Flannery

[MickyB]

I played KI with kevin, we just played transfers over it with 1N=bal or clubs. I know Gavin and Vince played 1N=diamonds or bal and 2C =clubs or something like tha, I'm not sure what the reasoning was but I think I saw mickyb suggest something similar so no doubt that is good. Transfers are pretty easy and better than just 1N=4 spades by a lot imo.

 

If 1S is limited, I think it's pretty close which way round 1N and 2C should be. Playing 1NT as diamonds gives you 2C as a Bart-type bid. However, if you want to be able to start with 1S on a GF, it's much better to have 1NT show diamonds, as then having 1H:1S, 1N:2C as a cheap force is huge.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah we played 1S as limited. +1 to everything mickyb says about KI though, I don't understand how it's not standard tbh. Such an easy and obvious switch that comes up all the time and is very useful.

[mycroft]

Well, in the ACBL, it's not standard because someone thought it was "too hard" and got it taken off the GCC some large number of years ago, and all attempts to put it back get shot down...

[awm]

Another issue is that there are different versions of opener's rebids:

 

1. 1nt = spades, 2m = 3+

2. Transfers

3. 1nt = diamonds, 2c=3+, 2d=majors

4. 1nt = balanced, else natural (with flannery)

 

Maybe others I'm forgetting. It can't be "standard" when everyone has their own version. The ACBL rules do have impact in the US, and KI makes less sense in the 4cM approach standard in the UK and many former colonies.

[JLOGIC]

Well, in the ACBL, it's not standard because someone thought it was "too hard" and got it taken off the GCC some large number of years ago, and all attempts to put it back get shot down...

 

Sadly I know this as I have to pre-alert it every time I play lol. My opponents never seem to appreciate the pre-alert either...

[bluecalm]

You guys aren't worried about missing 1NT's with standard 3-5-3-2 opposite standard 4-2-4-3 ?

I don't have well developed intuition here but it seems to me that such hands are frequent and it might be important to stop in 1NT on them.

[awm]

Its not clear that 1nt is always better than 2h on 3532 opposite 4243; probably 1nt tends to be better, but it depends a lot on suit breaks and honor location. Also, KI may let you play 1nt on other patterns like 4522 opposite 3244/3253 when this would otherwise be hard (of course the same caveat about 2M being sometimes better will apply here too). Also, 2/1 players have given up playing 1nt after opening 1M in virtually every auction; there is nothing making it particularly a bigger issue here.

[bluecalm]

Its not clear that 1nt is always better than 2h on 3532 opposite 4243; probably 1nt tends to be better, but it depends a lot on suit breaks and honor location.

 

Yeah I recall we had similar conversation in some other topic about raising with 3 after 1m-1M-2M I remain unconvinced (or convinced that raising always with 4 is superior method). I tend to believe in 5-2 2M contracts more than in 4-3 so yeah here I can see myself giving up natural 1NT quite easily if the gains are at least slightly convincing.

 

Also, 2/1 players have given up playing 1nt after opening 1M in virtually every auction; there is nothing making it particularly a bigger issue here.

 

Meh, I think this is bad argument. I mean, just because we need to give up natural 1NT after 1M - 1NT because other stuff is more important than playing in 1NT doesn't mean we should easily give it up in other situations.

I admit I don't understand how problematic 1H - 1S - 2D in standard systems is. I play limited openers all my life (polish club mainly so to 17 or precision so to 15) and with 3C/3D available for medium 2suiters the problems aren't that severe. Also in Poland people play that 2NT is forcing in this sequence so it make stuff easier (general rule often is that 2NT is forcing if there is no 3 or 4th suit below 2NT, so 1H - 1S - 2H - 2NT = forcing but 1H - 1S - 2C - 2NT natural).

 

My impression for now is that hands which I want to play 1NT with are very frequent and 1NT is on average slightly better. Hands which I will get right having more space with KI which I wouldn't get right playing normal system are very rare. It seems to me that the balance is against KI unless the choice is play "standard" (11-21 openers, no Gazilli or similar, no intermediate jumps etc) but having to decide among those options would be cruel :)

 

As to Flannery, I like it. I think it has many advantages and 1H - 1S promising 5 spades simplifies things a lot. Flannery would be convention of my choice in natural sytems, KI wouldn't.

[JLOGIC]

Say your options are to play either KI or Flannery.

 

If you play Flannery and not KI You get to bid 1H p 1S p 1N with 2533 exactly, rather than 1H p 1N p 2C as clubs or 2533, so you gain a little bit there. You also get to play 1N with 42(43) opposite 35(32) or 2533 rather than 2H, even if I concede that you have gained there, there is no way that that alone is not better than freeing up your 2D opener for something else like weak with both majors or weak 2 in D or whatever you want. You also lose the advantages of being able to transfer over 1H p 1S p in KI. I don't think it's close that KI is better if you have to choose one.

[MickyB]

Flannery without KI gets you to 1N with 3244 opposite a weak NT as well. Also, you can play transfers after 1H-P-1S natural [5+cards] - 1NT = diamonds, 2C = natural, 2D = 11-13/17+ with hearts, 2H = 14-16.

 

Depending on your rebids over KI, there will be some other messy hands. I think you said you play 1H:1S, 1NT as clubs or balanced, in which case there will be some guesswork on 4144, 4153 and 3154.

 

IMO -

 

• 
   
  
• Flannery makes sense when playing simple methods over 1H-P-1S
  
• Once you are playing Flannery, KI makes sense, as your 0-4♠ response will be by far the most frequent
  
• A moderately complex structure works fine without Flannery or KI [1H:1S, 1N = ART, 1H:1N semi-f]
  
• I would only play KI without Flannery if I want it to lead into full relays or if playing 1H:1N semi-forcing isn't an option
  

[bluecalm]

f you play Flannery and not KI You get to bid 1H p 1S p 1N with 2533 exactly

 

There is also 1-5-(4-3) and 2-5-(Hx-4) which you may want to bid 1NT opposite 1S promising 5 spades.

[E Laurvick]

I read this thread because I like Flannery. It gives a LOT of information in a hurry. However, I don't understand the statements that responder must have 5 spades to bid 1 spade over 1 heart, because "opener cannot have four spades".

 

When I was still playing in ACBL tournaments a few years ago, there was a strict rule that Flannery showed exactly 11 to 15 HCP and exactly 4-5 in the majors. Any deviation got an unfavorable ruling from the director. If responder did not have game-going values, and opener had 4-5-2-2 distribution with 16 HCP, OR 4-6-2-1 distribution, the spade suit would be lost because opener HAD to open 1 Heart.

 

Has the ACBL relaxed its rules on this convention? Can people now open Flannery with a six-card heart suit or have a stronger hand?

[wickedbid1]

I think Flannery can be okay if u have worked out with pard the continuations & how to find minor contracts... but I shudder when i see it in my advanced pards' BBO profiles :)

 

Two di wk seems to me very underated. But, playing online, I think it much more useful than 2 hrt wk, for preemptive purposes. Opps are continuously boxing themselves when they have both majors & ending up playing in the wrong one, or a level too high (or, rarely, low) With two hrt weak they either have sp or they don't, a strong minor hand, or they don't, so it gets awkward much less often.

 

People who like the neg inference of flannery (which is definitely useful) should consider using 2 hrt for their flannery bid, keeping two di wk. 2 hrt flan puts a lot of pressure on the opps cuz direct seat feels forced to bid more often.

[Zelandakh]

Two di wk seems to me very underated.

It is an oft seen remark that a 2D preempt (whatever its meaning) is often more effective than a 2H preampt (whatever the meaning). I do not think any serious players are underestimating the value of a weak 2 in diamonds, even if they prefer to play something else.

[mycroft]

When I was still playing in ACBL tournaments a few years ago, there was a strict rule that Flannery showed exactly 11 to 15 HCP and exactly 4-5 in the majors. Any deviation got an unfavorable ruling from the director. If responder did not have game-going values, and opener had 4-5-2-2 distribution with 16 HCP, OR 4-6-2-1 distribution, the spade suit would be lost because opener HAD to open 1 Heart.

By "few", you mean 20+, or the TDs haven't been following the changes to the regulations. The ACBL hasn't licensed conventions (as opposed to methods that fit categories) since at least 1990, and I think 1980.

 

If you *describe* it as "Flannery" (which, alone, is by definition an "incomplete explanation", no matter whether it's classic or not), and it isn't "11-15, 5 exactly hearts and 4 exactly spades", then you are going to be looked askance by the TD, and if the misinformation caused damage to the opponents, you will be ruled against. But playing:

Flannery with a six-card heart suit or hav[ing] a stronger hand

is perfectly legal; the relevant regulation is:

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits.

You just need to explain your agreement, and not hide behind the F word.

[32519]

With all due respect, that is silly.

 

After a 2 of a minor forcing to game response, opener should be able to bid 2♠ if he is 4-5-x-y on a minimum hand. It should not promise a true reverse. Nor is there a need to show a true reverse. With a true reverse, you are in the slam zone already, and there should not be any need to show the extra values on your first rebid. But the need to show your distribution on a minimum hand is paramount.

 

 

Why? Why can't opener rebid 2♥ with minimum then support responder's 2♠ rebid (if he has one) to show that shape and minimum? How exactly do you differentiate opener's strengths if you rebid 2♠ on both weak and strong hands?

 

 

As stated, 2/1 auctions do not need to establish whether opener has extra values on his first rebid, unless there is a specialized jump to perfectly show both size and shape. We have plenty of time in the auction, after a fit is uncovered, to move from game mode to slam mode.

 

After having another look at these posts, the following makes a lot of sense to me:

1.) In a 2/1 GF auction e.g. 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ both partners should first bid out their hand shapes. I don't see any reason why the 2♠ bid should be regarded as a reverse bid.

2.) If you want to jump to show a "true reverse bid" all you are doing is taking up your own bidding space.

3.) Once you have established a suit fit (might be on level 3 by now), can't you show extra values for a slam try via Serious 3NT? Or if you play Frivolous 3NT, start cue-bidding on level 4 to show extra values and slam interest?

[fromageGB]

After having another look at these posts, the following makes a lot of sense to me:

1.) In a 2/1 GF auction e.g. 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ both partners should first bid out their hand shapes. I don't see any reason why the 2♠ bid should be regarded as a reverse bid.

2.) If you want to jump to show a "true reverse bid" all you are doing is taking up your own bidding space.

3.) Once you have established a suit fit (might be on level 3 by now), can't you show extra values for a slam try via Serious 3NT? Or if you play Frivolous 3NT, start cue-bidding on level 4 to show extra values and slam interest?

You seem to be arguing that you should ignore strength, and just bid cheapest natural suits, so with 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ opener could have a 12 count 45xx hand. I would argue - as does EricK - that if you have an agreement that a 12-14 hand will repeat his major (1♥ 2♦ 2♥) then this loses nothing in finding the fits : responder bids 2♠ if he has 4, or if not can bid 2NT so that opener can then describe his shape, bidding a second suit such as 2♣, showing 3+ support with 2♦, a 6 card suit with 2♥, or none of these with 3NT. Nothing is lost. Conversely, if opener's first rebid is 2♠ by these methods, it has to be 15+. It gives information on strength, as well as shape.

 

This helps, because the use of serious/non-serious 3NT only applies with a major fit. Let's say there is no such fit.

With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3NT responder with his 16 count can happily pass. Opener has no more than 14. With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder knows opener is 15+, so with his 16 count can bid 6NT after checking for aces - using Gerber or asking specifically for 5 aces in hearts or diamonds if that suits his hand (with a kickback method). The correct contract always.

With your sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder is stuck with his 16 count. If he passes, opener turns up with 16 and you miss the slam. If he bids further, opener turns up with 12 and you have bid too high and go off.

 

It also works better if opener supports the minor. For you, 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is any strength, and you don't know what to do. Look for a slam, and you may too late find out that 3NT was the best contract. For me, 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3♦ shows diamond support, but only 12-14, whereas 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is 15+.

 

So I will argue there is great benefit in not bidding shape immediately.

[mgoetze]

While a convention played by all those stars listed in the OP obviously cannot be the "worst convention ever created", I simply feel that it only solves problems I've never had. To wit,

 

Why do I like Flannery?

 

a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT

I don't play forcing NT,

b) I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit

so I pass.

c) Constructive preemptive value

Far lower than alternative uses for the 2♦ bid, e.g. Wilkosz or Ekrens.

d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers)

Somehow I've never been particularily bothered about this.

e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation

f) Constructive game/slam bidding

General hand-waving which could be applied to almost any convention.

 

I have in the past played 2♥/2♠ showing 5 hearts/spades and 4 clubs, 11-15, and actually the feeling I got was more often that responder was stuck rather than having a "roadmap regarding hand evaluation". When the entire 2-level is taken up by signoff bids, it's very hard to devise a scheme which allows you to figure out both which shortness opener has, if any, and whether he has a min or a max.

[32519]

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament. Thus far I have already seen 3 Flannery hands in the USBC.

 

Flannery could have been used on -

1. Board 1: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. However at both tables, East chose to open 1NT which led to a Puppet sequence ending in 4♥. After Flannery it would have ended in 4 of either major.

2. Board 11: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. You will need to polish up your defence to Flannery. 6♣ and 6♦ can make here.

3. Board 37: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. One team bid 6♠ making 5, the other bid 4♠ making 6. This time Flannery gave the hand away when opps led trumps killing the cross-ruff, down 1.

[billw55]

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament. Thus far I have already seen 3 Flannery hands in the USBC.

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that "the controlling bodies" somehow construct the deals and make sure there are some Flannery-type hands? Or that there are more than would be expected by random deals?

 

:huh:

[MickyB]

1. Board 1: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. However at both tables, East chose to open 1NT which led to a Puppet sequence ending in 4♥. After Flannery it would have ended in 4 of either major.

 

Seems an odd decision to bid 3H over Puppet. Surely it's better to give up on 5-3s than 4-4s at that point.

[ArtK78]

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament.

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

 

Do you live in Area 54?

[WellSpyder]

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

 

Do you live in Area 54?

Certainly a weirdly distorted perspective of how the game is organised, isn't it? I was thinking of picking up on it in the other post, but I took into account some advice we were recently reminded of in another thread:

 

Don't feed the trolls!

[JLOGIC]

Seems an odd decision to bid 3H over Puppet. Surely it's better to give up on 5-3s than 4-4s at that point.

 

They play 1N-3C-3N as 4522 even lol, but I think one of them forgot. They were a last minute partnership because Kran was supposed to play with Seymon who got hopitalized one or two days before the event started.

[32519]

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that "the controlling bodies" somehow construct the deals and make sure there are some Flannery-type hands? Or that there are more than would be expected by random deals?

 

:huh:

 

 

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

 

Do you live in Area 54?

 

 

Certainly a weirdly distorted perspective of how the game is organised, isn't it? I was thinking of picking up on it in the other post, but I took into account some advice we were recently reminded of in another thread:

 

I don't care what name you give the guys who run the tournaments. But let's give them a new name here. How about the "Competition Organisers" or "Competition Sponsors." The fact that so many of these US favourites keep appearing, yes I do believe that they have been deliberately pre-dealt.

 

Here is yet another Flannery hand, this time demonstrating defence to Flannery.

Board 34: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. On this layout 4♦ can make. However at both tables E/W took +200 when 4♥X went down 1 and 4♥ undoubled went down 2.