[kenberg]

matmat, on Aug 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

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]

Jlall, on Aug 26 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 26 2009, 04:25 AM, said:

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]

awm, on Aug 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

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.

[rbforster]

awm, on Aug 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

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.

...in which case you can play attitude leads, so that low is always from an honor and high is always a stiff or doubleton Makes it easy for partner to read without thinking too much.

[nigel_k]

This thread has provided me with excellent confirmation of my decision to earn a living developing software instead of playing bridge. Thanks everyone, especially Peter Gill.

[the hog]

PeterGill, on Aug 27 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

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

Ha Peter, I also played against Otvosi and Burgess. On one hand where Ptvosi put down a dummy that resembled nothing like he had shown in the auction, Burgess said, "Erwin, get your f*** face to the bare order drinks for everybody at this tablle and don't come back". The client was not even allowed to pull cards as dummy.

[Quantumcat]

Well, Burgess can be very rude. I was present on one occasion where he made a certain partner of his so upset she got up in the middle of the tournament and left the country, literally!

Anyway, a big part of getting good results with a client isn't only the managing of said client to get the best out of them. It is also knowing how to get the most out of the opponents. When you are experienced in knowing what sorts of mistakes they tend to do and in which circumstances, you know to take advantage of them (when it isn't obvious that they've made one yet - but you can see the circumstances are present) and to create the circumstances that will cause them to make these mistakes.

I think winning a club game is mostly about not making these mistakes yourself and taking full advantage of them at every opportunity from your opponents. I know a professional who plays with a really awful old lady that can hardly tell her diamonds from her hearts, yet he wins with her, and other partners, almost every time, even in quite good fields. He doesn't do well in real tournaments against real people and playing with very good partners, but he wins club games every time. I think it is due to what I said above.

[cherdanno]

awm, on Aug 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

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.

This makes sense to me at NT, where partner might have to find the switch to your 4-card suit. In fact, all my partners have found out about this the hard way

Against suit contracts, I don't agree. Usually when you lead passive, you are just assuming that declarer will have to lose his tricks to lose anyway, as long as we don't do silly things like leading from Kxx into his AQx.

[peachy]

Keep them happy. Happy people play better bridge while unhappy or nervous ones blunder excessively.
Then, play their card, however ridiculous the methods are. Until they ASK to be taught new methods and then go sparingly one step at a time over a long period of time.
Then, keep yourself happy, focused, and in a pro-mood (positive, no comments in the middle of the game) even after seeing the same type of mistake for the umpteenth time in one evening

I don't play pro, but I have seen some bad ones destroy the game or what there even was of it from the start, for some hopeless players.

[PeterGill]

Answering my 4SX question: matmat was 100% right - the pro on my left knew that his partner couldn't take tricks, so his 4S raise had to be based on something like 6160 shape - as it was. Eleven or 12 tricks were cold and the client took 10 or 11 of them without any problem, so I should have removed the Double. The point is that the 4S raise took on a different meaning from usual under the circumstances.

Regarding Adam's question about active leads: I tend to lead fairly actively when playing with clients, but I'm not sure that your point is that good. I think passive leads have more to gain when declarer is a poor player, as putting such a player in charge of his destiny is OK. To me, the standard of declarer has more to do with the active/passive choice of leads than the standard of one's partner.

The earlier point that the pro must own up to his mistakes is a good point - this can have a calming effect on partner that the errors aren't a one-way street.