[fred]

awm, on Sep 6 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Basically the losses will come when responder has a really good hand, typically one that would force game opposite a first seat opening.

Disagree.

There are more losses and I do not even consider the loss you mention as especially important compared with these:

1) 2C Drury does not endplay opener into making an immediate decision with respect to going above 2 of the major when he has a real but minimum opening bid. 2D Drury does just that. I bet you have more than the occasional ethical problem when partner is slow to rebid his/her major (not that I see this in and of itself as a strike against the convention - more that it is a symptom of what you should expect whenever your system endplays you into making a decision you may well not be in a position to make).

2) 2D Drury necessarily makes it more difficult (probably much more difficult or maybe even impossible but I haven't thought this all the way through) for opener to be able to express both of these important messages:

- natural game try
- natural slam try

at a convenient level. This is very easy when you play 2C Drury (bid 2D with all game tries and make a natural bid in a new suit with a slam try).

Maybe you can get around this by introducing additional artificially (a fancy 2NT rebid by opener for example), but there is going to be a cost both in terms of memory and in terms of giving up additional natural bids in order to recover from your convention.

Maybe instead you can get around it by just bidding your new suit with either the game try or the slam try, have responder assume game try but try to cater to slam try when accepting the invitation. All I can say about that, is that you probably already know how well this principle works over 1M-2M

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

fred, on Sep 6 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

... 2♦ Drury necessarily makes it more difficult (probably much more difficult or maybe even impossible but I haven't thought this all the way through) for opener to be able to express both of these important messages:

- natural game try
- natural slam try

at a convenient level. ...

This depends on the style of Drury played.

For example Karen & I in our system designed for club games (f2f, BBO ACBL), play:

Pass-1M;-?

2♣: "weak two" in ♣s
2♦: limit raise in M, 3 trumps or flat hand with 4 trumps
2M: single raise in M, 3 trumps or flat hand with 4 trumps
2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3M: various 4+ trump raises, not flat

First 2♦ is a very precise bid. 95%+ of all auctions go Pass-1M;-2♦-2M or Pass-1M;-2♦-4M. The third % bid in frequency would not be a try, but is Pass-1M;-2♦-3NT choice of games.

And if goes Pass-1M;-2♦-try, there is a lot of space available, and responder's rebid makes the hand even more precise. Try would be new suit above 2M, and 2NT, which can be just a general try. In expert partnerships (those "trying" above the club level), I suggest after a game/slam try, that responder not jump to 4M to accept the try, but be able to bid the cheapest non-M suit to say "I accept, if you have a slam try you can start cuebidding (with all the bells and whistles including last train and the latest T-Rex cuebidding styles)".

Thus I don't think "2♦ Drury necessarily makes it more difficult" IF 2♦ is a precise bid.

For those who consider jumping around with 4 trumps and shape (Bergen raises etc.) is too much, I thinking hoping to park it in 2M is too optimistic on how the opponents aim their bidding to defend 2M contracts. If 4 trumps and shape is not enough to play at the 3 level, perhaps the 1M opening was wrong - note that responder is also going to face Pass-1M-(Jump Overcall);-Guess situations, where the jump overcall is wide ranging since opposite a passed hand - thus, imo, opener has risk in opening 1M in 3rd/4th with crappy hands with only 4 of the major.

For the 2♣ response, showing a "weak two" in ♣s we have had good results, and it comes up a fair bit of the time, but not a lot. It avoids these sequences:

a.) Pass-1M;-1NT(semi-forcing)-All pass: the 1NT semi-forcing bid is more often passed by a 3rd seat opening (than other seats), and 2♣ is usually a better spot than 1NT if responder has a weak two in ♣s opposite the minimum and sub-minimum 1M openings.

b.) Pass-1M;-1NT(sf)-2♦/2♥/2♠;-3♣: here, often a level higher than a 2♣ response will find.

In closing, the style of Drury you will want to play depends on your 1M styles, and these will vary between 3rd and 4th seat. Since Drury introduces new ways and chances into the auction for the opponents, I suggest one makes Drury a fairly precise bid, even if it makes Pass-1M;-2M more wide ranging than would be necessary if Drury covered constructive hands.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Sep 6 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Never thought about one thing before, but Mike perhaps inadvertently suggested something.

If you play 2♦ as a weak two, then it seems perhaps more effective to have 2♦ as Drury and 2♣ as natural, rather than the usual way.

Hmmmm.

I was thinking the same thing as i read the opening post.

Actually we effectively do something similar over our 1♠ opening. We don't play Drury. However we play very aggressive weak twos that can be a five-card suit. This means that we almost never have a hand that wants to bid 2♥ over a third seat 1♠ opening. Therefore we use 1♠ 2♥ as a good spade raise.

[pclayton]

I think Hamman plays something like 2♣ is a 4 card raise or diamonds. 2♦ is the 3 card raise.

I hate 2 way drury too, but adding a meaning to 2♣ is an interesting idea.