Tola18

I will check some me too, but the name is apparently miss-spelled - it must be Izdebski. Wladyslaw Izdebski. a wellknown polish theoretician and author (probably also a practician! :) ) It seems to be some sort of XYZ-convention. I myself dont care to sort out the variations. None of my steady partners do play this. http://www.ktb.konin.lm.pl/wj13.htm - Izdebski is reasoning in Polish. http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/WJXXI.txt Izdebski´s variation of WJ in English. Our double checkback / XYZ should be here somewhere.

Havent you already answered this question immediately above? I think your real question is, what bid with good cards, 6C and 4S. I think as now it is bidding 3C instead of Magister 2C. I have a memory such a problem was discussed and dissecred in a lenghy thread several month ago / some year, ago.

Swedish Jacoby (=Stenberg) can be played both as a GF or Inviting+. Myself I suggest some inviting variation: The frequence is higher. You can also use it or Jordan in contested auction and you dont need to relearn your thinking much. So, here goes a common Swedish, good structure. 1. 1M - 2NT inviting Jacoby. 2. 3C - 3M minimum, respective sign-off, should be passed 2. 3C - 3D lets try once again, do you perhaps have singeltons after all? for answers look further down. 2.3C - 4M is of course to play. 2. 3D is more then minimum, but no singeltons. GF 2. 3H is club singelton, more than minimum. GF 2.3Sp is diamond singelton, more than minimum. GF (the old formula hearts are kin of clubs, and spades are kin of diamonds) 2.3NT is singel in the other major, GF. 2. 4-level bids: 4M natural to play - probably a longer suit... sidesuits: most play it as void, but can surely be played as a good extra suit, á la Jacoby.... Hope it is clear now. It isnt difficult once you get through the motions for yourself as the structure is very logical. There is a another question typical of Jacoby/Stenberg: Playing 5 cards openings, is it OK with 3-cards support or should it be always 4 cards? Most are probably satisfied with 3-cards. My advice is though, having only 3-card, dont go automatically into Stenberg sequence. If you have GF and a good sidesuit, consider bidding the sidesuit first. There are situations where you do have excellent small slam in minor on 54 or even 44, but only 11 sterile tricks in your major. You can also use a very much easier scheme. Easier, and you can use it also in Jordan (=contested auction). This scheme is good enough and works fine also with inexperienced partners. 1. 1M - 2NT invit+ 2. 3M is minimum, may be passed. 2. 3-level Sidesuit is natural, some extras, GF 2. 4-level sidesuit is singel/void, GF ................................... Playing inviting+ Jacoby, the classical limit-sequence 1M-3M disappears. Many plays it as purely preemptive, promising not much more then 4-cards support (= trumph of at least 54). Some play it as semiconstructive: the usual 1M-2M hand but promising 4-cards. While 1M-2M will be usually on 3-cards support. One advice: Having not very promising 10 points, or even 11 bad points, DONT play it as inviting Stenberg. Bid 2M. If partner has extras, shehe will invite. If partner dont has extras, there is no game anyway... (Thus work out a schema for invites after 1M-2M; which invites are strong invites, and which are only mild one). One memorable example; partner had AKQxx in trump opposite my 5 cards opening. We bid eventually game, 1 sterile down. The trumph too heavy; the D totally useless... He should bid 2M. ..................................... Hope I made myself understood.... If not, ask! :)

I have encountered unalloved helping several times, MBC, usually in friendly play. Once it was my partner, a friend. He had probably an "artillery observer"... I ended this session rather quickly. Another time I remember was with two other friends. I think they did it mostly as a way of training - and this is not uncommon, I think. They had among other some quite peculiar slams with irregular bidding. I become sure when one of them admitted the slam was down before playing it out: The crucial Q was third behind AKKn.... ROFL.

I wonder. If you want to play simple, uncomplicated and good bridge Sayc with a pick up partner is what the doctor prescibes. If you propose 2/1 then you automatically agrees on the usual standard gadgets. In any case, I think many takes it so. Otherwise I agree with your comments. Like also with the openers Kenbergs comment the reverse is dangerous for pick up pairs. I want to add: especielly if they are under good adv level.

Kibitzing, I saw the other day two young swedish experts discuss it. Both are feasible, but the better of them advocated it as unusual: the 44+ in minors is more frequent then appropriate strong NT holding. They both agreed on it.

apparently some do think it is grand, as there are 100+ tables! :P

I was taught in an article a useful rule of thumb about these situations partner opens 1C, and me 44 in D and a M: Usually you answer with the major-suit. Two normal exceptions: 1: you are weak, and diamonds are considerably stronger then the major. (If opps get the play, your partner will have help with lead). 2. You are slamish: a variant of slow approach... This is in the the swedish Modern System, a four cards major system, something between modern Sayc and modern Acol.

Ah yes, I see and agree. This option could be completed by the parallell: when starting a new table, have option to wish play against pairs; not two pick ups - even if they often arrive simultaneously....(I guess the automat often sends the two pick ups simultaneously). And there should also be the possibility to have a room for established pairs. Almost none uses the Master club, so why not try room for established pairs - which is many do ask for?

This could surely be done, but it is an overkill: you can as easy start a new table... (Im using the old setting, I find it more intuitive, but this is surely possible also in flash-version??) As you use the word matching, I would think the thema would be matching, ie: we are advanced, want to play with: intermediate or advanced.... As example. Or even: we are friendly, want to play against: competitive. As another example... Such could be done, and with several thousands players online the matchings should succeed most of the time without big trouble.

There is one more aspect for one-language places. Training sessions. Or coaching sessions. In my case, we are swedish-spoken. And difficult intellectual explanations are of course easier to give and receive in ones motherlanguage, not the foreign english - even if you can decent english. So. I open a board, write on the board description NS training session, and we play against the players who do come. Comments about bidding and play mostly in swedish. It is quite common opps do object. Its english according to the rules! Or even: you are too slow, bid please... That analysis here in this thread points most languages will have some sort of niches with time. Own club or own tournaments or something. I dont think it is any drawback. The main club and the other open clubs like WP Refugees, and the open tournaments, will ALWAYS be the main alternative for the most players.

when I open Show the tables, there are only a few. When I start a table, it seems Im in the Relaxed club. Which surely explains why I see only a few tables... thus, I do come into the relaxed club, but into the BBO as such - hardly... I dont see any list where I can see which club or tourney there is and I can choose. Im stuck. It IS schrecklish! :( (the title is a phrase I still remember from my high-school german class, 35 years ago, it means: "But this is terrible!", schrecklish is terrible, horryfying. compare with the film-figure Shrek, it is the same root)

Pity. In this case, I can still recommend BBO as a excellent place, but I cant recommend BBO as an easy, intuitive place. Only to get in, and soon you will be absorbed. But I presume part of the work will be to make flash-bbo more user friendly and intuitive. By the way. I was in in the Flash BBO a couple of times Some things I understand, some not. Where can I start a table??

Ah! memory signals sounds! I remember vaguely something called for Vinjes signal. Is it this, or did Vinje devised also other carding ways?? Like Vinjes leads.... somewhat confused... :)

Another possiblility is to use trumps as try to show what do I like the lead, if my lead marking was unclear. I believe I saw that tip in a polish magazine.

Yes, may be. If partner suspects me for the classical psyche - opening 2C with weak diamonds. (some has it even declarer as a sort of mult: 2C either any strong or weak in diamonds)

Yes, I think I understand now what happened. 1 and 2 begins with clicking. 3 is a long sentence, the word clicking is last. "3. Looking for our downloadable Windows program? Click here" Being a little stressed you tend not to see it is a real alternative, especielly as the Problems are as nr 2. Reading newspapers Im trained not to look at the ads. I dont even see them. Take away the words "Looking for". Swicht also nr 2 and 3. And perhaps write: Our flash version on 1. .............................. Like that: 1. Click here to play or watch bridge - our new flash-version 2. Our downloadable Windows program? Some feels this most intuitive. Click her 3. Problems? Click here. That should do the trick, I think. :)

Yeah... I suppose I felt stressed with that "new" computer as I didnt saw that third alternative. I do feel a little silly, yes. Yet I DID went wrong, so I must presume others will also go wrong. Write a liiittle extra comments: 1. Our new, flash-based version 2. problems. 3. Our usual version - some feels it is more user-friendly or something like that. You will surely manage! :) (btw, I have also the "old view" always turned on, same reason - I see what I get).

My computer went broke, so I did buyed another one (old and used, but still some improvement over my old one). Of course, as soon my antivirus and firewall was OK, I sough up BBO. Bridgebase.com wants me to install the Flash-player. OK, done. After it Im soon in. A nigthmare! A byzantine maze! I fled SWAN because it was surely wonderful and so on with all technological gimmicks, but waay to complicated to be usable. Especielly as there was the intuitive, easy BBO. After a while I asked a couple of friends, if their BBO is totally new or if it is only with me. It seems I found some sort of backdoor into this byzantine flash-version. They had the old, reliable, easy to use, intuitive BBO. Their only problem was they wanted me to join and play. So, good folks. How do I do to find the normal BBO? I must install the basic program first. Not on bridgebase.com.... they had the flash as only option. (ps. now I see. Under Problems? there IS an alternative, ie the old way). Still, I do pity they new members. BBO will lose thousands of folks who wants something rather basic than fancy with whistles).

Im also thinking about heart-lead. By the way, I believe this convention is called Garozzo, showing spades and hearts, 4-7 points or something like that. Non-invitional as you gwnn said. I met it the other day, the two Italian juniors missed a cold game. Responder had 7 points, ace and king. I joked it was all mr Garozzos fault. We get a good laught at that. I had no heart to tell him these 7 points were too pretty to bid this Garozzo negative bid with... :(

You dont need to thank me, tenbrvc, I am happy to be able to give you some help on the way. :P

I do make a quotation of this suggestion, so it is seen more widely. Yes, perhaps it is a way. Worth a discussion.

Yes, I understand this, and ask you what it will be. Please explain! Perhaps Im simply ignorant. But I see 2H as nonforcing, in almost every system, also SAYC. It shows here positively on 6 card, so pass is OK also against singelton. But say, 1H - 2D, 2H is different matter. 2H is usually weak and perhaps even nonforcing, but I would pass it only with absolutely minimum.

About the fear they may ruff if I dont pull trumps: Sometimes, NOT SELDOM, it is useful they do make a ruff. It is seen frequently if the trumps are divided uneven, and we can force the long side to ruff. Sometimes even two ruffs. After it our trumps will dominate and the otherwise difficult contract may be made.

And what are the standard methods according to you? I dont know this convention, but my thinking is: 2H in this situation is nonforcing. Thus, if partner bids anything else than pass, he wants something, and hishers bids therefore at least inviting. So why not make it official and systematic, and use the 3C as some sort of assembling forcing bid?? A sort of Ogust: tell more please!