[Yzerman]

I was prompted to write a small argument for the Flannery cause because of the recent Multi thread (in beginners section). Personally, I have found the gains of playing Flannery far outweigh the risk and my opportunity cost (with respect to other conventions is at a minimum). I have been repeatedly bashed over the years for playing this "archaic" and "simplistic" and "ineffective" convention, but guess what, I have NEVER got to wrong contract because of Flannery.

Why do I like Flannery?

a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT
I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit
c) Constructive preemptive value
d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers)
e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation
f) Constructive game/slam bidding

Why do I prefer Flannery over Multi?

a) My suits are disclosed (no guessing or asking)
Luxury of playing @ 2 level in a misfit (4/3 or 5/2)
c) I dont really care about preempting a hand with 5 card major and 4 card minor (In the back of every bridge players mind when they open 2H or 2S Dutch Multi, there is the fear of going for phone number - not the case with Flannery).

Over my 4 years of playing Flannery and experimenting with different caveats, I have found that a few additional conditions optimize the overall effectiveness;

a) NEVER open 2D with a void (4504, 4540, 4603, 4630)
NEVER open 4513 or 4531 with 2 bad suits (rebid fragment upon forcing NT)
c) Have sound agreements with respect to game tries
d) Overall, have a good Flannery structure, dont just play Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery

And a quick story to support my argument. Playing in a regional swiss event a year or two ago, we were paired against one of best teams in field (Roman/Grosvenor team). My partner opened 2D and as my RHO passed, he commented in his usual jovial, humorous way, "Flannery is the worst convention ever created". We proceeded to have a constructive auction to 7S as my partner was able to describe a picture 4612 hand (AQxx AKxxxx). The pair at the other table (two professional players) got to 4S (obviously not well bid, but I am not sure they will get to 7 even if they bid past 4S).

[inquiry]

Good post. I like Flannery, and don't find it archaic at all. I do occassionally use 2H as flannery instead of 2D, which occassionally "wrong hands" the contract. But there you go.

However, I am surprised that you NEVER gotten to the wrong contract playing Flannery. I can see one potential problem right off the top with your very reasonable treatment. You open 1H with bad suits and 4-5-3-1 and your partner, who "knows" you don't have a four card spade suit bids 1NT instead of 1S. You of course rebid 2D, and partner corrects to 2H and you play in your 5-2 Heart fit opposed to 4-4 spade fit. Now at imps, the 7 card fit is NOT THAT horrible probably. Maybe you can make 8 tricks in hearts and 9 in spades. Maybe 2H is down one and 2 S is making, but in that case the opponents might be able to make 3 of a minor. And that is but one example (here the bad wrong contract comes about as a function of "not" using flannery, but still related to the convention.)

I do like your treatment, particularily avoiding flannery with a void. I will incorporate that concept into my Flannery auctions in the future. Thanks.

Ben

[bglover]

I have been playing Flannery for about 30 years now, after playing various Roman bids for about 10 and finding them generally useless (due to lack of frequency more than anything else).

I can honestly say that I can remember 1 disaster using this convention (partner was 1165 and broke) but the number of top boards (reaching a playable partial usually in competitive auctions) has been remarkable.

Sure, most hands where 4 of a major is cold you are going to reach using most any methods. Where Flannery is most useful is in partials and in slam bidding.

It also makes using 2/1 a LOT easier. Knowing that partner has 5 spades in the 1h=1s auction is INCREDIBLY useful and allows partnerships to have clearer auctions (for them) while not bidding out pattern too much to help the defense.

The main gripe I hear people say about Flannery is that it roadmaps the defense. My answer to that is DON'T ABUSE THE 2NT asking bid. It is THAT specific bid that conveys lots of information, not the original 2D bid...

[Rado]

Hi Mike,

After your marvelous praise of Flannery I'm not going to argue (all conventions are good in one way or another). I would like to point some discrepancies in the discussuion about 2 level openings:

1. comparing Flannery with Multi is just funny - one is opening values, the other is preemptive - this sounds like comparing airplaine with submarine.
I may say for example:
"Why I prefer to open 1NT (16-18) over 3Cl preempt" and to point many argument
2. The need for playing Flannery arises from forcing NT only, so we must include forcing NT in the discussion
(playing semi-forsing NT with 2/1 FG unless suit rebid also working enough fine at many top partnerships, even without Flannery).
3. Stating that 54 preempt goes frequently for number is just "statement" - My experience is opposite. And let us never forget that the only way to avoid numbers is to pass every hand.

And one final example: we may invent some openings 2He/Sp to show opening values with definite distribution for example 12-15 pts 5M with 4DI so after 1M-1NT forcing opener will rebid 2Cl more often giving the possibility of responder to bid his sign-off with long suit. We will be happy and do well when such hands come (1M-1NT, or 2He/So opening)

Playing 2 Di/He/Sp all opening values as suggested will meet all your arguments for how good is Flannery - does it mean that we must run away from old standart weak 2Di,He/Sp?
If we continue in same way why not change 3 level openings too?

Hope to hear your comments soon
best regards, Rado

[Yzerman]

Quote

Hi Mike,

After your marvelous praise of Flannery I'm not going to argue (all conventions are good in one way or another). I would like to point some discrepancies in the discussuion about 2 level openings:

1. comparing Flannery with Multi is just funny - one is opening values, the other is preemptive - this sounds like comparing airplaine with submarine.
I may say for example:
"Why I prefer to open 1NT (16-18) over 3Cl preempt" and to point many argument
2. The need for playing Flannery arises from forcing NT only, so we must include forcing NT in the discussion
(playing semi-forsing NT with 2/1 FG unless suit rebid also working enough fine at many top partnerships, even without Flannery).
3. Stating that 54 preempt goes frequently for number is just "statement" - My experience is opposite. And let us never forget that the only way to avoid numbers is to pass every hand.

And one final example: we may invent some openings 2He/Sp to show opening values with definite distribution for example 12-15 pts 5M with 4DI so after 1M-1NT forcing opener will rebid 2Cl more often giving the possibility of responder to bid his sign-off with long suit. We will be happy and do well when such hands come (1M-1NT, or 2He/So opening)

Playing 2 Di/He/Sp all opening values as suggested will meet all your arguments for how good is Flannery - does it mean that we must run away from old standart weak 2Di,He/Sp?
If we continue in same way why not change 3 level openings too?

Hope to hear your comments soon
best regards, Rado

I cant believe what I just read, I get the impression that you simply saw the title of my post, made up your mind that you want to argue the anti-Flannery position, and then simply skim my article as opposed to actually read it.

1) I dont think i used the words "compare" multi and flannery, my intention was to argue the merits, risk/reward, and opportunity costs of 2D Flannery vs 2D Multi (I thought although not EXPLICITY said this was very well implied). Furthermore, when I play casually on-line I always ask and accomodate what my partner prefer 2D opener is and inevitably 75/100 times it is Multi. So yes, these 2 intersect and can be compared as alternates within the scheme of a bidding SYSTEM.

2) This argument is typical of someone who already have their mind set AGAINST Flannery. In fact I learned this from a person who never played anything but SAYC and insisted upon playing this, so in this person eyes (and many others, including those that create Flannery in late 60's early 70's)Flannery is not a function of forcing NT. The utility to make a CONSTRUCTIVE shape showing, value limiting bid in the MAJORS is what makes it effective (completely independent of forcing NT).

3) I NEVER said 5/4 preempts frequently go for phone number. Please read more carefully before you respond.

Your argument regarding creating an opening for 5 Hearts/Spades and 4 diamonds is rather narrowminded. What value is their in preempting to the 3 level in a minor with an opening hand (5242 11-15)? Isnt the modern game of bridge biased toward major suit games and in the case of Matchpoint biased towards major suit partials?

The concept of Flannery arises from the scoring with a higher reward for playing in a higher ranking major suit contract. The reward for a constructive hand (2D/2H/2S) is entirely anti to what Flannery is.

[LukeG]

I won a Swiss Team event a couple of weekends ago when, during the last round match, my counterparts missed an easy game after opening a Flannery 2D. At unfavorable I had K10xx, AKxxx, Q9, KJ. We were playing a strong club system and the auction went 1H-1S-3S-4S (our 1C starts at 17 HCP but I would probably open 1H even playing 16+). At the other table the opps bid 2D-2S.

This is the second time this year that opps have missed game this way after opening Flannery 2D, and the reason appears simple. Opener doesn't know about the 4-4 spade fit so is loathe to raise unless he has better playing strength. Thus, the onus is on responder to make an immediate decision. The 1H opener can raise a 1S response to 3S because he can depend on responder having at least 4 spades.

I am always suspicious of people who "never get bad results" from this or that convention

[Yzerman]

I usually qualify all my arguments here with something like "system can only be as good as the judgement". As I had stated earlier, there are some conditions (i left some undisclosed) in which you may or may not open flannery as well as some other judgemental/systemic things I propose.

Flannery is not meant to be used for ANY 11-15 hcp hand and there is NO LAW that says opener cant bid again after 2D-P-2S. Furthermore, one of the advantages of Flannery is that RESPONDER can take aggresive action with minimal values (eg Kxxx xx Axxx xxx - this hand is CLEARLY some kind of invite @ imp scoring). Flannery should NOT be used by people who play bridge with fingers and toes (~25 hcp = game), those who benefit most from Flannery are able to use judgement along with common sense to overbid good fitting hands (with minimal hcp) and underbid those with bad fitting hands (with lots of hcp).

* I carefully constructed my comment regarding Flannery results, I said "I have never got to wrong contract", I never said I have not got a bad result (yes the default lead of a trump vs 4M after 2D has cost on occasion). Perhaps in my first year of playing Flannery there were a few bad contracts based upon poor judgement (i was also a beginner then) or poor understanding of the convention, but i have played much in high level competition (pretty successfully) with Flannery with no memory of bad results.

[bglover]

Well if you gave the hand acurately then the answer is simple... that hand too good for a flannery bid and thats why game was missed.

Like many limited-opening bids, system abuse will lead to bad results. Actually, we all have had partners who abuse system and then get a good result for doing so.... I have 1 partner who unfortunately consistently abuses conventions and only remembers when abuse works to our advantage and so continues to do so.

Yes, it is only a 1 point overbid... but opener deprived himself of the chance to reverse.... I suspect that is why you got the good result..

[LukeG]

Maybe the hand is too strong for Flannery and opener should reverse. And maybe responder should have bid more aggressively. But I pay more attention to actual, rather than theoretical results, and I remain unconvinced that this is one of the world's great conventions.

[LukeG]

Not that it matters all that much, put the pair that missed game after opening Flannery consists of one of those super-duper LMs (10K points, a national championship) with one of his regular partners.

[bglover]

You are right... means nothing.... He made a bad bid, mislead his partner and now you are blaming the convention instead of the player... and trying to justify your argument by saying he is a stud so it must therefore be the convention.

Weak sorry.

[Codo]

Watching this discussion, I saw two good statements and some horrible.
To Mr Yzerman: This is a place to discuss. It is not a place to tell and not to listen. And it is not a place to use words like: You should read more careful.

Please follow your own advice. And while doing so, better think about Rados post and answer later.

For 2/1: Good guys who miss a game just abuses the bid. But the good guys from the original post who missed 7 spade are a good example?

Like Rado said: Every Convention has its ups and downs.
But to compare a convention, which shows exactly 45 in the majors with 11-15 HCPs to a multi 2 Diamond is childish.
You have to compare the whole structure.

So, when do you don`t need flannery:
Whenever you have an uncontestet auction.
After 1 Heart-1 Spade 2 Spade you showed 4-5+ in the majors and 11-15 HCPs. So, no gain with flannery.
You may gain in an competetive auction, where you are allwod to show your majors quick and else have problems to show them latter.
F.E. : 1 Heart (3Club) pass pass...

This definetly is the one and only big advantage.
You are quick in and showed your hand. And that really is a big big advantage.

What else will happen, lets look at your comments:

a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT

Great. Pd refused to bid 1 Spade or two heart, so you have no fit. Ok, this is a problem in 2/1. But it is no problem in SAYC or other normal systems. PD will bid 1 NT and play there....

I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit

Aha, so you prefer to be in 2 Heart Flannery then in two heart after 1 Heart-1NT -2 Heart? The one and only advantage is, if pd has something like 3145 and can correct to 2 Spade and play there. But then again, with simple SAYC you will play 1 NT, so no gain for Flannery there, just a smaller loss.

c) Constructive preemptive value

..Had been modern in the days of Goren. Nowadays most top pairs uses weak preempts. Any ideas why?

d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers)

If you open 2 Heart, there is exactly no chance to play 4 Heart from pds hand.

e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation

Like after 1Heart 1 Spade 2 Spade? Wow

f) Constructive game/slam bidding

Same answer...

Why do I prefer Flannery over Multi?

a) My suits are disclosed (no guessing or asking)

Luxury of playing @ 2 level in a misfit (4/3 or 5/2)

Compared with 1 NT in a natural system is this exactly no gain, it is just a loss.

c) I dont really care about preempting a hand with 5 card major and 4 card minor (In the back of every bridge players mind when they open 2H or 2S Dutch Multi, there is the fear of going for phone number - not the case with Flannery).

You don´t need to care and you don´t have to play it. But again, look at the modern preempts. You don´t need to be modern and you don´t need to be successful. But funnily, the successful players out there don´t use many sound openings, nor sound preempts. So maybe there are advantages to bid a little less sound then you do? (Of course you better learn to play cards and to play good boards after some casual desasters before getting light like Mr. Bergen)

You forgot d: Flannery shows 11-15 HCps and a weak two 5-11. I always prefer to have more HCPs.

Btw: I play flannery too, but just in fourth seat, when there is no other sense for our weak 2 Heart bid.
But I gain a million imps more with other 2 Diamond and/or 2 Heart opening bids.

And again, just check the real good guys. I know eaxtly nil who still play flannery. Do you know one?

Kind Regards

Roland

[fred]

Quote

And again, just check the real good guys. I know eaxtly nil who still play flannery. Do you know one?

Kind Regards

Roland

Martel-Stansby play Flannery and I am pretty sure
that Bob Hamman and Peter Weischel prefer to play
Flannery when are in a partnership that uses a
natural system.

All of these people are multiple World Champions
and among the highest ranked players in the world.

I personally like to play weak 2D, but what do I know?
The people I mention above have won a lot more
tournaments than I have

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bglover]

Actually I think Roland has missed the biggest advantages to playing Flannery vs. bidding suits naturally.

As I stated in an earlier post, the biggest advantage to playing Flannery come in (a) part scores and ( in slam bidding. The bid provides partner a WEALTH of useful information to make excellent judgment calls in both of these circumstances (to repeat what I said earlier... there is little advantage when it when your side already holds the majority of strength and will reach game in a major anyway).

To ignore these two points is to basically not address the issue at hand... it is a CONSTRUCTIVE bid providing partner with an immediate advantage in competitive auctions.

Like any other convention, if you misuse it or don't use it wisely (i.e., you have that wealth of information and don't know how to put it to best use), then sure, it's as worthless as a plugged nickel. That was my point and perhaps I needed to spell it out better.

I have been playing the bid literally 30 years now, I am not a novice to it by a long shot. I have found it a very useful tool and it has lead to many tops (but then, I have excellent hand evaluation skills too and can put that information to good use). Put that tool in another player's hand and it may not be useful at all... the point being of course that the convention isn't going to solve your own deficiencies as a player.

Now, as to your point regarding experts' opinions on Flannery. I have had 2 recent conversations with BBO stars (which I think adds them some legiimacy) on this very subject. Both play Multi and are unhappy with it and both are considering dropping it and swtiching back to Flannery. This does not surprise me, as I have seen many disasters with Multi even with experts using the bid.

Does Multi have a higher disaster rate than Flannery? Sure, it is bound to by the nature of the bid (weak hand facing weak hand is going to lead to some disasters let's face it). But, I have seen MANY good players who play Multi have MANY bad boards with it.... I believe this is the essence of Mike's reasoning for using Flannery given a choice... not that one is better than the other but that Flannery is meant to get you to GOOD BOARDS while Multi is meant to INTERFERE with opps to PREVENT them from getting to good boards and he prefers the former.

[Codo]

Martel-Stansby play Flannery and I am pretty sure
that Bob Hamman and Peter Weischel prefer to play
Flannery when are in a partnership that uses a
natural system.

All of these people are multiple World Champions
and among the highest ranked players in the world.

I personally like to play weak 2D, but what do I know?
The people I mention above have won a lot more
tournaments than I have

Fred Gitelman


And you won a zillion more then I even played.
Thanks for the quick answer.

Kind Regards

Roland

[Codo]

Hi again,

Actually I think Roland has missed the biggest advantages to playing Flannery vs. bidding suits naturally.

As I stated in an earlier post, the biggest advantage to playing Flannery come in (a) part scores and ( in slam bidding. The bid provides partner a WEALTH of useful information to make excellent judgment calls in both of these circumstances (to repeat what I said earlier... there is little advantage when it when your side already holds the majority of strength and will reach game in a major anyway).

I did not really miss that, maybe my english is worse then it should be.
You "must" compare Flannery here to "natural" bidding.
With flannery, you open 2 Heart and show 11-15 4/5 in the majors.
In a natural system you open 2 Heart and rebid 2 Spades after 1 Spade from pd. So, as far as there is a fit, there is no big difference.

Agreed?

If there is no fit, you really have problems both ways:
It is very hard to find a fit in one of your short suits if needed for a slam. No matter, if you have flannery or any natural system...
And if you really want to improve slam bidding, better use mosquito or another relay asking system. Then you know at the fifth. level the excact distribution, which High cards he have and everything else...

But with quite weak hands and in a natural system, you will quite often stop at 1 NT. I promise you, that you won`t play this nice contract very often after a Flannery 2 Diamond opening.

So, please show me a hand, where flannery reached a better slam or a better partial, which you could not reach with natural bidding.


To ignore these two points is to basically not address the issue at hand... it is a CONSTRUCTIVE bid providing partner with an immediate advantage in competitive auctions.

We totaly agree about the advantages in competetive bidding.

the point being of course that the convention isn't going to solve your own deficiencies as a player

Which is true about multi two diamond and any other convention too....
And your superb card play technique is in no way helpfull, if you already spoiled the bidding...

Now, as to your point regarding experts' opinions on Flannery. I have had 2 recent conversations with BBO stars (which I think adds them some legiimacy) on this very subject. Both play Multi and are unhappy with it and both are considering dropping it and swtiching back to Flannery. This does not surprise me, as I have seen many disasters with Multi even with experts using the bid.

Fred kews allready the fab. four who still play Flannery
Well anybody has his own bidding structure. So I guess, that Hrothgar has seen many disasters with very sound and conservative bidding...

Multi is not the best convention ever, it never was....
But unluckily, you cannot have a way to show all hand types early. And to reserve one opening for a "quite" seldom hand type (Someone will know the percentage for sure..) is at least not the one and only perfect way. I like to show many weak hands as soon as possible. So I "need" multi, because I "need" 2 Heart and 2 Spade for weak twosuited openings.

Disasters? No. I don`t know your definition of a disaster. But in bridge I got most diasasters from wrong judgement, missunderstandings, bad luck, but nearly never from weak two bids.
The latest zero I got from bidding 1 Spade VUl. against not with AKJTx, Qx, Ax, xxxx after my rho opend 1 club.... I failed for -500 opps nothing.
These things happen and prooves nothing.

I believe this is the essence of Mike's reasoning for using Flannery given a choice... not that one is better than the other but that Flannery is meant to get you to GOOD BOARDS while Multi is meant to INTERFERE with opps to PREVENT them from getting to good boards and he prefers the former.


As Hrothgar pointed out somewhere else: A good board is a board which is won. And if I write - 2100 with the opps cold for 2210, it is still good.
To prefer hands with 11-15 HCps to these with with 5-9 is very human. I for me would prefer to have hands with 20-22 HCPs. But this is not christmas...

I don`t know your goal in bridge (besides having fun, meeting nice people etc...)
But I always thought, that the goal is to win in a proper and legal way. So, if I use a weak two and opps fail, then I did well. It is my duty to prefend opps to get good boards. You may not like it, but where is the problem.
It is like the chess player, who was a master of the endgame. Unluckily, he never survived the opening. Should he blame the modern agressive openings?

Kind Regards

Roland

[Yzerman]

Lost in this mess somewhere are the arguments I was stating of multi 2D vs Flannery 2D (as an alternative to each other);

a) Which bid has more utility (opportunity costs, risk/reward, benefit), within the structure of a bidding system (2/1 being implied)?

Perhaps I never fully stated that my preference is Flannery within a 2/1 structure (and I am not one of these stubborn people that refuse to try other systems, I am capable of playing more systems than most bridge players - I am tooting my horn, I am just stating that I am flexible and understand counter arguments). Yes, I concede the point that within the bowels of other systems (some big club, system with non-forcing or semi-forcing NT) Flannery is of little value. But the modern standard here where I am native to is 2/1 and inevitable Flannery has a quite humble value.

Regarding some examples of hands where game/slam (and even partial) bidding can be an advantage in Flannery, let me first give you some system adjuncts (which is standard in my vicinity);

Opening 2D (11-15, and 4513, 4531, 4621, 4612, 4522)

Responders bids -

2N - Any game try
3C, 3D - Forcing and natural
3H, 3S - Slam try (demand cue bid)
4C, 4D - South African to 4H, 4S respectively (either to play or to initiate RKC)
4H, 4S - To play

Give the constructs I supplied above there are 2 DISTINCT advantages. The first is the 3H and 3S slam try bids. These bids confirm a trump suit and establish a forcing slam going auction @ the 3 level such that you have the whole 4 level for constructive cue bidding (you can isolate 2 losers in a minor, make slam try, and still stop @ 4 level). The other advantage is that responder can direct the hand to be played from either side of the table such as to protect any tenace positions (from personal experience, this has been a very valuable).

Another advantage that I had not described above is the ability to use picture bidding (eg AKxx AKxxx, AQxx AKxxxx, etc). Responder can have a very mediocre hand and be making a simple game try (2N) when partner makes a picture jump, see below;

Responders hand - KJ10xx xx Axx xxx

Now responder makes a simple game try with 2N and opener bids 4C (4621 picture jump). All of a sudden your game try has reasonable shot at 12 tricks in spades.

Obviously, some of these arent available to those that have not studied or experimented with Flannery very much hence experience with the proper use of this convention (as with any convention) is crucial. But like I have maintained throughout this posting, I have studied and worked with Flannery and have come to a personal judgement that it has far more value than other 2D conventional bid (including 2D diamond preempt).


*******************************************

Perhaps I should have started a poll(s) as opposed to a thread. We could ask the following questions;

Which 2D opener has most value within a 2/1 system?
a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive
2D Flannery
c) 2D Multi
d) Roman, Mini-Roman
e) Others

Which 2D opener has the most value within a Big Club oriented system?
a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive
2D Flannery
c) 2D Multi
d) Roman, Mini-Roman
e) Others

Perhaps this would lead to better analysis and/or discussion on bidding theory.

[hrothgar]

The results of a poll might be interesting, however, I admit that i would find it more interesting to see a survey from the Bridge World's master solvers club.

One worry that I have, however, is that a poll that attempts to describe the favorite definition for the 2D opening seems to be based on an assumption that the 2D opening can be judged in isolation from the rest of the system.

From my perspective, I would find it more interesting to see how players prefer to define their preemptive opening structure.

For example, I use prefer to use all of the the bids from 2D+ to show preemptive hands.

2D = 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major
2H = 4+ Hearts and (4+ Spades or 5+ clubs)
2S = Single suited with Spades or (4+ spades and 5+ clubs)
2NT = weak 3 level preempt in either minor
3C = constructive Club preempt
3D = constructive Diamond preempt
3H+ = different single suited hand patterns

I'd be interested to see what structures other people are using.

[the hog]

Which 2D opener has most value within a 2/1 system?
a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive
2D Flannery
c) 2D Multi
d) Roman, Mini-Roman
e) Others

Which 2D opener has the most value within a Big Club oriented system?
a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive
2D Flannery
c) 2D Multi
d) Roman, Mini-Roman
e) Others

Hard to answer because you need to look at the system as a whole not just tack on bids as you feel like them. A system needs to be a unified entity not a collection of random conventions. Eg how does Flannery/Multi etc fit in with the rest of what you are playing? If your structure is designed that 1H 1S, (or 1NT) = 5S, then sure you play Flannery; or perhaps BECAUSE you play Flannery, 1H 1S = 5. What I find amusing is the way people tack all sorts of rubbish onto their system without looking at the way it impinges on the rest of what you play.

In principle however. Choices are in 2/1
1) mini multi
2) Ekrens
3) weak 2
4) Acol 2 in Ds

In big C
1, 2, 3 as above

Would not contemplate mini Roman/Roman or Flannery despite having played the latter. I regard it as a total waste of a bid.

In answer to 2over1 I cannot logically see how you can get into more trouble opening a 2D multi rather than opening a weak 2H or S, unless you abuse the bid. Then it is not the bid that is at fault, but rather how you have used it. Whether players are more inclined to abuse it because it does not show a specific suit is another question.

In answer to Richard:
Our 2+ structure is as follows
2C 9-14 6+C perhaps a weak 4M
2D Ekrens, 4-4 only at favourable vul
2H A weak 2 in an unspecified M
2S A weak pre empt in a minor
2NT 21-23
3 bids standard
4C solid 7-8 card suit and an A outside
4D AKJ or AQJ to 7(8) with an outside A.

[Codo]

For the poll:

Of course the bid needs to be in the context of the structure. But I agree, that Flannery is much better with a 2/1 structure then with others.

What I prefer in the moment is:
A natural system
2 Club strong
2 Diamond = weak two Hearts or strong hand majors or strong NT
2 Heart : Majors weak
2 Spade: weak two spades
2 NT: One minor weak
3 Club: Clubs+a major
3 Diamond: Diamonds+ a major

Kind Regards

Roland