[mcphee]

At one time there was plenty of problems with regard to opening the bidding 1NT with a singleton. So much so that it was frowned on and, if not mistaken, the rules were such that it was not permitted.

Since things have changed, and if a pair was to open 1NT frequently holding 4-4-4-1 (some nonsense about alerting has come to the front) if the aprtner is expecting this sort of hand they are supposed to alert.

Frankly I do open 1N with this shape when my rebid will be come awkward and the hand left undiscribed. One thing for sure when holding 16 or 17 you will find it hard to get than strength across as you are unable to reverse should partner bid you short suit.

Bottom line, the ACBL has come to its senses, and rather than listen to the crying, the 4-4-4-1 1NT (even 2NT) has become a bit more common.

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Apr 27 2005, 02:20 PM, said:

There was something else that stroke me in that book:

Kleinman says that Jacoby transfers should be taught to beginners. His case is this: if you play natural sign-offs, he 1NT-opener will feel that it deprives him his birthright of declaring the contract, so no matter how hard you teach him to pass he will keep bidding 3NT after partner's sign-off.

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner.

[EricK]

MickyB, on Apr 28 2005, 12:37 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 27 2005, 02:20 PM, said:

There was something else that stroke me in that book:

Kleinman says that Jacoby transfers should be taught to beginners. His case is this: if you play natural sign-offs, he 1NT-opener will feel that it deprives him his birthright of declaring the contract, so no matter how hard you teach him to pass he will keep bidding 3NT after partner's sign-off.

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner.

But this is because beginners aren't (generally) taught any reasons for bids meaning what they do.

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

Eric

[helene_t]

EricK, on Apr 29 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

I agree with that.

But are beginners taught to seek an 8-card fit? I think it should be stressed that while an 8-card fit is required for game, a 7-card fit is allright for partscores. What I've seen a lot of times is beginners "improving" a 5-2 fit to 2NT.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Apr 29 2005, 07:59 AM, said:

EricK, on Apr 29 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M.

I agree with that.

But are beginners taught to seek an 8-card fit? I think it should be stressed that while an 8-card fit is required for game, a 7-card fit is allright for partscores. What I've seen a lot of times is beginners "improving" a 5-2 fit to 2NT.

I am not in a position to make significant comments of my own about bridge teaching, but I have taught some chess (2 of my kids were chess JR national champions in Italy).

Sometimes we tend to forget how we reasoned when we were beginners (in any field): we tend to believe that teaching right away principles will work better than teaching "hard and fast" rules.

But it is not necessarily so: every person's mind works differently.
I hacve seen in chess persons asking me to stop explaining the logic behind a move to remember, because it was too much.

Basically:
- some people need to learn first some "hard and fast rules" to become comfortable with the routine; later they can be explained the underlying reason for using such "memory rules". These person's minds need to first experience one thing, and only later sinthethize the underlying principle.
- other people are more comfortable learning right away the underlying priciples; for such kind of persons it is easier to remember the logic and reproduce it in various situations, rather than simply learn a different rule for each situation.

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

The above considerations were confirmed to me by Enzo Riolo, one of the stronger bridge teachers in Italy: he told me that one should give CERTAINTIES to beginners, even if these certainties are IMPROPER in some cases (such as "8 ever, 9 never", or bidding based on strict hcp count). Later on, they will learn to deviate.

In his opinion, trying to teach fine points to beginners will just leave them into a lot of doubts (e.g. is right here to open with ten points?; is it right to raise to game with 7 points ?) and at the beginning it is just too much.

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

What's my point ?
Simply that it seems hard to claim to know what's better for beginners: every beginner's mind works differently and what's good for person A may fail for person B, so the good teacher - like in all fields - is the one who can understand who he is teaching to, not the one who speaks better about his topic.

[helene_t]

Chamaco, on Apr 29 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

But it is not necessarily so: every person's mind works differently.
What's my point ?
Simply that it seems hard to claim to know what's better for beginners: every beginner's mind works differently and what's good for person A may fail for person B, so the good teacher - like in all fields - is the one who can understand who he is teaching to, not the one who speaks better about his topic.

Interesting point. Anyway, those who teach to large classes (or write books) will have to make some assumtions about what method is better for the average student.

A couple of years ago, the Dutch BF took initiative to modernize bridge teaching. Basically, the idea was to put more emphazis on the "why" of bidding and playing principles. Related to that, there should be more emphazis on playing and less on bidding, and the courses should be slower, allowing new players to start playing at the club only after one year or even two years, as opposed to ten weeks which is often the ambition at the moment.

I'm still not sure what's the right thing to do. Personally I don't like to apply rules without understanding their background, but I should probably not assume that everybody shares my aversion against "dump" rules.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Apr 29 2005, 08:45 AM, said:

Related to that, there should be more emphazis on playing and less on bidding, and the courses should be slower, allowing new players to start playing at the club only after one year or even two years, as opposed to ten weeks which is often the ambition at the moment.

My own feeling is that this emphasis on card play is much better than the other way around (2 months spent about bidding, and then just play), FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TEACHING THE RIGHT WAY.

However, I suppose there may be practical reasons why many courses are built into a 10 weeks module before throwing the beginners right into the arena: they want to keep the students to the club.

Let's make a practical example: in my hometown (150000 inhabitants), the club's game is usually 5 or 6 table.
They need more people, so in the last 2 years they started again the course for beginners.

The course lasts about 2 months with most lessons on bidding.

The first lesson there are 20 persons.
The second lesson, 20, again.
Third lesson, 15 persons.
At the end of the cycle, usually 12-15 persons were still attending the class.
In some courses the drop-off rate is even faster.

Of these persons, about 7-8 will continue to come to the club.
For the next couple of weeks tere is still someone around them to teach them some basic points, but usually, some of them just stop coming, for many reasons.

So, the net result of every single course is about 3-5 players for every year, but only if they can play right away (and not just between the 4-5 of them): if the course implied they cannot play with the rest of the club for 1 year (because they were told only the CARDPLAY module), then even less people will stay at the club.

The point is: MANY PEOPLE START TO ATTEND A BRIDGE COURSE JUST TO BE ABLE TO PLAY QUICKLY AND HAVE FUN, NOT NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROPER PATH TO GOOD TECHNIQUE. (and perhaps they are not-so-wrong, I might add )
So, the tasks of the teacher to "teach it right" AND to "keep the people coming to the club", may be conflicting.
Often, the policy needed for having MANY players is opposite to the one for creating GOOD players.