Are you guilty of playing ancient ‘Contract Bridge’ bidding systems?
Perhaps more to the point, does it matter if you use old bidding conventions?
Off screen Catherine told me that good players can really take advantage of people who don’t play the more modern bidding systems.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should even consider reading a book that was first published more than 5 year ago, if they want to teach or learn Bridge…
Why do publishers keep regurgitating books that are so ancient and outdated? It is so lazy of publishers not to look to younger writers.
In the following video, Catherine Draper talks about teaching standards and why teachers often propagate olde fashioned methods. She also suggests that many clubs are playing 30 years behind the times with ancient bidding systems and that teachers are teaching what they first learnt, rather what pupils should learn now in the modern game.
Catherine also says that more emphasis needs to be placed on card play technique rather than on bidding. What do you think? Fill in the comment box below and press “submit comment”
There are two of the same video – the first is my attempt at improving the audio quality… I’ll let you pick the version that works best on your computer for yourself.
If your browser is not displaying the video direct on your screen, you can watch it at the following web address.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/MKQfdn30U2U
Maybe I am a (young) dinosaur!
I am 34 years-old and playing bridge for 12 years now. I learned reading Chris Hasney and Jerry Pottier’s American Bridge Series which teach standard american bidding systems of various levels. The book is a 4-volume series (4th book is still to be published).
Volume I = Basics: old-fashioned goren-style way, playing forcing jump raises, takeout doubles, basic stayman, blackwood and gerber; these are about the only conventions used (no negative doubles, no michaels or anything considered modern or “standard”).
Volume II = Intermediate: most of what is considered “standard” or modern bidding methods (negative doubles, limit raises, splinters, RKCB, etc)
Volume III = Advanced: this book describes a complete system for the advanced partnership that wants to increase accuracy in its bidding, and remove guesswork during the bidding. Intended for serious competition players.
Volume IV = Expert: intended for players that wants to compete in the highest competitions, even international.
In 12 years, I have worked my way up this series of books and my opinion is that the teaching old-fashioned bridge is not a bad way to start. There are less elements of bidding to learn so the starting player can first focus on grasping the mechanics of the game, and understanding the logic of bidding. I have read another book prior to find volume I of this series and concepts of forcing bids, limit bids and captaincy were not covered in the first book I read. These concepts are key to understanding what partner is bidding and to understand how to describe your hand in a way partner and you find the right spot. Balancing is another concept that is hard to grasp for the beginner.
Not all books cover these concepts, but the Volume I did this beautifully, while keeping things simple, and it is teaching old-fashioned bidding. Obviously, any serious player or anyone who aims at advancing in duplicate clubs and tournaments have to learn something more modern, and therefore you don’t want to stay too long in Volume I, just long enough to learn the basics. Then modern bidding makes more sense and is easier and faster to learn. But still, those “modern” notions still dates from a few decades and may not be considered very “recent”. But the material is presented so the player begins to understands how to use a bidding system as a whole, not only as a bunch of conventions to memorize.
My opinion is that old-fashioned bridge may be taught with an intent of an introduction. Think of it as any academic course you may have attended. Take Mathematics for example. Learning to count first allows you do algebra, then calculus, and then this opens a whole world of more complex areas: numerical analysis, group theory, quantum mechanics (its more mathematics than physics actually…). You first learn the basic and ideas that were developed long ago so that more complex concepts make sense.
First leaning 2/1 game-force or precision systems at first might work, but the average learner will find that there is too much information to learn initally. And I think this is the number one reason why people either drops learning bridge or doesn’t even start: it just looks too complex at first sight. The KISS method is gold here: Keep It Simple Stupid. Build a solid foundation, then proceed with more complex and contemporary material.
Learning more modern methods does not equate to having to learn more advanced systems. For example, there is ancient Basic Acol that should be consigned to the BIN, and Modern Acol which is continually evolving. The books that publishers continue to churn out can be 30 years old!! and teachers continue to reference them because they are comfortable with what they know. Of course, some of these books are brilliantly written (I take nothing away from the authors) but they are not necessarily what one should be teaching or learning. Teachers are scared that pupils will frown or panic if they suggest looking forward, and publishers do not want to find new writers and discontinue popular works.
This video had so much background noise, sirens….people talking…and a constant hum. It was difficult to hear.
I know the sound is terrible. It was one of my first videos and I didn’t realise that the microphones would pick up so much surround sound. I hope you can still get something from it though…
Hi Mark !!
(apologize for the french, but my native tongue is danish)
First of all – great site with thought-provoking posts.
I’m still in the creative process of trying to figure out, what if any contribution, I can give to your ideas about getting more people interested in bridge.
But i have to disagree with you in one area:
You say any old bridge methods is outdated. First of all i would say that bridge methods can be strictly put into 2 categories; play of the cards and Bidding.
I agree that bidding methods have been greatly evolving continously.
But card play is in my opinion still the same. True – e.g. Reese coined the terms; vice, winkle and Steppingstone, but my guess would be that these methods were played at the tables even before Reese.
I think that Cathrine (and you) is on the right track when you propose to increase the period of time students should focus on basic card play before delving into the Bidding phase of the game.
(I just read the wiki page on mini-bridge, and this seems like a great place to start)
When students eventually get into the bidding. I think it’s important to stress the competitive aspect of bridge.
I remember from when i first learned a bidding system (Danish Bridge Standard – resembling a mixture between Goren and std. Acol), that we – in real life – always encountered competitive auctions, and nobody knew what to do.
Why do i mention the above – because i think it’s one of the cool features of the game. At least i’ve noticed, that this is one of the things that young people find exciting about the game. (They always preempt harder and interfer more – and find it amusing when they get the opponents to err).
Later when students gets ‘hooked’ they can discover the beauty in system philosophy: relays, transfers & sequence creation, camouflage & concealment, hi-level agreements etc.
Just my 5 cents for now
/Mikael
Mikael… you are right to criticise my post. And many players who play very ‘outdated’ systems are far better Bridge players than me. Learning to play the cards well is the most important skill if one wishes to progress in the game.
Re: Jiko’s previous comment too.
What I was hoping to stress in the post, was that learning is fun.
OK, so changing your methods all the time will lead to poorer scores, but I want players always to look at the game with fresh eyes and be open – because this process is enjoyable.
Catherine is correct that most clubs do not spend enough time teaching play of the hand (I think strategy is a more descriptive word than technique). Playing bridge well requires complex and subtle skills; they, like Rome, cannot be built in a day. The teacher must find a way to prepare students for an extended learning period while providing them with enough immediate payoff (enjoyment, pleasure) to retain their participation. (Hmmm, maybe teachers of all topics, including regular classroom teachers, should be required to read this previous sentence!) The development of strategies for playing the hand has continued over time just as systems for describing the hand and reaching the best possible contract (remember defense as well as offense here).
You should immediately contact Catherine and re-record this interview (or at least the audio portion). It does you no credit and disrespects her to leave this “product of exceedingly poor quality” online to represent you and her. Shame on you.
Thanks for the feedback.
You are right about the audio quality in all respects of your comment. In my defence, it was a new video camera to me (the mike settings were incorrect), one of my very first videos, one of my first blog posts and I am very disappointed with the quality too. I now have a Mac computer so I should be able to edit the sound very easily – I have spent probably over 20 hours trying to perfect videoing and video file formats settings using PC, so it’s a time issue more than anything else. Meeting Catherine for a re-record is an issue because she lives about 300 miles away from me (we met just off the M6 which is one of the reasons why there is so much background car noise)… I will endeavour to re-edit it and update the post.
I’ve been thinking – “Shame on you” is a bit harsh. I shouldn’t have to be doing video interviews of UK’s great Bridge success stories. Where the heck is the English Bridge Union et al?
Interesting concepts above. A lot to be said to both approaches. However, bidding is 80% of the game. One SHOULD get the basics down before venturing forth into a more complicated system. I know many good players who don’t play anything more complicated than Stayman and I also know good players whose card/agreement is so complicated that it “boggles the mind”. Knowing the basics and expanding from there, in my opinion, is the best way to go. The vagaries of the cards are such that counting is most important as well as practice, practice, practice. A finesse is a finesse and that doesn’t change.