ahtan

That would be cool if you could do that. Yes, I agree this would be better and at the same time, it would be nice to have commentary displayed beside the bid.

I think that trick taking ability is much neglected in general. Once you bid "correctly" (whatever that means 8-)), you need to make that contract.

Yes, I could do that. However, there may be a communication issue. I would have to distribute the instructions and ensure all students read the instruction properly and execute it. I only interact with them via whatsapp and many of them only use phones for the comms and no printer! I'm talking seniors in age who are beginners to aspiring intermediates. I simply thought the feature is already there (for just declare), you only need to enable it.

Is it possible to give TDs the option to make a tournament a "just declare" tournament? i.e. create a regular tournament but robots bid it. Then players (students) play what is bid. It's not "bridge", but it would be useful for learning purposes when put together with an uploaded set of deals. The teacher can analyse each deal, students can compare how they played against their peers.

Just to be clear, I will have mini-bridge. My issue is the "basic shell" of bidding as you say. I don't think it should be nothing, but obviously, I'm looking for a decent small set. thanks for pointing me to that book. Looking at the contents, it seems that a significant item is takeout doubles. Now a days, bridge bidding is far more competitive. In my original 6 lesson series, I only taught overcalls. Obviously, when a beginner is holding (say) a opening hand, after an opening bid by opponent, but no 5 carder, he or she is "stuck". Should I teach takeouts (and negative X)?

Is it possible for you to point me to it? Not North American (based in Singapore). I found one that for schools : http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/teachers/SBLSTeacherManual.pdf

Categorization is IN. I try to teach logic rather than rote. For example, I don't actually directly teach limit raises. Rather I teach them to find a major trump fit as first priority and to use the points table to decide what to do. The issue with logic is the abstraction - not everyone gets it. Some of the students are more comfortable with "rules". They will say things like "but this isn't in the notes" 8-)

I think can leave out weak openers. But I thought that LOTT is really simple to teach on top of a simple overcall system (they just apply mechanically).

Thanks very much all for your suggestions. I didn't want to pre-bias with specifics. Here it is now. First, I realize that they should play play play. My concern is the minimum bidding to teach them before "letting them loose" into the wild so to speak. For practical reasons, I don't want to stretch the lessons out, but I also don't want them to feel like "shortchanged" - when they play with other beginners from elsewhere, they should feel they have the tools they need. When I did a short 6 lesson course before, I did a very simple system, bidding wise. - declarer play and defender play. - HCP and short suit distribution points. - Simple shape assessment. The notion of trump fit, balanced hand and stoppers to identify strain. - Use of a points table to pinpoint their contracts along with their simple shape assessment. - only 1 suited bids (and responses using a logic based system) and simple overcalls (with simple response) - no 1NT/2NT opening bids at all. No slam or strong hands system. No Takeout/Negative X. No pre-emptive weak bids. So I am thinking of a 8-10 lesson course instead of 6. The extra lessons will be dedicated to more play. But I do want to make it reasonably complete so am willing to add extra lessons on bidding - the question is "what" is "essential".

Hi there, looking for crowd wisdom here! I am looking for opinions on how much bidding to teach in a beginner's course for seniors. 8 to 10 lessons (each 2-2.5 hours). I am well aware that bidding is enormously confusing for the average senior, and I would like to minimize the teaching of bidding. I prefer instead to teach them how to play with a minimum of bidding, then plan to guide them post-lesson on what to look up to improve themselves. Here's an initial list of the bidding only (in order of introduction) - 1 level suited openers. - simple overcalls at 1 and 2 levels. Along with simplified responses. - 1NT/2NT openers with stayman/jacoby transfer (their first artificial bids). - A simple weak 2/3/4 guide (just bid with points and possibly Law of total tricks and length. No follow ups unless partner is really strong) - Law of Total Tricks (for competitive bidding). In particular I might omit the following: - Takeout and negative doubles (they already would find stayman/jacoby confusing) - slam bidding (my experience is beginners rarely feel confident to bid slam) - 2C strong opening

Yes, we need to fix our agreement. my partner (post tournament) thinks 2H or 2S show stoppers in that suit and 15-17HCP unbalanced, forcing one round. 3 level new suit show splinters. We actually made 12 tricks. She actually had S AQJ4 H A862 D Q863 C Q I had S 975 H KQ4 D AKT72 C A9 At the time, I thought she was simply showing me heart stoppers with 2H, no stopper in spades. It seemed to me she was unbalanced (but no points signalled) with likely shortage in spades (hence no NT contract). I counted 17 pts in mine (1 for short suit). Then jumped to 5D - this to me signals to partner we have about a total of 29 playing points (quantitative jump) if I assume she only has a minimum 13. She is free to jump to 6D if she has extras. Is this unreasonable? Either way, assuming: Option 1. 2H shows unbalanced 15-17 forcing 1 round or option 2. 2H only shows stopped H suit. How do I find a reasonable way to explore slam? In 2/1, I can use slow arrival to signal extras. (yes, i know. Under her definition, she could have bid 3C to show splinters. She probably wasn't sure how I'd interpret it. But 3C to show splinters would work quite well too).

Great responses Thanks! Since we seem to have expanded a little from my original question. I thought I'd ask a "How would you bid" question relating to inverted minors Dealer is South and I'm sitting North. 1D-2D (inverted minor) 2H I interpreted 2H as saying "No spade stoppers". I'm holding S 975 H KQ4 D AKT72 C A9 I'm holding 16HCP. What do I do? What do I do if my partner means something else by the 2H. She means "unbalanced 15-17HCP and just showing 2H as temporizing (forcing)". I have not seen this treatment in a casual search.

I suppose that if you have 15-17HCP and don't open 1NT, that would mean you have a unbalanced hand. Then 3NT can be used to show stronger hands? is that the reason?

15-17

Hi all, seeking crowd wisdom here. In inverted minors, bridgebum, and wikipaedia both say that in a bidding sequence like this: 1D-2D 3NT Opener is showing balanced 18-19HCP While in something like this 1D-2D 2NT Opener is showing 12-14 balanced I can understand opener showing a minimum balanced hand with 2NT. But why is it that 3NT shows 18-19HCP and not 15-17HCP? How would you show 15-17HCP balanced with stoppers then? appreciate some comments. Thanks in advance!