Flannery

[xx1943]

We play Flannery since many year and never missed the weak 2♦, but got a lot of great results by the flannery convention.

I'm wondering why this is used so rarely.

For those, who don't even know the convention: Here a link to BridgeGuys.

Here an example of a hand,where we found a nice 4♠ in a 4==4-fit with only 20HCP.

I admit I was lucky in partner finding with no lost values in the heart-suit.

For those, who don't like movies here the pictures:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ir0AlvDQU_s/UQ6DLy7wT_I/AAAAAAAAK6E/ZWIenBa1ytg/s1600/triumph+of+flannery.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Uh72u1sln2g/UQ6DMbeNdeI/AAAAAAAAK6I/Sza45X26Zmc/s1600/triumph+of+flannery+traveller.jpg

[Siegmund]

It's quite common in my area -- on maybe 25% of the int-adv crowd's convention cards.

 

I, personally, don't ever play it. Not because it is "bad," but because it's a solution to a problem that only exists if you play the "wrong" set of responses to a 1H opening. I just bid 1H-1S whenever I have 4, and play that my semiforcing 1H-1NT can be passed by a minimum 4S5H opener.

 

On your posted hand, all those 200s aren't there "because they weren't playing Flannery," but rather, because East wasn't imaginative. After the bidding starts 1H-1S-2S, the other Easts know exactly as much about West's hand as you do after the 2D opening. Those other Easts simply failed to see any potential in their 7-loser hand and make a second bid.

[awm]

Not clear to me how exactly Flannery helped you here. If you had opened 1♥ couldn't you bid 1♥-1♠-2♠-4♠ just as easily? Certainly the 4♠ call is aggressive (you are lucky partner doesn't have better hearts) but I don't see how the Flannery opening made it a better bet than the slower auction. In fact, over 1♥-1♠-2♠ the additional space could allow you to have a better sequence where you would avoid game when partner has wasted values in hearts (via responder making some sort of game try instead of blasting and hoping to get lucky).

 

There are some expert pairs who love Flannery (Martel-Stansby come to mind) but there are also many expert pairs who think it's a waste of a call that could better be used for something else (weak two, multi, etc).

[kenberg]

I play Flannery with a partner. I like 2♦ to be a weak two, but I am not insistent. As has been said, I don't see Flannery as a big help here. Probably we would not reach 4♠ whether we were or were not playing Flannery, with perhaps a slightly better chance if we were not:

1♥ 1♠

2♠ 3♦

?

 

On this auction, as I play it, 3♦ shows diamond values. Opener can now regard his ace as quite valuable and maybe bids 4♠. maybe he bids 3♠.

 

If he does bid 3♠ then East can still bid 4♠, knowing partner has four spades, five hearts, minimum count. The same information he could know if the opening is a Flannery 2♦. But he probably wouldn't. It's wonderful that all of West's values are working. No wasted values at all in hearts, a fact that is not evident whether the West opening is 1♥ or a Flannery 2♦.

 

It's true that some conventions sometimes are given either unrealistic praise or unrealistic criticism. Gerber and Flannery are often singled out as unneeded conventions. I find them both useful, but in the case of the 2♦ bid my own preference is weak 2.

[mgoetze]

Is this a satire? Surely noone could really think that that hand is a good demonstration of the advantages of Flannery?

[blackshoe]

Personally, I like 2♦ as Mexican — 21-22 HCP and 7 controls, balanced, or GF with primary diamonds, unbalanced. OTOH, I do recall Anderson and Zenkel saying something like "most experts have tried other meanings for 2♦ and eventually gone back to the weak two". I have to admit that with my current partners, I play it as weak 2, because they're unwilling to try anything else. :ph34r:

[GreenMan]

Anything Stansby-Martel and Levin-Weinstein play has to have something going for it. IMHO whether to play 2♦ as Flannery, Multi, natural, Mexican or something else is largely a matter of style and personal preference, since they all have advantages.

[nige1]

We play Flannery since many year and never missed the weak 2♦, but got a lot of great results by the flannery convention. I'm wondering why this is used so rarely. For those, who don't even know the convention: Here a link to BridgeGuys. Here an example of a hand,where we found a nice 4♠ in a 4==4-fit with only 20HCP. I admit I was lucky in partner finding with no lost values in the heart-suit.

On your posted hand, all those 200s aren't there "because they weren't playing Flannery," but rather, because East wasn't imaginative. After the bidding starts 1H-1S-2S, the other Easts know exactly as much about West's hand as you do after the 2D opening. Those other Easts simply failed to see any potential in their 7-loser hand and make a second bid.

As Siegmund points out, East evaluated his ♠ JTxx ♥ - ♦ KQJxxx ♣ xxx better than most other pairs. Nevertheless, as xx1943 implies, 4♠ would be a less of a Flannery triumph, if West held, say. ♠ xxxx ♥ KQT9x ♦ Ax ♣ Kx rather than his actual ♠ KQxx ♥ T9xxxx ♥ Ax ♣ Kx :)

[Zelandakh]

If you had opened 1♥ couldn't you bid 1♥-1♠-2♠-4♠ just as easily?

But Adam, then South could overcall 2♣ and North has the most obvious 5♣ raise in the world. So only Flannery can save you here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

game is good, because East got lucky in finding no wasted values

in the 5 card suit partner promised, but finding partner with the

Ace of diamonds, which does fit nicely with the KQJ in the East hand.

 

Add to this the fact, that you know, you have exactly an 8 card fit,

a 44 fit, you could argue, that you got lucky makeing game, and those,

who decided to take their plus score at MP got unlucky.

 

Flannery is certainly a reasonable convention, and the given hand may be

a posterchild for staying low in 2S=, while everyone else is 3S-1.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

But Adam, then South could overcall 2♣ and North has the most obvious 5♣ raise in the world. So only Flannery can save you here.

 

North has the most obvious what in the what? Not to me.

 

But my experience is that Flannery does sometimes provide an advantage when a pre-empt by the opponents is in the offing.

 

Actually, a 2♣ overcall would help if I and my clone held the EW cards.

After the uncontested 1♥ -1♠ -2♠ I, as East, would worry that my clone, as West, might have raised on three. I would still bid 3♦ if the opponents stayed out, and as I said earlier, my clone might or might not raise to 4♠.

 

But suppose it begins

1♥-Pass-1♠-2♣

Quite possibly this would happen, and now partner's 2♠ is unequivocally four card support. It's true that if North now raises to 5♣ I am sort of stuck, but 3♣ seems more likely to me, after which I make a try with 3♦ and partner, pleased with his holdings after the club overcall, certainly accepts.

 

I don't want to say "Surely you are joking" about the 5♣ bid, but were you? North knows nothing about the heart void in East's hand and might well figure that if East is planning on developing hearts this may not be such a piece of cake for him.

 

Anyway, in the OP, West showed four spades, five hearts, and 11-15 highs. East jumped to game on an 8 count and a strong, although not yet ready to run, diamond suit. He found a perfectly fitting dummy and the Ace of clubs well placed. This speaks more of his karma than of his conventions.

 

Btw, we can take six tricks against 5♣X right? Not that we would, but we could. Ruff a heart, two diamonds, ruff a heart, then a spade shift and wait for two black suit tricks. If North gets to jump to 5♣. I get to have this defense against it.

[Zelandakh]

I don't want to say "Surely you are joking" about the 5♣ bid, but were you? North knows nothing about the heart void in East's hand and might well figure that if East is planning on developing hearts this may not be such a piece of cake for him.

Yes, I was joking. Even a rank beginner would not raise 2♣ to 5 with this 3433 pile. I should probably have used a smiley here but I am trying to live without them.

[kenberg]

Yes, I was joking. Even a rank beginner would not raise 2♣ to 5 with this 3433 pile. I should probably have used a smiley here but I am trying to live without them.

 

Whew! I thought so but one encounters wild opinions online. No smileys needed, I also prefer to live w/o them.

[glen]

Anything Stansby-Martel and Levin-Weinstein play has to have something going for it ...

are Stansby and/or Martel playing it with their new partners?

[GreenMan]

are Stansby and/or Martel playing it with their new partners?

 

I see that Stansby plays it with Bramley. Not sure about Martel-Zia.

[fromageGB]

Like others, I seem to have no trouble without Flannery. In two main partnerships I play 2♦ as natural weak, or 4+4+ majors weak, and much prefer either of those. Flannery seems designed for a problem you can overcome in other ways, whatever the problem was.

[mycroft]

I hate Flannery hands when I'm not playing it and partner bids 1NT forcing; especially when I'm 4=5=2=2. Even if I don't play 1NT 100% forcing (which I do), if I have 15, I don't really want to pass it, "non-forcing" or not.

 

As a Precision player (who also gives up the weak 2♦ call), you likely haven't missed the 2♦ opener because you don't pay attention to what happens on the weak 2 hands (or you play 3m weak enough that a fair number of your opponents' 2♦ bids you don't pass). Yeah, they probably break even 65% of the time, but the other 35% are much more to the preempt's benefit than its detriment.

 

Many Flannery players say that they've never had a bad result when they open 2♦. I don't disbelieve them. I don't know how many of those "not bad results" are break-even, or maybe they missed where they gave away the overtrick by wrong-siding the hand (2♦-2NT; 3M-4M is the most common one of those). I rarely get bad results when I open 2♦ either (standard or Precision) :-).

[PhilKing]

Opening 2♦ is a winner whatever it means. Richard Pavlicek has collected vugraph stats from the major US events and the World Championships for the three most common treatments. These are the figures for when one side opened 2♦ and the other did something else:

 

1996-2012 Flannery (109) 314-224

1996-2012 Multi (295) 701-656

1996-2012 Weak 2D (211) 552-388

 

The bracketed figure is number of occurrences, followed by imps for and against.

 

Flannery gains the most per board, closely followed by the weak two. The multi lags a long way behind, but consider that the other table was usually opening a weak two and it is still a good figure. Multi adherents will also claim to gain more from being able to use 2M for something else.

[kenberg]

The figures from Pavlicek are definitely interesting and equally definitely need to be interpreted with care. No doubt multi players would say that the advantage of multi is that it allows them to use 2M in other way.s, and I don't doubt that claim. Whether it is worth it I am less sure, but surely they get something out of being able to use 2M to show, well, whatever they use it for. It varies.

 

Of course it also depends on level of play. If opponents have no idea what thier own bids mean over the multi then it becomes more effective. but the Pavlicek data presumably is not subject to that distortion.

[mikestar13]

It totally depends on the rest of your system and what is legal in your games. In several partnerships I play Flannery in ACBL General Convention Chart games--where most interesting artificial uses are disallowed (Multi, Ekrens, etc.) and something as simple as Kaplan Inversion in response to 1♥ is prohibited (for I/A's not familiar with KI: in response to 1♥, 1♠ denies ♠ and 1NT shows them. This can solve every problem Flannery does without using the 2♦ opening.) I would prefer not to play Flannery in less restrictive jurisdictions.

[MickyB]

I know that Flannery-hating is going out of fashion, but really I don't see what problem it is trying to solve*. 1H:1N, 2C on 2 cards is normally fine unless responder is 3154, whereas 1S:1N, 2C on three cards is problematic more frequently - 1543, 1453, 1552, 0553 may all finish in 6-card fits. Some point to nice 2/1 auctions after a 2m response holding 4S4m, but now people are doing that even without Flannery, and playing 1H;2m, 2S as not showing extras. Retaining 2S as showing extras is nice I guess but it's nothing to get excited about.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, if you are playing Flannery you should really be playing KI as well. Bidding 1H-P-1N frequently and 1H-P-1S infrequently is inefficient, just like rarely bidding 1C-P-1D playing Walsh instead of Transfer Walsh. It's better for 1S to show 0-4 spades, now 1N = 3+diamonds, 2C = natural 3+cards, 2D = 11-13 or 17+ with hearts, 2H = 14-16, 2S = reverse.

 

* Actually, I did decide that Flannery would be useful if playing 1M:2X as natural, showing either good preference or GF, as it meant 1H:2m, 2H denied four spades, and 4S2H 5-10 could ignore the spades and show good or bad preference as appropriate, but I rather doubt that is relevant to anyone else.

[Stephen Tu]

I know that Flannery-hating is going out of fashion, but really I don't see what problem it is trying to solve*. 1H:1N, 2C on 2 cards is normally fine

 

It's not like 4522 after FNT is the only problem Flannery addresses. After 1h-1s-2s, not playing Flannery there is ambiguity whether opener has 3 or 4 cd support, which can affect responder's decision whether to go on in borderline cases. You avoid some dodgy 4-3 2♠ contracts when there was a better spot elsewhere. There are some concealment advantages also after 1h-1nt-?-? when responder hides 4 cd spade suit. 2d-4M also is an effective auction that doesn't unnecessarily reveal too much about declarer's hand.

 

In 2/1 auctions I think Martel/Stansby did some rearranging, utilizing 2s artificially after 1H-2m for things other than spades since they didn't have to cater to minimum 45 major hands.

 

I think overall Flannery gains you a little on average both when you open it or when you open 1H. But unclear whether it gain as much compared to normal weak 2d (underrated by a lot of people, arguably harder to defend than 2h opening), and maybe gain less vs. KI than vs. std?

 

Also it would have stopped some annoying losses from me from partners expecting (unreasonably IMO) for 1♥-(2m)-dbl-(p)-2♠ to 100% guarantee 4 cd spades. Does anyone agree with my partners on this sequence?

[fromageGB]

I hate Flannery hands when I'm not playing it and partner bids 1NT forcing; especially when I'm 4=5=2=2.

Why? I play natural with forcing NT with one partner, and if she bids 1NT she denies 4 spades, so you have missed nothing other than the possibility of playing 1NT, which you have decided to forgo when you decided to go with the benefits of a forcing NT. I think you will find that people with this hand who play Flannery can also not play in 1NT. Just bid whatever your normal style is after a forcing NT. For me it is 2♦ to deny the strength a 2♣ bid shows, and partner will not pass without 6 of them, if she has 2 hearts.

[kenberg]

Also it would have stopped some annoying losses from me from partners expecting (unreasonably IMO) for 1♥-(2m)-dbl-(p)-2♠ to 100% guarantee 4 cd spades. Does anyone agree with my partners on this sequence?

 

My feeling on such tings is that your partner should not have to spend much time worrying that you might have only a (presumably strong) three card holding. That's not exactly the same as saying that you will always have four. If he has the opponent's minor well stopped it could hardly hurt if his next bid were in NT.

[JLOGIC]

I play flannery with my regular partner, I think the biggest gains are in competitive auctions, it is really nice to know partner has 5 spades right away, and it is also nice in negative double/preempt auctions to know partner does not have 4 spades. For instance, 1H 2D X p 2S showing either 3 or 4 spades has a lot of downsides, knowing that it's 3 is useful.

 

That said, I'd still rather play weak 2D. I think it is quite an effective bid, and with KI you can show 4 spades vs 5 right away (though competitive auctions are still an issue).

 

I also think playing 1N more often is good. 1H-1N AP and they dont know whether declarer has 4 spades or not has been good in my experience, though maybe it doesn't matter that much at imps it seems really good in MP or BAM. So I don't think mickybs point is as clear as he makes it out to be though I do think he's probably right.