Passed the game try

[blackshoe]

Damned if I know. :)

[peachy]

To put it another way: I play a convention one way, you another, I describe it by name, you assume I play it your way, are we not both at fault?

 

Now add in the fact that from your hand you are sure [unless you are a beginner] that the opposition play it differently: do you not think you should ask?

 

"Ask do not assume": where have I read that?

This took place in ACBL. If you ask a hundred ACBL players what Reverse Drury is, I am willing to bet 99 of them will say "limit raise in spades" or something similar that shows a fit for opener's major. This is not a 50/50 one way or another, non-fit is so rare that it could be ignored, in ACBL.

[blackshoe]

The answer to David's "where did I read this?" is of course "in the ACBL alert regulation". :)

[bluejak]

Hang on: you are talking in a vacuum. Sure, if the bidding [partnership] goes P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ P it is pretty likely, or even higher, that 2♣ shows a fit.

 

Now please move on to what happened: the bidding goes P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ P. The chance of a guaranteed heart fit have just nose-dived: if there really was a guaranteed fit what happened to 3♥ over 3♣?

 

Now you look at your hand: you have five hearts. If you really believe they have a heart fit I have some land in Florida to sell you not to mention a very pretty tower in Paris, France and the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Sorry: on this sequence and with your hand the probability of a heart fit has nose-dived into the gutter and if you do not ask questions you are not playing bridge.

[Phil]

This took place in ACBL. If you ask a hundred ACBL players what Reverse Drury is, I am willing to bet 99 of them will say "limit raise in spades" or something similar that shows a fit for opener's major.  This is not a 50/50 one way or another, non-fit is so rare that it could be ignored, in ACBL.

I also think that much less than 99 of them would say that 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ cancels the meaning of 2♣.

 

Whether it is because of the alert, their skill level, or their confidence in their partner, I cannot say.

[awm]

Josh Donn's poll seems to confirm that almost everyone plays drury as guaranteeing a fit.

 

The defending side did ask about 2♣. They were told that it was drury. This is the equivalent of being told "3+♥ and invitational values" both in their minds and according to the vast majority of players.

 

Are you seriously saying that if a call is asked and explained, but then the subsequent auction and/or the defending player's hand makes the original explanation appear unlikely... the defending side must ask again whether the opponents are sure of the meaning they have given, or else forfeit any protection in the case that MI was given?

 

I don't think the laws support such a view.

[bluejak]

The regulation is clear: a name is not good enough.

 

Anyone who is fool enough to assume that someone else plays a named convention their way in the face of strong evidence otherwise is not playing bridge.

 

Without the strong evidence otherwise it may be different.

 

Or, to put it another way, no, saying "Drury" is not the same as saying 3+ hearts, invitational values, since not 100% of players play it that way.

[gwnn]

In this case I am one of those fools. What game am I playing?

[jdonn]

I have never seen the law that mentions something about an obligation to know what 100% of players play (in fact, reverse drury promising a fit seems about as close to 100% as you will get in bridge based on the poll). I am also not aware of any guideline that says people have to ask 'questions' to be playing bridge even though they have already asked a 'question' and gotten an answer that seems to be understood by all - 1.

[blackshoe]

The bottom line here is that the law requires full disclosure, and that was not given. What "everybody" plays is irrelevant.

[WellSpyder]

I'm now curious how other British posters understand "reverse drury".

You don't seem to have had an answer to this yet. As another British poster, I would suggest that very few British players really understand anything by either Drury or reverse Drury - quite simply, no-one plays it here. (No doubt there are one or two exceptions among those brought up on the other side of the pond, but I haven't encountered any.) It is odd how conventions that seem essential in one part of the world can seem completely unnecessary elsewhere....

[mjj29]

The regulation is clear: a name is not good enough.

 

Anyone who is fool enough to assume that someone else plays a named convention their way in the face of strong evidence otherwise is not playing bridge.

 

Without the strong evidence otherwise it may be different.

 

Or, to put it another way, no, saying "Drury" is not the same as saying 3+ hearts, invitational values, since not 100% of players play it that way.

Yes, but it's only not good enough for the disclosing side - I don't think we should be disadvantaging the NOS for the OS's bad disclosure, so I don't think we should rule that the NOS failed to protect themselves - that should be more reserved for more blatent cases, like unalerted/annouced staymen which is not asked about and assumed as natural.

[Cascade]

I frequently ask for clarification when just the name of a convention is used.

 

"Explain please"

 

"Drury"

 

"What does that mean?"

 

Even when I think I know what it means. Sometimes I am surprised.

 

When the ACBL card has under Drury the options Reverse, 2-way and Fit. It would seem wrong to me to assume "Fit" if that was not explicitly stated even if a poll shows an overwhelming majority play it that way.

 

I have seen situations like this before where a player puts his own perspective into an explanation and assumes something that was not stated. In those situations I have little sympathy for the player who makes the faulty assumption.

 

Law 21A seems to cover this:

 

"LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION

A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his

own misunderstanding."

 

Nevertheless it is possible that the opponents are not entitled to their score since the terse explanation simply naming a convention is not the required standard.

 

I would at least seriously consider giving the worst of it to both sides here.

[barmar]

When the ACBL card has under Drury the options Reverse, 2-way and Fit. It would seem wrong to me to assume "Fit" if that was not explicitly stated even if a poll shows an overwhelming majority play it that way.

I'll bet 95% of ACBL players who play Drury have no idea that the "Fit" box is there, or what it's for, because they've only been taught Fit Reverse Drury. Many of them don't even remember to check the Reverse box, even though that's what they actually play; original Drury is so unheard of that most people say Drury when they mean Reverse Drury.

 

The only people who reliably check any box other than "Drury" are the ones who play 2-way. This obviously implies Fit, since the distinction between 2♣ and 2♦ is whether they have 3 or 4+ cards in support (I suppose it's conceivable to use 2♣ for 3 or less, but I've never heard of it).

[jallerton]

I doubt this partnership was on firm enough ground to know if RD promised a fit or not.

 

At the table they were discussing this point, and agreed after the hand that it should promise a fit, otherwise, opener can't jump to 4♥ with an unbalanced 14.

 

So I guess I would say "no agreement", but I'd be interested in your views if RD does promise a fit.

My view is that the TD should ask South to explain exactly why (s)he passed 3♣, before attempting to make a ruling.

[cherdanno]

I guess when bluejak is TD I can always explain my bids with the name of a popular convention, of which I play a very weird variant. Opponents will assume I play the popular version, and will rely on that assumption. When they are damaged, because I play a weird variant, then it is their fault.

 

I think it's clear that when you only use the name of a popular convention to describe a bid, AND you play it differently to 95% or more of the bridge players in your area/your country, then you are misinforming the opponents.

[campboy]

I am not sure I agree with this.  Certainly a name is insufficient, but everyone does it, and if you are going to take a very unlikely conclusion from a name I think not to protect yourself by checking they play it your way is not good enough.

 

To put it another way: I play a convention one way, you another, I describe it by name, you assume I play it your way, are we not both at fault?

 

Now add in the fact that from your hand you are sure [unless you are a beginner] that the opposition play it differently: do you not think you should ask?

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation. This is a case where not only do the overwhelming majority of people play the convention a particular way but it is entirely possible for a relatively experienced player who takes an interest in conventions and systems and who plays the convention in question with some partners (ie, me) to have been completely unaware that it was not the only way to play it. To check that I wasn't just being clueless, I just did a quick google search for "Drury convention" and read the first five hits. All of them explicitly define Drury as showing support (some say 3+, some say exactly 3); if you read the wikipedia article carefully you will find the information that it originally also included hands with long clubs, but none of the other four mention any possibility of having fewer than three cards in support.

[bluejak]

I guess when bluejak is TD I can always explain my bids with the name of a popular convention, of which I play a very weird variant. Opponents will assume I play the popular version, and will rely on that assumption. When they are damaged, because I play a weird variant, then it is their fault.

 

I think it's clear that when you only use the name of a popular convention to describe a bid, AND you play it differently to 95% or more of the bridge players in your area/your country, then you are misinforming the opponents.

You really have not read a word I have said, have you?

 

If you do that you will be ruled against 99 times out of a 100.

 

You [and others] seem to have no idea that each case is decided solely on its merits, not based on some basic rule that always applies.

 

If the bidding had gone P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3♥ P and you claimed that the opponents should know you have not got a heart fit, naturally I would rule against you.

 

But you must, must, must, must treat every case on its merits, and meaningless polls to prove what everyone here knows, including me, that the vast majority play Drury to guarantee a fit are irrelevant. The vast majority play the actual sequence as forcing.

 

Suppose a pair says they play "standard" responses to 1NT, then they bid 1NT - 2♥ - Pass. Do you really claim damage when you tell the TD that since "everyone" plays transfers you assumed wen defending that this was a transfer without asking any further questions?

 

Do you really think it is bridge to assume when the opponents pass a bid that everyone plays as forcing that, despite this, the earlier part of the auction must mean what you expect because they have used a well known name? Really?

 

I must go and look up the title deeds of that land in Florida.

[aguahombre]

No, actually I believe the vast majority of players treat the OP sequence as non-existent.

 

P-1M

2C-2M

3C........you think the vast majority believe 3C is some kind of slam try, still showing a major suit fit?

Edited August 12, 2010 by aguahombre

[bluejak]

I do not know what they think it actually means, but I do not believe they think it passable if hearts have been agreed. How many people play 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ as passable?

[aguahombre]

The vast majority play the actual sequence as forcing.

Later you say "everyone" plays the op sequence as forcing. Let's try to imagine a passed hand seeing partner open in 3rd chair. He shows a fit and Opener says he has a suck opening. So he would torture opener with another bid in a minor. But, everyone would have a meaning for this sequence (even though you don't know what that meaning might be) ---and it would not occur to any of them that partner wants to play in that minor suit unless there were UI.

 

As TD, I recommend you ask this pair if they have a 3C follow-up to Drury which is forcing ---and what it means in their style if it is. Then make your ruling and let an AC decide about the vast majorities and everyones.

Edited August 12, 2010 by aguahombre

[cherdanno]

I don't understand why 3♣ should be forcing even if 2♣ promised a fit. If opener made a light 3rd seat opening with 4 hearts and 5 clubs, then passing a game try in clubs (which certainly shows some length there) seems obviously right.

[cherdanno]

I do not know what they think it actually means, but I do not believe they think it passable if hearts have been agreed. How many people play 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ as passable?

This is not comparable - opener is unlimited in your situation, whereas responder is limited by being a passed hand in our situation.

[blackshoe]

I think a lot of people will agree to play some form of Drury, but will have no idea what 3♣ means in the given auction. And many of those will pass 3♣ because they don't know what it means.

[dburn]

That fine compendium The Bridge Players' Encyclopaedia has this to say about Drury:

 

The responder in no way guarantees a fit with opener's suit. He would bid two clubs in response to one spade with:

 

♠J5  ♥KJ107  ♦AJ75  ♣Q73

 

or

 

♠3  ♥932  ♦KJ9  ♣AJ10965

The age of this contribution may be gauged from the fact that nowadays almost no one with the first hand and not everyone with the second would be in the position of responding to a third-seat opening, but the position is fairly clear: Drury as invented by Douglas A. of that ilk did not show a fit, and there is no particular reason for anyone learning only that 2♣ is Drury to assume even nowadays that it does.