pbleighton Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 A player at my club plays Precision with:1) 2D as Flannery OR 3 suiter short in diamonds2) 2H as any 4441, 16-24 I think both of these bids run afoul of the GCC:1) 2D may be ONE of three hand types - this can show either of two - ??2) The 2H bid would be legal if it were 2C or 2D, but I can't see how 2H is legal. I will be playing with him a bit. It doesn't matter at our club, but I'd like to know if it's a problem at tournaments. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Hi Peter The 2♥ bid is clearly not sanctioned by the GCC. You MIGHT be able to get away with the 2♦ opening. The GCC states that you can use a 2♦ opening to show "both majors" with a minimum of 10 HCP. However, they never define what is meant by "both majors". It could be argued that since the 2♦ opening explictly promises at least 4-4 in the majors regardless of hand type that this does, indeed, promise both majors. Its unclear whether the ACBL would agree with this interpretation. You should probably submit this question directly to the ACBL. A written ruling from the ACBL is worth a lot more than the opinions of posters on the BBO forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chamaco Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 You might consider handling the Flannery hands by allowing responder to use the "Kaplan Inversion": 1H:1NT guarantees 5+S 1H:1S denies 5S, may still have 4, opener rebids 1NT if he has 4 spades, otherwise he bids a 3+ minor suit or rebids naturally. This is relatively easy to remember and IMO is quite useful for many purposes (opener knows right away if responder has a spades 5 bagger). This eliminates the need for a Flannery opening. Hence the 2D opening might include the strong 4441 and the 2H opening would show a minimum 3-suiter short in diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Thanks, Richard, for confirming my suspicions. If this turns into a real partnership, I will ask for a ruling. Chamaco - thanks, but the Kaplan Inversion isn't GCC legal. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Chamaco - thanks, but the Kaplan Inversion isn't GCC legal. Eeeek. :( :( :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Chamaco - thanks, but the Kaplan Inversion isn't GCC legal....neither is 2H as a Precision 2D opener. Something about it being much harder to defend against when the most common response is "pass". Flannery is a bi-polar convention - people either love it or hate it. It's a lot easier to love it when your alternatives are "too confusing" to be allowed, though (note: about (mumble) years ago, KI *was* GCC legal. It came off at the same time the NT defences were tightened up). Note: my answer (basically parroting Richard, but with some "thoughts" about 2H) is in that Other Place. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 My reading is that Flannery as 2H is legal, though. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 yes, flannery 2H is legal... i used to play a precision that used 2D as mini/maxi roman and 2H as flannery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 " 2D as mini/maxi roman" Jimmy- Explain? How did you like it? Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 I used to hate Flannery; now it's necessary in my system due to its setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 " 2D as mini/maxi roman" Jimmy- Explain? How did you like it? Peter i liked it fine, peter.. if responder signed off (2D : 2S) then a raise showed the maxi type... if spades was short suit, 2NT showed maxi, 3C is p/c if responder bid 2NT (g.f.), opener bid the suit under the stiff/void... responder could then set the suit and bid tab at the same time (2D : 2NT : 3H : 3S trump asking)... if responder bid 3NT she's saying she isn't interested in slam vs. 16-19.. opener can bid 4NT w/ 20+ i'm rushing to leave for work, might have missed something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 My reading is that Flannery as 2H is legal, though. Yes, sorry,Peter, changed tracks without warning. I've actually played Flannery 2H. And yes, I got the "He opened 2H, not 2D" comment. To which, of course, I smiled. First I said that 2H three-suited, short in diamonds, is not GCC legal - but if it shows "both majors, 10+ HCP" - and 4-3 doesn't cut it, in my view - then it's probably okay. Then I went on to the other topic that when you can bid 1H-1S F1 and 1H-1NT showing spades, a lot of the problems that Flannery solves go away - making it a much poorer convention (as all the downside is still there). This may explain why it's very uncommon outside of Canada / US at high level competition. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.