[Winstonm]

Another thread in another forum brought this to mind - something I firmly believe and a reason why there has been such failure in the U.S. to re-introduce bridge.

5-card majors.

I've seen beginning classes taught and even participated as a co-instructor in that ACBL led whateveritwas thing called Easy Bridge - a fiasco.

We have lost the ability to simplify and make it fun. I remember my earliest moments at a kitchen table bridge game - the first time I'd seen the game. The hostess had little cards printed on front and back about 1 bids, NT, responses, and that was about it. You opened in 4 card suits and you bid NT with 16-18. In about 3 minutes time she gave us the basics of how to count points, how to look at the little printed cards and find our point range and bid and from there we were off!!

Did it matter that we'd take our 2434 shaped 14 count and open 1C and rebid 2H over our partner's 1S response??? Hell, no!!! We were playing bridge. We bid to some strange contracts and leads were made and dummies were tabled - I'd even venture to say there are world champions who through forgets or misunderstandings have reached worse contracts than the ones we reached that first night. Who cares? The point is the rudiments of the game were pointed out - trumps, No trump, opening lead, dummy, declarer - and we went from there. As we played, our gentle hostess pointed out little subleties, like opening 1H when 2443 so as to be able to rebid 2D - AMAZING! She was a GENIUS! A little later came the idea of "biddable suit".

We were given the gift of play - of fun - of adventure - and of learning more on our own. Not one word was spoken of conventions or reverses or a limit raise - we opened on 4 card suits and raised on 3 - but a far greater gift was bestowed on us than "method" and 5-card majors - the fun of playing this strange new game and a burning desire to learn more about it.

If we really want to introduce this game again, I suggest we do what my next door neighbor did: Preach the Gospel according to Goren and make the game for beginners simple again.

Winston

[awm]

Seems to me there's three priorities in teaching bidding to beginning players:

(1) Make it simple so they can start bidding and playing hands as fast as possible.

(2) Teach them something reasonably effective so they can reach decent contracts at least fairly often.

(3) Teach them what's standard (in their part of the world anyway) so they can easily play with a partner at the local club.

In my experience the vast majority of bridge instructors focus heavily on (3). I'm not personally convinced this is right, since it seems to me that some form of EHAA would satisfy both goals (1) and (2) and have students quickly playing hands and having fun and even doing decently at newcomers games at their local club! Spending class after class teaching five card majors, stayman and transfers over notrump, responses to strong 2♣, and so forth and so on is likely to confuse and disillusion beginners while not really helping them to learn the basic play and bidding judgement that will allow them to have reasonable success at the game.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm nothing resembling a "bridge teacher."

[adhoc3]

When I introduced Bridge to my college classmetes 20 years ago, it took me 2~3 hours showing them how the game played. After known every bid has a definition, they were so much inspired that some of them start to assemble their own bidding system right away. The system they created was some kind of strong-pass -- I swear none of them ever know what was 'bridge' before I told them! Quite simple thinking: you tell me to bid something when have more than 13 hcp, OK, I'll do it my way, I bid something when I dont have ......

They practised by themselves for a few days and went to college bridge team match with their own team (I played for another team). They won the 1st and 2 nd round by 25-0!!! Then TD found they did not alert their bids and did not told their opps anything about their system before the game started (Why should I told you my secrect weapon??) LOL. I dont know why their 1st round opps had not called TD immediately, maybe all were novices, dizzing on their first match. My classmates were forced to bid normally but they refused (how possible? they had not learn that yet!), quit the match with honor.

Some of them were frustrated and didnot play bridge anymore. But we all remember how happy we were when seeing they were leading the scoreboard.

[Gerben42]

Systems like SAYC or SEF or whatever are too full of exceptions.

For example: with 3 - 3 in minors open 1C, with 4 - 4 bid 1D. With 5 - 5 in red bid 1H but with 5 -5 in black open 1C. With 5C332 you can open 1NT but with 5H332 you open 1H.

Who cares!

For college students and the like you can apply logic to explain the bidding. Example "logic".

If partner opens 1 of a suit and you do not have a fit, check if your hand is weak (no invite). medium (invitational) or strong (GF) to see what amount of NT you can bid. If you have a suit that you can bid CHEAPER than the NT bid you wanted to bid, you can bid it.

Now without saying the "rules" of this bid means that and that bid means something else, you have made sure that a new suit on the 1-level is 6+ and a new suit on the 2-level is 11+.

Same for "reverse". With weak opening hands you are not allowed to bid past 2 of your opening suit. With medium strength you can bid to 2NT at most, with strong hands you can bid to game.

So if you bid 1D - 1S - 2H you must have at least medium strength (invitational) and if you bid 1D - 1S - 3C you must have a strong hand (GF). Tada!

[Thymallus]

I started playing the game 2 years ago and would offer the following, entirely based on UK experience.

Buy Mendelson "The right way to play bridge" which will teach you ACOL. You should then concentrate on learning card play.

It seems to me that bidding dominates discussions because it is easy to set problems and talk about them. However for the beginner that's no good when you still don't know how to make or defeat the contract you get into.

The biggest problem of all are the Master points. In the UK the club players see a rabbit like me coming along and see a bunch of MP's up for grabs. I wish there were a culture of experts teaching the willing beginners in clubs (the BIL lounge is a good example) rather than seeing them as bunnies to bash.

At the end of the day all the Master Point's in the UK do is give people grandiose titles which mean nothing and just flatter their self-importance. I'd get rid of them

[bearmum]

Winstonm, on Dec 1 2005, 07:33 PM, said:

Another thread in another forum brought this to mind - something I firmly believe and a reason why there has been such failure in the U.S. to re-introduce bridge.

5-card majors.

I've seen beginning classes taught and even participated as a co-instructor in that ACBL led whateveritwas thing called Easy Bridge - a fiasco.

We have lost the ability to simplify and make it fun.  I remember my earliest moments at a kitchen table bridge game - the first time I'd seen the game.  The hostess had little cards printed on front and back about 1 bids, NT, responses, and that was about it.  You opened in 4 card suits and you bid NT with 16-18.  In about 3 minutes time she gave us the basics of how to count points, how to look at the little printed cards and find our point range and bid and from there we were off!!

Did it matter that we'd take our 2434 shaped 14 count and open 1C and rebid 2H over our partner's 1S response???  Hell, no!!! We were playing bridge.  We bid to some strange contracts and leads were made and dummies were tabled - I'd even venture to say there are world champions who through forgets or misunderstandings have reached worse contracts than the ones we reached that first night.  Who cares?  The point is the rudiments of the game were pointed out - trumps, No trump, opening lead, dummy, declarer - and we went from there.  As we played, our gentle hostess pointed out little subleties, like opening 1H when 2443 so as to be able to rebid 2D - AMAZING!  She was a GENIUS!  A little later came the idea of "biddable suit". 

We were given the gift of play - of fun - of adventure - and of learning more on our own.  Not one word was spoken of conventions or reverses or a limit raise - we opened on 4 card suits and raised on 3 - but a far greater gift was bestowed on us than "method" and 5-card majors - the fun of playing this strange new game and a burning desire to learn more about it.

If we really want to introduce this game again, I suggest we do what my next door neighbor did: Preach the Gospel according to Goren and make the game for beginners simple again.

Winston

Interesting -- as I am now over 60 MY introduction to bridge was through MY grandmother -- (she played at LEAST 3 times a week -- and I believe played rubber bridge as I'm not sure WHEN duplicate began in UK ??) -- and this was in about 1955

She and my parents taught me the ANCIENT Culbertson system --- basically " ' 2½' to open '1½' to respond '4½' GAME FORCE 2 opener (A =1 K=½ AQ=1½ KQ=1)" structure and then concentrated on the PLAY of the cards!! ( NOT so different from basic Goren )

It was actually at least FIVE years (when at University when we had 4 players and 4 kibitzers around tables at lunchtime) before I saw somebody bid 4NT to ask for aces !! and hear d 1NT 2♣ as Stayman!!


SO today MAYBE just MAYBE we ought to simplify the bidding at first and teach the LOVE of the game as Winston so delightfully put it

[ArcLight]

I think it would be far easier to get new players if the bidding system were simple. From what I've read 4 card majors are an easier system to get started with, but they require more judgement than 5 card majors.
Let a new player get started with a simple system, let them play a little, and if they like the game, then show them something else (or not).

I think the plethora of systems and conventions makes bridge less fun to play. At least at below some serious competitive level. You have no idea what bids mean, or what a range is. I find it a necessary pain in the butt to constantly ask opponents what some bid means, because I'm never sure they are using some unusual variation.
1♠ - 3♠ = They weren't using Limit Major Raises, so there could be just 3 spades.


What draws new players to Bridge, and what holds them?

Some players love the bidding systems and conventions. They are facinating.
They are not what interest me though.


>SO today MAYBE just MAYBE we ought to simplify the bidding at first and teach the LOVE of the game as Winston so delightfully put it

I agree 100%.
Some (like me) like the deductive reasoning aspect. This is lessened by destructive bidding. Some may say thats great it makes the game different. For me it makes the game less interesting. I don't want to "win at a game" I want to play a "deductive reasoning game"

Some like the beauty of the card play. Like pulling off a Trump Coup or Squeeze or even an End Play.


>I've seen beginning classes taught and even participated as a co-instructor in that ACBL led whateveritwas thing called Easy Bridge - a fiasco.

Winston, what went wrong? How could it be improved?


>If we really want to introduce this game again, I suggest we do what my next door neighbor did: Preach the Gospel according to Goren and make the game for beginners simple again.

Sounds good. The only problem would be getting partners. But if 4 card majors is that easy to get up and running, then perhaps a crib sheet would be useful to bring along.

[david_c]

ArcLight, on Dec 1 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

I think it would be far easier to get new players if the bidding system were simple.  From what I've read 4 card majors are an easier system to get started with, but they require more judgement than 5 card majors.

I think it's more that the easiest system is "bid your best suit". That happens to imply bidding 4-card major suits, but it's still a different approach to "4-card majors". After a while, you hope that your intelligent beginners will come to understand why bidding your best suit first isn't always the best strategy.

[helene_t]

Here in NL nearly all teachers teach 4-card M allthough nearly all tournament players and most club players play 5-card M.

It's an enigma to me why 5-card M is considered more difficult to learn than 4-card M. Dutch bidding standard is incredible complicated, at least to me. Switching to 5-card M (which is a minor adjustment since they open 4-card minor instead of a major if they have both) makes it slightly easier to use since you have a clear distinction between 44MM32/4M333 and 5M332.

There's a big difference between US books and Elnglish books, though. English books focus more on judgement. They are more funny. US books tend to focus more on rules that you can follow without using your brain. Dutch books are somewhat in between, I think. The fact that English books (like the Dutch ones) happen to teach 4-card majors is not so important although it could be argued that 4-card M is more similar to the intuitive "bid your best/longest suit first". I

I think the decision to make is a more general one: if you should start with "bid whatever you think might be a reasonable contract and/or describes your hand", without discussing forcing bids at all, or whether the approach should be more rule-based. A few years ago, an attempt was made to "sell" a simpler and more common-sense-based approach to new would-be teachers, but it failed because everybody thought that beginners need dump rules.

A related discussion was how long a training period new players need before they can start playing at clubs. Advocates of the new approach thought that at least two years were needed since you need to be a reasonable good player before it makes sense to discuss bidding targets, and you need to understaand bidding targets before you can leard bidding. But clubs and beginners alike are not so patient, a ten-lesson or maybe twenty-lesson course were you learn the mechanics without understanding much is favored by most.

I learned bridge from my father and my grandparents, which is preferable to clubs because my grand parents could teach me the game in my own tempo. The erosion of family bonds in modern culture may be to blame for the fate of bridge: most young couples move with work to other regions, so kids have no regular contact with grandma and grandpa.

Still, bridge remains popular among older people in the Netherlands. We still tend to retire early (allthough this is about to change), and for many retired 60-YOs bridge is attractive as a new hobby.

[mila85]

I think that 5card major system is better for novice. Everybody understand, when you say: For 1♥ or 1♠ you need 5 in that suit. If you don't, open better minor.
It makes bidding easier in later rounds, which aren't on the paper.

But minibridge is probably best:
Step 1.
Everybody says, how much HCP has. The side which has the majority HCP playes the contract:
20-23HCP 1nt
23-25HCP 2nt
26-28HCP 3nt and so on..
Weaker cards are put on the table and then fist lead is made.

Step 2.
Suit conracts. Before defender leads you can choose trumph suit. (dummy is known before the lead.

Step 3.
20-23HCP 1nt or 2M or 3m
24-25HCP 2nt or 3M or 4m
26+HCP 3nt or 4M or 5m
You can say six or seven if you think you make it.

Step 4.
Say them how to count results. They can choose any contract. Who will have more points at the end?

Step 5
Bidding system.

[helene_t]

Absolutely, Mila.

The objection you will get is that beginners want to be able to play at the club as soon as possible.

There is an initiative from the Dutch BF which encourages clubs to allow new members to play mini-bridge at the club during internal competition. This offers a soft entrance to the social life at the club. At our club, we play in a company restaurant so you can have an affordable dinner with your club mates before bridge, we have a 30 minuttes break halfway so you can chat a little with you clubmates, and we finish early so you can still go have a drink with you club mates. And twice a year a festival drive were everything is a chaos anyway so it doesn't really matter if you have learned all the rules.

Then the BF offers to provide a teacher who assists with supervision of the minibridgers. After a couple of months, they will be offered a second class so they can learn bidding.

Unfortunately, we could not find enough new would-be members to start such a class

[Winstonm]

Quote

>I've seen beginning classes taught and even participated as a co-instructor in that ACBL led whateveritwas thing called Easy Bridge - a fiasco.

Winston, what went wrong? How could it be improved?

It was too simplistic - how high cards work - then prearranged hands to play showing the power of high cards and length, etc.

Improvement? Simple. A crib sheet for bidding. A 3-minute discussion of the Work point count system. 4-board Chicago - fast. Play. Play. Play.

Can you imagine going to the pool hall your very first time and having to sit and listen to a lecture on stroking, chalking the cue tip, racking the balls, and strategy all the while those lovely green tables sat waiting? No, the way you find out if some one either does or does not like the game is hand them a cue and say, "Your break."

I am strongly against the concept of teaching solely for the reason of bringing in new players to the local club or the ACBL - bridge should be taught simply for the love of the game and information can be given as to where bridge can be played, at home with friends, online, or formally in clubs. If you introduce bridge to enough people, the ones who find it fascinating will go on to become club members and tournament players. This is why it is unimportant that they learn any "system" such as 5-card majors. I don't even advocate 4-card majors. Leave these terms out. Just tell them this: If you have 13 points open 1 of your longest suit if it is at least 4 long. That's all they need to know.

When they try to bid 1H-P-1C, then you introduce the level and rank concept and the auction will go: 1H-P-2C- on the same 6 count - who cares? They are learning by trial and error - and they are playing.

Because money is involved, the emphasis from the ACBL is backwards - they want to get more members - instead, if the ACBL simply promoted the fun of the game of bridge without regards to themselves, the end result would be more ACBL members.

I would suggest this to the ACBL: On the first day of every tournament in every city across the vast USA, have a free "First Time I've Played" tournament that lasted 4-boards. Everyone gets a crib sheet with basic Goren style bidding, four boards are put down, and away we go. Total point scoring and the highest total wins a door prize.

The point is those who don't know bridge consider it a "card" game - so the first time they get to play let them play cards and don't worry about bidding - worry about bidding after the hook is sunk deeply into their gullet and they won't shake loose.

Winston

[Chamaco]

This discussion sounds interesting, however, I think that a study of the "learn to play bridge" Tutorial developed by Fred for te ACBL will not be more difficult than Goren bridge, AND, it also contains the elementary basics for card play.

I really think it's a great starting point, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel when this is so good !

[Echognome]

Introducing a simple system is a fine idea and I have no arguments about keeping it as simple as can be until players are interested in learning more themselves. Perhaps having different level classes and sessions might be helpful.

However, all that being said, I'm not sure that is the main reason why bridge is not as popular (per capita) in the US as compared to, say, the UK. Having lived in the UK for the past 4 years and the US prior to that, I have some opinions on why bridge is more popular in the UK.

1. Availability of duplicate sessions. Here one can play in sessions every day of the week except Sundays. There is also bridge most mornings (although I've never been) and certain afternoons. Certain days of the week are more geared towards different levels of ability, but I can find a reasonable club game almost every night of the week.

When I was back home, both in the East Bay and in Northern Nevada, the bridge sessions were run very seldom. Many of the sessions were run during the daytime which is hardly going to be convenient for most young people to play. If you cannot offer both times, it would seem that having a time in the evening would preferred to a time during the day would be much more suited to attracting new players to the game.

2. Availability of different types of competitions. Pairs sessions are enjoyable, but having other options available for players makes the game more interesting. I think that bridge leagues here go a long way towards variety. There are two local bridge leagues (and one not very far away) that people can play in. Each league has five divisions with relegation and promotion at the end of each year. You play generally one night a week a team of four match. You can either play it at the club for a small fee or you play at people's houses. I do not believe the organisation is that costly and it can be organised through a local club (or unit). Playing a 24 board IMP match against another team is adds a nice variety to the game.

Furthermore, there are knockout teams nationally and locally. There are various cups, once a month leagues, the flitch (for married couples), and once a month club competitions. The varieties are tremendous. My impression (and this may be wrong) is that in the states, you basically have your sectionals, your regionals, your nationals, and the GNT.

3. Availability of a dedicated bridge facility. I understand that for some smaller clubs, not having your own building is just a fact of life. However, having a dedicated club, with a bar, team rooms, teaching areas, and playing areas is an extremely nice environment in which to play bridge. Furthermore, having a location which is close to a nice pub down the road for the post mortem is a luxury.

4. Availability of a host and good directors. For all full members of our club, we are asked to spend a night (say around once every other month) either directing, hosting, or tending the bar. This communal sharing of responsibilities leads to a more pleasant environment. The host shows up to make sure that everyone that turns up gets to play. Yes you can solve some of the problem by having a partnership coordinator, but it is certainly nice that no one that comes to the club to play is turned away. If there is an even number, the host can either go home or help with the bar or directing.

Having good tournament directors helps keep the playing environment fun and friendly, especially those that enforce rules about slow play, loud talking about the hands, or arguments during the play. Ideally the TD is also knowledgeable about the laws of the game.

[ArcLight]

>This discussion sounds interesting, however, I think that a study of the "learn to play bridge" Tutorial developed by Fred for te ACBL will not be more difficult than Goren bridge, AND, it also contains the elementary basics for card play.


For the record, thats how I learned Bridge! (Thanks Fred!)

[han]

The attitude of the teacher seems far more important to me then the actual system that's taught.

While I agree with most of what Winston writes here, his argument about 4-card majors versus 5-card majors seems to be missing the point (in my opinion).

One more thing, and I've said this before. Every student is different.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Dec 1 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

One more thing, and I've said this before. Every student is different.

And every class of students is different! (This is not a corollary.)

[Al_U_Card]

Like Winstonm, I learned early and simply and played happily (albeit poorly) for quite some time. The top ten bromides (13 pts to open, 6 to respond; bid your longest and strongest etc.) allow you to get the feel of the game. THAT is where the potential player will decide if he wants to continue and how.

I stayed away from duplicate for years just from hearing about how obnoxious players were and how complicated the club and tournament "rules" were; after all I just wanted to play for the the joy and love of the game!!!!

Phase 1: Show people the game.
Phase 2: Provide training aids for several levels of expertise and interest.
Phase 3: Give free plays and instruction whereever and whenever possible.
Phase 4: Do it and they will come......

[mycroft]

A few comments:

1. I agree that most teaching is involved with 'get them a partner'. I taught a pair from "kitchen bridge" to duplicate - and I taught them Precision. Why? Well, one was a Ph.D. in Math, specializing in computer algebra, and the other was working her way there - and they had no intention of playing with anyone other than each other (or me). For them, the increased structure and "memory load" of a big Club system were benefits; their whole lives were set in building a logical view of a problem, and all I had to do was give the structure, and the reasoning behind the structure - they didn't have to remember it (although they could), they could regenerate it from the principles. Add to that the benefits of a limited-opener system and those of a more clearly-defined system and they were off.

But that's a very isolated case. Most bridge players aren't professional logicians, are far removed from the intensive learning atmosphere of the university, and want to play socially - which means with other people in the club. And for that, you have to know how to play Standard, for whatever definition of Standard applies in your area. So, however good, bad, or indifferent the system is without all the non-beginner tweaks, and no matter how easy or difficult it is to learn, that's what has to get taught.

2. North America (in particular, the USA) likes rules. While mindlessly following the rules doesn't lead to learning, it's a comfortable method for both teachers and students here. Unfortunately, it does breed the "One True Bidding System" philosophy, the "don't psych against novices" philosophy - so "new" players play bridge for long enough to get 450 MP before someone blindsides them with a psych, and they are justifiably upset (but no adjustment), and the "Why do you have to play <system>? You're just trying to win by confusing us, aren't you?" mentality (and things are better here than in Ontario - I only hear that every second tournament).

3. Someone mentioned A Bidding Crib Sheet? I built this one 10 years ago for the "Need A Fourth!" bridge table.

4. Pd and I decided to have fun one night, so went in and played 50's Goren with Simon's "proposal to partner" doubles. First board, our auction started 1H-3H; 3NT and easily went it's way to 7H. Clear top, as everybody else in the room had 1NT (15 high, only 4 hearts) - 2D; 2H (can't superaccept with a minimum) and couldn't unravel the 13th trick. Yeah, sure it cost at times (especially the lack of sputnik and responsive doubles), but it was fun.

Michael.

[luke warm]

my cousins, aunt and uncle taught me a card game called 'rook'... i can still remember how much fun that was, and i remember how often one of my cousins would 'shoot the moon' (that's what they said when they wanted to take 13 tricks)

i think that game helped a lot when, much later, i learned bridge... my first book was goren's, and i'm glad it was... my first "system" was called "short club" and that's what everybody played... my wife and i would play 3 or 4 nights a week with a neighborhood couple... rubber bridge for blood (guys against gals)

right now i can't tell you what a joy it is to see my 5 year old grandson sit at the other computer while i'm on this one, kibbing usually.. he opens fred's 'bridgemaster' and just clicks away... once in a great while everything falls right and a picture of a player pops up... he's thrilled, i'm thrilled, he asks "what flag is that pawpaw?"

i have no doubt that he'll learn to play shortly after he learns to read... i don't know how long bridge will hold his interest, but i plan on doing whatever i can to make it as much fun for him as possible... one of the first things i'll do is let him play with fred's 'htpb' ... that's a wonderful program imo