Help Me Design as Natural a System as Possible

[32519]

My goal is to design a system limiting artificial bids to the absolute minimum for beginners in my hometown. However basic artificial bids such as Stayman and Jacoby Transfers will be retained. Otherwise the only proposed forcing bid in the system will be a change of suit. So as soon as a suit gets repeated or NT bid, the auction is no longer forcing.

 

So for starters opening bids look like this:

1♠/1♥/1♦ all promise a 5-card suit and 12 + HCP

1♣ of necessity must be artificial, promising 12-14 HCP often balanced or 18+ HCP and an unbalanced hand

1NT promises 15-17 HCP balanced

2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ all promise a 6-card suit and 5-11 HCP NV, 8-11 HCP V

2NT promises 22-23 HCP balanced

3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ all promise a 7-card suit and 5-11 HCP NV, 8-11 HCP V

3NT promises 24-25 HCP balanced

 

First round responses look something like this:

The 1♣ bid is forcing for 1 round. So over 1♣, 1♦ = 0-4 HCP. Anything other response on level 1 shows 5-9 HCP and at least 4-cards in the suit bid. [After a positive response to the 1♣ opening, a jump to 2NT by opener shows 20-21 HCP balanced]. 1NT shows 5-9 HCP and no 4-card major. A direct bid of 2♣ or 2♦ shows 10+ HCP and a 5-card suit, a 4-card major still possible as well. A direct bid to 2NT shows 12+ HCP and shortness in ♣ (either 4441, or 4432).

 

Over 1♠/1♥/1♦ responses are natural. A single raise promises 3-card support and 6-9 HCP. 1NT shows 6-9 HCP. A direct bid of 2NT shows 12+ HCP and shortness in the suit opened (either 4441 or 4432). Any new suit bid is forcing. Differentiating between 3-card support and 4-card support for the suit opened is done as follows, a) a direct jump to 3 in the suit promises 4-card support and 10-11 HCP, b) a change of suit followed by a jump (or bid) in the suit opened promises 3-card support and 10-11 HCP. A direct jump to game in the suit opened promises 5-card support and 4-9 HCP.

 

Over 1NT, Stayman and Jacoby Transfers are retained.

 

Over 2-level suit openings, new suits are non-forcing. However now a 2NT bid of necessity becomes artificial and forcing, asking for a feature.

 

Over 2NT, Stayman and Jacoby Transfers are retained.

 

So what’s missing so far for the uncontested auction?

[hrothgar]

I think that it is a mistake to teach beginners bidding.

 

If players don't understand the basics, bidding is only going to confuse them. When I say "the basics" I mean being able to look at two hands and decide

 

1. Whether they want to play in part score versus game versus slam

2. What the best strain is

 

Start your beginner's on Minibridge or something similar.

Once they have a good grasp on items one and two, teach them the standard system in the area in which they play.

 

Trying to create your own idiosyncratic mess isn't going to do anyone any good in the long term.

[mikeh]

While I commend you for the effort, I strongly disagree with the idea.

 

Firstly, your idea immediately contradicts what you claim to be your goal....you have an artificial 1♣ opening that will be by far the most common opening bid.

 

Secondly, beginners schooled in your methods will be confused, turned off and lost as soon as they try to play with or against anyone not taught by you.

 

Thirdly, and related to the 2nd point, a lot of people have, over many years, worked on the best way to introduce players to bidding. I know Audrey Grant, and I know the extent to which she has received help from some of the best bridge theoreticians in the game. I don't understand why one wouldn't simply adopt her methods.

 

Not only are they well-regarded, but also they are supported by a wealth of written and video material that your students can obtain, at modest cost, and study themselves.

[kenrexford]

Try Culbertson. It has already been done.

[PhilKing]

 

Secondly, beginners schooled in your methods will be confused, turned off and lost as soon as they try to play with or against anyone not taught by you.

 

 

Isn't that the point?

[Vampyr]

Thirdly, and related to the 2nd point, a lot of people have, over many years, worked on the best way to introduce players to bidding. I know Audrey Grant, and I know the extent to which she has received help from some of the best bridge theoreticians in the game. I don't understand why one wouldn't simply adopt her methods.

 

If the methods in Audrey Grant's books are not close to what is normally played by less-experienced players in your area, you can try the EBU teaching materials -- weak NTs, 4-card suits and Acol Twos.

 

By the way, going back to the methods listed in your OP, Stayman is good for new players; transfers are not appropriate until much later.

[PhilKing]

Try Culbertson. It has already been done.

 

I think he's just invented Polish Club.

[Bbradley62]

My goal is to design a system limiting artificial bids to the absolute minimum for beginners in my hometown.

Do lower-level players in your area tend to play SAYC, or something close to it? If so, that's the way to go.

[Antrax]

By the way, going back to the methods listed in your OP, Stayman is good for new players; transfers are not appropriate until much later.

I strongly disagree with this notion (though I've failed convincing the teaching authorities here). Back when the only way to learn was to play or read books, you could confine people to whatever you made up that was good for them. Today we have the internet and BBO, so as an absolute beginner it took me all of a day to understand that weird system I play over NT isn't really used by anyone, which pissed me off pretty badly as it's much harder to unlearn something than it is to learn something new, and transfers were pretty easy and certainly no more difficult than what I've been taught.

I don't know why people think new players are idiots. We don't know Bridge, but we do have brains, and there's nothing inherently difficult about transfers, unless you choose to first fill our heads with nonsense and then try to make us forget it, and suddenly transfers are difficult to remember and understand. [/rant]

[32519]

In our local club we have a number of inexperienced players who play something similar. In their own way they cope fairly well in most auctions. The fact that their system limits artificial bids reduces any possibility of a misunderstanding; you simply bid what you have! Seeing how they cope, I thought it might not be a bad idea to start beginners off with something similar. I find that beginners often struggle to understand artificial bids; why bid a suit you don’t have or don’t have any interest in?

 

The OP has borrowed much from what these inexperienced players are already doing. There are some changes e.g. playing a 15-17 HCP NT versus a 16-18 HCP NT, 2♣ as a natural weak 2 versus a strong artificial 22+ HCP hand.

[awm]

EHAA is by far the simplest system. In particular:

 

(1) You open your longest suit. No artificial minor suit openings (or whatever we are calling 3+ these days).

(2) No artificial strong bid to worry about.

(3) No need for complicated system over the weak notrump opening.

 

It's also a lot of fun to play, and can be quite effective.

[Zelandakh]

If the design goal is to create as natural a system as possible then a good start would be for an opening of 1 in a suit to promise 4 cards and for that to be the longest suit. Whether you think of that as Acol, EHAA or Culbertson (without the prepared club) is irrelevant. At least make a pretence of matching the design goal! The key things for a beginner to understand is that there is a ladder of bidding steps for given hands plus the approach-forcing concept. So, teaching Acol I give the following table´for balanced hands:-

 

12-14 open 1NT

15-16 open 1 of a suit, rebid NT at min level

17-18 open 1 of a suit, make a jump rebid in NT

19 open 1 of a suit, rebid 3NT

20-22 open 2NT

23-24 open 2♣, rebid NT at min level

25-26 open 2♣, rebid 3NT

 

Not the most efficient or scientific system for sure but it is simple to follow in combination with a table on which suit to open with 4432 hands. Unbalanced hands can be treated the same way, with a table of rebids for weak-medium-strong hands. Using this method you can have someone who understands the basics (card play, etc) bidding most of their games in a day, assuming that they are intelligent enough to absorb the material. I think the equivalent process using this system would take longer. For example, I would look at your schedule of opening bids, then look at my hand (AKxx/x/xxx/AKQxx) and panic! Then probably pass since no other bid fits. Whereas playing a normal beginner system I see that I have 12-19 points and an unbalanced hand and therefore open my longest suit - easy.

[32519]

Here is an tongue-in-cheek example of how to get a top score through "bidding what you have."

 

A competitor was called away on an emergency from a bridge tournament, with still the last board to play. So the players asked a kibitzer to take his place although he knew nothing about the game. They told him "Just bid what you've got and follow suit". He sat South and the following bidding sequence ensued:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj3h432d8765432ca&w=skqt8hjt97dqtckj8&n=sa9hakq65dakcqt54&e=s76542h8dj9c97632&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp2hp2sp3cp3hp4np7ddppp]399|300[/hv]

South took the lead of the king of spades with the ace, cashed the ace and king of trumps, came to hand with the ace of clubs and played all his diamonds.

On the last one, West was hopelessly squeezed in hearts and spades, and ultimately discarded a heart, whereupon South made the last four tricks in hearts.

When the opposition saw South's hand, they called the director, who asked for an explanation of the bidding, and got the following reply…

"I was told to bid what I've got, and I have one club, 2 spades, 3 hearts and 7 diamonds!"

[gwnn]

To a newborn, every joke is new (even though he doesn't indicate the source he copied it from).

[Zelandakh]

This one makes an appearance on BBF every year or so. It is in several places over the internet, for example here about half way down the page. I have looked for such a sequence in my own relay system but alas not been able to find one.

[helene_t]

I am missing a response the 1♣ with 10-11 balanced. Why not play the 1-level responses as 0-11? Maybe a 1NT response could be 7-10, then with 0-6 or 11 points you start with 1♦ and rebid 1NT or 2NT, respectively. It would require opener to rebid 1M on a 3-card suit as in Polish club, though.

 

I am not sure if I understand the rationale for playing 1NT as 15-17. If a 1-level response is 5-9 then you need at least 19 to create a GF while you can sign off with 15, so it seems to me that 16-18 would be better.

 

Your system has a lack of forcing bids. In particular, a GF responder to 1♣ has to respond at the 2-level and then he is not even creating a gf. I wonder what opener is supposed to do with six clubs and 15+ points when it starts

1♣-2♦.

3♣ is presumably nonforcing. Does he have to fake a new suit? Just blast 3NT?

 

You open 1♣ and hear a 1♠ response. What are you supposed to do with 18 points and 5-5 in the red suits? With 18 points and 4♥5♣? Presumably both hands will rebid 2♥ which would be forcing for one round only. I think it will be difficult to sort those hands out and there will be lots of confusion about what is forcing and what is not.

 

Maybe those issues can be fixed but it will always require a lot of artificiality to cope with a 1♣ opening that has so many different meanings as yours has. Even in Polish club there is a need for artificiality, and yours is worse because 1♣ also contains the hands which Polish clubbers open 2♣.

 

But most important: Don't teach homebaked methods to beginners. Even the most skilled system designer will make flaws in a new bidding system, it will take years of practicing to discover and patch all the holes. And even in the unlikely event that you actually mannaged to design a good system, it would still be unsuitable for beginners. Beginners need something they can play with partners who have been taught only standard methods, and they need something they can read about in mainstream textbooks and magazines. And it should be similar (albeit necesarily much simpler) than what they can watch on vugraph.

 

Precision, Acol, Dutch Acol, Goren and SEF are all decent systems for beginners (i.e. students new to bidding. I agree with Richard that true beginners shouldn't learn bidding at all). Maybe EHAA, Fantunes, WJ, Vienna or Carrot Club could be considered as well. Chose one of those on the basis of

- what is popular in your area

- what is supported by good textbooks and other teachning material.

[gwnn]

You can't go much more natural than

1C=4+ cards, 12-21

1D=4+ cards, 12-21

1H=4+ cards, 12-21

1S=4+ cards, 12-21

1NT=15-17

2C=22+

2D=6+ cards, 6-9

2H=6+ cards, 6-9

2S=6+ cards, 6-9

 

OK, EHAA is more natural, so are strong twos. But this one is similar to what at least some players play and it will be easier to learn other systems.

 

There is only the question of which suit you want to open from 4m4M and 4441. I think from 4m4M you should make them open the major and just forget to tell them about 4441 because those hands don't come up that much.

[NickRW]

I strongly endorse hrothgar's comments - teach them to play the cards first with minibridge or similar.

 

After that there are at least 4 existing, essentially natural systems they can learn - EHAA, Acol, KS and Standard - why re-invent the wheel? For that matter basic Precision is also essentially a natural system.

 

Nick

[ahydra]

Hmm... teaching beginners strong twos? Ugh. No doubt you'll be teaching them standard attitude as well. :P I hate this idea and really wish the EBU would switch their teaching materials to be 3 weak 2s or maybe Benji, since that's what most people play in clubs - why make new players learn an outdated system then have to learn another when they play in a club.

 

Precision is natural? 1C not promising any clubs, 1D not promising any diamonds, 2D not promising a strong hand, nor a pre-empt, nor any diamonds... Doesn't sound too natural to me!

 

If I was teaching a beginner I'd teach him/her 4cM, either weak or strong NT, 3 weak twos, Stayman, Blackwood. But of course as others have said he/she should learn at least a few card play techniques first (counting winners and losers, drawing trumps, the finesse - any others?)

 

Edit: also I think an overlooked component of teaching a natural system like Acol/SAYC is that opener should have a planned rebid. So e.g. a hand with 5H, 4C and 12-15 points plans to open 1H and rebid 2C unless responder raises hearts or bids 2D.

 

ahydra

[NickRW]

Hmm... teaching beginners strong twos? Ugh. No doubt you'll be teaching them standard attitude as well. :P I hate this idea and really wish the EBU would switch their teaching materials to be 3 weak 2s or maybe Benji, since that's what most people play in clubs - why make new players learn an outdated system then have to learn another when they play in a club.

 

It depends on what club(s) you play in. 3 weak twos, though hardly rare, is not the norm where I am.

 

 

Precision is natural? 1C not promising any clubs, 1D not promising any diamonds, 2D not promising a strong hand, nor a pre-empt, nor any diamonds... Doesn't sound too natural to me!

 

I did say "essentially" natural. Also 1♣ is no more unnatural than 2♣ in Acol/Standard. 2♦ is artificial it is true - but quite a few artificial uses have been thought of for that particular opening - including Benji - one of the options you would consider. I also said "basic" precision - i.e. the orignial 13-15NT. In which case, if you're prepared to pass a handful of crappy looking 11/12 counts and upgrade the best of them to a "13", then you'll find that you never need to open 1♦ on less than 4. I admit this is relatively prehistoric now.

[32519]

Acol Basic seems to be the way to go with these beginners. This uses almost no artificial bids. This is what I managed to find for Acol-Basic:

1 NT = 12-14 HCP, Stayman (interestingly no Jacoby Transfers)

1m-2NT = Forcing

Strong Jump-Shift Responses by an unpassed hand

Weak Jump-Shift Responses by a passed hand

2NT = 20-22 HCP, Stayman (no Jacoby Transfers)

Gambling 3NT (not sure if a beginner should be taught this)

Strong 2 Bids (archaic?)

Takeout Doubles played through 4♥

New Suit Response to Overcall is forcing for 1 round

Jump Raises are Invitational

Weak Jump-Shifts to Partner’s Overcall

Regular Blackwood

 

Once you move from Acol Basic to Acol Intermediate, the number of add-on's becomes quite significant. Must say though, I still liked the idea of doing something that other players without much experience in our local club were using quite effectively.

[Cyberyeti]

IMO the most natural system I ever played was a home hashed version of precision.

 

4 card diamond, 5 card majors, 12-15 1N, basically only the club is artificial.

[Vampyr]

I don't know why people think new players are idiots. We don't know Bridge, but we do have brains, and there's nothing inherently difficult about transfers, unless you choose to first fill our heads with nonsense and then try to make us forget it, and suddenly transfers are difficult to remember and understand. [/rant]

 

Transfers are not difficult to understand. They are not suitable for beginners for other reasons.

 

People will feel more comfortable with a system that dictates that they bid what they have got. And it's not as though a system without transfers is unplayable. Players should incorporate conventions only when they know what problem they are trying to solve. Even if you think that new players "need" to play Jacoby Transfers because everyone else does, wait until they have been bidding naturally for a bit, and then tell them (or better, give them some prepared hands so they can see for themselves) some of the advantages of the artificial approach. Now they will understand what it is they are trying to accomplish.

 

Hmm... teaching beginners strong twos? Ugh. No doubt you'll be teaching them standard attitude as well. :P I hate this idea and really wish the EBU would switch their teaching materials to be 3 weak 2s or maybe Benji, since that's what most people play in clubs - why make new players learn an outdated system then have to learn another when they play in a club.

 

I agree that 3 weak Twos or Benji (whichever is more prevalent amongst the players these beginners will eventually have as partners) should probably be taught if strong twos are not popular in their locale.

[Vampyr]

Must say though, I still liked the idea of doing something that other players without much experience in our local club were using quite effectively.

 

This is best, because your beginners will eventually need partners.

[Zelandakh]

1m-2NT = Forcing

Weak Jump-Shift Responses by a passed hand

Takeout Doubles played through 4♥

1m - 2NT is usually played as 10-12 with side suit stops. That is certainly what I learnt as a beginner.

Jump shifts by a passed hand are played as fit jumps, a maximum pass with support and a side suit. This is the only way of forcing partner to bid again so important.

Negative doubles are more commonly played through 2♠ by beginners, or 3♠ by intermediates. 4♥ is better than this of course. An interesting idea is to teach beginners that all doubles are for takeout and then add exceptions to this later (after a preempt, with a fit, etc). This is certainly better than teaching that doubles are penalty unless on an exception list.