[helene_t]

Yesterday, at a meeting for Dutch bridge teachers organized by the publisher of Berry Westra's books, Westra announced that he and Vincent Ramondt recently switched to 5cM. The room went silent, awaiting clarification as to whether it was a joke. It wasn't. Shock. Like the Pope announcing that he just converted to Islam.

Westra went on to announcing that he intends to write a textbook on 5-card majors for improving players. The audience was not amused. The discussion went on for one hour I think. Westra said that he would prefer to teach 4cM only and that he will continue to base the beginners' books on 4cM. It's just that the reality is that 5cM has won the battle.

FWIW, I can see some arguments for both positions. I happen to be a strong proponent for teaching 5cM to beginners but I might take a different position in specific cases. Of course the choice between 4cM and 5cM should be made in conjugation with other choices (Notrump range? Strong 1c or strong 2c?) and may also depend on the students' level of ambition and specific targets (IRL bridge with casual pds? With a specific p for the rest of the life? On BBO? On the Dutch bridge-site StepBridge?) as well as the mode of teaching (rule-based or judgment based? Cardplay first or cardplay and bidding in parallel? Dutch books, English books, or only rudimentary use of books?).

The funny thing is that the way 4-card majors is taught in modern Dutch beginners' textbooks is a strict 4-card-up-the line system. FWIW I think it's the worst possible 4-card majors style, I have much more sympathy for a modern English Acol style. But given that up-the-line is what is available, the only hands the dispute is about are four specific patterns, namely 4432, 4423, 4333 and 3433. Of those four some even do not include the two latter since they play a style in which 1♠=5 and 1♥=5 or 44 majors. So why the h.... is the discussion so heated? I can understand that some would prefer not to teach a "natural" 3+ 1m opening, and that those who have accepted 3+ 1♣ still would prefer not to open 1m with the specific 4432 shape. But everybody agrees that 1♠-2♣ and 1♣-1♦ is "in principle natural but may be short with one or two specific patterns", and the "van Start to Finish"-books written by the most militant 4cMajorist, Cees Sint, even does not allow opening 1NT with a 5-card major so that the same lies apply to some of opener's 2m rebids.

Is there a psychologist here who can explain the militant position of the 4cM church to me?

[MickyB]

I'd guess it's to do with tradition and having a sense of identity. The minority group has convinced itself that it is right and isn't willing to or capable of listening to the arguments of the majority.

In England, the situation isn't that different, but here it is the no-trump range that divides people.

BTW, teaching strong NT and 4 card majors to beginners is bizarre IMO.

[gwnn]

beginners would probably understand 4cM better but by such a small margin that it's not worth the HUGE cultural gap they'd face on BBO where more than 99% play some form of 5cM.

[P_Marlowe]

MickyB, on Jul 15 2007, 01:59 PM, said:

I'd guess it's to do with tradition and having a sense of identity.

I would say, that is the explanation.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

gwnn, on Jul 15 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

beginners would probably understand 4cM better but by such a small margin that it's not worth the HUGE cultural gap they'd face on BBO where more than 99% play some form of 5cM.

I would say, it matters more, which system is locally predominat,
compared to systems played on the Net.

Playing on the Net is ok, but the beauty of the game is f2f.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

If some polish authors would switch to SAYC or SEF, they would have the same effect. Some countries have developed a dominant system, sometimes pushed by the national bridge association. Teachers are used to teach that and they feel it ts a benefit for their students, if they can practice what they have learned.

There is some historical aspect, when 4cM where first introduced they where a revolution against the existing dominant 5cM world. 4cM players of the first generation are still active teachers, and they still feel that playing 4cM is a big step forward.
But the game has changed, aggressive weak jump overcalls cause (big) problems to 4cM players.
1M - 2/3m - ?
Makes them guess, if 3 card support is all they have. They often don't know that they have in fact 9 trumps and the LOTT is no help, when you don't know your own trump length.

[Free]

People just don't like change...

BTW, lots of teachers here in Belgium are noobs who only know their 4 little books from Berry (we also have a Berry-hype). These books are imo a great for commercial purposes (good for Berry), but if players want to improve, they really need to learn everything all over again. Principles like fast arrival don't even get any attention! People learn to bid 1M-4M with 12HCP, and they get the impression that Blacky is the only slamtool available. The only advantage is that it's simple, and the newbies can play the game and have fun, wiiiii!

[hrothgar]

Personally, I suspect that this has NOTHING to do with 4 card majors versus 5 card majors and everything to do with the generic idea of change.

Right now, you (meaning the Netherlands) have a lot of bridge teachers who have invested significant time and effort learning to teach a specific set of bidding methods. I don't find it surprising that they don't want to learning a brand new syllabus.

Equally significant, those same teachers have just finished teaching Dutch Acol to a bunch of their students. Said students are going to be somewhat peeved if/when a teacher transitions to a new set of methods. They're going to start asking why the teacher took their money, only to present obsolete methods.

[Gerben42]

That's it... I think I will have to write a book, teaching the "who cares about the bloody" system (probably not a catchy name though... needs some work).

[keylime]

This discussion brought home for me a lot of thoughts about my bridge development when I first started, and my views about bridge education in general.

When I was first exposed to the game in my native central Florida, the texts and material was formed from in essence early '60's flavors of bridge: 5 card majors, sound openings, constructive weak 2 bids, and convienent minors. I distinctly remember the teaching at the local bridge club stating and reinforcing the concept of "visualization", and them strongly communicating the importance of the 5-3 fit over the 4-4 fit.

As I have travelled about and played more, and being exposed to numerous new ideas and concepts, I've come to think that the fundamental structure of North American bridge education is out-of-sequence with regards to the progression of learning to have the students gain the basic understanding required.

Let me explain. The first lesson is normally about the rudiments of the game and its jargon. Lesson 2 is one of a minor openings, 3 is one of a major openings, and 4 is the NT opening. I believe this is out of order. I think for students to succeed, one should start at the 1NT opening, because it is the cornerstone of all bidding systems, and is paid particular attention with regards to how it directly impacts the rest of the system. Furthermore, there is a certain psychological connotation of importance for new students: they know that this bid has a specific well defined meaning and that it will come up with enough regularity to help commit it to memory. That, and the fact you get to open a good hand with a specific-meaning bid can't hurt morale. After the 1NT opening then you teach the one of a major opening and then go to the one of a minor opening, already knowing that the foundation has been set in terms of thought process.

With regards to 4cM versus 5cM, I am admittedly on the fence - I think for each point about one style you can make an equally valid point for the other. I'm of the view that 4cM maybe in theory better than 5cM, but suffers markedly from the practical side of view (and the societal view as well).

[goodwintr]

There are certainly different perspectives from different countries! If a bridge teacher here in the USA announced to the class that she was going to be teaching four-card majors, she would soon be looking out at empty chairs. (It would be like not teaching Blackwood.)

[the hog]

MickyB, on Jul 16 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

snipped

BTW, teaching strong NT and 4 card majors to beginners is bizarre IMO.

Don't let Carl Hudecek hear that statement!!

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Jul 15 2007, 11:44 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jul 16 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

snipped

BTW, teaching strong NT and 4 card majors to beginners is bizarre IMO.

Don't let Carl Hudecek hear that statement!!

I'm more than willing to debate the matter with him

[Al_U_Card]

Inertia

You learn and do something and you tend to keep on with it.

As we get older, we value the time we spend learning as well as applying that knowledge. Sometimes too much. Sometimes way too much.

Since any system, well played, is better than any other system not so well played, there is merit to this approach at bridge.

Youth will be served but as long as you can (easily) find a pard for your methods and you wish to play.....wtp?

[the hog]

Depends what you are used to. In Aust you play 4 or 5 card Ms depending on which State you live in.

Not that this is an answer to your question Helene, but I feel that 4 card Ms work far better with a big club system than 5 card Ms do. 5 card Ms and a big club do not mesh well and you need contortions to make the system work effectively.

Playing a natural 4 card M system, I find the best suit order is H-C-D-S.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 15 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

Personally, I suspect that this has NOTHING to do with 4 card majors versus 5 card majors and everything to do with the generic idea of change.

Right now, you (meaning the Netherlands) have a lot of bridge teachers who have invested significant time and effort learning to teach a specific set of bidding methods.  I don't find it surprising that they don't want to learning a brand new syllabus.

True. That they are antagonistic towards strong club and weak 1NT is something I can understand, because, as Gerben says, "who cares about the bloody system". The system should only be changed if the new system is significantly better, which it isn't.

But the point is that most club players and virtually all advanced players play 5cM already. Low-intermediates play a jungle of incoherent blends of 4cM and 5cM. It must be very confusing. And as I mentioned, the particular style of 4cM they teach is very close to 5cM.

keylime said:

With regards to 4cM versus 5cM, I am admittedly on the fence - I think for each point about one style you can make an equally valid point for the other. I'm of the view that 4cM maybe in theory better than 5cM, but suffers markedly from the practical side of view (and the societal view as well).

Yes, 4cM has the theoretical advantage of finding the more important 4-4-fit first. But to exploit that, you would have to play a majors-always-first style as e.g. Moscito 2000. What they teach here in NL is 4-cards up the line which is the worst of both worlds: you don't find the 4-4-fit (because opener tends not to open 4-card majors) and you don't find the 5-3-fit either (because responder doesn't know of opener's 5-card.).

This technical fine-tuning may not be so relevant to beginners. But I think it's a sound principle that a major suit, whenever biddable, takes priority. What you see here is that they teach the responses to t/o doubles (major taks priority) as an exception to the 4-card-up-the-line-rule, an exception that needs to be memorized.

[Gerben42]

I believe in the sound principle of "keeping the bidding as simple as possible". I miss that in ALL books for beginners. Everyone is preaching in their own church.

I think young players who know what playing cards are should be able to learn bridge in 1 hour. I dislike having to spend 90% of the time teaching something just so that they are going to be accepted by the club, who somehow demand that they will bid "correctly" (translation: have a bidding system that is accepted by the community).

[Echognome]

Gerben42, on Jul 16 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

I believe in the sound principle of "keeping the bidding as simple as possible". I miss that in ALL books for beginners. Everyone is preaching in their own church.

I think young players who know what playing cards are should be able to learn bridge in 1 hour. I dislike having to spend 90% of the time teaching something just so that they are going to be accepted by the club, who somehow demand that they will bid "correctly" (translation: have a bidding system that is accepted by the community).

I disagree with this vehemently.

I think if you just want to get them to play cards, there's hardly much simpler than weak NT, 4 card majors. Then basically you are telling them to bid their longest suit and to have at it. But what service am I doing them? I'm painting them in a corner. They'll be fine playing with each other, but then what? They try to expand their horizons by playing in the club or playing online and they don't have any success playing with people. They don't understand why.

It's not that hard to teach a simple version of the common system in your country. Why not give them the ability to play with others? That's how they are going to grow.

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Jul 16 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

I believe in the sound principle of "keeping the bidding as simple as possible". I miss that in ALL books for beginners. Everyone is preaching in their own church.

I think young players who know what playing cards are should be able to learn bridge in 1 hour. I dislike having to spend 90% of the time teaching something just so that they are going to be accepted by the club, who somehow demand that they will bid "correctly" (translation: have a bidding system that is accepted by the community).

Hi Gerben,

although i agree, that players should be enabled
to play after 1 hour, I disagree, that this means
"keeping the bidding as simple as possible".
I believe that one should try and teach one of more
common systems played in the area, so that they
have chances in finding partners.

We have a new bridge course, and I was asked to
do the teaching, pity the poor souls, and ask me in a
couple of month if anyone survived.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Basically I try to follow keylimes sketch, which
"simply" requires, that you screen the hands your
students start to play, with the help of dealer
programms this is doable, you can even generate
hands for them to play at home,
but we just had our 2nd lesson, and I am not sure if we
will survive the summer.

[helene_t]

I've tried to teach 2/1 and SAYC to some beginners and I was not very successful with it. SAYC turns out to be an illogical system, probably about as bad as "Dutch Acol". I heard others complain about that before, but never fully realized it before I'd been teaching it for some time. 2/1 is more logical but its technical advantages are irrelevant to beginners. I think the same can be said about 4cM since 4cM requires advanced judgement and is chosen mainly for tactical reasons. 1♥-2♥, now we may be in a 4-3-fit so it's risky for opps to balance but also risky not to balance. Excelent reason for chosing 4cM if you're advanced but not if you're a novice.

Precision seems to work better. I'm not claiming that it will be better for all students and for all teachers. It's just my experience so far. Might even change when I get a larger sample size.

It's certainly a valid point that many students are best served by learning some SA-like system which they can play at the local club and on BBO. I think Precision is acceptable, though, as it's a natural 5cM system based on basically the same principles as SA. I know some will disagree with this strongly. Again, it depends on who you are and who your students are. Personally, I prefer to spend as little time as possible on the system and focusing on judgment and on system-independent things like overcalls and preempts. I know this may sound strange to many but the point is that since I cannot predict what system they will play in the future anyway I choose to focus on things that will be useful in any event.