[ahtan]

Hi there, looking for crowd wisdom here!

I am looking for opinions on how much bidding to teach in a beginner's course for seniors. 8 to 10 lessons (each 2-2.5 hours).

I am well aware that bidding is enormously confusing for the average senior, and I would like to minimize the teaching of bidding. I prefer instead to teach them how to play with a minimum of bidding, then plan to guide them post-lesson on what to look up to improve themselves.

Here's an initial list of the bidding only (in order of introduction)
- 1 level suited openers.
- simple overcalls at 1 and 2 levels. Along with simplified responses.
- 1NT/2NT openers with stayman/jacoby transfer (their first artificial bids).
- A simple weak 2/3/4 guide (just bid with points and possibly Law of total tricks and length. No follow ups unless partner is really strong)
- Law of Total Tricks (for competitive bidding).

In particular I might omit the following:
- Takeout and negative doubles (they already would find stayman/jacoby confusing)
- slam bidding (my experience is beginners rarely feel confident to bid slam)
- 2C strong opening

[apollo1201]

I’d start with NT first. Very narrowly defined hands, teaches the mathematical addition to invite, explains the « choices » (fit / no fit, game / no game) more easily than in suit contracts.

Then some of the elements / think patterns can be used in suit bidding after being mastered in NT.

But be sure to play play play rather than just bid. It will not be fun for the students otherwise and they will be discouraged.

[DavidKok]

I think the list of topics is too ambitious for the time allotted, especially if you want them to play a lot during (which I think is a really good idea). Focus on 1-openings, as apollo said in particular 1NT versus 1-of-a-suit. I don't love starting with Stayman and Jacoby.

Teach them about a game bonus, that they need 25HCP for a game (I know, you and I try on 23, but beginners don't) and that if there's no game on they should drop the auction in a playable strain (any 8-card fit or notrump).

In my experience beginners are terrible at overcalling, focusing on points more than shape. If this is something you want to teach beware it might take quite a bit of time. Alternatively, just let them make bad overcalls. I've had some sessions where auction went 1♥-(2♣)-X(penalty)-a.p., which did more to teach the student about overcalling on the 2-level than any amount of instruction ever could.

I'd leave out the LOTT and weak 2-4's entirely until they bid their 25HCP games.

[pescetom]

DavidKok took the words out of my mouth: far too much, and things like Stayman/Transfer and LoTT can wait.
If you do have any time left after the bare basics of bidding and play, then use it to instill some minimal concepts of law *before* they learn to "help" each other.

[mw64ahw]

One item that I found upped my game significantly was the use of a Modified Loosing Trick count. (MLT) and it doesn't seem to be taught to beginners., but in my view should be a foundation element..

Perhaps you should start with hand evaluation and revaluation which incorporates an MLT as this introduces the concept of playing strength in addition to hcp/point strength and addresses one of David's points above.

[DavidKok]

mw64ahw, on 2021-December-30, 05:46, said:

One item that I found upped my game significantly was the use of a Modified Loosing Trick count. (MLT) and it doesn't seem to be taught to beginners., but in my view should be a foundation element..

With all due respect, I think you've been inaccurate as often as accurate when you brought up the MLT in other posts to evaluate hands. I don't mind using the losing trick count, or even modified versions (the one I personally like best is modified in a slightly different way than the one you've mentioned previously), to teach beginners to be more aggressive with shapely hands. But I think you are leaning on it far too much, and this is clouding your judgement on how valuable it is.

[AL78]

I think somewhere in there you should cover the logic of whatever system you are teaching them. You should explain the scoring, i.e. games, part scores, and cover categories of hands i.e. weak, intermediate, and strong, and how the combined strength of the two hands determines where the auction is going. People love to categorise things. That leads on to the concept of weak, invitational and strong, and how the bidding system is structured around showing those hands. Thus if partner is showing hand strength A, and you have hand strength B, A+B means bid game or stop in a partscore, and which game/partscore is dependant on whether or not you have a suitable trump suit (e.g. 8 card fit).

[mycroft]

If I could, I'd still teach from Five Weeks to Winning Bridge. It's about the right speed, and Sheinwold explains *why* what he's saying you should do is right. At the end, you should be able to "think bridge".

Unfortunately, you'll be thinking in a different language than bridge speaks right now, and then will have to learn what is played now. It shouldn't take long, though, because you'll understand the reasons for the changes, and be able to modulate the responses to the weaker openings and the longer majors (and after you learn the new "responder's first priority is to show a 4-card major, even 5432" bit - again, it will be easy to understand).

But you don't have 7 weeks. So, yeah.

With all the things people (including me) can and have said about it, the ACBL Club Series is directly aimed at your case. As long as it has been around, the majority of new people learning to play bridge have been newly retired seniors looking for something to do, and it was written with that in mind. And I think it does a very reasonable job at presenting the critical information, at the speed that demographic can handle (as a "new hobby", rather than an "academic course").

I do strongly endorse the "play, play, play" of everyone else. You might want to investigate minibridge and encourage play for a couple of weeks (and use it for the "play" bits until people have got through the 1-level opening and immediate responses sections of the lessons, at least after the "teaching hands" of those lessons. You don't want them looking at a random hand and saying "how do you bid this?" or "how do I respond to 1♠?" when the emphasis is on fun and learning to play dummies and trump suits.)

One warning: "don't let mycroft near the novices" (my and their teacher, back in 1995). I didn't know how to think at "don't know how to respond to 1♠" level then, and I don't now. Which makes me the wrong person to teach new players (and I don't). So any recommendations I make need to be looked at as hopefully useful, not tried-and-true guarantees. I would suggest that anything like alternative evaluation methods should be put in "don't let [it] near the novices" bucket as well; they're very useful, but only when the people have played enough to see the holes in their current evaluation - 6 months of intensive play to 3 years of once-a-week to maybe never, if they're having fun with what they have. The goal is to play the game, and have partners that can understand them when they play the game. Everything else - well they have the rest of their lives for that. As do we.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-30, 06:50, said:

With all due respect, I think you've been inaccurate as often as accurate when you brought up the MLT in other posts to evaluate hands. I don't mind using the losing trick count, or even modified versions (the one I personally like best is modified in a slightly different way than the one you've mentioned previously), to teach beginners to be more aggressive with shapely hands. But I think you are leaning on it far too much, and this is clouding your judgement on how valuable it is.

I'm not sure that I've communicated the actual MLT version I use in the computer model which is a little more intricate than standard. It is a tool along with a number of other factors hcp, points, controls etc. which go into the decision making.
I remember when I first learnt the game from Goren that with 4 card support and 10-12 points you have a limit raise, but if unbalanced then you take it to 4. I had never been taught why this worked sometimes and not at other times. It was only after coming back to bridge after many years that mathematics began to make sense of the old teachings. MLT was a component of this, but it has its flaws and I think I've suggested it could be used in some cases as a tiebreaker when there may not be an 8-card fit. What I do know is that having MLT as an additional tool has upped my average (mathematically significant) bidding makeable games and slams which others miss.
I'm not sure inaccurate or accurate is relevant given the problem is about maximising the probability of success and minimising any error.

[hrothgar]

I'll throw out my usual comments: First and foremost don't teach bidding.

If your students can't recognize what is / is not a good contract, then all the bidding tools in the world aren't going to help them.

I'd start them with a combination of

1. Minibridge
2. A game to recognize what is / is not a good contract.

Do supervised play wrt to minibridge.

Give the student's a whole bunch of hands where the can see declarer and dummy, let them chose a contract, and grade them with respect to their results.

After a month or so, both you and your students will be in a much better position to decide whether they want to invest time and effort into learning some kind of bidding system (and hopefully, whatever bidding system that you do present will make a lot more sense)

[Douglas43]

Not sure where you are? EBED which is an an educational charity spun off from EBU has good material online.

It might help to know who has played other games in the whist family before you start? If you have played partners whist then the mechanics of card play in bridge are similar (in some ways easier because you have more information).


In the time allowed you want to keep bidding as simple as possible. EBED refers to a 30 week programme.

[ahtan]

Thanks very much all for your suggestions. I didn't want to pre-bias with specifics. Here it is now.

First, I realize that they should play play play.

My concern is the minimum bidding to teach them before "letting them loose" into the wild so to speak. For practical reasons, I don't want to stretch the lessons out, but I also don't want them to feel like "shortchanged" - when they play with other beginners from elsewhere, they should feel they have the tools they need.

When I did a short 6 lesson course before, I did a very simple system, bidding wise.

- declarer play and defender play.
- HCP and short suit distribution points.
- Simple shape assessment. The notion of trump fit, balanced hand and stoppers to identify strain.
- Use of a points table to pinpoint their contracts along with their simple shape assessment.
- only 1 suited bids (and responses using a logic based system) and simple overcalls (with simple response)
- no 1NT/2NT opening bids at all. No slam or strong hands system. No Takeout/Negative X. No pre-emptive weak bids.


So I am thinking of a 8-10 lesson course instead of 6. The extra lessons will be dedicated to more play. But I do want to make it reasonably complete so am willing to add extra lessons on bidding - the question is "what" is "essential".

[ahtan]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-30, 05:17, said:

I think the list of topics is too ambitious for the time allotted, especially if you want them to play a lot during (which I think is a really good idea). Focus on 1-openings, as apollo said in particular 1NT versus 1-of-a-suit. I don't love starting with Stayman and Jacoby.

Teach them about a game bonus, that they need 25HCP for a game (I know, you and I try on 23, but beginners don't) and that if there's no game on they should drop the auction in a playable strain (any 8-card fit or notrump).

In my experience beginners are terrible at overcalling, focusing on points more than shape. If this is something you want to teach beware it might take quite a bit of time. Alternatively, just let them make bad overcalls. I've had some sessions where auction went 1♥-(2♣)-X(penalty)-a.p., which did more to teach the student about overcalling on the 2-level than any amount of instruction ever could.

I'd leave out the LOTT and weak 2-4's entirely until they bid their 25HCP games.

I think can leave out weak openers. But I thought that LOTT is really simple to teach on top of a simple overcall system (they just apply mechanically).

[ahtan]

AL78, on 2021-December-30, 07:32, said:

I think somewhere in there you should cover the logic of whatever system you are teaching them. You should explain the scoring, i.e. games, part scores, and cover categories of hands i.e. weak, intermediate, and strong, and how the combined strength of the two hands determines where the auction is going. People love to categorise things. That leads on to the concept of weak, invitational and strong, and how the bidding system is structured around showing those hands. Thus if partner is showing hand strength A, and you have hand strength B, A+B means bid game or stop in a partscore, and which game/partscore is dependant on whether or not you have a suitable trump suit (e.g. 8 card fit).

Categorization is IN.

I try to teach logic rather than rote. For example, I don't actually directly teach limit raises. Rather I teach them to find a major trump fit as first priority and to use the points table to decide what to do. The issue with logic is the abstraction - not everyone gets it.

Some of the students are more comfortable with "rules". They will say things like "but this isn't in the notes" 8-)

[ahtan]

mycroft, on 2021-December-30, 08:17, said:

With all the things people (including me) can and have said about it, the ACBL Club Series is directly aimed at your case. As long as it has been around, the majority of new people learning to play bridge have been newly retired seniors looking for something to do, and it was written with that in mind. And I think it does a very reasonable job at presenting the critical information, at the speed that demographic can handle (as a "new hobby", rather than an "academic course").

Is it possible for you to point me to it? Not North American (based in Singapore).

I found one that for schools : http://web2.acbl.org...acherManual.pdf

[mycroft]

https://www.baronbar...e-21st-century/ - seems it's been revised. Lots and lots of used copies are around; whether they can get to Singapore is another question. But basically, for each of the 9 lessons:

• 25, 30 minute lesson on the basics of the topic
  
• 4 example hands to show the topic (that take about 30 minutes to bid and play and talk about)

If you're concerned about how small you can make your "basic shell" before you can let them play, I would reiterate my (and hrothgar's) minibridge suggestion. With that, the answer is "zero". And it's a pretty fun game, actually. And when you even start on the auction, the students can see what is making sense with "you play in game with 26 HCP and a major fit in minibridge, here's what opening 1♠ says for minimum strength, if you have (26-x) as responder, make sure you get to game; if you have (23-x) as responder, make a limit raise that opener will raise to game with more than a minimum, ..." much more quickly than just Walrusing a bunch of rules.

[ahtan]

mycroft, on 2021-December-31, 09:30, said:

https://www.baronbar...e-21st-century/ - seems it's been revised. Lots and lots of used copies are around; whether they can get to Singapore is another question. But basically, for each of the 9 lessons:

• 25, 30 minute lesson on the basics of the topic
  
• 4 example hands to show the topic (that take about 30 minutes to bid and play and talk about)

If you're concerned about how small you can make your "basic shell" before you can let them play, I would reiterate my (and hrothgar's) minibridge suggestion. With that, the answer is "zero". And it's a pretty fun game, actually. And when you even start on the auction, the students can see what is making sense with "you play in game with 26 HCP and a major fit in minibridge, here's what opening 1♠ says for minimum strength, if you have (26-x) as responder, make sure you get to game; if you have (23-x) as responder, make a limit raise that opener will raise to game with more than a minimum, ..." much more quickly than just Walrusing a bunch of rules.

Just to be clear, I will have mini-bridge. My issue is the "basic shell" of bidding as you say. I don't think it should be nothing, but obviously, I'm looking for a decent small set.

thanks for pointing me to that book. Looking at the contents, it seems that a significant item is takeout doubles. Now a days, bridge bidding is far more competitive. In my original 6 lesson series, I only taught overcalls. Obviously, when a beginner is holding (say) a opening hand, after an opening bid by opponent, but no 5 carder, he or she is "stuck". Should I teach takeouts (and negative X)?

[AL78]

ahtan, on 2021-December-31, 21:02, said:

Just to be clear, I will have mini-bridge. My issue is the "basic shell" of bidding as you say. I don't think it should be nothing, but obviously, I'm looking for a decent small set.

thanks for pointing me to that book. Looking at the contents, it seems that a significant item is takeout doubles. Now a days, bridge bidding is far more competitive. In my original 6 lesson series, I only taught overcalls. Obviously, when a beginner is holding (say) a opening hand, after an opening bid by opponent, but no 5 carder, he or she is "stuck". Should I teach takeouts (and negative X)?

At some point yes, teaching them the constructive part of bidding is only teaching them half the system. It is a question of whether you will have time in 8-10 weeks after teaching them the fundamentals, which will depend on how quickly the students grasp things.