Flannery

[32519]

Flannery has been discussed before. I came across this thread by Yzerman in the Advanced and Expert Forum http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/508-the-utility-of-flannery/

 

This is what he had to say about Flannery:

 

I was prompted to write a small argument for the Flannery cause because of the recent Multi thread (in beginners section). Personally, I have found the gains of playing Flannery far outweigh the risk and my opportunity cost (with respect to other conventions is at a minimum). I have been repeatedly bashed over the years for playing this "archaic" and "simplistic" and "ineffective" convention, but guess what, I have NEVER got to wrong contract because of Flannery.

 

Why do I like Flannery?

 

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

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

c) Constructive preemptive value

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

e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation

f) Constructive game/slam bidding

 

Why do I prefer Flannery over Multi?

 

a) My suits are disclosed (no guessing or asking)

b) Luxury of playing @ 2 level in a misfit (4/3 or 5/2)

c) I don’t really care about preempting a hand with 5 card major and 4 card minor (In the back of every bridge players mind when they open 2H or 2S Dutch Multi, there is the fear of going for phone number - not the case with Flannery).

 

Over my 4 years of playing Flannery and experimenting with different caveats, I have found that a few additional conditions optimize the overall effectiveness;

 

a) NEVER open 2D with a void (4504, 4540, 4603, 4630)

b) NEVER open 4513 or 4531 with 2 bad suits (rebid fragment upon forcing NT)

c) Have sound agreements with respect to game tries

d) Overall, have a good Flannery structure, don’t just play Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery

 

And a quick story to support my argument. Playing in a regional swiss event a year or two ago, we were paired against one of best teams in field (Roman/Grosvenor team). My partner opened 2D and as my RHO passed, he commented in his usual jovial, humorous way, "Flannery is the worst convention ever created". We proceeded to have a constructive auction to 7S as my partner was able to describe a picture 4612 hand (AQxx AKxxxx). The pair at the other table (two professional players) got to 4S (obviously not well bid, but I am not sure they will get to 7 even if they bid past 4S).

 

Yzerman’s thread received 26 replies for anyone else interested in this topic and wanting to read them. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/508-the-utility-of-flannery/

[MickyB]

 

a) NEVER open 2D with a void (4504, 4540, 4603, 4630)

b) NEVER open 4513 or 4531 with 2 bad suits (rebid fragment upon forcing NT)

c) Have sound agreements with respect to game tries

d) Overall, have a good Flannery structure, don’t just play Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery

 

 

When I read points a) and b), my thoughts were, "It doesn't sound like they've worked out 1H-P-1S should strongly imply five cards. It feels like they are just playing Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery". This made me laugh when I got to point d)!

[EricK]

Flannery has been discussed before. I came across this thread by Yzerman in the Advanced and Expert Forum http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/508-the-utility-of-flannery/

 

This is what he had to say about Flannery:

 

I was prompted to write a small argument for the Flannery cause because of the recent Multi thread (in beginners section). Personally, I have found the gains of playing Flannery far outweigh the risk and my opportunity cost (with respect to other conventions is at a minimum). I have been repeatedly bashed over the years for playing this "archaic" and "simplistic" and "ineffective" convention, but guess what, I have NEVER got to wrong contract because of Flannery.

I have never heard anyone say that the reason for their dislike of Flannery (or even part of the reason) is that it leads to the wrong contract. The reason is generally the use of a potentially useful bid for a relatively low-frequency occurrence. i.e. Flannery hands come along quite rarely. Should we waste a bid on them or use that bid for a more frequent hand type?

 

Take "super-Flannery" for example (a set of conventions I have just made up - although I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't done it already!):

2♥ = 4♠5♥ opening values, less than reversing values

2♦= 4♥ 5♦ opening values, less than reversing values, <4♠

2♣ = 4♦ 5♣ opening values, less than reversing values, no 4cd major

(If you like you can add 1NT = 4♥ 5♣ opening values, less than reversing values, <4♠: Super-duper Flannery)

These bids would help your constructive bidding in much the same way Flannery does, and you would generally get to the right contract when they come up, and would also get to the right contract more often when you open 1♣/♦/♥ and partner can eliminate these hand types. But that is not the whole story. The question you need to ask is whether it is worth giving up 3 or 4 opening bids to deal with these hand types? Do you gain or lose IMPs/MP by this trade?

[gnasher]

Antiflannery is a two-level opening that shows five spades and four hearts. It's defined in, amongst other places, the guide to completing the WBF convention card, the Bridgeguys glossary, and Wikipedia.

 

I think it's mainly used in Canape systems, for much the same reasons as people play Flannery in standard systems.

[MickyB]

Antiflannery is a two-level opening that shows five spades and four hearts. It's defined in, amongst other places, the guide to completing the WBF convention card, the Bridgeguys glossary, and Wikipedia.

 

I think it's mainly used in Canape systems, for much the same reasons as people play Flannery in standard systems.

 

Aha, a third candidate for the name of 1D-P-2H showing five hearts and four spades. Previously I was undecided between "Responder's Flannery" and "Reverse Responder's Reverse Flannery", but I think "Responder's Reverse Antiflannery" is the winner.

[gnasher]

What about "Yrennalfitna Srednopser"?

[mycroft]

- As people have said, ANTI-FLANNERY is an opening, showing the hand type that's as hard to show in canape systems as the Flannery hand is to show in straight-up 5cM systems. Reverse Flannery Responses are the same kind of hand, but (as should be obvious) are responses. I've never played (against) Anti-Flannery, mostly because I've played against two canape systems in my life.

 

- Flannery auctions are great when they come up. Of course, so are Weak 2♦ auctions. Playing Flannery makes 1♥ opening continuations easier. When Flannery right-sides the contract, it's nice; when it wrong-sides it, not so much (though, granted, it's much less likely to).

 

- Re: Alertability (at least in the ACBL), from the Alert Procedures:

Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing notrump response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor).

 

- Re: 1♥-2m; 2♠ and extra strength: one of the reasons I dislike playing the style of 2/1 common in Western North America is that this auction does *not* show extras (which is what I'm used to from out East). Sure, there's "lots of time" to show extras, it just turns out that it doesn't happen, and we can be at 4m and *still* not know if partner has anything extra (and sure that partner does not know that I have anything extra, so I can't just bump the decision off to her). What that means with Flannery is argued above, of course.

[mike777]

This discussion about opener showing extras or not has been going on forever and I just dont think anyone really is moved by it.

 

Those who prefer to limit their hand and not show shape do it,those you prefer to show shape and have pard just assume they are minimum do it.

 

If we break the hands into say roughly 3 boxes:

10-13

14-16

17+

 

One and three are pretty easy to handle, it is the middle box that is the tough one for the shape over power guys. You choose to live with the problem or not.

 

Same debate over rebid if a major can just be 5 often:

1M=2m

2M?

 

1h=2m

2s(does not promise extra)=3s(non dead minimum, otherwise unlimited)

etc.

 

---

 

 

ahh that is why no one alerts, we assume pard has 3+

1h=1nt

2c

[S2000magic]

Argument against Flannery:

 

In his book Better Bridge for the Advancing Player, Frank Stewart writes that he doesn't use Flannery for a number of reasons. The main reason that he describes is that many (most?) players who do use Flannery ignore suit quality when making the bid: if their distribution is 4=5=x=(4-x) and they have 11 - 15 HCP, they trot out 2♦, regardless. He finds that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (for his partnerships), but encourages the reader to weigh the costs and benefits and decide for himself.

[32519]

This discussion about opener showing extras or not has been going on forever and I just dont think anyone really is moved by it.

 

Those who prefer to limit their hand and not show shape do it,those you prefer to show shape and have pard just assume they are minimum do it.

 

If we break the hands into say roughly 3 boxes:

10-13

14-16

17+

 

One and three are pretty easy to handle, it is the middle box that is the tough one for the shape over power guys. You choose to live with the problem or not.

 

Same debate over rebid if a major can just be 5 often:

1M=2m

2M?

 

1h=2m

2s(does not promise extra)=3s(non dead minimum, otherwise unlimited)

etc.

 

---

 

 

ahh that is why no one alerts, we assume pard has 3+

1h=1nt

2c

 

Mike's reply here has touched on another very interesting topic: Showing shape early versus showing strength. Awm started a topic titled "Shape First." You can find it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/9814-shape-first/

Here is an extract from his thread: But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good.

Readers of these forums are encouraged to see the rest of awm's post. It is very thought provoking.

[EricK]

Mike's reply here has touched on another very interesting topic: Showing shape early versus showing strength. Awm started a topic titled "Shape First." You can find it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/9814-shape-first/

Here is an extract from his thread: But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good.

Readers of these forums are encouraged to see the rest of awm's post. It is very thought provoking.

There is a reason why showing shape early is an excellent principle: it puts you in a better position if the opponents compete. But on some auctions this is hardly relevant. 1♥ (P) 2♣GF (P) is one of them. Whether we rebid 2♥ to show our strength or 2♠ to show our shape, the opponents are hardly likely to suddenly enter the auction.

[chasetb]

Another thing that I'm surprised that none of the ACBL members has mentioned is that 1♥-1♠ showing a Forcing NT and denying (4)5+ Spades is Midchart and not GCC, so for most tourneys it is illegal. This sequence makes it a tad challenging to show the kinds of hands Flannery easily cover. I don't play it with anybody, but I highly prefer it to Weak 2♦.

[32519]

In an external thread Chip Martel says why he plays Flannery. You can read it here http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/d1d18e7b9260d393?pli=1

[32519]

The SAYC and 2/1 Discussion Forum had a thread titled "How to play Flannery in 2/1." One solution posted is to use “Kaplan Interchange” You can read the rest here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3516-how-to-play-2d-flannery-in-21/

[whereagles]

I hate flannery and will not play it unless under "absolute coercion" (i.e. at gun point).

 

Reasons:

 

1. I hate it (99%)

2. It's a waste of a bid that can be better used (1%).

[kenberg]

I hate flannery and will not play it unless under "absolute coercion" (i.e. at gun point).

 

Reasons:

 

1. I hate it (99%)

2. It's a waste of a bid that can be better used (1%).

 

I like your reasons. I decide on a lot of things in the same way.

[Flameous]

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?

I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand. Do you throw some additional convention here to find spade fit with weaker hands, or do you just use nmf to find them when inv+? (Essentially coming to the same situation as bidding 1NT in 1m - 1H, skipping spades)

 

For what it's worth, I've played 2♥ opening showing 9-12 54+ majors either way. This was of course much more a pre-emptive tool than Flannery is. It also nicely took the minimum openings away enabling better relay sequences. (This was in a strong club context)

[Free]

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?

I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand.

That's the wrong assupmtion. Opener bids 1NT to show 4♠, after which responder can raise with a 4 card ♠. If opener doesn't have 4♠s, he bids 2m which is at least a 3 card suit (can be balanced). This situation is comparable with 1♠-1NT-2m.

[MickyB]

There are various options. 1H:1S, 1NT as 5H4S is the standard version, I believe, but IMO this is better -

 

1NT = 3+D

2C = 3+C

2D = 5H4S

2H = 6H 11-15

2S = 6H 16+

 

IMO KI makes more sense with Flannery than without it. Playing Flannery, your forcing NT bid is much more frequent than your 5+spades bid. Playing standard, they are both quite frequent, and the space is more useful when responder shows 4+♠, as all four strains are still in play. Auctions starting 1H:1NT [natural, semi-forcing] are fine anyway.

 

Playing Flannery and KI -

1NT = 3+D

2C = 3+C

2D = 6H 14+

2H = 6H 11-13

[32519]

In the thread “Justin Lall to play with Bob Hamman” Justin himself had this to say about Flannery “I have always played Flannery with Bob in the past, do not expect that to change if we don't play strong club. I am pro-Flannery.” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49541-justin-lall-to-play-with-bob-hamman/

 

There you have it. Surely Flannery cannot be such a poor use of the 2♦ bid if so many top internationals employ it.

[aguahombre]

Surely Flannery cannot be such a poor use of the 2♦ bid if so for the many top internationals who employ it.

Altered your post (AYP?), to again point out that Flannery as used by these top pairs is the result of much discussion about how it is used, and with thoughtful adjustments to other auctions. It is not poor use of the 2♦ or 2♥ opening for them; it might well be a wasteful plug-in for other pairs.

[MrAce]

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?

I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand. Do you throw some additional convention here to find spade fit with weaker hands, or do you just use nmf to find them when inv+? (Essentially coming to the same situation as bidding 1NT in 1m - 1H, skipping spades)

 

 

 

I never heard of Kaplan interchange, we always called it "Brazillian forc NT" Perhaps not the same thing.

 

 

The way it was played in many countries of Europe, 1 NT rebid showed 45xx hand and not balanced hands.

 

1♥--1♠ (used as forcing NT 0-4 ♠, and with balanced hands opener rebids his 3 card minor just like we would normally bid over a forc 1NT)

 

1♥--1♠

1NT shows a flannery hand and if responder has 4♠ the fit is found

 

1♥--1NT 5+♠

[JLOGIC]

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.

[marcD]

Antiflannery is a two-level opening that shows five spades and four hearts. It's defined in, amongst other places, the guide to completing the WBF convention card, the Bridgeguys glossary, and Wikipedia.

 

I think it's mainly used in Canape systems, for much the same reasons as people play Flannery in standard systems.

 

Actually , I use this opening in a 5 card majors , multi context to avoid opening 1♠ with minimal values (which in my opinion is a looser especially at MP when not playing a strong club). So 2♥ is 5S4H 9-11HCP , the sort of hand you want to open but could easily overbid if you open 1♠

[MickyB]

If you play standard methods over a 1H opening, Flannery solves a few problems. If you play 1H:1S, 1NT as artificial, many of these problems go away. Your auctions will improve sufficiently that you'll want to respond 1S on a weak hand with four cards.

 

Having thought about this more, maybe I can explain it better.

 

Most people have fairly poor methods after the auction starts 1H:1S. Typical problems include 1H:1S, 2D:3C as the only way to force, and 1H:1S, 2C:2H showing 5-10 points. Some players, especially those who use Flannery, seek to solve these problems by responding 1S less frequently. The former issue is solved by starting with a 2/1 on 4S4m and 4333, the latter by responding 1NT and using Anti-Bart or similar.

 

I've put a lot of work into my methods over 1H:1S. Giving up the natural 1NT rebid has allowed responder to give both good and bad preference at the two-level, solved the issue of 1H:1S, 2m:P where opener has a 5-4 18-count and responder has a 1H3m 9-count, and progress to full relays when responder has a balanced GF. You can achieve a lot of this by using 1H:1S, 1NT to show diamonds, defining 4SF on these auctions as either good preference or a game-force, and playing 1H:1S, 2H:2N as a generic force. I think this is a much better solution than Flannery.

Edited December 21, 2011 by MickyB