Lovera

Indeed. You can also find some videos by Peter Hollands but also others from different sources (like the ones I posted in various topics having my YouTube account).

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-12/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-official-biography.html

I thought so (9 and not 12 p. as i use to bid) and that's why i' ve talked in that way.

Yes, the contract is not what even E expected. It must be considered that if the pair reaches the slam when it has a double fit, it is advisable to choose the 4-4 fit because with the other suit, losers can be discarded. Perhaps it also depends a little on the Acol system (which I don't apply) because E has a hand of 12 points:2♣ does this show directly? But maybe we meet on 3♦ which should be UCB indicating the excellent support for ♣ contract that E would have played also having the King protected on the exit of N. But having W a 5-4-2-2 and however, being at the top of the second range it was clearer to bid 4♦(=almost game) which would probably have been followed by the cue of 4♥(=12/+ points) which could direct the auction.

Hi FelicityR, ..."then forgets that the partnership should be in game" you have told.I'm going to put forward a hypothesis: isn't there an information cut for N which, in the uncertainty, bidded pass? In the explanation of 3♠ you see at the end "Forcing" and then you don't read anything else (was there a cut ?).

Probably GIB considers a strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consenquently.

Probably GIB considers strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consequently.

Probably GIB considers strong hand with 14HCP/+ acting consequently.

But with a strong hand and particularly with a 5♠-5♦ the fourth suit (3♦) is expected to jump bid (see Fourth Suit Forcing by Liversidge in Novice and Beginner Forum #26 n.2).

No, i don't think so. It's possible to have 19 HCP with a bidding at level (after it'd be jump shift with 21/+).

If you are referring to the bidding of 3♦ it is a jump FSF which indicates a 5-5 shape and is therefore correct by the GIB.

In this youtube video there is probably the answer of what to do with both the major suits. I 5 years ago found myself with the same problem using the original Stayman (I have Samuel Stayman's book on his system which obviously included the use of his convention which changed the way of bidding at the time by transferring the command of the bid to partner of 1NT opener considered weak side). The advent of transfers by Oswald Jacoby currently widely used today changed the bidding rules again. You can see the dialogue with Learn Bridge.nyc by reading my comments and answers (see Carlo Ingravallo): Than with 4♥ and 4♠ you have to bid 2♥ (see also at 7:55)(Lovera)

The final ending seems to me to be a little-considered vice squeeze position with threats (K and 8) distributed between hand and dummy in ♦ having however a clash situation in ♠ which requires keeping ♣ unchanged for what has been said.

I think it is a hybrid or mixed squeeze that however uses the same mechanics of the clash having in ♣ the recovery necessary to get at the K of ♠ separately if E discards two ♠ having three with Q. W also must discard three cards that can be in ♠ twice and that allow you to have the threat that breaks free in 5 (a discard from E) as winner. With the discard of a ♦ by E we can also have the K of ♦ winning by letting it run towards the Ace of E otherwise by rescouting the high cards in ♠ and all ♣ and playing small towards the K we will have the obligatory return towards 8 as 12th taken.(Lovera)

Not me since I'm interested in getting to the small slam. But for the grand slam there are some squeeze positions (I think E could have a 7-2-2-2) and a result of 6 (+1) should be great without trying your luck.