[Flem72]

If you want to play Flannery, you need certain tools:
A game forcing/slam invitational response for the majorsA range finder: this is very important--there's a big difference between an 11 and a 14-15, non-reversing handDecide how to invite and whether to use a mixed raise of a preemptive raise.Decide how to show the game-forcing/slam invitational responding hands with a long minor. (with a bit of detail, these can be included in the first, above, or in the traditional 2N response.)
I've played it for maybe 15 years and can count the number of poor results -- especially at favorable -- on one hand.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-November-10, 08:37, said:

As for blasting 3N even with a. 4 card major, virtually every competent partnership does this on occasion. Heck, Woolsey advocated this decades ago, depending on the hand type held by responder. I’d be (very) surprised if this were a long term winner if done indiscriminately

I think you've missed the point. Not bidding Stayman with some 4333 has been mainstream for half a century or so. It's exactly doing this almost indisciminately that's an innovation.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-November-10, 05:42, said:

The disservice is in shielding these players from certain conventions. There will always be players who "can't handle it" or don't care to learn. Do we want to protect these players at the expense of others who will become bridge players? As you say, the only way to effectively defend against it is to play it.

You don't always have a choice. Suppose in your town there are 2 decent bridge players, 2 who will become decent bridge players given the chance, and 16 who want to be protected, 8 of whom won't play if they aren't. Keeping in mind that, many weeks, someone or other will be out of town, do you want a game or not?