[Walddk]

Those of you who follow our vugraph broadcasts regularly will know that I love to hate Gerber and Flannery. To be honest with you, the latter is a worse F-word than the one people mostly associate with that word. Those two conventions are definitely my pet peeves. I will even go as far as saying that they are the two most useless conventions ever invented (Capp is a close 3rd, by the way).

Let me explain:

Gerber
In my 40 year career I have never come across just one auction where this convention would have been useful. Secondly, when someone intends 4♣ to be Gerber, it is often interpreted as natural. Result: disaster.

Use 4♣ for something sensible. The most sensible is natural, and if it's obvious that it can't be natural, use it for South African Texas over 1NT and 2NT, or RKCB when clubs are set. Or anything other useful if you prefer. But dump Gerber rather sooner than later!

Flannery
I never understood why one would waste a 2♦ opening to show 4-5 in the majors and something like 11-15(16) hcp. What is the problem with opening 1♥ whether you play Standard, 2/1 or Acol?

Standard and Acol: If responder is not strong enough to force to game, he will always bid 1♠, and you won't miss the spade fit. If he is game going with a longer minor, he will bid 2♣/♦, and after my 2♥ rebid, he will rebid 2♠ if he has 4.

Again we won't have a problem with spades if we belong there.

Two-over-One: Even simpler. Responder bids his longer minor (GF) and introduces his spade suit over my 2♥ if he has them. No, opener should not reverse into 2♠ with a minimum although we are already in a game forcing situation.

Both conventions are such a waste of bids you should use for more purposeful matters. One can understand why both John Gerber and William Flannery stopped playing their own conventions after a while.

Is there any reason why you don't follow suit? Well, fine, if you play Flannery, you (most of the time) deny 4 spades if you open 1♥. So what? Is it that bad if opener can have 4 spades on the side? The fit they will always find if they have it?

Partner doesn't know about my spades yet, you may argue. True, but the opponents don't either, and I usually have two opponents and only one partner.

Roland

[cherdano]

I think these two are pretty cheap shots, as so many people like to bash them. I don't mind Flannery, personally. I guess Chip Martel can explain it better than me.

Of course, the point of Flannery is not to find 4-4 spade fits, everybody can do that. It's to have a better defined 1♠ reply to 1♥, to have a better defined 2m rebid to 1NT forcing, to ease bidding in competition after a 1♥ opening, etc. The auction 2♦-4♥ has also been a success for me when it came up (I play Flannery just with one partner).

Arend

[Gerben42]

Good post, Roland. I agree completely, but let me be the devil's advocate for Flannery.

It is a good convention if you don't bid it. 1♥ - 1♠ can show 5 cards now which makes the continuations easier.
If you DO bid it it can be very preemptive.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Apr 1 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

If you DO bid it it can be very preemptive.

Why would I want to pre-empt if I have both majors and an opener? Besides, how often do you think you have specifically 4-5 in the majors and 11-15(16)?

Not often, right. That's why you should use 2♦ for something that comes up more often, i.e. weak 2 in damonds, weak 2 in either major, weak weak 2 in either major, and even weak with both majors.

It's all a question of frequency. Why waste a bid I don't need, because I can show my 4-5 opening hand by adopting natural methods?

Roland

[Chamaco]

Gerben42, on Apr 1 2005, 05:40 PM, said:

Good post, Roland. I agree completely, but let me be the devil's advocate for Flannery.

It is a good convention if you don't bid it. 1♥ - 1♠ can show 5 cards now which makes the continuations easier.
If you DO bid it it can be very preemptive.

This is easily solved using Kaplan Inversion: responding to pard's 1H opener, 1S denies 5+ spades, 1NT promises 5+ spades.

In the 1H-1S(no 5 spades), opener rebids 1NT if he holds 4 spades, otherwise a 3+ minor or rebids his major, just as in common 1NT forcing auctions.

Unfortunately I recently learned that Kaplan Inversion is not legal anymore in ACBL. Perhaps it was banned by a Flannery fan to help the survival of this opening :-)

[Rebound]

I hear ya but I have no clue about flannery since I've never played it. However, I have to admit, I love gerber. I think it's wunnerful. The reason: natural NT resposes.

[Walddk]

Rebound, on Apr 1 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

I have to admit, I love gerber. I think it's wunnerful. The reason: natural NT resposes.

You mean 4NT is natural over 1NT if you play Gerber? Right, it also is if you don't play Gerber! Do you think that you will ever get a hand where the only thing you are interested in after partner's 1NT opening is how many aces he has? Next time you get

x
KQJ
KQJ10xxxx
x

After partner opened 1NT, please let me know. And if you get it, just set diamonds and use 4NT as ace asking afterwards.

Roland

[MickyB]

You nearly had me with that April Fools joke Roland...

If, for some unknown reason, you wish to play Flannery, it has to be better to play Flannery 2♥ and a mini-multi.

[awm]

The convention I'm most confused about is the "mini-roman" 2♦. This opening shows about 10-15 points (I've seen slightly different ranges) with any 4441 distribution. My observations:

(1) These hands are not a problem in standard bidding. It seems simple enought to open one of your minors. Occasionally a situation will come up where you have to choose to rebid 1NT with a singleton, or show both minors with 4-4, or rebid a major after 1♣-1♦ with only four cards in clubs. However, I don't see any of these as a big deal.

(2) I rarely see anyone open mini-roman and reach the correct contract! Most frequently they seem to play at the 3-level in a 4-3 fit. Usually I can just pass throughout the auction, usually lead a trump against the final contract, and be assured of an above average result. To see the problem, suppose responder is 3532. This is actually one of the most common distributions opposite the mini-roman. Also suppose partner has about average strength (say around 10 points). Again, this is one of the most common situations. It is virtually impossible to get to the right contract with this hand, as you want to be in game when opener has hearts and in two spades (or perhaps 1NT) if not.

(3) This convention is very popular among US players at the intermediate to advanced level. However, I have never seen it on the card of an expert pair! Perhaps because of the problems I mentioned... but I'm not sure who is teaching this convention to people or encouraging them to play it. And why?

Anyways I think this convention is a much worse offender than flannery. Flannery is akin to the precision 2♦. They are both quite infrequent bids. They both ostensibly fix some problem with system when they don't come up. When they do come up, they have some preemptive value and communicate a lot of information about opener's hand. They are quite good when responder is in the "slam zone" but have some issues opposite an invitational hand with no fit, mostly because 2NT is used as a relay (natural invitational 2NT would seem quite useful opposite both bids, but people don't like to play that).

In defense of flannery, I have found that 1♥-1♠ is often one of the worst auctions in standard bridge. The problem is that neither partner's range of strength is very well defined. After any other response to one of a major, responder is limited. Flannery "wins" by making this auction less common -- although admittedly a better solution might be to improve one's methods for continuing in that auction for when it does come up.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Unfortunately I recently learned that Kaplan Inversion is not legal anymore in ACBL. Perhaps it was banned by a Flannery fan to help the survival of this opening :-)

Maybe the same fan who does requires 2♦ overcalls of 1NT in the ACBL to have a known suit. I guess he wants to save the Cappelletti convention.

[cherdano]

MickyB, on Apr 1 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

If, for some unknown reason, you wish to play Flannery, it has to be better to play Flannery 2♥ and a mini-multi.

This is IMHO not as obvious as it sounds. After a Flannery opening, responder will often place the contract immediately in a major. His hand is then almost completely unknown, which makes defense very hard. Opening with 2♥ wrong-sides all heart contracts.

Arend

[fred]

I don't use Flannery myself, but some of the American players I respect the most (Hamman, Martel, Sontag, Bramley, and no doubt others) are true believers. I am sure they must have good reasons for using this convention.

I agree with Roland that Gerber is not a particularly useful convention since it is rare to be dealt a pure ace-asking hand when your partner opens or rebids in notrump. I also agree with him that when you are dealt such a hand, there are usually other ways to bid it.

However, I do think that it is important to teach new players Gerber and I also think it is probably right for all but the most serious partnerships to use this convention. I use Gerber with my regular partner over 1NT openings (at least partly because we can't think of a better use for the 4C response), but not over 2NT openings (because the lack of space means that there are many more useful ways you can use the 4C response).

Agree with everything awm says about the mini-Roman 2D opening. This is a truly awful convention in my view and I do not know of a single top-level pair who uses it (except for some pairs who play a strong club system - there is a good reason to use mini-Roman when you play a system like Precision).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

fred, on Apr 1 2005, 02:06 PM, said:

Agree with everything awm says about the mini-Roman 2D opening. This is a truly awful convention in my view and I do not know of a single top-level pair who uses it (except for some pairs who play a strong club system - there is a good reason to use mini-Roman when you play a system like Precision).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Play this as 2C 11-16 HCP.

This is a huge winner in a strong club system. In fact would go so far as to say I expect to almost win the hand when I get to open this.


It is necessary as it denies 3 suited hands when you open all other non 1C bids and makes your other bidding more precise and constructive.

[pclayton]

I think we went around the horn with the worst conventions last summer. Mine were the mini-roman and the natural 2N opening.

[Walddk]

fred, on Apr 1 2005, 02:06 PM, said:

I don't use Flannery myself, but some of the American players I respect the most (Hamman, Martel, Sontag, Bramley, and no doubt others) are true believers. I am sure they must have good reasons for using this convention.

I also respect the players Fred mentions, but I am a subscriber to the principle of using a specific opening at the 2-level for what is more frequent. I think all will agree with me that a weak 2 in diamonds for example comes up much more often than the requirements for a Flannery hand.

As far as I recall, Fred uses 2♦ for exactly that purpose in his partnerships with both Brad Moss and Sheri Winestock (Fred's wife).

The same applies to 3NT as gambling (solid minor with nothing or little outside). When did any of you have a hand for that? You are more likely to have had a hand where you would have wanted a natural 4♣ or 4♦ if it hadn't been for your agreement on how to show a strong pre-empt in hearts and spades (Namyats).

You don't have to give up on either if you use 3NT as a pre-empt in either minor.

What about the solid suit then? Well, forget about it, and if you refuse, at least realise that 3NT is not the bid for that hand. Because if NT is the spot, it is much more often than not wrong-sided.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Good point Justin.

About the gambling 3NT hands, if you read Preempts from A to Z you will find a good solution there.

3♥ = natural or ♣AKQxxxx
3♠ = natural or ♦AKQxxxx

Just don't bid as shown in the example hand.

[luke warm]

i know for a fact that ron agrees that flannery sucks, and i can't think why he hasn't said so except he's out of town

personally, when i used it (for a long time with one partner) it worked very well... but then, we did play a strong club system... now, with mike, i play 2C as mini roman and i agree with all he says about it

[fred]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2005, 01:40 AM, said:

i know for a fact that ron agrees that flannery sucks, and i can't think why he hasn't said so except he's out of town

personally, when i used it (for a long time with one partner) it worked very well... but then, we did play a strong club system... now, with mike, i play 2C as mini roman and i agree with all he says about it

Luke and Mike - I don't understand.

If you open 2C with 3-suited hands and play a strong club, what do you open when you have long clubs?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

3c=11-14 one suited club hand, if you use 1nt option, this promises stiff or void.
2nt=14-17 one suited club hand
also option of 1nt with one suited club hand 11-14, deny stiff or void. 2236 etc.
With 2 suited hand, second suit clubs, open first suit then canape with longer clubs.