Join Bridge Winners
Flannery Disclosure

Recently, a friend heard the following auction as N, MP, neither side vulnerable: (1) - p - (1N ("forcing")) - p - (3N) - ap.

Holding QJ2 97 T62 J8742 he elected to lead Q. This was not a huge success, as dummy held K87 and declarer T96543.

On asking, he was told, "oh, we play Flannery, so we don't bid 1 on the W hand". Regardless of the sanity or otherwise of the auction, shouldn't a NT response that can include (by demonstration) arbitrarily many spades be alertable? Or at least worth a courtesy comment at the end of the auction..

Over to handy director, who said (this is close to verbatim), "I play Flannery too and would have bid the same way. Next board please".

While in general I am happy to encourage treatments that can lead to my opponents missing 9-card spade fits, shouldn't there be some sort of proactive action by its perpetrators?

The complete W hand: T96543 - KJ5 KT98.

Incidentally, I tried 2 lead problems for N with the same cards and auction, except for changing "forcing" to something like "may can an arbitrarily large number of spades". In both situations, the majority lead was the Q, with a small club being runner-up. The percentages changed slightly.

Should the Flannerians:

nothing required
prealert that responses may suppress spade suits
alert the 1N response
something else (please specify)

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
76 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top