[TabithaS]

I'm teaching my little sister to play bridge. We are just starting out, and I am wondering whether I should teach her Standard American or jump straight to teaching her 2/1. What do you guys think?

[Stephen Tu]

I agree with Larry Cohen, just start with 2/1.

But if really just starting out, start with the play, not the bidding. Minibridge perhaps. Then go on to the 2/1.

[Vampyr]

2/1 GF is a lot easier than 2/1 promises another bid, or is forcing to 2NT, or whatever. So the former is definitely preferable, as long as she will have people to play the system with. But I would suggest telling her about the differences from SA. Beginners often think, to their detriment, that the system they first learn is the only system there is and everyone plays it.

And also it is useful to know the advantages and disadvantages of your chosen system.

[akwoo]

I think both 2/1 and SA are too complicated for beginners.

I would start with 5 card majors and strong NT, with the only forcing bids being new suits by responder and jumps into new suits by opener. (Beginners cannot keep track of reverses.) Natural strong 2's in all 4 suits. (or natural weak 2's in all 4 suits) The only artificial bids are Stayman, takeout doubles of the opening bid, and Blackwood. Do tell them this is a simple basic system that they'll want to change. I think first would be switching more doubles to takeout (without the specific suit length requirements for what would normally be negative doubles), followed by Jacoby transfers, then weak 2s and the artificial 2C, then cue raises and preemptive raises in competition.

When they can distinguish reverses, then you should think about whether to teach them that new suits at the 2 level by responder are forcing to game, promising another bid, forcing to 2N, forcing to 2 of the opening suit, or forcing for 1 round. By this time, they can handle all the sequences after a Jacoby transfer comfortably, so the (semi)-forcing 1N shouldn't be a problem.

Fourth suit forcing and some form of checkback both make more of a difference than whatever choice of 2/1 meaning will. However, the best students will figure out to abuse the "new suit by responder is forcing" rule before you explicitly teach them these conventions.

[Trinidad]

I disagree with the other posters.

I would start with Standard American. (And I play 2/1 myself.) The reason for this is that she will have to learn Standard American anyway, since that is essentially the structure that you use when the opponents enter the bidding: A 2/1 after interference is not forcing to game, but only forcing for 1 round (unless you play Negative Free Bids, then they are not forcing at all).

I do agree with Stephen that it is best to start with the play and minibridge is great for that.

Rik

[helene_t]

Problem with "standard" is that there are lots of them. But OK, there are many dialects of 2/1 GF also.

2/1 GF is simpler than SAYC in uncontested auctions but not much simpler. In contested auctions you would have to revert to some kind of forcing-for-only-one-round-or-maybe-a-little-more principle, and here teaching Acol or SAYC or some such may be more helpful than 2/1 since it is virtually impossible to play 2/1 GF in contested auctions, while the Acol rules for the forcing character of a 2/1 response can apply in many contested auctions as well.

2/1 GF will allow her to learn the forcing character of calls in uncontested auctions very quickly. Precision (or Moscito?) even more so, by the way. But she will have to learn bidding almost from scratch when you procede to contested auctions.

2/1 GF also requires more artificiality. It makes little sense to play 2/1 GF without playing Drury. And you have the dreaded minor suit rebids on a 3-card suit.

I am also worried that although she will learn the mechanics of the uncontested auction quickly, it is to some extent root-learning some mechanic rules and I would prefer to put more emphasis on the logic. She should always have the objectives of the bidding in mind. Bid 2NT at responder's second turn with 11 points because it is logical that it must show 11 points, not because you recall that page 68 of the book specifies 11 points for this exact sequence. I think that Acol or Goren are best in this respect.

This all said, the difference is not huge, and if 2/1 GF is supported by good textbooks, is popular among prospective partners, and if it is the system you understand best yourself, by all means go for it.

But teach minibridge first. She needs to understand the importance of a major suit 8-card fit and that kind of things first before you tell her about bidding.

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-23, 00:11, said:

I would start with Standard American. (And I play 2/1 myself.) The reason for this is that she will have to learn Standard American anyway, since that is essentially the structure that you use when the opponents enter the bidding

I disagree with this, because at least these days, SA bidders have 2/1 promise a rebid. But after free bids in contested auctions, most do *not* promise a rebid. This allows you to get in there somewhat lighter than if a rebid was promised, which can be important if 4th hand is going to jack the bidding with a raise. Plus you have a cue bid available as a force for both players which changes things.

So you have to learn competitive bidding apart from uncontested bidding anyway IMO. So might as well start with uncontested auction 2/1 be FG.

[Stephen Tu]

helene_t, on 2015-September-23, 00:22, said:

2/1 GF also requires more artificiality. It makes little sense to play 2/1 GF without playing Drury. And you have the dreaded minor suit rebids on a 3-card suit.

Don't understand the Drury comment. One certainly can play without Drury, just bid same opposite 3rd chair as you do opposite 1st. Don't have to teach about light openings in 3rd/4th right away, just keep the bidding same! Sure the 2/1 bids would be unused after passing first, but so what? Eventually she should start wondering about that, then you can teach her about lighter 2/1s after having passed first, and the idea of opening light in 3rd/4th position.

Minor suit rebids on 3cd (or 2cd if 4522) -- is it really any more artificial than 5cd M forcing one to open 1c on 432 of clubs?

[helene_t]

Do you really think that a 2/1 by a passed hand should be GF? So you need 13 points to open? I think this is anti-mainstream. And isn't the whole point of teaching any SA, 2/1 etc. variant that it is mainstream?

[helene_t]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-September-23, 01:52, said:

I disagree with this, because at least these days, SA bidders have 2/1 promise a rebid. But after free bids in contested auctions, most do *not* promise a rebid.

This a probably true. But in SAYC, a 2/1 promises almost the same values in contested as in uncontested auctions. Maybe the lower limit is a bad 10 vs a decent 10. I am not convinced that it is worthwhile changing the system because of such a subtle difference. Especially when teaching the system to beginners. But if that is the way the book describes the system then I suppose we have to stick to it.

[Stephen Tu]

helene_t, on 2015-September-23, 02:02, said:

Do you really think that a 2/1 by a passed hand should be GF? So you need 13 points to open? I think this is anti-mainstream.

No of course not. But this is teaching a beginner. At first you teach them how to bid all seats same as if they are opening 1st/2nd chair. Why complicate things by teaching different responses as passed hand. If you are OK responding 1nt with 25xx 10-11 hcp to 1s if 1s was opened 1st/2nd, why you make them learn different response 2H after 3rd/4th? They will be able to manage OK responding 1nt after 3rd/4th chair opening also, and you don't have to teach them nuances about suit quality for passed hand 2H since it might be passed etc. Why teach beginner 2 uncontested systems, 1 1st/2nd, 2 3rd/4th, when you can get away with just teaching them one?

At some point beginner realizes that they are not ever doing 2/1 by passed hand since you don't have a GF, and that this is inefficient utilization of available bids. They ask why, then you can teach them fuller system with lighter responses and how to adjust to that. And perhaps Drury at that time. Think about it, how often you respond 2d/2h to 1s as passed hand anyway? It's pretty damn rare, most of the time I'm bidding 1nt semi-forcing when not having support. So why even bother teaching beginner a different response set as a passed hand until they are ready?

[helene_t]

Yeah that makes sense. So for a while it just means that a 2/1 by passed hand doesn't exist.

Would you teach 1NT forcing by a passed hand also? Or maybe 1nt semiforcing regardless of seat.

[Fluffy]

I feel like making sure they don't miss games after a 2/1 will enhance her experience.

[Hanoi5]

2/1 FG might be too much for someone just starting. I prefer to teach SA just so they have the gist of what a system means. What is probably more important is to teach her a good system over the 1NT opening as it will last longer if she changes from SA to 2/1.

[P_Marlowe]

What do you play normally?
Which is the system you are most comfortable with, without lots of gadgets.
Take this.

Make it fun. Enjoy the time you spend together.

2/1 is fine, but only if you make the rules simple, try to avoid exceptions.

#1 Lets say 2/1 is forcing to game always, no stop below in whatever,
-1 is good bridge, next bord
#2 1NT to a major opening is always forcing, or nonforcing, dont start to explain
semiforcing, a notion which always reminds me of half pregnant
#3 Flannery is nice in this regard ... a 1S response to a 1H opening showes 5+,
this means all direct major suit bids show 5+ except as a response to a minor suit
opening
I am not advocating Flannery, 2D as weak two is also ok, making all higher level
openings weak (except the 2C opening)
#4 I dont like 1S in the seq. 1C - 1D;1H - 1S as noforcing, since this breaks the rule,
that new suits by responder are forcing, but decide for your own, what you feel most
comfortable

and so on ...

And: Have fun.
Suprise her, with things she can figure out by putting the pieces together.
Have fun.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mgoetze]

akwoo, on 2015-September-23, 00:00, said:

The only artificial bids are Stayman, takeout doubles of the opening bid, and Blackwood.

Strongly disagree, Blackwood should be WAY down the list.

[HeavyDluxe]

As the crappiest player on BBOF, take this post with a basketball sized grain of salt.

I'd agree that you start with card play first... I wish I had. It's not until you understand what the auction is leading to that the logic in auctions really starts to make sense.

I think then you'd want to start bidding, briefly, with some very old-fashioned natural bidding.

Then, I would quickly move to 2/1... For once thing, it's not THAT complicated once you have a decent foundation, and I think that it's really 'standard' now anyway. With BWS pending some updates, especially.

As I think has been mentioned above, Cohen's "What Should We Play?" series of articles is a wonderful base.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2015-September-23, 00:00, said:

I think both 2/1 and SA are too complicated for beginners.

I would start with 5 card majors and strong NT, with the only forcing bids being new suits by responder and jumps into new suits by opener. (Beginners cannot keep track of reverses.) Natural strong 2's in all 4 suits. (or natural weak 2's in all 4 suits) The only artificial bids are Stayman, takeout doubles of the opening bid, and Blackwood. Do tell them this is a simple basic system that they'll want to change.

Obviously you wouldn't initially teach things like transfers or IMO opening 3-card suits, or a lot of conventions. I think OP is asking what he should be aiming for ultimately.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-23, 08:43, said:

Obviously you wouldn't initially teach things like transfers or IMO opening 3-card suits, or a lot of conventions. I think OP is asking what he should be aiming for ultimately.

I think if you are aiming at a five-card major system then you should do that from the beginning.

Of course it begs the question how you explain three-card minors, but if you start with four-card majors you will have to answer unnecesary questions about which suit to open with 2 or 3 four card suits, and whether it is ok to raise with three-card support. And you will have to change to five-card majors later.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-September-23, 08:55, said:

I think if you are aiming at a five-card major system then you should do that from the beginning.

Of course it begs the question how you explain three-card minors, but if you start with four-card majors you will have to answer unnecesary questions about which suit to open with 2 or 3 four card suits, and whether it is ok to raise with three-card support. And you will have to change to five-card majors later.

I think what you say makes sense, but on the other hand I do not think it is a good idea to add anything artificial until the student knows why, and also what she is giving up.

PS it raises the question.