Help
bluejak, on 2012-September-07, 09:08, said:
This reminds me of a type of query I get in a magazine where I write about the Laws, the magazine being aimed at the less experienced or not so brilliant player. A question that comes every so often is about the opposition doing something they personally would not do and they don't like it. It does not mean they are damaged: it means they are unhappy. Many players have an instinctive idea that their way is the only way. Perhaps it lies in bad initial teaching.
Bridge is a fairly unusual game in this regard. When you're learning bridge, the bidding conventions seem like they're part of the rules of the game, just like the ways that chess pieces are allowed to move or what beats what in poker. Even if the teacher mentions at some point that these are partnership agreements, not hard and fast rules, I'll bet it doesn't sink in with many novices. They're not going to run into counterexamples until they graduate into the open games, so their impressions have been reinforced for a while -- experience is a much stronger influence than lectures.
So I'm not sure that the teaching should be considered "bad" -- it may simply be an impossible expectation. New players aren't going to learn how variable bidding can be unless we throw them into the deep water right away, but that may overwhelm them and turn them off the game before they've gotten hooked.
I still remember misplaying a hand years ago at an NABC, because I assumed that a weak 2 bidder had to have at least 6 cards in his suit, and I didn't duck enough times. I took it as an educational experience -- I've never forgotten that this is possible (although it's not always possible to cater to it), and eventually learned when to do it myself.