1) Figure out a way to directly show four-trump limit raises, please.

2) The book bid there with that shape is 2C, especially so if partner can have a hand with a bunch of trump support.

3) If you can pass with this kind of hand, please don't describe it to your opponents as a forcing NT.

This hand is why some people play Flannery

I think 2C is standard with your hand. Everyone once in a while, you play across a 3154 6-count, but even that's not completely terrible (but obv still not good).

I think your partner should have a better bid to describe his/her hand than 1NT, though.

2C is normal.

2C is normal and usually works out OK but a system wherein a limit raise with four card support doesn't get to mention that support until the second round probably needs some serious work.

It also reminds me that I wish Kaplan inversion were general chart — and I wish I knew more about it.

Flannery mostly sucks; you're not missing out on much by not playing it. The only advantage on this hand is that you'll get to 2S when responder is 3=1 in the majors, which will probably be a nice place to be, but you give up a lot by playing it. Meanwhile, we solve the problem in troll club by opening this hand 1S.

lol@2C is normal

how about "raise with four trumps is normal" and not find yourself in dumb situations like this?

the hatred for flannery is truly bizarre to me. i guess the idea has been popularized by roland, who is imo one of the most obnoxious, under-qualified, and openly anti-american commentators to ever reach any sort of status. it's safe to say he has no clue what he's talking about, but he's charmed/tricked enough people into believing otherwise.

meanwhile in the real world, flannery auctions tend to be good and 1H-1S auctions are better. you can make a valid argument for 2D being used for something else more effectively but it's not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

I always thought Flannery was bad until I learned Weinstein/Levin played it. That alone made me rethink it.

A quick search of ecatsbridge for convention cards (and i did the absolute minimum research necessary here) makes it obv that lots of good pairs like flannery. zia/martel, hamman+others, maybe too old but let's give them credit anyway bramley/lazard. i dont think it fits well in a strong club system which is more common now, but in a good 2/1 system flannery is a fine convention and, again, I'm not sure why it became popular to think otherwise.

I think pass is totally fine.

When I played 1NT forcing it was semi forcing - a hand that would pass any game invite with 3-card support was allowed to pass 1NT.

The 1NT bid with 4-card support is HORRIBLY TERRIBLY ******EDLY ATROCIOUSLY ABYSMALLY NEFARIOUSLY BAD

"Partner, I deny you vital information about my hand, because I am going to decide what is best for us, not you"
Your partner was playing solobridge with a hand that was completely unsuitable.


Look at his hand:

AT
QJ54
K765
962

This hand is a textbook example of a hand that needs to tell partner ASAP what it is and let him make the decisions.

If you do not have a bid for a 4-card limit raise, then change your system.

I do not like Flannery because I prefer to have a good set of 2-level preemptive bids instead

My p normally plays Bergen, I assume thats why he might have been struggling for a bid.

2D game-forcing then hearts would have been my choice, and the least of all evils. Jump to game would be my 2nd choice. I have other bids available to show 4, but they tend to show better values or shortness.

the hand has a balanced 10-count. how can it GF?

If I did not have a limit 4-card raise, I would prefer 1H-4H over 1H-2D followed by 4H.

2D does not describe your hand well, you have a lousy Kxxx (besides not having GF values at all). Partner will not think that there are two diamond losers if he has something like Qxx.

Of course we should have a 4 card inv raise. But given moni's hand and the auction, he should bid 2C. Sometimes partner's hand actually matches the bidding.

I didn't mean to say Flannery is utterly worthless, just that, as I said, you're not missing much and the space is, imo, better used otherwise. But as pointed out, a lot of good players disagree. I've asked some about it over the years, and I admit I still don't get it. I may be missing something.

I do believe Kaplan inversion (i.e, after your 1H< partner's 1S = forcing 1NT and 1NT = spades) solves some related problems; you can stop in 1NT on hands like moni's where it would be right to do so (opposite some hands for partner). But the 4–5 opposite 3–1 is tough, I admit. And again, I think a nice solution to that is employing canape, where you open 4–5s 1S. the analogous issue, 5–4, does get you too high now and then but the problem is less frequent because responder raises with three and a weak hand that doesn't like spades, and opener then passes, suppressing his longer suit, with a weak hand.

Jxx
x
K9xxx
Q9xx

KQ65
KT632
A2
T8

1S – 2S (all pass, let's hope)

or (if responder is a bit stronger)

1S – 1NT (forcing and unlimited)
2H! – 2S (all pass, probably)

reverse responder's majors:

1S – 1NT (forcing and unlimited)
2H – (pass, though good opps now sometimes find spades)

responder as above, reverse opener's majors:

1H – 1NT
2S – (all pass, probably, though aggressive opponents may find hearts)

reverse majors of both players:

1H – 2H (all pass, though aggressive opponents will often make a mistake here)


Edit: One thing I used to do as responder, without working out whether it was right (not enough data), was to bid 1S on just three. Opener never has exactly four spades when he opens 1H, so we there was no danger of getting to a 4–3 when there was something better. Related to that was bypassing a four-card spade suit when it was weak and you didn't want to play a 4–3 (because opener would raise with three almost always) and you also didn't want to play 1NT (our 1NT response was absolutely unlimited). As with the spade bid on a fragment, I never did work out exactly when, if ever, this was best.

1H-1NT-pass

next hand

he should pass

If you declare as my opponent that you're playing 1NT forcing (not "semi-forcing" or "ostensibly forcing but he might pass") and then pass with hands like this, you're an unethical ****.

If you don't think 1NT should be forcing, that's a different discussion -- but if my agreement is "1NT forcing", and I sub in for the guy who opened 1H then had a brain aneurysm, I'm bidding SOMETHING.

lol if you even consider I could sink this low

I don't. But that's why "1H-1NT, pass, next hand" is a god-awful response, given that they're playing a forcing NT.

He should pass only if they consider (and describe) the 1NT bid to be semi-forcing, or if the hand is extraordinary. This hand is not extraordinary: it has perfect shape for a pass, but is moderately suit-oriented within the universe of 4=5=2=2 hands. If you shift his cards a bit to give him something more like Q862 K6532 AT KT, an extraordinarily good hand for notrump and poor hand for a 2C bid, I will accept pass even after a "forcing" 1NT without there being a misinformation problem.

If he routinely passes with the given hand, then he is not playing 1NT forcing.

What is god-awful is a forcing 1NT

If you cannot pass with a god-awful 4522 or 5h-332, you need to look at your system again.

I totally agree with dwetzel here. IF this is a pass you cannot say 1nt is forcing. I would call td every time this happens just to point out it has happened and have that in my favor when it does matter.