[awm]

The_Hog, on Nov 17 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

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?

The Laws define:

Psychic Call -- A deliberate and gross mistatement of honor strength or suit length.

It seems like being an ace short of the minimum strength advertised would qualify as a gross mistatement. Assuming that the choice of calls was deliberate (and not miscounting) then it would qualify as a psychic call.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Nov 17 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

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?

You evidently are trying to be a "rules lawyer". The spirit of the rules is that a bid that is a deliberate gross distortion of your hand from systemic agreement is a psyche.

Being 2+ cards short or an A or more light is definitely a gross distortion. If you do it deliberately, I'm sure every TD on earth and just about every expert player would say you are psyching.
In many cases, I'm sure that deliberately being a K or more light would be enough to convince those TDs and esperts that you were psyching.

[benlessard]

Boy there is a lot of stuff on this 1.


(Assume a standard natural system)

1- I ll never play 1Nt forcing by a passed hand. 1Nt natural is just too valuable for me.

2- I rarely open light in 4th.

3- I see no reason to open complete rubbish in 3rd seat. My 3rd seat opening are either lead directing or very close to a real opening.

with

AKQ
JTxxx
xx
xxx

Ill prefer to pass or to open 1S but i know many that will open 1H and i have to disagree with them.

3- I dont mind opening 3rd with a 4M card (lead directing) or making a weak 2 with

4- I dont like 2 way drury and i much prefer reverse drury then old school drury.

5- I prefer to play 2D as drury because i like the natural NF 2C wich show a club preempt and is clearly sugesting that 2C is the best spot (NF and denies fit.)

with

x
QJx
xxx
KQTxxx

i like to be able to play 2C.

The 5-10 pts hands where you want to play 2C and dont really want to play 1NT or in 2D are much more frequent then the almost forcing foward going 2C (10-11 pts).

Since we have a weak 2 in D but not in clubs i prefer to use 2D as drury.

6- Its really a good idea to play some kind of limit raise and to be able to stop in 2M. In IMP's playing 3M in non-comp auction is just something i avoid.

7- In 1-2 seat I do believe 2C art can be used as a psych controls. So i think its fair to forbid 2C as an art INV if the players frequently psych but for those who don't Drury was and will always be legal. In Canada there is an increasingly numbers of players who used 2C as GF natural or limit raise.



When it goes

--------pass
1S----2C!
2S----3Y
3S----pass

pass

and responder hand is something like

AKxxx
x
KJx
xxxx

you should call the director and he would probably rule the the 2C a psych control if the pair is known for psyching.

[TimG]

foo, on Nov 17 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

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.

I still fail to see how it is a "psychic control" if its purpose is to allow responder to successfully field systemic bids.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Nov 18 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

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.

Sorry for calling you "Ron"... Force of habit, I suppose

As I noted earlier, I am not debating whether or not certain styles of opening bids are dominant, reasonable, or whatever...

Rather, I am stating that your claim that Drury is outlawed over first and second seat openings because it is a psychic control is not grounded in reality.

Constantly referencing systemic methods has not bearing on "Psyches" or psychic controls. Indeed, the very fact that you constantly resort to referencing such methods strongly suggests that you don't have any real examples.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Nov 18 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

... I am stating that your claim that Drury is outlawed over first and second seat openings because it is a psychic control is not grounded in reality.

Constantly referencing systemic methods has not bearing on "Psyches" or psychic controls.  Indeed, the very fact that you constantly resort to referencing such methods strongly suggests that you don't have any real examples.

I refer you to my post on Nov 17 2007, 05:49 AM

where I responded to Hannie:
QUOTE (Hannie @ Nov 17 2007, 12:05 AM)
Could you post a hand where the opponents opened and then bid drury and you had 25 HCP?

Where I gave not just a board or two (which would prove nothing), but posted an entire strategy demonstrating the use of Drury in 1st or 2nd as a psychic control to allow the users to jam the auction whenever they held major suit length regardless of the values in Opener's hand.

In that post I made the claim that such a method was also Dominant: the only defence that gives the opponents a reasonable chance at achieving parity is to also adopt these methods. Once that happens, scores become far more based on the luck of who gets to speak first rather than Bridge skills.

Such things have been, rightly IMHO, deemed bad for Bridge.

I also stated that this was, to the best of my knowledge, very close to the logic followed by the ABCL when deciding how to respond to Barry Crane's petition for Drury to be legal in all seats.

In all ways, this was as real and valid a set of examples as I could bring to the discussion. Anyone with a simulator can create a set of specific boards based on the post I made to test the validity of the logic presented.

As I have stated before, I have no problem with advancements in systemic methods. I strongly support and advocate them.

I do have a problem with unfair methods or with methods that will negate the value of Bridge skills in favor of luck ATT.
I consider that attitude to be analogous to my objections to unfair methods in any other game or sport.

IMHO Bridge is supposed to be a game based on skill as much as possible and on luck as little as possible.
Not everyone feels that way, and I respect that; but for me Bridge will always be a game where I want skill to matter as much as possible.

[foo]

TimG, on Nov 18 2007, 07:59 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 17 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

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.

I still fail to see how it is a "psychic control" if its purpose is to allow responder to successfully field systemic bids.

Psyches are not systemic bids. That's the whole point.
What part of "deliberate gross distortion of one's hand" sounds like a systemic bid?

A method that allows a pair to distinguish safely between systemic bids and "deliberate gross distortions" AKA psyches is by definition a psychic control.

There are other regulations that define just how light or wide ranging a bid or set of bids is allowed to be for various conditions of contest.

[pclayton]

foo, on Nov 18 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Psyches are not systemic bids.  That's the whole point.
What part of "deliberate gross distortion of one's hand" sounds like a systemic bid?

This hasn't always been the case.

K-S contained systemic psyches, but its been a long time since I played it. I believe that over a jump shift response (and possibly a forcing raise), if Opener returned to 3 of his suit, it revealed a psyche in 1st or 2nd position. You were allowed to open a hand like: Axxxx, xxx, x, xxxx with 1♠, but not something like: xxx, x, xxxx, Axxxx.

Because the psyche fell within closely defined standards, and because the jump shifter can pass 3 major, it was systemic and the JS acted as a psychic control.

[FrancesHinden]

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

I'm also wondering about this. I've never heard about Drury or the like to be banned over 1st and 2nd seat openings. Nor could I understand any reason to forbid it. Actually there's quite a few people applying 2♣ as a non-fit Drury (or Toronto as it's for some unknown to me reason is called here - both the fit and non-fit variant) around here. I've never subscribed to that method myself and can't see why I should.

Another method that's gaining somewhat in popularity is to play 1M-2♣ as a 2-way bid; natural or 10-12 with 3-card support.

Nobody would believe any of those methods would or should be disallowed.

[hrothgar]

skaeran, on Nov 18 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

I'm also wondering about this. I've never heard about Drury or the like to be banned over 1st and 2nd seat openings. Nor could I understand any reason to forbid it. Actually there's quite a few people applying 2♣ as a non-fit Drury (or Toronto as it's for some unknown to me reason is called here - both the fit and non-fit variant) around here. I've never subscribed to that method myself and can't see why I should.

Another method that's gaining somewhat in popularity is to play 1M-2♣ as a 2-way bid; natural or 10-12 with 3-card support.

Nobody would believe any of those methods would or should be disallowed.

Out of curiosity:

Do many people in Norway of Great Britain uses their convention 2♣ response to cater to a "psyche" in first or second seat?

My impression is that the K-S / Roth-Stone 1st / 2nd seat "systemic psyche" was one of those evolutionary dead ends that didn't stand the test of time.

If the method is, indeed, "dominant" as Foo alleges, one would think that someone might actually use it...

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 11:56 AM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

It is in the US.

Any type of artificial raise by an unpassed hand needs to be a jump shift like Bergen.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Nov 18 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 11:56 AM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

It is in the US.

Any type of artificial raise by an unpassed hand needs to be a jump shift like Bergen.

Or a 1NT response to a 1M opening

[blackshoe]

skaeran, on Nov 18 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

I'm also wondering about this. I've never heard about Drury or the like to be banned over 1st and 2nd seat openings. Nor could I understand any reason to forbid it.

There seem to be three things on the ACBL General Convention Chart that are germane. The first is the general principle that conventions not expressly permitted are forbidden. The other two are these permitted conventions:

Quote

3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.
4. TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to third or fourth-seat major-suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid.

So it seems that Drury in response to a 1st or 2nd seat 1♥/1♠ opening is indeed banned here, unless it's game forcing, at least at GCC level.

[Elianna]

hrothgar, on Nov 18 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 18 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 11:56 AM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

It is in the US.

Any type of artificial raise by an unpassed hand needs to be a jump shift like Bergen.

Or a 1NT response to a 1M opening

Note that 1NT may not GUARANTEE invitational or better values. It may include limit raise hands, it just needs to include other possibilities, too.

[Elianna]

blackshoe, on Nov 18 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

So it seems that Drury in response to a 1st or 2nd seat 1♥/1♠ opening is indeed banned here, unless it's game forcing, at least at GCC level.

I absolutely agree.

To add on to what was said, I believe that it is allowed in midchart under #3 over 1st and 2nd seat.

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Nov 18 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

skaeran, on Nov 18 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

In what jurisdiction is 'Drury' actually banned opposite a 1st/2nd seat opener?

It's legal in England & Wales - or rather a 2m response to 1M which shows support and (at least) invitational values is legal, which is a escription of Durry as usually played. There's no distinction in the English regs between passed hand and non-passed hand responses.

I'm also wondering about this. I've never heard about Drury or the like to be banned over 1st and 2nd seat openings. Nor could I understand any reason to forbid it. Actually there's quite a few people applying 2♣ as a non-fit Drury (or Toronto as it's for some unknown to me reason is called here - both the fit and non-fit variant) around here. I've never subscribed to that method myself and can't see why I should.

Another method that's gaining somewhat in popularity is to play 1M-2♣ as a 2-way bid; natural or 10-12 with 3-card support.

Nobody would believe any of those methods would or should be disallowed.

Out of curiosity:

Do many people in Norway of Great Britain uses their convention 2♣ response to cater to a "psyche" in first or second seat?

No, of course not, I've never heard of anyone doing that - that goes for Norway, but I'm certain it's the same in the UK.

[Tcyk]

Hannie, on Nov 4 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

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.

It seems that opening light in all positions is a winning proposition if you have the necessary tools to handle the light openings. It is interesting that John Montgomery's Revision uses a Drury like structure after all limited opening bids. It might not be recognized as such because it doesn't start with the familiar 2C response and the opening hand has at least 10 (usually 11-15 HCP) The tip-off is that 1M-2M is a good raise with the strength of a limit raise but perhaps only 3 cards in the major. If I open an 11-count with 5332 shape, the 2-level may be as high as I want to go opposite a 10-count with 3-card support. The system does include 2-way game tries after this sequence. Strong club bidders and others with light opening bids would do well to look at John's book. It is available on Daniel's Systems Page.

[Tcyk]

pclayton, on Nov 4 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

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.

The general consensus is that you don't need Drury, at least normal Drury, when you play a strong club system. If your partner passes, you know they have less than 11 HCP. If you have less than 11 HCP in your own hand, you can be sure that the opponents have the same or higher strength hands than you and your partner. In 4th position, only open if you have 4+ spades and in 3rd position, open with a weak 2-bid if you have a nice 5-card major. ... and forget about Drury.

If your partner is a Roth-Stoner, you probably should play some version of Drury. He needs protection when he decides to pass the "Quacky" 13-count hand. As an aside, if you know your opponents are Roth-Stoners, be very cautious about light overcalls. It's not nice to go down three doubled against their part-score.

[Tcyk]

pclayton, on Nov 18 2007, 07:35 PM, said:

foo, on Nov 18 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

Psyches are not systemic bids.  That's the whole point.
What part of "deliberate gross distortion of one's hand" sounds like a systemic bid?

This hasn't always been the case.

K-S contained systemic psyches, but its been a long time since I played it. I believe that over a jump shift response (and possibly a forcing raise), if Opener returned to 3 of his suit, it revealed a psyche in 1st or 2nd position. You were allowed to open a hand like: Axxxx, xxx, x, xxxx with 1♠, but not something like: xxx, x, xxxx, Axxxx.

Because the psyche fell within closely defined standards, and because the jump shifter can pass 3 major, it was systemic and the JS acted as a psychic control.

I have played a lot of K-S and control psyches are definitely part of the system. Something like KQxx x xxxxx xxx would qualify as a 1S opening, but don't do it too often. The psyche is disclosed when you pass a forcing response. The jump shift is the only thing you don't pass.