[wclass___]

I have never understood necessity to preempt with both majors. It is a very descriptive bid(and not hard to defend), so it may as well help opponents more than my partner. OTOH, if you play it in the range of opening, You get improved 1-level auctions, and as you are stronger you are more likely to help partner rather than opponents.

I really don't know why some people are allergic against "Flannery"

[mgoetze]

wclass___, on May 18 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

I really don't know why some people are allergic against "Flannery"

Whenever people talk about Flannery I have to try and remember whether it was 4-5 or 5-4 because I never quite figured out what "problem" it was supposed to solve.

[mycroft]

I refuse to learn Flannery - for reasons I'm not going to expound here, but it's a "love it or hate it" convention", but I do know what the problem is: avoiding reversing with a minimum. Therefore, unless you play canape, it's 4S5H.

My mind is actually growing (both in a standard context and a strong club context) toward Anti-Flannery responses to 1m (1D if strong club); but as I get older, my love affair with weak jump shifts wanes apace (these are the last ones I tend to use; I'd be willing to switch in a heartbeat).

[bluecalm]

Quote

Whenever people talk about Flannery I have to try and remember whether it was 4-5 or 5-4 because I never quite figured out what "problem" it was supposed to solve.

You can be 4-5-2-2 and lack good rebid after 1NT. Standard way to deal with it i polish systems is to play 2♣ rebid as either natural or 5-3-3-2 or exactly 4-5-2-2. This way 2♦ is natural 4+ (unless 4-5-3-1) and you don't have any more problems.

I think Flannery belongs to museum of bidding though, along with CAPP , strong jump shifts and strong twos

[wclass___]

mgoetze, on May 18 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

I never quite figured out what "problem" it was supposed to solve.

Well, you get one hand type out of your 1♥, it is up to you how you use it in your favor. However I must agree that if you are playing standard 1♥, and make up your mind to play flannery for some days then without changing your 1♥ gains will be really small.

For example it would be hard for me to imagine playing this scheme, without having a Flannery type bid.

1♥ -1♠ Various hands with <5♠ or Relay GF
..........-1N 5♠+
..........-2♣ Various invite hands
..........-2♦ Good ♥ raise++


I also used to be Flannery hater, but it was mostly because other players had come up with conclusion that it is a waste of bid, but having spent a lot of time with making and using various bidding methods i can say that everything depends on how well you can tweak your bidding methods to maximize gains.

[chasetb]

bluecalm, on May 18 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

I think Flannery belongs to museum of bidding though, along with CAPP , strong jump shifts and strong twos

Cappelletti is useful for the Weak NT, especially when you have to follow the ACBL GCC. Steve Robinson uses Strong Jump Shifts in his 2/1 system, Washington Standard. If you play the way Karen Walker teaches, it's actually quite useful. Of course, I play a jump shift as a Weak 2, with a system of responses and what not. Strong 2s are good for rubber bridge only, I agree with you that it could be retired.

I doubt anyone will look at it, but here's the SJS as used by Karen: http://home.comcast....bb/b_jshift.htm

[the hog]

"Cappelletti is useful for the Weak NT"

No, indeed it is one of the worst conventions you can play against any strength NT. Why do you think the Cappellettis don't even play it anymore?

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS. Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS.

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing (maybe I mixed up terminology). I mean situation constructive bidding (not competitive) like:
1♠ - 3♣.
In competitive auctions I agree strong jump shifts have a lot of merit (I prefer playing them too)

Quote

Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

What is Izdebski transfer ?

[the hog]

bluecalm, on May 19 2010, 09:28 PM, said:

Quote

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS.

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing (maybe I mixed up terminology). I mean situation constructive bidding (not competitive) like:
1♠ - 3♣.
In competitive auctions I agree strong jump shifts have a lot of merit (I prefer playing them too)

Quote

Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

What is Izdebski transfer ?

Leading Polish bidding theorist Idzdebski has devised a system of transfers after rebids which are FAR superior to nmf and XYX.
For example
1C 1H
1N 2D = trf to H
2D 3H = now equival to strong JS.

There are many many different continuations of course and it can get quite complicated. I wrote a post on this quite a while ago.

[glen]

The_Hog, on May 20 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

...For example
1C 1H
1N  2D  = trf to H
2D  3H  = now equival to strong JS.

There are many many different continuations of course and it can get quite complicated. I wrote a post on this quite a while ago and good luck finding it since searching on Idzdebski only turns up this thread or you can go to this link: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...49&hl=Idzdebski.

but not everybody has the extra space of 2♦-2♦

and then you get:
Q. wats 2♦?
A. transfer to ♥s
Q. didn't you already bid ♥s?
A. yes
Q. so how can you transfer to them?
A. the same way you can say suit symbols like ♥s in example conversations
P. I think 2♦ is a puppet to 2♥, not a transfer
Q. maybe its a relay?

[the hog]

No its not a relay, as you are bidding out your shape. A relay asks, Glen.

[hanp]

2D is not a transfer Ron, it doesn't show hearts.

It is a puppet but at the table I'd just say "forces 2H, can be several kinds of hands".

[the hog]

hanp, on May 21 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

2D is not a transfer Ron, it doesn't show hearts.

It is a puppet but at the table I'd just say "forces 2H, can be several kinds of hands".

Han, I am notdescribing NMF or XYZ or whatever.
Idzdebski has proposed a method where the 2D bid in my example IS a transfer, because it does show Hs.

Opener is obliged to rebid 2H. A sequence like:
1C 1H
1N 2H Is a transfer to S, invit at least.

Other examples
1H 1S
1N
Now 2C Puppet to 2D, invit hands, weak with Ds, or GF with Ds
2D T/f to 2H. T/play or GF
2H T/f to S. T/p with 6S or GF
2S Invit in NT, or sign off with long C, or 5/5 GF with S & C
2N Strong slammish, opener bids 4 card suit if he has it or 3N with 5332


Whether it is a t/f or not might be semantic.

[gwnn]

In ACBL a relay is defined as

Quote

Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

I like your definition better Hog (relay is an asking bid) but ACBL doesn't agree.

[Free]

gwnn, on May 21 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

In ACBL a relay is defined as

Quote

Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

I like your definition better Hog (relay is an asking bid) but ACBL doesn't agree.

Seems like they play aweful relay systems over there, if you have to (usually) bid the next-step bid after a relay

There's a big difference between a transfer and a puppet: partner is allowed to break a transfer, but a puppet obligates him 100% to make a certain call. So the question is if opener is obligated to bid 2♥ in Hog's example or not.