Unexpected Development

[LH2650]

Playing 2/1 Game Force, you avoid bidding 1♠ because you are playing Flannery, and 2♦ because partner's openers are a little suspect. 1N is forcing and 2♠ is a strong ♦ raise.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sq972hadkq643cj64]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♥ - 1N

2♦ - 2♠

3♥ - ?[/hv]

 

As an aside, playing with a genuine expert, would you assume that 2♠ is a strong ♦ raise without prior discussion?

[aguahombre]

3S, as last chance for 3N....If Opener has 2 small in each black, we are screwed anyway.

 

Yes, I would assume a random expert with no discussion would understand the "impossible spade".

 

but I don't understand not bidding 1S because you play flannery. If Opener were 4-6 in the majors, it would be easier to find the fit, and on this hand you would know whether the 2D rebid was a suit rather than some 3-5-3-2 and could have just raised the suit.

Edited August 11, 2010 by aguahombre

[inquiry]

Undiscussed, 2♠ is a good diamond raise.

 

I also bid 3♠ as the most likely game is 3NT. Partner might not have what we need in clubs. I suspect if partner is thinking can we make 3NT, he would have bid 3♠ instead of 3♥ with a spade stopper (looking for a club one). Partner might also be offering a heart contract instead of diamonds, and if he is, we are going to bid game. Matter of fact, I don't think I am stopping short of game somewhere here, as partner has more than a minimum, probably a lot more. I will offer 4♥ if he returns to 4♦ over 3♠, I will pass 3NT.

[Fluffy]

people talking about 3NT realy?, partner is probably 6-5 red why is this even an option?.

 

I'd try 4♥ with my hand cos its MPs, 5♦ at IMPs

[nigel_k]

people talking about 3NT realy?, partner is probably 6-5 red why is this even an option?.

 

I'd try 4♥ with my hand cos its MPs, 5♦ at IMPs

Can he have Ax Kxxxxx AJx Ax?

 

I really doubt he has a hand where he will bid 3NT over 3♠ and 4♥ will play better.

[bluecalm]

4♦ if that's forcing (I hope it is).

If not then 5♦.

 

Can he have Ax Kxxxxx AJx Ax?

 

I hope not...

Jesus this "standard" bidding is so complicated. I assume 2♦ is 4+ diamonds and then 3♥ is 6 hearts.

[Fluffy]

people talking about 3NT realy?, partner is probably 6-5 red why is this even an option?.

 

I'd try 4♥ with my hand cos its MPs, 5♦ at IMPs

Can he have Ax Kxxxxx AJx Ax?

 

I really doubt he has a hand where he will bid 3NT over 3♠ and 4♥ will play better.

If he has a weak 6 card heart suit he won't bid hearts himself, he will bid 3♣ waiting to hear 3♥ suggestion from us.

 

He bid them directly, wich suggest he can play opposite singleton even, and we have the best singleton.

 

Also my style when I bid a suit that should be longer that it actually is, and partner raises it, is to retreat to NT as soon as possible. Its a general rule and there are exceptions but your hand doesn't look like one, I'd rather bid 3NT and avoid more trouble.

[kayin801]

people talking about 3NT realy?, partner is probably 6-5 red why is this even an option?.

 

I'd try 4♥ with my hand cos its MPs, 5♦ at IMPs

I dunno about 6-5 but 6-4 is possible, and I'm convinced that one of our black suits is in bad shape, so I like 4♦, and let partner guess as to what to do ;P

 

At least if he's 6-4 he has a good hand, and if he IS 6-5 we have a 10 card fit.

[Phil]

people talking about 3NT realy?, partner is probably 6-5 red why is this even an option?.

 

I'd try 4♥ with my hand cos its MPs, 5♦ at IMPs

Can he have Ax Kxxxxx AJx Ax?

1N opener obv :)

 

Agree with Bluecalm. I think partner is showing a 6-4. Its not forums-standard, but I also think this implies a good hand (else 2♥ initially).

 

4♦ is force-ing. If 4♣ is a good diamond raise, that is my choice. This allows me to then cue hearts later instead of showing support now.

[mikeh]

In standard 2/1 2♦ could have been a 3 card suit (some rebid 2♣ with 3=5=3=2...I do...and for them 2♦ is 4 unless 4=5=3=1 and that won't apply in a flannery partnership).

 

But 3♥ shows 6 hearts, and extras, so I don't think it is possible for 2♦ to have been a 3 card suit...at least not absent some agreements to the contrary.

 

I can't see fluffy's 6-5...opposite a strong diamond raise, such a hand is usually looking for slam in diamonds, not a 6-1 heart game.

 

So I would picture something in the same family as Ax KQ10xxx AJxx x or x KQJxxx Axxx Kx

 

Opposite my hand, slam is going to be a real possibility, but how to move towards it? On the first example, we can just bid it, but couldn't we be off 2 Aces?

 

The question is really whether 3♥ established a gf....or are we allowed to beg off in 4♦? I don't know...I think in practice, if not in theory, 4♦ should be forcing, but maybe that's because I want it to be forcing here....I wouldn't risk 4♦ at the table with a new partner.

 

At the end of the day, unless I need a big swing, I merely raise to 4♥. We will beat everyone in a diamond game...and maybe few will reach a diamond slam or maybe there isn't one available anyway.

 

Plus there is a small chance that I am already ahead of a number of pairs who play diamonds from my side, with dummy holding the equivalent of Kx(x) in clubs.

[jdonn]

4♥ seems completely premature to me, we may easily belong there or easily not belong there. 3♠ seems obvious to try to describe our hand, the only question being whether or not to pass 3NT if that's what partner bids next. I would say 3NT is unlikely to be our only game even if it makes, or to make overtricks since we must be vulnerable in one/both black suits, so I would pull it to 4♦. That leaves it up to partner.

[cherdanno]

Bidding 3S and pulling 3NT to 4D sounds like 3S was an advance cue, doesn't it?

[jdonn]

Well it's certainly not an "advance" cue since we have already supported diamonds. I still think it just shows values even if I pull 3NT, otherwise I would have to guess between 4♦ and 5♦ and 4♥. I suppose that's an argument for 4♦ to be forcing though, there would be a point to that.

[aguahombre]

But 3♥ shows 6 hearts, and extras, so I don't think it is possible for 2♦ to have been a 3 card suit...at least not absent some agreements to the contrary.

Are we all really sure that Opener has 6 hearts? What would he bid over the impossible 2S with, say JTX KQJTX AJX QX? Would he just call it a minimum and bid 3D? Or might he make the only bid which shows about a 14+ count with no clear stopper in the blacks?

 

If that is the case, 3S by responder is the only last grasp at 3NT --by inference a club partial because he knows opener doesn't have a full club stop and opener knows he has denied a full stop in clubs.

[mikeh]

But 3♥ shows 6 hearts, and extras, so I don't think it is possible for 2♦ to have been a 3 card suit...at least not absent some agreements to the contrary.

Are we all really sure that Opener has 6 hearts? What would he bid over the impossible 2S with, say JTX KQJTX AJX QX? Would he just call it a minimum and bid 3D? Or might he make the only bid which shows about a 14+ count with no clear stopper in the blacks?

 

If that is the case, 3S by responder is the only last grasp at 3NT --by inference a club partial because he knows opener doesn't have a full club stop and opener knows he has denied a full stop in clubs.

you may not be sure.....and I am not saying that my view is universal. I am saying, however, that with every single good player I have ever partnered, I would be absolutely certain that he has 6 hearts.

 

I have sometimes been surprised by finding that partner disagreed about matters I thought were clearcut....so nothing is written in stone....but this is one where I would be shocked, rather than surprised.

 

Now, I have an advantage in that in all my expert partnerships, including those made 15 mins before game time, I play 2D shows 4 99% of the time (4=5=3=1 is the exception) so he can (essentially) always bid 3♦ with minimums and 3 black suit with a 3 card fragment and extras and 2N with soft extras and 5422 and so on.

 

Another way to look at it is that when one has an inbetween hand, and whatever one does is going to be a distortion, it is imo (and those of better players from whom I learned this) best to make the least expensive, in terms of bidding space, distortion. 3♥ is a huge consumer of bidding space, so one should never choose it as an option on a hand where all calls are distortions.

[Bbradley62]

What percentage of genuine experts play Flannery these days?

[pooltuna]

What percentage of genuine experts play Flannery these days?

I suspect higher than you think. Last time I checked Bramley was still using it

[CSGibson]

What percentage of genuine experts play Flannery these days?

I suspect higher than you think. Last time I checked Bramley was still using it

Hamman plays it, and I've seen other top pairs use it also.

[rogerclee]

I thought someone posted that flannery was hugely popular among natural pairs at the recent US team trials. I think it's a very good convention

 

1) 2D P 4M AP, good luck opponents!

2) 1H P 1N AP, 1N = 0-4 spades, good luck opponents!

3) Opener can show exact shape (usually) and min/max, good luck opponents!

4) It is preemptive, shows values, and is very specific, so it is pretty dangerous to come in over (flannery opener's partner is in a great position to judge what to do, particularly whether to double).

 

Of course it's not great when partner opens 2D and you are like 2146, and when the opponents declare it's pretty lol-horrible because you told them exactly how to play the hand, but overall I like it.

[jdonn]

1) 2D P 4M AP, good luck opponents!

2) 1H P 1N AP, 1N = 0-4 spades, good luck opponents!

3) Opener can show exact shape (usually) and min/max, good luck opponents!

4) It is preemptive, shows values, and is very specific, so it is pretty dangerous to come in over (flannery opener's partner is in a great position to judge what to do, particularly whether to double).

5) 2♦ - (2♥ = takeout of hearts) - P - wth I have a penalty pass of hearts. GL opponents! :)

[bluecalm]

Hamman plays it, and I've seen other top pairs use it also.

 

Levin - Weinstein too if I my memory is not deceiving me.

[jdonn]

Why do we have to go through this every time? Many of the very top pairs play flannery, it has a lot of merit, people hate it because it has a reputation as something worth hating even when they aren't well versed in the specifics, and that's that.

[nigel_k]

Why do we have to go through this every time? Many of the very top pairs play flannery, it has a lot of merit, people hate it because it has a reputation as something worth hating even when they aren't well versed in the specifics, and that's that.

Well said. Can we pin this somewhere?