How do you cure this problem?

[Hanoi5]

Say you teach students that:

 

1♥-(1♠)-2♠ shows 11+ with a heart fit instead of 1♥-(1♠)-3♥ (which then can and will be used to show a weak hand with an extra fitting heart).

 

Even though they know this both students continue playing 1♥-(1♠)-3♥ as showing 11-12, even though both have agreed and discussed that the sequence will show a weak hand and the cue-bid the limit + hand. In fact, having just discussed it they will both bid it and alert it as 11-12, afterwards laughing at how they made the same mistake which wasn't such for they were in the same wave-length. How would you call and treat this problem? Both players committing the same mistake from different perspectives and thus getting it right.

[billw55]

They should practice separately with partners who do it correctly. That might help.

[CSGibson]

My parents do that - they play a jump from 1M to 3M as forcing in competition or out, but they also play a cue-bid as limit raise or better. I have no problem with it because they are on the same page, enjoy playing with each other, enjoy playing bridge, and may need a period when they get comfortable with cue-bid raises before they feel the need to transition to something else.

[kenberg]

You might try asking them why they continue in the same way. People sign up for exercise classes that they miss, weight reduction classes that have programs that they do not intend to follow, and so on. When I first started playing duplicate I signed up for some classes. The instructor introduced Jacoby 2NT, Lebensohl over NT interference, things like that. Then we would have supervised play. There was this very nice lady who, as we sat down as partners, would ask "Do you play a short club?" Any other bridge idea went in one ear and out the other. She was very nice, very rich, rather elderly, I guess bridge lessons were a pleasant evening out for her.

 

Taking lessons and totally ignoring what you are told seems strange to me, but I was a college prof and I could relay some pretty weird choices in that domain as well.

 

Anyway, I suggest asking them why. Not confrontationally, simply as a matter of curiosity. And then report back. Maybe we all learn something about human psychology.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago, the ACBL had a period of time in which it allowed virtually anything to be played at regional and national tournaments. During this period of time, a friend of mine and I played the original Romex system (and we won our first regional - a 2-session qualifying and final open pairs - playing Romex in 1979). Shortly thereafter, the ACBL stopped allowing everything, and we could no longer play the Dynamic notrump. Rather than ditch the system, we decided to reverse the meanings of our 1NT and 2♦ openings. The 1NT opening was now 19-20 balanced (the original Mexican 2D opening) and the 2♦ opening was now equivalent to the Dynamic notrump. This was permitted. Rather than create a new set of responses for the Mexican 2♦ opening that we were now opening 1NT, we decided that 2♣ and 2♦ responses were to play, and everything else above 2♦ had the same meaning as it used to have over the original 2♦ opening. Not optimal, but it was workable. And, given the frequency of an opening hand with 19-20 HCP balanced, it didn't seem like that big a deal.

 

So, we were playing in a tournament and we had the following auction:

 

1NT (19-20) - 2♣

2♦ - 3NT

All Pass

 

We played the board, got a normal result and moved on. Only later did we realize that we had perpetrated a Stayman auction despite our agreement that a 2♣ response was to play.

[paulg]

When I taught this to a couple of people, I really focused on the weak hands. Beginners love to bid and being able to do so with a really weak hand but with support for partner is really good.

 

Then ask them what they'd do with a limit hand.

 

But, of course, they'll always forget occasionally. That is why they are beginners.

[barmar]

I don't think there's any magic cure for this, only experience will do it. Another example is negative doubles -- novices always forget about this.

 

Beginners have lots to think about when they're bidding, too much for many of them to remember all the exceptions (e.g. jump raises show a good hand EXCEPT when a cue bid is available). As you become more experienced, basic rules become automatic, and this makes it easier to learn new conventions and exceptions to the rules.

 

This is how people learn any complex activity: playing music, driving, sports, etc.

 

As someone said, avoiding having novices play with each other will help, since they won't reinforce each others' errors. But finding more advanced players willing to mentor them may be difficult.

[semeai]

Some possibilities:

 

Solution 1: Allow them to play this way.

 

Solution 2: Introduce concepts at a slower rate to them. Also, make sure they understand why this is a better way to play. If they are resistant or can't understand why, consider Solution 1.

 

Solution 3: Laugh, say, "I bet next time you'll both remember," and carry on as you have been.

[barmar]

Solution 1: Allow them to play this way.

Is a teacher really doing their job if they adopt this "solution"? "I've tried to teach Johnny the I-before-E rule, but he just doesn't get it, so I gave up and let him spell how he likes."

[semeai]

Is a teacher really doing their job if they adopt this "solution"? "I've tried to teach Johnny the I-before-E rule, but he just doesn't get it, so I gave up and let him spell how he likes."

 

Unlike that situation, in bridge there is no one correct way to bid. If you're teaching beginners and they can't handle the conventions you introduce, it's always an option to go back to how they played before you introduced the convention.

[PhilKing]

It sounds as though the mistake is teaching them this treatment in the first place.

 

They need a solid grasp of fundamentals (ie 3♥ shows a hand too good for 2♥ but not strong enough for 4♥) before you turn their world on it's head.

[blackshoe]

Many years ago, the ACBL had a period of time in which it allowed virtually anything to be played at regional and national tournaments. During this period of time, a friend of mine and I played the original Romex system (and we won our first regional - a 2-session qualifying and final open pairs - playing Romex in 1979). Shortly thereafter, the ACBL stopped allowing everything, and we could no longer play the Dynamic notrump

Interesting. Do you think your good results with Romex were because the system was good, or because it was unusual/unanticipated?

 

I suspect you know that the Dynamic NT is legal on the GCC now, and has been for some years. Do you now when it became allowable again?

 

The current "two-card" version of Romex (at MPs, Romex when vulnerable, Romex Forcing Club {sort of Precision-like} when not vulnerable, at IMPs, RFC only when favorable) is GCC, except for three openings: 2NT showing a "bad" 3 level preempt in either minor (Mid-chart, 6 board segments), 4NT showing a good 5 level preempt in either minor (Mid-chart, 2 board segments), and 2♥ showing a "Precision 2♦" three suited opening (Mid-chart, 2 board segments). Annoying for me, as there aren't many Mid-chart events around here.

[32519]

Say you teach students that:

 

1♥-(1♠)-2♠ shows 11+ with a heart fit

 

When does –

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?

2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?

[32519]

Shortly thereafter, the ACBL stopped allowing everything, and we could no longer play the Dynamic notrump.

 

What's is the Dynamic notrump?

[Fluffy]

to understand a convention you need then to understand the problem it solves, otherwise they will never use it properly. What does the cuebid solve?, well 2 things, first space for slam exploration and second freeing up 3♥ for competitive purposes.

 

So for them to learn I think best is to give them a bunch of competitive hands and see what problems it creates to opponents and what problems it solves for you.

[gszes]

there is a HUGE difference btn learning something for the first time and trying to

replace learned knowledge with new information. A new student thinks every

bridge situation is a problem because they know how to solve nothing. Their

concentration is quite high. A person that has learned something (and used it

effectively for a long time) does not concentrate as much when facing the familiar.

 

They see their invitational hand and "know" what to do next. It takes a reasonable

amount of repetition to completely eliminate the learned (and effective) techniques

and replace them with better ones. Have them do 15-20 hands in a row and make sure

this problem area is addressed frequently until you see a change has taken place.

 

Remember that some are better at "reprogramming" their thinking than others have patience.

[kenberg]

Sorry, but I cannot resist. This is a totally true story. I was a grad student, a friend was teaching pre-calculus in the evening school, I taught his class one evening. It went well and afterward a guy came up:

 

"You seem like a reasonable guy, I want to ask you a question.

 

"Sure.

 

"Why can't you subtract fractions the same way you add fractions?

 

After resisting the answer "if you did it the same way you would get the sum" I said "What do you mean"

 

With hands waving: When you add fractions you take this number and multiply it by this other number, and then this other number and multiply it by this other number, you add them, and put it up here. Then you take this number and multiply it by this other number and put it down there"

 

""Well", I began, I usually explain this by re-writing both fractions so that they have a common denom"

 

"Wait. I'm a practical man. I don't have time for math theory. What I want to know is why you can't subtract fractions the same way that you add them.

 

Me, with hands waving, "You can. You take this number and multiply it by this other number and then this other number and multiply it by this other number, you subtract them, and put it up here. Then you take this number and multiply it by this other number and put it down there"

 

 

Big smile appears, he thanks me, and leaves with the comment "And they tell you math is all obvious"

 

 

Moral: Conceptual explanations work for some, not for others.

 

 

I was serious about asking them why. It sounds as if you have just explained what they are to do and then provided them with sample hands. You would expect that they would, in this setting, remember what you just said. Why did they not do it? Beats me.

[blackshoe]

What's is the Dynamic notrump?

An opening bid of 1NT is artificial and strong. It shows approximately 19-21 HCP. More precisely it shows one of:

1. A balanced hand (no singleton or void, not more than one doubleton) of 19-20 HCP and six Neapolitan controls (Ace=2 controls, K=1 control). A 21 HCP hand with fewer than seven controls may be downgraded and opened 1NT, as may an 18 HCP hand with more than five controls.

2. An unbalanced hand with 19-21 HCP and four or five losers — basically the kind of hand with which in Standard American or 2/1 one would reverse or jump shift.

 

Using the Dynamic NT, a jump shift or reverse after an opening suit bid at the one level shows 17 to 18 HCP and shape. In particular, the jump shift shows 5-5 or better in the two suits.

 

Responses to the Dynamic NT are mainly artificial:

 

2♣: 0-5 HCP

2♦: 6+ HCP, 0-4 controls. If 3 or 4 controls, at least 3 cover cards. FG.

2♥: 3 controls. FG.

2♠: 4 controls. FG.

2NT: 5 controls. FG.

3♣: 6+ controls. FG.

3♦: transfer to ♥, showing, in essence, a weak two (6-10 HCP, 6 card suit) in ♥. FG.

3♥: transfer to ♠, similar to 3♦.

 

There's more, but the higher responses are pretty rare. Also, in the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♦, opener's rebid is Stayman, and 2NT instead of 2♦ denies a four card major. Responses that show 4+ controls strongly suggest a slam, as opener should have six controls.

[32519]

When does –

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?

2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?

What has happened to all the experts? I have added a third possibility to this list –

 

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?

2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?

3. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a game forcing cue-bid, whenever partner is an unpassed hand? I have seen this played by a few partnerships. Partner has either a big distributional fit with opener, or a big hand of his own. With a big hand, all (or nearly all) of the HCP are located in 3 hands. Finessing the overcaller for the missing HCP becomes a no-brainer.

 

So how exactly do you differentiate between these 3 sequences?

[Bbradley62]

How would you call and treat this problem?

Ask to see their convention card, which a good instructor should have taught them to complete. If they are not playing in accordance with their convention card, punish them for improperly filling out that card.

[MrAce]

to understand a convention you need then to understand the problem it solves, otherwise they will never use it properly. What does the cuebid solve?, well 2 things, first space for slam exploration and second freeing up 3♥ for competitive purposes.

 

So for them to learn I think best is to give them a bunch of competitive hands and see what problems it creates to opponents and what problems it solves for you.

 

 

This

[sfi]

What has happened to all the experts?

 

This might go some way to answering your question.

[barmar]

Unlike that situation, in bridge there is no one correct way to bid.

While this is true, some ways are better than others. There's a reason why practically all good players use jump raises in competition as preemptive, not strong. Decisions about what is the "correct" way to bid should be made by players who know what they're doing -- students are not usually qualified to do this for themselves.

 

However, a practical balance has to be made between bidding theory and the player's memory capacity. If learning something new overloads your brain, you're not going to get its value.

If you're teaching beginners and they can't handle the conventions you introduce, it's always an option to go back to how they played before you introduced the convention.

The teacher has to judge when the students are ready to learn something new, of course -- you can't throw everything at them at once. But once you decide it's time to teach them this, I tnink you're doing them a disservice by just giving up. When they screw it up, you need to point out to them, and hopefully it will eventually sink in.

[ArtK78]

Interesting. Do you think your good results with Romex were because the system was good, or because it was unusual/unanticipated?

I think that our good results were the result of playing a sound system and thinking soundly.

 

One of the things that the original Romex system forced one to do was to be disciplined. As a relatively new player (started playing at the age of 16 in 1972) I learned Romex in the mid-70s after dabbling with Goren, Schenken, Precision and Blue Team.

 

As Romex is a natural, disciplined and predominantly sound system, I cannot say that our good results were a result of it being unusual or unanticipated. Aside from the way one handles the strong hands, all hands are handled in a very natural manner. The only thing that is "unusual" to the opps would be the lack of a "strong" NT opening. Balanced hands with 15-18 HCP are opened one of a suit. Of course, when you open one of a suit the opps don't know whether you have the usual 12-15 HCP opener or a stronger opener, but it is not something that really concerns them.

 

Speaking of forcing one to be disciplined, I found that the same could be said of playing the CC Wei/Goren version of Precision that I learned in the early 70s. The fact that the system was set forth in some detail and any deviation from the stated system would cause all sorts of problems forced those learning the system (especially new players with limited experience in hand valuation) to follow the system in a very disciplined manner. Romex forced discipline in two ways - one was the need to follow the system, and the other was the fact that the system, as originally written, was a very sound opening system leaving little room for flights of fancy.

 

My original Romex partner still plays Romex with his now regular partner in the Washington DC area. They have had some successes, including a second place finish in the 0-5000 LM pairs and at least one win in the open flight of the District 6 GNT (which is not an easy district to win).

[hrothgar]

When does –

1. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show 11+ with a heart fit?

2. 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ show a Western cue-bid (or is it an Eastern cue-bid, I always get them mixed up), asking for a ♠ stopper to play in 3NT?

 

If you are playing relatively standard methods

 

1. Always*

2. Never

 

*With the obvious caveat that that "11 HCP" does not a limit raise make