beginner system

[1eyedjack]

My kids are showing an interest in learning how to play, and I am agonising over which would be the simplest bidding methods on which to start them off. And yes I know that bidding methods are not the only or even most important aspect, but that is the subject of this post. Basic principles of play technique are universal.

 

It seems to be really down to a choice of 2: Weak 1N opener and 4 card majors ("standard english"), or Strong 1N and 5 card majors ("standard rest of the world").

 

Had we lived in the rest of the world it would be a no-brainer. Go with "standard rest of the world". That may yet be the right choice. However we live in England.

 

Please note that which is the more effective method at winning is not even on the radar as regards a factor in the decision. It is all about ease of learning. For the same reason, teaching both methods would only confuse at this stage and is completely out of the question.

 

In favour of the English method

(1) If they ever get to play in F2F games in England they (and their partners) will be better prepared.

(2) There is quite a lot of quite good literature published by the EBU and its teaching arm.

 

In favour of the rest-of-the-world method

(1) They will probably play mostly on BBO. Yes there are clubs within BBO that concentrate on the English method, but it would definitely be more flexible to play the rest-of-world standard when playing on BBO.

(2) They will be better placed to progress eventually to playing a 2/1 system without having to unlearn too much of the methods on which they were weaned. That said, if they get to the point of learning alternative systems I would probably suggest that they learn whichever of the above two standards I did not start them off on, as a higher priority than moving over to 2/1.

 

Neutral to either method, in my current view - and I am open to persuasion, as this is the single-most important factor - is how hard it is for a beginner to pick up the method being taught.

 

Any views?

 

In a family game we may be playing the odd game in rubber format. That may make a difference

[hrothgar]

I'd ignore bidding altogether, at least at the early stages

 

Start with MiniBridge

Get them focused on understanding critical "mechanics" of the game

 

Once they are able to understand when you want to play in

 

1N versus

2M versus

3m versus

various game / slam contracts

 

THEN you can worry about bidding systems

[1eyedjack]

Yes, but they have already got past the minibridge stage. The time eventually comes when this question has to be grasped.

[wank]

better players in england stopped playing weak and 4 already. teach them strong and 5

[1eyedjack]

better players in england stopped playing weak and 4 already. teach them strong and 5

This answer I think concentrates on which is the more effective method, which as I say is not a factor to consider, and it does not address which is the easiest to learn, which is the most important factor to consider, or which the majority of their opponents and partners will be playing, which is the next most important factor (and a long way behind, at that)

[hanp]

How old are they, can't you show them this thread and ask them?

 

If I'd have to pick I'd pick standard English, in the hope that they could play that with Friends. Available teaching material is a plus.

[NickRW]

Neutral to either method, in my current view - and I am open to persuasion, as this is the single-most important factor - is how hard it is for a beginner to pick up the method being taught.

I am not a bridge teacher, and even if I were, my opinion would only really carry weight if I'd taught both. However, 4cM has to be more natural for a complete beginner, rather than sometimes opening a short minor. Having said that, this is really only one point amongst a vast arrary of things to be learnt and I can't really see that it gives Acol any sort of decisive advantage over Standard as a system for newbies.

 

FWIW I taught my kids Acol - but I've changed to 5443 with 14-16NT with one of them (not standard, but a lot closer to it than it is to Acol). I find Acol well tuned to MP - but it loses constructive efficiency because it doesn't open 1m often enough thus wasting possible bidding room - and this is a factor in some game and slam auctions - which, IMO, makes standard a potentially better tool for IMPs. And you appear to be wanting to play on BBO (mostly IMPs) + rubber. In other words I'd go with standard in your shoes.

 

Nick

[vuroth]

It's definitely an easier problem on this side of the atlantic.

 

Then again, some family members play 4 card major/goren style, so my son is going to have problems at some point. Or maybe only I will.

[Old York]

Acol contains far fewer forcing bids than Sayc. Beginners tend to have difficulty remembering forcing sequences. Also, all Acol opening bids are natural 4+ card suits, so it is easy to support minors etc. Basically, Acol has less rules to remember

 

There is no proven reason to teach weak notrump, as beginners get frustrated when contracts fail maybe a strong or variable notrump to start? However, the weak no trump wins on frequency of use and pre-emptive value

 

Tony

[NickRW]

Acol contains far fewer forcing bids than Sayc. Beginners tend to have difficulty remembering forcing sequences.

Yeah, I'd actually forgotten about that! The SAYC section of these forums is littered with questions about "is this sequence forcing or not" - and even experts don't always seem to agree. Acol, with its use (perhaps over use some might say) of limit bids - well the default meta rule seems to be that things aren't forcing in Acol unless agreed otherwise. That makes memory a lot easier.

 

Nick

[BillHiggin]

Strongly favor the local standard! There is just so much upside to being able to ask other local players for advice (no, they will never completely trust dad to be telling the whole truth).

 

Even if they do play mostly on-line, I think the ACOL club is much better for B/I than the main room.

 

I think one of my biggest mistakes when I took up the game was failing to concentrate on the local standard. That just limited my options in so many ways. Let me start over, I know what I did wrong!

[1eyedjack]

Thanks for the views. All very useful. By way of background the kids are teenagers who have been playing cards for years including variants of whist. Rather shameful of me really that it has taken me this long to get them hooked.

 

As for support material, I think that it is hard to top Fred's learn-to-play tutorial contained on BBO, which is at least on a par with any material that the EBU produces, but that is of course rest-of-the-world-based.

 

Most players anywhere in the world who feel competent to give advice should be familiar with both standards, so I find this point inconclusive.

 

Still assimilating this all, and thanks for this.

 

One other factor: I shall probably be advising them to steer clear of unknown live players for the time being, but I am happy to rent them some robots. The robots play 2/1, which is not ideal for my purposes but is closer to the rest-of-world standard than to UK standard.

 

To BillHiggin I would add: If I was addressing this question maybe 5 to 10 years ago I would agree with that sentiment. For me, BBO is now the "local" game, and it may well be for the kids.

[fred]

As for support material, I think that it is hard to top Fred's learn-to-play tutorial contained on BBO, which is at least on a par with any material that the EBU produces, but that is of course rest-of-the-world-based.

Thanks ;)

 

The EBU has been working on creating an Acol version of LTPB. I am not sure if it is available yet - I suggest you contact the EBU if you are interested.

 

You should also know that you do not have to be logged in to BBO to access LTPB. A standalone version of this program (and its sequel) are available as free downloads through the ACBL web site.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Old York]

I am alergic to EBU, but might have a look at their software ;)

 

Mr Bridge has a lot of Acol based software and articles

 

http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/

 

http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/library.php

 

Tony

 

p.s. Can we have an Acol Forum, please?

[Gerben42]

Agree on having an Acol forum. Acol when played sensibly is not so bad in principle. Most of the ways it is used are pretty bad and give it a bad name.

 

As for the OP question: Go ahead and learn them Acol (but with WEAK two bids pls!)

[Old York]

Agree on having an Acol forum...... As for the OP question: Go ahead and learn them Acol (but with WEAK two bids pls!)

...... or play Benji-Acol and have the added luxury of playing weak twos in the majors and strong twos in all 4 suits ;)

 

2♠/2♥ = weak 2

2♦ = Game Force

2♣ = 8+ playing tricks in an undisclosed suit (rule of 25)

 

Tony

[NickRW]

The EBU version of Fred's program is here

[Gerben42]

2♠/2♥ = weak 2

2♦ = Game Force

2♣ = 8+ playing tricks in an undisclosed suit (rule of 25)

 

Tony

 

Doesn't matter just keep it simple.

[nigel_k]

Some thoughts:

 

1. There is something to be said for playing the same systems that their opponents and potential partners will be playing, but they need to be flexible.

 

2. I don't necessarily agree that four card majors and limit bids is more 'natural'. You end up getting into messy FSF auctions quite often. Sometimes forcing sequences allow you to have a more natural auction.

 

3. I don't agree that 4 card majors go with weak NT and 5 card majors go with strong NT. I prefer 5 card majors and weak NT and doing this would avoid taking a position now so they can make their minds up later.

 

4. Four card majors is not that good for beginners because they are reluctant to raise with three and too eager to rebid their suit with only five. When beginners try to achieve the goal of playing in a suit with 8 trumps and not less, they are more likely to have a good auction using five card majors.

[peachy]

You are fortunate to have teenagers who a) enjoy card games and ;) want to learn bridge. Be sure to keep it fun and concentrate only on the positive, at least for a little while, whatever you decide as to system etc. It takes a WILL OF IRON to continue learning bridge if all one hears is what mistakes were made.

[junyi_zhu]

My kids are showing an interest in learning how to play, and I am agonising over which would be the simplest bidding methods on which to start them off. And yes I know that bidding methods are not the only or even most important aspect, but that is the subject of this post. Basic principles of play technique are universal.

 

It seems to be really down to a choice of 2: Weak 1N opener and 4 card majors ("standard english"), or Strong 1N and 5 card majors ("standard rest of the world").

 

Had we lived in the rest of the world it would be a no-brainer. Go with "standard rest of the world". That may yet be the right choice. However we live in England.

 

Please note that which is the more effective method at winning is not even on the radar as regards a factor in the decision. It is all about ease of learning. For the same reason, teaching both methods would only confuse at this stage and is completely out of the question.

 

In favour of the English method

(1) If they ever get to play in F2F games in England they (and their partners) will be better prepared.

(2) There is quite a lot of quite good literature published by the EBU and its teaching arm.

 

In favour of the rest-of-the-world method

(1) They will probably play mostly on BBO. Yes there are clubs within BBO that concentrate on the English method, but it would definitely be more flexible to play the rest-of-world standard when playing on BBO.

(2) They will be better placed to progress eventually to playing a 2/1 system without having to unlearn too much of the methods on which they were weaned. That said, if they get to the point of learning alternative systems I would probably suggest that they learn whichever of the above two standards I did not start them off on, as a higher priority than moving over to 2/1.

 

Neutral to either method, in my current view - and I am open to persuasion, as this is the single-most important factor - is how hard it is for a beginner to pick up the method being taught.

 

Any views?

 

In a family game we may be playing the odd game in rubber format. That may make a difference

The easiest system is probably acol with Strong NT IMHO. Starting from a 4 card major system may help them a lot in their future learning process. Also, I don't want to say 4 card major systems are not as effective as 5 card major systems. The key problem is that few top level theorists study 4 card major systems.

[rbforster]

EHAA?

[helene_t]

Not sure about your kids but in general I think Acol is a good system for beginners.

 

Maybe 5-card majors with limit bids and a strong notrump is easier than Acol (at least I would find that easier to teach), but fact is that 5-card major systems in general use are very confusing in terms of which bids are forcing. 2/1 is simple in that everything is forcing after a 2/1 response and "nothing" is forcing after a 1NT response, but the problem is that it is off in competition (and some would even say off by a passed hand, ugh) so they would have to learn limit bidding anyway. Besides, while it is possible that 2/1 is still a good system for beginners, there are no beginner's books on 2/1. So 2/1 unavoidably comes packed with all kind of fancy gadgets.

 

I disagree with the notion that it is simple to determine the forcing bid in Acol. There are loads of basic sequences the forcing character of which club players don't know, or disagree about. But the great advantage of Acol is that when it goes

1♥-(2♣)-2♦

and similar, i.e. a freebid under the 2-level of the opening suit, we are in the same system as if there had been no interference. This means that people who have learned constructive bidding in Acol will automatically handle a lot of contested auctions (not all, but a lot) correctly.

 

You can even play "Acol" as response structure to an overcall at the 1-level. Nobody plays SAYC-like, let alone 2/1-like, follow-ups after overcalls.

 

I used to think that a strong club system would be ideal for beginners. Having some experience, now, with teaching it to beginners, I am less sure. Anyway, I think availability of a teacher who understands the system well and also plays the system himself, and availability of partners and opps playing the system, and (if the students are going to rely a lot on books) good text books, are the most important factors.

 

If your kids are going to play mostly on BBO, I think 2/1 is what you should be aiming at, although it may not be the very first system they will learn. Thing is, SAYC and Acol, especially Acol, are played at a very low level on BBO. It will do your kids little good to waste time playing with and against all those gozillas. Your kids are beginners now but in a couple of months they will have outgrown all the eternal beginners on BBO as well as the local club. It will be better for them to play with the juniors on BBO. And they don't play Acol.

[the hog]

better players in england stopped playing weak and 4 already. teach them strong and 5

I would have thought the Hacket twins would be regarded as amongst England's better players. They play intermediate and 4 with frequent canape. Hardly a system for beginners.

[wank]

so you're agreeing with me lol. i think strong and 4 is a fine system. weak and 4 is not. their 'intermediate' no-trump is 14-16 or 15-17 depending on position. personally i call that strong.

 

with regard to a weak and 4, if you're playing minor openings with 4-4 Mm, i think you're wasting your time, because partner usually has 5 to open 1M but you can't trust him for it in competition - much better to play 5cM then you know where you are.

 

on the other hand, opening the major with 4-4 your killer sequence is 1M - 2M when you've got a strong NT. can't really move but you can be cold for game.

 

i realise this isn't relevant to what you should be teaching juniors.

 

 

what is relevant though is that none of the better english juniors play weak and 4. these are the people one would expect the OP's children to be playing with online or otherwise, not grannies at the local bridge club.