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.

It is true that the hand has 6 losers but by bidding 3 ♥ we do not help the partner and we indicate a hand similar to that of opener when instead we have the void at ♦. We can assume that he has 3 cards there and expect two cards in ♥ and almost see 4-4-3-2. Missing 28 points, can half be in our line and if the cards turn well? Why play the opponents' game? The possible options are X, 4 ♦, 3 ♥ and 4 ♥ but 3 ♥ does not seem to express well that shape that plays a role here.

You have a (rare) 12-card fit and cannot drop the bid. This also gives you the king trump and allows you to bid 4NT but the only answer that frees you from uncertainty is 6 ♦ which is good for 7 ♠. On the other hand, long trumps with at least 5 cards are good for cross-ruffing play (this would be a second-type slam). (Lovera)

Yes it is (I only realized it lately), thanks anyway.

I finally understood (only today) why the url (of the pdf and of the screenshots) of the hands used through the basic Bots to study the hands to reach the slam position (as explained in the related posts) were blocked.It depended on the fact that I had (not knowing) restricted access in Google Drive.They are therefore visible now without asking for any authorization (at the time I probably received an email from Syria asking me to see 6 ♠ +1). I therefore hope that it is now possible to continue with a discussion of sharing, thanks.

There are various methods to solve these missed slams but if over time things do not improve much there could be some form of "resistance" to apply and / or understand the advice given even by excellent players on the hands proposed and in various situations. However, and also to direct and help narrow the circle of advice, a good thing would also be to see why the bids are stopped ahead of time and possibly what are the "fears or timidities" that repeated over time do not achieve the desired good results and this it pertains exclusively to the pair or single player who makes the (psychological) mistake. Coming now to the technical part, the partner's hand is very good and it would be justified to bid 2NT Jacoby whose range of action does not provide for distinction on the shape. As it is known, I use it only for unbalanced ones and the opener also has an unbalanced a ♦ therefore the short suit in the partner is identified (and confirmed by the cue a ♣) in ♥ that is in one of the other two suits. If the opener then wanted information on ♥ he/she could indicate 4 ♦ as first round controll and then repeat it as void. However, in this case, continuing is not wrong because the points are there and complement the other suits.

It is to note also that are 4 high cards vs 3 of your simulation that can make the difference.

It should mean that with the maximum value of the answer in case of positivity of S of 10 and the value of the hand of N of 21 the two hands do not reach more than 31 points.

Yes, can be zero as the minimum hand instead of 10 as a maximum hand (i.e. 8-2-2-1) with one or two Jack because all the high cards are in W/N/E but is 31(=21+10) having to use the max value possible in partner hand.

Probably GIB is updating the counting method by going from Total Points (= HCP + Goren or shortness) to TP + long counting (+1 for 5th card, +2 for 6th card etc.). When you see a high total and here are two examples in 4 ♥ with 31 and in 2 ♠ with 10 it means that total indicated in the first answer of S is incorporated in the second bidding of N and therefore by deducting we have 31- 10 = 21 points for the hand of N and the 3 points of difference come from +2 for four honors to ♦ and 1 for the 5th card in the suit.

I found it indeed there are two similar ones: one on the opening post (# 1) and the other on the other posts. What you have to do is keep the Replay button pressed for a few seconds and a pop window comes out (this morning I did a test by scrolling in various directions around Reply even slightly with the only result that the reputation for smerriman has started). The same thing happens on Edit, Multiquote and Nickname.