Two (similar) continuation schemes over Fantunes 1C

[Jinksy]

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.

[straube]

__ After 1♣ 1♦ / 1♥

___ 1N = 0-4 points, 5+♠, 4♥

___ 2♣ = 0-4 points, 4-5♠

 

 

After 1♣ 1♥ / 1♠

___ 1N = 5+♠, 4+♥s, 10+ points

___ 2C = 4-5♠, <4 ♥s, 5-9 points

 

 

I like your general approach. You're saving lots of room. I'm pretty biased in favor of relay systems and don't really understand all the fuss over Fantunes, but this seems more playable.

 

Concerning the above two sequences, shouldn't the rebids be inverted or something as the 5/4 hands are less frequent?

 

Looking forward to version 2.

[Jinksy]

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.

[Jinksy]

I like your general approach. You're saving lots of room. I'm pretty biased in favor of relay systems and don't really understand all the fuss over Fantunes, but this seems more playable.

 

Concerning the above two sequences, shouldn't the rebids be inverted or something as the 5/4 hands are less frequent?

 

Looking forward to version 2.

 

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.

[straube]

I don't think 1N as 6+H can be right. It's just too infrequent. I'm sure that you will miss the room when you have GF responses based on a minor.

 

What I would recommend is that you tally your responses for both structures and see how they compare. If you get a nice curve favoring the low end responses you won't know that your structure is right, but you'll know that it isn't necessarily wrong.

[Jinksy]

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.

[straube]

Not sure how your 1C-1D, 1H etc is continued in version 2. Can you map it out?

 

Just a thought, but could your 1C-1N be both majors? 4/5 or 5/4 or either one? This avoids the wrong-siding (to an extent) and then you don't have to account for the other major in your 1C-1D and 1C-1H responses.

[Jinksy]

Not sure how your 1C-1D, 1H etc is continued in version 2. Can you map it out?

 

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.

 

Just a thought, but could your 1C-1N be both majors? 4/5 or 5/4 or either one? This avoids the wrong-siding (to an extent) and then you don't have to account for the other major in your 1C-1D and 1C-1H responses.

 

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.

[straube]

I wonder how a Fantunes club would fair with IMprecision responses...

 

1D-0-4 or 11+ hcps

1H-5-10 with 4+ spades (could have longer hearts)

1S-5-10 balanced or diamonds

1N-5-10 with 5+ hearts but not 4S or 5C

2C-5-10 with 6C or 4+D/5C

2D-5-10 with 4+H, 5+C

2H-5-10 with 3-suited short spades

2S-5-10 with 3-suited short clubs

etc- long clubs

 

The Fantunes club is not quite as strong as the IMprecision club but it also contains fewer hand types. So relay breaks would be easier. awm if you're reading, what do you think?

[Jinksy]

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.

[straube]

http://www.cs.ucla.e...IMprecision.pdf

 

II think IMprecision has the best response structure possible for a strong club. In any case, are you familiar with symmetric relay? Relay suggestions may not be the right way to go, but especially not if you don't play such systems.

[Jinksy]

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).

[andytheend]

The first few steps of your version one is similar to my CHAOS 1♣ response:

19% 1♦ = 5+P 4+♥s/v or 5+♥

14% 1♥ = 5+P 5+♠

50% 1♠ = 0-7P catch all or 8+ Bal

9% 1N = 8+P 3+♠s/v or 4♠

2% 2♣ = 10+P 55+ms or 6+♣/♦(s/v)

2% 2♦ = 0-5P 5+♥ or 12+ 5+♥v

2% 2♥ = 0-5P 5+♠ or 12+ 5+♠v

<1% 2♠ = 0-9P 55+ms

<1% 2N-3♠ = 7+card in transferred suit, 0 ctrl or solid suit

 

all next actions are likely step one except 1♠.

after 1♣-1♠-1N (15-18 "Bal"):

2♣ = invitational or ♦SO or 9-11 Bal&game-selecting

2♦ = 12+P 6+♣ Bal or 4♠ Bal

2♥ or 2N+(symmetric) = 12+P catch all(no 4+♠/5+♥/6+♣, 2222+)

2♠ = one minor suit invitational

 

Originally I think the 1♠ is just too probable...but it turns out to be assigning room to the part that requires it. Major suit holders should bid slower than minor suit holders in general (real bidding space need to consider opponents' action). It also promises the NT to be seated right.

[Zelandakh]

How about:

 

1♦ = 0-6 any or GF with hearts

1♥ = GF with spades

1♠ = GF without a major

1NT+ = 7-9 any

?

 

Over 1♦, 1♥ = 17+ and 1♠/1NT/2♣/2♦/2♥ are natural with 14-16. Over 1♦ - 1♥, 1♠ is the 0-6 hand and all others the GF with hearts.

[Jinksy]

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.

[straube]

I think you need to keep your weaker responding hands low or you will go overboard. There's a reason why Fantunes has 1D through 1S responses as something like 0-9 and the other responses higher.

 

You might decide to go with Fantunes initial responses to 1C but modify opener's rebids such that acceptance of the transfer shows stronger hands and not necessarily fit. Of course the reason they don't do that is because they want to right-side the contracts as much as possible, but it seems a bit "dishonest" not to take up more space and to announce an 8-cd fit at the 1-level. Why can't 1C-1D, 2H be a minimum raise?

 

I still think Imprecision responses might suit you, even without the relays.

 

1D-0-4 or 10+

.....1H-balanced or bigger or 4D/5C

..........1S-0-4

...............1N-15-19

...............2C-4D/5C

...............2D-artificial GF

..........etc-natural, 10+

.....1S-4S/4+C

..........1N-10+

..........etc-0-4

.....1N-4H/5C

.....2C-6C

..........2D-10+

.........etc-0-4

1H-5-9, 4+S

.....1S-GF

.....1N-bal

.....2C-5C

.....etc-natural, limited

1S-5-9, bal or diamonds

.....1N-bal

..........systems on

.....2C-clubs

.....2D-artificiai GF

1N-5-9, 5+H, not 4S or 5C

.....2C-clubs, nf

.....2D-artificial GF

.....2H-balanced, nf

2C-6+ C or 4+D/5+C

.....2D-artificial GF

.....2M-4M/4+C, nf

.....2N-natural, nf

.....3C-natural, nf

2D-4+H/5+C

.....2H-to play

.....2S-artificial GF

.....etc-to play

etc

[Zelandakh]

1C P 1D 2S

P 3S/4S ?

I am not sure I see this being such a big issue - you pass with 0-6 and anything else shows a GF with hearts. You are probably better placed here than the popular schemes where GF hands without hearts are included in the 1♦ response.

[Jinksy]

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.

[straube]

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.

 

He knows that. He's saying after 1C P 1D (2S) P (3S) that the 0-6 hand would pass while a double or bid would confirm GF with hearts. He's also saying that you would be ahead of certain other systems at this point. For example, Moscito uses a 1D response for most of their GF hands; so after 1C P 1D (2S) P (3S) dbl would be takeoutish/balanced/action but would not promise 4+ hearts. Zelandakh is not saying that responder should be able to pass 1C.

[PrecisionL]

Just a thought, but could your 1C-1N be both majors? 4/5 or 5/4 or either one? This avoids the wrong-siding (to an extent) and then you don't have to account for the other major in your 1C-1D and 1C-1H responses.

I have for several years used a 1NT response to several different strong 1♣ opening as the following:

 

(a) 5-4 or better in the majors, or

(b) any 5-5 hand

There is plenty of room to show responder's hand, or Opener can ask in his own suit.

2♣ asks:

2

♦

= 5,6

♥

and 4

♠

2

♥

= 5,6

♠

and 4

♥

2

♠

= 5

♥

and 5

♣

/

♦

2NT = 5

♠

+ 5

♣

/

♦

3

♣

= 5

♣

+ 5

♦

3

♦

= 5

♥

+ 5

♠

[Jinksy]

He knows that. He's saying after 1C P 1D (2S) P (3S) that the 0-6 hand would pass while a double or bid would confirm GF with hearts. He's also saying that you would be ahead of certain other systems at this point. For example, Moscito uses a 1D response for most of their GF hands; so after 1C P 1D (2S) P (3S) dbl would be takeoutish/balanced/action but would not promise 4+ hearts. Zelandakh is not saying that responder should be able to pass 1C.

 

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?

[Zelandakh]

One would be the ability to use relays quite often.

 

Having the semi-positives go high is an interesting counter-point to the Fantunes OBs in that these hands are comparatively common and getting them into the auction straight away in a somewhat defined way is good. These hands are effectively invitational over a Fantunes 1♣opening so reaching the 2 level is not so bad.

 

And the very weak hands stay low.

 

Obviously I have never tried this so it needs some practical testing. The structure comes from some work I have been doing on my own system to incorporate semi-positives and it seemed to translate across to your issue well enough to suggest it. I certainly feel that the 7-9 range is going to be easier to handle than the 5-10 I saw suggested, even with an extra step available. It is harder to compare with your structures because you have the hands so strangely split up - for me that makes an additional advantage in memory load but for you the OP schemes are probably more logical so the reverse is true!

[straube]

I think 1N+ for the semipositives will get you too high. It's too little room to handle all the possible shapes. If we were in a GF auction and were using relays then we would be +2 compared to symmetric. But we aren't in a GF auction and aren't using relays so it's a problem.

 

IMprecision responses would seldom bid at 1N or higher and when they do, they're being pretty descriptive such that opener can often sign off with a fit or tolerance or if all else fails rebid 2N.

 

I'm not sure if IMprecision responses would work without relays but seeing how opener is restricted to having clubs or a balanced hand, I think that will compensate enough or more than enough to make it work.

[Jinksy]

[edited] answered my own question

[PrecisionL]

Just a thought, but could your 1C-1N be both majors? 4/5 or 5/4 or either one? This avoids the wrong-siding (to an extent) and then you don't have to account for the other major in your 1C-1D and 1C-1H responses.

Yes, I love using 1NT response to 1♣ as 5-4 in the majors or better and GF. We also have all the 5-5 GF hands in 1NT.

This allows responders 3 bid responses to be Transfers to a 6-cd suit.