[Rado]

Hello Mike (Yzerman) and all other friends involved in this discussion,
First I want deeply to thank Mike for his well proved qualifications about my "non-reading the posts", "anti Flannery position", "setting my mind against Flannery", "narrowminded"............

Hey Mike BBO forum is supposed to be for discussions not for war or blaming people in all sins. If you do not like opinions that not correspond to your own point of view, just do not read them.

I've already received a translation of your post made by professional bridge translator, but I still have the feeling that you want to compare airplane with submarine.

One last word: I had several very good results when played Flannery and the right hands came:
2Di-P-4SP-passed going down 2 with 5Cl vulnerable for the opps.
Hope somebody will tell us who said:
"There are not good and bad conventions - it's the players who use them in good or bad way"

Regards, Rado

[bglover]

Couple small points to this very interesting discussion.

A few years ago someone did a computer similation comparing weak 2, Flannery and Multi to see which was most effective. The winner was the weak 2 bid by a fairly substantial margin, which was a kind of suprise. The argument for replacing the bid in the 1st place has always been that 2D offers little preemptive value, and yet it was still the clear winner.

Does that mean we should all switch back to a weak 2 bid? Course not, we use whatever bid helps us within the framework of our bidding structure.

Now, given that my preference is a natural, five card major system, Flannery helps to clear up a number of tough bidding problems created by the 4=5 major hand and that is why I personally prefer it. It has enough frequency that it is not worthless, as I found Roman bids to be, and it often leads to good results when the bid is used.

Multi certainly occurs more often than Flannery, and that is perhaps the best argument I have heard to use it instead of Flannery. Multi will occur three or four times a session in a 27 board movement where Flannery will occur once or twice.

Now, given that, one must look at the number of good boards specifically attributable to the bid itself. (If I don't play Flannery or Multi would I have reached the best competitive contact using my natural methods?) This is the only poll that matters in this context. I am not going to presume to know the answer to it.

As someone else noted, Multi isn't the greatest convention ever created, and neither is Flannery. But, I will say this: I have watched more and more top players use Multi and have problems with it. This is my own observation only and I know I will get a lot of flack for it.

I know several very fine players here on BBO who have opted to drop it from their systems due to a higher-than-anticipated number of bad boards and have gone back to weak 2 diamonds.

Now, I tend to believe that the reason people have trouble with Multi tends to fall into two categories.

1. I have seen a TON of abuse of the bid (mostly by bidders who, in my opinion, should be less concenred with adding conventions and be more worried about bidding basics better).

2. Timid bidders holding good hands who, when their partners open weak immediately devalue their hands too much and miss very makeable games because they are afraid now that partner is TOO weak. This option seems fairly prevalent and is the main reason why i refuse to incorporate Multi into my system.

I do believe, in the hands of 2 players who handle it properly, it is an effective tool... and because of its frequency could be a better alternative to Flannery (or use 2d multi and 2h flannery as some do). However, given the number of problems I have seen with GOOD players handling the bid, I have elected to just leave it alone.

[hrothgar]

I've heard reference to this study on a number of occasions, however, I've never seen a detailed discussion regarding how the analysis was conducted.

Can anyone help fill in the details?
I really dislike making decisions based on hearsay.

[JRG]

I only have personal experience and subjective feelings on this.

My bridge partner for 20 years and I have played a 2/1 system for years now (we started out playing Power Precision, but I can't remember my own telephone number, so we were always in trouble!).

We played Flannery for a couple of years and then switched to 2D being a weak two-bid. We don't have any problems with an auction going 1H-1S; 2S (or someother rebid). I can't recall (but remember the caveat about my terrific memory) missing a 5-3 spade fit in a constructive auction, so we never saw the benefit of responder to 1H having to have 5 spades to bid 1 spade. Accordingly, we never had that agreement as part of our use of Flannery.

There is a valid argument that in a 2/1 system, Flannery gets rid of the need to rebid 2C on a two-card suit after a forcing 1NT. The reality - I cannot remember EVER having to do this (even though it is part of the system). While this is subjective, the bid must be VERY rare.

[inquiry]

I don't understand all these arguments.... Flannelry is warm, soft and comfortable. I love my flannelry shirt, no wonder Mike and Chip Martel like it so much...

"no ben, they are not talking about flannel, they are talking about flannery, the bridge convention.... "

Oh, never mind, then.

BTW, this is what Richard Pavlicek says about Flannery... "yuk — sorry, but I think it is a poor convention."

But did anyone attacking Flannery notice that Mike has changed it a bit? Would such changes affect your view of the bid? Before blanket attacks.. "flannery, yuk" some attention should be paid to the modification of the convention as suggest. After due consideration, then you can rip it to shreds if you like (and can).

Ben

[bglover]

Just a small addendum....earlier today I watched Msrs. Hamman and Soloway in the Partnership bidding room...It appears they, too, in their partneship use Flannery.

Tad more grist for the mill....

[bglover]

Another addendum... Watching the USBCs today I noticed Wolff-Morse are playing Flannery as well.

[Phil]

Setting the world record for a necro!

[Mefisto500]

After your unkind answer.. particulary because I made the premise to be a beginner, and also that I read it... I cancelled the post end rewrite looking at the original

source (pages 10-11 in italian)

The authors make an example :

♠ K753
♥ AQ652
♦ A4
♣ 85

After opening 1♥ and the answer 1NT you have 3 choices :

1) You use the Flannery to show this hand : 4♠ and 5♥ minimum.
2) Pass with 12/13 bad points, with 13 good/14 points hoping for the best... and bid 2♣.
3) To switch the meaning of 1♠ and 1NT bids: 1♠ with 5/12 points without 4♠ (hands on which you normally answer 1NT forcing), and 1NT is with 4♠, forcing 1 round.

On the answer of 1NT (4♠), the opener has no problems : with 4♠ he supports, with the 5332 bids the cheaper third minor.
On the answer of 1♠ (no ♠) the opener with the 4=5=2=2 or 5332 bids 1NT.

This accomodation offers a clearer and easier management of the minors by the partner of the opener : after 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT → 2♣/2♦ are proposals of a partial score, 3♣/3♦ are the usual inviting monocolors.
1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ the answerer isn't telling "ops I forgot the convention... I really have the ♠" , but shows 55 in the minors 10/11 points.

Any error or omission are due to me (the translator).

This post has been edited by Mefisto500: 2018-April-22, 14:26

[pescetom]

The original is interesting and well written, thanks.
But if Flannery has gone the way of the Dodo it is probably because it solved a problem that is not as big as it seemed.
My experience FWIW is that solution 2 works nicely.

[Phil]

Mefisto500, on 2018-April-22, 13:57, said:

After your unkind answer

A necro is bringing up a thread that has long gone inactive. 15 years is quite a long time.

Sorry if you didnt understand.

[hamish32]

This strikes me as an odd post. Why compare multi 2♦ with Flannery 2♦?

I have played both and currently play 2♦ as 9-12 with 5+♦ because it suits the rest of my system.

The experts who play Flannery point out that its best because of the hands that it removes from the rest of the system not because of the bid its-self this was my experience certain problems don't arise because we would already have opened Flannery.

Incidentally if you play 2/1 GF with a weak NT or 2/1 GF with a strong NT and Transfer welsh (all 11-14 bal hands open 1C) then it makes best sense for 1NT to be 100% forcing because opener always has a second suit when he has a hand in the weak NT range. Pointing out that each particular system spec will have specific problem auctions and this is probably the reason for including or excluding Flannery.

[Mefisto500]

Phil, on 2018-April-22, 15:35, said:

A necro is bringing up a thread that has long gone inactive. 15 years is quite a long time.

Sorry if you didnt understand.

OK, I didn't understand, Google translator says nothing about "necro"...

I was just searching Google with "Flannery" and read this post ...

[Phil]

Mefisto500, on 2018-April-23, 01:10, said:

OK, I didn't understand, Google translator says nothing about "necro"...

I was just searching Google with "Flannery" and read this post ...

Urban Dictionary is a good source.

[nullve]

hamish32, on 2018-April-22, 18:07, said:

The experts who play Flannery

are almost exclusively from ACBL land, where, incidentally,

* a Drury-like 2♣ response to 1st/2nd seat 1M openings
* Multi 2♦

are generally not allowed.

[2200]

Does anybody ever mention that, the real advantage of Flannery, is when you are NOT using them?
If you do NOT open Flannery, you don't have that kind of hand.
Because systematically, playing Flannery means 1H-1S promise 5, so there is other superiority for further bidding structure developement.
For example,
♠AKx
♥A109xxx
♦Axx
♣x
You open 1H and pd bids 1S. I am sure you will see various votes from expert panel.
There will be vote for 2H, 2S， 3H, 3S, and......a fancy 2D.
Playing Flannery, you have no problem at all. Pd promises 5, so it's a clear cut 3S.

[Mkgnao]

2200, on 2018-April-26, 10:00, said:

Does anybody ever mention that, the real advantage of Flannery, is when you are NOT using them?
If you do NOT open Flannery, you don't have that kind of hand.
Because systematically, playing Flannery means 1H-1S promise 5, so there is other superiority for further bidding structure developement.
For example,
♠AKx
♥A109xxx
♦Axx
♣x
You open 1H and pd bids 1S. I am sure you will see various votes from expert panel.
There will be vote for 2H, 2S， 3H, 3S, and......a fancy 2D.
Playing Flannery, you have no problem at all. Pd promises 5, so it's a clear cut 3S.

Experts play Gazzilli, so that isn't a bidding problem at all.

Simply rebid 2♣ (16+). If partner bids 2♦ (any 8+), then you bid 2♠ (3♠, 16+). If partner bids 2♥ (mostly 2♥, 4-7) or 2♠ (5+♠, 4-7) then you raise to 3 as an invite.

[wank]

Mkgnao, on 2018-May-01, 04:08, said:

Experts play Gazzilli, so that isn't a bidding problem at all.

lol gazilli isn't some universal panacea and it's a gross overstatement to imply all experts play it.

[rmnka447]

It seems like every time my partner and I discuss jettisoning Flannery, something comes up that reaffirms it's utility.

The following was from a KO match, vulnerable, where partner bid 2 ♦ Flannery and I held:

♠ AJ9xx
♥ -
♦ 1098x
♣ Q872

and bid 2 NT asking for more info knowing we had a 9 card ♠ fit and would likely be able to ruff any of partner's ♥ losers. Partner rebid 3 ♣ showing 3 ♣ and 1 ♦. So I bid 4 ♠ feeling that the probability of making the vulnerable game (> 37%) was good enough at IMPs.

Partner had

♠ Kxxx
♥ AQxxx
♦ X
♣ A103

losing a ♦ and 2 ♣ when ♠ behaved and only 2 ♣ losers existed.

[Phil]

rmnka447, on 2018-May-29, 16:22, said:

I held:

♠ AJ9xx
♥ -
♦ 1098x
♣ Q872

and bid 2 NT asking for more info

I would just zoom 4♠. The info leak offsets some vig from just blasting. 2nd choice is 3♠ if inv.