Teaching Bridge to University students

[vang]

I taught bridge to a group of university students and I taught them the LOGIC of bidding rather than a zillion rules.

 

My rules would look like:

 

"With a weak hand (10 or less) you cannot respond to opener higher than 1NT unless you have a fit."

 

Simple, logical and effective.

[...]

I don't see why it's logical for a beginner to answer 1NT to 1S when holding x xxx xxx KQJxxx. It's just one of the zillions rules...

[helene_t]

What is logical to one is ilogical to another. Personally, I think Precision is logical and Biedermeijer is not. And personally I wouldn't like to be a student of a teacher who doesn't understand the logic of what she's teaching but answers all the "why"s with "because the f...cking book says so". It follows that I wouldn't like to be a student of a teacher like me teaching Biedermeijer. Then again, I consider the choice of basic system to be a marginal issue.

 

But that's just me. I'm sure that some students don't care about logic and that some teachers see more logic in Biedermeijer than in Precision.

[P_Marlowe]

I recall that it took me a couple of years to grasp the basics of SAYC.

 

And that's all I play.  The bonus of SAYC is that it enables me to play with lots of different partners.

Right! "the easiest is to begin with a natural system" isnt necessary true. The rebids, the nuancing between lenghts AND strenghts IS rather difficult and also leading most beginners into endlessly point-counting.

 

Some do say a simple club system is easier as a beginner-system: The rebids and showing nuances is easier.

All hands 16+=1C

Balanced 12(13) = 1NT

Unbalanced <16= all others...

 

Thus a basic Precision could be the optimal beginners system. <snip>

Do you really think, that Precison leads to another

behaviour, when its main focus is on HCP?

 

And please keep in mind, that every precision

player needs to learn a natural system as well,

sometimes opener opens in a suit.

 

Natural systems are easier to learn than strong club

systems, because strong clubs systems requiere a

player to learn two systems.

I am not saying, that natural systems are more logical,

but one needs to learn less.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[chicken]

am i doing something wrong?

 

i have been teaching bridge to young people for the last 15 years and thought of having done a good job if the students were able to to something which looked like bridge after

10 lessons. this means basic declarerplay (finessing, taking tricks, entry handling, visualisation level1) basic defending (ducking, not totally braindamaged opening leads, visualisation level1) and basic bidding. (STR jumps, stayman and blackwood, rest natural in the context of the predominant system in their environment).

the halfyear after the course is usually used to stabilize these abilities and to give them enough playing opportunities to get them motivated to improve themselves.

in phase 3 the motivated students get some additional tuition in signalling and bidding especially bidding of STR hands. so reverses, nmf and 4th suit forcing come into play.

after 1 year i would be glad if the top players of the course are able to play our clubgames regularly and wont get slaughtered every evening. i would encourage them to participate in a regional too, just to get used to the atmosphere and the different approach towards bridge. i never would dream of them taking part in a serious topevent

i much more would be afraid that some of them would quit afterwards.

[kenrexford]

I have been teaching my wife to play bridge, with a focus on standard American bidding. I plan to branch out to 2/1 at some point.

 

One fear that I would have to teaching Precision off the rip is that she would lose the ability to understand rather than simply memorize, as suggested by Quantumcat.

 

She kicked and screamed when I told her to quit worrying about ranges and start focusing on the logic of the auction when understanding Opener's calls and Responder's calls. She was having some difficulty initially in understanding why Opener bidding 2NT at his second call often showed 18-19 but Responder's 2NT showed 11-12. She was having difficulty understanding why Opener's jump shift at call #2 showed 18+ but Responder's 13+. And then reverses!

 

Once you "get it," then you get the idea of "manufactured" jump shifts, and why you need checkback, and the like. She soon started understanding and applying her own cuebidding style, which could be tweaked a tad for efficiency, but an idea of bidding for need rather than for description.

 

I have no idea how it is in other countries, so I cannot speak for anyone else. But, where I play, it seems that bidders fall into categories, which says something I'm sure:

 

SAYC includes the dinosaurs and the newbies.

2/1 GF includes the intermediate+ crowd, the largest group. Many of these cannot bid but are afraid to branch into Precision for fear of admitting this.

Precision includes frustrated natural players who cannot bid, domineering-husband-couples, and really good players who favor this form of science.

Canape includes primarily poor players who are freaks, with a few really elite good players.

K-S (Weak NT) is favored by the "almosts."

 

You don't see much more.

[helene_t]

One fear that I would have to teaching Precision off the rip is that she would lose the ability to understand rather than simply memorize, as suggested by Quantumcat.

Could be. I suppose it depends how you teach SA and how you would teach Precision. For me it's the opposite. I don't understand the "logic" of "natural" systems so I have to teach a number of dumb rules when I teach those systems. Precision is more common-sense based in my vision. Again, that's just me.

[Gerben42]

am i doing something wrong?

 

i have been teaching bridge to young people for the last 15 years and thought of having done a good job if the students were able to to something which looked like bridge after

10 lessons.

 

I think this is about the right timescale. After 10 lessons they can 1x play in the regular bridge club with a "teaching" partner to learn the mechanics of a bridge tournament, then they can play in student-student partnerships. If they are then interested to learn more, continue to teach of course.

 

I saw someone from my club make the mistake and stick with Minibridge for too long, which might be okay for older students but it's a big mistake for youngsters. The result is that the students got bored and didn't make it to playing in the club.

 

She kicked and screamed when I told her to quit worrying about ranges and start focusing on the logic of the auction when understanding Opener's calls and Responder's calls. She was having some difficulty initially in understanding why Opener bidding 2NT at his second call often showed 18-19 but Responder's 2NT showed 11-12. She was having difficulty understanding why Opener's jump shift at call #2 showed 18+ but Responder's 13+. And then reverses!

 

I'm not saying you made a mistake but my approach here was:

 

For game you need the 2 hands to be worth at least 25 together.

You open with 12 and respond with 6.

Opener and responder classify their hands in 3 ranges:

 

WEAK (not much more than minimum):

 

Opener 12 - 16

Responder 6 - 10

 

INVITATIONAL (almost enough to go to game opposite minimum partner)

 

Opener 17 - 18

Responder 11 - 12

 

STRONG (enough to go to game opposite minimum partner)

Opener 19 +

Responder 13+

[jtfanclub]

One fear that I would have to teaching Precision off the rip is that she would lose the ability to understand rather than simply memorize, as suggested by Quantumcat.

Could be. I suppose it depends how you teach SA and how you would teach Precision. For me it's the opposite. I don't understand the "logic" of "natural" systems so I have to teach a number of dumb rules when I teach those systems. Precision is more common-sense based in my vision. Again, that's just me.

My rules for how to play Precision for SA players are 6 pages, including competition. With so little description, auctions often go into 'do what feels right' territory. It's amazing how few times we go astray. It realy is that 'logical' a system.

 

When playing a Natural Diamond Precision (1 diamond opening promises 4+ or 5+), all 11-15 hands are nicely slotted into one bid: if it's shape A, it goes into bid B. In my particular system, all responses to these of 1NT or higher are either natural and not forcing or artificial inquiries, but in virtually all Precision variations bids are either natural or inquiries- none of this new minor forcing crap, or bidding 2/1 with a 2 or 3 card suit just to force the auction along. You can save the 1 club opening for last.

 

But maybe that argues in favor of starting with SAYC. In Precision, if somebody asks me 'why', I can readily explain it. In SAYC, I'd often have trouble. In SAYC, you often teach that this bid shows 3+ clubs and that bid has 4+ hearts, and then much later you admit that, yeah, you bid it with 2 clubs or 3 hearts. Precision doesn't have such exceptions...or rather, it has such exceptions (such as when a 2 club opener doesn't have 6 clubs or a 1 club opener doesn't have a 16 count) but the exceptions are built into the rules.

 

I think it would be much easier to teach SAYC first and have them move to Precision than have them start with Precision and then move to SAYC.

[geller]

I really don't think it's very important what system is taught, as long as (1) there are good textbooks and other education materials (homework problems, system reference, etc.) and (2) as long as the system is the same as or close to the most popular approach in that country (SAYC or 2/1=FG in the US or Japan, maybe ACOL in Brtain, .....).

 

I'd really like to hear from more people about their actual experiences in teaching bridge in unversities on this thread, and maybe the system debates could be moved to another thread. (But this may be a minority view.)

 

-Bob

[mycroft]

Two things to note:

 

1) University student != young player. I would teach differently middle school class than I would university students. And this is because:

 

2) University students are, by their very nature, smart, and able and required to learn quickly. The first make-or-break of a university student's career is whether she can ramp up to the speed of the courses. After two or three years, she is in full-on learning mode, and that is the easiest thing in the world for them.

 

If you present the "standard" teaching texts, at the standard schedule - the ones that are designed for new retirees - they will get bored. Plus, it is so rules-based, that they'll ask why, and you'll have to be able to explain it (even if the explanation is "partner has to be able to understand it).

 

3) If your group, as mine was, is full of math/science/engineering students, they will experiment. They will fill their card with odd science. They're used to memorizing a stinkload of random data, so they can - and do, just for fun. And remember, they're there to have fun.

 

Cue my "4C opener is a request to spend the night with LHO" story - true convention in a system played at the university club one night. The rest of the system was more likely to help their bridge than their social life, but it was just as crazy.

 

Emphasize that you not only have to bid to the best contract, you have to make it/set it. The play of the cards is very important, while maybe not as openended/sexy as the bidding, but it has to be practised.

 

Any (sensible) system can win, provided the players know it cold, know each other, play by the rules they set, and play the cards and defend well.

 

Michael.