[FrancesHinden]

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]

Quote

(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?

Quote

(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.

Quote

(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.

Quote

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

Quote

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]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2008, 09:46 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

hrothgar, on Mar 10 2008, 08:00 PM, said:

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.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Mar 11 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

Quote

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.

Being aggressive has nothing to do with being undisciplined. If my partner does balancing auctions that are aggressive or crazy by your standards but that I could predict looking at his hand, then he is very disciplined.
I am not sure why I am explaining this, I am sure you know the difference.

[CSGibson]

hrothgar, on Mar 10 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

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?

I've found out my own tolerance level for a highly skilled ahole: 4 months. Learned tons of stuff to help my bridge, but I only benefitted from it after the partnership ended, because I was always on tilt at the table.

For me, an ideal serious partner would be compatible in the following areas:
1) Goals - We both should be working for a similar objective
2) Personality - If I cannot stand you, I cannot play with you long term
3) Ethics - goes with personality, maybe.
4) Growth potential: Do we have a chance of learning from each other; how stagnant is the other person's skill level, and what is the rate of growth
5) Seriousness: Are you showing up drunk to our practice sessions or are you giving it your all?
6) Willingness to experiment: System, play, whatever. This probably ties with growth potential
7) Fun: I want a serious partner to be talking bridge because they enjoy it, not just because we've committed to it.

[rbforster]

Would you rather do well in a low level event (BCD) or play against better opponents (A/X) and probably have an average (or worse) result?

Do you have a favorite convention you'd like your partner to learn?

Would you learn and play their favorite convention?

[Gerben42]

Quote

Would you rather do well in a low level event (BCD) or play against better opponents (A/X) and probably have an average (or worse) result?

I prefer the better opponents by far. I know I can do well in a low level event, I don't need to prove that to myself. Also I know that sometimes in low level events you will not do well no matter if you stand on your head. They are nice to practice for the high level events, but nothing else.

Quote

Do you have a favorite convention you'd like your partner to learn?

Yes, condensed transfers

Quote

Would you learn and play their favorite convention?

Yes, as long as it's not on my forbidden list like conventions F and G.
For example I'm playing canape overcalls with my league partner, and played Smirny's complicated Jacoby structure (worked well though...)

[Gerben42]

Quote

Being aggressive has nothing to do with being undisciplined. If my partner does balancing auctions that are aggressive or crazy by your standards but that I could predict looking at his hand, then he is very disciplined.
I am not sure why I am explaining this, I am sure you know the difference.

I am not sure either, because that is what I mean. As long as partner is disciplined about his aggressiveness, that's fine with me. In Nuremberg there are some players who like to open preempts on anything from nothing to almost opening, and it drives me to madness if I try to respond to such an opening preempt as partner.

I've played anything from "this preempt is backed by the Bank of England" to "not vuln my 3-level preempt is a hand too weak for a weak 2". But not both at the same time.

[helene_t]

I often find myself as the Unlucky Expert with respect to bidding and as Ms Guggenheim with respect to defense. I once thought that if I find a p with more balanced expertise, we might be able to pick up some of each other's wisdom. But I don't think it works that way. Of course I ought to do something about my defense, but until that happens I think I would be better off with a p that understands my cuebids, t/o doubles and fit jumps, and at the same time doesn't get too frustrated by my wrong carding and my failure to read (let alone make use of) his/her carding.

So my questions would be:
- how perfectionistic are you with respect to bidding?
- how perfectionistic are you with respect to carding?

With respect to styles I am reasonably flexible but I need to understand p's criteria for preempting, overcalling etc.

[benlessard]

My 1 question would be "do you know transfer lebensohl ?"

A- Yes but we have to do some talking before playing it

B- Yes we will play it

C- yes but i dont want to play it because its too complicated

D-No but i know lebensohl

E- im learning lebensohl in my advanced bidding course

F- What is lebensohl ?

This will give me a quick info on the level and willingness to play complicated stuff.



My 2nd question is your siganlling style ?

please develop your answer !

This will give me a info on his defensive skill and partnership understanding skill.

[mycroft]

Gerben has the same reaction to "the only pair that plays 1NT white at MPs is us" as I do to preempt style - I have my preferred style, but after it goes 3C-3NT, I'd rather put down what partner expected than bid "my way", and so I'll ask what her way is and play it. Of course, in a serious partnership, I would hope that her way is basically my preferred way, too.

I've played everything from EHAA 3 bids (denying 6 high, LTC-based, at least one trick weaker than anyone else in the field), to EHAA-loser-count (but not necessarily HCP limited) 3M, "happy to play 3NT" 3m bids (that's actually my preferred style, if I'm not allowed a 2S or 2NT "good preempt in a minor"), to almost Rule-of-2-and-3 (which, like Flannery, is almost always upside when it comes up - problem is it never comes up).

Don't care. Just want to know, and I want partner to have the hand she claims when she bids it, and I want her to have confidence that I have what she expects when I bid 'em.

All over the map just doesn't work (except when that is systemically your agreement - I've played EHAA 2 bids, too).

[Impact]

In a longterm partnership :PPP the Punish Partner Principle: partner is assumed to know the system and his bids MUST have a logical basis so you must work it out - no matter how improbable the result!!

OTOH this is a partnership killer short term!

You have to like the other guy for it to work long term (Oh yeah results help) but if you are g=both working in busy professions it is hard to play consistently well against top opposition during the working week, so you have to acknowledge the mix of priorities...also non-playing spouses.

regards