[cherdanno]

I guess when bluejak is TD I can always explain my bids with the name of a popular convention, of which I play a very weird variant. Opponents will assume I play the popular version, and will rely on that assumption. When they are damaged, because I play a weird variant, then it is their fault.

I think it's clear that when you only use the name of a popular convention to describe a bid, AND you play it differently to 95% or more of the bridge players in your area/your country, then you are misinforming the opponents.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Aug 9 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

I am not sure I agree with this.  Certainly a name is insufficient, but everyone does it, and if you are going to take a very unlikely conclusion from a name I think not to protect yourself by checking they play it your way is not good enough.

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?

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation. This is a case where not only do the overwhelming majority of people play the convention a particular way but it is entirely possible for a relatively experienced player who takes an interest in conventions and systems and who plays the convention in question with some partners (ie, me) to have been completely unaware that it was not the only way to play it. To check that I wasn't just being clueless, I just did a quick google search for "Drury convention" and read the first five hits. All of them explicitly define Drury as showing support (some say 3+, some say exactly 3); if you read the wikipedia article carefully you will find the information that it originally also included hands with long clubs, but none of the other four mention any possibility of having fewer than three cards in support.

[bluejak]

cherdanno, on Aug 11 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

I guess when bluejak is TD I can always explain my bids with the name of a popular convention, of which I play a very weird variant. Opponents will assume I play the popular version, and will rely on that assumption. When they are damaged, because I play a weird variant, then it is their fault.

I think it's clear that when you only use the name of a popular convention to describe a bid, AND you play it differently to 95% or more of the bridge players in your area/your country, then you are misinforming the opponents.

You really have not read a word I have said, have you?

If you do that you will be ruled against 99 times out of a 100.

You [and others] seem to have no idea that each case is decided solely on its merits, not based on some basic rule that always applies.

If the bidding had gone P 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3♥ P and you claimed that the opponents should know you have not got a heart fit, naturally I would rule against you.

But you must, must, must, must treat every case on its merits, and meaningless polls to prove what everyone here knows, including me, that the vast majority play Drury to guarantee a fit are irrelevant. The vast majority play the actual sequence as forcing.

Suppose a pair says they play "standard" responses to 1NT, then they bid 1NT - 2♥ - Pass. Do you really claim damage when you tell the TD that since "everyone" plays transfers you assumed wen defending that this was a transfer without asking any further questions?

Do you really think it is bridge to assume when the opponents pass a bid that everyone plays as forcing that, despite this, the earlier part of the auction must mean what you expect because they have used a well known name? Really?

I must go and look up the title deeds of that land in Florida.

[aguahombre]

No, actually I believe the vast majority of players treat the OP sequence as non-existent.

P-1M
2C-2M
3C........you think the vast majority believe 3C is some kind of slam try, still showing a major suit fit?

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-11, 19:18

[bluejak]

I do not know what they think it actually means, but I do not believe they think it passable if hearts have been agreed. How many people play 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ as passable?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Aug 11 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

The vast majority play the actual sequence as forcing.

Later you say "everyone" plays the op sequence as forcing. Let's try to imagine a passed hand seeing partner open in 3rd chair. He shows a fit and Opener says he has a suck opening. So he would torture opener with another bid in a minor. But, everyone would have a meaning for this sequence (even though you don't know what that meaning might be) ---and it would not occur to any of them that partner wants to play in that minor suit unless there were UI.

As TD, I recommend you ask this pair if they have a 3C follow-up to Drury which is forcing ---and what it means in their style if it is. Then make your ruling and let an AC decide about the vast majorities and everyones.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-11, 20:02

[cherdanno]

I don't understand why 3♣ should be forcing even if 2♣ promised a fit. If opener made a light 3rd seat opening with 4 hearts and 5 clubs, then passing a game try in clubs (which certainly shows some length there) seems obviously right.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Aug 11 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

I do not know what they think it actually means, but I do not believe they think it passable if hearts have been agreed. How many people play 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ as passable?

This is not comparable - opener is unlimited in your situation, whereas responder is limited by being a passed hand in our situation.

[blackshoe]

I think a lot of people will agree to play some form of Drury, but will have no idea what 3♣ means in the given auction. And many of those will pass 3♣ because they don't know what it means.

[dburn]

That fine compendium The Bridge Players' Encyclopaedia has this to say about Drury:

Quote

The responder in no way guarantees a fit with opener's suit. He would bid two clubs in response to one spade with:

♠J5  ♥KJ107  ♦AJ75  ♣Q73

or

♠3  ♥932  ♦KJ9  ♣AJ10965

The age of this contribution may be gauged from the fact that nowadays almost no one with the first hand and not everyone with the second would be in the position of responding to a third-seat opening, but the position is fairly clear: Drury as invented by Douglas A. of that ilk did not show a fit, and there is no particular reason for anyone learning only that 2♣ is Drury to assume even nowadays that it does.

[FrancesHinden]

WellSpyder, on Aug 10 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

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....

There are a few people who play it, even those born and bred within the sound of Bow Bells.

Even dburn will be playing it soon.

But... when partner bids 2C as a passed hand, I don't alert and call it "Drury" because
(i) many of my opponents don't know what that means
(ii) some of those who do, will think it is asking if I have a sound opening bid or not, not showing a fit, rather than the way I play it.

(I just say "shows about 8+ HCP and exactly 3-card support, nothing about clubs", although that part is irrelevant)

I would assume the given sequence shows lots of clubs if my opponents had it. If the opponents played 1H - 3C as invitational I would assume it was weaker.