[Antrax]

Imagine two points on the surface of the earth. Is there only one way for you to walk from one to the other in a straight line?

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2012-March-29, 12:11, said:

Imagine two points on the surface of the earth. Is there only one way for you to walk from one to the other in a straight line?

Actually there is likely to be a lot of rock, turf, water or something like that in the way blocking the straight-line path between those points.

[P_Marlowe]

Antrax, on 2012-March-29, 12:11, said:

Imagine two points on the surface of the earth. Is there only one way for you to walk from one to the other in a straight line?

Can this discussion be move to the watercooler?
http://en.wikipedia....lidean_geometry
http://en.wikipedia....lidean_geometry

My remark related to 2D geometry.
Euclidian: The sum of the angles in a triangle is 180.
On a sphere this is not the case, I believe the sum is
usually larger than 180, but ... see wikipedia.

[phil_20686]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-29, 05:30, said:

#1 Yes, Bridge is fairly complex.

#2 "Hiding complexity leads to bad habits and rule based approaches.".

This statemt is ok, but heavily depend on the target audience you try to teach.
If you start a physic course (my impression is, that this is your background, I may
be wrong), you dont start with Einstein / relativity theory, you start with Newton,
a simplification.

Sure, but understanding that distributional hands take more tricks than balanced ones is very fundamental to bridge, and is not that complicated.

[phil_20686]

ahydra, on 2012-March-29, 10:15, said:

But I'm more interested in why the world around us is not Euclidean. Last time I checked, if I step forward a certain amount I don't go further by travelling in one direction rather than another!

But the question is: Are you pointing in the same direction?

[nigel_k]

the hog, on 2012-March-28, 18:16, said:

The best advice to give a N/B player is to pass this hand and come in later. Sure, when you are a better player and more experienced and know how to deal with light opeings, then open it with whatever takes your fancy. Those advocatiing a 1H opening need to re read the forum title.

Novice/Beginner is not the same as very first lesson for someone who has never played the game. Beginners need to learn early on that bridge is a game of judgment and you cannot succeed by following rigid rules. In any case, if you add up HCP and heart length and ignore everything else, it is a 2♥ opening and I wouldn't be surprised if a beginner did that. Getting them to understand why 1♥ is better is pretty fundamental.

[Fluffy]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-28, 21:07, said:

I'm a beginner still, clearly, by whatever metric you wish to apply. So with that said, why? If it turns out we have the spades, the two auctions that spring to mind are:

1H - 1S;
2D - 2S;
3D - ??? (Pass, 3H, or 3S or maybe a random 3NT punt).

It is very important that you understand that 2♠ is a sing off, a weak hand with long spades. After a sing off your only possible bid with this hand is pass. 6-0 is considered a respectable spot to play. Any other bid is strong, and shows reverse values (16-17) since it makes no sense to bid further with other hands (Exception made to 3♠ raise wich needs a lot less since we have a fit then).


The real problem with opening this hand is not that partner has a weak hand with spades, the problem is missfitting strong hands that will end up playing hopeless 3NT/4♥/4♠. I know the downsides, but I would still open it at the 1 level.

[the hog]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-29, 05:16, said:

Virtually all advanced players will open this hand 1H, so it seems right to teach beginners to open these types of hands.

This analogy is badly flawed.
Virtually all advanced players will open
AQJTxxx x xxx xx
4S nv vs vul. Ttry getting a novice to open that.

Nigel - the word "novice" means someone who is new to the game, perhaps even someone having their first game. A beginner might have been playing for a few months.Getting a novice to open this hand which probably goes against all of the 12/13 point openings they have read about is confusing to say the least.I understand that people who are not educators or familiar with pedagogy would rush in and try and teach everything they think is correct at one. That is not the best way to educate someone.

[JustaDummy]

Philip Marlowe is right, IMNVHO. (Well, who would argue with that guy - and from that reference you can tell my age). I've spent 50 years as a career educationist, eventually working at international level, so if I suggest that maybe Uwe has a point, or ten, about beginners and the learning process, than maybe he does. So listen to him, please.

I was horrified by some of the responses to his posts. Just because everyone in the "advanced civilised world" (so let the flames start on that one, but please start a new thread, so that I can ignore it. See? After just a few weeks surfing this BBF, I'm getting the hang of how this environment works) has gone through an education system (you still with me? Sorry about the multiple parentheses (at least they're not nested (oops)), oh and yes, I also understand about Euclid and Newton and Einstein and even Sheldon Cooper, just in case you wanted a real flame war) they just believe that they are experts in the process of education, but instead they are just exposing their ignorance of it - which of course will not stop them (so let the flames… ).

I'd be delighted to give you chapter and verse to explain what I and Uwe mean by the above (note that he and I have had no collusion here whatever). Best by PM, if you are interested. And if not, I'll not be surprised.

[655321]

JustaDummy, on 2012-March-29, 18:31, said:

I've spent 50 years as a career educationist, eventually working at international level, so if I suggest that maybe Uwe has a point, or ten, about beginners and the learning process, than maybe he does.

A glance at the sidebar of the initial post shows this:

Posts: 3,211
Joined: 2006-August-31

As a new poster you may have missed this, also as a new poster you may not have known that Hanoi5 has been posting here for many years. Given these thousands of posts over many years, it seems very unlikely that he was looking for an incorrect answer tailored to someone who only started playing last week.

[JustaDummy]

655321, on 2012-March-29, 21:03, said:

A glance at the sidebar of the initial post shows this:

Posts: 3,211
Joined: 2006-August-31

As a new poster you may have missed this, also as a new poster you may not have known that Hanoi5 has been posting here for many years. Given these thousands of posts over many years, it seems very unlikely that he was looking for an incorrect answer tailored to someone who only started playing last week.

I don't care that the OP may have been way off base by starting this thread in this forum (if that is what you are suggesting: apologies if it isn't, but I still don't care). But if the whole discussion based on that original post is beyond me, I do care. That is absolutely what Uwe was getting at.

I care that Uwe's completely valid points about the learning process are apparently being ignored, and even discounted.

I don't care in the slightest what any individual poster's track record is. I will judge their posts on their own merits, from my own perspective. That is all I can do. If their posts don't help me, or are beyond my comprehension, I will take a negative view of their contribution, even if they are world class players. I'm not here to listen to esoterica. I can't handle it.

Uwe was saying that.

[P_Marlowe]

655321, on 2012-March-29, 21:03, said:

A glance at the sidebar of the initial post shows this:

Posts: 3,211
Joined: 2006-August-31

As a new poster you may have missed this, also as a new poster you may not have known that Hanoi5 has been posting here for many years. Given these thousands of posts over many years, it seems very unlikely that he was looking for an incorrect answer tailored to someone who only started playing last week.

Since this got brought up the 2nd time - the poster is also giving or gave courses for beginners.
So maybe, just maybe, he is / was looking for an suitbale answer to give to a N/B audience.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-30, 01:32, said:

Since this got brought up the 2nd time - the poster is also giving or gave courses for beginners.
So maybe, just maybe, he is / was looking for an suitbale answer to give to a N/B audience.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Exactly! And so far I have gotten exactly what I wanted (and probably a little extra that I didn't).

This hand should not be open with a weak 2. It is not a hand worth opening at the two level to show a 6-card suit and 6-10 HCP's. This should be taught to beginners when the hand appears to them. It can also be framed within the 'rule of 20' for opening a hand.

I advocate opening 1♥ with it but I'm also okay with passing and then entering. Even 3♥ makes more sense than 2.

Of course the reasons for not opening two should be explained (too much playing strength, strong in its two suits). The flaws of passing should be shown (the hand holds no spades, what if they open 1 or 2 spades, partner passes and LHO raises to 4 spades? And I guess others). The pitfalls of opening 1 should also be mentioned (what if the hand is a misfit, we shouldn't be scared after opening and pass a forcing bid by partner, we should avoid NT, etc).

In the end I think we're all interested in the same thing: that beginners and novices learn hand evaluation before they have to face the challenges at the table.

[Codo]

Hanoi5, on 2012-March-30, 05:34, said:

In the end I think we're all interested in the same thing: that beginners and novices learn hand evaluation before they have to face the challenges at the table.

As much as I like your other input, I disagree here.
We have to get them playing before they know how to evaluate a hand, else they start playing after several years of studying- and some sh/would never start....

[Hanoi5]

Codo, on 2012-March-30, 05:49, said:

As much as I like your other input, I disagree here.
We have to get them playing before they know how to evaluate a hand, else they start playing after several years of studying- and some sh/would never start....

Maybe it's just that I didn't explain myself.

Would you prefer a beginner to play a tournament and find out about this hand AFTER getting a zero or the same beginner playing a tournament finding this hand AFTER having read about it in the forums?

I'm in favor of having beginners start playing as soon as possible. There's no comparison between practice and theory in bridge teaching/learning. But reading about things before you face them could be very helpful for beginners.

[JLOGIC]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-29, 05:16, said:

Virtually all advanced players will open this hand 1H

lol, I would strongly disagree with this at least in USA, it is not common at all to open 1 with a hand like this here. I'll believe you if you tell me its standard in UK and I wouldn't be surprised if it's standard in australia for all advanced players to open 1, but I do not agree with that assessment worldwide. People who are young and post on the internet are also more likely to open this 1H.

I would def not advise 2 beginners playing together to be opening 1H, it is too difficult to handle the later auction sometimes (what do I do when partner bids 3N at some point? What do I do when partner doubles them? Should I pass a forcing bid, I only have 9 points!). I agree with hanoi that the lesson here should be to not open 2H, I would just say you can not with a preempt with a side 5 card minor or a side 4 card major.

[Elianna]

I agree with Justin, but would put it slightly differently.

The point of this hand is that not all rules should be followed blindly.

I've included hands like this in lessons (without pre-instruction because I prefer students get a chance to play with something before I tell them what I think) opposite a reasonable 12-count that makes game, in the same set with a regular 2H preempt hand opposite that same 12-count. The goal is that students will ask themselves why they didn't get to game, and that the advanced players will compare the same boards and realize that responder cannot look for game on his/her own!

I also disagree somewhat with Hanoi's point about education. Yes, some students might like if they knew everything about bridge before playing in a tournament and never ever got 0's, but that's not how many people learn. Much of learning happens after your schema is shaken a bit, and then you can assimilate and adapt the new information, forming a more developed view.

[the hog]

It is certainly not common to open this hand at the 1 level in Australia either. You would find quite a few people opening it with a 2 suited bid of some description.

[billw55]

the hog, on 2012-March-29, 17:57, said:

Nigel - the word "novice" means someone who is new to the game, perhaps even someone having their first game. A beginner might have been playing for a few months.

Interesting, this is exactly opposite from then meaning I understand from these terms. To me, a "beginner" is still getting comfortable with the rules and counting his hand, while a "novice" has been at it for a few weeks or months, and may be working on basics like counting a suit, promoting winners, ruffing losers, basic bidding, etc.

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2012-April-11, 08:34, said:

Interesting, this is exactly opposite from then meaning I understand from these terms. To me, a "beginner" is still getting comfortable with the rules and counting his hand, while a "novice" has been at it for a few weeks or months, and may be working on basics like counting a suit, promoting winners, ruffing losers, basic bidding, etc.

As someone who taught bridge for at least 2 decades, i also understand exactly what you understand from these term.