Why is drury hated by many?

[mike777]

By the time Drury is bid and responded to, the opponents have each passed at least twice. They may still come in, but at least you will have determined how far you want to go in the hand.

 

So, I am not too worried about competition at that point in the auction.

1) Your opp pass twice that often? wow that must mean alot of good results

2) If your opp let you play in 9 card fits at the two level that must mean alot of good results.

[awm]

My observation has been that virtually no one alerts or pre-alerts their third seat openings as "could be light" (I'd exclude those who open light in all seats and give a general pre-alert).

 

I have seen Phil claim on the forums that he does this. I have never seen anyone do this at the table, except a fellow from Taiwan who was probably ignorant of american alert regulations.

 

Anyways, it seems like if you don't alert or pre-alert your third seat openings, there should be some expectation of what such an opening would show. Obviously the "standard expectation" is probably not as robust as an unalerted first seat opening, but if you routinely open on Kxxx and out (for example) it seems like that might be below the "standard expectation."

 

If your drury methods allow you to show a hand like Kxxx and out, or to get out of the auction at a low level when you have Kxxx and out and partner has a hand that would be worth game opposite a more robust opening, then it seems like you have a responsibility to disclose that you open such hands in third seat. That's really the only point I'm trying to make about drury as a psychic control.

 

There is at least one pair in LA which has agreed that they will open in third seat "any hand where it doesn't look like the auction will pass out." This means that they routinely open zero-counts because there is not much chance of a passout (4th chair must have something like 18 high). They do not feel the need to pre-alert this or alert it in the bidding, despite the fact that they are pretty ethical in general and pre-alert a lot of other stuff (for example a highly aggressive preempt style). Several directors have agreed that they are okay on this count.

 

ACBL decided to dodge this whole issue entirely when I asked them what were the legal agreements about third seat openings and what would require an alert. Their position seemed to be that "the rules for 3rd seat are the same as for first seat, there are hands that it's perfectly fine to agree to open in 3rd seat with no disclosure which would be illegal agreements even with a pre-alert in first seat, and this is just bridge."

[EricK]

I hate the "It's just bridge" excuse. Even if it is "just bridge" why shouldn't you still precisely explain your agreements?

[skjaeran]

Anyways, it seems like if you don't alert or pre-alert your third seat openings, there should be some expectation of what such an opening would show. Obviously the "standard expectation" is probably not as robust as an unalerted first seat opening, but if you routinely open on Kxxx and out (for example) it seems like that might be below the "standard expectation."

 

If your drury methods allow you to show a hand like Kxxx and out, or to get out of the auction at a low level when you have Kxxx and out and partner has a hand that would be worth game opposite a more robust opening, then it seems like you have a responsibility to disclose that you open such hands in third seat. That's really the only point I'm trying to make about drury as a psychic control.

It's normally OK to open lighter in 3rd seat. I do that a lot myself. But in Norway you can't have an agreement to (nor routinely do) open a hand a king or more below average strenght (7 hcp or less). If you do, you're system is classified as HUM. And HUM systems are generally disallowed. (They are allowed in long team matches at top level.)

[SteelWheel]

One reason I like Drury (2-way) is that I frequently open 4cM in 3rd and 4th seat. 2-way Drury is then a good tool to evaluate the fit (number of trumps) and strength at the same time.

 

Yeah, this is why I started playing Drury. In my very early days of bridge, light opening bid styles (Bergen and similar) were becoming all the rage. I didn't see the point of Drury so much at that time since I was already opening light in 1st and 2nd seat,

 

As I got a little more seasoned, I started to realize that in 3rd seat with a minimum or sub-minimum hand, opening my AKxx four card major was a better idea than opening my Jxx(x)(x) minor; suddenly Drury made a lot more sense.

 

btw, my preferred version is something I jokingly refer to as "Two-Way Double Reverse Flannery Bergen Ogust Drury":

 

I like to use 2♦ as the THREE-card limit raise--I found that four card limit raises nearly always ended up playing in game anyway.

 

This allows the use of 2♣ to show two ranges of four card raise--the "constructive" range and the "limit" range. 2♦ asks, and a return to 2M shows the constructive flavor; any other rebid by opener is natural-ish and shows the four card limit raise.

[foo]

Ah, the dulcet tones of those attempting to confuse an issue to protect or push their agenda.

 

So let's put paid to such attempts at confusion with a bit of clarity.

Oh mastery of clarity, please explain the following:

 

You claim that Drury over first and second seat openings was "rightfully" banned because its a psychic control. Moreover, Drury was explictly sanctioned in the same jurisdication over third and fourth seat openings.

 

Why was it so necessary to ban psychic controls over first and second seat openings but not over third and fourth seat opening?

 

What makes this especially puzzling is the frequency of so-called "psyches" over third and fourth seat opening bids as opposed to first and second seat openings. My impression is that "Psyches" are several orders of magnitude more frequent over third and fourth seat opening. (I'd almost go so far as to say that I can't ever recall hearing of a "Psyche" in first or second seat. "Systemic Psyches ala Roth-Stone or K-S don't qualify for obvious reasons)

 

In short: If you are actually banning Drury because its a psychic control, then there is no logical reason why you'd ban this over first and second seat opening but not over third and fourth seat opening.

 

The logicial conclusion is that the refusal to sanction the bid came about for other reasons...

 

For anyone who cares, there was a decent thread on rec.games.bridge last year title "Drury as psych control".

I quote my previous post on this topic:

 

"...the problem with using a raise like Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opener is not that Opener might be light.

 

The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited.

 

The opponents then have an impossible evaluation problem for at least the 1st 2 rounds of the auction while the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful.

 

...and that, folks violates the basic concept that all players at the table should be able to judge the likely worth of the hands at the table given the bidding. No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand."

 

If you don't understand that the situation is different when the partnerhip's assets are unlimited than when one of the hands has denied an opening bid, then you do not understand this game as well as I thought you did.

 

Drury after a 3rd seat opening is simply not as effective as the old RS and KS methods of "revealing a psyche" were. In short, it simply doesn't work as a psychic control in that circumstance. It does work as a psychic control after a 1st or 2nd chair opening.

 

Thus it is banned in one circumstance and allowed in the other.

[glen]

I didn't understand this the first time and nor the second time either.

 

... The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited. ... the situation is different when the partnerhip's assets are unlimited than when one of the hands has denied an opening bid ...

So conventions where the partnership's assets are unlimited are banned or should be banned? Take 1M-1NT-?, where 1NT is forcing and, in the partnership style, unlimited - is this version of 1NT forcing banned in your opinion? How about 2C(strong)-2D(waiting) - two conventions, partnership assets unlimited - therefore banned in your view?

 

...the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful. ... No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand. ...

What is this "speak in code" and "not privy to" that you talk about? The opponents do not hear 1O-2R, and then later are told what O and R are. They hear 1H-2C or 1S-2C, 2C is alerted, and both the opening and the alert are explained when asked. So the sequences are not "in code", and the opponents are "privy to" the method of communicating.

[foo]

I didn't understand this the first time and nor the second time either.

 

... The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited. ... the situation is different when the partnerhip's assets are unlimited than when one of the hands has denied an opening bid ...

So conventions where the partnership's assets are unlimited are banned or should be banned? Take 1M-1NT-?, where 1NT is forcing and, in the partnership style, unlimited - is this version of 1NT forcing banned in your opinion? How about 2C(strong)-2D(waiting) - two conventions, partnership assets unlimited - therefore banned in your view?

 

...the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful. ... No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand. ...

What is this "speak in code" and "not privy to" that you talk about? The opponents do not hear 1O-2R, and then later are told what O and R are. They hear 1H-2C or 1S-2C, 2C is alerted, and both the opening and the alert are explained when asked. So the sequences are not "in code", and the opponents are "privy to" the method of communicating.

Here's some examples to hopefully help clarify matters.

 

Your RHO deals and opens 1M. You are holding a flat or close to flat opening bid.

 

This a common situation where passing is often the percentage action. So you do, and Responder bids 2C! showing a LR+. Your partner passes and Opener bids 2M showing a minimum. You shrug and defend 2M. Only it turns out Opener has Opened something like a 0-6 HCP hand and your side is cold for a game.

 

4 hands later it happens again. This time you decide to be a bit more aggressive to protect against being stolen from and compete to or past 2M. Unfortunately, this time the exact same auction hides the fact that you have put your head on the chopping block and they X you into oblivion when they have most of the HCP but no game.

 

Still later, you decide to "get in fast and get out" as a better way to compete safely. Wrong again. This time They were cold for a game; but the game pays less than the drubbing you get for being in Their auction.

 

A few more repetitions of stuff like this shows that you and your pard have problems in these auctions that you simply don't have when you know one of opponents didn't have the values to open.

 

Essentially, the opponents have a more or less free ride to at least the 2M level unless you want to take a high risk of being akin to Marie Antoinette and "sent to the guillotine"

 

Nor is that the only advantage the other side seems to have after opening 1M in 1st or 2nd chair. Their game and slam bidding is also far more accurate than standard methods allow for; and to add insult to injury you are forced to compete less than you could vs standard methods,

 

...and it is all because They have a way of bidding that We can't decipher fast enough to safely judge the relative of worth of Our hands soon enough for Us to safely compete.

 

In stark contrast, 4th hand has a much easier time deciding whether it is safe to compete or not and how if so after a 3rd seat opening. Regardless of whether They play Drury after a 3rd seat opening or not.

 

The above is why Drury is fine convention after a 3rd or 4th chair opening but a unfair advantage after a 1st or 2nd chair opening.

[glen]

Would it be possible to answer the questions I asked? From this last post I gather you are saying that Drury opposite 1st and 2nd seat openings would be effective (provide an advantage), but I don't see any further reasoning why better methods should be banned, in your view, besides just restating it is an "unfair" advantage.

 

Meckwell, as with other big club partnerships, use the 1M-4M sequence on a wide range of responding hands. This gives the 4th hand a lot of problems, who often will be unable to "decipher fast enough to safely judge the relative of worth of Our hands". This 1M-4M approach is considered having a good method, not an "unfair" advantage.

[awm]

Okay, say I am in fourth chair. It goes Pass-Pass and then my RHO opens 1♠. I have a balanced 15-count, what do I do?

 

Say I bid 1NT. Oops, LHO doubles to show a maximum pass and it passes out. RHO has a normal opening bid of 13 hcp, LHO has 11, partner has a jack. Down we go for a number, opposite no game.

 

Say I decide to double. Oops, LHO redoubles to show a maximum pass. Partner tries to run but nobody has a fit. We get doubled at the two level for a number, opposite no game.

 

Say I pass. LHO bids 2♣ 3-card drury, RHO bids 2♠ showing a hand that would decline a limit raise. Pass again? Turns out RHO opened an 8-count, LHO upgraded a 3145 7-count, partner has ten points and we're cold for a game. Or maybe I should bid, only to find that LHO has eleven points and RHO has a flat thirteen, and to add insult to injury they only have a 4-3 spade fit and we have no fit anywhere. 1100 here we come...

 

Or say I'm in second chair and opponents don't play drury opposite first seat openings. RHO opens 1♠, I have a balanced 12-count and pass. LHO bids 2♠, normal single raise and it passes to me. Could be RHO opened a shapely ten count and LHO raised on five. Or could be RHO has a balanced 15 and LHO raised on a flat 9. In the first case we could be cold for 3NT. In the second I could pay out 1100 at the three-level. It's even worse if they play four-card majors, they might not even have a real fit!

 

Or say RHO opens 2♠. Now I can't even bid at the one-level. I have a balanced 17, do I overcall 2NT? If I do, maybe LHO has 17 hcp too and I go for a number. If I don't, maybe partner has ten points with too many spades to bid and we miss a game! Oh no!

 

Hate to say it, but this kind of stuff is just bridge.

[han]

Could you post a hand where the opponents opened and then bid drury and you had 25 HCP?

[foo]

Could you post a hand where the opponents opened and then bid drury and you had 25 HCP?

Let's see if I can remember some of the stuff they were worried Barry Crane would do if he was allowed to play Drury in all seats at Matchpoints.

 

1S by Barry at Favorable in 1st or 2nd seat. 1S-2C!;2S all pass.

 

Barry could have anything from a 5♠332 or 5♠431 =zero= count to bad 15 count and the auction would be the same. In fact, let's say Barry does open 1M with a 5cM in 1st or 2nd no matter what his values are Favorable and tweaks the strategy appropriately at other vulnerability ratios.

 

On the occasions Barry only has 0-5 HCP and Responder has 10, or the occasions where Barry had 0-4 HCP and Responder has 11, the Opponents have 25+ HCP between them.

 

Given the 1S opening, there is no "safe suit" to overcall 1S in, and competing later in the auction means taking forward going calls at the 2 or 3 levels when in theory the opponents are showing 22+ HCP between them.

 

Compare and contrast this to knowing that the Drury side is more likely to be in the partscore zone than in the game or slam zone because one of them is limited to less than an opening bid.

 

Go set up some appropriately realistic simulations if you want to test the situation.

 

Will you sometimes be wrong no matter what you do? Of course. Most Bidding is about probabilities, not certainties, after all.

 

But opponents playing Drury in 1st or 2nd are pretty much guaranteed to give you problems that can only be "addressed" by you adopting Their methods and opening before them. That's the definition of a Dominant method.

 

Since Dominant methods have been deemed Bad For Bridge, Drury in 1st or 2nd chair is Not Good For Bridge. That Drury used this way is also a psychic control should be obvious.

[glen]

... Since Dominant methods have been deemed Bad For Bridge ...

We start with "why is drury hated by many" and end with drury (for 1st and 2nd seat opeings) as a "Dominant" method - nice roundabout

[foo]

... Since Dominant methods have been deemed Bad For Bridge ...

We start with "why is drury hated by many" and end with drury (for 1st and 2nd seat opeings) as a "Dominant" method - nice roundabout

The conversation simply evolved that way.

 

There are some who have posted in this thread that they believe Drury is a psychic control no matter what seat it is used in. Hopefully that has been put to rest by showing the situations where it really is vs is not.

 

There are some that believe drury is not useful. Hopefully that has been disproven by the conversation so far as well.

 

Drury is nigh unto unique in that it is allowed in some seats and not others. It's only natural that people would be curious about that and question why.

 

So the summary for the thread so far is

1= Drury is useful.

2= Drury is =too= useful opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opening.

[hrothgar]

Ron, even if I believed the crap that your spewing, your argument has nothing to do with the notion of a "psychic control".

 

The argument is not whether or not a drury type method is useful opposite a first seat opening. I agree that the method has merit. There are a lot better methods, but an artificial 2♣ advance is better than nothing.

 

You're entire argument revolves around systemic bidding.

[nige1]

psychic controls

Can you define "psychic control" for us?

May I try to define a psychic control by example? ...

• Suppose that you have agreed that a normal 1♥ bid shows 10+ HCP and 5+ ♥.
  
• Occasionally, however, you open 1♥ with less -- say 7 HCP or 3 ♥.
  

Suppose, further, that you agree with partner that with ♥ support and game interest, responder tests the waters with a conventional 2♣ reply over which opener may make a special rebid that warns of the possibility of the latter category of hand; and responder tends to respect that warning.

 

IMO then you are using a psych-control :D

[pclayton]

My observation has been that virtually no one alerts or pre-alerts their third seat openings as "could be light" (I'd exclude those who open light in all seats and give a general pre-alert).

 

I have seen Phil claim on the forums that he does this. I have never seen anyone do this at the table, except a fellow from Taiwan who was probably ignorant of american alert regulations.

I did? I don't ever remember saying that I pre-alert / alert a 3rd seat opening. I don't regularly psyche these either.

 

I have said there are certain things that I will psyche, like a game try, or a phony p/c response to a CRASH overcall. Those I will alert as a possible psyche.

[awm]

There are really several different issues here, and some people are trying to confuse them. Basically the issues seem to be:

 

(1) How light should we be allowed to open? Do super-light (i.e. 0-5 point) one-level opening bids potentially cause a problem for the opposition? Does it matter whether these openings are in 1st seat or 3rd?

 

(2) Assuming that we sometimes open with less than "sound" opening values, should we have to alert or pre-alert our methods? Does it matter if these openings are only in 3rd seat? Exactly how "light" does it have to be before it becomes alertable?

 

(3) Should we, in general, be allowed to use a 2♣ response to 1M to show "invitational or better raise"? Does it make sense to allow this convention opposite a 3rd seat opening but not a 1st seat opening? Is it a good convention? Is it better for some opening styles than others?

 

Reading Foo's posts, I think his problems are really with issue number 1. Virtually all bridge organizations do ban one level openings on 0-5 point hands. The problems he's citing aren't particular to drury; for example 1♠-p-2♠ to me is a lot harder to defend if the 1♠ opening has a range of 0-20 than if the 1♠ opening is 11-14. Even after opener passes, the balancing decision is tougher if their high card points could be 5 in each hand, or could be 15 opposite 9. In both this case and the "drury" case we have responder fairly tightly limited and opener with "anything that can't bid game over what partner has." We see much the same problem after auctions like weak NT-pass-pass or weak 2♠-pass-pass for that matter -- responder can have anything from total garbage to just barely less than a game force opposite the opening.

 

The issues I'm bringing up are more with number 2. I don't have a real problem with light openings, but I find it weird that an agreement to open most 10-counts in 1st seat apparently requires disclosure (at least in ACBL world) whereas an agreement to open all hands in 3rd seat doesn't seem to require an alert. A lot of people say their third seat openings are "ten plus points" but then play drury methods that work very hard to protect them when they opened a lead directional five-count. If they want to open five-counts it's fine with me, I just think they should disclose their style and their follow-up methods should reflect the style they disclose (rather than protecting some much more aggressive style that they don't disclose).

 

As to number 3, we've had a lot of discussion about drury opposite a passed hand, and this is really the point of the thread. Most people seem to like drury, but there certainly are negatives to playing the convention, in that you have some awkward auctions when you hold good responding hands with a minor. It's not clear that playing two-way drury is worth it, since we lose yet another minor suit bid for the 3/4-card distinction and often help opponents in deciding whether to balance. Opposite a first-seat opening, losing the natural 2-minor responses is potentially a much bigger cost and it's far from clear that drury would even be a good treatment in this situation.

[ArtK78]

psychic controls

Can you define "psychic control" for us?

May I try to define a psychic control by example? ...

• 
   
  
• Suppose that you have agreed that a normal 1♥ bid shows 10+ HCP and 5+ ♥.
   
  
• Occasionally, however, you open 1♥ with less -- say 7 HCP or 3 ♥.
   
  

Suppose, further, that you agree with partner that with ♥ support and game interest, responder tests the waters with a conventional 2♣ reply over which opener may make a special rebid that warns of the possibility of the latter category of hand; and responder tends to respect that warning.

 

IMO then you are using a psych-control :D

That is not really a psychic control in the traditional sense.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, a psychic control is when you have very unusual bids for normal situations, bids that specifically cater to psychic opening bids. One of the best examples of this is a 2NT response to an opening 1 bid to show a 20 point hand, just in case partner has opened a hand with less than 3 HCP.

[foo]

psychic controls

Can you define "psychic control" for us?

A psychic control is a systemic bid designed specifically to find out if pard has the values documented for their bid or has considerably less, thereby allowing the partnership a safety net they would not otherwise have.

 

So if an opening bid promises 12+ Playing Points or 11-15 HCP or 9-14 HCP or whatever, and you play a method specifically designed to identify when partner has broken system and made a bid with considerably less than systemically agreed upon values, you are playing a psychic (as in psyche) control.

 

 

Such bids were all the rage at one point in the history of Bridge. Experience has shown they are bad for people's enjoyment of the game and bad for the overall caliber of Bridge that occurs ATT because they devalue Bridge skills in favor of being the first to speak. IOW, they make Bridge a more random and less skill based game.

[foo]

Ron, even if I believed the crap that your spewing, your argument has nothing to do with the notion of a "psychic control".

 

The argument is not whether or not a drury type method is useful opposite a first seat opening.  I agree that the method has merit.  There are a lot better methods, but an artificial 2♣ advance is better than nothing.

 

You're entire argument revolves around systemic bidding.

Please stop referring to me as "Ron".

 

I have nothing against systemic bidding. I have a fundamental dislike for unfair systemic methods in Bridge just as I do in any other game or sport.

 

Psychic controls and Dominant methods are examples of unfair systemic methods in both my opinion and, far more importantly, the opinion of the vast majority of regulating authorities of Organized Bridge.

 

The same authorities have for the most part deemed Drury in 1st or 2nd chair to be an unfair method. Unlike some of their more arbitrary decisions, this one is backed by reasonable argument.

 

You and others can argue all you want, but it is not going to change any time soon. Also, arguing against the reasonable decisions of the regulating authorities hurts your ability to argue against their unreasonable decisions.

 

...and if you are so out of the mainstream that you disagree with the mainstream regulatory view that Dominant methods and psychic controls are bad for Bridge, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Nor are you ever likely to get much satisfaction from said regulating authorities.

[TimG]

psychic controls

Can you define "psychic control" for us?

A psychic control is a systemic bid designed specifically to find out if pard has the values documented for their bid or has considerably less, thereby allowing the partnership a safety net they would not otherwise have.

 

So if an opening bid promises 12+ Playing Points or 11-15 HCP or 9-14 HCP or whatever, and you play a method specifically designed to identify when partner has broken system and made a bid with considerably less than systemically agreed upon values, you are playing a psychic (as in psyche) control.

If you have a systemic agreement to open with fewer than 12 or fewer than 9 or whatever, and you play a method that is designed to identify when partner has fewer that 12 or fewer than 9 or whatever, you are not playing a psychic control. You are simply playing a range finding convention in accordance with your systemic agreements.

 

Drury is used (by some), not because of a tendency to psyche in 3rd seat, but rather because a partnership agree to open light in 3rd seat. The partnership agrees; there is an agreement. As such there is no psyche to control.

 

I think "psychic control" is something of an oxymoron. The very presence of a "control" is evidence that the bid in question is not a psyche, but rather a part of the systemic agreements.

 

The reason I asked you to define "psychic control" is that many people use it to describe treatments, such as Drury, that really don't have anything to do with a psyche. Very much like the old KS "controlled psyche" really wasn't a psyche, but rather a part of the systemic agreement.

 

There are either/or type methods which are permitted in most events. A simple example is a Polish Club type 1C opening that could be either a weak NT, or any strong hand or any hand with 10+ points and clubs. Those who use this method will have available ways to sort things out. I suspect that if the 1C opening systemically included balanced hand of 7-9 HCP, and the same mechanisms were available to sort things out, may people would now call these methods a psychic control. In my opinion, incorrectly.

[foo]

If your system is to open 12+ or 11-15 or 9-14 or whatever and you open an A or more light, you have psyched.

 

If your system is to open 5cM (or 4cM) and you open a 3- (or 2-) card Major, you have psyched.

 

If your system contains a specific bid to allow responder to successfully field your bids whether you have opened according to system or you have psyched, then you are playing a psychic control.

[the hog]

Sorry but that first statement is nonsense. Can you point me to any regulation which says if I am an ace shy of my advertised opening then I have psyched?

[mike777]

Sorry but that first statement is nonsense. Can you point me to any regulation which says if I am an ace shy of my advertised opening then I have psyched?

wow really..if I open an ace less than what my system says that is not a psyche? I did not know that.

 

example...if my system says I can open one spade on:

Axxxx...Axxxx..xx.x

 

but if I open on:

xxxxx...Axxxx...xx..x

 

that would not mean a psyche?