[mikl_plkcc]

I started playing bridge when I was in secondary school in about 2008, when I was introduced to the game in an informal environment where my teammates in Informatics Olympiad training sessions played bridge during breaks, and joined the bridge club in my school afterwards.

I had a regular partner before the GCSE but he didn't qualify for matriculation, since then I lost my regular partner. We played a few inter-school tournaments but we didn't have good results. After I entered university, I continued to play in the bridge club, but I never obtained a regular partner (since my partner in the past failed academically and couldn't enter university) and the good players there had regular partnerships since the beginning.

I played regularly until about a year after graduation, about 2017, when I picked up other interests which, combined with a miserable long commute, meant that I no longer put time in the game.

I returned to the game for a few months in 2021 when I was at a career break, but stopped afterwards after I got a job again, and only decided to go back to it January this year.

I joined a local club which offers IMP pairs sessions at a schedule when I can go regularly every week, and subscribed the membership at my very first visit. I obtained a regular partner at my third week attending the regular IMP pairs session, and as a start, I hope to improve to the level of breaking even in the club.

My result in the 5 club sessions I attended was:
-19.67/26
-44.50/26
-6.20/27 (the first session I got my current partner)
-54.22/27
-43.88/27

We have now got into our third week and we haven't yet got all our agreements completed, especially in the NT auction, and to a small extent, the suit auction as well.

This post is not to discuss about pros / cons of various treatments and conventions but, although we all play 5-card majors and strong NT as the basic system, there are so many treatments and conventions that we use differently, and something that I haven't even heard of.

For example, I play reverse Bergen raise as 1H-3C = 9-12 4-card support and 1H-3D = 6-8 4-card support but he plays 1H-3C = 10-12 3-card support and 1H-3D = 8-11 4-card support, which is a totally different convention because it involves going to the 3-level with 3-card support only, and we haven't even gone over all of the possible 1NT opening sequences yet.

In particular, I never opened 1NT with a 5-card major and had defined sequences to find all 5-4, 5-5 or 6-4 distributions by the responder that a fit is guaranteed to be found in an uncontested auction, but his style is to open 1NT with suitable hands containing a 5-card major, which requires a complete re-discussion how to find all possible 5-3 fits both way, and we haven't even gone through it yet. We hadn't even have an agreement if the opponent's 1NT opening defence was applicable to opponent's 1NT natural overcall as well, and it appeared at one hand which resulted me having no clue of how to bid.

Going back to our problems. During the last three weeks, we cocked up so many times about our conventions and misjudged a lot of hands, and about 70% of our bad boards were our bidding mistakes, another 20% were our opponents found their best contracts where no one else got to, and the final 10% were from our bad play.

Examples of conventions cock up include last week, when partner thought that my 2C bid was Drury when we hadn't got an agreement yet, and I forgot that my 2C bid was Drury after we made an agreement on that, and afterwards we decided to dump that convention as it is incompatible with Bergen raise and don't use anything different at the 3rd seat. And this week, we agreed to use Checkback Stayman because my partner usually played that and I agreed it was useful, and he forgot it twice that my 2C bid was Checkback Stayman.

And examples of bidding misjudgments include various examples I posted here, like both partners upgrading hands ending up in a bad 3NT, both partners didn't show enough values resulting in missing a game.

In competitive auctions, our misjudgements included competing to the 3-level with only 8 trumps when partner thought he had extra and went down afterwards when their 2S wouldn't make, or conversely, we didn't compete to the 3-level with only 8 trumps letting them making their 2S, while every other table was pushed to 3S-1.

I am talking at the club level only. Last week and this week were the club qualifier for the regionals, where those getting 55% or above (the IMP equivalent would be about three quarters per board) would get qualified to represent our club in the regionals. However, we were so bad that we weren't anywhere near break even in our club, so anything more than that was a pipe dream.

How hard actually is it to break even at a club game. Given my description above, what should we work on to achieve the break even point in the club?

[jillybean]

This sounds like a typical club game for a new partnership, newer players.
I'm interested, where in the world are you playing? IMP pairs is unusual in the club games I play.

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry if this is too blunt, but please understand that this is meant as constructive advice.

To me it sounds like both you and your partner are carrying around a lot of mistaken ideas of partnership agreements. You've mentioned bidding conventions only, and I imagine your views might also misalign on other parts of the game. What's more, the conventions that you've offered in this thread about Reverse Bergen and your 1NT system don't sound particularly good to me. I evaluate conventions by several criteria (most of them copied directly from Larry Cohen, but they are pretty self-explanatory regardless of origins): frequency, profit when it comes up (versus cost of what we can now no longer show with the same bid), and cost when we mess it up. A partnership doesn't really get to -40 IMPs over 27 boards without making some costly mistakes, and if it happens multiple times in a few weeks that suggests that you are struggling in high cost, high frequency situations.

What I would do is simplify your agreements as much as possible. Throw away as many conventions as you can, and ask other players at the club or online how they like to play. Most of all, be open to advice from other players, especially if it disagrees with something you already know. Simplify, and don't allow conventions back in until you've had to pay up for not having them available.

If it would help, I have a partnership checklist for substitute partners. It takes me around 15-20 minutes to go through that with someone, and it covers the situations I find most important. By implication, anything not on there is less vital. Might it be a welcome idea to have a look at that?

[akwoo]

You're too worried about having the perfect conventions. A convention that is 85% good that both of you agree to and understand and play correctly is better than a 100% good convention.

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-16, 14:22, said:

For example, I play reverse Bergen raise as 1H-3C = 9-12 4-card support and 1H-3D = 6-8 4-card support but he plays 1H-3C = 10-12 3-card support and 1H-3D = 8-11 4-card support, which is a totally different convention because it involves going to the 3-level with 3-card support only, and we haven't even gone over all of the possible 1NT opening sequences yet.

Pick one. Play it. If your partner insists on playing theirs, that will work fine - sure sometimes you will be at the 3-level with 3 card support, going down - but that happens rarely, and a happy partner is worth more than that difference.

Quote

In particular, I never opened 1NT with a 5-card major and had defined sequences to find all 5-4, 5-5 or 6-4 distributions by the responder that a fit is guaranteed to be found in an uncontested auction, but his style is to open 1NT with suitable hands containing a 5-card major, which requires a complete re-discussion how to find all possible 5-3 fits both way, and we haven't even gone through it yet. We hadn't even have an agreement if the opponent's 1NT opening defence was applicable to opponent's 1NT natural overcall as well, and it appeared at one hand which resulted me having no clue of how to bid.

Don't worry about the 5-3 fits. If your partner wants to open 1N with 5 card majors, you'll probably sometimes end up in 3N when you have a 5-3 fit in a major. That's not a big deal. Sometimes even 3N makes and 4M doesn't. (I don't have a system for finding 5-3 fits after opener opens 1N with 5 in a major, we sometimes play 5-3 fits in 3N, and we do well enough.)

If you don't have an agreement, then it's natural. Make the bid that you think partner will understand, not the bid that you think is objectively correct, whatever that means.

Quote

Going back to our problems. During the last three weeks, we cocked up so many times about our conventions and misjudged a lot of hands, and about 70% of our bad boards were our bidding mistakes, another 20% were our opponents found their best contracts where no one else got to, and the final 10% were from our bad play.

You don't need more conventions. You need better judgement.

Also, I rather suspect that you lost a lot more in the play than you think.

Quote

Examples of conventions cock up include last week, when partner thought that my 2C bid was Drury when we hadn't got an agreement yet, and I forgot that my 2C bid was Drury after we made an agreement on that, and afterwards we decided to dump that convention as it is incompatible with Bergen raise and don't use anything different at the 3rd seat. And this week, we agreed to use Checkback Stayman because my partner usually played that and I agreed it was useful, and he forgot it twice that my 2C bid was Checkback Stayman.

If you can't remember a convention, don't play it.

Quote

How hard actually is it to break even at a club game. Given my description above, what should we work on to achieve the break even point in the club?

It really depends on the level of the club. I've definitely played in clubs where -40 IMPs in a session for a pair of intermediates would be about the expected result. (In that club, half the players regularly qualify for the second day of national events.) I've also played in clubs where almost everyone was a beginner (although some of the "beginners" had played for many years but never gotten better).

As for what to work on, I would suggest you work on card play, and particularly defense. IMPs is won by not letting opponents make games that should go down. I suspect you're not even noticing some of your defensive errors. For bidding, I would suggest you simplify, and, in particular, not worry about getting to exactly the right spot on every hand but rather just try to get to a reasonable spot.

[mycroft]

I'm a system wonk. I think everyone knows this. So is AKWoo. So is DavidKok, at least to a certain extent.

I will reiterate one of their basic statements: "you're almost certainly playing too many conventions. If you don't understand it, don't play it. If partner doesn't understand it, don't play it. If you have different understandings, don't play it until you resolve how the partnership is going to play it (which could be never!) And finally (and most importantly), if you don't understand *why* you're playing it, don't play it."

Work on defensive agreements. Know your carding and signals. Know what situations call for what kind of signal, and when you won't/don't need to pass that signal, and what your signal will mean if you both know "this isn't priority one signal". READ YOUR PARTNER'S SIGNALS, and work out why they would say that, and whether it changes your defence (to the next trick or later). This is hard work.

In general, work on your defence. Work on mapping out the hand, where tricks can come from, where declarer's tricks will come from and whether you can stymie that. You can't do that on your own, which is where carding and signalling above come in. It's the hardest part of the game; but satisfying when you get it right (and very satisfying when others with your cards get it wrong!)

Bid your games and slams, and make what you bid. That's just IMP tactics, but it's easier to do for a newer player than matchpoints.

Work on declarer play. See JDiana's post on 2025 resolutions. This also will help you do the previous paragraph.

If you have full listings of contracts and scores (or if you're good enough to read the score and the hand diagram and guess the contract), look at your losses and see if they fall in "didn't bid enough", "bid too much", "didn't double", "didn't set it like others did" or "didn't make it, like others did". VERY LIKELY the last two are responsible for a large hit, 5 and 6 IMPs at a time. (Note that "the opponents were better than the rest of the room" is also a reason for a bad score, and, assuming you didn't help them, which can be subtle, you're stuck with those.)

Conventions are fun. Systems are fun. They can also help, if you know why you're doing what you're doing and can use the information the conventions provide (and the information *not using* the convention provides). But by and large, simplify and your game will get better, until you can recognize specifically where the simplification costs you.

[ETA: Preempts. Know precisely what your preempts have, in different positions and vulnerabilities. "6 cards and 6-11 HCP" isn't precise. Don't know how *I* of all people didn't mention this the first time. Thanks, Cyberyeti]

[mike777]

Thanks very helpful advice.
Going Monday and Tuesday for my third and fourth f2f games

Both Monday and Tuesday will be pick up partners. Will recommend your advice.

Just discovered a club only 16 minutes away, first time there..

Great advice ty guys.

[mw64ahw]

Evaluating strength and shape consistently and acurately is the starting point. Following on from this comes the understanding of how the two combine to give the picture of playing strength.

Once this point has been reached partner must be on the same wavelength and be able judge to what level a contract can be taken with/without competition. I'm an avid student of conventions (most of what I use are plagiarised and adapted), but these are a distraction until a few basic rules are learnt i.e. open with X, communicate initial support/strength as responder and then refine discussion. Understand the reason for slow versus fast arrival; fast arrival paints the picture succinctly, slow arrival leaves room for further communication. Set parameters and stick to them; moving past a barrier will mislead partner.

Now you may ready for conventions; these may initially be forgotten, but after one or two mistakes should sink in. A simple example is switching to Kap!an Inversion which swaps the meaning of 1♠ with 1N over 1♥ so that opener can show 5♥4♠. I have had new partners forget these initially, but it soon becomes 2nd nature. Don't overload yourself with conventions at the start of a new relationship; add one, play it well and then move onto the next. In some ways it is like learning a new language; you learn one or two and then subsequent ones become easier and if in doubt revert to natural. I play many conventions with regular partners, but limit this with pickup ones to a small set. At all times I aim to be systematic as possible.

Now opponents compete; this can create noise, but you need to interpret this noise and factor it into your bidding. Again factor in fast arrival versus slow arrival; immediate support is limiting, new suits, Xs (sometimes) and cue bids are continuing a conversation each with their own message.

I play The Overall Structure; one important lesson I learnt from the write-ups online is that it is not only important to know what a bid means, but also what it denies. Take for example Roman Jumps as described; they set a strength range, show 5+ of the lower ranked suit and 4+ of the higher ranked suit & deny interest in the unbid suit; with 55 the higher ranked suit will overcall with opening strength, otherwise the bid is pre-emptive and about playing strength.

Once basics are set any structure can evolve, but changing one piece can have influence in other areas.. You posted an auction in a previous post 2♣-2♦-3♦ to avoid a perceived flaw. Sort these out at a later stage (usually when slam bidding if there is space). If the flaw can't be resolved then I guess you'll have plenty of company and it then comes down to card play. That particular auction is horrible at the best of times and an area where my preferred system has evolved to show 4144 with primary ♦s folded into another structure to maximise bidding space.

You now have a perfect system and can reach the optimal contract. However, this does not prevent bottoms if other tables are sub-optimal. Taken the long road and a systematic approach will pay benefits; in a club field you will end up in the top quartile the majority of the time. This will stand you in good stead when the opposition is consistently stronger.

Going back to the original question-if you are consistently if only marginally better than your your competition you will over time average out at a plus score. This of course requires study and practice. With equal fields/attainment level expect an average unless psyches can swing the balance

[mikl_plkcc]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-16, 14:53, said:

I'm sorry if this is too blunt, but please understand that this is meant as constructive advice.

To me it sounds like both you and your partner are carrying around a lot of mistaken ideas of partnership agreements. You've mentioned bidding conventions only, and I imagine your views might also misalign on other parts of the game. What's more, the conventions that you've offered in this thread about Reverse Bergen and your 1NT system don't sound particularly good to me. I evaluate conventions by several criteria (most of them copied directly from Larry Cohen, but they are pretty self-explanatory regardless of origins): frequency, profit when it comes up (versus cost of what we can now no longer show with the same bid), and cost when we mess it up. A partnership doesn't really get to -40 IMPs over 27 boards without making some costly mistakes, and if it happens multiple times in a few weeks that suggests that you are struggling in high cost, high frequency situations.

What I would do is simplify your agreements as much as possible. Throw away as many conventions as you can, and ask other players at the club or online how they like to play. Most of all, be open to advice from other players, especially if it disagrees with something you already know. Simplify, and don't allow conventions back in until you've had to pay up for not having them available.

If it would help, I have a partnership checklist for substitute partners. It takes me around 15-20 minutes to go through that with someone, and it covers the situations I find most important. By implication, anything not on there is less vital. Might it be a welcome idea to have a look at that?

At the first week I came back to the game this year, my partnership checklist didn't contain a discussion of how to opening a hand with 25-27 HCP balanced (some open 3NT, some open 2C then 3NT). Then it came up.

Yesterday, I played a game as a visitor in another club and got matched with another single partner. She didn't know how to play 5-card major so I had to adjust to play 4-card major (my main problem with Acol is that I can't remember which 4-card suit to open if I have multiple of them and no 5-card suits. It is so complicated.). She got a hand with 9-card non-solid spade and a void, which we didn't discuss our style of preempting and we missed a cold slam. In another hand, she didn't understand what my 2S jump overcall after passing, I held 6=4=2=1 at that hand so I didn't want to lose a possible heart fit.

And what's the meaning if we bid an opponent's suit, when we have shown n suits and they have shown m suits? (Where m and n can be anywhere from 0-4)?

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-17, 03:53, said:

At the first week I came back to the game this year, my partnership checklist didn't contain a discussion of how to opening a hand with 25-27 HCP balanced (some open 3NT, some open 2C then 3NT). Then it came up.

Yesterday, I played a game as a visitor in another club and got matched with another single partner. She didn't know how to play 5-card major so I had to adjust to play 4-card major (my main problem with Acol is that I can't remember which 4-card suit to open if I have multiple of them and no 5-card suits. It is so complicated.). She got a hand with 9-card non-solid spade and a void, which we didn't discuss our style of preempting and we missed a cold slam. In another hand, she didn't understand what my 2C jump overcall after passing, I held 6=4=2=1 at that hand so I didn't want to lose a possible heart fit.

And what's the meaning if we bid an opponent's suit, when we have shown n suits and they have shown m suits? (Where m and n can be anywhere from 0-4)?

Playing with a pickup p is hard, bidding freaks is hard.
#1 missing a cold slam, happens, you did reach game? Did you have company?
#2 you did hold 6-4 majors, and did not open with a w2? sounds ok, I guess, I would open the w2 direct, but passing
and getting in later is not wrong.
The simpler auction is to open with a w2, and playing with a stranger, you should try to keep it simple, and it
depends on your view with regards to partners strength.
If an action taken by you did not turn out successful, next bord.

#3 Bidding the opponents suit is also a topic with various answers, depending on the seq. no right / no wrong.

Try to have fun, if you have fun playing with a specific player you can start to build a partnership, but you should first
find out, what their goals is with respect to playing bridge.

To be consistent successful focus on defence / card play, be patient.

[Cyberyeti]

Discussing things like what do your preempts look like, is first seat a gun preempting position or not will do a lot more for your score than complex conventions. Also talk about defence, how and when you signal.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-17, 03:53, said:

At the first week I came back to the game this year, my partnership checklist didn't contain a discussion of how to opening a hand with 25-27 HCP balanced (some open 3NT, some open 2C then 3NT). Then it came up.

Yesterday, I played a game as a visitor in another club and got matched with another single partner. She didn't know how to play 5-card major so I had to adjust to play 4-card major (my main problem with Acol is that I can't remember which 4-card suit to open if I have multiple of them and no 5-card suits. It is so complicated.). She got a hand with 9-card non-solid spade and a void, which we didn't discuss our style of preempting and we missed a cold slam. In another hand, she didn't understand what my 2C jump overcall after passing, I held 6=4=2=1 at that hand so I didn't want to lose a possible heart fit.

And what's the meaning if we bid an opponent's suit, when we have shown n suits and they have shown m suits? (Where m and n can be anywhere from 0-4)?

I face a similar issue when having to play Acol with pickup partners and generally play up the line, 1♥ with both Majors and with (4441) you need to think about what you want you 2nd and 3rd bids to be. This isn't the case for all Acol players, but these are the foundations. After that know how to bid the balanced 15-16/17 (notrump ladder) and then the remainder often flows freely.

Basic rules for 3-level preempts to be applied in a systematic way
FV 5 playing tricks
EV 6 playing tricks
UV 7 playing tricks
Know how to calculate playing tricks and you don't need anywhere near a solid suit. Slams are then based on trick taking potential. Don't stray outside this until understanding with partner is solid
Outside this consider upgrading to 4/downgrading to 2N

I had 2 potential preempts in a recent club session; one was a 3 pointer, FV which resulted in a makeable 4♠, the 2nd was an 8-pointer EV with ♥ which partner tried for the slam on. 'Mea culpa' I should have downgraded to a 2-level preempt as I went down 1.

A 2♣ jump overcall does not exist; I presume the cue-bid shows 55 in the Majors at a basic level, but this can be refined according to agreement including 6-4s but you need methods to resolve when partner has strength; do honours in the ♥ suit make up for the length deficiency. Can you open 1♠ using the Rule of 20, is 2♠ OK because your ♥ suit is rubbish. Is the ♠ suit good enough to bid 2♠ subsequently and if partner fails to bid do you have FOMO? The trick is to cycle through pluses and minuses before you bid. The other tricky point with this bid is that some players treat it as natural especially over a short ♣ opening.I

More generally if partner bids an opposition suit I take this as a flag to bid again, but this is not always the case at the 2-level. If previous bids have described your hand well then stay as low as possible; partner can decide what to do next.

[mikl_plkcc]

mw64ahw, on 2025-February-17, 07:18, said:

I face a similar issue when having to play Acol with pickup partners and generally play up the line, 1♥ with both Majors and with (4441) you need to think about what you want you 2nd and 3rd bids to be. This isn't the case for all Acol players, but these are the foundations. After that know how to bid the balanced 15-16/17 (notrump ladder) and then the remainder often flows freely.

Basic rules for 3-level preempts to be applied in a systematic way
FV 5 playing tricks
EV 6 playing tricks
UV 7 playing tricks
Know how to calculate playing tricks and you don't need anywhere near a solid suit. Slams are then based on trick taking potential. Don't stray outside this until understanding with partner is solid
Outside this consider upgrading to 4/downgrading to 2N

I had 2 potential preempts in a recent club session; one was a 3 pointer, FV which resulted in a makeable 4♠, the 2nd was an 8-pointer EV with ♥ which partner tried for the slam on. 'Mea culpa' I should have downgraded to a 2-level preempt as I went down 1.

A 2♣ jump overcall does not exist; I presume the cue-bid shows 55 in the Majors at a basic level, but this can be refined according to agreement including 6-4s but you need methods to resolve when partner has strength; do honours in the ♥ suit make up for the length deficiency. Can you open 1♠ using the Rule of 20, is 2♠ OK because your ♥ suit is rubbish. Is the ♠ suit good enough to bid 2♠ subsequently and if partner fails to bid do you have FOMO? The trick is to cycle through pluses and minuses before you bid. The other tricky point with this bid is that some players treat it as natural especially over a short ♣ opening.I

More generally if partner bids an opposition suit I take this as a flag to bid again, but this is not always the case at the 2-level. If previous bids have described your hand well then stay as low as possible; partner can decide what to do next.

Sorry, I mistyped. I didn't open holding 6=4 in the majors but overcalled 2♠ after the 4th seat opened 1 of a minor.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-17, 08:58, said:

Sorry, I mistyped. I didn't open holding 6=4 in the majors but overcalled 2♠ after the 4th seat opened 1 of a minor.

I read that you had passed first off.

[awm]

Of course there is no right answer to this, as it will depend a lot on the strength of the club field and the players asking the question. However, while we all know people who play at the club regularly and almost never break average, these people are not normally young(ish) players with regular partners who are trying to improve. Keep in mind that a pair that's average for the field should end up positive (at IMPs) roughly half the time, so if you're doing quite a bit worse than this (and these -40 IMP scores are pretty bad in a 27 board game) your pair is probably worse than average for the field. Of course you can improve, although diagnosing the specific problem may require an honest review of results. There are people on these forums who can help if you approach it from a perspective of really trying to learn rather than just "prove partner wrong."

Anyway, there are a few tips I can give:

1. In a regular partnership, you should average less than one system forget or misunderstanding per session. If you're above this number (as it sounds like you are from your post), you need to discuss with partner more, simplify your system, or practice until you both have it down (or ideally all three). Bidding practice on BBO or the Cuebids app can help with this. I also recommend writing down your agreements somewhere (so that both you and partner can review them before play).
2. Overall, conventions and system really do not matter very much assuming you and partner are consistently on the same page. Yes, better methods can win you a few IMPs here and there, but it's not going to be 40 in 27 boards. Your problem is elsewhere.
3. It's surprising that you can be this consistently negative if your (and partner's) play and defence are average for the field that you're in. I guess its possible if your bidding is really bad (or you have a lot of partnerships forgets or misunderstandings, see #1) but I'd look to see if there are boards where you went down in a contract many people made, or let through a contract that many people set. For improving declarer play, the bridgemaster hands (also available on bridgebase) are really good. There are also good books on play and defense, although the best remedy is probably practice.

[mike777]

Just got back from my third F2F game.
Played at a very conveniently located club. Hurrah!
15 tables in open
8 or 9 in limited game.
Another avg game.
2MP
1Team game
All average results..so far..

Played with very nice lady, basic system
She did mention that her husband passed away 3 months ago, at this very club game, fell dead on the spot..

I noticed we had 3 Bottoms and one tie for bottom

3 tops and one tie for top.

Pretty much all from our declarer play and on defense.

Few bidding misunderstandings but really nothing major.

We played very few conventions
Except as my partner pointed out that forcing NT came up often.
Jacoby tfr came up once.

[mikl_plkcc]

We lost a lot of partscore battles and we had no idea where we went wrong, as we ended up at different contracts than the opponents. The examples I mentioned including not competing to our 3-level over their making 3, and being outcompeted to their making 3 over our making 2, both with an 8-card fit.

[akwoo]

Ah - there are certain "How to play with a pickup partner" skills you need to learn here...

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-17, 03:53, said:

At the first week I came back to the game this year, my partnership checklist didn't contain a discussion of how to opening a hand with 25-27 HCP balanced (some open 3NT, some open 2C then 3NT). Then it came up.

You haven't discussed this - what should you do?

If you bid 3N, partner might think it's 25-27 balanced, or partner might think it's a long running minor with very little else.

If you bid 2C then 3N, partner might think it's 25-27 balanced, or partner might think it's some other balanced range, or partner might think it's some strong semi-balanced hand, or partner might think it's a strong hand with a running minor.

What's likely to happen if partner misguesses what you mean?

In the first case, if partner thinks you have a long running minor, partner might pull to 4C (expecting you to correct to 4D if appropriate) with a weak hand and no stoppers.

In the second case, whatever partner thinks you have shown, they are still likely to pass 3N.

Ergo, the second alternative is safer.

Quote

And what's the meaning if we bid an opponent's suit, when we have shown n suits and they have shown m suits? (Where m and n can be anywhere from 0-4)?

It's whatever you and your partner have agreed it is. I know what local expert standard is in several locales, but that won't help you since your partner probably doesn't know local expert standard, and, even if they did, isn't expecting you to know it. If you're not sure:

1) Don't make the bid.
2) If partner makes the bid, take it as forcing (not because that's definitely what partner meant, but because bidding when it's wrong is less likely to hurt than passing when it's wrong), and take it as meaning they have something they couldn't think of another bid for. Now make your best guess.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-17, 15:49, said:

We lost a lot of partscore battles and we had no idea where we went wrong, as we ended up at different contracts than the opponents. The examples I mentioned including not competing to our 3-level over their making 3, and being outcompeted to their making 3 over our making 2, both with an 8-card fit.

There is no substitute for looking over the hands afterwards and determining if you actually should've set their contract. Are there hand records? If not, can you copy down a hand or two after the game?

But it's true that a lot of beginners don't compete enough - to some extent you can mastermind and compete for a timid partner, but that's not a good way to learn.

[mike777]

Playing for 4th time Tuesday with another new pickup partner.
My goal is to break that 50 percent ceiling.

[mycroft]

Really, that is a goal (in a stronger field) that you should be aiming for a lot.

Winning, even placing 2nd or 3rd in a 12+table field, is unusual enough to be unexpected for all but the best players in the room. For new players, you are going to get beat up, a lot. For a long time. This is not a game that has meteoric rises (okay, there are some, but even then we're talking *years*, just 3-5 rather than 20-30).

Breaking 50% can be hard, even beating your average can be an accomplishment. Getting to the point where your average is 49% rather than 46% can be a long slog, and you might not notice until you look back and start realizing you're disappointed with 46 rather than expecting it. Some never get there.

It's one of the reasons we stratify events in the ACBL - expecting people to aim to "win in A or nothing" leads to a lot of people deciding "nothing" is better. Being recognized for doing well *for you* is not a bad thing.

Having said that, the Spikes in the room (even the C Spikes) will not be satisfied with "first in C", nor should they. Improvement is a lifelong thing - if that's your goal.