druri sequence

[Bbradley62]

I wonder, why nobody is starting with 1♠-2♣-2♦?. what does 2♦ mean for you?

 

To richard: do you play that 2♦ is 100% forcing?, I certainly don't, but I forgot to say this hand is played at match points.

If 2♣ shows a spade fit, why would you ever pass 2♦?

[rhm]

95% think you're not reading what we're writing. We have all agreed that the 2♣ bid stinks. However, we've been asked to enter the auction following the 2♣ bid and go from there.

 

I posted several links to document that the definition of Drury is a limit raise, including Larry Cohen's site, and you've simply said "no it isn't". If you and your friends choose to play that 2♣ is something else, that's fine, but you should stop calling it Drury, because it isn't.

 

And yes, the advantage of Drury is that you can stop at the 2-level with 11 opposite 11 instead of ending up at 3. But since opener is going to game opposite a limit raise, that isn't relevant here.

Oh I did read what you and others said and I looked up your links. All your links claimed that Drury is an invitational raise and none of your links explicitly claimed that Drury was a limit raise. So your claim that they define Drury as a limit raise is your interpretation and plain wrong.

 

If you would give this hand as an unpassed hand to a panel of experts, few would consider this hand worth a limit raise.

If you would give this hand as a passed hand to a panel of experts playing Drury, 2♣ would be popular.

 

This is proof that not every hand suitable for Drury is a limit raise. If you can not follow this simple logic you should give serious consideration playing other games more suitable for your brain.

 

Bidding 2♣ may not be ideal, but bidding 2♦ is much worse. It is non forcing and risk playing there, an unacceptable risk, particularly at matchpoints or BAM. Few, if any experts of today, would choose this bid. Also playing Drury, if a passed hand bids a new suit, in particular a minor, hints strongly that responder does not have good support for opener's major for the simple reason being dropped there. With a minimum opening opener will often pass, in particular when he does have support for ♦ and may prefer to cut his losses if not. Neither bodes well for a reasonable score.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

what's so difficult about this?

 

pass 1♠

2♣ 4♠

[rhm]

what's so difficult about this?

 

pass 1♠

2♣ 4♠

For one, from opener's perspective, ♥ might play better. Responder could easily have 3♠s and 4 or 5♥s

Second 4♠ is an overbid and ♥ is where from opener's perspective he needs help. If responder has 3 little ♥s, game has likely no play.

Opener does not know that responder has a long ♦ suit headed by two tops.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Free]

I wonder, why nobody is starting with 1♠-2♣-2♦?. what does 2♦ mean for you?

For me this specifically denies a 4 card ♥. I'd bid 2♥ to show my normal opening and a 4 card ♥ suit, so we can still find a superior 4-4 fit. Rebidding 4♠ is a good alternative imo.

 

As most of us I disagree with the 2♣ bid. I play 2♦ as natural and forcing to 2NT. Imo it's a good alternative to get the ♦ suit in and show support. For me, Drury shows an invitational hand with fit.

[Bbradley62]

Oh I did read what you and others said and I looked up your links. All your links claimed that Drury is an invitational raise and none of your links explicitly claimed that Drury was a limit raise. So your claim that they define Drury as a limit raise is your interpretation and plain wrong.

<<snip>>

If you can not follow this simple logic you should give serious consideration playing other games more suitable for your brain.

Clearly, you are not reading what I've posted, and now you're just being rude.

 

The bridgehands.com explanation says "10-12 points".

The wikipedia explanation says "10 or more support points".

The Bridgeguys explanations says "10-12 points".

The comcast explanation says "10+ support points".

Larry Cohen says "10+ (counting distribution)".

The BBO convention card says "limit raise".

 

Yes, I am equating "10-12 points" with "limit raise". I think that's pretty standard.

[blackshoe]

Rainer, you apparently perceive a difference between an "invitational raise" and a "limit raise". What is that difference?

[rhm]

Rainer, you apparently perceive a difference between an "invitational raise" and a "limit raise". What is that difference?

I tried to clarify this before: If the hand falls in between a single raise, which in standard bidding is fairly wide ranging in strength, and a limit raise, like the actual hand here, I would use Drury.

I do not consider 10 supporting points (which normally means less HCP and would be 10 HCP only if 3334) usually enough for a limit raise, in particular not in these days where everybody seems to compete, who can open on even more rubbish.

 

For example Larry Cohen gives the following examples for a Drury call over 1♠

 

♠AK3,♥87,♦J5432,♣Q73

 

or over 1♥

 

♠KJ2,♥KQ52,♦J876,♣32

 

The ninth trump is nice, but apart from that the hand lacks potential. The latter looks to me like a mixed raise, not a limit raise. I would not make a limit raise with that, but Drury is of course fine. You can still stop in two of a major.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[blackshoe]

Lots of words, but they don't answer the question. :blink:

[Bbradley62]

It appears that, essentially, Rainer is splitting the standard two-tier raise descriptions (simple=6-9 and limit=10-12) into a three-tier system (something like simple=6-8, invitational=9-10, and limit=11-12).

[Zelandakh]

My sequence is p - 1S - 1N - 2D - 2S - 4S, where 1N is any INV+ hand; 2D shows 4+ hearts; 2S is 10-12sp and 3 card support.

[gnasher]

In several partnerships I play that

pass-1

♠

2

♣

shows an artificial raise which is stronger than a direct raise to 2♠. I usually refer to it as "Drury" as a shorthand way of describing the situation, the general nature of responder's 2♣ bid, and the meanings of opener's continuations. The exact range for this 2♣ raise varies from one partnership to another, because the partnerships have different requirements for first-seat openers, third-seat openers, and direct raises to the two-level.

 

I don't really know what a "support point" is, but in at least one of those partnerships the minimum strength for 2♣ is less than that of a "3-card limit raise". Are people really saying that I shouldn't call this "Drury"?

[Bbradley62]

I don't really know what a "support point" is, but in at least one of those partnerships the minimum strength for 2♣ is less than that of a "3-card limit raise". Are people really saying that I shouldn't call this "Drury"?

Of course, the directors will tell you that it is never adequate to simply use a convention name to explain a bid, despite the fact that it is standard practice. I would not be surprised if you found yourself in a long discussion with a director after an opponent claims he was led astray by your "misinformation".

 

However, my objection in this thread was that OP told us we were playing Drury, my first reply said "(p)artner has made a limit raise in spades" and someone else said "I don't think that Drury shows necessarily a limit raise". Although you certainly can agree with your partner to play a customized version of Drury, if you have agreed to play Drury and you have made no such customizing agreement (which I presume OP would have disclosed), then it shows a limit raise.

[gnasher]

Of course, the directors will tell you that it is never adequate to simply use a convention name to explain a bid, despite the fact that it is standard practice. I would not be surprised if you found yourself in a long discussion with a director after an opponent claims he was led astray by your "misinformation".

 

However, my objection in this thread was that OP told us we were playing Drury, my first reply said "(p)artner has made a limit raise in spades" and someone else said "I don't think that Drury shows necessarily a limit raise". Although you certainly can agree with your partner to play a customized version of Drury, if you have agreed to play Drury and you have made no such customizing agreement (which I presume OP would have disclosed), then it shows a limit raise.

 

I'm not talking about what I say when explaining the bid at the table. When I am asked to explain a bid to my opponents, I explain it, so the question wouldn't arise.

 

What I was talking about was exactly the situation you are talking about - when someone on this forum uses the word "Drury". Are you really trying to tell Fluffy and RHM that they shouldn't use the unmodified term "Drury" unless they play it as exactly the same strength as what you consider the norm?

 

By the way, I notice that your list of authorities excludes The Bridge World, whose definition of the method is the admirably unprescriptive "a two-club response by a passed hand to show a fit for partner's major in a hand too strong for a single raise".

[cherdano]

I have also played "drury" as promising no more than an average 9-count. It's clearly a mistake IMO to have it promise limit raise values if you open (some) balanced 11-counts in 1st/2nd seat. And there is still a lot of room over 2♣ - even with more classical opening requirements, a range starting with a 9-count and ending at a 12-count that was too weak to open but now got upgraded a little is never really a problem.

[Bbradley62]

I'm not talking about what I say when explaining the bid at the table. When I am asked to explain a bid to my opponents, I explain it, so the question wouldn't arise.

 

What I was talking about was exactly the situation you are talking about - when someone on this forum uses the word "Drury". Are you really trying to tell Fluffy and RHM that they shouldn't use the unmodified term "Drury" unless they play it as exactly the same strength as what you consider the norm?

 

By the way, I notice that your list of authorities excludes The Bridge World, whose definition of the method is the admirably unprescriptive "a two-club response by a passed hand to show a fit for partner's major in a hand too strong for a single raise".

Yes, I am suggesting that the unmodified term "Drury" should be understood to mean the convention as devised by Mr. Drury. Using it to mean something similar (even if very similar) should be accompanied by a brief explanation so that your audience will know what you mean.

 

The unabridged BridgeWorld description is:

Drury

(1) originally, a two-club response by a passed hand to show maximum values;

(2) in its more modern form, often called Drury-fit, a two-club response by a passed hand to show a fit for partner's major in a hand too strong for a single raise.

 

Drury-fit

See: Drury (meaning 2).

[rhm]

Of course, the directors will tell you that it is never adequate to simply use a convention name to explain a bid, despite the fact that it is standard practice. I would not be surprised if you found yourself in a long discussion with a director after an opponent claims he was led astray by your "misinformation".

 

However, my objection in this thread was that OP told us we were playing Drury, my first reply said "(p)artner has made a limit raise in spades" and someone else said "I don't think that Drury shows necessarily a limit raise". Although you certainly can agree with your partner to play a customized version of Drury, if you have agreed to play Drury and you have made no such customizing agreement (which I presume OP would have disclosed), then it shows a limit raise.

 

What you do not understand is that Drury encompasses limit raises but the lower limit of Drury is weaker than for a limit raise and the reason is simple.

After Drury you can stop in 2 of a major, after a limit raise you can not. And if you play Drury it is useful that the single raise becomes better defined since its upper limit is slightly lower.

This is not a special agreement, it is fairly standard.

 

May I quote the Bridge Encyclopedia:

 

"The 2♣ bid asks opener (East) to clarify his strength. West might hold (after Pass -- 1♠)

 

♠Q92,♥1064,♦AK74,♣Q43

 

Without Drury West has no attractive action: a single raise is an underbid, a double raise with only three trumps and poor distribution is inappropriate...."

 

Nowhere does the Bridge Encyclopedia claim it to be a limit raise.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[blackshoe]

When you bid 2♣ in this sequence, you don't "promise" anything. You're asking partner whether he has a full opener. At least, that's how, as I recall it, Doug Drury intended it when he invented it.

[nigel_k]

Yes, I am suggesting that the unmodified term "Drury" should be understood to mean the convention as devised by Mr. Drury. Using it to mean something similar (even if very similar) should be accompanied by a brief explanation so that your audience will know what you mean.

 

The unabridged BridgeWorld description is:

Drury

(1) originally, a two-club response by a passed hand to show maximum values;

(2) in its more modern form, often called Drury-fit, a two-club response by a passed hand to show a fit for partner's major in a hand too strong for a single raise.

 

Drury-fit

See: Drury (meaning 2).

But you have refuted your own assertion because the convention as devised by Mr. Drury does not promise a fit yet you suggested, without elaboration, the sequence 1♠-2♣-4♠.

 

I think Drury is one of those things that is still evolving and cannot be tied down so strictly that allowing some extra hands in at the bottom end means it is no longer Drury.