[aguahombre]

"Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system."

There have been a few threads asking what would be a good/best style for beginners to learn. In response to a more general question on another thread, Jan Martel recommended not teaching a bidding style at all until the players have had multiple lessons in card play.

A certain (permanent) partner of mine, when first learning to play bridge, took an interesting approach. She, and her raw beginner partner at the time, learned the very basics of card play, but were impatient to get out into real games and learn by doing.

So, they memorized every word of "Power Precision" ---every sequence, without a clue about why it worked. Doing this, they even won a flight C Regional event and placed in the overalls in an open Regional event. Stoked by this, they decided to learn how to really play bridge and developed actual thoughts of their own on bidding This led to Standard and 2/1 so they could play with different people.

Obviously this approach to learning the game is not for everyone.

[helene_t]

I have been teaching a relay system to novices. The approach, as stipulated by the club owner very much against my preferences, was to teach bidding already from lesson 1. Then I think you pretty much have to teach a relay system. Natural bidding is extremely complicated if you don't have a good understanding of the objectives of bidding beforehand.

It works well in the sense that the students reach a stage where they can play at a club faster than they would have if taught a natural system after first having learned mini-bridge.

It works badly in the sense that what they learn is pretty much useless if they want to partner mainstream intermediates later and when it comes to learning judgment as a basis for bidding decisions.

I would prefer to start with minibridge and once they know the objectives (LOTT, game bonus, the 8-card major fit) teach them whatever natural system (by which I mean WJ, Precision, 5cM, Acol or 4cM strong NT) is more practical considering the teacher's knowledge, available teaching materials and popularity in the local environment (or BBO or wherever they are going to play).

[kenrexford]

Depends on the goals of the beginners.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

Depends on the goals of the beginners.

good point. It used to be to develope skills and/or enjoy the game. Today it seems to be to get points.

[Zelandakh]

They must surely learn natural principles too for when the opps intervene high enough for the relays to go off.

I think 4 card major systems are rather good for teaching basic bidding of natural principles since you have fewer occasions when you have to invent a suit. On the other hand they can be quite difficult to bid really accurately on - but it is accurate enough for beginners while learning principles.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I only held bridge courses over short time.

I tried to teach them bidding / play simultanuosly, we used predealt boards,
so that the only sensible bids, were the ones taught.

In the end this approach was not very successful.

They were fast being able to play with other peoble, but those other peoble
taugght them various stuff, which was sometimes contrary, ... at least they
still play, and even after 2 years thy show up in the club, so it was successfull
in the end.

What to teach, and which system is depend, on the peoble, if you have students,
which are willing to memorize a lot, than you can teach them a relais system.

Otherwiese stick with natural, ...

And learn to be happy, if they reach regular contracts on a regular route.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

aguahombre, on Sep 4 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

Depends on the goals of the beginners.

good point. It used to be to develope skills and/or enjoy the game. Today it seems to be to get points.

Some people only enjoy games if they win

[Free]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 6 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

In the end this approach was not very successful.
~snip~
at least they still play, and even after 2 years thy show up in the club, so it was successfull in the end.

So what was it: successful or not?

Because that's the way people learn to play bridge over here, and I'm not sure if it's a decent method or not. What they try to do is to let beginners play together for a long time, by organizing beginner tournaments, beginner club evenings,... so they don't get distracted too much by useless conventions and ideas.

[helene_t]

I am skeptical about this idea of protecting beginners from exposure to weird conventions.

Ideally, beginners would play their first real bridge partnering and opposing players who play the same vanilla system as the beginners have learned, combined with good judgment.

In Lancaster, the weaker players mainly play on monday night or in the afternoon, and for those events the system restrictions are quite severe: you can only play the exact same methods as the beginners have been taught. Now I can see why you shouldn't confuse beginners with multi 2♦ and ghestem, and even nebulous minor suit openings are difficult to explain to beginners who have learned 4-card majors so I can understand why that is not allowed either.

But the downside is that the beginners are kept away from the better players so the only thing they learn is the way other beginners play. They will face opposition that don't play lebensohl and support doubles (fine) but who frequently pass forcing bids and leap to blackwood whenever partner opens and they have opening strength themselves (not so fine).

Obviously it is a choice every beginner has to make for themselves and if very few beginners take the step to the evenings where better players play, it is probably to blame on the better players' attitude towards the beginners.

[hanp]

I've always believed in: if you want to become a winner, look at what the winners do.

[jdonn]

I still equate the given quote to "if you're a slow overweight runner and you know it, you better have the latest in sneaker technology!"

[hanp]

Which is probably true, heavy runners give their joints a lot of extra strain.

[Wackojack]

@jdonn
I still equate the given quote to "if you're a slow overweight runner and you know it, you better have the latest in sneaker technology!"


--------------------

"Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system."
- bd71 Unqote

Just lose weight instead. That will make you a better runner. People seem to prefer "having" which is no solution rather than "doing". True you need decent trainers to minimise the chance of injury if you an are overweight. Then healthy eating and lifestyle and intellegent training may make you into an athlete. How does this equate to bridge? Start thinking

[ggwhiz]

I most definitely agree that bidding is the last thing to teach.

I teach 10 year olds and we teach them the mechanics of bidding followed by how to find a fit by bidding up the ladder, introducing a second suit (or notrump) to give your pard a choice.

Give them the concept of minimum, medium and maximum strengths for opening and responding hands and drill into them what the game bonus contracts are.

That's it. Everything else is card play and they bid wherever as their play skills and confidence allows.

I played with a 12 year old veteran in our last Unit Sectional Open Swiss with the Jerry Seinfeld system. NOTHING! No Stayman, takeout doubles, Blackwood or anything else but incredible quantitative judgement on his part.

We finished 9th with 8 making the overall after losing the last match to a team with 8 current or past Canadian Championships between them by 14 after they slipped a white 3nt by ME!

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on Sep 6 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

I played with a 12 year old veteran in our last Unit Sectional Open Swiss

The military is drafting them younger these days.

[blackshoe]

Free, on Sep 6 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

What they try to do is to let beginners play together for a long time, by organizing beginner tournaments, beginner club evenings,... so they don't get distracted too much by useless conventions and ideas.

Funny, I always thought it was to avoid them becoming discouraged by getting the pants beat off them every hand.

Beginners, at least around here, are notoriously reluctant to "play up". We have a thriving club here (typically upwards of 30 tables each session) which has one (sometimes two) open section, and two (sometimes three) "beginner" sections. Most of the "beginners" have been playing in those sections for years. They don't want to move up to the open section - they're uncomfortable playing with "experts", they say.

[Free]

blackshoe, on Sep 6 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 6 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

What they try to do is to let beginners play together for a long time, by organizing beginner tournaments, beginner club evenings,... so they don't get distracted too much by useless conventions and ideas.

Funny, I always thought it was to avoid them becoming discouraged by getting the pants beat off them every hand.

Beginners, at least around here, are notoriously reluctant to "play up". We have a thriving club here (typically upwards of 30 tables each session) which has one (sometimes two) open section, and two (sometimes three) "beginner" sections. Most of the "beginners" have been playing in those sections for years. They don't want to move up to the open section - they're uncomfortable playing with "experts", they say.

That's another reason, yes. But over here they organize "mixed" evenings, where a beginner gets an expert partner. This way they get in touch with the experts, learn something from them, and eventually move up I guess.

They gain more confidence if they play among themselves for a while, to get used to the game first before they get beaten every single deal.

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Sep 6 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Sep 6 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

In the end this approach was not very successful.
~snip~
at least they still play, and even after 2 years thy show up in the club, so it was successfull in the end.

So what was it: successful or not?

Because that's the way people learn to play bridge over here, and I'm not sure if it's a decent method or not. What they try to do is to let beginners play together for a long time, by organizing beginner tournaments, beginner club evenings,... so they don't get distracted too much by useless conventions and ideas.

The answer to your question is: how do you measure success?

If I see, how they currently play, I am not sure, that they tell everyone,
who was their teacher, but than they are playing, and they seem to have fun.

But the idea was also to recruit new members for the club ..., and they play,
at least occassionnal in the club.

Actually I like this method, it was they way learned to play, and I like it,
you play the real game at once.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hanp]

No great bridge players came out of letting beginners play against beginners. It depends on the students, if they are good and eager, they should play amongst experts.

[mycroft]

Ah well, I'm not a great bridge player, never will be; I guess I should quit now.

Seriously, 99+% of bridge players aren't "great", and never will be. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to get to their level and enjoy this game as much as they can. Some amount of coddling does help. Getting beat up every night, night after night, isn't fun.

The problem is that there are those who won't leave. They come in three flavours:
- Life Novices. They have reached their level, and they just won't or can't get any better. Nothing's going to help them, they're lucky to reach average in the beginner game, they're not really a problem.
- Big Fish in Small Pond. They like it down here - they own the game. They don't want to play against the experts because they "can't win". Unfortunately, if you don't push them out, then the true beginners don't have a respite - they can play against the open game and lose, or they can go play against "their peers", and lose to the BF/SP. These have to be pushed out for the sake of the true beginners. Note, they have to be watched after that, too - because they'll find 0-1000 games, or find "ringer pairs" for bracketed KOs, all the way up.
- Scaredycats. They could get better if they were willing to take their lumps - and are in fact getting worse, because the skills they're learning is "how to beat the novices", and it's going to be harder to break those habits when they play up and those habits are now -EV than they would if they found out about it early. But it's "too ugly up there". These guys have to be pushed out for their own sake.

I tell our I/Ns when they ask my opinion, that it's okay to play in the I/N game, but don't do it exclusively. Play at least one game each tournament (preferably the two-session open pairs) in the open. If they play more than once a week at the club, play one open game, and the rest in the I/N (and when they find that the I/N game is too slow, it's a sign). If I mentor someone, which I do less often than I probably should, it's a requirement that one game (not with me) a week is played in the open.

That way, we don't have people leaving in droves when they're over-monsterpointed for I/N (and find out they're hopeless in the open), and we don't have (as much) limit creep in our local "restricted" games.