[bluecalm]

Quote

f you play Flannery and not KI You get to bid 1H p 1S p 1N with 2533 exactly

There is also 1-5-(4-3) and 2-5-(Hx-4) which you may want to bid 1NT opposite 1S promising 5 spades.

[E Laurvick]

I read this thread because I like Flannery. It gives a LOT of information in a hurry. However, I don't understand the statements that responder must have 5 spades to bid 1 spade over 1 heart, because "opener cannot have four spades".

When I was still playing in ACBL tournaments a few years ago, there was a strict rule that Flannery showed exactly 11 to 15 HCP and exactly 4-5 in the majors. Any deviation got an unfavorable ruling from the director. If responder did not have game-going values, and opener had 4-5-2-2 distribution with 16 HCP, OR 4-6-2-1 distribution, the spade suit would be lost because opener HAD to open 1 Heart.

Has the ACBL relaxed its rules on this convention? Can people now open Flannery with a six-card heart suit or have a stronger hand?

[wickedbid1]

I think Flannery can be okay if u have worked out with pard the continuations & how to find minor contracts... but I shudder when i see it in my advanced pards' BBO profiles

Two di wk seems to me very underated. But, playing online, I think it much more useful than 2 hrt wk, for preemptive purposes. Opps are continuously boxing themselves when they have both majors & ending up playing in the wrong one, or a level too high (or, rarely, low) With two hrt weak they either have sp or they don't, a strong minor hand, or they don't, so it gets awkward much less often.

People who like the neg inference of flannery (which is definitely useful) should consider using 2 hrt for their flannery bid, keeping two di wk. 2 hrt flan puts a lot of pressure on the opps cuz direct seat feels forced to bid more often.

[Zelandakh]

wickedbid1, on 2012-January-02, 23:11, said:

Two di wk seems to me very underated.

It is an oft seen remark that a 2D preempt (whatever its meaning) is often more effective than a 2H preampt (whatever the meaning). I do not think any serious players are underestimating the value of a weak 2 in diamonds, even if they prefer to play something else.

[mycroft]

E Laurvick, on 2011-December-29, 00:34, said:

When I was still playing in ACBL tournaments a few years ago, there was a strict rule that Flannery showed exactly 11 to 15 HCP and exactly 4-5 in the majors. Any deviation got an unfavorable ruling from the director. If responder did not have game-going values, and opener had 4-5-2-2 distribution with 16 HCP, OR 4-6-2-1 distribution, the spade suit would be lost because opener HAD to open 1 Heart.

By "few", you mean 20+, or the TDs haven't been following the changes to the regulations. The ACBL hasn't licensed conventions (as opposed to methods that fit categories) since at least 1990, and I think 1980.

If you *describe* it as "Flannery" (which, alone, is by definition an "incomplete explanation", no matter whether it's classic or not), and it isn't "11-15, 5 exactly hearts and 4 exactly spades", then you are going to be looked askance by the TD, and if the misinformation caused damage to the opponents, you will be ruled against. But playing:

Quote

Flannery with a six-card heart suit or hav[ing] a stronger hand

is perfectly legal; the relevant regulation is:

ACBL GCC said:

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits.

You just need to explain your agreement, and not hide behind the F word.

[32519]

ArtK78, on 2011-December-11, 12:37, said:

With all due respect, that is silly.

After a 2 of a minor forcing to game response, opener should be able to bid 2♠ if he is 4-5-x-y on a minimum hand. It should not promise a true reverse. Nor is there a need to show a true reverse. With a true reverse, you are in the slam zone already, and there should not be any need to show the extra values on your first rebid. But the need to show your distribution on a minimum hand is paramount.

EricK, on 2011-December-11, 15:12, said:

Why? Why can't opener rebid 2♥ with minimum then support responder's 2♠ rebid (if he has one) to show that shape and minimum? How exactly do you differentiate opener's strengths if you rebid 2♠ on both weak and strong hands?

aguahombre, on 2011-December-11, 15:25, said:

As stated, 2/1 auctions do not need to establish whether opener has extra values on his first rebid, unless there is a specialized jump to perfectly show both size and shape. We have plenty of time in the auction, after a fit is uncovered, to move from game mode to slam mode.

After having another look at these posts, the following makes a lot of sense to me:
1.) In a 2/1 GF auction e.g. 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ both partners should first bid out their hand shapes. I don't see any reason why the 2♠ bid should be regarded as a reverse bid.
2.) If you want to jump to show a "true reverse bid" all you are doing is taking up your own bidding space.
3.) Once you have established a suit fit (might be on level 3 by now), can't you show extra values for a slam try via Serious 3NT? Or if you play Frivolous 3NT, start cue-bidding on level 4 to show extra values and slam interest?

[fromageGB]

32519, on 2012-January-07, 08:54, said:

After having another look at these posts, the following makes a lot of sense to me:
1.) In a 2/1 GF auction e.g. 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ both partners should first bid out their hand shapes. I don't see any reason why the 2♠ bid should be regarded as a reverse bid.
2.) If you want to jump to show a "true reverse bid" all you are doing is taking up your own bidding space.
3.) Once you have established a suit fit (might be on level 3 by now), can't you show extra values for a slam try via Serious 3NT? Or if you play Frivolous 3NT, start cue-bidding on level 4 to show extra values and slam interest?

You seem to be arguing that you should ignore strength, and just bid cheapest natural suits, so with 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ opener could have a 12 count 45xx hand. I would argue - as does EricK - that if you have an agreement that a 12-14 hand will repeat his major (1♥ 2♦ 2♥) then this loses nothing in finding the fits : responder bids 2♠ if he has 4, or if not can bid 2NT so that opener can then describe his shape, bidding a second suit such as 2♣, showing 3+ support with 2♦, a 6 card suit with 2♥, or none of these with 3NT. Nothing is lost. Conversely, if opener's first rebid is 2♠ by these methods, it has to be 15+. It gives information on strength, as well as shape.

This helps, because the use of serious/non-serious 3NT only applies with a major fit. Let's say there is no such fit.
With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3NT responder with his 16 count can happily pass. Opener has no more than 14. With my sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder knows opener is 15+, so with his 16 count can bid 6NT after checking for aces - using Gerber or asking specifically for 5 aces in hearts or diamonds if that suits his hand (with a kickback method). The correct contract always.
With your sequence 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3NT, responder is stuck with his 16 count. If he passes, opener turns up with 16 and you miss the slam. If he bids further, opener turns up with 12 and you have bid too high and go off.

It also works better if opener supports the minor. For you, 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is any strength, and you don't know what to do. Look for a slam, and you may too late find out that 3NT was the best contract. For me, 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3♦ shows diamond support, but only 12-14, whereas 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is 15+.

So I will argue there is great benefit in not bidding shape immediately.

[mgoetze]

While a convention played by all those stars listed in the OP obviously cannot be the "worst convention ever created", I simply feel that it only solves problems I've never had. To wit,

32519, on 2011-December-12, 07:36, said:

Why do I like Flannery?

a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT

I don't play forcing NT,

Quote

b) I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit

so I pass.

Quote

c) Constructive preemptive value

Far lower than alternative uses for the 2♦ bid, e.g. Wilkosz or Ekrens.

Quote

d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers)

Somehow I've never been particularily bothered about this.

Quote

e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation
f) Constructive game/slam bidding

General hand-waving which could be applied to almost any convention.

I have in the past played 2♥/2♠ showing 5 hearts/spades and 4 clubs, 11-15, and actually the feeling I got was more often that responder was stuck rather than having a "roadmap regarding hand evaluation". When the entire 2-level is taken up by signoff bids, it's very hard to devise a scheme which allows you to figure out both which shortness opener has, if any, and whether he has a min or a max.

[32519]

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament. Thus far I have already seen 3 Flannery hands in the USBC.

Flannery could have been used on -
1. Board 1: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. However at both tables, East chose to open 1NT which led to a Puppet sequence ending in 4♥. After Flannery it would have ended in 4 of either major.
2. Board 11: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. You will need to polish up your defence to Flannery. 6♣ and 6♦ can make here.
3. Board 37: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. One team bid 6♠ making 5, the other bid 4♠ making 6. This time Flannery gave the hand away when opps led trumps killing the cross-ruff, down 1.

[billw55]

32519, on 2012-May-01, 06:47, said:

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament. Thus far I have already seen 3 Flannery hands in the USBC.

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that "the controlling bodies" somehow construct the deals and make sure there are some Flannery-type hands? Or that there are more than would be expected by random deals?

[MickyB]

32519, on 2012-May-01, 06:47, said:

1. Board 1: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. However at both tables, East chose to open 1NT which led to a Puppet sequence ending in 4♥. After Flannery it would have ended in 4 of either major.

Seems an odd decision to bid 3H over Puppet. Surely it's better to give up on 5-3s than 4-4s at that point.

[ArtK78]

32519, on 2012-May-01, 06:47, said:

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament.

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

Do you live in Area 54?

[WellSpyder]

ArtK78, on 2012-May-01, 07:56, said:

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

Do you live in Area 54?

Certainly a weirdly distorted perspective of how the game is organised, isn't it? I was thinking of picking up on it in the other post, but I took into account some advice we were recently reminded of in another thread:

Quote

Don't feed the trolls!

[JLOGIC]

MickyB, on 2012-May-01, 07:52, said:

Seems an odd decision to bid 3H over Puppet. Surely it's better to give up on 5-3s than 4-4s at that point.

They play 1N-3C-3N as 4522 even lol, but I think one of them forgot. They were a last minute partnership because Kran was supposed to play with Seymon who got hopitalized one or two days before the event started.

[32519]

billw55, on 2012-May-01, 07:33, said:

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that "the controlling bodies" somehow construct the deals and make sure there are some Flannery-type hands? Or that there are more than would be expected by random deals?

ArtK78, on 2012-May-01, 07:56, said:

This is the second thread in which you make this ludicrous assertion that the "controlling bodies" in the US rig the boards that are played in our high-level events so as to favor the use of particular conventions.

Do you live in Area 54?

WellSpyder, on 2012-May-01, 08:16, said:

Certainly a weirdly distorted perspective of how the game is organised, isn't it? I was thinking of picking up on it in the other post, but I took into account some advice we were recently reminded of in another thread:

I don't care what name you give the guys who run the tournaments. But let's give them a new name here. How about the "Competition Organisers" or "Competition Sponsors." The fact that so many of these US favourites keep appearing, yes I do believe that they have been deliberately pre-dealt.

Here is yet another Flannery hand, this time demonstrating defence to Flannery.
Board 34: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. On this layout 4♦ can make. However at both tables E/W took +200 when 4♥X went down 1 and 4♥ undoubled went down 2.

[billw55]

32519, on 2012-May-01, 08:40, said:

I don't care what name you give the guys who run the tournaments. But let's give them a new name here. How about the "Competition Organisers" or "Competition Sponsors." The fact that so many of these US favourites keep appearing, yes I do believe that they have been deliberately pre-dealt.

Well that's nice to know.

Although I think boards are still dealt by hand at the table, at most team events here? Perhaps some top events have predealt boards, I'm not really sure.

Do you think it is possible that you are confusing cause and effect? Consider that perhaps, the conventions are popular because the hands occur frequently enough, by chance, to make use of the convention worthwhile.

[32519]

billw55, on 2012-May-01, 08:43, said:

Well that's nice to know.

Although I think boards are still dealt by hand at the table, at most team events here? Perhaps some top events have predealt boards, I'm not really sure.

Do you think it is possible that you are confusing cause and effect? Consider that perhaps, the conventions are popular because the hands occur frequently enough, by chance, to make use of the convention worthwhile.

The Flannery hands keep coming.

Board 80: Round of 16 – Segment 6 of 8.

The organisers love Flannery so much they even give it to the defensive side over 1NT!
Board 101: Round of 16 – Segment 7 of 8.

[billw55]

32519, on 2012-May-01, 09:16, said:

The Flannery hands keep coming.

Board 80: Round of 16 – Segment 6 of 8.

The organisers love Flannery so much they even give it to the defensive side over 1NT!
Board 101: Round of 16 – Segment 7 of 8.

So, you have found six boards out of roughly 600 played in the round of 16. About 1%. Do you consider this significant?

[awm]

Probability of holding 11-15 hcp is about 34%.

Probability of a flannery shape of 4522/45(31)/45(04) is about 2%.

Probability I have a Flannery hand is about 0.68%.

Probability someone at the table has a Flannery hand is about 2.72%.

All of the above is very rough, certainly shape and hcp are not totally independent, and it is possible for two people to have Flannery hands on the same deal, but it should be in the ballpark.

Seems like USBF must be conspiring to NOT give us Flannery hands if its only 6 of 600 deals! (joking)

[han]

I can't believe it, are you real 32519? Wow!