Lovera

No, I'm not guilty of double dummy bidding. But it is the hand that is too strong and is treated in this way by the further extension of UCB which therefore must be able to be used.

Thank you and I can answer that: what drives the bid is the solid suit of ♦ and a hand that is worth 19 / + points and it is expected that in this way we can show strength and distribution while keeping the bid low. As for the hypothesis that the partner jumps to 4 I have not even considered it since S has opened and W has simple overcalled and I have a very strong hand. Regarding the support Qx can be equivalent to xxx but a card cannot prevent me from using and completing the UCB convention (which I adopted talking about it in "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD in June 2016 ") with the "Ultherior Extension of UCB "which happens a few times. The bidding and the relative development allows us to stop at 5 ♦ after the RKB when we discover that it has only one keycard but proceeds automatically giving the unexpected 5NT that projects the game up to grand slam. But as you can see I say almost 6 ♦. On the other hand, what can S have if not the missing honors with a hand made of Kings in the major suits (to ♣ it does not matter because we have the void) that directs the planning play?

Why is there still no comment on my bidding line (explained in # 15 and further clarified in # 18) ?

It seems that only hrothgar and I opt for the good bidding of 3 ♣ (= UCB) which seems (however) to initially support partner in ♠. Only after E it changes to 4 ♦ showing a solid suit of 6 / + cards and has this point the partner with the cue of 4 ♥ shows the Ace accepting ♦ as trump. The following RKB with the answer of 5NT (= 2 keycards with Q / ten card fit + void) clearly shows the 5-4-4-0 in W. So why not choose this bidding line instead of venturing into other ones rounds and then always finish in 6 ♦?

Also I am for the immediate cue of 3 ♣ (= UCB) after which the partner will probably repeat the ♠ but, in this case, declaring 4 ♦ (= further extension of UCB) will be clear to the partner that you have a self-supporting suit and should cue 4 ♥ to agree. Also in the hypothesis that the opponents do not bid, with RKB you will discover the void in ♣ which should at least lead you (almost) to 6 ♦.

Yet we are emerging from the pandemic with concerts in stadiums resuming, theaters reopening as well as cinemas. However, I provide what is happening in Italy (the source is from Bridge d'Italia online):https://bridgeditali...le-marche-2022/ https://bridgeditali...le-stelle-2022/ (Probably you have to active the translation when you are in page by menù high on the right) I add my suggestion to encourage more participation in tournaments: consider three levels (or steps) for the award ceremony where in the first 30% are rewarded mainly with local products such as cheeses, coffes, wine bottles, cured meats as is in customary for Christmas baskets, microwave ovens, toasters, phones, the second the 20% with objective, books, bicycles or even products for farms (chickens, rabbits) while subsequently in the first 10% with trips to England or even abroad (among which I don't think Italy will be missing) giving a lot of publicity . If, as I believe, you will soon see results, you might consider whether to refine this system or keep it.

The bid of 3♥ of N is correct (9 points) but after 2 ♠ before and 3 ♠ after by E N knows that the defense has nine spades and therefore S has all the remaining points and a 5-4-3-1 or a 6-3-3-1 hand with at least two cards in ♣ that bring them into the slam zone. Therefore it is mandatory to declare 4 ♦ to force the bidding.(Lovera)

For the sake of completeness, I will say that the method you use to find your topics (explained in # 2) can also be used to see the posts of others on BBO. It will then be necessary to first go to any subforum (by clicking on) and then enter the nickname you want to verify in the search box (above). In this way (moreover, the resulting of search is facilitated by having certain data) you will have a new index of various pages where you can see at least the majority of posts (of that nickname entered on that subforum) to choose which one to read.

It seems that your good partner has managed to visualize the hands of the defense and has therefore consistently played in this brilliant way. Here S can never ruff and E manages to get the two remaining tricks before to draw trumps.(Lovera)

I do not understand why having several followers who have been seeing this topic for at least two days, the data on the views is not yet updated.

You can further customize your search in this other faster way. If you go to any subforum and enter your nickname in the search box, all your posts will be found but they are part of all those you found using the previous method. This is due to the fact that those found turn out to be those to which other BBO followers have replied (when the previous post is in light green, to which the relative reply is made afterwards). If, as it can happen, the speech develops autonomously but without replicas, then you will not find them. How can I add them for a quick search? Just go to one of these and in "Edit" to add at the end in brackets -i.e.:(your nickname) -(then you have to click on "Save Changes") to get the same result of adding to the others to which there has been replication.

When you need to look for an old topic of yours and go to "Find My Content" you can extend your search no more than three years back and if you do not find it it could be that it is older than this period. So here's how to continue your research beyond three years. Go to the sub forum where you think it can be found and, after the summary of the 25 topics, at the end of the page you see a dark banner where it says "Click here to show filter options" and click on it. A new row with 4 windows will be opened: in the fourth (From: 30 days) click on "Show All"; return to the first from the left ("Topics: All) and click on" Topics: I Replied "and then go to "Go" to start the search for all the topics in which you have intervened starting from your first post. This indication will help you a lot to resume a discourse that you intend to develop further after some time, but if you have not found it in that subforum you can try again in other ones in the same way.

When I intervened in this topic I wanted to report that in Natural .., Expert ... and Interesting Bridge Hands there has been a clear decline in posting (just change the frame from 30 days to 60 to notice that there is no change ) which seems to me not to be trivial and that I believe this has not happened in the past.

Unfortunately I was noticing this fact since yesterday and I see that it seems to affect other different subforums as well. Even the arguments seem lately to be more "futile".

In this case, 3 squeeze endings act: one positional with the unilateral ♣ 8 with the communicating suit of ♠ working only on W and two automatic ones with divided threats (unilateral ♣ 6 in S) which instead works on both W and E and, not touching the ♠, the ending acts a trick before. It is always the unilateral that must be checked if it has become a winner after the squeeze card has been played because, otherwise, the threat in the communicating suit will have become a winner.(Lovera)

Previously I had thought of using the FSF to indicate the presence of a Q in minor suits by associating the answer to the information on the opener's two suits (for the raise also in a delayed way) but I was not satisfied because I felt that the convention was brought to be more artificial. So I too (like Winstonm) think the 5-4-4-0 response was limited as well as rare. Later I changed to prefer the solution I indicated regarding the extension to 6-4 and / or 5-5 "strong" with the addition that in one of the other two suits there is a control and no more than a loser in the other (distributions, however, close to 5-4-4-0 constituting a small change but more frequent in use).

What I can add is that one can reason whether to consider only the 6-4-3-0 hands or also the 6-4-2-1 for the jump response while maintaining the additional control in the suit 3.th (= the suit of the FSF) or in that of the partner no more than 2.nd (Kx at least) with 16-17 points and bearing in mind that such bids (also including 5-5) are reserved (raising or with the jump) to describe opener's two suits and their strength .

I'm not so sure it's "the slightest lie" (= 3 ♦) maybe because you don't consider the possibility of the default answer (= opener's first suit) that i.e. in addition to the delayed answers it would allow to have a refined and extensive use to show the hand more correctly to the partner (with a little additional complexity in bidding).

Since I believe that there is no news in this regard, I expose my thoughts about a better use of the "raise" to the 4.th suit by partner. Consider that you have a very unbalanced and strong hand in 3 suits with a void in the first suit bidded by the partner and that because of this you have devalued the hand placing itself in the first range from the second (= 16 / +). It is in this situation where strength is important to make known that I think i.e. you have a 0-3-5-5 or a 0-3-6-4. The points are so distributed that it also allows you to have control also in the 4th suit but the hand is unsuitable for NT play. The raise would represent this situation and at level 2 (= intermediate i.e. ♦ is FSF) it allows to signal both a 6-4 with the jump bid at level 3 of the first suit (= strong sixth) otherwise you have a strong 5-5 since there is no jump bid. At level 3 the latter must be included in the privileged one (to allow support with only two cards) of the sixth suit of the 6-4 when the 4.th suit is upper the opener ones.

Another consideration on the proposed YouTube video which presents the bidding of the opener's first suit as the "default" one (even if others are regulated differently) in addition to providing support to the respondent's first suit even with a delayed bid (an honor second high - also Qx?).

Yes, but that's not what I mean. You need to be able to resolve the situation by giving information to partners within the 3NT level. Why do I say that the 4th suit can be above the opener's two suits (while in the topic it is intermediate)? To expand its use.

To make it simpler, when the partner uses this convention to make a situation of (game) forcing if the responses concern the partner (asking for a support or control) it ends in game in the partner suit or 3NT. Bidding becomes interesting when there is support in the second suit by opener (probably a 4-4 fit) and you also have a second fit which opens up the possibility of a slam.

In the meanwhile i suggest an YouTube video on this argoument: Other three are in Novice and Beginner Forum "Fourth Suit Forcing" on 2018 (in #26 and also in #30 that you can watch inserting my nickname in search box). Anyhow:#26https://www.bridgeba...post__p__942813 #30https://www.bridgeba...post__p__946037

Interesting topic that I believe is still open today to find a solution to this support bid(=raise) in the fourth suit bidded by the partner. Since it is from 2009, however, I ask for confirmation that there have been no updates in this regard. I am of the opinion that it is necessary to accept a good part of the answers of this excellent convention and also that the use must be extended also to cases in which the fourth suit is declared above the two suits possessed by the opener.

However I continue to find that it is strange: 1) that you can make a cue-bid at the fourth level that indicates a Queen if it is not foreseen by the system in use by the pair and also that none of the other pair asks for an explanation immediately; 2) if the bidding was not understood as a cue but as Queen, why was an immediate explanation not requested?; 3) in the case of complete misunderstanding (= Q was not understood as either Q or as a cue-bid) why no explanation was asked for the bid that was not clear? The fact of doing this in the post-mortem after the slam had been made and even requesting this vehemently suggests that some other way of getting a correction to a negative result can perhaps was desired.