[mike777]

Pros and cons of using Flannery?

[DavidKok]

Pros:

• You can play that 1♥-1♠ shows 5 cards at reduced/minimal cost. Opener will opt for 2♦ with 4♠5(+)♥ weaker-than-reverse, so that on 1♥-1NT* (may contain 4 spades) opener either doesn't have 4 spades or is strong enough to introduce them anyway. The 1♥-1♠ start to the auction is notoriously tricky as both majors are in play (more so than over a 1m opening, even, as a 1m opener almost never has a 5(+)cM) and neither side is limited.
  
• You can decide to combine the above with Kaplan Inversion, notably KI5, to gain even more bidding space and resolve more hand types. This makes sense from a frequency perspective as well, as there are far more hands that would respond 1NT to 1♥ than there are hands that would respond a 5(+) 1♠. I think this also holds without Flannery, but the case becomes stronger.

Cons:

• You lose the 2♦ opening for something else. In particular, it has good preemptive value, whether natural or as part of an artificial set of preempts. It's also somewhat popular as a strong opening, such as the Mexican 2♦. This is particularly awkward as Flannery hands are so rare, so you're trading a high frequency profitable preempt for a low frequency debatable constructive opening.
  
• Starting your Flannery auction at 2♦ is slightly inconvenient. Good continuations exist, but especially on invitational misfit hands it can be hard to decide whether to sign off or to push to the 3-level. Note that standard 2/1 with a semiforcing 1NT might bid 1♥-1NT; a.p. with some of those hands, so at the very least you're a level higher and it can only get worse from there.
  
• In my opinion, modern bidding theory has mostly caught up with any problems Flannery alleges to solve. The particular problem (1♥-1NT forcing and opener is stuck for a rebid with 4♠5♥ too weak to reverse) can be solved with a semiforcing notrump, Bart/Lisa, some flavours of Gazzilli, Kaplan Inversion, some combination of the previous, some wild options like limited opening systems or even just be ignored because it's so uncommon. I prefer the semiforcing NT.

[mikeh]

Some very good pairs use 2H as flannery which, ignoring the cost of losing 2H for other purposes, seems superior to 2D because LHO has to commit over 2H when he could pass 2D and expect to get another chance

Otherwise I agree with David in that I think flannery as a solution for problem that is at least partially addressed by other, more modern methods. As rarity of 4-5 modest openers, I think BBO has a big in its random hand generator. I seem to get a lot of flannery hands, far more than in real life

I played flannery for a long time but stopped more than 20 years ago and don’t mss it. It consumes a lot of valuable bidding space, but any that good at slam bidding, leaks a lot of information and takes away other uses for 2D (or 2H) which I think are more effective

[johnu]

mikeh, on 2025-November-05, 14:22, said:

As rarity of 4-5 modest openers, I think BBO has a big in its random hand generator. I seem to get a lot of flannery hands, far more than in real life

If you had no clue what Flannery was, you wouldn't remember them at the same rate. My guess is that when you pick up a 4=5=x=x opening, you consciously (or unconsciously) think that this could be a Flannery opening, so you remember those hands better than random hands.

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2025-November-05, 17:14, said:

If you had no clue what Flannery was, you wouldn't remember them at the same rate. My guess is that when you pick up a 4=5=x=x opening, you consciously (or unconsciously) think that this could be a Flannery opening, so you remember those hands better than random hands.

I’m well aware of biases. However, I play a fair amount of face to face bridge…just came back from a Regional….and my impression is very much limited to BBO. Indeed, I only encountered two Flannery hands in Whistler, one of which led to a silly result when the opps had a huge misunderstanding. LHO opened 2D, partner doubled (showing a defensively oriented strong notrump or better) and RHO passed with a bad hand. I’d been wondering how many diamonds to bid with my AJ9xxxx and a side Jack but RHO’s pass made it easy…I passed and was pleasantly surprised when that ended the auction. Apparently LHO believed that his partner’s pass suggested playing there. 1700.

[DavidKok]

You're telling me that people play an artificial 2♦ opening but haven't discussed continuations after the most common interference - a double in second seat? I am shocked and baffled, who could ever have predicted such a thing

As always, competitive auctions are more important than constructive ones. Focus a good amount of your efforts there if you learn Flannery.

[mike777]

Ty all, very helpful

Leaning towards not playing Flannery 2H and Multi 2D seems pretty much banned in clubs and non national events, I need to figure what to do with those bids.

[mycroft]

You can bid it as a weak 2 in diamonds; that's pretty effective. Some even say it's more effective than 2♥ weak 2 in hearts, because the opponents' minor fit isn't pinpointed.

Levin - Weinstein say they "never" have a bad score when they open 2♦, and I believe them - I know I hate it when my opponents do. I just wonder how they score when they pick up a good 6-card diamond suit and a weak hand.

Having said that, if you play Flannery and you're *not* Levin - Weinstein or similar, know that the time you or partner forgets will be *spectacular*. Either because of the score (I got my final points for LM when they couldn't resolve the "I forgot (again?), I have diamonds" before 1100 territory) or because of the Director call, whether it's 2♦ (unAlerted) -5 with 4♥ or 5♦ on by the opponents, or 2♥ (partner woke me up, better pass) -5 with the same 10 tricks available on offence.

Now, if you play 2♥ Flannery, fine - but you (or partner) *will* do it with ♥AQJxxx and a stiff spade, and be in the same boat.

[mike777]

 mycroft, on 2025-November-09, 12:36, said:

You can bid it as a weak 2 in diamonds; that's pretty effective. Some even say it's more effective than 2♥ weak 2 in hearts, because the opponents' minor fit isn't pinpointed.

Levin - Weinstein say they "never" have a bad score when they open 2♦, and I believe them - I know I hate it when my opponents do. I just wonder how they score when they pick up a good 6-card diamond suit and a weak hand.

Having said that, if you play Flannery and you're *not* Levin - Weinstein or similar, know that the time you or partner forgets will be *spectacular*. Either because of the score (I got my final points for LM when they couldn't resolve the "I forgot (again?), I have diamonds" before 1100 territory) or because of the Director call, whether it's 2♦ (unAlerted) -5 with 4♥ or 5♦ on by the opponents, or 2♥ (partner woke me up, better pass) -5 with the same 10 tricks available on offence.

Now, if you play 2♥ Flannery, fine - but you (or partner) *will* do it with ♥AQJxxx and a stiff spade, and be in the same boat.

Thanks, interesting and funny but true stories..

[pescetom]

Here in Italy most advanced/expert pairs play some flavour of Multi. I am reluctant to do so because I note that a large part of its success is due to the difficulty it presents to beginners/intermediates and I am not fond of bunny bashing. But I do smile when at the bar they suggest that a weak natural 2♦ is a waste of a bid, but at the table frown whenever it is announced.
Flannery is unheard of and would not have success if just invented.
Some national level pairs play 2♦ as 18-19 balanced, which I find interesting although the developments look cramped compared to a 1NT rebid over unbalanced 1♦ and a (cramped) 1M response.

[DavidKok]

As you perhaps (probably?) know I am a fan of natural weak 2's rather than the multi. However, if you wish to play a multi 2♦, there is a specific version that I strongly prefer to others I've seen out there. I'd be happy to share my notes and thoughts if anybody is curious, or my defensive notes against the multi 2♦.

In my experience there is some amount of bunny bashing going on with the multi 2♦. However, this is also partially true for my own natural preempts - people simply aren't prepared well for the type of hands that I think are good to open with.

Regarding the effectiveness of natural preempts, I believe the order is 2♠ > 2♦ > 2♥. Some local players in the Netherlands combine a natural weak 2♠ and 2♦ opening with a both-majors ('Ekren') 2♥ for this reason.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-November-09, 15:29, said:

Here in Italy most advanced/expert pairs play some flavour of Multi. I am reluctant to do so because I note that a large part of its success is due to the difficulty it presents to beginners/intermediates and I am not fond of bunny bashing. But I do smile when at the bar they suggest that a weak natural 2♦ is a waste of a bid, but at the table frown whenever it is announced.
Flannery is unheard of and would not have success if just invented.
Some national level pairs play 2♦ as 18-19 balanced, which I find interesting although the developments look cramped compared to a 1NT rebid over unbalanced 1♦ and a (cramped) 1M response.

I think you are doing your BI's a disservice. I assume these BI's are lucky enough to be playing against AE at the local club and not voluntarily playing up in a tournament. If they are, the should expect to encounter everything.
Back to the club, the AL playing Multi are hopefully not bunny bashing but rather taking the time to explain the bid and how to defend against it.
Multi is only scary because it's shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what to do with it

David, please share your Multi notes.

[mikeh]

I don’t think that those NA pairs who play multi, including me, play it because it’s bunny bashing or, as a Canadian, baby seal killing. For one thing, we can’t play it except in events usually free of bunnies and/or baby seals.

I play it partly because there are hands on which it is effective in its own right but mostly because I like the uses to which we put 2M, which uses are only available because we play multi. Currently we play an intermediate 2M. In itself this has proven reasonably effective but adding to this is the difference this makes to auctions that begin 1M and opener can show 6 with his rebid. For example, 1S 1N: we do not need to jump to 3S with a great 15 or mediocre 16…a 2S rebid shows 14-16. This range effect ripples through our auctions, not merely after 1S or 1H 1N, and in our experience enhances our game and slam bidding as well as staying low on misfitting hands…where some have to jump to 3M we can sometimes stay at 2M.

Are any of these things huge? No, but in my experience there are relatively few treatments that afford huge benefits. Stayman, some transfers, J2N, keycard…sure…but most expert partnerships have dozens or scores of less momentous arrangements that cumulatively do make a big difference, and to us multi is a modest part of a collection of related measures.

[mw64ahw]

The pros & cons have been outlined above and If I had a choice it would not be Flannery. KI5 may also be restricted to some level in ACBL land. I'm not sure whether Zirconia falls into the same category?
https://bridgewinner...ng-after-1h-1s/

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-November-09, 22:44, said:

I don’t think that those NA pairs who play multi, including me, play it because it’s bunny bashing or, as a Canadian, baby seal killing. For one thing, we can’t play it except in events usually free of bunnies and/or baby seals.

I play it partly because there are hands on which it is effective in its own right but mostly because I like the uses to which we put 2M, which uses are only available because we play multi. Currently we play an intermediate 2M. In itself this has proven reasonably effective but adding to this is the difference this makes to auctions that begin 1M and opener can show 6 with his rebid. For example, 1S 1N: we do not need to jump to 3S with a great 15 or mediocre 16…a 2S rebid shows 14-16. This range effect ripples through our auctions, not merely after 1S or 1H 1N, and in our experience enhances our game and slam bidding as well as staying low on misfitting hands…where some have to jump to 3M we can sometimes stay at 2M.

This is a very good point. One of the reasons I am not as much of a fan of the multi is that I am not a fan of this intermediate 2M opener.

mikeh, on 2025-November-09, 22:44, said:

Are any of these things huge? No, but in my experience there are relatively few treatments that afford huge benefits. Stayman, some transfers, J2N, keycard…sure…but most expert partnerships have dozens or scores of less momentous arrangements that cumulatively do make a big difference, and to us multi is a modest part of a collection of related measures.

I agree with your general point but think the choice of examples is slightly comical. I think Stayman, J2NT and to a lesser degree keycard are between 'bad' and 'mediocre'. As an interesting data point, Kalita-Klukowski have been blasting 1NT-3NT even with a 4cM rather than leaking information with Stayman.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-November-09, 17:22, said:

I think you are doing your BI's a disservice. I assume these BI's are lucky enough to be playing against AE at the local club and not voluntarily playing up in a tournament. If they are, the should expect to encounter everything.
Back to the club, the AL playing Multi are hopefully not bunny bashing but rather taking the time to explain the bid and how to defend against it.

I'm not sure what the disservice you refer to would be: my not joining in to give them even more experience against Multi, or my comment that they cannot handle it effectively? Unfortunately that they cannot handle it is the simple truth, and can be ascertained by analysing the traveller on any opening hand with a weak six in hearts. I have offered them a simple defence against Multi, but only one pair really tried it. The only pairs defending at all effectively against Multi are those who play it themselves and have done for years.