[ArcLight]

I'd like to teach my wife and eventually my kids Bridge.

What system would you suggest? I'm thinking either 2/1 or Precision.
Which is a better choice and why?

The emphasis is on learnability and fun, rather than which is 1.4% better in part scores or 2.2% better in slams.

I'd like to teach them a system they will be able to paly with others in the USA so I'd rather not use Acol, Moscito, Polish Club.

[inquiry]

ArcLight, on Dec 1 2004, 04:40 PM, said:

I'd like to teach my wife and eventually my kids Bridge.

What system would you suggest? I'm thinking either 2/1 or Precision.
Which is a better choice and why?

The emphasis is on learnability and fun, rather than which is 1.4% better in part scores or 2.2% better in slams.

I'd like to teach them a system they will be able to paly with others in the USA so I'd rather not use Acol, Moscito, Polish Club.

The one with which they can find the most partners to play with. As a new player, you are not going to play with them exclusively, so don't teach them precision for instance unless there are a lot of people around where you are that are willing to play precision with a newcomer.

ben

[hrothgar]

First and foremost, during the early stages of the learning process, ignore declarer bidding all-together. Focus on declarer play and defense and the logic behind selecting the "correct" contract.

I've had a fair amount of luck with a modified version of "EasyBridge"

Deal 13 cards to each play.
Each player announces how many HCP they hold.

Whoever has the most is declarer and tables the hand with the second most points as dummy. Declarer is able to set any suit as trump (or NT) and can declare any of the following contracts: 1N, 2M, 3m, any game, or any slam.

This will teach your partners the most important thing about bidding: the logic in selecting the right contract. Once folks are comfortable with this and the mechanics of declaring/defending, then you can worry about system

(I'd choose K-S for a vanilla system for what its worth)

[xx1943]

hrothgar, on Dec 1 2004, 11:15 PM, said:

First and foremost, during the early stages of the learning process, ignore declarer bidding all-together. Focus on declarer play and defense and the logic behind selecting the "correct" contract.

I've had a fair amount of luck with a modified version of "EasyBridge"

Deal 13 cards to each play.
Each player announces how many HCP they hold.

Whoever has the most is declarer and tables the hand with the second most points as dummy. Declarer is able to set any suit as trump (or NT) and can declare any of the following contracts: 1N, 2M, 3m, any game, or any slam.

This will teach your partners the most important thing about bidding: the logic in selecting the right contract. Once folks are comfortable with this and the mechanics of declaring/defending, then you can worry about system

(I'd choose K-S for a vanilla system for what its worth)

Hi

Agree 100%.

Playing the cards is much more important than bidding.
Bad bidding often results in good scores, if you play the hand excellent.

Easy-Bridge as described seems a very nice educational tool.
I'll try it. Thanks for the hint.


I like KS best too, but in US there are very few people playing KS.
Therefore my advice: Bidding system should as simple as poosible.

Sincerly

Al

[Flame]

Two things should lead you , first its best to teach them the most common system , where they are going to play, this will help them find partners but also help them learn, since the process of learning continue when you play, and if they know the system played by their opponents they will learn from them.
Second, a natural system is better then unnatural one, first because its easier to learn but also it will give them better tools to keep up their learning process, they will understand the system rather then memorize it, they will understand competitive bidding.

[epeeist]

ArcLight, on Dec 1 2004, 03:40 PM, said:

I'd like to teach my wife and eventually my kids Bridge.

What system would you suggest? I'm thinking either 2/1 or Precision.
Which is a better choice and why?

The emphasis is on learnability and fun, rather than which is 1.4% better in part scores or 2.2% better in slams.

I'd like to teach them a system they will be able to paly with others in the USA so I'd rather not use Acol, Moscito, Polish Club.

If you were thinking of 2/1, why not start with SAYC? Then later teaching/learning 2/1 is much simpler (changing 1NT response etc.).

Also, at least judging by BBO, there are a fair number of people who play only SAYC, not 2/1. Knowing both is better.

I think the free "Learn to Play Bridge" Software which you can download from this site or the ACBL does much the same, the first program (which focuses on play first) teaches Standard American, the second program is essentially 2/1. But it's been a while since I used them, so my recollection might be mistaken.

[Free]

Learn them one of the nation's standard systems, the one everyone knows. Also it's important for them to understand their opps.

In your case I think sayc would probably be best...

[the hog]

I agree with the sentiments of the above posters - teach them the local brew.

Precision is not good for beginners as they first need to learn "plastic evaluation". 2/1 is a ridiculously complex system and definitely not or beginning players.

[pclayton]

Hadn't thought about it, but KS makes a lot of sense. To me, there is something very innate about a 1N opening being a balanced, minimum hand. I think a raw beginner would find this intuitive.

The same is true with UDCA. My wife, who can barely follow suit, asked me, "Why would you signal with a HIGH card if you want the suit CONTINUED"?

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Dec 2 2004, 03:18 AM, said:

Hadn't thought about it, but KS makes a lot of sense. To me, there is something very innate about a 1N opening being a balanced, minimum hand. I think a raw beginner would find this intuitive.

The same is true with UDCA. My wife, who can barely follow suit, asked me, "Why would you signal with a HIGH card if you want the suit CONTINUED"?

The reason that I suggested K-S is that

1. Its fairly close to standard (5 majors majors, ...)

2. Its an intgrated system. its possible to look at alsmost any component and explain not just "what" but also "why". This is a VERY useful trait in case your students ever ask questions...

[Chamaco]

Even if KS has some advantages over the most common form of STD.AM., I still think the best system to teach is not the most efficient, but the most *widespread* in the area where you play, regardless of whether it is a real club or an online site.

This is because then, the newcomer will have far more chances to play with pickup partners.

Now, how many pickup partners willing to play/try KS do you think a beginner can pickup ?
My guess is "close to zero", despite the soundness of the system.

So I strongly advise to teach the most common system, in this case SAYC (sigh...).
They'll be able to play more hands, and that's priority #1.

[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on Dec 2 2004, 05:02 PM, said:

Even if KS has some advantages over the most common form of STD.AM., I still think the best system to teach is not the most efficient, but the most *widespread* in the area where you play, regardless of whether it is a real club or an online site.

This is because then, the newcomer will have far more chances to play with pickup partners.

Now, how many pickup partners willing to play/try KS do you think a beginner can pickup ?
My guess is "close to zero", despite the soundness of the system.

So I strongly advise to teach the most common system, in this case SAYC (sigh...).
They'll be able to play more hands, and that's priority #1.

If I tried to teach any of my friends bridge based on SAYC, they'd never hit the stage whether they played with other people. They'd quit in disgust a long time before then.

I can tell you exactly how things would go... We get about to the point whether someone asked "why isn't there any force raise of the 1m opening" or "Why doesn't anyone know how many spades that 2♠" rebid showed, and I'd have to explain

"Well, it doesn't make any sense, but its what a bunch of dead white guys said we should do..."

SAYC is an abomination. When Online Bridge finally meets it maker, its single greatest sin will be that it resurrected SAYC from the dustbin of history. Worse yet, there is a now a concerted effort to promote SAYC and teach is to novices.

Shudder

[whereagles]

If you want your wife/kids to learn a system that is widespread the US, then I guess sayc is the most sensible choice. Add the inverted minor raise gadget and you're ok.

And I disagree that card play is more important than bidding. To play the cards is funnier than bidding, but it's not as important. There are more points lost in bidding than anywhere else.

Oh by the way.. to play with your wife is a good way to get divorced. Are you sure you want that?

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Dec 2 2004, 10:50 AM, said:

To play the cards is funnier than bidding, but it's not as important.

You must have never watched me bid.. .my bidding is much funnier than my card play... :-)

My record so far is playing a 2-1 fit (now that is funny).. .I am still waiting the day I play an 0-2 or 1-1 fit....

ben

[whereagles]

Hum.. My best is being left to play on a 3-1 fit after pard passed an SOS redouble at the SIX(!!) level. Down 5

Playing on the 0-1 fit is not that "hard". A friend of mine once splintered in hearts

1♠ 4♥

and was left to play it!! His pard had a heart void and thought 4♥ was natural. He never got to tell me how much they went down

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Dec 2 2004, 02:27 PM, said:

If I tried to teach any of my friends bridge based on SAYC, they'd never hit the stage whether they played with other people. They'd quit in disgust a long time before then.

Richard, sometimes it seems that your statement do not include any form of doubt abut being right or wrong...

I suppose this is a form of rhetorical argumentation, or that it may be my poor understanding of english , but sometimes, adding a smiley to these sentence may let the reader believe that you do not always think to be absolutely right...

[hrothgar]

Has anyone ever noticed that some of these miserable fits score pretty well.

I'm ashamed to admit to the number of 3-3 fits that I've played at the two level. However, most of them seem to yield pretty good results...

[whereagles]

I don't think it will be hard to convince people that playing on the 3-3 fit is a bad deal on the long run (hell, even in the short run lol).

[luis]

I think this depends on a question that may still be looking for an answer:
What kind of influence will the system that you learn as a beginner have in your game?
Many will answer: "None since all the stars started learning sayc" but the horrible players also started learning sayc. Imagine the standard in the world was not sayc but another system, it doesn't matter which one, would we have more good players? more bad players or it doesn't matter?
I have the theory that it is not the same, but of course there's no way to demonstrate it due to the lack of statistical information.
They say in Rome do what Romans do but didn't the Romans end burned?

[EricK]

whereagles, on Dec 2 2004, 03:45 PM, said:

I don't think it will be hard to convince people that playing on the 3-3 fit is a bad deal on the long run (hell, even in the short run lol).

I have played in 2 3-3 fits that I recall

3♦ making and 2♥ which I should have been one off for a top but I misplayed and got a bottom. Not the fault of the 3-3 fit though!

Eric