[Gerben47]

If you could choose the seating in an unequal partnership, who should be the dealer more often? This is especially interesting when playing 2-board rounds where only one player of the partnership will be dealer.

From players of different strength:
a) The stronger as he will get more decisions
The weaker because he can be trusted to get his very first bid right but afterwards the tougher decisions go to the stronger player

From players of different aggressiveness:
a) The more conservative so the aggressive partner can raise his partner to the limit
The more aggressive so there will be more opening bids and overcalls

My guess would be the more aggressive and the weaker player. Any thoughts?

(This arose when playing an incomplete Mitchell with 8 rounds and 11 tables, 2-board rounds, several sessions. Those EW pairs starting with for example boards 1&2 had East as a dealer more often than West)

[Chamaco]

I prefer being the dealer for 2 reasons:

1) First seat can take 1st blow, especially if opening light/ preempting aggressively 1st seat

2) Third seat (the dealer's pard9 is the first player which can bid knowing his pard has passed.
So he take much more frequent preemptive actions.

So:

1- 1st seat= if I have a good or preemptive hand, I'll strike 1st

2- 2nd seat, if I have a good hand, I may have been prempted by the dealer; if I have a preemptive hand, preempting in 2nd seat should be much more disciplined than 1st seat, because (as opposite to 1st seat preempts), this time I have 50% chamces of preempting pard.
Bottomline, in 2nd seat I'll preempt much less often than 1st/3rd seat

3- 3rd seat: if I have a goodf hand I may have been preempted by 2nd seat, but this will happen much less.
Instead, I'll preempt quite often on whatever gives me an excuse to bid.
Also, I'll open light quite often

4- 4th seat: if I have a good hand, I'll be preempteed VERY often, and it will be quite hard to describe accurately the hand

[EricK]

My guess would be

Weaker ( because bidding in third/fourth seat can require more judgement)

and

Doesn't matter

Eric

[MickyB]

I'd prefer the stronger player as dealer, he is more likely to declare. Just on the bidding, I'm not convinced your argument holds, as often opener's second bid will be harder than responder's first, etc

With regards to aggressiveness, it must be subjective; A conservative player is conservative because he believes that is the way to win. I can tell just from this post that you disagree

[Gerben47]

You have to read it as relative aggressiveness between two partners. Either the more aggressive opener or the not so aggressive opener should be in first seat.

I can see the more aggressive one opening more in 1st seat but also if he is in 3rd seat he can use his aggressiveness for weak 3rd-seaters.

[Free]

Depends on the system. If I was playing MOSCITO, I'd make the weaker player dealer, since partner will usually play. In natural systems however, I'd probably make the stronger player as dealer, just to get the transfers over NT to the good hand.

[mikestar]

If the biggest disparity is in bidding judgement, the weaker player should deal. The constructive difficulties may go either way, but by dealing, the weaker player gets one important decison without competition.

If the biggest disparity is in declarer play, let the stronger player deal so he will declare more often.

If the biggest disparity is in defense, the weaker player should deal. That way he is less likely to have the opening lead--though this is quite close.


Aggressive vs. conservative really makes little difference, but I would choose based on the tone of the partnership system. If we are sound in first seat, let the conservative partner deal, if we open light let the aggressive partner deal. Inother words, it is more important for dealer to conform to the partnership style than for third hand to do so.

[jtfanclub]

Gerben47, on Nov 1 2004, 06:29 AM, said:

If you could choose the seating in an unequal partnership, who should be the dealer more often? This is especially interesting when playing 2-board rounds where only one player of the partnership will be dealer.

From players of different strength:
a) The stronger as he will get more decisions
The weaker because he can be trusted to get his very first bid right but afterwards the tougher decisions go to the stronger player

From players of different aggressiveness:
a) The more conservative so the aggressive partner can raise his partner to the limit
The more aggressive so there will be more opening bids and overcalls

My guess would be the more aggressive and the weaker player. Any thoughts?

(This arose when playing an incomplete Mitchell with 8 rounds and 11 tables, 2-board rounds, several sessions. Those EW pairs starting with for example boards 1&2 had East as a dealer more often than West)

It's a lot easier to judge hands 1st/2nd seat than 3rd/4th.

I'd rather have the weaker player be dealer, especially since it tends to be responder in our system that controls the auction.