strong Roman 2D opening

A wide ranging NT opening that shows either 16-17 HCP balanced OR 13-15 with 3=3=2=5 / 3=3=3=4 shape

 

Precision uses

 

5 card majors

a forcing NT response

a 13-15 point weak NT opening

A convention 2♦ opening showing short Diamonds

 

Oh yeah, about that "strong" club opening. The Blue Club opening is 2 HCP stronger than precision and uses control showing responses.

 

Oh yeah, even the auctions over limited openings look nothing alike

 

Compare an auction like

 

1H - 2C

2H - 2S

 

in Precision and Blue Club

 

Better yet, compare

 

1H - 2C

2H - 4D

 

In fact, when the Blue Team came out of retirement, ALL 3 PAIRS PLAYED PRECISION!

 

 

I think that this is more a tribute to C.C. Wei's willingness to write large checks than any similarity between the various systems

[JLOGIC]

Would you accept the following premise as likely to be right:

 

Bidding and Bidding judgement play on average a bigger role when the contract is different in a team match.

and as a corollary that card play will play on average a bigger role when the contract is the same?

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Yes, but you are forgetting randomness.

 

People often like to say that bidding swings X % of the imps in bridge, where x is very high. That is true, but it is often due to the randomness of system swings/bidding decisions in general. There is also randomness in cardplay like this (you could take a superior line and go down while they make, etc).

 

Playing weak NT will lead to a LOT of swings as opposed to strong NT for extremely random reasons. Not playing weak 2s when the field does will create a lot of swings randomly.

[JLOGIC]

No, I hadn't missed the discussion, it's just that I can't think of much to contribute.

 

I did some calculations that are accurate if BBO Archives and Excel are to be believed, and drew a couple of conclusions from the results. Nothing in this thread makes me want to back off from those conclusions, although I will admit that there are some points made here that I simply don't understand.

 

The analysis that I did is fairly important to me, because there are probably people in the world who are thinking: "Fantoni and Nunes are such great bridge players: think of what they could achieve if they played a normal system!" I am totally convinced that their system is one of the reasons for their greatness, rather than something that holds them back. Most of that belief stems from my own experiences with the system, for which I kept substantial statistical records that I chose not to publish in the book, although they can be found elsewhere on the internet if you are a REALLY good searcher :)

 

Cheers ... Bill

 

Bill,

 

The fact that you are a good player that has played their system and think it is a good system is a good argument that it is a good system. The fact that fantoni/nunes play it to the success they have had is evidence supporting that it is a good system. I have not read your book, but I'm sure you make some arguments based on your own logic/experience on why it is good both theoretically and in practice.

 

The problem is, you will be unable to prove with the statistics you have shown that it is a good system (and probably without a bigger sample of every scenario, unable to do that with any statistics).

 

I am glad to hear that the quote from the OP in this thread is not verbatim, because that would be ridiculous. If you said "approximately" rather than use exact numbers like 42 % and 57 %, ok.

 

But from my own personal point of view, I agree with han that it just weakens your argument. Even ignoring that bidding is largely tied in to cardplay (bashing vs science on marginal game hands, aggressive lead directing bids, etc), we have no way of knowing how to break down how much is won due to superior system vs superior judgement vs the superiority of just having agreements.

 

Regarding the last point, one advantage that full time players who play all the time together have is more agreements. Even if those agreements are inferior, simply knowing what your agreements are in as many spots as possible is not only useful, it's a big advantage over pairs who would not know what bids meant in many auctions. I have no doubt that fantunes benefit from this, as do all the top pairs.

 

So even if you could make the case that fantoni/nunes are winning this amount of imps over their competition in bidding, it does not mean that they have a superior system. I personally would bet on them to win imps with any reasonable system where they had a ton of agreements (to the point that they almost always had an advantage over their competition in that department), as well as their obviously great bidding judgement. SAYC base, 2/1 base, polish club base, strong club base, fantunes, strong diamond... I would be shocked if they weren't + in the bidding by your metric playing any of these... wouldn't you? So the fact that they are plus with fantunes on your metric does not mean anything wrt it being a good system, or to the argument that if they played a better known system that they would win more imps.

 

So when I see numbers/claims like this used to support any kind of argument like their system is good, or part of the reason they are so good, etc it really turns me off.

 

Unfortunately, it is unproveable if one system is better than another, or if their system is very good and they are winning imps from it. If I read a book from a good player who has played the system and says that in his experience it really IS a good system, and then a theoretical argument was laid out as well as anecdotal evidence (but not cherry picked, unbiased), that would do a lot for me.

 

That said, I'm sure the numbers will do something to convince a lot of people (including the OP). I guess that is what really turns me off, numbers like this really do fool a lot of people into thinking they are more than they are, and that more solid conclusions can be drawn from them than what really can be. To me it is a cheap gimmick used by politicians, in commercials, in the news, etc to further a point. The authors can always claim that they did not mean them to be taken so solidly and were just included as a point of interest, but I think you were trying to use them to support your case that fantunes was winning some imps due to their system, when in reality they did not do anything to support your claim logically and it is possible based on those numbers that they are either winning or losing imps due to their system, especially compared to better known systems, and that is a shame since many people will think they did. Your word and experience is a much better argument.

[Free]

For declarer play:

 

Let 4 computers bid 1000 hands. Then let different players declare the hands against the remaining 3 computers. Compare the results.

I would hope declarer can play his own cards from dummy.

[mike777]

Lost:

 

 

so in fact what are you saying?

[Gerben42]

Hi, if you want to try a GCC version of the Fantunes system, start here:

 

http://www.geocities.ws/gerben42/fantunes.html

 

The non-GCC parts are:

 

* Kaplan Inversion (which you can probably survive without)

* 1♣ - 2♠ showing 5+4+ minors, probably cannot sell that one as a raise. I guess you can respond 1NT with such hands too then you have 2♠ for something else.

* Opening 1NT with 11-13 HCP, 4441 and a small singleton: Well those hands are not THAT frequent so passing is fine. In fact with 11-12 I pass and 13 I can't remember it coming up.

* Pass - 1♠ - 2♦ showing ♥ and Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ showing a good raise (Drury-like). I guess you can switch those then it's ok in GCC.

[bjacobs]

 

The fact that you are a good player that has played their system and think it is a good system is a good argument that it is a good system. The fact that fantoni/nunes play it to the success they have had is evidence supporting that it is a good system. I have not read your book, but I'm sure you make some arguments based on your own logic/experience on why it is good both theoretically and in practice.

 

 

Yes, the statistical tables occupy 2 pages out of a 170 page book. To get a real sense of the argument, it might be best to read and digest the other 168. To describe the inclusion of the data as the equivalent of a cheap gimmick is quite a stretch. It's not as though I am using it in the marketing of the book or system.

 

Cheers ... Bill Jacobs.

[han]

Bill, I'm confused. Are you saying that the statistical claim that is being discussed in this thread is part of a long and complicated argument that can only be fully understood in its entirety? Are you also saying that while the statistical claim looks to be a faulty when regarded in isolation, this is only because it should be considered in the context of the full argument?

[bjacobs]

Bill, I'm confused. Are you saying that the statistical claim that is being discussed in this thread is part of a long and complicated argument that can only be fully understood in its entirety? Are you also saying that while the statistical claim looks to be a faulty when regarded in isolation, this is only because it should be considered in the context of the full argument?

 

I'm not really saying anything except that the extract from the book reproduced in this thread is being quoted inaccurately and out of context.

 

There are a couple of tables of data in the book about imp results that Fantoni and Nunes have achieved. But the main objective of the book is to describe the system in detail and discuss why it works so well. Virtually all that discussion is of a qualitative nature. To suggest that I am claiming that Fantunes is a good system becuase of the two tables of data presented is completely wrong.

 

Cheers ... Bill Jacobs

[han]

Good to hear, still looking forward to reading your book!

[straube]

Bill, thanks for writing your book. I know it takes a lot of effort, and books on system are not the easiest to get published. I've been curious about Fantunes since I first learned about it, and I'm happy to see a description of it in print.

[bluecalm]

This annoys me because I didn't quote anything out of context and from what I saw nor did other posters. Also you are in fact are claiming that this is good system because of the numbers presented in the tables.

 

Here is the quote:

 

"However you slice these numbers, there can be little doubt that the Fantunes bidding system generates a net IMP gain for its proponents".

 

This quote ends the chapter with the reasoning in question.

 

Your reasoning is incorrect and the numbers don't show anything.

Instead of owning up to it you start criticizing posters for fair assessment of the little chapter about Fantunes stats.

 

Still it might be a good system and this might a good book (I am a little disappointed by it because I hoped for more details but apparently I am not target audience as it turns out the book is more of an overview than description of serious/pro level system).

[mycroft]

The non-GCC parts are:

* 1♣ - 2♠ showing 5+4+ minors, probably cannot sell that one as a raise. I guess you can respond 1NT with such hands too then you have 2♠ for something else.

If you can get 1♣ to min 15, you're good. If you can't, if you can guarantee which way the minors are (with two bids, I guess), you're good.

 

Now, I actually have to see if my stealing of one of Lall's tricks (1♦-3♣ showing a competitive raise in opener's minor, playing Precision) is actually GCC legal. I couldn't believe it wasn't, but reading the chart... If it is, so is this one :-)

* Pass - 1♠ - 2♦ showing ♥ and Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ showing a good raise (Drury-like). I guess you can switch those then it's ok in GCC.

That'll do it, yes.

[semeai]

Here is the quote:

 

"However you slice these numbers, there can be little doubt that the Fantunes bidding system generates a net IMP gain for its proponents".

 

This quote ends the chapter with the reasoning in question.

 

This quote is a bit unfortunate. In Bill's defense, he did acknowledge the problem two paragraphs prior in the parenthetical portion of:

 

Therefore, just under half of their gain is due to superior bidding (a combination of bidding judgment and system), and the remainder relates to superior card-play.

 

Also, this clarifies a complaint of Justin's:

 

I am glad to hear that the quote from the OP in this thread is not verbatim, because that would be ridiculous. If you said "approximately" rather than use exact numbers like 42 % and 57 %, ok.

 

It's pretty standard for books on bidding systems to make some somewhat overblown throwaway claims about the superiority of the system. I don't think we should fault Bill that his book has some fun numbers to look at (in a short chapter, fairly deep in) and even mentions the problem of bidding judgement (though not other issues brought up here) before concluding a chapter with a throwaway overblown claim.

[aguahombre]

So, for truth in advertising sake, Mr. Jacobs should have worded his hype in a way acceptable to all:

 

"THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE BIDDING OF FANTONI AND NUNES GENERATES A NET IMP GAIN FOR THEM. SOME OF THAT GAIN MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SYSTEM ITSELF, KNOWN AS FANTUNES."

 

"This book presents an overview of the Fantunes style of bidding. However, they have developed much more detailed agreements. Readers are invited to create their own half-assed adaptations to make it work for them or to make it GCC compliant."

 

That might not get across his enthusiasm for the subject.

[dake50]

Coming to bridge from poker, expert at reading 'tells'.

So I want a 'table feel' system.

Coming to bridge from progamming, expert at decision trees.

So I want a 'clear boundary' system.

Which results are 'system' and then which are 'my skill'?

Has Jacobs determined which aptitudes Fantunes start with

to separate *system* from *skill* ??

[AdamL3]

If you can get 1♣ to min 15, you're good. If you can't, if you can guarantee which way the minors are (with two bids, I guess), you're good.

 

Now, I actually have to see if my stealing of one of Lall's tricks (1♦-3♣ showing a competitive raise in opener's minor, playing Precision) is actually GCC legal. I couldn't believe it wasn't, but reading the chart... If it is, so is this one :-)

That'll do it, yes.

 

1♦-3♣ as a competitive raise is certainly GCC legal, under:

5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.

 

Same reason Bergen raises are legal.

And this also covers the Fantunes 1M-2N as a raise.

[glen]

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

 

vugraph 24811

 

Board 1

Fantoni opens 1C 14+ with 11 HCP but great playing value

 

Board 2

1H-1S(Nunes)-2S-?, Fantoni vul and 5-2-4-2 two jacks bids 3S

 

Board 4 (edit, was incorrectly 3)

Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

 

Board 7

Fantoni bids 2S over 1H, natural and game forcing

 

Board 10

Nunes passes 4-2-2-5 12 count vul

 

Board 11

Nunes opens 10-13 2H with 1-6-4-2 8 count (Hoftaniska believed Nunes had at least 10, and tried to drop singleton king of trumps, going down when a trump coup was possible)

 

Board 13:

Over Hoftaniska’s 1C(2+), Nunes bids 2NT with the reds, Charlsen doubles, Fantoni jumps to 4H on 3-4-3-3 and 8 points in the blacks, and this returns to Charlsen who bids 4S on 5-1-3-4 which implies flexibility if partner is short. Fantoni doubles but Hoftaniska has four spades and +990

 

Board 14:

Nunes 10-13 2C with 3-1-3-6 13 (singleton K), Fantoni non-forcing 2H with 11, reach 3D on 4-3 fit (Hoftaniska tried an underlead from an ace costing two tricks)

[mycroft]

1♦-3♣ as a competitive raise is certainly GCC legal, under:

5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.

Certainly, if it were a diamond raise. But it's not. It's a raise of my minor, whichever it is. Remember that 3=3=2=5 is a 1♦ opener in (my pretty vanilla) Precision - and 3♣ is going to get passed, as partner expects.

 

That's where the question lies.

[chasetb]

Even with a 1♦ (2+), the average is just over 3.5, so expecting 4 and bidding at the 3-level isn't too far off. If it means that much, just set 3♣ as 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs and occasionally "forget" which way it goes...

 

6. JUMP RESPONSES TO AN OPENING BID OF ONE IN A SUIT that show one known suit with a minimum of five cards and one other known suit with a minimum of four cards.

 

I haven't had an opponent yet worry whether I was 5-4 or 4-5, and if they do, I'll just say I expect longer Diamonds than Clubs. I think that Rule 5 applies more than Rule 6, but either way since you aren't going past the 3-level (except on freakish double-fits), it doesn't matter.

[Hanoi5]

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

 

vugraph 24811

 

Board 3

Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

 

Nunes transferred to spades holding 4 spades and 5 hearts??? I really want a link to that. And a video of how it happened. The link in your post leads to a match where Fantunes NEVER played at the 2 level, and in board 3 they went down in 3NT. Could you correct your information, please?

[Hanoi5]

There were many examples of Fantunes style in yesterday's Monaco--Norway match (6 Norwegians, 2 Italians):

 

vugraph 24811

 

Board 3

Weak notrump by Fantoni, 2H transfer with 4-5 in majors (just 4Ss) puts contract in South hand with clubs protected, making

 

Nunes transferred to spades holding 4 spades and 5 hearts??? I really want a link to that. And a video of how it happened. The link in your post leads to a match where Fantunes NEVER played at the 2 level, and in board 3 they went down in 3NT. Could you correct your information, please?

Edit: Wow! It was board 4!!! is it part of their system to transfer to a 4-card suit and then bid a 5-card suit naturally? Is it a canapé transfer or something? That was really some weird bidding sequence.

[han]

The advantage of the canape is not visible here, but when you consider the auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2S it is quite natural to play this as invitational with 5 spades and 4 hearts, as you will play at the 2-level more often.

[Cyberyeti]

Edit: Wow! It was board 4!!! is it part of their system to transfer to a 4-card suit and then bid a 5-card suit naturally? Is it a canapé transfer or something? That was really some weird bidding sequence.

 

According to the Bill Jacobs book:

 

2♥ = 5+♠ or invitational 4♠/5 other

 

It appears 1N-2♦-2♥-2♠ is some sort of relay for them (although not walsh) and GF hands with 5+ spades are bid this way, invitational hands with 4♥/5 other kick off with 2♦.

[han]

invitational hands with 4♥/5 other kick off with 2♦.

 

What do they rebid with 5♠-4♥ invitational hands?

 

I can imagine that they bid 3S (directly or indirectly) and then it makes sense to play it as canape. If you bid it naturally, you will get to the 4-level when partner has a preference for hearts.