Partnership Compatibility

[awm]

Suppose you're trying to form a partnership matching service. What kinds of questions beyond "skill level" and "location/availability" type things do you think are good to ask? Here are a few that come to mind for me:

 

(1) How much emphasis do you place on system? Do you like to play a lot of conventional bids and/or discuss a lot of sequences, or prefer only a general discussion and focus on card play?

 

(2) When do you like to discuss hands? Between rounds, between sessions, after the event, not at all?

 

(3) What kind of preempt style do you like? Do you frequently preempt on good hands opposite a passed partner? Do you like to preempt on five-card suits often?

 

(4) What's your view about leads? If your side has bid and raised a suit, do you usually lead that suit? Do you prefer active or passive leads against non-obvious auctions?

 

(5) What kind of opening style do you prefer? Will you frequently upgrade shapely hands with few points to open at the one-level? Do you use losing trick count or zar points or the like in deciding whether to open?

 

(6) What do you believe is the best way to practice? Do you like to bid a lot of hands (partnership bidding), play online, play at clubs, discuss system between sessions?

[matmat]

(7) do you like long walks on the beach?

 

more seriously --

 

(5) needs a law of total tricks reference.

 

(8) do you tend to think for a long time at the table and play deliberately?

 

(9) do you care about the post mortem/assigning blame? Is it always your fault? are you forgiving of mistakes?

 

(10) do you believe in absolutely forcing bids?

[inquiry]

This is not what you wanted.. but your questions look good. Here is how I would answer them... would that help anyone to know this kind of info? I think it might. BTW, i have abandoned partners who insist on discussing problems/system between hands or rounds. I don't like to discuss those things at the table....so number 2 is probably teh most important one to me.

 

(1) How much emphasis do you place on system? Do you like to play a lot of conventional bids and/or discuss a lot of sequences, or prefer only a general discussion and focus on card play?

 

I like to place a large amount on system. I enjoy discussing sequences. If i was forming a long term parntership, i would want to spend a lot of time on this.

 

(2) When do you like to discuss hands? Between rounds, between sessions, after the event, not at all?

 

Never, ever between rounds. Only between sessions if to settle a point of disagreement or confusion that arose. Always after/before evetns.

 

(3) What kind of preempt style do you like? Do you frequently preempt on good hands opposite a passed partner? Do you like to preempt on five-card suits often?

 

Wacky not vul versus vul, light not vul versus vul, sound vul versus vul, not at all vul versus not vul. 2ND seat preempts always "good", third seat preemtps can be all over the place, even occassional opening hand. I preempt in five card suits not vul, and i have even once in a while preempted in four card ones (not very often, three times ever that i remember).

 

(4) What's your view about leads? If your side has bid and raised a suit, do you usually lead that suit? Do you prefer active or passive leads against non-obvious auctions?

 

I prefer active leads against imp games, i prefer passive leads against a lot of sound sounding bid mp games. I often lead the suit we bid, but not necessarily "usually".

 

(5) What kind of opening style do you prefer? Will you frequently upgrade shapely hands with few points to open at the one-level? Do you use losing trick count or zar points or the like in deciding whether to open?

 

I use ZAR points, i open shapely hands very lightly. I tend not to open balanced junk, but i do open all 13 hcp hands.

 

(6) What do you believe is the best way to practice? Do you like to bid a lot of hands (partnership bidding), play online, play at clubs, discuss system between sessions?

 

Partnership bidding, discuss system, review bridgebrowser hands, bid challenge the champ hands, and play online.

[han]

1) How good are you.

 

2) How much do you care about bridge.

[rogerclee]

1) Is this for matching up good players or matching up mediocre-okay ones?

 

2) I feel like putting something down about temper is probably good, except it has the fault that a grumpy person is pretty likely to lie about his grumpiness rating.

 

3) General aggressiveness, in terms of overcalling and competing.

[Rossoneri]

2) How much do you care about bridge.

Probably the most important question I would ask. I have had way too many partners drop out from lack of interest.

 

A few others:

What are your view on competitive bidding? Are you aggressive or passive in competing?

 

Where do you want to go for lunch/dinner before/after sessions?

[y66]

What are your goals?

 

What are you willing to do to achieve your goals?

 

What are your expectations for the partnership? At the table? Away from the table?

[TimG]

1) How good are you.

1) How good do your partners think you are?

 

Self ratings don't work so well!

[hrothgar]

There is a silly little sitcom called "How I met your Mother" which I dearly love.

 

At one point in time, "Barney" was explaining some of his rules for dating. He noted that there is a trade off between "Hotness" and "Crazy". If a woman were sufficiently hot, you'd be willing to accept significantly more "crazy"... Still, there is some line beyond which one should not pass.

 

Needless to say, this thresh hold is different for each inidividual.

 

I suspect that the same dyamic applies to bridge. However, rather than measuring Hotness v Crazy, the relevant dimensions are

 

1. Asshole

2. Bridge skill

 

Simply put, are you willing to play with a complete and utter asshole if he can execute steping stone squeezes in his sleep?

[finally17]

Off the top of my head:

 

a) How strictly do you enforce the rules?

--Some people get quite bothered when their partners ignore setting and opps and call the director for the slightest infraction.

 

b ) Have you lost regular partners before for compatibility reasons?

--True, folks might not answer this honestly.

 

c) How often do you like to try new systems/gadgets?

--This is sort of a subquestion of "how much emphasis do you place on system..." I think system is very important, but there's a strong difference between discussion/fleshing existing things out, and constantly changing it up. I can't stand playing with one good friend of mine, only because he insists on changing things up every time we play. I don't even get used to handling something the way we agreed the previous week, and now next week we're scrapping it for something else.

 

d) What's your view on masterpoints?

--For me, this will tell a lot about a partner that I want to know.

 

e) What's your view on "playing up"?

--Obviously, this doesn't apply to people who can't.

[pclayton]

Hi! I'm a Cancer. Must love dogs.

[JanM]

I think that this is part of "what are your goals" but at some levels at least it's relevant:

What tournaments do you want to play at, and what events do you want to play in.

 

For example, there's going to be a lot of stress if one player prefers to play only in (forgive me for this) "real events" at NABCs and the other wants to play every day even if that means playing in a Regional zoo after getting eliminated from the Blue Ribbon Pairs. I've also seen partnerships break up because one player wanted to go to all the NABCs and the other didn't.

 

Finally, what makes a good partnership is very hard to judge. Having done well with the same partner is sometimes a relevant guideline but not always. Having done well with someone with whom your proposed partner also did well usually isn't (don't ask me why).

 

Having been married to the same woman is clearly the best predictor for a good partnership (Kaplan-Sheinwold, Woolsey-Robinson, Martel-Stansby, Lawrence-Stansby, I'm sure there are others). <_<

[Apollo81]

In rough order of most to least important (with unlisted things being less important)

 

(1) availability (how often, what events)

(2) skill level

(3) table demeanor

(4) desired system complexity / flexibility

(5) hand discussion (frequency, duration, when?)

 

You may or may not be able to find out (2) and (3) before playing with the person. I think you need all of these things to work out for a successful partnership.

 

I don't think things like lead style, preempting style, etc. are important - I see a lot of working partnerships where the two people are really different in these aspects.

[pclayton]

Simply put, are you willing to play with a complete and utter asshole if he can execute steping stone squeezes in his sleep?

No.

[pclayton]

Here's my hot buttons.

 

1. System is important, but it can't take on a life of its own. If we aren't spending at least 70% of our discussion time on things like carding and competitive bidding, we aren't going to last.

 

2. We have to be at least similar in skill. If I'm a lot better, I'll get frustrated and v.v..

 

3. My bridge partner must be a male (Kimi's rule).

 

4. My partner will never side with our opponents over me. This is a major character flaw IMO. If my pard feels strongly about a situation, he shall wait until we are away from the table.

 

5. Post morteming is a related to the importance of the match / event. The more important the match, the less we chit chat. In a club game or meaningless online play, I expect us to discuss the hands, since this is how we grow together.

 

6. My partner will be among the most ethical people in the room.

 

7. Tournaments are important, but frequently the best partners you can get have lives beyond bridge. This is something you accept and hopefully you have more than one serious partner.

 

8. My partner must have good hygiene (don't laugh, this has been an issue).

 

9. Our goals have to be compatible.

 

10. My partner must have a good sense of humor. This might be more important than the other 9.

[mikeh]

While not completely on point re the OP:

 

 

I like Phil's list but would add:

 

1. We must either already be good friends or at least be friendly.. we will become very good friends if the partnership is to prosper

 

2. I am more into system than Phil is, from the sounds of it. But part of that is that I include carding and competitive bidding as 'system': the partnership notes from my longest and most successful partnership have 16 chapters, with defensive carding having its own chapter as does our treatment of our overcall structure, with extensive notes elsewhere on how we deal with their competition.

 

3. My ideal partner is a bad but avid golfer... I have spent a number of enjoyable rounds of golf during which we discuss method while getting some exercise <_<

 

4. So far, I have been fortunate not to have personal hygiene as an issue B)

[mycroft]

When sitting down pickup or fill-in, I want four answers:

 

1) Basic system?

2) What is your preempting style?

3) What do you play over opponents' NT?

4) Carding?

 

If I have time, I'll ask about Blackwood (as for some reason pickup partners will always bid 4NT - is that the only way to bid slams?) and 2NT over weak 2s. I can drop 1) and 4) if necessary - around here, if I know you, we're playing Western 2/1, if I don't, probably SA, and if we don't agree, we're playing standard carding.

 

Clearly, the OP is talking about long-term compatibility, in which case, yeah: how gadgety you want it, how much you work at it outside of games (and what you want to work on), and general goal of the partnership seem to be the important ones. Of course, if you yell at me at the table, I'll stop playing; if everything is my fault, then I'm not good enough for you, sorry, go find another partner (Try Hamman or Wolff - they never make mistakes, right?); if you're going to embarrass me in front of the opponents, I can find something else to do.

 

Of course, I'm more interested in my life, my directing, my work, and my other games (and doing well, and having fun) than winning the Spingold right now. My asshole/bridge skill ratio might change a bit if my first bridge goal was Win Something, Dammit.

 

Michael.

[awm]

Here are a few more:

 

(1) Do you smoke?

 

(2) What's your view on ethics? Do you prefer to go as far as possible with active ethics, or follow the letter of the law? (I guess cheat to the max is an option here too, but hopefully not one most people follow)

 

(3) What do you like to do between sessions? Take a nap in your room? Go out for an expensive meal? Play poker with friends? Discuss hands from the last session?

 

(4) How do you feel about psychs?

 

(5) How do you think it scores to let opponents play 1NT at MP? Do you usually try to balance them out of it on any excuse?

 

I'll mention that I have actually found the preempt/lead style thing an issue in some partnerships. Some people expect that if they bid a suit, partner will lead it, and get upset if you don't. Other people feel that you should always raise with support and then get upset if partner frequently blows a trick by leading away from an honor in the suit you raised.

[mikeh]

Here are a few more:

 

(1) Do you smoke?

 

(2) What's your view on ethics? Do you prefer to go as far as possible with active ethics, or follow the letter of the law? (I guess cheat to the max is an option here too, but hopefully not one most people follow)

 

(3) What do you like to do between sessions? Take a nap in your room? Go out for an expensive meal? Play poker with friends? Discuss hands from the last session?

 

(4) How do you feel about psychs?

 

(5) How do you think it scores to let opponents play 1NT at MP? Do you usually try to balance them out of it on any excuse?

 

I'll mention that I have actually found the preempt/lead style thing an issue in some partnerships. Some people expect that if they bid a suit, partner will lead it, and get upset if you don't. Other people feel that you should always raise with support and then get upset if partner frequently blows a trick by leading away from an honor in the suit you raised.

(1): if you do smoke, what are you smoking? If it is anything other than tobacco, don't do it during the game, before the game, or between sessions. This is a non-trivial issue in some circles :)

 

(2) Frankly, if you have to ask, the answer is don't play. Part of being friends is sharing a common approach to ethics, and I won't play with anyone with whom I am not at least on friendly terms. Bridge is important to me, but winning is NOT everything... my ability to look myself in the mirror in the mornng after a win (or a loss) is more important and it should be to partner as well.

 

(3) Playing an important event is WORK. I don't play for pay, but when I play an event that means something, I don't go out for expensive dinners and I don't want my partner to do so either. If we are playing a less-serious event, say a regional, then, yes, let's go have some fun between sessions. As for discussing hands, only if a problem arose that needs addressing before the next session.... of course, at a fun event, we are likely dining with a group and we are all telling stories.. but that's not a constructive partnership process.

 

(4) I don't know many serious players who routinely psyche. Maybe it's an age thing, but I don't think that I have even discussed psychic philosophy with any partner in the last decade.. we do psyche, but rarely and we surely have no agreements on it, other than common sense.

 

(5) I don't care about mps.. yes, I should, but I don't. My serious partnerships are all imp-oriented, and while we bid differently at mps, it's never a topic of serious discussion.

[awm]

Maybe I should clarify the ethics question. My point is a situation like:

 

Suppose your side makes some bid that you know is not alertable according to the alert regulations. But you're also aware that opponents may not expect the meaning you assigned to the bid. Do you alert? (good ACBL example is top+bottom cuebids)

 

Suppose your side uses a method that will be unexpected to most pairs, but you know that it's not a pre-alert according to the regulations (some examples include romex dynamic 1NT or overcall structure or an "intermediate" 1NT range like 13+ to 16). Do you pre-alert or no?

 

I think there are good players who answer these questions in either direction, and I wouldn't accuse anyone of being "unethical" for following the letter of the regulations.

[Finch]

Reading all the replies it becomes clear that the _real_ question is a meta-question:

 

"What is important to you in a bridge partnership?"

 

Some of the things people have put down here I really don't care about (e.g. I really don't mind if I play in a no-gadget or system-freaky partnership), some of them matter a lot.

 

So everyone's 'partnership compatibility' hotspots will be different, and the first thing to ask someone is what matters to them... only where their 'big deal' points are the same as yours do you have to start discussing what your opinions on them are.

[Gerben42]

(1) How much emphasis do you place on system? Do you like to play a lot of conventional bids and/or discuss a lot of sequences, or prefer only a general discussion and focus on card play?

 

Strangely the answer to this question is a function of the expectation. I can play a simple system but I want everything written down in a serious partnership. How else can I know what I play?

 

(2) When do you like to discuss hands? Between rounds, between sessions, after the event, not at all?

 

After sessions in short tourneys, if there are multiple days then after play finishes.

 

Never inbetween hands. More importantly I do NOT go into "who was right" discussions during the sessions. I don't care about who was right at this point. I care about the next hand.

 

(3) What do you like to do between sessions? Take a nap in your room? Go out for an expensive meal? Play poker with friends? Discuss hands from the last session?

 

Depends on the event. In the European Junior Teams I would just relax, drink tea, and not discuss bridge.

 

3. My bridge partner must be a male (Kimi's rule).

 

I don't think things like lead style, preempting style, etc. are important - I see a lot of working partnerships where the two people are really different in these aspects.

 

Agree. Just know what the other one is doing. Example: Fred & Brad.

[cherdano]

Reading all the replies it becomes clear that the _real_ question is a meta-question:

 

"What is important to you in a bridge partnership?"

 

Some of the things people have put down here I really don't care about (e.g. I really don't mind if I play in a no-gadget or system-freaky partnership), some of them matter a lot.

 

So everyone's 'partnership compatibility' hotspots will be different, and the first thing to ask someone is what matters to them... only where their 'big deal' points are the same as yours do you have to start discussing what your opinions on them are.

I like your point. I certainly don't understand how the aggressiveness in competing over 1N at white-white-MPs could be a partnership issue...

[Gerben42]

I like your point. I certainly don't understand how the aggressiveness in competing over 1N at white-white-MPs could be a partnership issue...

 

Well, I like partner to be disciplined, i.e. following a fixed strategy and stick to it. I do NOT like guessing games.

[the hog]

I suspect that the same dyamic applies to bridge.  However, rather than measuring Hotness v Crazy, the relevant dimensions are

 

1.  Asshole

2.  Bridge skill

 

Simply put, are you willing to play with a complete and utter asshole if he can execute steping stone squeezes in his sleep?

I have done. If you have read about Brother Herman in David Bird's books - he is modelled on a real life character whose nickname is even Herman, and yes he is an a'hole and yes he can execute stepping stone squeezes in his sleep.

Was it worth it? No! Too draining.