The Utility of Flannery

[bglover]

Just a small addendum....earlier today I watched Msrs. Hamman and Soloway in the Partnership bidding room...It appears they, too, in their partneship use Flannery.

 

Tad more grist for the mill....

[bglover]

Another addendum... Watching the USBCs today I noticed Wolff-Morse are playing Flannery as well.

[Phil]

Setting the world record for a necro!

[Mefisto500]

After your unkind answer.. particulary because I made the premise to be a beginner, and also that I read it... I cancelled the post end rewrite looking at the original

 

source (pages 10-11 in italian)

 

The authors make an example :

 

♠ K753

♥ AQ652

♦ A4

♣ 85

 

After opening 1♥ and the answer 1NT you have 3 choices :

 

1) You use the Flannery to show this hand : 4♠ and 5♥ minimum.

2) Pass with 12/13 bad points, with 13 good/14 points hoping for the best... and bid 2♣.

3) To switch the meaning of 1♠ and 1NT bids: 1♠ with 5/12 points without 4♠ (hands on which you normally answer 1NT forcing), and 1NT is with 4♠, forcing 1 round.

 

On the answer of 1NT (4♠), the opener has no problems : with 4♠ he supports, with the 5332 bids the cheaper third minor.

On the answer of 1♠ (no ♠) the opener with the 4=5=2=2 or 5332 bids 1NT.

 

This accomodation offers a clearer and easier management of the minors by the partner of the opener : after 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT → 2♣/2♦ are proposals of a partial score, 3♣/3♦ are the usual inviting monocolors.

1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ the answerer isn't telling "ops I forgot the convention... I really have the ♠" , but shows 55 in the minors 10/11 points.

 

Any error or omission are due to me (the translator).

Edited April 22, 2018 by Mefisto500

[pescetom]

The original is interesting and well written, thanks.

But if Flannery has gone the way of the Dodo it is probably because it solved a problem that is not as big as it seemed.

My experience FWIW is that solution 2 works nicely.

[Phil]

After your unkind answer

 

A necro is bringing up a thread that has long gone inactive. 15 years is quite a long time.

 

Sorry if you didnt understand.

[hamish32]

This strikes me as an odd post. Why compare multi 2♦ with Flannery 2♦?

 

I have played both and currently play 2♦ as 9-12 with 5+♦ because it suits the rest of my system.

 

The experts who play Flannery point out that its best because of the hands that it removes from the rest of the system not because of the bid its-self this was my experience certain problems don't arise because we would already have opened Flannery.

 

Incidentally if you play 2/1 GF with a weak NT or 2/1 GF with a strong NT and Transfer welsh (all 11-14 bal hands open 1C) then it makes best sense for 1NT to be 100% forcing because opener always has a second suit when he has a hand in the weak NT range. Pointing out that each particular system spec will have specific problem auctions and this is probably the reason for including or excluding Flannery.

[Mefisto500]

A necro is bringing up a thread that has long gone inactive. 15 years is quite a long time.

 

Sorry if you didnt understand.

 

OK, I didn't understand, Google translator says nothing about "necro"... :)

 

I was just searching Google with "Flannery" and read this post ...

[Phil]

OK, I didn't understand, Google translator says nothing about "necro"... :)

 

I was just searching Google with "Flannery" and read this post ...

 

Urban Dictionary is a good source.

[nullve]

The experts who play Flannery

are almost exclusively from ACBL land, where, incidentally,

 

* a Drury-like 2♣ response to 1st/2nd seat 1M openings

* Multi 2♦

 

are generally not allowed.

[2200]

Does anybody ever mention that, the real advantage of Flannery, is when you are NOT using them?

If you do NOT open Flannery, you don't have that kind of hand.

Because systematically, playing Flannery means 1H-1S promise 5, so there is other superiority for further bidding structure developement.

For example,

♠AKx

♥A109xxx

♦Axx

♣x

You open 1H and pd bids 1S. I am sure you will see various votes from expert panel.

There will be vote for 2H, 2S， 3H, 3S, and......a fancy 2D.

Playing Flannery, you have no problem at all. Pd promises 5, so it's a clear cut 3S.

[Mkgnao]

Does anybody ever mention that, the real advantage of Flannery, is when you are NOT using them?

If you do NOT open Flannery, you don't have that kind of hand.

Because systematically, playing Flannery means 1H-1S promise 5, so there is other superiority for further bidding structure developement.

For example,

♠AKx

♥A109xxx

♦Axx

♣x

You open 1H and pd bids 1S. I am sure you will see various votes from expert panel.

There will be vote for 2H, 2S， 3H, 3S, and......a fancy 2D.

Playing Flannery, you have no problem at all. Pd promises 5, so it's a clear cut 3S.

 

Experts play Gazzilli, so that isn't a bidding problem at all.

 

Simply rebid 2♣ (16+). If partner bids 2♦ (any 8+), then you bid 2♠ (3♠, 16+). If partner bids 2♥ (mostly 2♥, 4-7) or 2♠ (5+♠, 4-7) then you raise to 3 as an invite.

[wank]

Experts play Gazzilli, so that isn't a bidding problem at all.

 

 

 

lol gazilli isn't some universal panacea and it's a gross overstatement to imply all experts play it.

[rmnka447]

It seems like every time my partner and I discuss jettisoning Flannery, something comes up that reaffirms it's utility.

 

The following was from a KO match, vulnerable, where partner bid 2 ♦ Flannery and I held:

 

♠ AJ9xx

♥ -

♦ 1098x

♣ Q872

 

and bid 2 NT asking for more info knowing we had a 9 card ♠ fit and would likely be able to ruff any of partner's ♥ losers. Partner rebid 3 ♣ showing 3 ♣ and 1 ♦. So I bid 4 ♠ feeling that the probability of making the vulnerable game (> 37%) was good enough at IMPs.

 

Partner had

 

♠ Kxxx

♥ AQxxx

♦ X

♣ A103

 

losing a ♦ and 2 ♣ when ♠ behaved and only 2 ♣ losers existed.

[Phil]

I held:

 

♠ AJ9xx

♥ -

♦ 1098x

♣ Q872

 

and bid 2 NT asking for more info

 

I would just zoom 4♠. The info leak offsets some vig from just blasting. 2nd choice is 3♠ if inv.

[DozyDom]

I would just zoom 4♠. The info leak offsets some vig from just blasting. 2nd choice is 3♠ if inv.

Absolutely - reserve the asking bid for hands where you'll always be able to use the info better than the ops. And there's always the problem of when your partner's response means he or she's playing the hand - a 3S response to your asking bid may well be a hand you want to be in 4S on, but the ops will be able to play the hand practically double dummy as soon as the lead is faced.