[easy]

I'm currently watching french natls and there was and auction that went

p- p-1h-p
1s-p-2d-p
4h

Scoring: IMP

---

4h down 1. I have certainly been in worse contracts. After/during the hand the commentators were discussing using either drury or a fit showing jump to describe west's hand. Either of which certainly seems better than the actual route chosen by west, when one of the commentors said "i hate drury". Immediately i thought of my father who has exactly the same sentiment. Personally i cant understand why someone would object(as a passed hand) to giving up a natural 2 club response to a major in exchange for an economical means of inviting partner to game.

Would some of you drury haters please help me understand?

[Al_U_Card]

No reason to hate it other than brain-strain. As far as conventions and their continuations go, however, Drury is about as easy and natural as it gets. Great convention.

[ArtK78]

Matt Granovetter has a dislike of many of the commonly used conventions. One of them is Drury. I used to agree with him on this, but I am leaning towards Drury.

Here are some of Matt's arguments:

1) You give up a natural 2♣ call by a passed hand.
2) You give the opponents a chance to make a lead directional double of 2♣.
3) You let the opponents into the auction at a lower level than if you made a direct raise.

And, if you use 2-way Drury (2♣ and 2♦), you are giving up two natural calls by a passed hand.

In a recent article in his magazine - Bridge Today - Granovetter set out many examples of how playing Drury resulted in bad results due to one of the 3 problems listed above.These are legitimate concerns.

However, the ability to invite game as a passed hand without getting to the 3-level may outweigh all of these concerns.

In place of Drury, Granovetter suggests (and I have played) constructive raises by a passed hand. If one plays constructive raises by a passed hand, a single raise of a major by a passed hand is a good hand - typically 8-12 HCP. With a minimum single raise, one must bid a forcing 1NT. Since responder's forcing 1NT can be a 5-8 HCP hand with support, it becomes almost 100% forcing by a passed hand.

I have had a lot of problems using constructive raises by a passed hand. When you have one, it is easy. The problem comes up when you have support but not enough to make a constructive raise (by the way, one should not play preemptive raises by a passed hand - both opps have passed already, so it makes little sense to preempt partner). Bidding 1NT is not a satisfactory solution.

The bottom line is that one must choose between two flawed methods. Granovetter's problems with Drury are legitimate concerns. The question becomes whether the cure is worse than the disease.

[helene_t]

There was an article in the Dutch advanced+ magazine "IMP" by Berry Westra, entitled "Drury - a stupid convention". The title referred to Hans Kreins who said "I open and then he ask me if I got opening strength".

Actually I can understand why Hans Kreins, who plays a 15-17 1NT 4cM system, dislikes Drury: when opener has a 14 bal and responder an 11 bal, playing Drury it goes 1M-1NT-pass. Therefore I was surprised that Berry Westra did not go into that problem beyond stating that Drury can be played in 4cM as well as 5cM systems. Especially considering that Westra used to play the same system himself. Also I can't see how to fit Drury into a 12-14 1NT system, especially 4cM. I suppose the Scanians with their 14-16 1NT 4cM have no problems fitting Drury into the system.

That said, I like Drury, I think it's one of the most important conventions, and it fits perfectly into a 2/1 system in which 2♣ by a passed hand is otherwise idle.

[han]

I think opening light in 3rd seat is a big winner so I like Drury a lot. Of course, if you never open light in 3rd seat then Drury is less valuable.

[barmar]

While I appreciate its value, I prefer not to use Drury. I'll open aggressively in 3rd seat, but not garbage, and only very rarely a 4-card suit. So the LOTT usually protects us if we end up at the 3 level.

If you open very light in 3rd seat, my experience is that 4th seat usually overcalls, so Drury is no longer available and you end up being forced to the 3 level when responder cue bids to show a limit raise. Drury was probably a much more useful convention when overcallers weren't so aggressive.

[Elianna]

I like Drury, but I like inverting the 2♣ and 2♦ bids for several reasons:

1) We (Adam + I) play a weak 2 in diamonds but not in clubs, making it slightly more likely that one would have the hand that would want to bid 2♣ natural over 1M than 2♦ natural.
2) We don't need the extra step over 2♣ to show an absolute crap hand because we have moved away from opening absolute crap.

basically, we use drury as a lower level invite (so can play 2M w/10 opp 10 or even 12 opp bal 11). We still allow a second invite with a good hand by responder.

[skjaeran]

Drury is also one of my favourite conventions. Not just because that caters for light 3rd seat openings, but motsly becuase you can invite game and still play at the 2-level. I prefer 2-way Drury (upside-down 2-way reverse Drury).

I haven't got a clue to why many hate this convention. To me it's always been a very useful convention.

[Gerben42]

Quote

  Drury is also one of my favourite conventions. Not just because that caters for light 3rd seat openings, but motsly becuase you can invite game and still play at the 2-level. I prefer 2-way Drury (upside-down 2-way reverse Drury).

I haven't got a clue to why many hate this convention. To me it's always been a very useful convention.

Me 2.

And it's not true you can't bid ♣, then 1M - 2NT shows ♣.

The 2♦ drury makes sense if you play W2 ♦ opener. I don't like 2-way Drury.

[awm]

Well here are some reasons to dislike drury:

(1) Drury makes it harder to bid your minor suit over 1M. Most people don't open very light in the minors, and some don't play weak two bids, so "good hand with a minor" is not unusual.

(2) Playing drury means you have to use 1NT = semi-force over 1M basically. This reduces the frequency that you get to play 1NT, and forces you to sometimes play 2M on a 5-2 fit with two balanced hands. It also creates issues if you open 1M on a four-card suit in 3rd/4th on a decent hand, since you can't comfortably pass 1NT nor can you bid anything over it.

(3) Some people use Drury as basically a psychic control. I would go so far as to say that if there is a 2-level rebid that absolutely bars partner from bidding on, even if partner has a hand that would be an obvious game bid opposite a first seat opening, that it's really a psychic control.

(4) Two-way drury is basically telling opponents to balance, when opener rejects the 4-card raise.

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to trade drury for "constructive raises by passed hand" since I think constructive raises are an awful convention, much worse than drury...

With all this said, I play drury in partnerships where our third seat opening style is markedly different from our first seat style (which is many, but not all, of my partnerships).

[Free]

I only hate it out of principle: it's a psych control...

Otherwise I just like it very much!

[whereagles]

Drury is as good as gerber is bad.

'nuff said.

[mikeh]

I like drury. I think it important, in a serious partnership, to play a complete set of responses to 3rd and 4th seat opening major suit bids that caters to the loss of the natural bidding, and capitalizes on the flexibility that arises from the establishment of an invitational fit at a low level... after all, slam is now possible if opener is very strong.

I do not regard drury as a psyche control, even tho my approach is that responder, with 3 card support, cannot bid again over a 2-level signoff and can only bid, with 4 cards, on very rare hands... this is NOT psyche controlling, but my 2 level signoff denies interest in game opposite a great 3 card drury or a good 4 card drury.

And while I understand Grannovetter's dislike of the loss of a natural 2 minor response, in one partnership we adopted 2-way drury mostly to stop us having auctions such as P 1♠ 2♦ when opener has a 5314 11 or 10 count and responder a 1=3=5=4 11 count and so on.

It is useful to define ( I will use 1♠ as the opening bid for sake of simplicity)

1♠ 2N
    3♣
    3♦
    3♥
    3♠

we use 2N as a single-suited minor hand with about 10 hcp. Opener bids 3♣ if he'd pass 3♣, 3♦ if he'd pass 3♦ but is excited by clubs

3♣ is a two-suited minor hand, with about 10 points

3♦/♥ are fit showing

3♠ is fit showing with clubs

I think a decent drury method is an essential to a good method, and I'd put it high on what I would teach a good advancing player.

[pclayton]

Yeah I like it too, but I used to play with a guy that couldn't stand it, although I never knew why. We played a strong club. but this shouldn't have any bearing on it. I like the idea that responder can bid 1N non-forcing and deny a fit for opener.

I don't care for 2-way drury. When it matters, we can bid on and clarify 3 or 4 card support. Its bad enough to bury clubs, but I don't like to bury the diamonds too.

I prefer 2N to show clubs by a passed hand. It denies a fit.

I also like to keep my fit jumps intact.

[mike777]

Drury is great if you open sound in first or second seat.
Drury is not needed if you open lite in first or second seat.

[mycroft]

I play Drury in a standard context. I don't when third seat openers are as sound or sounder than first seat.

And preemptive double raises by passed hand - with shape, and the fewer points the better - get around the common p-p-1H-p; 2H-p-p-X; p-2S-p-p; 3H-p-p- and now whether they pass, double, or bid 3S, they're probably right. If you were going to 3H anyway, you might as well - they won't let you play 2H, as like as not.

Michael.

[bid_em_up]

easy, on Nov 4 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

I'm currently watching french natls and there was and auction that went

p- p-1h-p
1s-p-2d-p
4h

Scoring: IMP

---

4h down 1. I have certainly been in worse contracts. After/during the hand the commentators were discussing using either drury or a fit showing jump to describe west's hand. Either of which certainly seems better than the actual route chosen by west, when one of the commentors said "i hate drury". Immediately i thought of my father who has exactly the same sentiment. Personally i cant understand why someone would object(as a passed hand) to giving up a natural 2 club response to a major in exchange for an economical means of inviting partner to game.

Would some of you drury haters please help me understand?

This is a terrible sequence, imo.

What is the point of 1S? If this hand would just make his limit raise via whatever methods he has available, the auction would stop in 3H.

[blackshoe]

Swap East's black suits. How do you like 4♥ now?

The question is, if West is not going to Drury, should he temporize on the first round, and then downgrade his hand from a game going to an invitational hand based on Easts 2♦ rebid? That argument would make some sense, I think.

IIRC, Drury invented this convention because his partner persistently opened light in third seat, and Drury, with a limit raise, would get the pair one trick too high. If you're going to open light in third seat then, Drury would seem a useful convention. Maybe the Drury-haters think that opening light in third seat is bad bridge. <shrug>

Hm. I wonder. What would P-1♥-2♣-2♥-2♠ be, playing Reverse Drury?

[joker_gib]

I like it too and very few top pairs do not play it so I suppose it is a useful convention !

Alain