[the hog]

"flies in the face of some world class advice given by those who *do* play it.

Really? Who has given advice that it should be used? There are many reasons for using a convention. What does it gain compared to what it loses? Imo playing a weak 2D eg is far superior. The "pre emptive" nature you mention is faulty logic. Tell me why you wish to pre empt the opposition when you have the Majors. Now "anti Flannery" where 2D or 2H shows the minors....that has merit.

Hamman has not contributed anything to bidding theory. Martelsby not that much either apart from their eponymous convention over 1M. None of the Poles or the Italians use it. As they are the top theoreticians around today that should tell you something, Luke. Also despite your comment to the contrary, Meckwell does not play Flannery.

[cherdano]

Already quoted in another thread is Chip Martel's defense of Flannery:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CvDH6...8&output=gplain

Also Karen McCallum is, as far as I understand, regarded as an important theorist. And her opinion on Flannery seems to be pretty firm, she has been using it since decades.

About not getting popular outside of US: There are many treatments that are not popular outside of Poland. Do you really think this means they are bad?

[luke warm]

i only mentioned meckwell because someone else did, i should have checked out for myself whether or not they play it... perhaps "advice" wasn't the best word... maybe "experience" was better, in the sense that in their (the ones who play it) experience it's worth having in their arsenal...

it's the dogmaticism i tried to address... i didn't and don't understand that... i can understand someone saying, "in my opinion you can use the bidding space better" or something to that effect, but *not* "don't use it".. what is such advice based on?

can dogmaticism ever be arrogant? if so, when? when it's someone *elses* dogmaticism?

[JRG]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

(snip)
I like it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its preemptive value... (snip)

Actually, that's one of the reasons I stopped playing it! It's preemptive value is a two-edged sword. It preempted our own auction too frequently. Sometimes, especially vulnerable, the two level was also too high!!!

Also, despite the response structure (a couple of other posts point out the commonest one I know of -- and the one we played), we found constructive auctions difficult. Perhaps we didn't understand how to handle our own convention well.

[keylime]

Flannery in the 2♦ slot is not a good use of that bid, but in the 2♥ slot it's a lot easier to counteract the typical 2♥ generic takeout that decent pairs use over the 2♦ variant.

I for one think in 2/1 that it's needed, for it solves a lot of rebid issues, and the avoidance of the 4-5-2-2 hand shape that comes up at times. However, in Hardy's text about the method, he discourages Flannery rather firmly, and recommends bidding 2♣ for the 4-5-2-2 shape.

For the forcing club crowd, I actually like having a 2♥ Flannery bid coupled with a Romex FC 2♦ and a minor oriented 2♠ opening. We have found in KLP that having this complex of bids really aid matters greatly in getting to the right strain of contract, especially for the 2♠ opening - that one has let us find our superior 5/6 of a minor contracts.

A look at the "great pairings" here in the U.S. finds some adhereants: Hamman-Soloway, the improved Power Precision of Weischel-Sontag (they play a multi Flannery/Mini-Roman style bid in 1st/2nd seat), Martel-Stansby, and others. As far as I know Meckwell has not use this treatment in the last 4-5 years; they use Wagner 2♦ with a 3 suiter short in diamonds for 2♥ in 1st/2nd seats.

I personally think it's a great bid. I also strongly feel that two level preempts are no longer effective enough against decent pairings that pivot right around them like they were standing still (think Leaping/Slippery Michaels and Roman Jump Overcalls). It also tells the declaring side how to play the hand.

So, Flannery does have merits...and I for one like what those merits entail.

[the hog]

"About not getting popular outside of US: There are many treatments that are not popular outside of Poland. Do you really think this means they are bad?"

What odd logic you use. One reason many P treatments are not used outside P is that they are unfamilar because of a language problem. I have been trying to translate some P treatments and it takes me ages.

[1eyedjack]

Perhaps it is not standard Flannery, but its value may perhaps be enhanced by making it unlimited (no upper limit, that is). At least, if you use 2D for that use instead of 2H (which has other benefits), then the 2D opener could be treated as forcing (OK you lose the weak responder with long D). In that case a 1H opener could categorically deny a 4 card Spade suit. Provided that you take the trouble to capitalise on that implication to take maximum advantage of that knowledge in your subsequent continuations this may have some potential.

Most of Chip Martel's comments in defense of Flannery disappear by playing KI. The only valid objection to KI that he makes is the prospect of opponents doubling 1S. He rates this as a "big" loser. If (and only if) he is right about that (so much so that this objection alone renders KI useless) do his other objections assume relevance. I don't have the pedigree to convince readers otherwise. I can only say that I have been playing KI for many years without noticing that loss. Perhaps not against the likes of Chip Martel.

Sometimes their double can help you. Doubler frequently ends up on lead, and it is useful before you bid 3N to know that that is what he is going to lead. Doubler allows you to choose who declares NT when you have a "delicate" Spade guard. Often they double when they would otherwise overcall 2S, so all they have done is provide you with additional bidding space (by doubling instead) whilst not aiding their side in terms of transfer of information to partner.

A typical defence to the double of 1S is to play Pass by opener to show a 4 card Spade suit, redouble with a balanced hand without a guard, 1N with a balanced hand plus guard. The extra bidding space afforded by the double is a two-edged sword, and I have certainly played in 1S doubled when opener has 4 Spades. I have also played in 1S redoubled when responder has held 4 Spades and some values (... somewhat remote scenario, this relies on playing "my" method as opposed to JRG's method, ie 1S response may have a 4 card S suit).

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Jun 25 2004, 11:42 PM, said:

"About not getting popular outside of US: There are many treatments that are not popular outside of Poland. Do you really think this means they are bad?"

What odd logic you use. One reason many P treatments are not used outside P is that they are unfamilar because of a language problem. I have been trying to translate some P treatments and it takes me ages.

I think that the logic is not that unsound. You may be right, but if the methods are really that good they would get translated and they would be popularised, I feel. After all, precision took off like a rocket when the Chinese invented it.

To my mind, the reason for their lack of popularity may be more down to licensing restrictions imposed by NCBOs outside of Poland.

[the hog]

You may very well be right regarding restrictions, monocled one.

Don't forget though, that Precision was marketed in the West and Wei actually paid people, Reese for example, to write books about it and promote it and get it off the ground. Wei even paid the Squaddra Azzura to use Precision. I wonder if they would have used it had there been no monetary incentive. We'll never know, I guess.

How many Westerners on the other hand, have heard of Wladyslaw Izdebski, one of the best theoreticians around and the developer of many bidding treatments? No sponsorship means no money which in turn means no dissemination of ideas; it is sad, really!

[Trpltrbl]

Flannery is a waste of time, it just takes up space on your cc for no good reason. If you can't handle 5-4 in major, maybe you should try Bingo.

Mike

[luke warm]

Trpltrbl, on Jun 27 2004, 07:42 PM, said:

Flannery is a waste of time, it just takes up space on your cc for no good reason. If you can't handle 5-4 in major, maybe you should try Bingo.

Mike

sigh... here we go again... i'm sure martel/stansby would make decent bingo players (to name just one pair)...

mike, why do you think some world class players play it if there's "no good reason" to do so?

[Trpltrbl]

luke warm, on Jun 27 2004, 02:05 PM, said:

Trpltrbl, on Jun 27 2004, 07:42 PM, said:

Flannery is a waste of time, it just takes up space on your cc for no good reason. If you can't handle 5-4 in major, maybe you should try Bingo.

Mike 

sigh... here we go again... i'm sure martel/stansby would make decent bingo players (to name just one pair)...

mike, why do you think some world class players play it if there's "no good reason" to do so?

Cause it might fit with their system structure, and they might have been playing it for 30 years. Can't teach a dog new tricks
Find me a modern pair that play it. My Mom plays Flannery too, and she has been playing before I was born, she just doesn't know any better.

Mike

[luke warm]

well mike, i'm sure you're right... the ones who play it are just old and set in their ways, or don't know any better, and whatever good results they've had (and are still having) are in *spite* of their shortsightedness in not checking with other, younger, players before choosing a system...

[Trpltrbl]

luke warm, on Jun 27 2004, 08:21 PM, said:

well mike, i'm sure you're right... the ones who play it are just old and set in their ways, or don't know any better, and whatever good results they've had (and are still having) are in *spite* of their shortsightedness in not checking with other, younger, players before choosing a system...

I am 99.9% for sure their good results have nothing to do with them playing Flannery.
They are just good players.

Mike

[hrothgar]

>First of all Meckwell do not play Flannery contrary to what others have said.

My bad: I was asleep at the wheel and confused a three suiter with short diamonds and Flannery...

Sorry to introduct any confusion

[PriorKnowledge]

If you must use Flannery, I recommend you broaden the hands it is used for.

4s/5h
4s/6h
5s/6h
All are 11-15 HCP (maybe 10 for 5s/6h)
Over 2N response, opener rebids:
3m = 4s/5h, 11-15, 3 or 4m
3H = 4=5=2=2 11-13
3S = 4=5=2=2 14-15
3N = 4=5=2=2 14-15 with most strength in minors
4m = 4s/6h, m is shortest suit
4H = 5s/6h