[nige1]

Free, on Nov 4 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

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

Otherwise I just like it very much! 

Drury seems a useful convention but. if your local legislature has a psych-control regulation, adopting Drury seems to prevent you from psyching 1♥/♠ in 3rd seat

[foo]

hrothgar, on Nov 13 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 13 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

Barry Crane wanted to be be able to play Drury in all seats.  The ACBL would not let him.

Drury by an unpassed hand was considered a psychic control by the reviewing authorities.
They were and are correct.

More "wisdom" from Foo

Playing Drury opposite a first or second seat opening bid can hardly be considered a psychic control. Crane played methods in which a light openings in first and second seat were systemic. The light openings practiced by his partnership were not exceptions. They were not random deviations. They were integral parts of the system and should not be described as "psyches".

In much the same vein, the artificial 2♣ advance that Crane wanted to use wasn't a "psychic control" any more that Drury over a 3rd/4th seat opening is a psychic control. (Even the Brits have stopped describing Drury as a psychic control).


I agree that the ACBL has the authority to ban Drury over a first or second seat opening. (They can sanction or refuse to sanction whatever they damn well please). However, if the ACBL is going to ban a method, they should do so in the correct manner. They should openly state that they don't want to allow methods that support light openings in first / second seat rather than hiding behind intellectually bankrupt arguments.

From what I can tell, the entire concept of "Psychic Controls" has gone by the wayside. These concepts were discarded when people got more sophisticated about what constitues an "agreement".

Its sad to see folks trying to resurrect this sort of crap.

Ah, the dulcet tones of those attempting to confuse an issue to protect or push their agenda.

So let's put paid to such attempts at confusion with a bit of clarity.

First, the concept of a psychic control has not been discarded. What has been discarded is the concept that allowing them is good for Bridge. Psychic controls are not allowed in most jurisdictions of Organized Bridge. They are unlikely to ever be as acceptable again as they were in days of yore.

Second, the problem with using a raise like Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opener is not that Opener might be light.

The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited.

The opponents then have an impossible evaluation problem for at least the 1st 2 rounds of the auction while the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful.

...and that, folks violates the basic concept that all players at the table should be able to judge the likely worth of the hands at the table given the bidding. No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand.

The use of a psychic control by a partnership whose assets are not yet limited gives them the ability to bid more safely than others at the table in any of the partscore, game or slam levels. It does so in such a way that inhibits competition to such an extent that the side using psychic controls basically has "free rein" at the table as long as they are first to speak.

In short, psychic controls are a way of a creating a Dominant bidding system.

Such things are not good for Bridge.

[TimG]

foo, on Nov 14 2007, 10:52 PM, said:

psychic controls

Can you define "psychic control" for us?

[awm]

A psychic control is a method that specifically protects against or makes allowances for the possibility that partner holds a hand which does not fall within the range of hands officially agreed and disclosed.

The possible issue with Drury is, say we have the following agreements:

(1) Our opening range in 3rd seat is (say) 10+ hcp and 4+ in the bid suit.
(2) If partner opens 1M in 3rd seat, any good hand with a fit must bid 2♣.
(3) If partner opens 1M in 3rd seat and then bids 2M over 2♣, then responder must pass.

The problem is that these agreements aren't internally consistent. I could have a hand which makes game excellent opposite 4+♠ and 10+ points, for example:

♠xxxxxx
♥x
♦AKQx
♣xx

Game has play opposite ♠AKxx and out. It's ridiculous to bid 2♣ (drury) with this and then pass 2♠ from partner... unless when partner bids 2♠, he could have less strength and/or fewer spades than our stated agreement. So something is fishy here. There is a strong indication that our "real" agreement about 1♠ is not the agreement we've disclosed.

I'd go so far as to say that, for drury not to be a psychic control there must exist hands where responder will bid game (or drury followed by game). Any agreement whereby drury is the strongest possible raise and yet opener's 2M rebid bars responder would seem to suggest that the 1M opening could systemically be garbage without even four cards in the suit named. Obviously if you in fact state an agreement that 1M is 3+ cards and 0+ points you are okay (but playing an illegal agreement in many places); but assuming any reasonable (perhaps any natural/legal) agreement about 1♠ there will be super-fitting hands where responder can raise to game.

[han]

I have never heard of anybody having the agreement that 2S has to be passed with a hand like that. Where is this coming from, could you name a pair that plays that? It is just as true that constructive raises by a passed hand can be used as a psychic control yet I have never heard anybody make that argument.

It seems to me that passing 2M with that hand is just bad bridge and has little to do with drury.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Nov 15 2007, 06:52 AM, said:

Ah, the dulcet tones of those attempting to confuse an issue to protect or push their agenda.

So let's put paid to such attempts at confusion with a bit of clarity.

Oh mastery of clarity, please explain the following:

You claim that Drury over first and second seat openings was "rightfully" banned because its a psychic control. Moreover, Drury was explictly sanctioned in the same jurisdication over third and fourth seat openings.

Why was it so necessary to ban psychic controls over first and second seat openings but not over third and fourth seat opening?

What makes this especially puzzling is the frequency of so-called "psyches" over third and fourth seat opening bids as opposed to first and second seat openings. My impression is that "Psyches" are several orders of magnitude more frequent over third and fourth seat opening. (I'd almost go so far as to say that I can't ever recall hearing of a "Psyche" in first or second seat. "Systemic Psyches ala Roth-Stone or K-S don't qualify for obvious reasons)

In short: If you are actually banning Drury because its a psychic control, then there is no logical reason why you'd ban this over first and second seat opening but not over third and fourth seat opening.

The logicial conclusion is that the refusal to sanction the bid came about for other reasons...

For anyone who cares, there was a decent thread on rec.games.bridge last year title "Drury as psych control".

[glen]

awm, on Nov 15 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

...I'd go so far as to say that, for drury not to be a psychic control there must exist hands where responder will bid game (or drury followed by game)...

Following your logic, if there are 1 or more hands where responder will bid 1M-4M, then drury is not a psychic control? In other terms, using your phrasing and italics, for drury to be a psychic control there must exist no hands where responder will bid 1M-4M. Is there anybody who has zero hands possible for 1M-4M?

[awm]

officeglen, on Nov 15 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

awm, on Nov 15 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

...I'd go so far as to say that, for drury not to be a psychic control there must exist hands where responder will bid game (or drury followed by game)...

Following your logic, if there are 1 or more hands where responder will bid 1M-4M, then drury is not a psychic control? In other terms, using your phrasing and italics, for drury to be a psychic control there must exist no hands where responder will bid 1M-4M. Is there anybody who has zero hands possible for 1M-4M?

This does not logically follow. I stated that "if there is no hand that can force game opposite a 3rd seat major opening then drury is a psychic control" which is not the same as saying "if there exists a hand that can force game opposite a 3rd seat major opening then drury is not a psychic control."

I have been told by several pairs when I ask about the auction (two-handed) P-1♠-2♣-2♠-P that the 2♠ bid "bars me from bidding on." They are not necessarily good pairs, and I'm not going to name names.

Basically the "psychic control" thing is akin to an undisclosed agreement. The point is that we're not allowed to state that something is our "official agreement" and describe our hands in that manner to opponents, but yet bid in a manner (and/or play follow-ups in a manner) that indicates a different agreement.

To give another simple example, with several partners I play Keri responses to notrump, where 2♣ forces 2♦. Suppose I open 1NT and partner bids 2♣, and I bid 2♥. If partner always passes this, or otherwises takes it as an indication that I psyched 1NT and really have a weak hand with hearts, then we don't "really" play natural 1NT bids -- we play 1NT as either natural or a weak hand with hearts! The 2♣ call is acting as a psychic control, giving me a way to show that I psyched in an uncontested auction. Things get even worse if partner virtually always bids 2♣ on game-going hands (i.e. never just raises to 3NT). If partner would assume that my 2♥ call shows a strong notrump with a heart suit so good I can't stand to bid 2♦, or that my 2♥ call is a "forget" of our Keri agreements and response to stayman (both hands consistent with my original 1NT call) then this eliminates the problem. The issue is when I have some follow-up bid that clearly indicates to partner that I did not have a hand described by my prior bidding.

Similarly I know a number of pairs who claim to play a 2♦ overcall of the opposing 1NT opening as "majors" but then when the 2♦ bidder rebids diamonds over partner's major suit preference it shows "diamonds only, not majors." Bidding this way implies that their real agreement is "2♦ overcall is diamonds or majors" which really should have been disclosed.

Psychic controls via passing forcing bids or in competitive situations are much trickier. For example, if I open 1NT (15-17) and my LHO doubles for penalty, and partner has 13 hcp, he's going to realize that there's a joker at the table. This is just logical inference, not an indication that we have "special methods" to allow me to indicate I don't have my 15-17. Sometimes the line can be kind of fuzzy though, I admit.

[Free]

nige1, on Nov 15 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Free, on Nov 4 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

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

Otherwise I just like it very much! 

Drury seems a useful convention but. if your local legislature has a psych-control regulation, adopting Drury seems to prevent you from psyching 1♥/♠ in 3rd seat

My local legislature allows Drury, allows light openings,..., allows a lot! But in principle Drury is a psych control. It's like multi being a BSC.

However, both are soooooo popular that they became exceptions... So in principle it's still a psych control, in practice it's a legal convention.

[awm]

Legality of drury also depends on how you describe it. For example if you describe:

Pass - 1♠(1)
2♣(2) - 2♠(3)

(1) Third seat, so 8+ points and 4+ spades
(2) Maximum pass with 3♠
(3) Less than a first seat opening bid, so 8-11 hcp.

Then it's not really a psychic control. If you describe:

Pass - 1♠(1)
2♣(2) - 2♠(3)

(1) "Just bridge" no explanation
(2) Asking if partner has a real opening bid
(3) No I do not have a real opening bid

Then it seems an awful lot like a psychic control.

[ArtK78]

This psychic control argument is totally misplaced.

Psychic controls in the traditional sense are bids made in place of the usual bid for a given hand which cater to the possibility that partner has psyched. For example, a classic psychic control is a 2NT response to an opening one bid showing 20 HCP. No one would bid 2NT with 20 HCP opposite an opening one bid unless it allowed partner to pass with less than 4 HCP for his psychic opening bid.

Drury is not a psychic control because it SHOWS a hand, it does not ask partner if he psyched. It shows a hand with at least 3 card support for partner's major suit opening bid and invitational values opposite a full opening hand. It allows the partnership to avoid getting to the 3 level when partner has less than a full opening hand, which is quite common for a 3rd seat opening bid. It is not intended to cater to a psychic opening bid in 3rd seat.

[mike777]

Someone told me one of the main goals of competitive bidding is to make sure the opp play as seldom as possible at the two level in an 8 or 9 card fit.

Playing Drury seems to assume, the opp seldom overcall or open in first or second seat and allow you to play Drury in third and fourth seat in the first place and two once you find your fit the opp allow you to play at a low level? Of course none of this is 100% but it makes one wonder how frequent Drury wins as opposed to other winning uses for 2 of a minor?

[han]

Adam you hang out with the wrong people.

[ArtK78]

By the time Drury is bid and responded to, the opponents have each passed at least twice. They may still come in, but at least you will have determined how far you want to go in the hand.

So, I am not too worried about competition at that point in the auction.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

By the time Drury is bid and responded to, the opponents have each passed at least twice. They may still come in, but at least you will have determined how far you want to go in the hand.

So, I am not too worried about competition at that point in the auction.

1) Your opp pass twice that often? wow that must mean alot of good results
2) If your opp let you play in 9 card fits at the two level that must mean alot of good results.

[awm]

My observation has been that virtually no one alerts or pre-alerts their third seat openings as "could be light" (I'd exclude those who open light in all seats and give a general pre-alert).

I have seen Phil claim on the forums that he does this. I have never seen anyone do this at the table, except a fellow from Taiwan who was probably ignorant of american alert regulations.

Anyways, it seems like if you don't alert or pre-alert your third seat openings, there should be some expectation of what such an opening would show. Obviously the "standard expectation" is probably not as robust as an unalerted first seat opening, but if you routinely open on Kxxx and out (for example) it seems like that might be below the "standard expectation."

If your drury methods allow you to show a hand like Kxxx and out, or to get out of the auction at a low level when you have Kxxx and out and partner has a hand that would be worth game opposite a more robust opening, then it seems like you have a responsibility to disclose that you open such hands in third seat. That's really the only point I'm trying to make about drury as a psychic control.

There is at least one pair in LA which has agreed that they will open in third seat "any hand where it doesn't look like the auction will pass out." This means that they routinely open zero-counts because there is not much chance of a passout (4th chair must have something like 18 high). They do not feel the need to pre-alert this or alert it in the bidding, despite the fact that they are pretty ethical in general and pre-alert a lot of other stuff (for example a highly aggressive preempt style). Several directors have agreed that they are okay on this count.

ACBL decided to dodge this whole issue entirely when I asked them what were the legal agreements about third seat openings and what would require an alert. Their position seemed to be that "the rules for 3rd seat are the same as for first seat, there are hands that it's perfectly fine to agree to open in 3rd seat with no disclosure which would be illegal agreements even with a pre-alert in first seat, and this is just bridge."

[EricK]

I hate the "It's just bridge" excuse. Even if it is "just bridge" why shouldn't you still precisely explain your agreements?

[skjaeran]

awm, on Nov 15 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

Anyways, it seems like if you don't alert or pre-alert your third seat openings, there should be some expectation of what such an opening would show. Obviously the "standard expectation" is probably not as robust as an unalerted first seat opening, but if you routinely open on Kxxx and out (for example) it seems like that might be below the "standard expectation."

If your drury methods allow you to show a hand like Kxxx and out, or to get out of the auction at a low level when you have Kxxx and out and partner has a hand that would be worth game opposite a more robust opening, then it seems like you have a responsibility to disclose that you open such hands in third seat. That's really the only point I'm trying to make about drury as a psychic control.

It's normally OK to open lighter in 3rd seat. I do that a lot myself. But in Norway you can't have an agreement to (nor routinely do) open a hand a king or more below average strenght (7 hcp or less). If you do, you're system is classified as HUM. And HUM systems are generally disallowed. (They are allowed in long team matches at top level.)

[SteelWheel]

Quote

One reason I like Drury (2-way) is that I frequently open 4cM in 3rd and 4th seat. 2-way Drury is then a good tool to evaluate the fit (number of trumps) and strength at the same time.

Yeah, this is why I started playing Drury. In my very early days of bridge, light opening bid styles (Bergen and similar) were becoming all the rage. I didn't see the point of Drury so much at that time since I was already opening light in 1st and 2nd seat,

As I got a little more seasoned, I started to realize that in 3rd seat with a minimum or sub-minimum hand, opening my AKxx four card major was a better idea than opening my Jxx(x)(x) minor; suddenly Drury made a lot more sense.

btw, my preferred version is something I jokingly refer to as "Two-Way Double Reverse Flannery Bergen Ogust Drury":

I like to use 2♦ as the THREE-card limit raise--I found that four card limit raises nearly always ended up playing in game anyway.

This allows the use of 2♣ to show two ranges of four card raise--the "constructive" range and the "limit" range. 2♦ asks, and a return to 2M shows the constructive flavor; any other rebid by opener is natural-ish and shows the four card limit raise.