pstansbu, on 2016-October-01, 01:44, said:
Are you suggesting that there is a benefit to dropping the Multi 2♦ in the 4th seat and assigning one of the other meanings or are you giving a list of options without making any point on the pros and cons of the Multi bid in this seat?
Multi 2
♦ for me always includes a weak option so yes, I would suggest there is a benefit to dropping it. The caveat here is that the artificial strong 2
♦ call mentioned in my previous post may end up looking like a strong-only multi, so the difference there is more in terms of nomenclature than anything else.
pstansbu, on 2016-October-01, 01:44, said:
Flannery is an interesting option we hadn't considered. Would you then use a simplified response to reflect the fact you don't want to start preempting and there will hardly ever be a game on (similar vein to Tramticket's comment)?
Over a Flannery 2
♦ opening, game is perfectly possible as any fit we uncover will be in a major. I doubt it makes much difference whether you use a classical response structure or a simplified one so just use what feels logical for you and your partner. The main reason for using a simplified structure here would be memory - if only playing Flannery in 4th seat it is not going to come up too often so a complicated scheme is probably not a very good idea regardless of any technical merits it might have.