[robbins100]

Using standard Flannery (5H/4S and 111-15 pts), How many points must responder have to bid 2NT to explore for game. I have said 13 points, may partner insists its 11- what is the answer?

[blackshoe]

The answer is "it depends". For example, does your partner routinely pass 11-12 point Flannery type hands? If so, he's got a point.

A Flannery opening has some 5-7 losers, with usually most of its winners in the majors, and no more than four cards in the minors. Responder should be looking at how many of opener's losers he can cover. It's not really a matter of how many points.

[Vampyr]

Just curious -- if a whole bid is being used for this hand-type, might it not be better utilised as hearts and another?

[helene_t]

I like to play 2nt as a game force in which case you need 13 but I think standard is that it is forcing for one round only in which case 11 is enough.

As Ed (blackshoe) says it is not really about points, , though. On the other hands, the game you are trying for is usually 3nt so expressing it in points is not crazy.

Anyway, make sure that you and your partner have the same understanding about subsequent bids. Your disagreement sounds as if you take it as a game force and partner takes it as a one round force!

[chasetb]

It really depends on what 2♦ - 3M means or what you want it to mean. If you want simplicity (Invitational), then 2NT should be GF (13+). If you want a little more memory load but more effective at game and slam bidding (3M being a slam try), then 2NT = relay, 1 Round Forcing (11+) and while you use some artificiality, it helps find slim games and slams.

You almost never want to play in 2NT after Flannery, hence why it is forcing in both methods.

[Kungsgeten]

We play:

2NT = One round force, at least invitational
3m = To play (we use 2♥ as Flannery, if you use the more common 2♦ then 3♦ should probably be forcing or artificial)
3M = A good raise, aka Mixed raise
3NT = To play
4♣ = Slam try in hearts, short spades
4♦ = Slam try in spades, short hearts
4M = To play
4N = RKCB for both majors, aka 6KCB

After 2NT:

3m = Singleton or void (but see 4m). 3M is now invitational
3♥ = 4-5-2-2 and min, 3♠ is now to play
3♠ = 4-5-2-2 and max
3NT = 4-5-2-2, max and honours in both minors
4m = Void and good slam cards

After opener's rebid at the 3-level, responder can use this slam module:

4♣ = Puppet to 4♦, responder then bids a suit as natural non-forcing slam try
4♦ = Puppet to 4♥, responder then places the contract
4♥ = RKC for hearts
4♠ = RKC for spades
4NT = RKC for opener's longer minor (diamonds if equal length)
5♣ = RKC for opener's shorter minor

If you use 2♦ as Flannery and like to use 2NT as game forcing, then perhaps 3♦ could be invitational? If so, you could still use 3M as a mixed raise. Opener's rebids would be multi-style:

2♦--3♦;
3♥ = Does not accept game in hearts, may accept game in spades
3♠ = Does not accept game in spades, accepts game in hearts
3NT = Accepts any game

[Zelandakh]

I wonder if PK's structure for the equivalent reverse auction (with 1NT response) would work here. It seems a logical extension.

It also seems a reasonable spot for using transfers so long as they get adapted to cater to invites. For exanple, it would be workable if the sequence 2red - 2NT; 3♣ - 3♥ was reserved for invitational with hearts with everything else "natural". Better options are available too by adding a little extra complexity.

Is there any pair in the world that does this? I would guess not as those that wwould go for something like transfers here are probably already using a better artificial fix elsewhere to free up the 2red for something more useful.

[jogs]

I happen to think flannery should be 11-15 when 4531 or 4513
and 12-16 when 4522. The flatter pattern doesn't play as well.

But there is no easy way for me to prove it.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-21, 21:39, said:

Just curious -- if a whole bid is being used for this hand-type, might it not be better utilised as hearts and another?

The other distributions including hearts don't have the same rebid problems as 4=5=x=x.

[Phil]

I play similar to Kungseten with a few differences.

1. A hand with a limit raise just bids game. The concealment generally nets a trick so there's no need to thread the needle.

2. As a result, 2N is game forcing. This simplifies auctions like 2D 2N 3m 3M.

3. I haven't found a good use for 3m. It's an awkward sequence.

4. Since 2D can include 4-6 or 5-6, we've made these tweaks to the 2N responses. 3N-4-6. 4m is a void and good 5-6. 4H is min 5-6.

5. We use Mulberry like this. After 2D 2N 3H/3S/3N - 4C puppets to 4D for a sign off that is rightsided. 4M is RKC in suit bid (again right siding). There is no invite now but you could use 4D for a non specific invite.

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2015-January-22, 10:03, said:

After 2D 2N 3H/3S/3N - 4C puppets to 4D for a sign off that is rightsided. 4M is RKC in suit bid (again right siding). There is no invite now but you could use 4D for a non specific invite.

4♣ = slam try+ for hearts
... - 4♦ = declines, then 4♥ to play; 4♠ = RKCB
... - 4♥+ = accepts and key card showing
4♦ = slam try+ for spades
... - 4♥ = declines, then 4♠ to play; 4NT = RKCB
... - 4♠+ = accepts and key card showing
4M = to play

Keeps the right-siding, allows the slam tries to be suit-specific and avoids a lead-directing double on the normal (game) hands.

[EricK]

barmar, on 2015-January-22, 10:01, said:

The other distributions including hearts don't have the same rebid problems as 4=5=x=x.

Although it might be useful to eliminate some hands from the 1♥ opening to allow more definition. eg including minimum hands with 5♥ and a 5 card minor would allow sequences like 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 2NT 3♦ to be forcing.

This is just an idea off the top of my head. I haven't given much thought as to whether a decent set of responses to this "extended Flannery" can be made to work.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-January-22, 10:01, said:

The other distributions including hearts don't have the same rebid problems as 4=5=x=x.

About 99.9% of the world's bridge players muddle through somehow though.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-22, 12:03, said:

About 99.9% of the world's bridge players muddle through somehow though.

I didn't mean to justify the use of Flannery -- I don't personally like it, either.

I was just explaining why it doesn't need to be expanded to cover more hands. It was designed to solve a specific problem.