What system do you recommend a novice should learn?

[gwnn]

Any system is free from ambiguity if it is well enough defined, but no system is well enough defined by four letters.

[Vampyr]

I am sure it could always be argued that a particular forcing character is canonic or optimal, but it is not easy to explain to beginners how they can figure out the forcing character of...

 

Yes, I see what you mean. All auctions but the first one could be dealt with using a few rules, eg after 2/1, the auction is forced to 2 of the opener's suit, but a jump or 4th-suit bid is GF; and of course the 2NT rebid will have a specific, known range. This is a lot to take in and is not entirely accurate.

 

2/1GF is a lot simpler. Of course, in England, beginners will have trouble finding peers who play the system, since those who have taken lessons will have learnt basic Acol.

 

And speaking of lessons, that is what I would recommend to the OP -- take a series of lessons, which will among other things allow you to become familiar with the system that beginners in your area play, and introduce you to potential partners.

[Winstonm]

IMO the key to making bridge fun and interesting for new players is to make bidding as simple as possible and to concentrate on the card play. That's what made Charles Goren such a guru of the masses. The rules were simple to learn and follow - there was a lot of bashing, little finesse, in the bidding. But it quickly got you to playing the game, and that is the key issue.

 

As to forcing/non-forcing, it was pretty simple to play Goren's way: responder's jump shifts, jump raises and new suits were forcing; opener's jump shift or reverse was forcing. 2-bids were all forcing. You counted points, added them up, then bashed into some game or slam, depending on points, or passed in a partscore if the required points were not held in the combined hands.

 

This method is simply, quick, and fun, and it can be bid immediately by a rank beginner with a small crib sheet about the size of business card taped to the table - I would hate to try to put 2/1 on a business card.

 

Nuances of the game come later, after the hook is set deeply. :P

[Lovera]

I suggest Stayman that i use (The complete Stayman sisteme in modern contract bidding) but i had to say : this book is not recent (1955) but the system is clear also for bidding in defence, is based on 5th major, is not complicated to understand, Stayman is the author of 1 NT (original version) that nowaday has a lot of variation, the system explain you a good method of evalutation of your hand (simply to learn) is then an homogeneous system that can serve like a point of starting to understand mechanics of natural bidding (i don't know if there is a more recent printing) for a novice before to study artificial systems (more complicated).

[mgoetze]

And you necroed this thread just to make that absurdly silly suggestion? Wow.

[Lovera]

And you necroed this thread just to make that absurdly silly suggestion? Wow.

The system is good and i don't want "necroed.." anything,bye.

[mgoetze]

The system is good and i don't want "necroed.." anything,bye.

If a thread has been dead for more than a year it certainly counts as necromancy around these parts.

[akwoo]

Beginners here claim to play Standard American but actually play 5-card major strong NT Acol: 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ (always) and 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ (mostly) are non forcing.

 

I think this is the simplest start for someone playing in North America. I think forcing 1N is too complicated for beginners, and while the nuances of what's forcing after a 2/1 bid in SA are complicated, they aren't so complicated in Acol. I'm happy to toss the limit raise and end up playing Goren with 5 card majors if that's what's desired.

 

I would recommend English Acol, except that beginners generally hate playing marginal 1N contracts, and I'm afraid a lot of beginners would never open 1N playing English Acol simply because they are scared of it. It's hard enough getting some beginners to open a 16 hcp balanced hand 1N when they are missing a stopper. Loss aversion is a big thing, and many players for psychological reasons behave as if -100 for down 2 is a lot worse than -110 for letting opps make 2 of a major.

[Vampyr]

Beginners here claim to play Standard American but actually play 5-card major strong NT Acol: 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ (always) and 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ (mostly) are non forcing.

 

I think this is the simplest start for someone playing in North America. I

 

You are probably right, but 2/1 should be forcing to two of the suit opened.

[akwoo]

You are probably right, but 2/1 should be forcing to two of the suit opened.

 

You are right, but:

 

1) It's hard enough to get beginners to understand reverses. Seeing 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ and 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ as fundamentally different is even harder.

 

2) Remember the aversion to playing 1N? This means beginners are going to make 2/1 bids on unbalanced 8 counts even though they know they shouldn't, because the thought of being left in 1N without stoppers induces panic, and they know they can't pass.

[Lovera]

No, i don't think so (my opinion is that is better 1NT 16-18 than 12-14 weak NT and to remain in Stayman the author explain both (you choise what you prefer in according of your style of play). I think that "adversion" (let me say so) depends a beginner is more sure to play trump than NT(.. that required controlls in every suit ). For this aim i suggest "Total Bridge" by Bertrand Romanet on planning (so fear will be away), bye.

[helene_t]

Just changed my vote from Acol to Goren. Not so much because of the strong notrump but more because invitational jumps are probably not so good for beginners as they will have to bid fake suits (including but not limited to FSF) in order to force. Not sure how to progress from that, though. Obviously at some points they will need to learn some way to show invitational hands.

[hrothgar]

Simple observation:

 

I recall seeing discussions about the transition from traditional Goren and Culbertson to 5 card majors based systems.

 

As I recall, the majority of the arguments in favor of 5 card majors focused on the relative simplicity of teaching these methods.

 

4 card majors required a lot more judgement.

5 card majors was rules based.

Novices benefit from rules. Over time, they may develop judgement.

 

Not sure if I agree, but thats what folks were saying way back when.

[StevenG]

You need partners. If you're going to walk into a bridge club without a partner and play with a pickup, you have to play the local standard system.

 

It doesn't matter what you think is theoretically best, if your partner doesn't know it.

[blackshoe]

My father alleged, at 80, that if he took up bridge again, he would play Culbertson, and no other system. :P

[MrAce]

If you live in America, learn standard American as the base system. You need to know standard American even if you play 2/1, because in competition it reverts to standard American, and you should definitely play a system which you can play with lots of partners without much discussion when starting out - not only will playing with lots of people have the potential for accelerating your learning curve, but also if you are playing a standard American system, it is easy to ask questions of people who are better than you, since they also generally know the system.

 

If you are in Poland, learn Polish club. In England, learn Acol. In France, learn SEF. Etc.

 

Imho this is by far the best reply. No one can improve quick by themselves. If you all remember the times when we were rookies (well I am still rookie but that's just me) we asked, observed, watched, played with or against people who were better than us, and there were a lot of them. Even if you are playing the easiest system to learn ever, but there is no one around to walk you through the most common mistakes or downsides of the system (which I believe all systems have one) then imo you are doing wrong.

 

Advice of "learn the system which is most popular in your area" is correct imo.

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with CSGibson and MrAce, you have to go with what most people around you play.

 

If I had a free choice of system to teach a beginner, I'd actually teach a variant of precision with a 4+card diamond and a 12-15 notrump as it's extremely natural, and your 1M bids are limited so you don't have to deal with the very wide range that approach forcing systems do. But very few people play this so it's pointless to teach it as your first system.

[helene_t]

If I had a free choice of system to teach a beginner, I'd actually teach a variant of precision with a 4+card diamond and a 12-15 notrump as it's extremely natural, and your 1M bids are limited so you don't have to deal with the very wide range that approach forcing systems do. But very few people play this so it's pointless to teach it as your first system.

They do play something like this in Nottingham, though :)

[MrAce]

If I had a free choice of system to teach a beginner, I'd actually teach a variant of precision with a 4+card diamond and a 12-15 notrump as it's extremely natural, and your 1M bids are limited so you don't have to deal with the very wide range that approach forcing systems do. But very few people play this so it's pointless to teach it as your first system.

 

In fact that's how I started. My city was a precision town. Everyone was playing precision. And I had to start learning how to bid with simple precision club.

[Cyberyeti]

In fact that's how I started. My city was a precision town. Everyone was playing precision. And I had to start learning how to bid with simple precision club.

 

I learned precision as a schoolboy in the mid to late 70s after winning Reese's book in a bridge event, it has been useful to know how to play it as it needs a lot less discussion than Acol, and there is one occasional partbnership in which I still play it.

[guinnypoo]

I do agree with the posts that say to "learn what's most commonly played where you play", if finding partners for other systems would be an issue (or not knowing the local system would be a problem).

 

But assuming you could easily find partners for any system you wanted to choose, or say if you were teaching a group of people to play amongst themselves and so wanted the best pure choice for a beginner, I would do 2/1 or precision or any system that makes it easy for the players to figure out about how strong they are and what level they should bid to first. It's easy for beginners to figure out what level about they should bid to, and find the suit fit as they go along, knowing they should just stop in NT if they reach the strength limit and can't find a fit. It does get more difficult for beginners in competitive auctions where they'll have to guess more (and it's easier to guess into a 6 card fit that way than with a more natural bidding system in competition). I feel more natural bidding systems are harder for beginners, because even if they identify a fit they often play at a level that is totally wrong for the hands, e.g. natural systems require a lot more thought, interpretation, etc to figure out how strong each of you are. The more artificial systems have more rules to memorize, but the hands often play themselves to a pretty good contract. Perhaps because I have a more analytical mind and approach to things, I found precision and 2/1 to be much easier bidding systems to start with.

[antonylee]

More necroing but...

I teach 2/1 for beginners, simply because it makes the F/NF distinction much easier. Re 2/1 in competition, in fact I teach that 2/1 is GF even in competition. Is this optimal? No, of course, but it is consistent with the rest, and we can always add more sophistication later.

[shevek]

I teach 2/1 to all beginners. SAYC is more complicated and far less effective IMO. More important is to work with a partner who plays the same system.

 

In what way is SAYC more complicated?

[Cthulhu D]

In what way is SAYC more complicated?

 

From my limited experience teaching bridge, one of the most difficult issues is, 'is this bid forcing or not?' 2/1 GF makes it a ton clearer whether strong auctions are forcing or not. Ambiguity is removed from auctions like: 1H-2C-2H (Is that forcing? I'd anticipate that you're gonna get passed a lot, despite it being forcing in SAYC). Is 1H-2C-3C forcing (it's not clear in the booklet).

 

It is possible that it gives it all back on 1M-1NT! auctions, as those suck, so I'm not sure it's clear cut or anything, but it is generally much clearer whether a bid is forcing or not, and that makes it a LOT easier to teach.

 

 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv: Reasonable. The 1M-2C-3C auction might be a better example then. I don't think the rule is that intuitive either, rather than '1M-2m is absolutely forcing to game forever and ever the end.'

[helene_t]

I disagree with that. The rule that a two-level response promises another bid is relatively simple. Consider this auction

 

pass-1♠

2♦-2♠

 

You are probably not going to teach beginners two-way Drury. And you probably aren't going to teach them such a sound opening style that a 2/1 by a passed hand is a GF either. So presumably some subsequent bids can be passed, but can this specific 2♠ rebid be passed? I would say no, but I have had reasonably inteligent 2/1 partners pass me in that auction, and I have seen GIB passing it.

 

Playing SAYC, even beginners would know that it is forcing. You don't even have to mention it.