[pooltuna]

gwnn, on 2010-October-26, 07:38, said:

No you're not. You were saying that if you open light, you need FULL OPENING VALUES for 3/4 seats.

This should be logically deducible. You don't need an even lighter opening call in 3rd and 4th seat. Your bidding efforts should be limited to getting a positive score otherwise there is no point in opening. Consequently passed hands in first and second seat don't need to use Drury they already know you have full values or you would have passed.

[bucky]

gwnn, on 2010-October-26, 07:40, said:

gwnn playing with cloned gwnn:

1♥-2♣
2♦-2♥
4♥

regardless of what people here say, the two experts in this hand understood each other regarding 2♣. that's what matters. peace and harmony

Agree with the sequence between you and your clone. It should be very simple.

I am not sure about your statement regarding the actual interpretation of 2♣. It is possible that:
1♥: normal opening
2♣: intended as drury but undiscussed
2♦: natural (took 2♣ as natural)
2♠: game try (took 2♦ as showing full opener)
3♦: natural (took 2♠ as natural, probably forgot partner was passed hand at this point)
3♥: sign-off (took 3♦ as counter game-try)
4♣: DEFINITELY forgot partner has passed initially (and probably didn't view 3♥ as NF)
4♠: excited by 4♣ and proceeded to overbid the hand AGAIN
And the wheel went past the point of no return...

[Phil]

It would be nice if there was a consensus of all the follow-ups from Drury, similar to what MikeH did for reverses a few years ago.

Playing with my clone, I think the auction should be: (but I do not know if I would perpetuate it)


--------(pass)
1♥ - 2♣
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ - 3N
4♣ - 4♥
pass

3♦ - 5-5 slam try
3♠ - non-serious (in context)
3N - spade cue (perhaps dubious with the K)
4♥ - denies a diamond card.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2010-October-26, 17:18, said:

It would be nice if there was a consensus of all the follow-ups from Drury, similar to what MikeH did for reverses a few years ago.

Playing with my clone, I think the auction should be: (but I do not know if I would perpetuate it)


--------(pass)
1♥ - 2♣
3♦ - 3♥
3♠ - 3N
4♣ - 4♥
pass

3♦ - 5-5 slam try
3♠ - non-serious (in context)
3N - spade cue (perhaps dubious with the K)
4♥ - denies a diamond card.

I think the main obstacle to that idea is that there are a multitude of drury schemes: I play 3 different ones currently and two others in previous partnerships. Moreover, there is a difference of opinion about 2 way drury (Fred G., amongst other experts, is strongly against 2-way while many other experienced players like it a lot). Even amongst 2-way players, some use 2♣ for 3 and 2♦ for 4 card support while others reverse that.

FWIW, my 'basic' one way drury looks like this:

2♣: invitational raise in the major, 3+ support
After 1♠ 2♣:

Opener:

2♦: I either have a 4 card major or I am about to make a short suit gametry.
2♥: natural, heart length, promises 5+ spades, F1, game interest (natural gt)
2♠: drop dead: please don't even think about bidding again
2N: 17-19, gf, usually 5332, could be 4333 with chunky spades and 18-19.
3minor: natural help suit gt
3♥: 5-5 or better, strong slam try
3♠: strongest bid: slam try, demands cuebids (3N no Ace)
4new suit: undiscussed (suggestion: strong slam try with void)

1♠ 2♣ 2♦:

2♥: natural, 5+ hearts, says nothing about strength, but responder didn't fit jump
2♠: normal action if prepared to play 4-3 fit
2N: balanced 10-11 hcp, 3 spades

Over 1♥ opening, same scheme applies, but we don't have the intermediate bid available between opener's 2♦ and 2 major.

Note that the natural game tries may, by later bids, become natural long suit slam tries and generally responder should cue on the way to game if accepting such a gametry. Thus with AKQxx xx AKxxx x, I'd bid 3♦ ostensibly a gt and partner won't bid 4♠, accepting the gt if he holds a side Ace...he'd cue 4♣ or 4♥ (3♥ would be a counter game try.....when opener has 2 suits in which he needs help, he bids the cheaper, and responder, with no help for that suit but help for a higher suit (biddable below 3M) can bid that suit. Opposite my example 5251 hand, if responder held say xxxx Axx Qx Axx, he'd bid 4♣ over 3♦ and 4♥ over opener's subsequent 4♦ and slam would be reached).

I don't usually play this scheme, btw

[Cascade]

mikeh, on 2010-October-26, 17:56, said:

2♠: drop dead: please don't even think about bidding again

I have little idea about Mike's psyching tendancies but if this method is used in conjunction with a psychic 3rd seat opening then it seems that the method is illegal.

ACBL GCC under disallowed said:

Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in
conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

[bucky]

But in his framework, 2♣ is not a psychic control bid, and 2♠ doesn't say "I psyched."

I mean, if ALL LR+ hands have to go through 2♣, then you have a point. But I assume there exists hands that would do fit-showing or splinter, so 2♣ is not the only way to show good raise, therefore it cannot be used for psychic control.

[Cascade]

bucky, on 2010-October-26, 19:10, said:

But in his framework, 2♣ is not a psychic control bid, and 2♠ doesn't say "I psyched."

I mean, if ALL LR+ hands have to go through 2♣, then you have a point. But I assume there exists hands that would do fit-showing or splinter, so 2♣ is not the only way to show good raise, therefore it cannot be used for psychic control.

I don't think that is the way the regulation reads.

2♣ Drury is a partnership agreement that if used in conjunction with a psychic bid makes allowance for the psychic bid.

If 2♣ Drury is ever used that way - intentionally or not - then it appears to meet the definition of "psychic control".

[bucky]

Cascade, on 2010-October-26, 19:15, said:

I don't think that is the way the regulation reads.

2♣ Drury is a partnership agreement that if used in conjunction with a psychic bid makes allowance for the psychic bid.

If 2♣ Drury is ever used that way - intentionally or not - then it appears to meet the definition of "psychic control".

I think that is absurd. 2♠ is drop-dead only because responder failed to jump for fit-showing or splinter, so the negative inference is enough for the opener to not want to try for game versus a passed hand. In SAYC, 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ is pretty much drop-dead too, does it make 1NT a psychic control bid?

[Cascade]

bucky, on 2010-October-26, 19:31, said:

I think that is absurd. 2♠ is drop-dead only because responder failed to jump for fit-showing or splinter, so the negative inference is enough for the opener to not want to try for game versus a passed hand. In SAYC, 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ is pretty much drop-dead too, does it make 1NT a psychic control bid?

I think there is a significant difference between a weak response of 1NT and an otherwise invitational response of 2♣.

1NT tells partner that you have a few points and that opener will need extras to warrant a contract higher than the two level.

2♣ is asking partner if he has a minimum or sub-minimum opening. If you do not open sub-minimum hands there is no problem. If you do open sub-minimum hands to the extent that they are psychic then your 2♣ response and the "drop dead" reply are effectively controlling the psychic.

[mikeh]

Cascade, on 2010-October-26, 18:57, said:

I have little idea about Mike's psyching tendancies but if this method is used in conjunction with a psychic 3rd seat opening then it seems that the method is illegal.

I used to psyche frequently, now rarely and I certainly did not mean that 2♠ is psyche revealing. maybe I used overly strong language, but what I intended by 'drop dead' is that I have the type of hand that has zero game interest opposite a non-splinter/non fit-jump limit raise. I truly hate partners who, having passed in 1st or 2nd (especially 1st) drive to the 3 level after I have won the board by opening light, often with a chunky 4-bagger, turning a good result into a bad, and then saying 'I had 11 hcp with 4 card support, partner'...which isn't that great since that describes my hand as well.

I also tend not to use methods that are illegal.

[bid_em_up]

.

[gordontd]

bucky, on 2010-October-25, 18:47, said:

Assuming 2♣ is drury, then 2♦ has to be artificial. It is not playable to use 2♦ as natural in conjunction with the drury convention.

Of course it is. 2M is a (sub)minimum rebid, and everything else is natural with at least full opening values. How is that not playable?

[bucky]

gordontd, on 2010-October-27, 08:01, said:

Of course it is. 2M is a (sub)minimum rebid, and everything else is natural with at least full opening values. How is that not playable?

Then you cannot stop at 2M for many hands.