[awm]

Suppose we want to design a system which is as simple as possible. The idea is to have something to teach to beginners, which they can learn and use right away without being confused or spending way too long learning about bidding when they should be focusing on card play. The system should be reasonably effective without using lots of complicated conventions.

Here's what I'd recommend:

Basically an EHAA/ACOL structure. I think "bid your longest suit" is simpler than trying to explain why you should open 1♣ on three small. Weak notrump (11-14), with an absolute minimum of system over it (basically just stayman). No artificial strong bids, two-level bids are all preemptive and no forcing opening. Two-level openings on 5-card suits are fine. One-level openings show 13+ hcp (sound openers).

Two-over-one promises enough strength for game opposite a strong notrump, so ten or so points. Opener's rebids are all natural, rebidding the original suit shows five cards and may not have game values. Rebidding 2NT shows four cards in the original suit and points for game. In general make the lowest descriptive bid available (so 1♠-2♣-2♠ shows five spades and denies a four card red suit). Two-over-one bidder always promises a second bid.

One-over-one bids natural and forcing, guarantee 6+ points. Raise majors freely on three cards. After an opening and response:
1. Jump in a previously bid suit shows a good hand but is not forcing (1♦-1♠-3♦).
2. Jump in a new suit is always forcing to game.
3. Simple new suit by opener is natural, not forcing, but rarely pass it.
4. New suit by responder is always forcing one round.

In competition, double is always takeout (ask partner to bid something) except:
1. When the opponents bid above 3♠.
2. When the opponents last bid is notrump.
3. When we have already bid and raised a suit.
4. When at least three different suits have already been bid.

Obviously a few more details are needed here, but the outline is straightforward. I think the nice properties of this include:

- No need to learn complicated structures after 1NT or strong 2♣ that rarely come up.
- Opening "your longest suit" and 2/1s guaranteeing game values opposite balanced opening.
- Much simpler rules about doubles than most systems seem to include.
- Weak NTs and wide-ranging preempts are quite effective, especially against weaker opponents.
- Basically a simplified version of what one of the world's best pairs (Fantoni-Nunes) play.

Of course, I'm sure someone will complain that "we need to teach everyone standard american" but it seems to me that "standard" is fairly complicated, poorly defined, and probably not as effective as what I've outlined above (unless maybe you add a bunch of extra treatments and conventions on top of it).

[Gerben42]

I've already tried something like that, have a look:

http://www.geocities...idge/bignt.html

Another possibility is to play a Nunes-Fantoni like style.

[ArcLight]

I like Gerbens Big NT system. I think thats good for beginners.
I'm not familiar with the Nunes-Fantoni style.

I asked someone about 4 card majors. I think the rules are supposed to bvea easier, but they involve more judgement, os are probably not suitable for beginners.


My wife and kids love to play games. But they will be turned off if I tried teaching them anything more complex than Big NT.

[Fluffy]

I've been told from teachers that teach 2/1 that it is very effective, the more GF bids you have, the less 150/70/90 or 200 they will score.

[SoTired]

First teach play. Spend the first two lessons on just the play. NT first, then introduce trumps. Use prepared hands. Just call out the cards in each hand and have them prepare them. Don't worry about them having seen all the hands, they never remember and if they can take advantage, well, good for them.

Make sure you tell them about the difference between a "bridge deck" and a "poker deck" Bridge cards are 1/4 inch narrower. Trying to hold 13 poker deck cards is very clumsy.

Third lesson introduce the "contract" and bidding. Introduce the concept of game bonus, but don't bother with scoring for several more lessons.

I disagree that 4-card majors are simpler than 5-card majors. What do you do with 2 4-card suits? When do you raise on 3 cards? Most beginner books have a chapter on what is a "biddable suit".

I teach a simple version of standard american with 5-card majors.

Which suit to open? Simple: Open your highest ranking 5-card major. If you don't have one, open your best minor. Don't define best. (if you want to give them the exception of : If you have a 6-card minor, open that over a 5-card major, you can... I usually don't bother). This eliminates a chapter on which 4-card suit to open.

Another rule for beginners: Ignore honors in suits. Just look at length and total count. 5 cards is 5 cards, 4 cards is 4cards, etc. That eliminates another chapter.

Although my mind works well with tables of bids, don't ever use a table (columns and rows of hand strength and what to bid). For some unknown reason this really puts off beginners.

That is a summary of the lessons I've learned as a member of a family of bridge teachers

[mikeh]

Get the Audrey Grant books. I do not know where your students will play, but do NOT teach them anything fundamentally different from what is the most widely played 'basic' structure in your area, or you will create huge problems for them when they venture into the larger bridge environment.

Subject to that, I would tend to get them playing strong NT: if only because they will make 1N more often if they hold a big hand:))

And playing weak notrump, you have to talk about 1m - 1M - 2M as being either balanced strong or weak unbalanced, and get into 3 card raise or 4 card raise etc. Way too complex, I think

In other words, do not attempt to design your own system. Make use of available and tested methods and resources. The object of the exercise is to enhance their ability to play and enjoy the game, not to satisfy any 'system-building' theories you may have. Let me stress: I am NOT being critical of you or your motives: I admire anyone who will take on the task you describe. My point is that you may not be able to satisfy your natural desire to design a good method while also maximizing your students' chances of continuing to enjoy the game when they play with and against more 'conventionally' trained students.

[SoTired]

ACBL is touting "EasyBridge". I have no idea what that is but they claim to have great success.

On the www.acbl.org web site there are 2 programs to self-teach bridge (written by Fred G, I believe) Learn to play bridge 1 and learn to play bridge 2. Very effective and easy to use.

[david_c]

I do like the systems suggested by Adam and Gerben. They're better than Standard American if all you want is a system which is simple and effective. But to be honest, if I was teaching a beginner, I'd still have to go for strong no-trump, 5-card majors, strong 2♣. If you don't add unnecessary conventions, it's not significantly harder than anything else. And you can't play Big NT with a pick-up partner on BBO ...

[ArcLight]

>I've been told from teachers that teach 2/1 that it is very effective, the more GF bids you have, the less 150/70/90 or 200 they will score.

I am surprised to hear this. I have 8 pages of notes on 2/1 based on Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD, plus additional notes on coping with interference. Mike explains the inferences gained from lots of sequences. And lots of agreements needed.

Example:
1♣ - 1♦ vs.
1♣ - 1NT

He uses the 1♦ to show a very weak hand that can't bid a major, while 1NT is a decent 1NT raise.


Here is another case.
What do jumps mean, as you have 2/1 as a game force, and should nomally go slowly?
1S - 2C -
3S

What does 3S mean?
1) Solid suit: AKQJxxx – JTx – x – Kx. With Qx of C, its not a 3S rebid. (good hand) Suggests slam

OR

2) Solid or semi-solid suit. The rest of the hand must be good. AKJTxx AQJTxx KQJTxx AQJ98xx


I have a hard enough time keeping all this straight. I think a beginner would become frustrated, and not enjoy lots of memorization.


>Get the Audrey Grant books. I do not know where your students will play, but do NOT teach them anything fundamentally different from what is the most widely played 'basic' structure in your area, or you will create huge problems for them when they venture into the larger bridge environment.

I disagree. Let them get up and running quickly. You will get far more people involved if tehy can start playing quickly, instead of spending a few hors memorizing some abstract bidding system. Just make sure that when you teach them, explain this is a rudimentary system, and that if they stick with it and want to play further, youu will show them more complex, but also more powerful systems.

With "simple" systems like SAYC, you will end up with LOTS of frustration as beginners forget bids. Passing forcing bids, getting too high, etc.

[Fluffy]

2/1 can be very easy if you keep it simple

[SoTired]

Are you kidding? Is this a joke? 2/1 is not easy. The concepts are not easy to understand and the structures are not easy. Except for developing a partnership, teaching 2/1 to beginners is similar to teaching Relativity instead of Newton to children.

[coyot]

2/1GF is as easy as you make it (or as complicated as you make it.)

In the crudest variant, all you need are the following definitions:

1♠-2♥ promises 5card and 12 HCP
1x-2m promises 4card and 12 HCP
1M-1NT is forcing for one round and asking you to bid (in that order of priority) 6 in opening suit, 4 in other major if strength allows, next best minor otherwise. (all with hands up to 17HCP) and natural bids 2NT and higher with 18+HCP.

I would say that once you get a good feel of this, it will be much EASIER to use than a system where 2/1 is 10+ - you will maybe land in a few bad partscores, buy you'll hardly miss a game...

There are a lot of "easy" additions to enhance the system later:
- playing 1M-1NT as semiforcing (i.e. passable with very minimum hands)
- playing 2/1 as either GF or 9-11 with a good suit
- playing 1x-2y-2NT as 12-14 OR 18-19 and 3NT as 15-17 directly.
- defining 1x-2♦ as 5card and 1x-2♣ as 3+card
- adding some major suit raises like Bergen/Hardy to leave only a few possibilites for 2/1 auctions with full support.

Then it will become complicated.

[hrothgar]

I think that I could compress a simple MOSCITO variant into 8 pages pretty easily.
Especially if I used the old fashioned version with 1N = both majors...

Bet that I could explictly enumerate a hell of a lot more bidding sequences while I'm at it...

[Gerben42]

You don't want 8 pages of notes. You want 1 page. In large print. With cartoons.

[han]

Gerben, the print of your big 1NT system is large enough but I can't find the cartoon.

[Al_U_Card]

Hannie, on Sep 16 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Gerben, the print of your big 1NT system is large enough but I can't find the cartoon.

Try Jude Goodsens (Hansen maybe?) book of teaching bridge to kids. It has cartoons and my kids learned from it when they were 8 years old or so.

[Flame]

New players learn alot from their opponents, by teaching them a different system you take this from them.

[Elianna]

Flame, on Sep 17 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

New players learn alot from their opponents, by teaching them a different system you take this from them.

A problem I've observed: A lot of times new players play with other new players. I definitely wouldn't want my students learning from many of these people who play in 99er, etc. games.


(I'm not saying that people with less points can't be good, just saying that they don't usually elect to play in 99er, etc. games)

[Flame]

Elianna, on Sep 17 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

Flame, on Sep 17 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

New players learn alot from their opponents, by teaching them a different system you take this from them.

A problem I've observed: A lot of times new players play with other new players. I definitely wouldn't want my students learning from many of these people who play in 99er, etc. games.


(I'm not saying that people with less points can't be good, just saying that they don't usually elect to play in 99er, etc. games)

Its not all about learning from opponents. its learning from opponents actions, this include opponenets mistakes too. Basically students need excersize and the more the better, when they play the same system as thier opponents they have heard twice the ammount of bidding sequences based on thier own system.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Gerben, the print of your big 1NT system is large enough but I can't find the cartoon.

Sorry I'm no cartoonist. Please find some on the web (Pavlicek has some nice ones, be sure to ask permission).

Quote

New players learn alot from their opponents, by teaching them a different system you take this from them.

Most players worth learning from don't play the system that the beginners are learning anyway AND they are busy enough getting their own stuff right, not mentioning what opps are doing.

Quote

Its not all about learning from opponents. its learning from opponents actions, this include opponenets mistakes too. Basically students need excersize and the more the better, when they play the same system as thier opponents they have heard twice the ammount of bidding sequences based on thier own system.

But most opponents worth learning from don't play the same system. They will have own agreements.