Serious Partnerships -- Methods

[awm]

Which methods have you given a serious spin, in the context of a long-term partnership where you expected to do well? I don't mean just "I messed around with this for a few dozen boards on BBO" or "I typically agree this with pickup partners" but rather something you played for an extended period of time in events where you cared about doing well.

[hrothgar]

In general, if I am playing in a serious partnership we're migrating towards MOSCITO or some such. We might (temporarily) be playing Blue Club or the like, but the end goal is MOSCITO.

[keylime]

For me Adam, I think sitting down beforehand and discussing what is comfortable to both players is pivotal.

 

I prefer forcing club and a higher than average level of technicality compared to most.

 

Style matters a great deal in system construction.

[mikeh]

In the three serious partnerships I have had since 1995, the methods have been:

 

1. The most successful: 2/1 GF with variable 1N opening bids (10-12/15-17)and many relays: 2♣ over 1♦/♥/♠ relay with rebids based on fibbonacci distributions, with tweaks to minimize the chance of opener being declarer (relay hand declares after a series of asking bids, in an ideal auction); 1♦ response to 1♣ was a relay, but could be very weak; 2♣ response to strong 1N was a relay method; relays after 4th suit forcing; denial cuebidding, spiral keycard, and lots of other stuff. Highly demanding memory work, but wonderful to play if one could remember it.

 

2. The next most successful, and likely to be my ppship for the next year: 2/1 with variable notrump (11-14/15-17) and a number of gadgets, but the notes are about 1/3rd as long as in number 1.

 

3. The least successful, and now ended except that, as good friends, we will still play the occasional tournament: 2/1 with variable notrump, (10-12/14-16) transfer responses to 1♣, and a lot of other special agreements, that partner really didn't want to play, and which we will not be playing when we play in the future.

 

Years ago, I experimented, for several years, with a strong club method involving transfer responses and some simple relays. I was a difficult partner back then, as was my then-partner. We remain good friends, but apart from a few regional wins, we were not very good, and we never travelled (not that I travel now, either B) )

[Finch]

I'm fairly flexible, and within certain limits tend to play whatever my partners want to play. In my two regular (10 yr+) partnerships, one of them plays 2/1 FG, 15-17 NT and semi-forcing NT with loads of kit, the other plays 5CM, mini NT 1st NV else 15-17, and 2/1 forcing to 2 of opener's major only.

 

Interestingly these two people also have a fairly solid partnership with each other, which plays something slightly different - 15-17 NT, 2/1 FG but rather less and different kit after a 2/1.

 

But we don't necessarily believe such methods are best. They are best for us, in that we are comfortable with them and have a huge amount of experience in understanding fairly subtle inferences from the exact calls chosen during an auction (why did partner go through 4th suit rather than raise directly? Why did partner jump to 3NT rather than bid a new suit? Why did partner double then bid, rather than bid then double? What does a minimum opening bid look like? When does a 1NT opening include a 5-card major? etc etc) In the forums there are sometimes threads saying "what does this sequence show" and I have a very high success rate in knowing exactly what it would show in my regular partnerships, and my partner agreeing.

 

We experimented with a strong diamond system for a while, but concluded that it would need a lot of time invested to understand competitive auctions properly and we couldn't be bothered.

 

Similarly, one partnership plays a 10-13 1NT opening 1st NV. There has been a lot of discussion on a different thread about the relative merits (or lack of merit) of this agreement. But when it comes down to it, we play it because

- we don't believe it is a long-term loser and, most importantly,

- it's fun

[Gerben42]

With my partner in the juniors (Smirny) I played 2/1 GF with variable NT (10-13 / 14 - 16). The two reasons given by Frances I totally agree with. The reason we don't play regularly anymore is that I'm too old for the juniors and it takes a whole day of travel to visit eachother (that 1♣ could be short goes without saying - you will have a hard time getting me to play 1♣ promising 3 cards in any longterm partnership).

 

With my 2nd most regular partner I play relay Precision.

 

With most semi-regular partners I play 2/1 and weak NT throughout, natural style with most but Fantunes with mostly 1 partner. I've played Fantunes in the German 2nd league with one partner before and although we did okay we didn't harmonize and I was glad the season was over...

 

(one of them tried to get me to play 5533 but I managed to sneak in "any 19-20 balanced" into 1♣)

[Fluffy]

I play transfer walsh & kaplan inversion with 2/1 with my best partner.

 

With the other (we don't play as much as we would like) we play 2 level responses as 10+.

[kenrexford]

If by "serious" you mean an established partnership with a saved convention card, expected pairing up and regionals, and lots of heated exchanges (the three hallmarks of any true partnership), then, in order:

 

Standard American

Precision

Kaplan-Sheinwold

Rosso e Nerro (Livorno-esque Canape)

LIA Kaplan-Sheinwold

Flamingo Diamond (F'ed Up Precision-esque)

Neapolitan

M.I.C.S. (canape)

2/1 GF

 

All with permutations, of course.

 

At one time, I calculated out that I could play completely different systems, with system notes for each that were quite long, for each of the four opening seats and for each of the four possible vulnerabilities (16 distinct, and radically so, systems).

 

Then, I set down the pipe and started playing 2/1 GF. I admittedly have a few flashbacks on occasion.

[Fluffy]

If by "serious" you mean an established partnership with a saved convention card, expected pairing up and regionals, and lots of heated exchanges (the three hallmarks of any true partnership), then, in order:

Since there are only regionals in USA, I guess only true partnerships are there :/

[joshs]

My Various Long Lasting Partnerships:

 

A. Standard American with Ben Shapo. This partnership lasted for 5 years in DC, but Ben had various kids, and eventually moved, and pretty much stopped playing bridge. Besides, he was paying attention to kids and career, so wasn't really getting better at bridge....

 

B. 2/1 GF with Kevin Avery. A hybrid between some washington standard methods and lots of my toolkit including natural and GFing 2N bids over all 1 level openings, and lots of 2'nd round in the auction relays. Kevin also mostly dissapeared from bridge persuing career and stuff.

 

C. 2/1 GF KS style with Bob Kerchner. This partnerships agreements was largely built around Robson and Segal's book. Bob took a few years off from bridge but is getting to play again some now that he has retired.

 

D. Standard American with Ken Katzner. Ken died about 7 years ago and I miss him.

 

E. Washington Standard with about 20 semi-regular partners from DC (Leo Lasota, Ellen Klossen, Ellen Chirnovsky, Susan DePorte, Mita Banerjee, and many others). These are people who I have played in sectionals and regionals with or even in national events with, but none of them I played with all that much, but there was a pretty common system among us all.

 

F. 2/1 GF with Marc Umeno. Ok perhaps this system resembled Bocchi and Duboin's system more than standard 2/1. We started with a natural 2N and soon added transfer walsh methods (1999?). We then added a 2C ART Gfing relay over 1M and other x-fer 2/1's, but we have gone back to straight 2/1 over 1M since we don't play often enough and Marc was having trouble remembering the methods. This was by far my most complicated system.

 

G. TOSR with Dan Neill (Transfer openings, strong club with symmetric relay)

 

H. Strong Club with Symmetric Relay with John Pendergrass. We started as 4 card majorites but switched to 5 after a few years. Over the non-strong club we play a hybrid of Meckwell, Berk-Cohen, and my old 2/1 methods. I play similar methods with Josh Donn and Adam Meyerson.

 

I. Strong Club, Baby Meckwell Style (Like Hampson Greco, and now Cheek and Grue) with Clem Jackson.

 

J. Strong Club, Canape. I originally designed this system for Ben and to give Dan and I something to play in events where we could not play TOSR (which is most of them). I have mostly played this with Chris Monsour and Alex Kolesnik over the years, but have yet to try it in a national event. This years Spingold with Alex will be interesting...

 

I have had other semi-regular partners over the years (Marshall Miles, Alan Kliest) were I did various other non-standard things...

 

I have always had a secret love for magic diamond. :P

[kenrexford]

If by "serious" you mean an established partnership with a saved convention card, expected pairing up and regionals, and lots of heated exchanges (the three hallmarks of any true partnership), then, in order:

Since there are only regionals in USA, I guess only true partnerships are there :/

Oh, I suppose some folks outside of the U.S.A. might have something similar to an established partnership, technically. LOL

[Impact]

1. Vienna Club seriously tweaked (forerunner of Polish)

 

2. Acol but with a lot of different material

 

3. 2/1 almost GF a la BWS but VERY different inferences/Romex

 

4. Blue Club (perhaps closer to Purple Club?)

 

5. Danielson's Relay Precision tweaked

 

6. Regres/Delta: forcing pass systems with assumed fit corollaries to twos

 

7. Antipodean Club (based on symmetric relay)

 

8. Impact (both forcing Club and Forcing pass varieties)

 

 

I created Aspro Twos, leptospirosis Twos, transfer doubles, many shuffles and relays in their entirety, and have designed many systems for intellectual pleasure while admitting their inherent lack of feasibility in competition (including complete encrypted bidding systems...).

 

 

Bidding is fascination for me, but I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that few share it to anything like the same extent.

 

If I sat down with a pick-up partner of requisite standard I would prefer to have just a few general principles to guide auctions, than tacking on conventions at all

 

eg 5 card major, fit-showing jumps in all situations, multicues, and slow shows when forcing situations arise. I would play Stayman and transfers but NOT any form of Blackwood/KC!!! That forces both players to think about every auction from the same basic set of principles and you know what: it can be FUN, particularly when it is seen as light relief from a very structured partnership!

 

If it is longterm, I like so many weird but logically consistent things- and will still keep tweaking till I die....which may be sooner if various partners and ex-partners could so contrive it!

[MickyB]

My most frequent partnerships over the past couple of years have been playing short club, xfer responses, either 2/1 GF or 2/1s forcing only to the two level of opener's suit.

 

Before that, I was playing Acol in my two most regular partnerships. Not my choice.

 

Before that, I was playing Precision with symmetric relay over the 1♣ opening. We never got as far as xfer breaks, though I think he did with his next partner. 2/1s were GF.

 

Before that, I was a budding system freak and a nightmare to play with; We never used the same convention card twice! Towards the end we were using 1♣ as 15+ either ♣ or bal (so other openings fairly unlimited), otherwise it was all wide-ranging openings, 2/1s not forcing to game.

 

I suspect I'll land up playing Polish Club in a serious partnership at some point in the near future.

[skjaeran]

Some 20 years ago I played strong club (Power Precision opening style) with relays for distribution in GF+ auctions, italian style cuebids and a modern version of Culbertson's 4-5NT (no BW!). Worked fine.

 

After that I played Norwgian Standard (5443, 15-17NT) 2/1 F1, with some 2-level gadgets (Multi, weak Flannery). Italian style cuebids, RKCB.

 

Nowadays I play 2/1 (GF unless rebid), (14)15-17NT, 5cM, unbal 1♦, 1♣ nat or bal 11-14/18-19 with transfer responses. Transfers after 1♠-1NT, USP, some transfers after opps overcall our 1m openings. Italian style cuebids, RKCB. 2-way reverse ud Drury, 2-way M-raises (1M-2M=sound, 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦=weak raise or nat 2/1). Minisplinter/Bergen combination. Sound wk2's (garbage Multi NV). We open most (all?) 11-counts. Lighter with distribution.

[helene_t]

I voted G but most of the systems I've been playing have been based on rather shallow agreements. The only thing I've been putting a lot of effort into was A but then with not-so-wide-ranging 1-level openings since we have many options for bidding strong, distributional hands via 2-level openings, and we don't open light.

 

For the moment we are experimenting with a weird system (Boring Club) and I wouldn't mind making it even weirder by playing transfer-openings all through. Maybe something like Little Major. Moscito might be a more realistic option (then we don't have to invent everything ourself).

[paulg]

25 years ago I played SuperPrecision seriously for 2-3 years before my partner emigrated.

 

With my regular long-term partner we started with Precision and Acol, but for the last 10+ years have been playing 2/1 (GF except rebid) with 14-16 NT. Initially heavily influenced by Lawrence and Bergen, we now play a short club with transfer responses, Gazilli and lots of Italian-inspired 'kit'. Like Harald we open most 11 counts and lighter with distribution.

 

A less serious partnership for 10 years was based on Blue Club. Simple enough to play but I was never totally happy when I held both majors (!).

 

I play regular club bridge in Edinburgh during the summer and I have to play Acol, either Benj or with three weak 2s, with almost everyone.

[foo]

...But we don't necessarily believe such methods are best. They are best for us, in that we are comfortable with them and have a huge amount of experience in understanding fairly subtle inferences from the exact calls chosen during an auction (why did partner go through 4th suit rather than raise directly? Why did partner jump to 3NT rather than bid a new suit? Why did partner double then bid, rather than bid then double? What does a minimum opening bid look like? When does a 1NT opening include a 5-card major? etc etc) In the forums there are sometimes threads saying "what does this sequence show" and I have a very high success rate in knowing exactly what it would show in my regular partnerships, and my partner agreeing...

Hear, hear. IMHO, this is far more important than people usually think when making System choices.

 

Better to play something simpler that your partnership knows 100% than "superior" stuff where "The Wheels come off".

[Apollo81]

I've had partnerships in:

 

1. normal 2/1

2. strong diamond

3. precision w/TOSR relays after 1♣ and an alt. 2♦ opening

 

I played #2 for about 2 years before I realized that a large percentage of the system wins were coming from the notrump range (10-12 1/2W, 14-16 otherwise) and that the rest of the system was basically not worth the memory load although not really worse than #1.

 

I currently play #3. Its main advantages are that the defense often goes wrong after a relay auction when relayer is declaring, really tough slam hands are loads easier to bid, and certain intermediate strength hands can be shown with one bid instead of two. Its main disadvantage is the strong 1♣ at unfavorable.

[awm]

I've had partnerships in:

 

1. normal 2/1

2. strong diamond

3. precision w/TOSR relays after 1♣ and an alt. 2♦ opening

 

I played #2 for about 2 years before I realized that a large percentage of the system wins were coming from the notrump range (10-12 1/2W, 14-16 otherwise) and that the rest of the system was basically not worth the memory load although not really worse than #1.

 

I currently play #3. Its main advantages are that the defense often goes wrong after a relay auction when relayer is declaring, really tough slam hands are loads easier to bid, and certain intermediate strength hands can be shown with one bid instead of two. Its main disadvantage is the strong 1♣ at unfavorable.

Interestingly, I also played #2 for a while before switching to #3. My observation was that most of the wins came from light natural opening bids in the majors with some discipline, coupled with controlled follow-up auctions. I've found 10-12 NT to be kind of randomizing and not a real win against good players; 14-16 is a fine range but I don't think the "advantage" of 14-16 over 15-17 is really all that significant.

 

In any case, I switched to the strong club method for improved slam bidding in uncontested auctions, and because I felt a natural response structure to the "nebulous non-strong 1-minor opening" was more effective than what we were doing in recursive diamond (and once we decided to play natural follow-ups there was no more advantage to opening nebulous club instead of nebulous diamond). I'm in no great rush to give up the major-suit openings however, which seem to have won me boatloads of IMPs and MPs over the years. This is not to say I would open this garbage in a system with a higher upper-limit, or even in a strong club system with less defined followups to 1M.

[keylime]

I started with Precision, then SAYC, then 2/1 GF which confused me, then back into what became KLP, then a strong diamond xfer method, then Ambra, Fantunes, and now, our BTC-Fantunes-KLPV16-Nightmare hybrid.

 

I as well, have a fascination with Magic Diamond.

 

However, I am in no hurry to switch partnerships; I am quite happy with whom I have as a player and friend. :D

[Apollo81]

...played #2 for about 2 years before I realized that a large percentage of the system wins were coming from the notrump range...

Actually most of the wins came from both partners having the same understandings about all the bids. That can be said of any method.