[david_c]

"Standard" also helps in that your beginners will understand what their opponents are doing. I think this is important too.

[sdoty]

If they aren't going to be playing on their own (unsupervised) for a while, I recommend spending relatively little time on bidding initially.

If you're going to go with a 5 card major system, working exclusively on the simple major suit/notrump auctions will give them a good base to work off of. If they open a major, make sure responder has support and can raise directly. Those auctions emphasize three important bidding concepts: 1) you want to find a major suit fit, and 2) if you raise partner (or bid notrump), you show a specific point range, and 3) how the hand strengths fit together. If you give them a strong foundation in the opening hand strengths, the responding hand strengths, and how they combine, it will serve them extremely well when they move on to other auctions.

These are the ranges I use, including distribution (hcp + length for suit bids, except for hcp + shortness when raising partner's major)

Opener
Minimum (13-15)
Medium (16-18)
Maximum (19-21)

Responder
Weak (6-10)
Invitational (11-12)
Game Force (13-15)

Minimum + Weak = no game
Minimum + Inv, or Medium + Weak = maybe game
etc

A common mistake made with beginners is to throw a lot of bidding stuff at them before they have any experience base to work with. Making sense of bidding is a heck of a lot easier once you've actually played some hands. Things that we take completely for granted -- like how big a difference a 4th or 5th trump in the dummy makes -- they have no experience with. So: give them as much playing time as possible, and give them hands with simple auctions. 1M : 2M : pass, 1M : 2M : 4M, 1M : 3M, etc (or the corresponding auctions with direct notrump raises). There are important concepts there for them to become familiar with. If they take to it quickly, great -- they can play more hands. A next reasonable step is to add on the 1m : 1M : 2M/3M/4M family of auctions.

This approach has always worked well for me. No, it's not the quickest approach to bidding, but the big upside is that they start to actually understand and internalize what's going on. I'd rather add bricks slowly, but have them be really solid bricks, than build a matchstick mansion.

Of course you should always tailor the pace to the audience, and different groups can move through material faster than others. Their interests are also relevant -- if they're chomping at the bit for more bidding stuff, you can try to find a way to accomodate that while still making sure they get their basics in place. I don't advocate withholding knowledge -- a page handout on the various openings bids, and a page handout on 'responding to 1m' and 'responding to 1M' are certainly appropriate. They'll know that there are other kinds of hands they could hold. You can acknowledge that, and give them materials to use as reference outside of class, while at the same time limiting the lesson hands to core auctions so that their learning is focused and directed.

Last but not least, I strongly encourage you to keep in mind that even if things make sense to them when explained, they still need time to process and APPLY that information. Comprehension of a handout is one thing; being able to use it at the table is another. Give them the chance to practice what they've learned, and make sure that they're reasonably comforable with it, before adding on something new.

Bididng can seem extremely artificial to new players, and rightly so: a) they don't have much experience actually playing bridge hands, and they don't get "the bigger picture" yet. As more experienced players, we understand bids as part of a complete and cohesive structure. Just remember that they don't have that luxury. Things look very different from the perspective of a beginner, and the connections between the different pieces of the puzzle aren't always obvious from where they stand.

Just my two cents -- good luck with the group!!

Susan

[EarlPurple]

I didn't describe my opening bid structure fully though.

You don't open with balanced 12-point hands. So the opening range is a very sound 13-15 or has some shape.

1♣ and 1♦ opening is not complex when you think about it. You are basically training them to think majors first, and aim for 3NT in most game-bidding situations where you don't have a major fit. Only with very shapely hands would you normally play in 5 of a minor, although you might often play a part-score hand in 3 of a minor where you can't make 9 tricks in NT (most likely a competitive auction).

Actually I think sayc-type minor-suit openings can be more complicated. For one, they don't promise the minor, particularly 1♣. For that, a 4-card major system (as taught in the UK) may sound simpler but it's so hard to find 5-3 fits, and you don't want beginners playing 4-3 fits. (I prefer not playing them myself). If they do find themselves playing in 1NT with minor-suit fits, it's likely the opps have missed 2 of a major anyway. The only real problem is that after 1m pass 1NT 2M it's hard for the opening side to compete to 3 of a minor when they haven't found the fit yet (which they might not have). But that can happen anyway.

For a beginner, you can also make the opening responses to 1M the same, although you have to question whether 1♥ pass 1♠ shows 4 or 5 and how you'll find a 5-3 spade fit. (I don't think Flannery is the answer). 1NT can be played as non-forcing, 2♣ as invitational values and 2♦ as an artificial game-force, immediate raises pre-emptive in nature and jump-shifts to be fit-showing.

I'd prefer to teach my players that bidding is a language and not all pairs use the same language (bidding system) as other pairs, but it's vital they use the same as each other. After playing some sessions together they would be taught about other systems around, not so much so they can play them but so they will know they are likely to play against them.

[hrothgar]

I echo earlier comments regarding Minibridge...

From my perspective, the best thing that you can do is to ignore bidding altogether for a good long chunk of time. Minibridge allows players to learn basic judgement:

Playing mini-bridge, declarer gets to look at his hand and dummy and then select the best contract to declare. Until players get "good" at determining what the best contract is, all the bidding conventions in the world aren't going help them. In contrast, once players have learned this skill, you can introduce them to bidding. Personally, I often prefer to just present players with the most basic "rule" - the scoring table - and let them workout everything else for themselves... What types of hands prefer 2M to 3m. When do you want to playing in 3N as opposed to 4M. Here once again... if players can't work these types of details out for themselves, they really aren't going to like the game.

In contrast, once players have learned the basics, they're well positioned to pick up bidding. I normally introduce bidding as follows: Ideally players would like to use bidding to provide them with the same "perfect" information to pick the best contract that they enjoy in Minibridge. P,layers have two distinct goals during the bidding game:

Identifying their own best best contract
Prevent the opponent from exchanging information

Combine this approach with a good drill tool like Bridge Master and you can establish a really good foundation.

[mr1303]

How did we get from teaching beginners to things like EHAA and MidMac or whatever that system that Earl is talking about? I wouldn't be comfortable sitting down and playing either of those without a set of notes in front of me, and I've been playing for years.

We are talking about COMPLETE beginners here. People who have never played the game at all. Therefore, you need simple rules such as open 1D if you have diamonds, not open 1D if you have 4 hearts or 4 spades. You also need to have them respond 2D if you have diamonds, not if you have 13 points and want to be in a game, regardless of which game it is. Trying to teach them something like that will only drive them to poker.

In EBU land, 99% of people play weak NT and 4 card majors. Given that we want them to not be intimidated by the opposition, it is a good idea (as David_C) said that you teach them the "standard" system, in other words what everyone else in the country plays.

[ArcLight]

Playing a hand of Bridge can be overwhelming and utterly confusing.
As a defender - what do I do? What is going on? 3rd hand high, 2nd hand low?
As declarer - how do I play this? I dont have enough aces and kings and queens.

MiniBridge makes sense.
Let the players at least move from the 'overwhelming' to the 'unsure' state.
Let them learn a few of the simple concepts like a finesse, and running a long suit.
Maybe even more advanced things like ducking a round to set up a long suit!
Or ducking a defensive lead so as to set up third round winners ro sever communication - maybe thats too advanced.

After a dozen sessions and lessons they may feel more comfortable.

(Let them try Bridge Master Level 1 hands too)

Only then introduce some simple bidding system.



Supposedly 4 card majors requires a lot of judgment. But it's supposed to be simpler. Maybe thats worth using for a while, at least to see how fundamental bidding works.

For those who like the game after all this, say a few dozen sessions, if they want, you can introduce them to a bidding system that is used in your area, be it Precision, SA, ACOL, or whatever.

Forget conventions (maybe Stayman only) until they are comfortable with the basics.

[EarlPurple]

Once you teach them something though they'll be very resistant to change later on. And so many are reluctant to try out anything non-standard. After all, their teacher told them and it's standard so it must be best.

You can go for a totally natural system, in that case possibly 4 card majors and possibly even strong NT to go with it. Of course they'll end up in the wrong contract so much of the time and then you'll have to introduce all the intricacies.

What do you teach them about raising partner's opening 1 of a major? On 3-card support or 4? Is a jump strong, invitational or pre-emptive. When I first started I had a concept of if you were strong you jumped to show it, so I naturally assumed it would apply to trumps too. With my "system" if you want to force game you respond 2♦. Nice and simple - one bid to remember. My system is of course foreign but I'm convinced it is easier to learn.

[ArcLight]

>Once you teach them something though they'll be very resistant to change later on. And so many are reluctant to try out anything non-standard. After all, their teacher told them and it's standard so it must be best.


I think it depends on how you teach them and what you say.

"Class, Bridge is a lot of fun, but its complicated. I'm going to use a simple system for now, so you can start playing immediately. If you dceide you like the game and want to stick with it, I can teach you a better but more complex system later"

[EarlPurple]

I think if you taught them the system I have shown, got them to use it for a while, and then tried to teach them sayc or Acol, they'd be resisistent to change as well.

It would be interesting to experiment with beginners who were taught one system and those who were taught another on a number of hands and see which ones bid them better.

[Sigi_BC84]

mr1303, on Mar 10 2006, 02:37 PM, said:

How did we get from teaching beginners to things like EHAA and MidMac or whatever that system that Earl is talking about? I wouldn't be comfortable sitting down and playing either of those without a set of notes in front of me, and I've been playing for years.

I didn't like Earl's suggestion either, because the system he described is already fairly artificial. However, it seems like you don't know EHAA, which is really easy (almost 100% natural), the only disadvantages for teaching beginners being that it's harder to find a good major fit (no 5-card majors) and that it's different from Standard.

Quote

In EBU land, 99% of people play weak NT and 4 card majors. Given that we want them to not be intimidated by the opposition, it is a good idea (as David_C) said that you teach them the "standard" system, in other words what everyone else in the country plays.

In that case, teaching EHAA seems like a great idea to me. The switch to proper Acol should be rather easy after that.

Of course Richard is right when he once more emphasises Minibridge. That is really useful for the first few session, especially if you have coded cards so you can set up a few easy deals quickly to get them started.

--Sigi

[EarlPurple]

I would advocate Minibridge too. You need to teach play and defence.

I originally came across Minibridge in 1992. Back then, the side with the most points could pick the contract, but I suggested at the time they should have to pick at least 1NT, 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. I think they eventually implemented that.

Another suggestion is to multiply the number of trumps by the number of points and divide by 20 suggesting the number of tricks they should take. If NT, divide by 3 and that's the contract. Thus declarer cannot always choose his contract which means some contracts may be unmakeable which will at least give defences a chance. If defences never stand a chance then players will never learn to defend or at least the defending side will get bored.

The system I described (at the 1-level) uses artificial 1♣ and 1♦ bids but natural 1♥ and 1♠ bids. But in a 5-card major system, 1♣ and 1♦ are often not the longest suit anyway. But then do you teach Stayman? So you can bid 2♣ to show a 4-card major! In fact my 1♣ bid is a bit like puppet because you ask for 5-card majors (direct major bid) or to bid diamonds to show a 4-card major. So again, one system repeated in different places.

So now I have said that you can bid clubs to look for 4-4 major suit fits, but what you find totally artificial in one situation you probably think is pretty natural in another.

By the way, you may shield your players from Stayman but what happens when they go out and play and find their opponents use it? Will they get confused? Probably.

For me, the most important thing to teach a beginner (beginning at bidding with some playing experience in minibridge) is to bid game. Beginners have tremendous problems bidding game. That has been my experience anyway.

[Sigi_BC84]

EarlPurple, on Mar 11 2006, 10:27 PM, said:

I originally came across Minibridge in 1992. Back then, the side with the most points could pick the contract, but I suggested at the time they should have to pick at least 1NT, 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. I think they eventually implemented that.

There are coded decks for minibridge (24 lesson deals each) which get you around this problem quite nicely (they include a booklet with all the deals and a few notes on each deal).

Quote

The system I described (at the 1-level) uses artificial 1♣ and 1♦ bids but natural 1♥ and 1♠ bids. But in a 5-
[...]

The main problem with the system is that it's very different from SAYC and eventually you want to teach your students SAYC and then you'll have to tell them, "well, forget the complicated system you've learned, here's the 'real' thing". I don't want to do that.

--Sigi

[awm]

There are a lot of advantages to teaching beginners fairly standard methods. In particular, this helps them understand opponents bidding, and makes them able to play with people who didn't necessarily learn bridge in the same group. I think if you choose to teach beginners something other than what's standard in their part of the world, you need some pretty strong reasons. In fact, I think in order to be worthwhile your methods should pass all the following tests:

(1) It should be simpler than standard (easier to learn, more focus on judgement in bidding over conventions, and more time to spend on play/defense).

(2) It should be at least moderately effective (i.e. not much worse than standard).

(3) It should be fairly easy to go from whatever they learned to learning something more standard.

I think EHAA passes these tests, especially in the UK where ACOL is the "standard." In fact the only big distinctions between EHAA and ACOL are the lack of a strong bid (weak twos in all suits) and wider ranging weak two bids.

Most other nonstandard systems suggested fail on at least one of these points.

[EarlPurple]

1. I live in the UK. So if I became a bridge teacher here I'd have to teach Acol. Which is why I resisted becoming one. I didn't want to teach Acol. In fact I'd have to teach Standard English.

2. I disagree with the part "forget the complicated system you've learned" because I don't think my system is complicated. I think it's fairly simple. Opening 1♣ when you have a 4-card major is as simple as responding 2♣ over 1NT when you have one. It's just a different context. And I think players would get used to it very quickly but you've immediately jumped to the conclusion that "natural is easy, non-natural is complicated".

3. Yes, eventually I would teach them sayc but not because they have to play it, but because they might want to play it (if they play with a partner who plays it) and because they might play against it. I might teach them precision for the same reason - and all sorts of other conventions they might come up against at the table so they'll not feel uncomfortable when they show up.

But then I would like to train players for tournament play, not for kitchen bridge or "simple systems only" contests.

Now how about a hand:

♠ Kxx - QJxxx
♥ Ax - Kxx
♦ KQxx - xx
♣ QJxx - Axx

Playing sayc. Likely auction 1NT-2H-2S-2NT-4S using transfers. Not playing transfers, it would probably go 1NT-3S-4S ?

Playing Acol you open 1 of one of the minors, say 1D. So 1D-1S-1NT-2NT-3S-4S. That's probably the "correct" auction. Again will it be found?

Playing my system 1D-1S-2S-3S-4S is the simplest auction. 2S is a basic raise, 3S invite and 4S bids game.

What is the EHAA auction? Will you get to 4S?

Give these hands to beginners - how many will reach 4S on it?

[pbleighton]

"What is the EHAA auction? Will you get to 4S?"

My version of EHAA (10-13 NT):

1D-1S-1NT(14-17)-2C(NMF)-2S(I have 3)-4S

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

An Acol auction could go

1C - 1S
1NT (1) - 3NT (2)

(1) 15-16
(2) he has 15 and is bal., I have 10
and I am bal. => 25, game in NT

3NT may not be as safe as 4S, I am not very
good in single dummy analysis, but I have
been in worse contracts

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the saint]

Simple. Minibridge until they get bored - which will be a lesson or two, but they will pick up the basic mechanics of bridge-type games very quickly with it. And you can teach it in 5 minutes flat.

After that? All this talk about systems is largely irrelevant. What is more important is good material. Since Andrew is in the UK, the Standard English is highly reccomendable. I have used it with the kids at the youth camp for years. The whole package was designed by bridge teachers for bridge teachers.

On a style basis the one thing I would recommend is this. Forget all your expert stuff. Let all the little errors go and concentrate on the ONE big point you want to get across in any given lesson/hand. I agree that there is far too much to learn in one chunk so don't even try.

Eventually they will start to think for themselves.

[the saint]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 17 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

An Acol auction could go

1C - 1S
1NT (1) - 3NT (2)

(1) 15-16
(2) he has 15 and is bal., I have 10
and I am bal. => 25, game in NT

3NT may not be as safe as 4S, I am not very
good in single dummy analysis, but I have
been in worse contracts

With kind regards
Marlowe

This is the kind of level you need to teach beginners at. 15+10=25=Game. Then they can do roughly the right thing quickly - then they feel they are progressing. Any talk of preference or fragments on the way to 3NT = Total Confusion.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Opener
Minimum (13-15)
Medium (16-18)
Maximum (19-21)

Responder
Weak (6-10)
Invitational (11-12)
Game Force (13-15)

Minimum + Weak = no game
Minimum + Inv, or Medium + Weak = maybe game
etc

This is exactly the kind of setup I use. All these books and things saying "this bid is has that strength and that bid has some other strength" is way too complicated. Beginners rate their hand into one of these groups and stick to that.

After this concept the next concept is that of "allowed level". For example with a minimum opener you are not allowed to rebid beyond 2 of your own suit without a fit. From this it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that a sequence like 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ shows a GOOD hand.

Another concept is to ONLY bid 2NT on hands that are at least Medium. This avoids the perennial "we don't have a fit so we bid NT but oh dear we have only 13 + 6 = 19, oops 2NT goes down a lot"

BTW my ranges are a bit different:

Opener:
Weak: 12 - 15
Medium: 16 - 17
Strong: 18+

Responder
Weak: 6 - 10
Medium: 11 - 12
Strong: 13+