| What should I 
    do when responding to partner's Flannery 2D conventional bid (showing 
    11-15 points and a 4=5=x=x) hand? x x   x   A Q x x x x x   
    10 9 x x x x x I have a problem.  Do I:
 Risk inquiring about minor suit holdings attempting to find a 5:3 fit by 
    going to 2 Notrump?
 
 Sign off in 2 Hearts with a 5-1 fit?
 
 Bid 2 Spades with a 4-2 fit?
 
 While your 
    partner holds 4-5 in the majors, you correctly point out
    the major suit misfit with your disappointing hand. With such a long Diamond 
    suit and working honors (Ace and Queen), actually you should Pass. Yes, this 
    will surprise your partner who likely has 1 or 0 Diamonds (see
    Rule of Anticipation), but 
    it's your best fit. Actually, 
    this is the "standard" Flannery treatment with a long Diamond holding. However, I am 
    troubled by the hand you presented. The distribution is 2=1=7=7!  When 
    you are holding 17 cards, I recommend you call the Director for assistance 
    <grin>  (only teasing - I'm sure your point is that you were loooong in 
    the minors)   My second 
    question is: If the opponents' open a 1D 
    bit and I hold the requirements for a Flannery opening is there a way in 
    which I can convey I wanted to open 2D Flannery?  Bbidding 2D in 
    this auction would indicate aMichael's Cue Bid.
 A fair number 
    of aggressive bidders lighten the typical 5-5 length requirement associated 
    with Michael Cuebid, allowing 4-5 hands with good values in the upper suit 
    (provided the auction is at the two level).   Some well known pros 
    have even stretched this holding a 4-6 pattern, but that is an extreme based 
    on advanced hand valuation, looking for a swing board, etc.   Provided you 
    and partner play the more liberalized 4-5 method, then indeed you could 
    cuebid 2D to show your Flannery-type hand.  Of course, partner may have 
    2=2 or 3=2 in the majors and leave you with a 7 card trump fit but life goes 
    on in the competitive
    arena.   Whoever quipped, "it's the price of poker" should have 
    also considered the plight of Bridge players! |