Lovera

Let you try in this way: when in dummy with Ace of diamond cash K and Q only reentering in S in heart suit, lead all remaining spades pitching a diamond and 10 of heart. Then little for each Ace starting with heart suit squeeze each opp at time and if any unilateral is winner you have the 12th trick in diamond suit.

Perhaps. For instance, if you want to talk about double squeeze, can be considered the balanced by nige1 with unilaterals in minor suits or another positional is an RFL double squeeze with unilaterals in heart suit against QJ in W, rescouting KJ in diamond for the 9 in E and club as double (oriented) menace reentering in S with the ♥K for the squeeze card.

After the top ♠ if the club suit is with diamond the opp is already squeezed. The other position is with the heart suit and the opp is squeezed at 10th trick when rescouting the club winners.

Tops ♥ for a reciprocal squeeze with "double" menace in ♦ against 9xxx. The orientation of unilaterals is undeterminate but different.

For me that is not a problem having indicate, with my variation of RKB with a void (see RKB 3041 in "Intermediate bridge hands") how to do: after the RKB(♠ 5♥ means 2 keys w/o Q or 1 key plus a void w/o Q. Then 5NT(=all keys)-6♣(=King), 6♥ asks and 7♠ is the answer with a void.(Lovera)

Yes, it is another vice ending position where the A that in base matrice is usually in E and K in dummy making the pick-up double menace here is in W and K in S instead.(Lovera)

Certainly because all of it is done to avoid that N-S realize slam or to have by E-W an ultherior gain not sacrificing at higher level and than 5♠ is ok but is it possible this end considering the previously bidding ? As i have said this double can be useful to avoid 6♠.

Yes, but only can you explain about "i was advocating an improvement of passing out 5♠"? Thanks.

Hi lamford. What i've told is the bidding sequence for applied defence by E-W (starting after the 4♦ by N) against the slam of N-S for gain IMPs. Infact 7♦ is down but gains vs 6♠.

At least after the 4♦ by N, considering also his previous forcing and the 4♣ cue by S these indicating where the bidding was likely to end, E should have bidded (better if supported by W) 5♦ to force S to declare 5♠. In this case, at this point, it is better to double to see if accepted with relatif gain vs slam or redoubled. If N-S bid 5♠XX than it will be necessary to bid 6♦, always to see if it will be doubled or whether the pair decides to go, despite the previous double, to slam.In the latter case, having the strength and being in the range for sacrifice, can be bidded 7♦.

If partner hand is N not has in heart A but QJ and in club suit there is not Q but J. Anyhow agree with me that bidding by E-W had to be ultheriorly developed ?

Ah, than i have not found because i was looking for the wrong side.

That is also reported on EBU site in the box "Patterson wins the Gold Cup" having been realized the difference of 1 IMP in quarter and semifinal. I have tried to view this hand but also in vugraph i have found anything (perhaps out of period).

Although can be also interesting to know how the other pairs have bidded against 6♠ it being defensible at high level in the diamond suit by opponents - one among few contracts.

If it so(i=1-4-7-1) and being not vul vs vul with 12 points almost why not to defend (E-W have 8 tricks) ?

That's right:a singleton is a control of second round, a void of first round. To clear you can reserve the third level only for splinter(=singleton) but in this case the "ambiguity" has to be solved, as it is, among the cue-bid answers.

This seems horrible, that mine instead is nice :rolleyes:

The spade had to be 3-2 and ♥ J on side: win in dummy, let you to rescue ♦ K, impasse in trump, ruff a diamond with Q, anew impasse and A and K in trump, little spade to dummy, ♣ A pitching last diamond, duck a spade stopping the return for the last two winners.(Lovera)

Yes, no problem to change.

It seems similar at "double negatif for slam(=contro negativo di slam) inserted in Roth-Stone system. Although the prevision of many tricks down (i.e. 4 or 6 when vul vs vul) allows to sacrifice in every vulnerabilty ?

Let it more simple: when the "old" scoring was on (but if you want to use for your own using) i had (by me in accordling as tabled in "Il bridge naturale" by Mario Cucci pag. 304) estabilished so, it being an application of "Rule of 2 and 3" for the different cases: for partscore is the min of obscillation (2-3 not vul, 1-2 vul) i.e. 1 when vul; for game is applied the "Rule" that, i say, it's better to call ..of 1, 2 and 3 i. e. is 1 when vul vs not; for little slam add +2 at Rule tricks and at unpair vul -0(=inalterated) and +2 yet at resulting i.e. is 7(=2+3+2) when vul vs not;for grand slam add +5 and at unpair -1 and +3 yet so is 5(5+1-1) when vul vs not and 11(5+3+3) when not vul vs vul. In this way was easier to remember. But as it is changed for an up-to-date the "new" scoring it'd be, only for slam situation, so: only at non vul vs vul add yet +1 i.e. is 6(=2+3+1) when not vul vs vul whilest for grand you add +4 (instead of 5) i.e. is 5(=4+1)when vul vs not and 8(=4+3+1) when not vul vs vul.Tell me if is right.

Yes, but because i have the table with the "old" scoring, in the while how is changed? It seems to me : not vul vs nv 6 (instead of 7)= vul vs vul; not vul vs vul is now 8 (instead of 11) than vul vs not is 6 (instead of 5). Are they correct this ones for the grand slam sacrifice ?

I have not found it talked around. Do you know how is ruled it or if in any bridge book are indicated suggests for how to do in this case ?

Perhaps, but in my proposed case, if as here as opp the hand is also much rich in points that the declarer can with a (good) probabilty to think to have a gain for inversion and do so ?

I am in this topic because i try to intercept VixTD as i've mailed you and yet i'm waiting for an answer. Anyhow, reading this case, let you to say my thinking. How is possibile to invert dummy and declar hands? Put the case that the (right) declarer hand be rich in points and the first (right) dummy hand as black with no entries. If you invert the position dummy can have the possibility to make an impasse that i.e. could fullfill a contract that instead is down for a trick if invertion is not allowed. Are you agree or i am wrong ?