Help
I think double of 2NT ought to show a desire to compete, not a desire to defend. With that agreement, I could show a hand like KQxx xxx Axxx xx without committing us to the three-level. To me that seems far more useful than showing an extra queen in a hand with three-card support.
I'm not suggesting that this is what double actually means by default - just what it should mean.
A series of unfortunate events
#61
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-September-11, 16:59
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#62
- Tubthumper
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,835
- Joined: 2007-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR, USA
- Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.
Posted 2012-September-11, 17:13
sathyab, on 2012-September-11, 15:13, said:
So we're pushing ourselves to 3♠ opposite a partner who said he didn't have a full opener. Isn't the point of Drury not to get to the 3-level on such hands ? Partner may not even have five ♠ in third chair in which case we should consider defending.
If I have KQxx, then it is likely that partner has 5 unless he is extremely aggressive 3rd seat. I also agree that the point of Drury is to stay low when possible. That being said, it doesn't mean I am barred from competing with a hand type where competing is attractive. I would definitely compete with the example hand Phil gave, and since I am going to compete, I don't give them an opportunity to exchange information at the 3 level.
Chris Gibson