Flannery

[Angelo DePalma]

My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).

I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.

My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."

I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).

In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.

What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!

Angelo DePalma

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Wisdom? <looking around> We don't have no freaking wisdom. </>

However, I have an opinion or a series of opinions. I think anytime
your opening bid dicates that you cannot play in a NT partial, you are
paying a penalty. I think anytime you give partner information he or
she does not need, you are paying a penalty. I think that any time you
tie up a higher-level opening to use on a hand that falls within the
normal range of one-of-a-suit, you are paying a penalty.

In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Whether this exchange is worth it is clearly a matter of opinion. My
opinion is that it isn't. I know the penalty I pay is that someday I
may have to rebid 2C over a 1NT response with that 4-5-2-2 hand. I have
gone through periods where I played a great deal of bridge and did not
play Flannery. I was prepared to bid 2C on this auction but the
situation never came up. For years, it never came up and it won't be so
traumatic when it does. I see no great advantage in making the
five-card suit a requirement for a 1S response.

I have kept a record of possible Flannery openers for our partnership
for years. I evaluated them two ways. My partner and I searched for
situations where we felt that we would be better off opening the
Flannery 2D. These situations did not come up often and we never
thought we were disadvantaged much, rarely at all. I also kept a simple
average of the matchpoint results we acheived on the hands where we had
a Flannery hand but couldn't use the convention. On these hands, we
averaged a better score than on our other hands over the years but the
difference was tiny. So, the hands where we could have used Flannery
were pretty much a wash.

The Weak 2D has averaged a solidly better result than our average on
our other hands. Since it is working well for us, exchanging it for
Flannery could not be a bargain for us.

Will in New Haven

[Angelo DePalma]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. But:

What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?

Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...

...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit holding
balances your 9-card major suit holding

What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As for
the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents *not*
to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump splits. E.g.
2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D (when you know
it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).

In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it difficult
to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but we'd sometimes
go a year without using it.

adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit holding
balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As for
the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents *not*
to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump splits. E.g.
2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D (when you know
it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it difficult
to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but we'd sometimes
go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so
you need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor
and risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four
cards in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2
minor fit.

Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction.
It starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall,
they usually have to start at the 3-level.

It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.


What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a
loss, but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty
mediocre destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong
minor anyway when you're 2-1 in the majors.

I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much
to his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I
think I've mentioned the reasons why.

Bob

[Angelo DePalma]

What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit
holding balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents
*not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump
splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D
(when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it
difficult to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but
we'd sometimes go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so you
need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor and
risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four cards
in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2 minor fit.
Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction. It
starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall, they
usually have to start at the 3-level.
It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.
What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a loss,
but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty mediocre
destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong minor anyway
when you're 2-1 in the majors.
I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much to
his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I think
I've mentioned the reasons why.
Bob

[ted]

You are posting up here...this is called top posting...instead of....

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit
holding balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents
*not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump
splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D
(when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it
difficult to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but
we'd sometimes go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so you
need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor and
risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four cards
in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2 minor fit.
Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction. It
starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall, they
usually have to start at the 3-level.
It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.
What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a loss,
but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty mediocre
destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong minor anyway
when you're 2-1 in the majors.
I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much to
his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I think
I've mentioned the reasons why.
Bob

posting down here or wherever in between when responding to a post

[Angelo DePalma]

I only "bottom-post" -- under-post is perhaps a better expression -- when
responding to multiple points in someone else's post. I see no reason to
post way at the bottom of a long post or string of posts. The point is to be
understood, right? To communicate?

Post by ted
You are posting up here...this is called top posting...instead of....

(SNIP)

Post by ted
posting down here or wherever in between when responding to a post

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Angelo DePalma
I only "bottom-post" -- under-post is perhaps a better expression -- when
responding to multiple points in someone else's post. I see no reason to
post way at the bottom of a long post or string of posts. The point is to be
understood, right? To communicate?

Post by ted
You are posting up here...this is called top posting...instead of....

(SNIP)

Post by ted
posting down here or wherever in between when responding to a post

Right. And it helps to maintain the stuff in choronological order.

Bob

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit
holding balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents
*not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump
splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D
(when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it
difficult to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but
we'd sometimes go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so you
need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor and
risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four cards
in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2 minor fit.
Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction. It
starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall, they
usually have to start at the 3-level.
It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.
What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a loss,
but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty mediocre
destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong minor anyway
when you're 2-1 in the majors.
I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much to
his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I think
I've mentioned the reasons why.
Bob

In that case, you should also learn to snip irrelevant parts of the message.

Bob

[Angelo DePalma]

I always post for maximum clarity.

If you don't like the way I post please put me on ignore.

Only in a bridge newsgroup.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was
responding to, as I've done 1000 times.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit
holding balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the
opponents *not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter
bad trump splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four),
or 3C/3D (when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is
short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it
difficult to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but
we'd sometimes go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so you
need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor and
risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four cards
in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2 minor fit.
Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction.
It starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall,
they usually have to start at the 3-level.
It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.
What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a loss,
but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty mediocre
destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong minor anyway
when you're 2-1 in the majors.
I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much to
his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I think
I've mentioned the reasons why.
Bob

In that case, you should also learn to snip irrelevant parts of the message.
Bob

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Angelo DePalma
I always post for maximum clarity.
If you don't like the way I post please put me on ignore.
Only in a bridge newsgroup.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was
responding to, as I've done 1000 times.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit
holding balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the
opponents *not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter
bad trump splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four),
or 3C/3D (when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is
short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it
difficult to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but
we'd sometimes go a year without using it.
adp

Post by w***@yahoo.com
In exchange for these penalties, we do solve a problem. The precise
4-5-2-2 hand is difficult without Flannery. Any hand with three-one in
the Minors is pretty easy but the doubleton-doubleton makes for a
problem. Flannery solves that problem. We also gain the understanding
that partner must have a five-bagger to respond 1S. Flannery also
preempts the opponents a bit on a hand where one of us has an opening
bid and they are unlikely to have a Major-suit contract.

Please learn to bottom post. Flannery is a useful convention to play
when you are playing a 2/1 GF. Let's say you're playing 1NT forcing and
you have a 4-5-2-2 shape. You open 1h. Partner bids 1NT forcing,
showing a variety of hands. You aren't storing enough to reverse, so you
need to rebid 2H, risking finding a misfit there, or two of a minor and
risk finding partner with a stiff heart, minimal response and four cards
in your minor, which he will pass. Too bad you missed your 6-2 minor fit.
Flannery has other advantages. As a fairly narrow-range bid, it gives
partner a lot of information at once, giving you a chance at placing the
contract giving the opponents little information about the responding
hand. The responses (2NT asks for clarification) let's you find those
marginal games. Some basic partnership discussion (4NT is RKCB for
Hearts, 5C is RKCB for Spades) let responder conduct an opaque auction.
It starts the auction at a level where, if opponents wish to overcall,
they usually have to start at the 3-level.
It is not, by the way, necessary to bypass 1S with 4 of them, since
partner may have 4-6 in the majors. On the other hand, if you have 5
spades and four hearts, you can bypass 1S, since your fit in hearts is
going to be as valuable with 4 spades in opener's hand.
What do you lose? You lose the ability to reach 2NT when it's right....
well, that's fairly unusual. You also lose the weak 2D, which is a loss,
but not as substantial as you might think: 2D is a pretty mediocre
destructive bid. And occasionally you wind up int he wrong minor anyway
when you're 2-1 in the majors.
I had to be dragged into Flannery and agreed to it only after our second
marvelous 4-2 minor suit fit. But over the years, I've come to value it
as a useful convention. A few months ago someone commented that, much to
his surprise, Flannery openings tend to produce good results. I think
I've mentioned the reasons why.
Bob

In that case, you should also learn to snip irrelevant parts of the message.
Bob

So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

Bob

[Angelo DePalma]

I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
until today.

I'm top-posting here, and as you can see I've cut 97.38% of the cheese while
preserving 94.21% of the relevance. You can read everything of value related
to this discussion with minimal scrolling. This isn't a matter of etiquette
or erudition. As if someone who points out another's "edsucated"-ness could
tell the difference.

Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?
Bob

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.

What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?

Bob

[Angelo DePalma]

Let's make a deal, Bob. If you promise to work on your spelling and typing,
I promise to investigate the complexities of usenet etiquette and the impact
of top-posting on undeveloped brains such as yours.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess
and bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of
personalities drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back
and more concerned with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated
opinions of themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating
system, and everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself
through petty lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.
What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?
Bob

[Jürgen R.]

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.
What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?
Bob

A: People bitching about top posting
Q: What's the most annoying thing on USENET?

[Bob Lipton]

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.
What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?
Bob

A: People bitching about top posting
Q: What's the most annoying thing on USENET?

You think so? Try going to alt.movies.silent, saying that Thalberg was
a genius and read what Lloyd Fonville posts.

Bob

[Jürgen R.]

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.
What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?
Bob

A: People bitching about top posting
Q: What's the most annoying thing on USENET?

You think so? Try going to alt.movies.silent, saying that Thalberg was
a genius and read what Lloyd Fonville posts.
Bob

No, thank you.

[Angelo DePalma]

The rarest of all usenet events: One poster sticking up for another.

Vielen dank, mein Freund.

Post by Jürgen R.

Post by Bob Lipton

Post by Angelo DePalma
I've been posting this way on rec.games.bridge.politics and
rec.games.chess.computer for years. I'd guess I've posted 1000 times to
those NGs. Some pretty ornery people post there. I've been criticized for
every conceivable reason except the way I post. Not once has anyone
criticized me for "top-posting." I didn't even know what the term meant
Some day I'm going to write an article on the differences between chess and
bridge. At least half the article will cover the types of personalities
drawn to each game. Summary: chess players are laid back and more concerned
with substance than form. Bridge players have inflated opinions of
themselves (that's what happens when you don't have a rating system, and
everyone's a "master"). Your game is slowly killing itself through petty
lawyering, and people like you are to blame.

Post by Bob Lipton
So you're saying you're too stupid to be edsucated and too rude to
consider other people?

So ghow long have you had this total inability to remember criticism.
What's that? What toital inability to remember criticism?
Bob

A: People bitching about top posting
Q: What's the most annoying thing on USENET?

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Angelo DePalma
I always post for maximum clarity.
If you don't like the way I post please put me on ignore.
Only in a bridge newsgroup.

Not really. This EXACT discussion takes place on baseball newsgroups,
poker newsgroups, science fiction newsgroups and various technical
newsgroups. It is more widespread than the very common "greatest
guitarist" thread or "desert island books/films/women" or "casting ones
favorite novel as a film" threads. It has not been as vituperative as
one might hope here but I expect it to take off any minute.

Will in New Haven

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Angelo DePalma
I always post for maximum clarity.
If you don't like the way I post please put me on ignore.
Only in a bridge newsgroup.

Not really. This EXACT discussion takes place on baseball newsgroups,
poker newsgroups, science fiction newsgroups and various technical
newsgroups. It is more widespread than the very common "greatest
guitarist" thread or "desert island books/films/women" or "casting ones
favorite novel as a film" threads. It has not been as vituperative as
one might hope here but I expect it to take off any minute.

Will in New Haven

[Stephen Tu]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:37:30 -0400, in article

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

It means posting like I am here, trimming the previous post to just
contain enough context for people to understand what part you are
responding to, and posting below that.

This makes it easier for people to read, without having to scroll down
through the entire older post to figure out what point you are
responding to. It flows more logically, because then you see answers
following questions, counterpoints following points, rather than having
to jump from top to bottom back to top continually to follow the flow of
a conversation or debate.

What you've done 1000 times, top posting, writing your new text at the
top of the new message and just plopping the entire post/thread you were
responding to below it, is considered bad netiquette. If you aren't
referring to a particular point in a message, just don't bother quoting
the message at all. People can use their newsreader to retrieve the
previous message on their own.

Bottom posting, without trimming the message, as ted & Bob Lipton have
demonstrated in this thread, is just as bad.

[John Hall]

Post by Stephen Tu
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:37:30 -0400, in article

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

It means posting like I am here, trimming the previous post to just
contain enough context for people to understand what part you are
responding to, and posting below that.

<snip>

Yep. I prefer the term "interspersed posting", as it's much more
descriptive.

[Angelo DePalma]

In that particular post I reprised the main point in my response. There was
no reason for anyone to read the original except as a reference. For that
purpose I kept the entire previous post, but below mine. Anyone who'd been
following the thread knew; anyone who hadn't been could.

I didn't think this was a matter of etiquette. As I said to another critic,
only in a bridge newsgroup do you find nudges who bother with that stuff.

Post by Stephen Tu

Post by Angelo DePalma
What do you mean by bottom-post? I posted below the message I was responding
to, as I've done 1000 times.

It means posting like I am here, trimming the previous post to just
contain enough context for people to understand what part you are
responding to, and posting below that.

[Steve Samson]

Stephen,

Different newsgroups have different preferences. Top posting works fine
as a non-intertwined reply as long as the total message is less than a
screenful.

Post by Stephen Tu
It means posting like I am here, trimming the previous post to just
contain enough context for people to understand what part you are
responding to, and posting below that.
This makes it easier for people to read, without having to scroll down
through the entire older post to figure out what point you are
responding to. It flows more logically, because then you see answers
following questions, counterpoints following points, rather than having
to jump from top to bottom back to top continually to follow the flow of
a conversation or debate.
What you've done 1000 times, top posting, writing your new text at the
top of the new message and just plopping the entire post/thread you were
responding to below it, is considered bad netiquette. If you aren't
referring to a particular point in a message, just don't bother quoting
the message at all. People can use their newsreader to retrieve the
previous message on their own.
Bottom posting, without trimming the message, as ted & Bob Lipton have
demonstrated in this thread, is just as bad.

[Nick Hughes]

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit holding
balances your 9-card major suit holding
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As
for the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents
*not* to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump
splits. E.g. 2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D
(when you know it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).
In practice the Flannery bid comes up so infrequently I found it difficult
to conclude anything from results. I used to keep track but we'd sometimes
go a year without using it.
adp

Flannery is wasteful extravagance - using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Virtually anything other use for 2D is better - weak, Ekrens, Multi.
However, it does help in some auctions:

1H - 1S - ?

Since 1S shows 5 under Flannery, opener can raise with 3 trumps in
confidence, even if the next hand pre-empts.

1H - 1NT

Assuming this is non-forcing, responder can do this with 4 spades & might
attract a helpful spade lead. At least the possibility of 4 spades in
declarer's hand will make the defence tougher.

1H - 1NT - 2H

This guarantees 6 under Flannery. If you don't play Flannery AND 1NT is
forcing, opener might have

AJxx, AQTxx, xx, xx

Any rebid is a distortion.
4-5-3-1 is also awkward after 1H - 1NT - ?:

AJxx, AQTxx, xxx, x

Whether 1NT is forcing or not, 2H now is probably a better shot than 2D or
pass. Not liking it, though.

Flannery can lose when you have no fit. It can gain in getting you to those
tight major games, even slams when responder can pinpoint opener's shape.

No need to pre-empt with majors but you might get your LHO to bid 2NT/3C/3D
when he wanted to bid 1NT/2C/2D. Then partner can wield the axe. (Don't need
a negative double after Flannery)

Nick Hughes, Sydney

[Stephen Tu]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:40:00 -0400, in article

Post by Angelo DePalma
What precisely is the 4-5-2-2 hand problem which Flannery solves?
Without Flannery, if you open 1H and partner ...
...bids 1S you've found your 4-4 fit at the one-level
...bids 1NT that is where you belong because his 9-card minor suit holding
balances your 9-card major suit holding

It's a problem if you are using 1nt as a forcing or semi-forcing
response, in a system where a 2/1 shows stronger values than in older
Standard-American variants, GF or nearly GF. You can't pass with 14-15
because partner could have 11-12, maybe even with 3 cd heart support.
So you are stuck with rebidding 2c on a 2 card suit, or 2h on a 5 cd
suit, which can lead partner to various bad guesses. Alternately you
could distort with a 1S opener on some honor distributions, I suppose.

Post by Angelo DePalma
What is the value of the "understanding" that partner needs 5 spades to
respond in that strain to 1H? I've never been able to figure it out. As for

See Girben Dirksen's repost of Chip Martel's response ...

Post by Angelo DePalma
the pre-emptive value, all I see is that the bid alerts the opponents *not*
to balance in hands where they're likely to encounter bad trump splits. E.g.
2S (you know the Flannery opener possesses four), or 3C/3D (when you know
it's possible trumps are 5-1 and partner is short).

Opening Flannery can gain when partner can just leap to game, concealing
his hand type from the defense. It also gains when partner signs off in
2H/2S. The opponents have to guess whether to balance or not. Sure,
you could be in a non-fit, or trumps could split badly for them, but
often this is not the case. You could be in a cozy 8-9 cd fit, the
opponents don't know. Not balancing could be a disaster if they are
cold for 3m and you only make 2M. They could be cold for 3nt and miss
it because you forced them to overcall at 3 rather than 2. But
balancing could also lead to a huge penalty if partner had a misfitting
10 count.

I think that it's absolutely clear that Flannery has net advantages both
on hands where it is opened, and on 1H openers for its negative
inferences. The big question is whether these advantages are large
enough to overcome the disadvantage of losing the 2D (or 2H, some play
2H as Flannery) bid for some other use, usually some sort of preempt.
Most people seem to feel that it doesn't, but there are a few very good
players who feel that it does.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.

Cheers.

Nick

[raija d]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.
Cheers.
Nick

Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by raija d

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.
Cheers.
Nick

Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

Try to find a pair other than Meckwell that has had the success of
Martel-Stansby (5-time world champions) and Hamman-Wolff (9 time-world
champions).

[raija d]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by raija d

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding
hand
with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.
Cheers.
Nick

Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

Try to find a pair other than Meckwell that has had the success of
Martel-Stansby (5-time world champions) and Hamman-Wolff (9 time-world
champions).

You ducked my question.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by raija d

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by raija d

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding
hand
with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.
Cheers.
Nick

Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

Try to find a pair other than Meckwell that has had the success of
Martel-Stansby (5-time world champions) and Hamman-Wolff (9 time-world
champions).

You ducked my question.

Correction. I answered one non-sequitur with another.

[ted]

Post by raija d

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.
Cheers.
Nick

Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

Lazard-Bramley

[Glen Ashton]

Post by raija d
Try to find another succesful pair that uses it

Levin-Weinstein

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Yg1nQZA6WUoJ:www.usbf.org/formsyslevinweinstein.htm+levin+flannery+weinstein&hl=en

[Julian Lighton]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.

Hamman-Wolff, at least, had different systemic considerations than
people playing standard or 2/1.

[Angelo DePalma]

Julian! Good morning, and where have you been? Haven't seen you at Allendale
in several years.

Best,

Angelo

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!

Two partnerships that dominated world-championship play for a lengthy
period of time (Martel-Stansby and Hamman-Wolff) seem to have thought
otherwise.

Hamman-Wolff, at least, had different systemic considerations than
people playing standard or 2/1.
--
/* You are not expected to understand this. */

[raija d]

"Angelo DePalma" <***@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@ptd.net...

(snip)

Post by Angelo DePalma
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

I agree

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

2D Flannery would be great, if you could get out in 2NT, but, if you
can't you have troubles.

I play a STRONG (rule of 23) Flannery variant that permits 4-4+ majors
and uses 2C as its opener. The advantage is that you can get out in 2NT
and (under the GCC) use transfer and thus right side a lot of
contracts. It is not so difficult to bid 5-4 minimum hands without
Flannery. But the strong version gets partner involved in finding the
right contract when she has only a few points. Without this bid it's
difficult to get your partner involved in deciding where to play
becuase you have to get her to bid twice with hands that contain a
4-card major when you have a stronger hand and she has almost nothing.

I don't see that 5-4 minimum hands present any special problems.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

2D Flannery would be great, if you could get out in 2NT, but, if you
can't you have troubles.

I play a STRONG (rule of 23) Flannery variant that permits 4-4+ majors
and uses 2C as its opener. The advantage is that you can get out in 2NT
and (under the GCC) use transfer and thus right side a lot of
contracts. It is not so difficult to bid 5-4 minimum hands without
Flannery. But the strong version gets partner involved in finding the
right contract when she has only a few points. Without this bid it's
difficult to get your partner involved in deciding where to play
becuase you have to get her to bid twice with hands that contain a
4-card major when you have a stronger hand and she has almost nothing.

I don't see that 5-4 minimum hands present any special problems.

[e***@hotmail.com]

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).
I believe that the convention is totally unnecessary because the information
conveyed by the opening bid of 2D (or 2H) can easily be discovered during
normal constructive bidding. At the same time, announcing 4-5-x-x
distribution gives away a lot of information, especially w/ respect to opps
overcalling in spades and in the subsequent play if they buy the hand.
Flannery also is a bummer when partner holds an average responding hand with
the minors. He can't bid 2NT for risk of setting off the dreaded
game-forcing sequence; he shouldn't want to play in a 4-2 spade fit or 5-1
heart fit. NT may be the place to be but you can't reach that strain short
of 3NT.
My partner says, "It's not the hands where you open w/ a Flannery bid, but
the ones where you don't that demonstrate the of Flannery's value."
I believe that those hands actually illustrate one of Flannery's weaknesses,
by announcing, "I do not possess four spades." I can't see any other
potential advantage in those situations (BTW, we do *not* use it for 5-5
majors hands).
In practice the actual Flannery bid has come up perhaps half a dozen times
in six years (we only play 2-3 times a year). One time was a total disaster;
other times we got fairly normal results.
What is the collective wisdom on this newsgroup about the Flannery bid? I
think it's garbage!
Angelo DePalma

Chip Martel made a post to rec.games.bridge 8+ years ago explaining why
he played Flannery.

Eric Leong

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by e***@hotmail.com

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).

Chip Martel made a post to rec.games.bridge 8+ years ago explaining why
he played Flannery.
Eric Leong

There are two other solution to the problem of 4-5 major suit hands
that doesn't involve Flannery (which I have played, off and on, through
my 30+ years of bridge. As Rubens says, Flannery is far from the worst
convention ever created by bridge-kind...).

The specific problem that Flannery solves is the 4=5=2=2 hand with a
forcing 1nt response, as others have mentioned. It also allows the
partnership to find 4-3 spade fits that would otherwise be lost.

The first alternative solution is the so-called Kaplan Interchange,
where 1h-1s = forcing 1nt response and 1h-1nt = 1s response. Over the
1h-1nt sequence, opener rebids as over a natural 1s response EXCEPT
that 5H332 hands are forced to raise to 2s with 3 card support or, if
the hand is unsuited to a 2s raise, rebid a 3 card minor. Over the
1h-1s sequence, a 1nt rebid shows spades and everything else is normal.

The second alternative is to play that 1h-1s = spades and 1h-1nt is
normal but include transfer rebids by opener (David Weiss first
published this in a mid-1990s bridge world article): 1nt = clubs, 2c =
diamonds, 2d = EITHER minimum hearts OR a 2.5 spade raise with 3
spades, 2h = medium heart rebid, normally 14-16 hcps or so, 2s = normal
spade raise, and everything else is normal.

If my memory is correct, Jeff Rubens in one of his MSC turns suggested
combining the Kaplan Interchange with transfer rebids (so that after
1h-1s denying spades, 1nt = clubs, 2c = diamonds, 2d = hearts, 2h =
flannery). I do not have that issue at hand, so perhaps someone can
correct me if my memory has failed me.

In my opinion, the Kaplan Interchange renders Flannery inutile, and I
remember liking the transfer rebids scheme that Rubens worked out quite
a lot, but clearly it is not for general consumption by a
less-than-well-practiced partnership.

Henrysun909

[Gordon Rainsford]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
In my opinion, the Kaplan Interchange renders Flannery inutile,

but Kaplan (Granville) is severely restricted in the ACBL, isn't it?
Which might go some way to explain why Flannery is comparatively popular
there. Over here a forcing NT response is fairly uncommon, but those who
play it (often Precisioners) have the option of playing the Granville
spade. Hence Flannery is virtually unknown.

[Gerben Dirksen]

Post by Angelo DePalma
My partner and I have a long-standing disagreement over the Flannery
convention (11-15 HCP, 5H, 4S).

Pro F: It DOES solve some problems. The rebid after 1H - 1NT after 4522 was
already mentioned, another is that now 1H - 1S (a tough sequence!) can
promise 5 cards. There are some more.

Against F: It takes up so much space, sometimes takes you too high if there
is no fit, tells opponents how to play the hand, etc.

Is it worth it? In my opinion: No!

Anyway, to be fair, here is Chip Martel's reply (31 / 8 / 1994)

QUOTE

Since there has been a lot of Flannery bashing in this group I will stand
up for it. First let me state that I am not claiming Flannery is the
optimal use for 2D (something which would be very hard to justify for any
use), merely that it is much better than its critiques seem to make it
out.


In my experience Flannery leads to a definite gain when you do bid it
(this is true both when I have opened Flannery and when my opponents
open it, so this is not caused by my general edge in play). There are
of course some annoying minor suit hands, with invitational values, but
the hands where you preempt the opponents or have a nice auction to a
slam far outweigh them.


However, the main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it (as partly
argued
by Henk Uijterwaal). It is annoying to have to rebid with 4-5-2-2 after
1H-1N. In addition, it is not ideal to bid 2m with 4-5-(1-3) after
1H-1N since it is useful for your partner to assume that the 2m bidder
has either a 4 card suit or a balanced hand (otherwise opener has
a problem after 1H-1N-2C-2S= strong raise). Even this is not the main
gain. Responder's ability to bid 1N with 4S has several advantages:
1) concealment if you end up in 2/3N it is useful to have the opponents
unsure if you have 4S or not.
2) Allowing opener to raise a 1S response freely with 3 and for responder
to know that the raise is 3 card support (so responder can evaluate better)
3) With 4S, a 6 card minor and a weak hand, it is much easier to get out
in your minor after bidding 1N then 1S.
4) In constructing the rest of your system it is very useful if you
don't have to cater to 4-5 minimums. For example after 1H-2C we play
that 2S is either a 4-6 minimum or any hand with extra values. After
1H-2D we play that 2S shows CLUBS and 3C= spades + extras. Also after
a 1H opening a strong raise, responder can get opener's exact shape and
strength. The fact that opener cannot have a 4-5 minimum makes this
possible.
5) In competitive auctions it is useful to know partner does not have
4 spades. After 1H-(2m) if you have a 7 or 8 count with 4S you can
pass knowing you don't have a 4-4 spade fit. Similarly, if you double,
partner can freely bid 2S with 3 knowing you will only expect 3.


|>
|> The problem is a 4522 distribution, where partner responds with a forcing
NT to
|> 1H. You either have to rebid 2C on a doubleton or 2H on a 5 card suit,
both
|> choices are not perfect, Flannery solves this problem. (With 45-31m
there is
|> never a problem, just rebid as if you had 35-32m.)
|>
|> A more obvious solution is, of course, to switch the 1S and 1NT responses
|> to 1H.


I did a simulation of using switching 1S and 1N and found it to be a
big loser. Allowing the opponents to show spades cheaply by doubling
was a major loss.


|> or simply to agree that 1H-1NT-2H can be a 5 card suit if exactly
|> 4522.


This is a possible solution, but can lead to some pretty sad 5-1 fits.

END QUOTE

But, I'll have a weak two in D instead of Flannery any time.

Gerben

[Eric Hochman]

Post by Gerben Dirksen
Anyway, to be fair, here is Chip Martel's reply (31 / 8 / 1994)
QUOTE
Since there has been a lot of Flannery bashing in this group I will
stand up for it. First let me state that I am not claiming Flannery
is the optimal use for 2D (something which would be very hard to
justify for any use), merely that it is much better than its
critiques seem to make it out.
In my experience Flannery leads to a definite gain when you do bid it
(this is true both when I have opened Flannery and when my opponents
open it, so this is not caused by my general edge in play). There are
of course some annoying minor suit hands, with invitational values,
but the hands where you preempt the opponents or have a nice auction
to a slam far outweigh them.
However, the main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it (as
partly argued by Henk Uijterwaal). It is annoying to have to rebid
with 4-5-2-2 after 1H-1N. In addition, it is not ideal to bid 2m with
4-5-(1-3) after 1H-1N since it is useful for your partner to assume
that the 2m bidder has either a 4 card suit or a balanced hand
(otherwise opener has a problem after 1H-1N-2C-2S= strong raise).
Even this is not the main gain. Responder's ability to bid 1N with 4S
has several advantages: 1) concealment if you end up in 2/3N it is
useful to have the opponents unsure if you have 4S or not.
2) Allowing opener to raise a 1S response freely with 3 and for
responder to know that the raise is 3 card support (so responder can
evaluate better) 3) With 4S, a 6 card minor and a weak hand, it is
much easier to get out in your minor after bidding 1N then 1S.
4) In constructing the rest of your system it is very useful if you
don't have to cater to 4-5 minimums. For example after 1H-2C we play
that 2S is either a 4-6 minimum or any hand with extra values. After
1H-2D we play that 2S shows CLUBS and 3C= spades + extras. Also after
a 1H opening a strong raise, responder can get opener's exact shape
and strength. The fact that opener cannot have a 4-5 minimum makes
this possible.
5) In competitive auctions it is useful to know partner does not have
4 spades. After 1H-(2m) if you have a 7 or 8 count with 4S you can
pass knowing you don't have a 4-4 spade fit. Similarly, if you double,
partner can freely bid 2S with 3 knowing you will only expect 3.

I can take Flannery or leave it. I don't play it in any of my current
partnerships (I don't like it enough to push for it) but have played it
in the past to decent effect. The arguments above are a good summary
of the advantages. What do you lose?

1. The 2D bid. Most people play this as a weak 2 -- no great loss; 2D
weak seldom has much preemptive value. Loosen up your 3D openers if
you play Flannery...many weak 2D bids should be 3D bids anyway.

2. The ability to sign off in 2NT in Flannery auctions. This is a more
serious loss, since you end up in a misfit suit contract or a light 3NT
without a good source of tricks.

--

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Eric Hochman
1. The 2D bid. Most people play this as a weak 2 -- no great loss; 2D
weak seldom has much preemptive value. Loosen up your 3D openers if
you play Flannery...many weak 2D bids should be 3D bids anyway.

Hrm. 2D has more preemptive value than a 1S overcall after 1C. Lots
of people think that the 1S overcall of 1C is a fabulous bid (me
included). Surely opening 2D is as good?

Last night I got a very good result opening 2D, my partner raised to
3D, and the opponents were kept out of an excellent partscore contract
because none had a bid.

I figure that Flannery is most important only when you play a forcing
NT, and defer to Max Hardy's judgment about the best way to play
2/1. :)


Thomas

[Gordon Rainsford]

Post by Eric Hochman
1. The 2D bid. Most people play this as a weak 2 -- no great loss; 2D
weak seldom has much preemptive value. Loosen up your 3D openers if
you play Flannery...many weak 2D bids should be 3D bids anyway.

If this is true for you, it sounds like you should loosen up your 2D
bids!

[Stephen Fischer]

Post by Eric Hochman
1. The 2D bid. Most people play this as a weak 2 -- no great loss; 2D
weak seldom has much preemptive value. Loosen up your 3D openers if
you play Flannery...many weak 2D bids should be 3D bids anyway.

Then open those 3D and start preempting some hands you would otherwise
pass. 2D is a very nice preempt. Opener has to have both majors to
double rather than just one suit, so a hand with 4-2 or 4-3 in the
majors may have an uncomfortable decision.

In a similar vein, I really like 3 of a minor preempts, (1C) - 2D, and
(1D) - 3C. I strain to bid these as often as I can justify it.

[Angelo DePalma]

What is wrong with bidding and passing 1NT when you *know* you don't have an
8-card major-suit fit?

That's precisely the situation where you want to be in 1NT.

It seems the only situation where it might matter is if 1NT is forcing.
That's (one reason) why I don't play 1NT forcing.

Post by Gerben Dirksen
Anyway, to be fair, here is Chip Martel's reply (31 / 8 / 1994)
However, the main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it (as
partly argued by Henk Uijterwaal). It is annoying to have to rebid
with 4-5-2-2 after 1H-1N.