[boshay]

I have probably been playing for only 6 months.My beginners class is learning standard american.The problem is that everyone in the club and elsewhere that i have met dont play this.They either play precision or incorporate 2/1.My question is, i am putting in alot of time playing and reading about s.a,and if im going to eventually play something else should i just go ahead and learn other bidding systems so that i dont have to worry about trying to unlearn some things that i have already learned.Please help,Thanks.

[helene_t]

Hi boshay

2/1 comes in many flavours just like sa does so it is quite possible that two sa players, or two 2/1 players, have more trouble understanding each other than a 2/1 player and an sa player.

Besides, in contested auctions the 2/1 principle doesn't apply so even if you are eventually going to play 2/1 you will need to know traditional approach forcing principles anyway .

So I wouldn't worry too much. As long as they don't teach you strong twos

[boshay]

Thank you,i appreciate your input.

[ArtK78]

Learning Standard American in an American bridge course is a good idea. SA serves as the basis for most systems a new bridge player is likely to play, and most of the concepts of a course teaching "Standard American" bidding are, in fact, universal concepts.

In other words, it is a good starting point.

[boshay]

Thanks,i will continue to learn this great game.I only wish that i had started to play years ago,this really is a great game.

[nige1]

boshay, on 2014-March-30, 10:15, said:

I have probably been playing for only 6 months.My beginners class is learning standard american.The problem is that everyone in the club and elsewhere that i have met dont play this.They either play precision or incorporate 2/1.My question is, i am putting in alot of time playing and reading about s.a,and if im going to eventually play something else should i just go ahead and learn other bidding systems so that i dont have to worry about trying to unlearn some things that i have already learned.Please help,Thanks.

IMO you should learn a simple well-defined system, e.g. Precision or 2/1 -- preferably as specified by a recognised authority -- or even better use a BBO FD card that you can present to your partners.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-March-31, 09:04, said:

IMO you should learn a simple well-defined system, e.g. Precision or 2/1

LOL

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2014-March-31, 09:04, said:

IMO you should learn a simple well-defined system, e.g. Precision or 2/1

OK, if the objective is to chose a well-defined system, then IMO:
WJ2000: 10. SEF: 9. Forum-D: 9. 2/1: 2. SA: 2. Acol: 1. Precision: 0

[steve2005]

Wow you have a lot of people playing Precision. Around here Hamilton Canada, there is maybe 1 pair playing Precision and 1 playing a forcing club system

[nige1]

A problem for a beginner is to find regular partners, especially when he moves home. In Scotland Acol is probably the most common system. Despite that, Ying Piper teaches 2/1 (including Stayman, transfers, RKC, and so on) to her 7~year-old pupils because so many people play it all over the world -- especially on-line. In Scotland, most players can play it, as a second system. Anyway, Ying also claims that her students will have less to unlearn later. Her strategy seems to work. Her pupils love classes, love playing and perform well in competition.

[mycroft]

If the eventual "goal" - maximising the pool of players to play with, at a level you can or choose to play - is to get to 2/1, then it's not a bad thing to stick with SA for a while. Let me tell you a story...

About 25 years ago (really?), when I was first learning duplicate bridge, a good player told me that the only reason to play 2/1 is that, at the partnership desk, if you get a 2/1 partner, you'll know you have all the gadgets needed to make standard work: Transfers, some sort of checkback, fourth-suit forcing, some sort of forcing suit raise, and so on. The benefits of 2/1 Game Force were just an added benefit. If you picked up a standard player, you had no such confidence.

In the last 10 years or so, at least in North America, I would suggest that if you get a 2/1 partner from the desk, you can still assume most of that (but now including things like support doubles, different forms of checkback, RKC of some sort, and that so on). If you get a standard player, you have no confidence that they can count to 13. Which is unfortunate, because a good standard system plays very well, and plays very well as pickup, especially for partners that have decent judgement and don't need to rely on system crutches*.

The benefit of learning standard is that there's a lot of artificiality in (especially the 1NT forcing) response, and especially out west where "shape is king", 2/1 auctions just don't use the space they're given; playing standard removes that (at the cost of some accuracy, of course). So the 2/1 pairs don't have to worry about the embarrassing +170s and +200s, but they don't gain against - and frequently are behind - standard auctions in the slam zone, as they muddle around showing shape and only when they get to the 4 level do they wonder if partner has any extras to go with the extras they haven't shown. Knowing what problems 2/1 is trying to solve helps you understand the solutions better; and minimises those embarrassing +480s.

But the goal, as Nigel says, is to learn the system you can play with people in the next group up from your group (bridge is incredibly cliquey, and there's no sense making it harder to move up by artificially restricting the people who won't play what you know). But it can be a goal for later.

Similarly, even though I think that for certain beginners (specifically those for whom complicated memory isn't an issue, i.e. those who can rely on a lot of system to bid better than they can) a Precision or other strong-1♣ base system is better to learn than standard *or* 2/1, I don't teach it, because there's "nobody" that will play it.

* Note that I'm getting better, but I would still put myself in the "rely on system to bid for me" camp. If you build a good enough system...

[mycroft]

[Deleted - duplicate. The php didn't direct me back to the thread. Sorry all.]

[jillybean]

Hi bobshay.

Spend your time and energy learning 2/1, all decent players in NA play 2/1. I started with SAYC and got stuck thinking that I shouldn't learn a new system (2/1) until I had mastered SAYC.
The trouble was I don't think I would have ever mastered SAYC, there are too many versions and the system has a number of shortcomings (imo) and another major factor was at the time I didn't have a regular partner and pick up games are a torturous experience if you are trying to learn a system.

[akwoo]

I think it's wrong to think of 2/1 as a different system from Standard American.

I think it's more accurate to think of 2/1 as Standard American with two additional conventions that go together, namely 2/1 bids game forcing, and 1NT forcing for 1 round.

Thought of this way, I think there are many conventions that someone learning standard american should learn before 1N forcing and 2/1 game forcing. Fourth suit forcing and some form of checkback are both more obvious conventions and more useful. Even inverted minors might be more useful.

[boshay]

Like i said before, the bridge class in my local bridge club that i am attending is teaching us standard american.The problem is that in the main room that the more experienced players are in say they play other systems.So eventually i will have to learn something else,which means unlearning everything that i might have already learned.I guess life will be easier once i find a permanent partner.

[Bbradley62]

I don't think moving from SA to 2/1 is "unlearning everything"; I think it is building on the foundation that you've already worked to establish.

[fromageGB]

If you are learning in a bridge class, you must learn whatever is taught, you have no choice. Switching to a 2/1 class if there is one would work better in the long run, but knowing SA is a good basis for learning other natural methods later. Besides, "system" is only part of what you are learning, you are learning leads, declarer play, defence, and many other things. Well, maybe you learn "defense".

When you get a regular partner is the time to develop the bidding, but if the course hasn't finished by then it would still be worth completing your understanding of SA.

[Vampyr]

Is there really a difference between SA and 2/1 besides that in the latter you tack on the (good) 2/1GF and the (truly awful) forcing 1NT response?

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-03, 19:51, said:

Is there really a difference between SA and 2/1 besides that in the latter you tack on the (good) 2/1GF and the (truly awful) forcing 1NT response?

Forcing 1NT is not obligatory. I am teaching (in a very limited way) 2/1 with non-forcing. It has deficiencies, but different ones and arguably less severe.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-03, 19:51, said:

Is there really a difference between SA and 2/1 besides that in the latter you tack on the (good) 2/1GF and the (truly awful) forcing 1NT response?

Not really but 2/1 tends to go with more advanced/modern styles and methods. If a pick-up asks me if we can play SA I would assume standard carding, Stayman and old-fashioned Blackwood but wonder if I can assume transfers and weak twos. If a pick-up asks me if we can play 2/1 I assume inverted minors and wonder which flavor of RKC we play.