[kenberg]

whereagles, on 2011-December-16, 06:19, said:

I hate flannery and will not play it unless under "absolute coercion" (i.e. at gun point).

Reasons:

1. I hate it (99%)
2. It's a waste of a bid that can be better used (1%).

I like your reasons. I decide on a lot of things in the same way.

[Flameous]

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?
I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand. Do you throw some additional convention here to find spade fit with weaker hands, or do you just use nmf to find them when inv+? (Essentially coming to the same situation as bidding 1NT in 1m - 1H, skipping spades)

For what it's worth, I've played 2♥ opening showing 9-12 54+ majors either way. This was of course much more a pre-emptive tool than Flannery is. It also nicely took the minimum openings away enabling better relay sequences. (This was in a strong club context)

[Free]

Flameous, on 2011-December-16, 07:06, said:

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?
I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand.

That's the wrong assupmtion. Opener bids 1NT to show 4♠, after which responder can raise with a 4 card ♠. If opener doesn't have 4♠s, he bids 2m which is at least a 3 card suit (can be balanced). This situation is comparable with 1♠-1NT-2m.

[MickyB]

There are various options. 1H:1S, 1NT as 5H4S is the standard version, I believe, but IMO this is better -

1NT = 3+D
2C = 3+C
2D = 5H4S
2H = 6H 11-15
2S = 6H 16+

IMO KI makes more sense with Flannery than without it. Playing Flannery, your forcing NT bid is much more frequent than your 5+spades bid. Playing standard, they are both quite frequent, and the space is more useful when responder shows 4+♠, as all four strains are still in play. Auctions starting 1H:1NT [natural, semi-forcing] are fine anyway.

Playing Flannery and KI -
1NT = 3+D
2C = 3+C
2D = 6H 14+
2H = 6H 11-13

[32519]

In the thread “Justin Lall to play with Bob Hamman” Justin himself had this to say about Flannery “I have always played Flannery with Bob in the past, do not expect that to change if we don't play strong club. I am pro-Flannery.” http://www.bridgebas...ith-bob-hamman/

There you have it. Surely Flannery cannot be such a poor use of the 2♦ bid if so many top internationals employ it.

[aguahombre]

32519, on 2011-December-19, 04:29, said:

Surely Flannery cannot be such a poor use of the 2♦ bid if so for the many top internationals who employ it.

Altered your post (AYP?), to again point out that Flannery as used by these top pairs is the result of much discussion about how it is used, and with thoughtful adjustments to other auctions. It is not poor use of the 2♦ or 2♥ opening for them; it might well be a wasteful plug-in for other pairs.

[MrAce]

Flameous, on 2011-December-16, 07:06, said:

Everybody praises how Kaplan interchange solves problematic Flannery hands. However, what I don't quite get is how you find that 4-4♠ fit afterwards?
I'm assuming it goes 1H - 1S - 1NT, where 1NT either is 45xx or balanced hand. Do you throw some additional convention here to find spade fit with weaker hands, or do you just use nmf to find them when inv+? (Essentially coming to the same situation as bidding 1NT in 1m - 1H, skipping spades)

I never heard of Kaplan interchange, we always called it "Brazillian forc NT" Perhaps not the same thing.


The way it was played in many countries of Europe, 1 NT rebid showed 45xx hand and not balanced hands.

1♥--1♠ (used as forcing NT 0-4 ♠, and with balanced hands opener rebids his 3 card minor just like we would normally bid over a forc 1NT)

1♥--1♠
1NT shows a flannery hand and if responder has 4♠ the fit is found

1♥--1NT 5+♠

[JLOGIC]

I played KI with kevin, we just played transfers over it with 1N=bal or clubs. I know Gavin and Vince played 1N=diamonds or bal and 2C =clubs or something like tha, I'm not sure what the reasoning was but I think I saw mickyb suggest something similar so no doubt that is good. Transfers are pretty easy and better than just 1N=4 spades by a lot imo.

[marcD]

gnasher, on 2011-December-12, 08:48, said:

Antiflannery is a two-level opening that shows five spades and four hearts. It's defined in, amongst other places, the guide to completing the WBF convention card, the Bridgeguys glossary, and Wikipedia.

I think it's mainly used in Canape systems, for much the same reasons as people play Flannery in standard systems.

Actually , I use this opening in a 5 card majors , multi context to avoid opening 1♠ with minimal values (which in my opinion is a looser especially at MP when not playing a strong club). So 2♥ is 5S4H 9-11HCP , the sort of hand you want to open but could easily overbid if you open 1♠

[MickyB]

MickyB, on 2011-December-10, 09:34, said:

If you play standard methods over a 1H opening, Flannery solves a few problems. If you play 1H:1S, 1NT as artificial, many of these problems go away. Your auctions will improve sufficiently that you'll want to respond 1S on a weak hand with four cards.

Having thought about this more, maybe I can explain it better.

Most people have fairly poor methods after the auction starts 1H:1S. Typical problems include 1H:1S, 2D:3C as the only way to force, and 1H:1S, 2C:2H showing 5-10 points. Some players, especially those who use Flannery, seek to solve these problems by responding 1S less frequently. The former issue is solved by starting with a 2/1 on 4S4m and 4333, the latter by responding 1NT and using Anti-Bart or similar.

I've put a lot of work into my methods over 1H:1S. Giving up the natural 1NT rebid has allowed responder to give both good and bad preference at the two-level, solved the issue of 1H:1S, 2m:P where opener has a 5-4 18-count and responder has a 1H3m 9-count, and progress to full relays when responder has a balanced GF. You can achieve a lot of this by using 1H:1S, 1NT to show diamonds, defining 4SF on these auctions as either good preference or a game-force, and playing 1H:1S, 2H:2N as a generic force. I think this is a much better solution than Flannery.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2011-December-21, 17:45

[MickyB]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-20, 01:57, said:

I played KI with kevin, we just played transfers over it with 1N=bal or clubs. I know Gavin and Vince played 1N=diamonds or bal and 2C =clubs or something like tha, I'm not sure what the reasoning was but I think I saw mickyb suggest something similar so no doubt that is good. Transfers are pretty easy and better than just 1N=4 spades by a lot imo.

If 1S is limited, I think it's pretty close which way round 1N and 2C should be. Playing 1NT as diamonds gives you 2C as a Bart-type bid. However, if you want to be able to start with 1S on a GF, it's much better to have 1NT show diamonds, as then having 1H:1S, 1N:2C as a cheap force is huge.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah we played 1S as limited. +1 to everything mickyb says about KI though, I don't understand how it's not standard tbh. Such an easy and obvious switch that comes up all the time and is very useful.

[mycroft]

Well, in the ACBL, it's not standard because someone thought it was "too hard" and got it taken off the GCC some large number of years ago, and all attempts to put it back get shot down...

[awm]

Another issue is that there are different versions of opener's rebids:

1. 1nt = spades, 2m = 3+
2. Transfers
3. 1nt = diamonds, 2c=3+, 2d=majors
4. 1nt = balanced, else natural (with flannery)

Maybe others I'm forgetting. It can't be "standard" when everyone has their own version. The ACBL rules do have impact in the US, and KI makes less sense in the 4cM approach standard in the UK and many former colonies.

[JLOGIC]

mycroft, on 2011-December-22, 11:13, said:

Well, in the ACBL, it's not standard because someone thought it was "too hard" and got it taken off the GCC some large number of years ago, and all attempts to put it back get shot down...

Sadly I know this as I have to pre-alert it every time I play lol. My opponents never seem to appreciate the pre-alert either...

[bluecalm]

You guys aren't worried about missing 1NT's with standard 3-5-3-2 opposite standard 4-2-4-3 ?
I don't have well developed intuition here but it seems to me that such hands are frequent and it might be important to stop in 1NT on them.

[awm]

Its not clear that 1nt is always better than 2h on 3532 opposite 4243; probably 1nt tends to be better, but it depends a lot on suit breaks and honor location. Also, KI may let you play 1nt on other patterns like 4522 opposite 3244/3253 when this would otherwise be hard (of course the same caveat about 2M being sometimes better will apply here too). Also, 2/1 players have given up playing 1nt after opening 1M in virtually every auction; there is nothing making it particularly a bigger issue here.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Its not clear that 1nt is always better than 2h on 3532 opposite 4243; probably 1nt tends to be better, but it depends a lot on suit breaks and honor location.

Yeah I recall we had similar conversation in some other topic about raising with 3 after 1m-1M-2M I remain unconvinced (or convinced that raising always with 4 is superior method). I tend to believe in 5-2 2M contracts more than in 4-3 so yeah here I can see myself giving up natural 1NT quite easily if the gains are at least slightly convincing.

Quote

Also, 2/1 players have given up playing 1nt after opening 1M in virtually every auction; there is nothing making it particularly a bigger issue here.

Meh, I think this is bad argument. I mean, just because we need to give up natural 1NT after 1M - 1NT because other stuff is more important than playing in 1NT doesn't mean we should easily give it up in other situations.
I admit I don't understand how problematic 1H - 1S - 2D in standard systems is. I play limited openers all my life (polish club mainly so to 17 or precision so to 15) and with 3C/3D available for medium 2suiters the problems aren't that severe. Also in Poland people play that 2NT is forcing in this sequence so it make stuff easier (general rule often is that 2NT is forcing if there is no 3 or 4th suit below 2NT, so 1H - 1S - 2H - 2NT = forcing but 1H - 1S - 2C - 2NT natural).

My impression for now is that hands which I want to play 1NT with are very frequent and 1NT is on average slightly better. Hands which I will get right having more space with KI which I wouldn't get right playing normal system are very rare. It seems to me that the balance is against KI unless the choice is play "standard" (11-21 openers, no Gazilli or similar, no intermediate jumps etc) but having to decide among those options would be cruel

As to Flannery, I like it. I think it has many advantages and 1H - 1S promising 5 spades simplifies things a lot. Flannery would be convention of my choice in natural sytems, KI wouldn't.

[JLOGIC]

Say your options are to play either KI or Flannery.

If you play Flannery and not KI You get to bid 1H p 1S p 1N with 2533 exactly, rather than 1H p 1N p 2C as clubs or 2533, so you gain a little bit there. You also get to play 1N with 42(43) opposite 35(32) or 2533 rather than 2H, even if I concede that you have gained there, there is no way that that alone is not better than freeing up your 2D opener for something else like weak with both majors or weak 2 in D or whatever you want. You also lose the advantages of being able to transfer over 1H p 1S p in KI. I don't think it's close that KI is better if you have to choose one.

[MickyB]

Flannery without KI gets you to 1N with 3244 opposite a weak NT as well. Also, you can play transfers after 1H-P-1S natural [5+cards] - 1NT = diamonds, 2C = natural, 2D = 11-13/17+ with hearts, 2H = 14-16.

Depending on your rebids over KI, there will be some other messy hands. I think you said you play 1H:1S, 1NT as clubs or balanced, in which case there will be some guesswork on 4144, 4153 and 3154.

IMO -

• Flannery makes sense when playing simple methods over 1H-P-1S
  
• Once you are playing Flannery, KI makes sense, as your 0-4♠ response will be by far the most frequent
  
• A moderately complex structure works fine without Flannery or KI [1H:1S, 1N = ART, 1H:1N semi-f]
  
• I would only play KI without Flannery if I want it to lead into full relays or if playing 1H:1N semi-forcing isn't an option