Non-Natural System for beginners

[pescetom]

As I mentioned in a recent discussion about the Vienna System of Paul Stern, a friend of mine has had success teaching absolute beginners a simple strong club system, rather than starting with "natural" 4-card majors or jumping in the deep end with 2/1.

 

I am curious to know the thoughts of our Non-Natural gurus on this: what would be an ideal system to get people started, making the auction relatively easy and allowing them to enjoy/concentrate playing a sensible contract?

[mycroft]

I normally suggest some basic Precision variant. It may not hit your pluses completely (after all, the basic keys are "5-card majors", "forcing 1NT", and "1♣ 16+any"), but one of the issues with newer players is that all these great contracts they get to with system they're not capable of making reliably yet (which is independent of what system they play, I understand). In exchange, what you get is a system that a significant fraction of not-new players (those that play Precision themselves) can play. There simply isn't another Strong Club system any more you can say that about.

 

Now, if you're just interested in "non-'Natural' systems for beginners", there's a recommendation that bog-standard EHAA is almost as simple to understand for new players as it gets (but they *really* have to be comfortable with "large negative results" sometimes!)

[shyams]

I am with mycroft on this. Precision is a useful system for the given scenario.

[pescetom]

I am with mycroft on this. Precision is a useful system for the given scenario.

 

We don't have the benefit that mycroft assumes, experienced potential-partners / opponents playing Precision.

Pairs in the club are more or less evenly split in four: competent 2/1, guesswork 2/1, Italian 4-card majors, local strong club systems with canape' developments.

The official teaching system is a simplified 2/1 which although well documented is still too complicated for the students, as well as having a few weaknesses of its own.

I saw a friend enjoying great success teaching his beginners something similar to Vienna, hence my post. They don't need to be bidding precisely, just to have some idea of what they are saying and to allow them to finish in a reasonable contract with abundant mental energy left for what is (at least initially) the most engaging part of the game.

[hrothgar]

They don't need to be bidding precisely, just to have some idea of what they are saying and to allow them to finish in a reasonable contract with abundant mental energy left for what is (at least initially) the most engaging part of the game.

 

EHAA or Acol

[LBengtsson]

As I mentioned in a recent discussion about the Vienna System of Paul Stern, a friend of mine has had success teaching absolute beginners a simple strong club system, rather than starting with "natural" 4-card majors or jumping in the deep end with 2/1.

 

I am curious to know the thoughts of our Non-Natural gurus on this: what would be an ideal system to get people started, making the auction relatively easy and allowing them to enjoy/concentrate playing a sensible contract?

 

simple precision. c.c wei proved the goodness of it with its results. but learners need to know how to counter any interference over it also.

[pescetom]

EHAA or Acol

 

Will have a look at EHAA, thanks.

 

We used to start them with Italian 4-card majors, which is essentially a cleanup of Acol. That had the advantage of instilling "natural" logic and being relatively simple, but teaching that also incentivated the mature players to continue playing it rather than make the switch to 5-card. After a year online I have them almost all playing 5-card now, so I don't want to revive 4-card now.

[mycroft]

Ah, well, EHAA is 4-card majors (if you play it aggressively, which is how to play it). But 5-card majors introduce artificiality - you need to do something with 4=4=(32) out of NT range, and you have just lost "natural" logic (for good reason, but still).

 

EHAA is also "4 weak 2s, no strong bid" - again, it's the epitome of "first bid aggressive" system (not counting strong pass systems, I guess).

 

If you teach stone-age Goren, 4cM, strong 2s, whatever NT range you want, you get as "natural" as you really can. But again, nobody plays that any more either.

[Cyberyeti]

For really natural I like real diamond precision with a 12-15 NT so you don't have 4432s out of range for 1♣/1N. No problem with passing bad 12s if you want to not get your 1N too wide.

[helene_t]

Vienna is not a strong club system :)

[pescetom]

Vienna is not a strong club system :)

I realise, it just reminded me of the minimal strong club system my friend uses because IIRC it has a bucket opening bid for strong hands and all suit openings are minimum 5-card. That's the sort of simplicity I am looking for, something that will get them started quickly but can be discarded a year or so later when they are up and playing.

If it's quite different from the 2/1 target I would consider that a virtue not a defect, as people tend to have less difficulty with radical changes than with subtle ones, in my experience. One of the problems of starting them with a natural 4-card system is that after transition to 2/1 many will continue to cut corners (knowingly or not) with 1M-3M as invitational and sub-strength 2/1 bids rather than forcing NT, etc.

[Kungsgeten]

I think a kickstart into the game is to let them bid what they feel like. Do you have good cards? Which suit would you like to bid? Sooner or later you'll ofcourse have to go through theory but I often feel that there's way to much theory before beginners even understand how the auction works: why cant I bid 1♥ when my partner open 1♠? For some players I also think this will help them identify problems that the bidding agreements help to solve.

 

I think the most popular non-natural systems are pretty natural, so they probably work. Also any natural system will seem un-natural for a beginner (and usually un-natural conventions like the negative NT and Stayman are introduced very early). Except from what has been said here I also think Polish Club would work (without the "exotic" two openings). If they have an interest in the social side of playing at the club I think it makes sense to just teach the "local system": they will be familiar with what most play and I get the feeling that many frown upon players who deviate from the local system (at least at my local club). People will also give them advice and a beginner will have trouble understanding that the advice given may not be applicable given the system they're playing.

[nullve]

I think a kickstart into the game is to let them bid what they feel like. Do you have good cards? Which suit would you like to bid? Sooner or later you'll ofcourse have to go through theory but I often feel that there's way to much theory before beginners even understand how the auction works: why cant I bid 1♥ when my partner open 1♠? For some players I also think this will help them identify problems that the bidding agreements help to solve.

Or (from https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76983-point-count-contracts/page__p__927865#entry927865):

 

After, or instead of, minibridge, how about teaching the small children a game just like bridge, but with simplified scoring and a two-staged auction phase, e.g.

 

North: "clubs"

East: "diamonds"

South: "spades"

West: "diamonds" [ends EW's discussion about which denomination to play in]

North: "hearts"

South: "spades"

North: "notrump"

South: "notrump" [ends NS's discussion about which denomination to play in]

 

followed by

 

North: "five" [North is willing to contract for five tricks in notrump]

East: "six"

South: "eight"

West: "nine"

North: "pass"

East: "pass"

South: "double"

West: "pass"

North: "pass"

East: "pass"

 

?

Later, while still playing in protected environment, they could graduate to a game just like bridge except with an extra contract/opening bid, 0N (< 1♣), available.

 

An elementary system could be based on something like

 

0N = 12-14/18-19 BAL or 11+ hcp, (4441)

1x = 11-21 hcp, 5+ x, unBAL

1N+ = standard stuff except not (4441)

[enigmisto]

I normally suggest some basic Precision variant.

 

Is this basic Precision variant documented anywhere?

 

Are there any well-documented Precision or other Strong Club systems out there which one would describe as "elegant"?

[enigmisto]

Is this basic Precision variant documented anywhere?

 

Are there any well-documented Precision or other Strong Club systems out there which one would describe as "elegant"?

 

Oh, I think you already shared your variant system notes with me! Thanks.

 

I'm still curious about the deeper question as to which system is "elegant". That word may mean different things to different people. To me, I'd say it's less about simplicity, and more about all the parts fitting together in a way that feels consistent, and has a low cognitive footprint because the patterns across the different parts of the bidding system are easy to remember.

[hrothgar]

If you're interested in an elegant system, then your best option is to look at various relay methods.

 

I'd recommend starting by looking at symmetric relay or such over a strong club opening.

If you're happy with this, then you can branch out into incorporating relays over other parts of your opening structure.

 

You might find the following useful

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qh2upur3egs9x14/Introduction%20to%20Symmetric%20Relay.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cxspnqzuzs86qe3/Resolving%20Shape.pdf?dl=0

[mycroft]

Basic Precision is as elegant as SAYC. The appeal isn't elegance, it's "anybody who plays Precision can play this, even if they never would by preference." The appeal is "you can get partners that aren't from your class."

[pescetom]

Or (from https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76983-point-count-contracts/page__p__927865#entry927865):

 

 

Later, while still playing in protected environment, they could graduate to a game just like bridge except with an extra contract/opening bid, 0N (< 1♣), available.

 

An elementary system could be based on something like

 

0N = 12-14/18-19 BAL or 11+ hcp, (4441)

1x = 11-21 hcp, 5+ x, unBAL

1N+ = standard stuff except not (4441)

 

I find your teaching system intriguing, but I'm also quite happy leaving absolute beginners up to "natural" instinct given some idea of the rules and scoring system.

What I'm more interested in here is something easy to learn, but enough to get them up and playing in the main relaxed club game for a year or so with a reasonable chance of reaching a sensible contract and getting to understand card play. So your elementary system looks a lot closer to the bill, not unlike my friend's system. I was hoping for something like this, maybe documented.

[nullve]

(and usually un-natural conventions like the negative NT and Stayman are introduced very early)

The negative NT, what is it? :unsure:

 

Except from what has been said here I also think Polish Club would work (without the "exotic" two openings).

The problem is that you will often not reach a sensible contract after a Polish (or old Precision) 2♣ opening.

 

I believe Dutch Doubleton is a better choice.

[DavidKok]

Here in the Netherlands Dutch Doubleton is very popular, but I think the degree to which it is non natural and the degree to which it is suitable for beginners are inversely related. I do not think it matches the requirements of the original post.

 

I could talk about Dutch Doubleton for days without pausing for breath, but at its core there are three different systems called 'Dutch Doubleton'. One is basically SAYC except that 4=4=3=2 shape and points outside your 1NT/2NT opening range you open 1♣, instead of 1♦ (this way 1♦ always promises 4). In my opinion this is not noticeably better or worse than SAYC, and it would be a stretch to call this an unnatural system (although 1♣ needs to be alerted).

 

A step up is described in the previous link to Rosalind's website (although the 2NT weak minors is not standard, most people here play 20-21 or 20-22 NT). In this version of Dutch Doubleton you open 1♦ only with 5+ or exactly 4=4=4=1. This means that a whole host of hands with 4 diamonds and 2 clubs will be opened with 1♣. Normally people add a 'relay' 1♦ response to 1♣, showing either real diamonds (often in conjuction with Walsh principles, so it denies a major unless GF) or any 0-7 HCP hand without long clubs. Opener rebids their longest major with a weak balanced hand (can be only 3 and needs to be alerted) or 1NT with a hand too strong for a 1NT opening (usually 18-19). This caters to the increased frequency of opening 1♣ on only 2, so you can run to a major suit. The 1♣ opening and 1♦ response need to be alerted.

 

Lastly there is a system called the 'full Dutch Doubleton' (I personally play this). It optionally also moves some balanced hands with 5♦ to the 1♣ opening, overloads the 1♦ response with more conventional options (4-4 in the majors, and 3=3=3=4 strong) and has a more complicated set of rebids over 1♣*-1♦*. This system is decidedly non natural, but I would not recommend it to beginners.

[pescetom]

Here in the Netherlands Dutch Doubleton is very popular, but I think the degree to which it is non natural and the degree to which it is suitable for beginners are inversely related. I do not think it matches the requirements of the original post.

 

I could talk about Dutch Doubleton for days without pausing for breath, but at its core there are three different systems called 'Dutch Doubleton'. One is basically SAYC except that 4=4=3=2 shape and points outside your 1NT/2NT opening range you open 1♣, instead of 1♦ (this way 1♦ always promises 4). In my opinion this is not noticeably better or worse than SAYC, and it would be a stretch to call this an unnatural system (although 1♣ needs to be alerted).

 

A step up is described in the previous link to Rosalind's website (although the 2NT weak minors is not standard, most people here play 20-21 or 20-22 NT). In this version of Dutch Doubleton you open 1♦ only with 5+ or exactly 4=4=4=1. This means that a whole host of hands with 4 diamonds and 2 clubs will be opened with 1♣. Normally people add a 'relay' 1♦ response to 1♣, showing either real diamonds (often in conjuction with Walsh principles, so it denies a major unless GF) or any 0-7 HCP hand without long clubs. Opener rebids their longest major with a weak balanced hand (can be only 3 and needs to be alerted) or 1NT with a hand too strong for a 1NT opening (usually 18-19). This caters to the increased frequency of opening 1♣ on only 2, so you can run to a major suit. The 1♣ opening and 1♦ response need to be alerted.

 

 

Nothing unusual in most of Europe about opening 4=4=3=2 as 1♣, which they will play as standard once they move to Italian 2/1 anyway.

I can live with the rest (after reverting to a normal 2NT) but as you say it's more a variant of the target system than a simple alternative.

[helene_t]

Dutch Doubleton is a 5542 system with Polish responses to the 1♣ opening.

 

What the Dutch BF has tried to standardize for ordinary club players (Dutch Doubleton is too hardcore for most club players) is called "Standaard Hoog". That is Dutch Acol with 5-card majors.

[helene_t]

I have been teaching Looier (a weird relay system) and simplified Precision to beginners. Maybe it's fair to say that the learning curve is less steep than with standard methods, and it's nice to have fast and simple strength and captainship resolution. The fact that bids are either natural or artificial- no vague quasinatural bids - also appeals to some beginners.

 

But ultimately I think it doesn’t matter so much what system you teach. They all have their pros and cons in terms of ease of learning. So just choose something that is locally common and supported by good teaching material.

[Kungsgeten]

The negative NT, what is it? :unsure:

 

 

The problem is that you will often not reach a sensible contract after a Polish (or old Precision) 2♣ opening.

 

I believe Dutch Doubleton is a better choice.

 

This isn't the first time when I assumed a Swedish bridge term meant the same thing in English :) I assume the English term is "non-forcing NT" or "semi-forcing NT". Responding 1NT to one of a suit is an artificial bid showing:

 

1. Less than four cards in suits which could be bid on the one level.

2. Usually not support for the opened suit (but in some even more artificial versions it may have support).

3. Could have any shape at all (could differ depending on your jump shifts), except from the above. Doesn't promise a balanced hand nor stoppers in unbid suits.

4. Not enough strength to respond with a suit at the two level, but too strong to pass.

 

Regarding Polish Club and Dutch Doubleton: I'm not sure I consider DD to be a non-natural system, but that depends on the definition. I agree that the Polish 2♣ is poor, but I think the bad reputation mostly comes from people not playing it. Sure I've had some bad results after opening 2♣, but also good results. Having 18-19 NT in a natural system vs a weak responder also leads to silly contracts, like playing 1♣ in a 3-2 fit.

[DJNeill]

Speaking of "advanced Dutch Doubleton", you can get a book on it here - https://bridgewithdan.com/books/