Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jef Pratt
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone will correct me if I get the pertinent points wrong. The primary ones being 2/1 being absolutely GF (by the card ostensibly), preference for semi-forcing 1NT, and for rebid of a major to show 6 pieces (lots of debate on that) but I believe that is the spirit of the card.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not that I can see. You can find here in the CC area; https://bridgewinners.com/convention-card/print/bridge-winners-standard.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Caitlin was one of my first teachers back around the turn of the millennium. Bridge Winners collectively created a 2/1 card a year back…not fully annotated though.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used Grantwell 2/1 GF to teach 2/1 GF to intermediates, as does another teacher I respect locally. My students have loved it.

I have used it for followup classes to a homemade perversion of bridge in a day, adapted to teaching 2/1 to newbies.

We've tried Ricker and it has the potential for teaching 2/1 as a first system. My biggest grievance is something we've touched upon in this group is it teaches a 1-notrump opener denies a 5-card major…and this would have to be unlearned along with accompanying assumptions. I understand why he did, as it is aimed towards beginners, the first book anyways. As a plus, there are teacher manuals and supplements.

As I've moved away from teaching 2/1 as a standalone system, it's been several years since I've evaluated Ricker's system.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, I have to get off the bus. Kevin and Chris, best of luck trying to enlighten those who are comfortable in the prison they know and believe in.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meh, teaching beginners ala Taste or similar methods, where weeks are spent first playing for tricks without bidding, and if we mindfully teach students to be observant how tricks are won, the student unconsciously and naturally begins to see where his sure and potential tricks are. Without ever having to use an evaluation system other than eyeballing, listening, visualizing and making hypothetical projections and expectations, the student gets as good an idea of the intrinsic trick taking potential of his hand, as good or better, relatively speaking than any single evaluation method.

When they are ready we can teach them HCP, LTC, Banzai, Pinky, whatever, as methods to compliment their inherit skill of critical eyeball evaluation.

In order of importance of learning and skill,

If we teach them HCP as a way to evaluate their hands first, without developing their muscle to critically evaluate their hands au natural first, that muscle to critically evaluate a hands trick taking potential never gets fully developed, and thus they end up in HCP prison.

If we teach alternative methods of evaluation after the muscle is developed, and mindfully correlate the methods with critical trick tacking potential, some students might be a little overwhelmed but they will all walk away with a better understanding of the true nature of how tricks correlate with their bidding, auction and tactically.

This business about students not being able to visualize the trick taking potential of the game, after weeks of just playing for tricks without bidding, is a copout in my opinion. They do develop the muscle.

Likewise, I've come to believe teaching HCP as the umbrella for hand evaluation early is more about it being easier for the teacher than for the long run success of the student. Some here, of course fear losing students early, I don't have that fear as if they can't grasp this aspect of the game, then they aren't a good match for the type of players I like to teach. But I don't have any sort of quota.

When I teach HCP, I do use the concepts both Jeff and Joe suggest, roughly a King or 3 HCP is equivalent to a trick, being clear that is its potential worth. I do, for the brighter students in the class, also let them know that 3hcp per trick is conservative and that a more accurate number is 2.85, and if they want to be more aggressive, and the math isn't an obstacle, they can use 2.5 (we teach 25 points is needed for game, divided by 10 tricks), and if they want to practice Meckwell math, 2.4 is good enough :).

But Chris, the real goal, despite what some others think you are saying, is to get them to think tricks and of course tactics. I found it interesting that some felt that teaching Stayman with less than 8 HCP must mean you are teaching garbage Stayman, and maybe you were, but it is also true that Stayman shaped hands with less than 8hcp can also be invitational…I call it the HCP matrix, most just can't see beyond it, especially if it was taught as integral to the game.

One bone I have with many teachers, especially when I hear them say something like, we try not to teach them something they have to unlearn later on, which I full heartedly agree with, is why we teach them SAYC at all? And for me, I skip over 2/1 as well and teach beginners Simplified Standard Modern Precision…I should say, they learn 2/1 while learning precision, so they can all play 2/1 as well as precision. But we still begin with playing for tricks without bidding, and then, later, bidding our tricks.

Just as a point of pride, 2 of my students won their sections both days of pairs in a local I/N tournament this weekend. For full disclosure, it has taken them a couple of years to achieve this. But I take pride in knowing they understand the game better than their peers who have had cookie cutout education and this will allow them improve by leaps and bounds over their peers going forward.
Aug. 11
Jef Pratt edited this comment Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also get them to count tricks as the auction progresses, which means being able to count and visualize tricks hypothetically.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I honestly don't get this but I know from past experience, posting a bidding question meant for discussion rather than just a vote, then having to pull the post because a few people felt it wasn't really an article.

Is it really black and white and why is it a big deal? I'm guessing it has something to do with the purity of the feed, if one person does it, then everyone will? And less about an occasional poll masquerading a an article?

So there is no hybrid allowable between such posts?

Just curious…
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great format for a question. Thanks. (I changed my vote after giving the question more deliberation and reading the POVs; from 1N&1 is crazy, to 1 and 1NT is OK…but could easily be caucused to option 5)
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff Bayone…oh, see every time I hear you speak of the necessity of social games, I do not hear teaching/supervised games. Including those games under the umbrella of social games might be confusing others and thus the resistance you might sense from some of us. Yes! Such games are essential to any well run club in my opinion.

In fact they are the only kind of games I run for local clubs :). Usually they aren't sanctioned because I find most my students have too hard of time separating the process of learning means making mistakes and they aren't willing to make mistakes if they think they are losing or playing for something other than learning itself :).
Feb. 19
Jef Pratt edited this comment Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full disclosure: at this time I only teach and have no direct responsibilities to the survival of a club.

No judgement, just to be clear, the model you propose is more about sustaining club viability with little or no direct relationship to the ACBL and it's interests (outside of survival :))?

Jeff, can I ask, who are your targets and/or primary takers? Income, age, other defining demographics?

Does anyone else think there is merit in targeting different populations differently rather than offering a one size must fit all model?

To me, there are those that are looking to kill time socially who have the discretionary time and income to do so. They of course offer the greatest source of income for a club. To my detriment, I have no passion to be involved with this demographic personally; but, fortunately, no financial or representative pressure to do so.

That said, I know there are several large social games in town that it would benefit the local clubs to provide space for if they were inclined and needed extra income due to the shrinking duplicate population.

There are those, who are looking for similar social opportunities as above but would be interested in a more competitive atmosphere, those that transition to duplicate in Jeff's model.

And then there are those who come to the game looking for a mindsport for competitive reasons and even for mental fitness and health, and, I find millennials also interested in this aspect of the game, who get turned off by mundane lessons geared towards the presumed mass interest and tolerance. They are looking for something more of a true competitive mind sport, and only find bridge being taught and promoted as something more pastoral. I personally disregarded the game for decades because I didn't know there was a whole world of competitive players and games out here.

It seems there are 3-levels at least, social, club and then those who are looking for more of a sport or potentials.

Finally, the arguments to keep clubs afloat, whether financially and/or membership, I think a club has to weigh for themselves the cost of survival at the cost of mission. Not everyone will want to run a club that becomes more and more social and devoted to other games different than bridge, just to survive.

I truly hear you Jeff, and think what you are doing is great. When I recreate my beginners classes (one geared towards club players, and a different AP sort of class for those interested in bridge as a mind sport), they will be along the lines you have recommended, but I know I wouldn't have the passion to get out of bed to run a club that didn't reflect and fulfill the mission to promote the game of bridge as a competitive social mind sport.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a bridge teacher, I always laugh in amazement, when new students say they want to learn bridge to exercise and sharpen their mind; but when they realize they have to actually think…LOL.
Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup, I bought a PrimeBook for about the same price and it has been nothing but headaches. I've had very good experience with Lenovo.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My recollection of his hand was something similar to Axxxx Void QJxx Axxx. I'd have bid the diamonds before the clubs for economical rebid.
I do play rebid of major to show 6+ but I can't say for sure if that would have been our agreement.
My idea of the perfect auction would have been, 1-2; 3-3; 4(a)-5.

(a) picture complete

BTW, I didn't imagine a 5=0=4=4 for the very reason that I took 3 to show longer clubs than either red suit…I'm in a quandary if that is valid though.
Oct. 1, 2018
Jef Pratt edited this comment Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed, it is pushy, and not my normal style.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I added that information so that you would have the same information I did, which helped me try to envision his hand shape, as there was no agreement. I took 3 to show 4+ and didn't further limit his hand. I rebid 3 to hope to cater to the probable 5224 or 6??4. He was actually 5=0=4=4 with 11 points. He felt it was obvious for me to bid 4, says his expert friends all agreed, but I still didn't buy it was clear cut.
BTW, had I felt I could bid 3 I would have and in the end I should have anyways as he bid 3N going down 1, where 5 makes.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ditto
July 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose the first thing to explore is, which enterprise, profit or nonprofit, if either, does or is better at recruiting and retaining new players historically.

Second, even though one might be better than the other in the past, what is best for the future? Is either method capable of being agile and flexible enough to rebrand itself to attract contemporary markets when that market changes and still remain desirable to its current membership?

Image, branding, hooking etc…all has been tried, with some interesting results (EasyBridge, comes to mind), but personal experience has shown, younger generations do not take to the hook, line and sinker methods of being seduced, especially when they find out bridge isn't easy, they feel betrayed.
July 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“. I am not sure that the younger generation is as motivated by wealth as the bridge generation is/was. But I have little doubt that the opportunity socialize with the upper classes was one of the draws of bridge in its heyday.”
This is one of the most important statements of any of our discussions and why so many of us are getting this all wrong. The younger Generations are not of the same mindset of us. if bridge is going to continue it will be they that will make it what it is to become. it's just like playing a hand of bridge, sometimes the winning move is to let go of control.
July 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For all three levels, bring in mindful awareness supported by current science (neuroscience) to why we behave and react the way we do at the table in competition. (He's the nicest guy in the world away from the table…)

On the same note, to go against some of those who think we need stricter enforcement of the laws, to take serious offense to those who exploit the laws, especially when playing newer and less experienced players, for underserved gain. The spirit of the laws and the game of bridge is to win what we deserve strategically and tactically. To want to win tricks we don't deserve is the antithesis of the spirit of the game.

And regarding the enforcement of the laws, that preference be made towards the spirit of the laws rather than the letter of the laws, which takes greater and deeper understanding of the laws.
July 11, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top