Weak 1M controlled by Drury

[aguahombre]

If I psyched a 1♥ opening on a 3-1-4-5 six count in third seat, I'd pass partner's 2♣ Drury, whatever our agreements said.

That was my not-so subtle point about somehow knowing responder had 5 hearts.

[ggwhiz]

If I psyched a 1♥ opening on a 3-1-4-5 six count in third seat, I'd pass partner's 2♣ Drury, whatever our agreements said. But then, I have partners who tell me "if you ever psych, I won't play with you again". :blink:

 

I did that 5 years ago (1♠ though, I'm not crazy :ph34r:) and went for -1400 at the 1 level. Same partnership today but I'm still on probation.

 

Seems like the 2 of a major response to drury MUST be passed is the problem. Since we pass more 11-12 counts than most it's unworkable for us as we would miss too many games. Maybe disclosure along the lines of we open all(most all) 11 counts should be included with an alert of the drury response agreement?

 

If you used these methods to control psyches you can't bid games with min openings opposite the right passed hands and probably psyche often enough here to be exposed as using Drury for shady reasons.

[barmar]

While I agree with your interpretation of the reg, I would point out that this reading effectively makes it illegal to psych a third seat 1M opening if you agree to play Drury.

I thought Drury is only considered a psychic control if you agree to open a psychic 1M with a weak hand with long clubs, planning on passing the 2♣ response. This is similar to psyching a 2♣ opening with a weak hand with long diamonds, planning on passing partner's almost-forced 2♦ response (illegal in many jurisdictions because they prohibit psyching strong 2♣).

[blackshoe]

If you agree to open that hand with that bid, it's not a psych. However, if "weak" includes "less than 8 HCP", it's an illegal agreement.

[mycroft]

...and that's the reason behind barring psychic controls in the ACBL, explicitly with the definition that "ANY call that ... makes allowance for the psychic". Not because it's catering to a psych, but that those calls that are being catered to are part of their partnership agreements for the calls, and almost always those would be illegal partnership agreements if they didn't try to bypass it by using the P word.

[jfnrl]

There are some differences between french (and I suppose belgian) regulation and ebu - acbl regulations.

In ebu-land you must have 8 HCP to open even in third seat.

In France you can open 1S en 3rd with AKJxx = xxx = xxx = xx

in any event (including the lowest level).

There is no limitation in intermediate+ events.

 

But drury is not a psyche control as it is not a universal raise for interesting passed hand.

If partner opens 1S in 3rd and you hold Txxx = x = xx = AKQxx

you will (and have to...) reply 4S in SEF (système d'enchères français : french 5M standard).

 

Drury indicates a 3 cards raise usually (4 cards in a balanced hand).

So, if the partner as a 8 - 10 HCP hand, there is no chance to win a game.

If 2M shows the weakest hand, pass is a logical conclusion.

[aguahombre]

Our psyche control is to NOT use Drury. Or is that a psyche inhibitor?

[Cthulhu D]

If I psyched a 1♥ opening on a 3-1-4-5 six count in third seat, I'd pass partner's 2♣ Drury, whatever our agreements said. But then, I have partners who tell me "if you ever psych, I won't play with you again". :blink:

 

I think psyching sometimes has to be optimal.

[Cascade]

But drury is not a psyche control as it is not a universal raise for interesting passed hand.

If partner opens 1S in 3rd and you hold Txxx = x = xx = AKQxx

you will (and have to...) reply 4S in SEF (système d'enchères français : french 5M standard).

 

I don't understand this "have to". Who said? The laws allow me to make any call so long as it is not based on concealed agreement.

[aguahombre]

I think psyching sometimes has to be optimal.

Are you talking about game theory, or do you mean sometimes they are successful?

[Cthulhu D]

Are you talking about game theory, or do you mean sometimes they are successful?

 

Both. The problem is bridge laws prevent you from actually discussing this with your partner, but safe in the knowledge that he doesn't read these forums: There are clearly times when it's better to psyche and indeed you should probably psyche (like when you have nothing third in green vs red playing a system with light openings), and psyching sometimes gives you an advantage if opponents are concerned you are a 'psycher'

 

This is something I do badly, but say I'm playing a ridiculous system like tangerine club where we open 8-9 counts in 1st/2nd, and it it is passed around to me third in NV vs V, I'm pretty sure I should bid 1S with

 

S: x

H: xxx

D: xxx

C: Txxxxx

[jfnrl]

answer to Cascade

 

If you hold Txxxx = xx = x = AKQxx

(sorry, in my original post, there were 12 cards in the hand : a Sx was missing)

you are allowed to reply whatever you want

but you are not allowed to understand that your partner has psyched or overbidden

example : you choose 2S (auction pass pass 1S pass 2S all pass)

It's OK if partner holds AKxxx = xxx = xx = xxx

But if he holds x = Axxx = Qxxxx = Jxx, you will be asked by TD how you knew that your partner was psyche and your contract could be convert into 4SX.

 

(Assuming that the missing x is a Dx, the psyche works as the auction goes : pass pass 1S pass 3C pass pass ?

3C : maximum passed hand, 4 spades and 5 good clubs forcing to 3S

And the 4th seat is in trouble with AKQx = Kxxx = Axxx = x)

[Cascade]

answer to Cascade

 

If you hold Txxxx = xx = x = AKQxx

(sorry, in my original post, there were 12 cards in the hand : a Sx was missing)

you are allowed to reply whatever you want

but you are not allowed to understand that your partner has psyched or overbidden

example : you choose 2S (auction pass pass 1S pass 2S all pass)

It's OK if partner holds AKxxx = xxx = xx = xxx

But if he holds x = Axxx = Qxxxx = Jxx, you will be asked by TD how you knew that your partner was psyche and your contract could be convert into 4SX.

 

(Assuming that the missing x is a Dx, the psyche works as the auction goes : pass pass 1S pass 3C pass pass ?

3C : maximum passed hand, 4 spades and 5 good clubs forcing to 3S

And the 4th seat is in trouble with AKQx = Kxxx = Axxx = x)

 

And what if your answer is that you didn't know you just chose to bid 2♠? Which law has been violated?

[jfnrl]

And what if your answer is that you didn't know you just chose to bid 2♠? Which law has been violated?

 

I am not a TD, but I suppose that French TDs applies the last sentence of law 40 C 1 "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty".

No prove of a violation of the laws or regulations is requested. An assumption is enough.

[blackshoe]

I am not a TD, but I suppose that French TDs applies the last sentence of law 40 C 1 "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty".

No prove of a violation of the laws or regulations is requested. An assumption is enough.

No, it's not. The TD is required to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence available, not on assumption.

[barmar]

I am not a TD, but I suppose that French TDs applies the last sentence of law 40 C 1 "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty".

No prove of a violation of the laws or regulations is requested. An assumption is enough.

That seems to be a very lax interpretation of "judges".

[jfnrl]

That seems to be a very lax interpretation of "judges".

In french, the sentence is :

"Si l’arbitre juge qu’une connaissance

non divulguée a porté préjudice aux adversaires il attribuera une marque ajustée et il peut imposer

une pénalité de procédure."

"juger que" means "to consider that" (source : reverso)

It seems that we don't have the same laws ;)

[aguahombre]

I am not a TD, but I suppose that....No prove of a violation of the laws or regulations is requested. An assumption is enough.

No, it's not. The TD is required to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence available, not on assumption.

In french, the sentence is :

"Si l’arbitre juge qu’une connaissance

non divulguée a porté préjudice aux adversaires il attribuera une marque ajustée et il peut imposer

une pénalité de procédure."

"juger que" means "to consider that" (source : reverso)

It seems that we don't have the same laws ;)

I suspect we do have the same laws, but a non TD is having trouble with translation. My assumption is based on a preponderance of evidence from the words "prove", "requested" (required?), etc in the posts.

[nige1]

Most players habitually open "lighter" in third seat than they admit on their system-card. They aren't psyching or deviating because they have an implicit partnership agreement. Many use Drury to reduce the risk. Drury was invented as a "psych"-control and that is still its most profitable use. Many are ignorant of the rules. Some justify their actions by using their interpretation of relevant laws and regulations. Others insist that it's "Judgement" or "Just Bridge". Directors are rarely called to report such behaviour. When a director is called, an adverse ruling is rarer still. When two players have already passed, ultra-weak hands are uncommon, so it is hard to establish a pattern of clear-cut examples.

 

When extreme examples occur in BBO featured matches, kibitzers sometimes draw attention to them, pointing out some of the pairs who do this habitually. Cascade cited such a case in a BBO forum. None of this has any effect.

 

Some interpret Bridge rules more literally and harshly. As a result, a few masochists handicap themselves, heavily. As long as the current system-regulation protocol persists, Bridge will be a two-tier game.

[Zelandakh]

we open 8-9 counts in 1st/2nd, and it it is passed around to me third in NV vs V, I'm pretty sure I should bid 1S with

 

S: x

H: xxx

D: xxx

C: Txxxxx

Looks like a choice between opening 1NT or 3/4♣ to me when not playing Drury. Playing Drury certainly makes a 1♠ opening much more attractive, especially if I have a private agreement with partner never to raise the suit beyond 2. It is a little like the famous (and subsequently banned) system of the British team from ages past where no bid was allowed to be considered a real suit until shown not to be a void.

[hrothgar]

Drury was invented as a "psych"-control.

 

No it wasn't

 

Drury was developed because people properly noted that

 

1. Third and fourth seat openings have a wider ranger than first and second seat opening

2. Traditional response structures for sound first and second seat openings didn't work well opposition wide ranging third seat openings

[aguahombre]

Drury was developed because people properly noted that

 

1. Third and fourth seat openings have a wider ranger than first and second seat opening

2. Traditional response structures for sound first and second seat openings didn't work well opposition wide ranging third seat openings

Actually, I think it was invented in necessary self-defense by Eric Murray's partner, and then banned in response to 1/2 seat openings because it is a psyche control.

[Cthulhu D]

Looks like a choice between opening 1NT or 3/4♣ to me when not playing Drury. Playing Drury certainly makes a 1♠ opening much more attractive, especially if I have a private agreement with partner never to raise the suit beyond 2. It is a little like the famous (and subsequently banned) system of the British team from ages past where no bid was allowed to be considered a real suit until shown not to be a void.

 

I have a system inference that unless partner is very weak he doesn't have 5 spades. Given that they almost certainly have a spade fit I feel the 1S psyche is more likely to bury their fit than the preempt or psyching 1NT.

[Zelandakh]

Nonetheless, it is dangerous if you do not have the agreement suggested, since partner might decide to raise to 3 or 4♠ after LHO's double. And if these raises do not exist, it seems to me that the system has been designed with psyche control in mind and should be looked at quite strictly.

[mycroft]

I don't think that Eric Murray's third-seat openers were psychic as much as they were natural and very wide-ranging. It may have been that they were illegal on the current GCC (which bans agreeing to open at the 1 level with less than 8 Work HCP); but they were legal then.

 

He (as far as I know) wasn't opening 1=3=4=5s 1♠ or the like, just 4=4=1=4 6-counts, raised to 3 with a max passed hand, and going toll-free.

 

Yes, it has been used with the "I'm going to pass Drury" hands by others; and if it's used in that manner, then it is a psychic control. It is disallowed on the GCC opposite 1/2 seat openers, likely because the ACBL wants to discourage very light 1M openings opposite an unpassed hand; also because allowing "limit raise+, or" (which is usually what the 2♣ system players want) leads to half-duplex (relay) auctions that the ACBL also wishes to discourage at the GCC level (especially half-duplex auctions that can stop short of game). None of this has any reference to "psychic control"; although there may be some who wish to use it as such (though not as many as will scream "psych" on a 4=3-(something) 8-count 1♠ opener even after being Pre-Alerted of its systemic nature).

 

Again, the major reason for the psychic control regulation is that they aren't psychics that are being controlled; they're expected enough that they build system to handle them, and (almost always) that expectation is an illegal partnership understanding on the relevant regulations being used. And that isn't, really, a bad thing.