[jdonn]

Drury always shows a fit for everyone I know with one exception (Marshall Miles). I know when it was invented it wasn't that way but as far as I knew until reading this everyone plays it that way and has for decades. Bluejak appears to play bridge on a planet which I have never been to, or maybe England is really that different from America. I'm now curious how other British posters understand "reverse drury".

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Aug 9 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 9 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

[Phil]

I think I should have asked this partnership if 1♥ - 2♣ - 4♥ is a possible auction without self-sufficient hearts in retrospect.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on Aug 9 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 9 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 9 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

Then how were EW damaged? It seems they knew what was going on.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Aug 9 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 9 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 9 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 9 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

Then how were EW damaged? It seems they knew what was going on.

(stifled groan)

If I know, and you know, but you don't know that I know, and I sure don't know that you know.....do we both 'know'

[blackshoe]

Damned if I know.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Aug 9 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

To put it another way: I play a convention one way, you another, I describe it by name, you assume I play it your way, are we not both at fault?

Now add in the fact that from your hand you are sure [unless you are a beginner] that the opposition play it differently: do you not think you should ask?

"Ask do not assume": where have I read that?

This took place in ACBL. If you ask a hundred ACBL players what Reverse Drury is, I am willing to bet 99 of them will say "limit raise in spades" or something similar that shows a fit for opener's major. This is not a 50/50 one way or another, non-fit is so rare that it could be ignored, in ACBL.

[blackshoe]

The answer to David's "where did I read this?" is of course "in the ACBL alert regulation".

[bluejak]

Hang on: you are talking in a vacuum. Sure, if the bidding [partnership] goes P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ P it is pretty likely, or even higher, that 2♣ shows a fit.

Now please move on to what happened: the bidding goes P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ P. The chance of a guaranteed heart fit have just nose-dived: if there really was a guaranteed fit what happened to 3♥ over 3♣?

Now you look at your hand: you have five hearts. If you really believe they have a heart fit I have some land in Florida to sell you not to mention a very pretty tower in Paris, France and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Sorry: on this sequence and with your hand the probability of a heart fit has nose-dived into the gutter and if you do not ask questions you are not playing bridge.

[Phil]

peachy, on Aug 9 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

This took place in ACBL. If you ask a hundred ACBL players what Reverse Drury is, I am willing to bet 99 of them will say "limit raise in spades" or something similar that shows a fit for opener's major.  This is not a 50/50 one way or another, non-fit is so rare that it could be ignored, in ACBL.

I also think that much less than 99 of them would say that 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ cancels the meaning of 2♣.

Whether it is because of the alert, their skill level, or their confidence in their partner, I cannot say.

[awm]

Josh Donn's poll seems to confirm that almost everyone plays drury as guaranteeing a fit.

The defending side did ask about 2♣. They were told that it was drury. This is the equivalent of being told "3+♥ and invitational values" both in their minds and according to the vast majority of players.

Are you seriously saying that if a call is asked and explained, but then the subsequent auction and/or the defending player's hand makes the original explanation appear unlikely... the defending side must ask again whether the opponents are sure of the meaning they have given, or else forfeit any protection in the case that MI was given?

I don't think the laws support such a view.

[bluejak]

The regulation is clear: a name is not good enough.

Anyone who is fool enough to assume that someone else plays a named convention their way in the face of strong evidence otherwise is not playing bridge.

Without the strong evidence otherwise it may be different.

Or, to put it another way, no, saying "Drury" is not the same as saying 3+ hearts, invitational values, since not 100% of players play it that way.

[gwnn]

In this case I am one of those fools. What game am I playing?

[jdonn]

I have never seen the law that mentions something about an obligation to know what 100% of players play (in fact, reverse drury promising a fit seems about as close to 100% as you will get in bridge based on the poll). I am also not aware of any guideline that says people have to ask 'questions' to be playing bridge even though they have already asked a 'question' and gotten an answer that seems to be understood by all - 1.

[blackshoe]

The bottom line here is that the law requires full disclosure, and that was not given. What "everybody" plays is irrelevant.

[WellSpyder]

jdonn, on Aug 9 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

I'm now curious how other British posters understand "reverse drury".

You don't seem to have had an answer to this yet. As another British poster, I would suggest that very few British players really understand anything by either Drury or reverse Drury - quite simply, no-one plays it here. (No doubt there are one or two exceptions among those brought up on the other side of the pond, but I haven't encountered any.) It is odd how conventions that seem essential in one part of the world can seem completely unnecessary elsewhere....

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Aug 9 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

The regulation is clear: a name is not good enough.

Anyone who is fool enough to assume that someone else plays a named convention their way in the face of strong evidence otherwise is not playing bridge.

Without the strong evidence otherwise it may be different.

Or, to put it another way, no, saying "Drury" is not the same as saying 3+ hearts, invitational values, since not 100% of players play it that way.

Yes, but it's only not good enough for the disclosing side - I don't think we should be disadvantaging the NOS for the OS's bad disclosure, so I don't think we should rule that the NOS failed to protect themselves - that should be more reserved for more blatent cases, like unalerted/annouced staymen which is not asked about and assumed as natural.

[Cascade]

I frequently ask for clarification when just the name of a convention is used.

"Explain please"

"Drury"

"What does that mean?"

Even when I think I know what it means. Sometimes I am surprised.

When the ACBL card has under Drury the options Reverse, 2-way and Fit. It would seem wrong to me to assume "Fit" if that was not explicitly stated even if a poll shows an overwhelming majority play it that way.

I have seen situations like this before where a player puts his own perspective into an explanation and assumes something that was not stated. In those situations I have little sympathy for the player who makes the faulty assumption.

Law 21A seems to cover this:

"LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION
A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding
No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his
own misunderstanding."

Nevertheless it is possible that the opponents are not entitled to their score since the terse explanation simply naming a convention is not the required standard.

I would at least seriously consider giving the worst of it to both sides here.

[barmar]

Cascade, on Aug 10 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

When the ACBL card has under Drury the options Reverse, 2-way and Fit. It would seem wrong to me to assume "Fit" if that was not explicitly stated even if a poll shows an overwhelming majority play it that way.

I'll bet 95% of ACBL players who play Drury have no idea that the "Fit" box is there, or what it's for, because they've only been taught Fit Reverse Drury. Many of them don't even remember to check the Reverse box, even though that's what they actually play; original Drury is so unheard of that most people say Drury when they mean Reverse Drury.

The only people who reliably check any box other than "Drury" are the ones who play 2-way. This obviously implies Fit, since the distinction between 2♣ and 2♦ is whether they have 3 or 4+ cards in support (I suppose it's conceivable to use 2♣ for 3 or less, but I've never heard of it).

[jallerton]

Phil, on Aug 8 2010, 07:38 PM, said:

I doubt this partnership was on firm enough ground to know if RD promised a fit or not.

At the table they were discussing this point, and agreed after the hand that it should promise a fit, otherwise, opener can't jump to 4♥ with an unbalanced 14.

So I guess I would say "no agreement", but I'd be interested in your views if RD does promise a fit.

My view is that the TD should ask South to explain exactly why (s)he passed 3♣, before attempting to make a ruling.