[AL78]

Gilithin, on 2023-June-13, 14:43, said:

In order for us to make an informed decision over 3♥, we first have to know what agreements were in place for partner over 2♥. Once we get that far, we also have to discuss agreements for our seat. Many players, myself included, prefer some form of Thrump double at the 3 level. Meanwhile, many social players still play all doubles above 2♠ as penalty in line with Culbertson's rules. Looking at the South hand, it would also be helpful to know that we are playing against weak/social players. These all seem to be factors that might affect the choice here.

This was a scratch partnership with very little agreement beyond cue bidding opps suit shows a constructive raise. A double by partner would have shown heart shortage and tolerance for the black suits. I assumed 3♦ was a better than minimum opener. There was no agreement on what a double over 3♥ by me would mean. North is a fairly experienced but not very strong player. South is a weak player.

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2023-June-13, 16:24, said:

This was a scratch partnership with very little agreement beyond cue bidding opps suit shows a constructive raise. A double by partner would have shown heart shortage and tolerance for the black suits. I assumed 3♦ was a better than minimum opener. There was no agreement on what a double over 3♥ by me would mean. North is a fairly experienced but not very strong player. South is a weak player.

Hi,

#1 looking at the bids 2H / 3H, I may have assesed the playing strength of N / S switched, raising a passed hand with 4333
in an auction that still could be a part score battle is ..., 2H is a gambit, at least you give partner a hint what to lead,
if he has to lead.

#2 You had three reasonable options X, 4H (only if you are certain partner does not take it as a control showing fit raise), 5D.
5D did not work out, but it is unclear, if X would have worked out better, X does not promise game going values, only inv.+ value, partner may or
may not have passed (hopefully he does not repeat his story, by rebidding diamonds a 3rd time).
The problem with 5D is, you are playing MP.

#3 You regular voice, that you are frustrated with your final session results, I understand this and can relate.
The thing is, you need a partnership that does not start at zero at the begin of every evening.
For a scratch partnership 58% in a session is a success, and it does not matter, who won.
You could take this result as starting point to repeat the partnership, after a couple of weeks, you have formed a loose partnership and hopefully
learned to understand each other better with each session.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Upvote for the above discussion, it reminds that I should be disciplined regardless of whom I am playing against.

[Gilithin]

jillybean, on 2023-June-12, 15:59, said:

Opener has freely bid 3♦, if he was a minimum opener wouldn't he pass 2♥?

The answer to this depends on how the pair plays X and 2NT. This is why the agreements are important. Without some basic agreements, competitive auctions can easily turn into more or less random guesses.

[AL78]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-June-14, 01:42, said:

#3 You regular voice, that you are frustrated with your final session results, I understand this and can relate.
The thing is, you need a partnership that does not start at zero at the begin of every evening.
For a scratch partnership 58% in a session is a success, and it does not matter, who won.
You could take this result as starting point to repeat the partnership, after a couple of weeks, you have formed a loose partnership and hopefully
learned to understand each other better with each session.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Ideally I would have a thorough discussion on bids and sequences in competitive situations but given I am only playing with this partner in one event I'm not sure it is worth the time and effort to go into in depth discussion. Yesterday we only got 49% but that was mostly self inflicted, neither of us were at our best, and it didn't help that it took until round seven out of eight before I got to declare.

58% last week was a good result and I am happy with that. I was expecting much worse. When there are only a few tables and boards are only played three times, I question how meaningful the final scores are. The purpose of our recent sessions was not to win but to get a bit of a feel for each other. The session yesterday worked out badly for that because we were on the wrong end of a hand bias and hardly got into the auction on many boards.

I've been getting less frustrated with results recently because I have been doing better which I suspect is due to a reduction in being on the wrong side of randomness but I haven't done any rigorous analysis.

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2023-June-14, 12:18, said:

Ideally I would have a thorough discussion on bids and sequences in competitive situations but given I am only playing with this partner in one event I'm not sure it is worth the time and effort to go into in depth discussion. Yesterday we only got 49% but that was mostly self inflicted, neither of us were at our best, and it didn't help that it took until round seven out of eight before I got to declare.
<snip>

In depth discussion is not needed, it is enough to focus on
#1.1 learning to know each others style, does he regular view glasses half full / half empty
#1.2 preempt style
#1.3 lead style, does he like aggressive / passive leads
If I remember it right, DavidKok is a vocal proponent of aggressive leads, I prefer passive leads, for me, it is not even close.
If you know the style, you know, that your chances finding something / nothing in the suit lead are higher or lower than usual.
#1.4 How disciplined he is with agreements.
#2.0 carding

[DavidKok]

I'm a vocal proponent of aggressive bidding. The percentage lead depends fully on the auction and my hand. That being said I do think people lead a trump too often.

I recently went over most of Robson & Segal with my current partner. Knowing that we are on the same page (sometimes literally) in competitive situations helps a great deal with bidding. Knowing your partner's style is important and relevant, and thorough discussion is very time consuming. In general I'm in favour of detailed discussions, but knowing your partner's style is a reasonable substitute at far lower effort.

[P_Marlowe]

Also important, before starting indepth discussion:

#1 One needs to be sure, that one likes to play with the person in a regular fashion
#2 That the goals / reasons for playing Bridge are compatible

There is live besides playing Bridge, i.e. if you invest time for indepth, make sure as good as you can,
it is not wasted from the start.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-June-14, 13:04, said:

In general I'm in favour of detailed discussions, but knowing your partner's style is a reasonable substitute at far lower effort.

I found out one useful thing, when the auction goes 1m - 1X - 1M she could be 4-4 with a weak NT hand. I found that out after the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when I put her back to 2♦ with Jx and she played in a 4-2 fit for a bottom. That was entirely my fault as I should have bid 1NT instead with my 8 HCP almost entirely in the club suit.

[jillybean]

Gilithin, on 2023-June-14, 12:18, said:

The answer to this depends on how the pair plays X and 2NT. This is why the agreements are important. Without some basic agreements, competitive auctions can easily turn into more or less random guesses.

With no sophisticated agreements, X is a support double , 2NT is 18-19

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2023-June-14, 15:26, said:

I found out one useful thing, when the auction goes 1m - 1X - 1M she could be 4-4 with a weak NT hand. I found that out after the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when I put her back to 2♦ with Jx and she played in a 4-2 fit for a bottom. That was entirely my fault as I should have bid 1NT instead with my 8 HCP almost entirely in the club suit.

This sounds like a playable,but old fashioned style.
Another style think, which is quite frequent: at which strength is partner making a T/O versus bidding his 5 card major.
This leads to upperbounds of overcalls.
How much liberties are taken, when making a T/O, when facing a passed hand, is it still full value, or could it be lighter?

less frequent, but still coming up a reasonable number of times: Opening at the 1 level vs. going through an artificial strong
2C opener (I am assuming you play 2C as strong).

[Gilithin]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-June-14, 23:31, said:

This sounds like a playable,but old fashioned style.

Slightly surprised to hear this specifically from you - is it not the currently preferred style in Germany? The truth is that 1♦ - 1♥ -- 1♠ can be 4-4 in the vast majority of natural systems in the world, not necessarily as a Weak NT but almost always as a 4144.

[P_Marlowe]

Gilithin, on 2023-June-15, 09:24, said:

Slightly surprised to hear this specifically from you - is it not the currently preferred style in Germany? The truth is that 1♦ - 1♥ -- 1♠ can be 4-4 in the vast majority of natural systems in the world, not necessarily as a Weak NT but almost always as a 4144.

Even in Germany Walsh Style has arrived, but ... I only play a limited set of events, and the style certainly is common enough.
Weak NT is also on the rise.

[smerriman]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-June-15, 10:17, said:

Even in Germany Walsh Style has arrived, but ... I only play a limited set of events, and the style certainly is common enough.
Weak NT is also on the rise.

As far as I'm aware Walsh style only refers to 1♣ - 1♦ auctions, and is quite a simple idea since you'll never miss a major fit.

Bypassing 1♠ with a balanced hand after 1♦ - 1♥ is a different kettle of fish, since you'll miss a 4-4 fit if responder is weak - Kit Woolsey has argued if playing MPs you're better off bidding 1♠, but if IMPs then 1NT. So with AL78 playing MP I don't think it's old fashioned at all.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2023-June-15, 09:24, said:

Slightly surprised to hear this specifically from you - is it not the currently preferred style in Germany? The truth is that 1♦ - 1♥ -- 1♠ can be 4-4 in the vast majority of natural systems in the world, not necessarily as a Weak NT but almost always as a 4144.

Certainly would be 4-4 to the vast majority of Italians.

smerriman, on 2023-June-15, 13:46, said:

Bypassing 1♠ with a balanced hand after 1♦ - 1♥ is a different kettle of fish, since you'll miss a 4-4 fit if responder is weak - Kit Woolsey has argued if playing MPs you're better off bidding 1♠, but if IMPs then 1NT. So with AL78 playing MP I don't think it's old fashioned at all.

I have seen US material (even for beginners, IIRC) advocating this bypass, which is undoubtedly playable and has the advantage of staking and rightsiding the NT high ground. Still not sure it is worth it at MP, and I prefer to know whether opener has spades before I bid XYZ.

[DavidKok]

If you play XYZ and are not going to pass 1NT I don't see much of an issue with bypassing the spades. You lose on the hands where it goes 1♦-1♥; 1NT-P on your table while 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♠; P is superior.
The problem is a much smaller issue over 1♣, where modern systems can solve this problem with the extra step of bidding space before it comes up (e.g. transfers). Another small win for unbalanced diamond, balanced club.
As an aside in a Precision context I've been told (and agree) that it makes a lot more sense to rebid 1♠ with four(+) spades on 1♦*-1♥ always, since even if you bypass spades with an unbalanced hand the 1♠ rebid doesn't promise diamond length. So you may as well give up entirely and agree that it just shows spades.

[P_Marlowe]

smerriman, on 2023-June-15, 13:46, said:

As far as I'm aware Walsh style only refers to 1♣ - 1♦ auctions, and is quite a simple idea since you'll never miss a major fit.

Bypassing 1♠ with a balanced hand after 1♦ - 1♥ is a different kettle of fish, since you'll miss a 4-4 fit if responder is weak - Kit Woolsey has argued if playing MPs you're better off bidding 1♠, but if IMPs then 1NT. So with AL78 playing MP I don't think it's old fashioned at all.

My impression was, that opener that the style tries to clarify his shape type (bal. / unbal) with his 2nd bid was the modern way.
I think it makes sense, and I dont see, why I should only do it only after a 1C opening bid.

Seems my impression was wrong, happens.

[P_Marlowe]

smerriman, on 2023-June-15, 13:46, said:

As far as I'm aware Walsh style only refers to 1♣ - 1♦ auctions, and is quite a simple idea since you'll never miss a major fit.

Bypassing 1♠ with a balanced hand after 1♦ - 1♥ is a different kettle of fish, since you'll miss a 4-4 fit if responder is weak - Kit Woolsey has argued if playing MPs you're better off bidding 1♠, but if IMPs then 1NT. So with AL78 playing MP I don't think it's old fashioned at all.

My impression was, that opener that the style tries to clarify his shape type (bal. / unbal) with his 2nd bid was the modern way.
I think it makes sense (*), and I dont see, why I should only do it only after a 1C opening bid.

Seems my impression was wrong, happens.

(*) I prefer streamlined agreements, even, if the streamlining may cost me a little bit.