[32519]

 helene_t, on 2014-January-29, 03:33, said:

The whole point of playing Flannery is that 1♥ denies spades (unless reverse strength).

Why has this never been challenged before?

[32519]

 helene_t, on 2014-January-29, 03:33, said:

The whole point of playing Flannery is that 1♥ denies spades (unless reverse strength).

I know the basics of Flannery but have never read Bill Flannery’s book. Is that what it says?
What is wrong with playing, “any change of suit is forcing for 1 round?” That way partner gets to bid his 4-card ♠ suit over 1♥. Opener with a minimum can raise to 2♠, with a max he can raise to 3♠. If the opponents chip in with an overcall in the minor suits, a negative double brings responders 4-card ♠ suit into play.

[kenberg]

I checked weak, it's simple and I think effective. But since I see that there are not yet any votes for Flannery, I thought I would supply a hand that came up recently when I was playing that much dissed convention. I am East

---

After 4♣ on my right I decided to take a flyer on 4♠. I can say I minded when S went on to 5♣ but then partner tried 5♠. Somehow no one else got to this 17 point 11 trick contract.I can't imagine why not!

[the hog]

The answer to the question depends on a number of factors. In decreasing order of importance in a serious partnership, as far as I am concerned the priorities are as follows.

1) How does it fit into the system and what effect does it have on other bids?
2) The effectiveneness of the opening.
3) Fun in playing it.

So for me, the choices in order are
a) Wilkosz 2D
b) 10-14 pts, 6+Ds no Major, may have 4C
c) Mini multi

Over a few years of tabulating our results and net Imp gains, option b) gained the most. However a) fitted into our system the best. c) was ok
We did play Ekrens and also a weak 2D for a while but both of these gained little in good level competition.

To Helene: "Wilcosz is OK but I am not sure if it is so sound to open a Polish 2♣ on HHxx-HHx-x-xxxxx "
No Polish C player opens this with 2C. You open 1C and if there is no interference, rebid 1 of the Major. This shows, among other possibilities, a min opening and 3 or 4 of the bid Major.

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-January-30, 12:05, said:

I know the basics of Flannery but have never read Bill Flannery’s book. Is that what it says?
What is wrong with playing, “any change of suit is forcing for 1 round?” That way partner gets to bid his 4-card ♠ suit over 1♥. Opener with a minimum can raise to 2♠, with a max he can raise to 3♠. If the opponents chip in with an overcall in the minor suits, a negative double brings responders 4-card ♠ suit into play.

The problem Flannery mainly solves comes up not when responder bids 1♠ but when he bids 1NT (forcing). Whether it causes worse problems is up to the individual user to decide,

Obviously it can also have unexpected constructive value, as above!

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-30, 22:46, said:

The problem Flannery mainly solves comes up not when responder bids 1♠ but when he bids 1NT (forcing). Whether it causes worse problems is up to the individual user to decide,

The 1NT (forcing) is part of 2/1 which now creates a hole/flaw (a whole flaw ) in the system. For those who play 1NT as forcing, how do you plug this hole if you fall into the anti-Flannery camp with a 4522 hand? With 4531 you can still bend the rules slightly.

[manudude03]

With 4522, rebid 2C, and with 45(31) bid the 3 card minor. The main benefit of flannery imo is that it allows a 1S to promise 5 meaning you can safely raise to 2S with 3 of them.

[32519]

It's all about the system.
Fantunes solved it in their own way.
A 1♥ opening bid promises a 5+ card suit, 14+ HCP, 11-13 HCP with 5+♥ and 4♠
1NT = 0-9, no 4-card major.
Now they use the 2♣ either as natural or Gazzilli to keep responder talking.

[the hog]

Posted in error.

[Zelandakh]

 the hog, on 2014-January-30, 22:37, said:

The answer to the question depends on a number of factors. In decreasing order of importance in a serious partnership, as far as I am concerned the priorities are as follows.

You mised arguably the top priority:-

0) Whether the local regulations allow it.

 32519, on 2014-January-31, 01:06, said:

For those who play 1NT as forcing, how do you plug this hole if you fall into the anti-Flannery camp with a 4522 hand? With 4531 you can still bend the rules slightly.

One easy solution is to make 1♠ your forcing 1NT response. Kaplan Inversion is the most common example of this approach; another is to adopt a 2/1 framework where 1NT is GF with spades.

[kenberg]

I have never played Kaplan Inversion so I am not entirely sure of this, but I was under the impression that it is not allowed under the General Convention Chart (or whatever the rules are called at the most restrictive level). Maybe someone reading this knows.

The hole for the 4-5-2-2 hand is not severe in my experience. If, when not playing Flannery, responder is free to, and usually will, bid 1♠ when he has four and if he will usually convert 1♥-1NT-2♣ to 2♥ if he holds a doubleton then a problem arises only in the case he has at most three spades and at most one heart. This gives him a five card minor so he can pass 2♣ if his minor is clubs. If responder has 3=1=5=4 shape then it is true that he has a problem but in fact he also has at least something of problem if partner opens a Flannery 2♦ . It's true that after the Flannery call he can confidently find his 7 card fit while after 1♥-1NT-2♣ he is really working on a mystery without any clues, but this does not come up so often and sometimes it works out even when it occurs.

I payed Flannery long ago, then didn't play it for quite a while, and now play it with a partner who likes it. A line from an old Barbara Stanwyck movie comes to mind. "The good girls aren't as good as you think they are, and the bad girls aren't as bad. Not nearly as bad". Just think of Flannery as one of the girls.

I posted, mostly as an amusement, the freak hand a few responses up where I got to a lucky 5♠ after partner opened a Flannery 2♦ but for the most part I find that I get to the same contract with Flannery that I would have gotten to without Flannery. So I prefer 2♦ as a weak 2.

[mycroft]

Ken, KI *used to* be legal at GCC, but was taken off about 20 (25?) years ago. I think at the same time they restricted defences over a natural NT.

It is certainly legal Mid-Chart in all games, with no written defence (however, both a Pre-Alert, and a written explanation of the method (of course, nobody does the latter) is) required.

I have no idea why there hasn't been a push to reinstate it; it certainly isn't harder to understand, or defend against, than many GCC conventions. Maybe just the "death to transfers" mood.

However, on the F-word front, I would point out that it doesn't matter (in fact, it may even be more important without) if 1NT is forcing for this hand to be a bear to bid in Standard Methods. After all Flannery himself, at least at the time he needed to find a way to show 4=5s with less than reverse strength anyway, didn't play 1NT Forcing :-).

[Edit: I will note that one time I *do* in fact go full SB is when people play non-GCC conventions in a GCC game. It's almost never that I think it's bad, or that I don't have a defence - it's just that if I don't get to play my toys because of the GCC, they don't get to play theirs. It's amazing, when it happens, how often they "have been playing it with no problem for years."]

[Hanoi5]

I like to play Multi/17+ 4441.

[rmnka447]

Whatever choice you make for a 2 ♦ bid will have some positives and negatives. Play whatever variant fits best with your overall bidding system and style.

I prefer Flannery when playing any 2/1 variant. In my best and longest standing partnership, we've played Kaplan-Sheinwold (2/1 with weak NTs) for a long, long time. Throughout, Flannery has provided a simple, but not perfect, way to handle minimum range 4 ♠/ 5 ♥ hands. It does solve the rebid problem with a 4=5=2=2 hand over a forcing 1 NT. But what's often overlooked is how it makes the 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ auctions a lot simpler and cleaner. Responder has 5 ♠s when responding 1 ♠ and is not forced to bid 1 ♠ with 4 ♠ for fear of missing a 4-4 fit. Opener ability to raise ♠s becomes easier. Of course, rarely, we have a hand come up where opener has a minimum 4 ♠/ 6 ♥ hand where opener rebids hearts and we miss a 4-4 ♠ fit partscore. But the frequency of those hands is so small, we don't see it as a bar to using Flannery.

We have discussed from time to time switching to 2 ♦ as Mini Roman. Mini Roman addresses another problematic bidding area for K-S, minimum range 4-4-4-1 hands (especially a 1=4=4=4 hand after a 1 ♠ response). But every time we've gotten in this discussion, several outstanding results with Flannery have occurred and swayed us to stay as we are.

Our teammates, who also play K-S, use 2 ♦ somewhat differently. One combination plays both 2 ♣ and 2 ♦ as strong bids a la Rosenkranz's Bid Your Way to the Top. The other combinations use it as either Mini Roman or Flannery.

I also play quite a bit locally with a player using essentially a SAYC. We simply play 2 ♦ as a weak 2 ♦ bid.

[CSGibson]

In a natural context, I like an intermediate 2 bid - about 9-14 HCP, 6+ diamonds. It allows you to handle the bridge world hand of death (1D-1M-2D is now 15-18, 1D-1M-3D forcing to game and natural), and is a little more frequent than a weak 2 in diamonds. In fact, I like intermediate 2 bids for all 2M bids, though I don't play them in any partnership except my precision partnership, where I play an intermediate 2D only (9-12), which can have a 4 or 5 card major on the side.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-January-31, 08:00, said:

You mised arguably the top priority:-

0) Whether the local regulations allow it.


Largely irrelevant in civilised bridge countries like Australia.

[Vampyr]

 rmnka447, on 2014-January-31, 14:29, said:

We have discussed from time to time switching to 2 ♦ as Mini Roman. Mini Roman addresses another problematic bidding area for K-S, minimum range 4-4-4-1 hands (especially a 1=4=4=4 hand after a 1 ♠ response). But every time we've gotten in this discussion, several outstanding results with Flannery have occurred and swayed us to stay as we are.

Can you not, in your system, open1♦ and rebid 2♣?

[Kungsgeten]

If playing 5 card majors Flannery is nice to have smoother auctions after a 1H opening. This can be combined with Kaplan Inversion (or 1S as a combination of a forcing NT and a GF relay if that is allowed) or awm's Zirconia method:

1H--1S = 5+ spades, then
1N = 2-5-3-3 or 4+ diamonds or any 16+
2C = 4+ clubs, limited
2D = 3 spades, unbalanced (now 2H asks min/max)
2H = 6+ hearts
2S = 3 spades, balanced

Instead of 2D as Flannery you may however use:

2C = Strong or weak with diamonds
2D = Multi
2H = Flannery
2S = Whatever you'd like

If playing 4 card majors Flannery is less attractive.

A method I've thought about is copying Fantunes 1D and 2D, but still use a strong 2C:

1C = 2+ clubs
1D = 14+ unbalanced with 4+ diamonds
2C = Strong
2D = 10--13 unbalanced with 5+ diamonds

This way you could get some game forcing hands out of 2C, making use of 3D later in the auction as something else. This is also true if playing 2D as multi with either a weak major or GF with diamonds. Using 1D as 14+ and 2D as 10--13 may be a nice idea if playing Polish Club or Swedish Club too, since the 2D rebid by opener can be used as artificial.

During a junior event I met a pair playing their 2D as "weak with exactly 4 diamonds and any other distribution"

[the hog]

I wonder how many who posted inthis thread have actually done an Imps gain/loss analysis of various openings, or whether they are just relying on what they think.

[hrothgar]

 the hog, on 2014-February-01, 19:42, said:

I wonder how many who posted inthis thread have actually done an Imps gain/loss analysis of various openings, or whether they are just relying on what they think.

I found that Frelling Two's were a big winner when I was playing them.

This could have been because folks were too aggressive about overcalling.
A lot of the big pluses were from defending doubled contracts where the opponents got too frisky.