Carrying a bad partner

[awm]

I've noticed a number of professional bridge players who are very good at carrying weak partners to reasonable results. It's interesting because I get comparable or better results when we are both playing with good partners (note that the pros I'm referring to are not at the elite level; they're people who play with "hopeless" partners on a regular basis for money), but I am nowhere near their level of ability in getting decent results out of very poor partners.

 

Anyway, I thought it'd be interesting to get some tips on how to carry a weak partner to a good finish. There obviously must be a lot of "tricks of the trade" which are different from the sorts of things we do to get good results with a strong partner.

[Fluffy]

I am not very good getting results with bad partners either, I am too used of relying on my partner I guess. But Dad is great doing so.

 

The key is not to let them make too much decisions. Also important is table presence, you have to make thiose 4/5 level decisions on your own, so you better taste what is going through the opponent's mind very well. Fit bids on a minor are generally a waste of time.

 

Card playing skills are also important, not the ones to make th 12th trick with a squeeze, it is the ones that let you make a partscore on a 4-3 fit that shoiuld go normally down 3. Or the ones that let you make an overtrick in 3NT with a suit wide open when 4 hearts is cold.

[P_Marlowe]

Another thing is most likely, that you need to develop an idea, which

agreements work, and which dont.

 

Most of the time, the players come from the same group, and those

groups have a set of agreements they play in a certain way.

 

You cant change their behaviour, you have to adopt, and cope with

the given set.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[csdenmark]

Completely agree with Fluffy. Ignore your partner except for courtesy comments.

 

I only want to add that you should be sure to be declarer nearly each of your declarer-games.

 

Disable all kinds of signalling. Rely on your cards and your best understanding of opps's bids.

[kenberg]

Any pro I would hire would have to be so good that I couldn't afford him, and I can't imagine anyone paying me to play with them. But if I try to imagine myself as the weak player in a pay for play situation I believe we will do best if we both accept the fact that he knows more than I do and then we get on with it. Go easy on the brilliant bids and defensive plays that I won't understand but otherwise treat me as a partner in good standing. It's what I do when playing with a partner that I think of as weaker than I am (who may of course have the reciprocal opinion of me). I think that masterminding in a pro-am partnership is just as destructive as it is in a partnership of equals.

 

Every time that I play a session of bridge I find, if I look back, that I made some errors, including embarrassing errors. Everyone does, the best players do it less often and less egregiously. You want to set the environment so that the weak player will do his best. That will be, I think, far more likely to bring success than hogging every hand and making every decision.

 

But then from what I have seen of Adam's posts I suspect he thinks pretty much along these lines and I gather he is saying it doesn't work so well. I still wouldn't change. There is only so much that I am willing to do for money.

 

Example: Last week I played in a two session regional open pairs. In a hopeless attempt to make 3H I went down 2 vul. No expert partner could have stopped me from making this stupid play. You have to either not play with me or accept that I might do such a thing and move on when it happens. Lacking such errors we might well have been first, but we still came in well ahead of a pro and his partner.

[Phil]

Let's assume this is an average afternoon club or sectional pairs game. Regionals are slightly better and NABC's are a different kettle of fish.

 

The most important thing you could so is to limit your own mistakes to 1-2 per session. That should go without saying, but in all the action, its easy to overlook the importance of this.

 

Whatever tactics you want to try have to be considered within the skill level of your client. I've embarrassed myself pulling stunts with good partners and I've also suffered through sessions with new clients whose skill level I thought was better, only to let them blow hand after hand, since I gave them too much latitude. So, just being able to understand your partner's level is very important. This means being very aware of what partner does on the first few boards and not sleepwalking.

 

You also need to consider what the client is paying you for. If he/she wants to simply play with a nice player and doesn't care about results (spoiler: they all do) you don't have to do much. If they want to win, you might need to adjust your game.

 

If the client is there to really learn, and tells you this, don't hand hog, and spend a lot of time after the session discussing the hands and the decisions they made - good and bad. At the very least, I would also block out 15-20 minutes to go over at least two or three of the more interesting hands after the session.

 

So, the following tactics should be taken with the above in mind:

 

1. Try to limit yourself being the dummy. This doesn't mean trying to hand hog all the time, but it may mean letting the opponents play the hand. While you might have bid the hand successfully, you have no effect on the result when you are turning cards.

For awhile I tracked my results and there seemed to be a correlation between the amount of time I was dummy and our score.

 

2. When you do put down a dummy, makes sure its the NUTS. Putting down a marginal dummy puts pressure on a weak player. Underbid a little if you need to.

 

3. If you have a choice between overcalling and doubling, overcall. When you have the choice between overcalling 1N and doubling, overcall 1N.

 

4. Understand that even with a good client, you need to take control on defense if you know what's going on and you can't trust them to get it right. This is usually good advice playing with a good partner, but its critical with clients.

 

5. Keep it simple, stupid. Even with a good partner. Before the next round, you can discuss the forcing pass or the delayed splinter you wanted to make, but didn't.

 

6. Keep them relaxed and make it fun. Don't spend a lot of time talking about bridge in the down time. Never criticize. Don't even make faces. When I started doing this part time a few years ago, this was very difficult for me, because most bridge players have an immediate negative reaction to horrible plays. But once you get used to the ridiculous happening, the anger eventually goes away after awhile, because you've seen everything, so it doesn't bother you.

 

7. If you do make a mistake, admit it, or at least confess you had a tough decision. I have spoken to other pros about this, and most never admit their mistakes, because the client usually doesn't even see it. I have found that if you do this, it takes a lot of pressure off them, and they generally play better as a result. I've always done this with my partners and I have never seen any reason to stop.

 

8. Help them out as much as possible. Make the marginal overcall if its going to help them make a better opening lead.

 

9. I think in an old post I discussed playing with my Dad. All of the above was taken to a ridiculous extreme. Most auctions would be three or four bids at the most. I think we were 57%.

 

10. And yes, Adam, I would stretch my ranges for 1N and 2N, but only with my very weak partners, but this didn't happen as much as one might think.

[awm]

It may be worth mentioning that I don't think anyone posting to BBF is a "bad player" to the degree of the people I'm referring to in this post. Even the weakest players on BBF have a genuine interest in learning and improving their game, and if they hired a pro they'd want someone who plays a really solid but "normal" game and goes over hands with them afterwards. The folks this post is about are hiring pros so that they can win the local club duplicate or get life master or something, and have generally no clue what is going on at the table, etc. Here the pro's goal is to optimize results, not to play high quality "normal bridge."

 

Honestly I'm okay at playing solid "normal bridge" despite my tendency to make weird psychic calls and think that fourth suit forcing applies in GF auctions. But this is not the way to win with these folks. There is pretty solid evidence that I'm not making substantially "more mistakes per session" than these pros do; that's simply not the way to a winning game with these really bad partners.

[fred]

IMO Phil's post is very good. In fact, it is so good that if I had a friend looking for a pro in his area, I would recommend him without reservation :)

 

Especially important in my experience is Phil's point 6:

 

6) Keep them relaxed and make it fun. Don't spend a lot of time talking about bridge in the down time. Never criticize. Don't even make faces.

 

For most very weak players that I have encountered, there is a big difference between "their best game" and "their worst game". If they bring their worst game to the table, you basically have no chance regardless of what you do or how well you play. But if you can get them to play close to their best, most weak players are sufficiently "managable" that it is very possible to score well.

 

The key to doing this is making them feel as comfortable and as confident as possible at the table. The key to doing that is Phil's point 6. Some of the other points he makes (like "keep it simple") are also important in this regard.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

My exposures to this is limited, but I'm guessing I would fit into Adam's category, since I have played "pro" before, but not anywhere near an elite level.

 

I pretty much agree with all of Phil's points. Here are a few more that come to my mind.

 

1. Play the system your partner is most comfortable with. If anything, suggest to play something more basic. You really want your partner focusing on the basics and not on trying to remember a fancy convention. (This advice can extend to other new partnerships, but it may take out some of the enjoyment as well.)

 

2. Try to avoid auctions that rely on subtleties. Perhaps the right bid with your regular partner is a cuebid at the 5-level, so that partner can identify your problem for not bidding keycard. Just take the bull by the horns and bid keycard and hope you are doing the right thing. The client feels relieved when you take control of the auction.

 

3. I would go a step beyond Phil's point 6. and say try to find points where you can encourage your partner. Tell them their play or bid was good where possible. Obviously you have to use some judgment here, but building their confidence helps a lot.

[kenberg]

I think I now have a picture of the player you are speaking of. Many years ago I was playing with a woman who opened one club on a two card holding. This was not because we had agreed to do that but rather because she had 4=4=2=2 distribution, could not recall what she was supposed to do with such a hand, and so just did the best she could. I don't have any real suggestions here.

[jocdelevat]

IMHO as a b/i if is neecesary to hire a pro for learn, tournament or even for fun and I see him doesn't let me be declerer I for sure give up on his services. I see the declerer play as the most interesed part of the game and for that reason I like the game. I have some b/i partners that like to say "oh i hate to play nt contracts" and do not understand them. Whats the fun of the game for you a b/i with not much knowledge about biding and defense? The answer should always be declerer play. If you do not like that why do you play the game.

[Phil]

3. I would go a step beyond Phil's point 6. and say try to find points where you can encourage your partner. Tell them their play or bid was good where possible. Obviously you have to use some judgment here, but building their confidence helps a lot.

True, but there is a fine line between complimenting your partner and patronizing them. Still, one pro I know admits to taking a patronizing attitude because that's what they think people are paying for.

 

Most people that are wealthy enough to hire a pro have already been successful in the business world, or have been associated with someone that is. Their people skills are finely developed and they know when someone is sucking up.

 

It's annoying to the opponents when you are complimenting partner on every other hand. If your partner is good enough to make the right play a lot, they won't need the attaboys.

 

When they do make a very nice play, you can congratulate them. It will sound genuine (because it is) and it won't be clouded by the fact you gave them the same compliment when they took a finesse on the last hand.

 

Sometimes, they will be having a dismal session and you need to look for places to compliment them for anything.

 

My dad who ran a retail store for 35 years used to say, 'compliment in public; criticize in private".

[Jlall]

The key is not to let them make too much decisions.

Exactly. It's that simple.

 

Similarly on defense you defend for both players, and avoid having them make decisions by doing them yourself or making clear signals. I once jokingly said that I would never pitch a 5,6, or 7 no matter what.

[Echognome]

3. I would go a step beyond Phil's point 6. and say try to find points where you can encourage your partner.  Tell them their play or bid was good where possible.  Obviously you have to use some judgment here, but building their confidence helps a lot.

True, but there is a fine line between complimenting your partner and patronizing them. Still, one pro I know admits to taking a patronizing attitude because that's what they think people are paying for.

 

Most people that are wealthy enough to hire a pro have already been successful in the business world, or have been associated with someone that is. Their people skills are finely developed and they know when someone is sucking up.

 

It's annoying to the opponents when you are complimenting partner on every other hand. If your partner is good enough to make the right play a lot, they won't need the attaboys.

 

When they do make a very nice play, you can congratulate them. It will sound genuine (because it is) and it won't be clouded by the fact you gave them the same compliment when they took a finesse on the last hand.

 

Sometimes, they will be having a dismal session and you need to look for places to compliment them for anything.

 

My dad who ran a retail store for 35 years used to say, 'compliment in public; criticize in private".

Exactly why I included the bolded part. :)

[matmat]

didn't SJ Simon nail this topic with the Unlucky Expert?

[Fluffy]

7. If you do make a mistake, admit it, or at least confess you had a tough decision. I have spoken to other pros about this, and most never admit their mistakes, because the client usually doesn't even see it. I have found that if you do this, it takes a lot of pressure off them, and they generally play better as a result. I've always done this with my partners and I have never seen any reason to stop.

When I started as pro this didn't help much, I didn't have the name I have now, and a couple of clients ended up thinking I wasn't worth it.

 

I now have a greater name in my country, I also make less mistakes than I did before. And my clients enjoy that I admit my mistakes. So it works, but if it is not your own day you might want to hide them.

[PeterGill]

There are two types of pro bridge. The first type, which most of this thread

has concentrated on, is about doing well with an OK (or even a good) player.

That's my field of expertise - since becoming a pro bridge player in 2002,

I've won at least 13 Nationals partnered by a client. However, I am far from

the most successful pro at club games here in Sydney- that would be

Ishmael Delmonte by a long way. And that is what awm's second post asked us - how to do well at club games with a genuinely bad partner.

 

So my answer has to be based on what Ish does that I do not do.

Here's a sample - space does not permit a full answer:

 

Ish's successful style in club games with bad partners seems to me to be:

1. Bid a lot. And bid even more if not vul. Especially early in the auction.

2. At favourable vulnerability, open very light at the one level, on about 8 or 9 points if you have a decent suit. If you preempt, you hand captaincy of the auction to partner. If you open at the one level, you retain some captaincy.

3. Against most opponents, open your worse minor if you plan to rebid 3NT.

Ditto if responding 2C or 2D to 1M, planning to rebid 2NT or 3NT.

4. Use deceptive plays and bids freely. This partner is less likely to be fooled than an expert partner would be.

5. If there is a good player on your left, then in 3rd seat not vul you open 2NT

a lot. For example, x, K, AK109xxx, xxxx (earlier this week by Ish with me on his left) is ideal. Most opponents have no major two-suited bid against a 2NT opening.

The idea is that the good player might end up playing 4H or 4S well, so your par is 35% unless you are active. This swings the odds in favour of creative activity.

6. If the opponents compete to the 5 level (especially at fav vul, when they don't have their bid), simply Dbl and take about three good scores for every one bad score, unless you have extreme shape. Dbl is even more important if partner would declare your contract. The rationale is that you cannot tell what partner has, so you base your Dbl on the likelihood that opponents will often not have their bid.

7. Do not be afraid to risk scoring a bottom. You will get more tops to compensate.

8. By creating action, you create more tops than bottoms for your side.

 

I cannot use this style in the club games because I play Nationals with my club

game partners and thus Phil's point (6) is the key for me. Ish tends to play Nationals with other pros, so this is less of a concern for him. An alternative view is that I cannot play Ish's style because I am not good at it. Nerves of steel are a pre-requisite.

 

Back in 1995, Ish told me that pros should not hog hands, but they should bid in such a way as to maximise the utilization of the available declarer play resources. For example, if your declarer play is much better than partner's, then all possible 1NT openings should be opened 1NT. If the difference between your declarer play and partner's is smaller, then you only upgrade the suitable 14 counts.

 

Not changing the topic: About 20 years ago, super-pro Stephen Burgess was playing with a truly bad client against me. Stephen never let his partner play a hand, because the client's declarer play was truly terrible. Both vul, 1S by the client, Dbl by me on Ax, KQxx, J9xx, A10x, 4S by Stephen, Dbl by my partner. Your call?

 

Peter Gill

Sydney Australia

[pooltuna]

Not changing the topic: About 20 years ago, super-pro Stephen Burgess was playing with a truly bad client against me. Stephen never let his partner play a hand, because the client's declarer play was truly terrible. Both vul, 1S by the client, Dbl by me on Ax, KQxx, J9xx, A10x, 4S by Stephen, Dbl by my partner. Your call?

 

Peter Gill

Sydney Australia

Since you really have no clue what your LHO is doing and certainly no other clear option why guess? Pass partner's double

[matmat]

Not changing the topic: About 20 years ago, super-pro Stephen Burgess was playing with a truly bad client against me. Stephen never let his partner play a hand, because the client's declarer play was truly terrible. Both vul, 1S by the client, Dbl by me on Ax, KQxx, J9xx, A10x, 4S by Stephen, Dbl by my partner. Your call?

 

Peter Gill

Sydney Australia

Since you really have no clue what your LHO is doing and certainly no other clear option why guess? Pass partner's double

because it is making. Run Like Hell

 

 

Btw, it seems to me that some of the things listed above borders on unethical

[helene_t]

I am very bad a playing with weaker partners. In particular I find it very difficult to play 4NT is always blackwood and all cues and most dbls are undefined. I always hog the hand too much.

 

I have improved in terms of admitting my own mistakes, though, and in terms of not complaining too much about partner's mistakes.

[kenberg]

 

 

Btw, it seems to me that some of the things listed above borders on unethical

"Borderline" suggests that there might be an argument justifying it. I don't believe this to be true.

 

I will comment on the style, which of couse I have encountered. I refer to no specific player.

 

I once had a partner who got the idea it was clever to frequently open 1S in third position when he was not holding spades. I told him he had to stop or else I had to start alerting the bid. Probably pre-alerting would be required but he stopped doing it so I don't know the exact rules. Now if a guy wants to occasionally psych, I can't say that I think much of a pro doing it at a club game but it's legal. If a guy regularly opens the minor he doesn't have and regularly opens 2NT when he doesn't have a 2NT bid it appears that we have an undisclosed agreement about the bidding structure, including an agreement that the two players will bid in substantially different ways, going well beyond the usual "style" variations. That they have not explicitly discussed this is irrelevant.

 

I just don't understand it. A guy with considerable talent for a fascinating game decides to squander his talent making a mockery of the game. An intelligent person can always find a way to make money, even lots of money if that is a big item for him, but why this way? Yuk.

[Phil]

The key is not to let them make too much decisions.

Exactly. It's that simple.

 

Similarly on defense you defend for both players, and avoid having them make decisions by doing them yourself or making clear signals. I once jokingly said that I would never pitch a 5,6, or 7 no matter what.

Wow, that easy. Who knew?

[NickRW]

Some partners are, unfortunately, so utterly awful that no amount of skill on your part will do much to help - probably the best thing you can do is tell them the truth and suggest some lessons or recommend a good book.

 

On the subject of masterminding - obviously with the worse ones you have to do anything reasonably in your power to hopefully stop them from declaring - if this is not possible underbid. But with reasonable partners, the problem reverses itself - they know you're better and try to engineer things so that you're the declarer - this is all very well if they can exercise some reasonable judgement - but with some they end up putting you in an inferior contract when you'd have stood better chances with them playing the normal contract. Your people skills come in handy here - partner needs reassurance that they're actually OK and to play their normal game.

 

Nick

[awm]

Here's a candidate; let me know what you think.

 

You're going to end up on defense at least some of the time. In this situation with a weak partner, it's probably right to make active leads (away from honors) virtually all the time. The reasoning is that while passive leads can certainly be winners (especially at MP) they often require partner to figure out the right switch later in the hand when he gains the lead. A bad partner is not very likely to get this right. If an active lead is right, then partner usually will be right to just return the suit when he gets in, which is what bad partners tend to do sort of automatically on defense anyway.

[Phil]

Here's a candidate; let me know what you think.

 

You're going to end up on defense at least some of the time. In this situation with a weak partner, it's probably right to make active leads (away from honors) virtually all the time. The reasoning is that while passive leads can certainly be winners (especially at MP) they often require partner to figure out the right switch later in the hand when he gains the lead. A bad partner is not very likely to get this right. If an active lead is right, then partner usually will be right to just return the suit when he gets in, which is what bad partners tend to do sort of automatically on defense anyway.

I think its hard to generalize on matters like opening leads.

 

As long as you have the policy, "try to follow my indicated defense unless you have a reason not to", thats usually enough.