Teaching Beginners

[mr1303]

How did we get from teaching beginners to things like EHAA and MidMac or whatever that system that Earl is talking about? I wouldn't be comfortable sitting down and playing either of those without a set of notes in front of me, and I've been playing for years.

 

We are talking about COMPLETE beginners here. People who have never played the game at all. Therefore, you need simple rules such as open 1D if you have diamonds, not open 1D if you have 4 hearts or 4 spades. You also need to have them respond 2D if you have diamonds, not if you have 13 points and want to be in a game, regardless of which game it is. Trying to teach them something like that will only drive them to poker.

 

In EBU land, 99% of people play weak NT and 4 card majors. Given that we want them to not be intimidated by the opposition, it is a good idea (as David_C) said that you teach them the "standard" system, in other words what everyone else in the country plays.

[ArcLight]

Playing a hand of Bridge can be overwhelming and utterly confusing.

As a defender - what do I do? What is going on? 3rd hand high, 2nd hand low?

As declarer - how do I play this? I dont have enough aces and kings and queens.

 

MiniBridge makes sense.

Let the players at least move from the 'overwhelming' to the 'unsure' state.

Let them learn a few of the simple concepts like a finesse, and running a long suit.

Maybe even more advanced things like ducking a round to set up a long suit!

Or ducking a defensive lead so as to set up third round winners ro sever communication - maybe thats too advanced.

 

After a dozen sessions and lessons they may feel more comfortable.

 

(Let them try Bridge Master Level 1 hands too)

 

Only then introduce some simple bidding system.

 

 

 

Supposedly 4 card majors requires a lot of judgment. But it's supposed to be simpler. Maybe thats worth using for a while, at least to see how fundamental bidding works.

 

For those who like the game after all this, say a few dozen sessions, if they want, you can introduce them to a bidding system that is used in your area, be it Precision, SA, ACOL, or whatever.

 

Forget conventions (maybe Stayman only) until they are comfortable with the basics.

[EarlPurple]

Once you teach them something though they'll be very resistant to change later on. And so many are reluctant to try out anything non-standard. After all, their teacher told them and it's standard so it must be best.

 

You can go for a totally natural system, in that case possibly 4 card majors and possibly even strong NT to go with it. Of course they'll end up in the wrong contract so much of the time and then you'll have to introduce all the intricacies.

 

What do you teach them about raising partner's opening 1 of a major? On 3-card support or 4? Is a jump strong, invitational or pre-emptive. When I first started I had a concept of if you were strong you jumped to show it, so I naturally assumed it would apply to trumps too. With my "system" if you want to force game you respond 2♦. Nice and simple - one bid to remember. My system is of course foreign but I'm convinced it is easier to learn.

[ArcLight]

>Once you teach them something though they'll be very resistant to change later on. And so many are reluctant to try out anything non-standard. After all, their teacher told them and it's standard so it must be best.

 

 

I think it depends on how you teach them and what you say.

 

"Class, Bridge is a lot of fun, but its complicated. I'm going to use a simple system for now, so you can start playing immediately. If you dceide you like the game and want to stick with it, I can teach you a better but more complex system later"

[EarlPurple]

I think if you taught them the system I have shown, got them to use it for a while, and then tried to teach them sayc or Acol, they'd be resisistent to change as well.

 

It would be interesting to experiment with beginners who were taught one system and those who were taught another on a number of hands and see which ones bid them better.

[Sigi_BC84]

How did we get from teaching beginners to things like EHAA and MidMac or whatever that system that Earl is talking about? I wouldn't be comfortable sitting down and playing either of those without a set of notes in front of me, and I've been playing for years.

I didn't like Earl's suggestion either, because the system he described is already fairly artificial. However, it seems like you don't know EHAA, which is really easy (almost 100% natural), the only disadvantages for teaching beginners being that it's harder to find a good major fit (no 5-card majors) and that it's different from Standard.

In EBU land, 99% of people play weak NT and 4 card majors. Given that we want them to not be intimidated by the opposition, it is a good idea (as David_C) said that you teach them the "standard" system, in other words what everyone else in the country plays.

In that case, teaching EHAA seems like a great idea to me. The switch to proper Acol should be rather easy after that.

 

Of course Richard is right when he once more emphasises Minibridge. That is really useful for the first few session, especially if you have coded cards so you can set up a few easy deals quickly to get them started.

 

--Sigi

[EarlPurple]

I would advocate Minibridge too. You need to teach play and defence.

 

I originally came across Minibridge in 1992. Back then, the side with the most points could pick the contract, but I suggested at the time they should have to pick at least 1NT, 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. I think they eventually implemented that.

 

Another suggestion is to multiply the number of trumps by the number of points and divide by 20 suggesting the number of tricks they should take. If NT, divide by 3 and that's the contract. Thus declarer cannot always choose his contract which means some contracts may be unmakeable which will at least give defences a chance. If defences never stand a chance then players will never learn to defend or at least the defending side will get bored.

 

The system I described (at the 1-level) uses artificial 1♣ and 1♦ bids but natural 1♥ and 1♠ bids. But in a 5-card major system, 1♣ and 1♦ are often not the longest suit anyway. But then do you teach Stayman? So you can bid 2♣ to show a 4-card major! In fact my 1♣ bid is a bit like puppet because you ask for 5-card majors (direct major bid) or to bid diamonds to show a 4-card major. So again, one system repeated in different places.

 

So now I have said that you can bid clubs to look for 4-4 major suit fits, but what you find totally artificial in one situation you probably think is pretty natural in another.

 

By the way, you may shield your players from Stayman but what happens when they go out and play and find their opponents use it? Will they get confused? Probably.

 

For me, the most important thing to teach a beginner (beginning at bidding with some playing experience in minibridge) is to bid game. Beginners have tremendous problems bidding game. That has been my experience anyway.

[Sigi_BC84]

I originally came across Minibridge in 1992. Back then, the side with the most points could pick the contract, but I suggested at the time they should have to pick at least 1NT, 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. I think they eventually implemented that.

There are coded decks for minibridge (24 lesson deals each) which get you around this problem quite nicely (they include a booklet with all the deals and a few notes on each deal).

The system I described (at the 1-level) uses artificial 1♣ and 1♦ bids but natural 1♥ and 1♠ bids. But in a 5-

[...]

The main problem with the system is that it's very different from SAYC and eventually you want to teach your students SAYC and then you'll have to tell them, "well, forget the complicated system you've learned, here's the 'real' thing". I don't want to do that.

 

--Sigi

[awm]

There are a lot of advantages to teaching beginners fairly standard methods. In particular, this helps them understand opponents bidding, and makes them able to play with people who didn't necessarily learn bridge in the same group. I think if you choose to teach beginners something other than what's standard in their part of the world, you need some pretty strong reasons. In fact, I think in order to be worthwhile your methods should pass all the following tests:

 

(1) It should be simpler than standard (easier to learn, more focus on judgement in bidding over conventions, and more time to spend on play/defense).

 

(2) It should be at least moderately effective (i.e. not much worse than standard).

 

(3) It should be fairly easy to go from whatever they learned to learning something more standard.

 

I think EHAA passes these tests, especially in the UK where ACOL is the "standard." In fact the only big distinctions between EHAA and ACOL are the lack of a strong bid (weak twos in all suits) and wider ranging weak two bids.

 

Most other nonstandard systems suggested fail on at least one of these points.

[EarlPurple]

1. I live in the UK. So if I became a bridge teacher here I'd have to teach Acol. Which is why I resisted becoming one. I didn't want to teach Acol. In fact I'd have to teach Standard English.

 

2. I disagree with the part "forget the complicated system you've learned" because I don't think my system is complicated. I think it's fairly simple. Opening 1♣ when you have a 4-card major is as simple as responding 2♣ over 1NT when you have one. It's just a different context. And I think players would get used to it very quickly but you've immediately jumped to the conclusion that "natural is easy, non-natural is complicated".

 

3. Yes, eventually I would teach them sayc but not because they have to play it, but because they might want to play it (if they play with a partner who plays it) and because they might play against it. I might teach them precision for the same reason - and all sorts of other conventions they might come up against at the table so they'll not feel uncomfortable when they show up.

 

But then I would like to train players for tournament play, not for kitchen bridge or "simple systems only" contests.

 

Now how about a hand:

 

♠ Kxx - QJxxx

♥ Ax - Kxx

♦ KQxx - xx

♣ QJxx - Axx

 

Playing sayc. Likely auction 1NT-2H-2S-2NT-4S using transfers. Not playing transfers, it would probably go 1NT-3S-4S ?

 

Playing Acol you open 1 of one of the minors, say 1D. So 1D-1S-1NT-2NT-3S-4S. That's probably the "correct" auction. Again will it be found?

 

Playing my system 1D-1S-2S-3S-4S is the simplest auction. 2S is a basic raise, 3S invite and 4S bids game.

 

What is the EHAA auction? Will you get to 4S?

 

Give these hands to beginners - how many will reach 4S on it?

[pbleighton]

"What is the EHAA auction? Will you get to 4S?"

 

My version of EHAA (10-13 NT):

 

1D-1S-1NT(14-17)-2C(NMF)-2S(I have 3)-4S

 

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

An Acol auction could go

 

1C - 1S

1NT (1) - 3NT (2)

 

(1) 15-16

(2) he has 15 and is bal., I have 10

and I am bal. => 25, game in NT

 

3NT may not be as safe as 4S, I am not very

good in single dummy analysis, but I have

been in worse contracts

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[the saint]

Simple. Minibridge until they get bored - which will be a lesson or two, but they will pick up the basic mechanics of bridge-type games very quickly with it. And you can teach it in 5 minutes flat.

 

After that? All this talk about systems is largely irrelevant. What is more important is good material. Since Andrew is in the UK, the Standard English is highly reccomendable. I have used it with the kids at the youth camp for years. The whole package was designed by bridge teachers for bridge teachers.

 

On a style basis the one thing I would recommend is this. Forget all your expert stuff. Let all the little errors go and concentrate on the ONE big point you want to get across in any given lesson/hand. I agree that there is far too much to learn in one chunk so don't even try.

 

Eventually they will start to think for themselves.

[the saint]

An Acol auction could go

 

1C - 1S

1NT (1) - 3NT (2)

 

(1) 15-16

(2) he has 15 and is bal., I have 10

and I am bal. => 25, game in NT

 

3NT may not be as safe as 4S, I am not very

good in single dummy analysis, but I have

been in worse contracts

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

This is the kind of level you need to teach beginners at. 15+10=25=Game. Then they can do roughly the right thing quickly - then they feel they are progressing. Any talk of preference or fragments on the way to 3NT = Total Confusion.

[Gerben42]

Opener

Minimum (13-15)

Medium (16-18)

Maximum (19-21)

 

Responder

Weak (6-10)

Invitational (11-12)

Game Force (13-15)

 

Minimum + Weak = no game

Minimum + Inv, or Medium + Weak = maybe game

etc

 

This is exactly the kind of setup I use. All these books and things saying "this bid is has that strength and that bid has some other strength" is way too complicated. Beginners rate their hand into one of these groups and stick to that.

 

After this concept the next concept is that of "allowed level". For example with a minimum opener you are not allowed to rebid beyond 2 of your own suit without a fit. From this it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that a sequence like 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ shows a GOOD hand.

 

Another concept is to ONLY bid 2NT on hands that are at least Medium. This avoids the perennial "we don't have a fit so we bid NT but oh dear we have only 13 + 6 = 19, oops 2NT goes down a lot"

 

BTW my ranges are a bit different:

 

Opener:

Weak: 12 - 15

Medium: 16 - 17

Strong: 18+

 

Responder

Weak: 6 - 10

Medium: 11 - 12

Strong: 13+