[helene_t]

I will start teaching at a beginner's course this year and I'm still not sure which bidding system and textbook to choose. The bidding system should be easier to learn than SAYC or Acol, I think. Any suggestions? I'm considering some kind of Relay Precision. There is a club in Amsterdam that has good experince with a 4-card-major relay system with a forcing 1c opening (Looier).

[Wiste1]

Best for beginners to teach is a natural and simple system like SAYC or ACOL
Is it easier system to learn ??
Relay and Prec. is ok to learn later

[bearmum]

helene_t, on Apr 25 2004, 12:09 AM, said:

I will start teaching at a beginner's course this year and I'm still not sure which bidding system and textbook to choose. The bidding system should be easier to learn than SAYC or Acol, I think. Any suggestions? I'm considering some kind of Relay Precision. There is a club in Amsterdam that has good experince with a 4-card-major relay system with a forcing 1c opening (Looier).

RELAY precision (or any other Precision) is NOT (IMHO) a system for BEGINNERS

BEGINNERS need to learn HOW to PLAY the cards first - SO STANDARD AMERICAN YELLOW CARD (SAYC) { NOT what MOST mean by SAYC} is the EASIEST ( if in USA) to teach However SIMPLE ACOL is also a good BEGINNER system too

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Apr 24 2004, 02:09 PM, said:

I will start teaching at a beginner's course this year and I'm still not sure which bidding system and textbook to choose. The bidding system should be easier to learn than SAYC or Acol, I think. Any suggestions? I'm considering some kind of Relay Precision. There is a club in Amsterdam that has good experince with a 4-card-major relay system with a forcing 1c opening (Looier).

This has the potential to be an interesting discussion:

First: I very much agree with your basic idea. SAYC is an abysmal system. I've search long and hard but have not be able to find any internal consistency or logic. As a result, "learning" the system consists of memorying a series of isolated facts without a unifying framework to fit them into. The single worst thing that online bridge did was reviving the abomination that is SAYC from the rubbish heap of history.

Second: Normally, when I teach bridge to beginners, we ignore bidding altogether for the first couple months. Instead, I start by emphasizing:

Mechanics
Choosing a contract
Declarer play
Defense

I've had fairly good succss using an approach popular in Europe:

(a) Start by teaching a basic 4-3-2-1 HCP count.

(B) Each player starts by counting and declaring their points.

© The side with the highest combined point total gets to declare. The other side defends.

(d) The player with the highest points looks at partner's hand and decides what contract he wants to play

(i) Any slam
(ii) Game in a major, a minor, or NT
(iii) 1NT
(iv) 2 of a major
(v) 3 or a minor

At this point in time, play proceeds as normal.

This treatment allows players to focus on basic skills (both card play and selecting the right contract) without any requirement to learn a formal bidding system. If players enjoy the game, then you have the option to teach actually bidding later on.

Third: Eventually, you are gong to need to teach an actually bidding system. Here, there is an intrinsic tension between the popularity of the various systems and there "suitability" for teaching. SAYC - the most popular system out there - is also one of the worst designed.

From my perspective, the most crucial thing to emphasize is that bidding is a means to an end: What we are trying to do is to approximate the ability to look at both hands and decide what the best contract. At the same time, we're trying to make it as difficult aspossible for the opponents to make an informed decision.

If I were going to select any bidding system to start with, I'd probably recommend starting with 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge by Scheinwold. If I were going to teach a 5 card major system, I probably recommend a simplified Precision variant or maybe Polish Club.

[Flame]

I learn bridge with precision, and i must say it was a mistake.
We didnt understand what we learn, we just memorized it.
I can compare to another group that begin about the same time as us with the same teacher but learned a natural system, and they did alot better.
When you teach a natural system, you give them understading of the game, they understand not only the system but also the overcalls and other bids in competition.

[csdenmark]

Helene - in Denmark the Danish Bridge Federation has created a series of texts and exercises for beginners. 4 books as I remember. I am sure the Dutch Bridge Federation has something similar.

After that I am sure Goren's exceptional good books for years will be a good source for your students. The Kaplan-Sheinwold approach will be good too - not so far away from Dutch Acol - which system I am sure your students expect to be able to master in a decent way as soon as possible.

Club systems or other artificial systems are very good systems - but not for people who need to understand the values and ways to find fit - to be able to count to 8 and see the features in that perspective.

I agree with Richard in most - but go for Dutch Acol. Else your course in Holland will fail!

[Gerben47]

I don't think the course will "fail" if you do not offer Dutch Acol. The standard bidding system is "Biedermeijer Groen" which is based on

Strong NT
4-card Minors (i.e. open 1♦ with 4-4 in red)
Strong 2-bids

I disagree with all 3...

A system without any conventions would be best. How about:
http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~di...idge/bignt.html

I'm not claiming this is the best system. But it is easy and makes the players familiar with bidding. Don't waste too much time on learning the bidding, let's just learn how to play bridge.

LATER is the time to explain that you might want to use 2♣ as strong opening bid instead of 1NT. LATER is the time to explain about Stayman, Slam Bidding, Ace Asking, Jacoby 2NT, etc.

Gerben

[csdenmark]

Sorry Gerben - I have never heard of 'Biedermeijer Groen'. I really thought Dutch Acol was the national system like acol is in Denmark and UK.

At the bottom line we agree - if beginners to bridge - no specific system. If beginners to artificial system but experienced in bridge, then precision will be just fine. The Wei book "Simplified Precision Bridge' by C.C.Wei. Devyn Press, Kentucky is just perfect to start up strong club converting from standard classic.
More history in the Cinderella Team book and a simple standard approach in Goren/Wei.

[the hog]

Relay Precision, whether based on 4 0r 5 card Majors is definitely bot a system for beginners. In fact Precision of any sort is not a system for beginning players. It is important to learn "plastic evaluation" first. Best to teach something like Acol. Gerben is correct.

[slothy]

Helene , with due respect, I do find it very difficult to understand why you suggested a non-natural system to teach beginners .

Surely, the idea is to allow them to appreciate hand evaluation and contract setting (á la Hrothgar's post) without introducing bidding abstractions which will undoubtedly confuse them and distract them from the bread-and-butter concepts.

"Let them bid what they got in their hand" is a motto i think worth considering Teaching them an artificial system is like teaching football (soccer for you guys over the Pond) and asking them to dribble a rugby ball. (quite fun as it happens)

The EBU [Englsih Bridge Union] , for all its failings , has IMHO one of the best thought-out and well-documented systems for teaching (having received substantial amounts of funding to develop it and me personally done some coding for it so i have managed to see how well-constructed it is) in its 'Bridge For All' dossier, specifically aimed at people who are beginners.

May i suggest you go to the bridge site and see if worth following up

Good luck with your teaching!

[keylime]

Precision being a bad system for beginners? C'mon folks, in China and Bermuda Precision is the "status quo" for players learning the game. Precision offers beginners many more advantages because of the fact that bids are LIMITED (a major issue with SAYC players trying to determine whether a bid is forcing or not, so on, so forth). Furthermore, players are able to open more hands, gain a more constructive auction after a forcing club, and being able to open 1C and not 2C to show a larger segment of decent hands are a huge benefit. Sorry, but I totally disagree - Precision is the way to go for beginners in my opinion. It made myself and partner play light years better because it lessened the amount of arguments we had overall.

I use either Reese or Wei-Goren Precision for starters. Simple, natural bidding, the ability to limit the opener's strength immediately, and constructive auctions? I can't pass that up.

[Gerben47]

"Biedermeijer Groen" is about the same as Dutch Acol. This name is part of a project to standardize bidding. The advantage is that if you say you play this the other knows what you mean, unlike if you say "Dutch Acol" which does nowadays not even tell you how many cards you need to open a major.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/LittleKnown/Bied...eenEnglish.html

[mishovnbg]

Main mistake while teaching beginners is to start teaching them any system, I agree with Richard.
First step - rules. To learn any game you need to start from its rules. Do you know how many beginners don't know how many they will gain for own contract, double opps... Will be very interesting idea to ask Maureen to do same test in BIL and look results! How you can expect they to understand what to do at table, if they didn't know what will be prise for?
Second step - card play. You can't bid wining contract, if you can't imagine how you will make it/defend against it. So you first need to learn about card play. I think best book all time in this area is "The Play of the Cards" by Terence Reese and Albert Dormer. The teacher must use this book like Bridge Bible, and only add more examples and practice it.
Third step - bidding. Big mistake of most of teachers is they lose logic connection between card play and bidding. Right way is to connect in beginner's mind making tricks by card play with counting tricks during the bidding. This mean to explain them how they can calculate 3 main ways of making tricks during the bidding: high cards, long suits and ruffing values, as well as their position corrections. After they understand how to calculate tricks in line, next is how they can show this to partner - this is the first point where you need any bidding system. Which one? I think it must be just most popular in beginner's region. First need to explain to beginner principles of that system and mainly - which bid is forcing or not and way of showing suits. Most important is to ensure that beginner will understand that target of bidding is not to "show" but to reach wining contract.
Forth step - conventions. Beginner need to learn popular one without which he can't bid&play normally - like conventions vs opps 1NT, leb/rub...

Misho

[csdenmark]

Quote

After they understand how to calculate tricks in line, next is how they can show this to partner - this is the first point where you need any bidding system

And by that time they are no longer beginners - and therefore no longer a topic for this thread.

The course is in Holland - in dutch language. Literature must be in dutch. In general - bridgeplayers don't read much - they try instead to practice. From there the SAYC players are coming.

[mikestar]

I would think that the system to teach beginners is the simple verison of the most common national system. That would be a simlified SAYC for the US (as bad as that sounds) Acol for England, and Precison for China, etc.

The problem with teaching a system different from the national norm is that you limit your beginners' choice of partners when they play outside of class.

[csdenmark]

mikestar, on Apr 25 2004, 03:23 PM, said:

I would think that the system to teach beginners is the simple verison of the most common national system.  That would be a simlified SAYC for the US (as bad as that sounds) Acol for England, and Precison for China, etc.

The problem with teaching a system different from the national norm is that you limit your beginners' choice of partners when they play outside of class.

Right Mike - thats exactly why anything else will fail - the name 'acol dutch' or "Biedermeijer Groen". Now we all at least have learned the correct dutch name for 'acol dutch.'

Many Precision players in China and India but I think also there the national system is a standard classic approach. We need to take into consideration that those we meet on WEB are all a part of a very small minority from the respective countries. The vast majority will never just give WEB a thought for play of bridge.

An american friend once told me he started bridge to learn KS(Kaplan-Sheinwold). Very difficult he said but a good school - something like the info Dwayne came up with about his starting with Precision. In those days Goren basic was the sole runner anywhere else.

[Free]

I totally agree with Mike! People have not only to understand their own system, they should understand opponent's system as well. And if you start learning a system which nobody plays in your region, you won't know what ALL other people are bidding, which is very annoying, not only for you, but for opps as well if you have to ask info about every bid they make.

My opinion about learning bridge: play the most common system played in your region (even if the system sucks), play it a lot and understand the unwritten rules of the game and systems. Learn when to balance, when to go for slam, when to pass, how to defend, how to declare,... If you can do all of that, you can start playing some more artificial systems or whatever you like.
FIRST learn to play BRIDGE, next learn a system which suits you to play BETTER BRIDGE.

[helene_t]

Thanks a lot for the references, all of you, I will check them out ASAP!

I'm aware that there is a case against teaching a club system in the first place - however, my feeling is that one (not the only) reason why most teachers prefer natural systems is that they are unfamiliar with the alternatives. I tend to agree with keylime that precision is easier than natural systems, but, as Mike Lawrence puts it in his 2-o-1 workbook, a natural 4-card major system is fun because it forces you to make decisions more on the basis of judgement than on system. Also, strong-club systems are virtually non-existent at the moment, so I may run into the same problems as those who advocate an alternative to the QWERTY keyboard. SAYC (or Dutch Acol) is popular and could be seen as a reasonable compromise between Presicion and Acol, though my humple opinion is that a bidding system for beginners should be based on some unifying framework (as hrotgar puts it), which could be intuition (Colonial Acol) or some simple rules (possibly Precision, but there may be better alternatives).

But what should those simple rules be? After an opening of 1c, 1NT or 2c, the next bid is a relay. Or do we see it as "the next bid in a minor"? This could be extended to all situations. In competition, a double or a cue could be defined as the same as the relay. What should the relay mean? One could say that bidding via the relay is always stronger than a direct bid. For example, we would play "positive doubles" instead of negative ones. And when a bid is natural, how much length should it promise and should it be forcing? In response to overcalls, a response shows 5+ and is forcing at the 1- or 3-level. This could be extended to all situations, even the responses to the 1d-opening. (Of course, your 2nd suit may be a 4-card). By this token, we are obliged to play pubbet stayman (unless a 1nt-opening denies a 5-card major).

The reason why I pose this question just now is that the Dutch BF last year decided that the existing teaching methods are out of date and everything has to be rebuild from scratch. I will graduate on 8 May as part of the first group of teachers that have been trained on the basis of modern teaching principles as described by hrotgar. No textbooks are available, and it is unclear how they will eventually look like.

At the moment, most Dutch players learn some kind of Dutch Acol in the first year but quickly switch to some vague mixture of SAYC and Dutch Acol, and it is hard to find two Dutch beginners (or two Dutch experts, for that matter) who don't disagree about rather elementary bidding principles. This gives me some freedom since you don't have to adhere to the standard when no standard exists. Also, the Dutch national team just adopted a strong-club relay system, and every member of the Dutch BF receives a monthly column about that system through the magazine of the BF.

[EarlPurple]

I am one of those who feel players should be taught a simplified version of a "natural" system first, because they want to be able to start playing as soon as possible.

You should tell them though from the start that

1. The bidding system you are teaching them is simplified
2. There is not one "correct" system but many different systems, and different adaptations.

I find it is hard to convince some people that not everyone has to play what their teacher taught them.

I think they should be taught (early on) to use things such as:
- losing trick count
- law of total tricks.

I disagree with teaching all 2 bids as strong. Strong 2C, strong balanced 2NT and 2D/2H/2S weak. They should learn that bidding is (or at least can be) competitive and good defensive bidding is important. It would train them well to deal with competition, where I find most players fall apart once exposed to real bridge.

If necessary, print off lists of hands that they can decide what to bid in certain situations, eg the most common ones.

Teach them Stayman and Blackwood (though some would be much better off without the latter) and that's it.

When they have a little more experience then let them try out Precision.
Also teach them to compete against it.

[irdoz]

I have been playing bridge for less than five years and remember well my initial forays into the game on the net.

I have met a number of people via the net around my age and with similar length of experience.

They are diverse, with a range of different skills and interests in bridge. There is no generic one size fits all method of teaching bridge. The notion that adult learning can be guided by some standard formula with a standard curriculum defies all adult learning principles.

Many of the people I have met have an aptitude for computer programming judging by their work or qualifications. That aptitude often lends itself to bidding systems - and what characterises a number of the people I have met who are recent converts to the game is a keen interest in systems and a frustration about the 'forget systems, learn card play' diatribes that they have to listen to repeatedly.

If your goal was to create the best bridge players then sure - teach them card play and defense and signalling and forget bidding for 6 months. The first peice of free advice i got on the net was 'go to the beginners room and play 1000s of hands then come back'. Well that might work for some - but playing with beginners without a structured learning environment like the BIL was a complete waste of time and turned me off totally.

If your goal is to keep beginners interested in the game and turn them into bridge enthusiasts then tear the 'forget systems' formula up and do what matches their interests and aptitude.

My first bit of advice would be after playing a lot of hands would be 'shop around for a teacher or mentor who matches your interests' and take some lessons (or avail yourself of lessons which are often free or part of subscription sites on the net).

I have no problem with the notion of teaching a version of goren/wei precision to beginners. I have no problem with giving an overview of different bidding methods - from natural to relay as a 'wet the appetite' sort of thing. And I have no problem with introducing advanced card play concepts early on for the same reason.