[whereagles]

Here's the idea: why not define Drury as 2♦, instead of 2♣?

The reasoning is the following: since a 2♣ opening is a strong bid and 2♦ a weak one, it's more likely that you'll have a hand that wants to bid pass-1M-2♣ as natural. The range of hands that would want to bid pass-1M-2♦ as natural is narrower because with some of them, you'd have opened 2♦.

Example: with, say,

♠ KJx
♥ xx
♦ KQTxxx
♣ xx

you'd would simply open 2♦, whereas with

♠ KJx
♥ xx
♦ xx
♣ KQTxxx

you'd pass for lack of a weak 2♣ opening. If bidding goes

You Pard
Pass 1♥
??

you'd now have a perfect 2♣ bid, if it were natural.

So the proposal is to use 2♦ as Drury. Since it is done with a diamond bid, I nicked it "golden Drury".

Disadvantages? You lose the standard 2♦ rebid over Drury (pass-1M-2♣-2♦) to indicate a reasonable minimum, opener. But to be honest, I can't remember the last time that bid made a difference for me.. lol.

Anyway. just a small idea. I don't know if this is original or not, but if it is, remember you heard it first here

[wank]

someone else on the forum, can't remember who, already does this.

personally i value my 2d retry over 2c too much because i open soundly and bid drury aggressively so it's got a wide range.

[jgillispie]

whereagles, on 2014-March-08, 13:35, said:

Here's the idea: why not define Drury as 2♦, instead of 2♣?

The reasoning is the following: since a 2♣ opening is a strong bid and 2♦ a weak one, it's more likely that you'll have a hand that wants to bid pass-1M-2♣ as natural. The range of hands that would want to bid pass-1M-2♦ as natural is narrower because with some of them, you'd have opened 2♦.

Example: with, say,

♠ KJx
♥ xx
♦ KQTxxx
♣ xx

you'd would simply open 2♦, whereas with

♠ KJx
♥ xx
♦ xx
♣ KQTxxx

you'd pass for lack of a weak 2♣ opening. If bidding goes

You Pard
Pass 1♥
??

you'd now have a perfect 2♣ bid, if it were natural.

So the proposal is to use 2♦ as Drury. Since it is done with a diamond bid, I nicked it "golden Drury".

Disadvantages? You lose the standard 2♦ rebid over Drury (pass-1M-2♣-2♦) to indicate a reasonable minimum, opener. But to be honest, I can't remember the last time that bid made a difference for me.. lol.

Anyway. just a small idea. I don't know if this is original or not, but if it is, remember you heard it first here

I have always liked the idea of 1H-2C Drury and 1S-2D Drury. Next step shows an opening hand. With hands that have the minor suits taken up by the Drury bids, use 1N Forcing.

[TylerE]

I've been playing the following, which I (semi-jokingly, but sort of accurately) call reverse reverse 3-way drury

2♣ = 4 card raise, not total junk (so like 6-12ish)
2♦ = 3 card limit
2M = 3 card <limit

After 2♣, 2♦ is an artificial ask/try. Responder bids 2M with the lower range (6-bad 9) and anything else shows a good 9+, and is basically natural/game try style. (NB: This includes p-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥!)

Hands that want to play 2♣ get to bid 1NT, and play it like a real bridge player - especially at MP 2♣ is not a spot I basically ever want to be in

[mike777]

I don't play drury
given your op I bid my long minor no problem yet.

if you pass you limited your hand

OP shows maximum passed hands..so be it

If you pass then:


third seat opens light
4th seat opens sound.

People focus on opening hand...not your passed hand lol.

[glen]

whereagles, on 2014-March-08, 13:35, said:

Here's the idea: why not define Drury as 2♦, instead of 2♣?

A bunch of people play this, and it has been written about before (Mike Massimilla, Three Method Twists, March 2000 Bridge World). For example it was part of the system that my wife and I played (even before the article), and 2♦ as Drury was still on in competition when available. More fun was Pass-Pass-1♠-Pass-2♣, and now there was a pause waiting for the alert that never comes.

[awm]

Elianna came up with this a decade ago, so you're a bit behind the times. It's been discussed on the forums before too.

[whereagles]

Ok. Thx all. I also thought it was a bit too obvious to be original

[kenrexford]

I thought for sure that this was thread would have something to do with S&M invites.

[Zelandakh]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-09, 05:05, said:

I thought for sure that this was thread would have something to do with S&M invites.

Is anyone else picturing agua chained up in a dungeon and Ken standing over him with a whip? No? Perhaps the other way around then.

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-11, 06:33, said:

Is anyone else picturing agua chained up in a dungeon and Ken standing over him with a whip? No? Perhaps the other way around then.

Don't you need a foursome?