First time to see such explanations

[lycier]

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=wuhuan&s=SQT854HQ2DQ64CQ82&wn=lycier&w=SJ632HK853D8CKJT3&nn=shisun&n=SK7HAJT9764DT32C9&en=机器人&e=SA9HDAKJ975CA7654&d=s&v=e&b=&a=PP3H4H(Strong%20two%20suiter%20--%204-%20losers)P4SP5C(5+%20%21C%3B%205+%20%21D%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%204-%20losers)P6CPPP&p=HQHKHAC4DAD4D8D2D9D6S6DTSKSAS4S2C7C2CKC9CJH6CAC8DKDQS3D3DJS5H3H7D7S8H8H4D5STSJH9C6CQCTS7H2H5HTC5S9SQC3HJ]400|300[/hv]

 

4♥ says " strong two suiter - 4-losers ".

If rebidding 5♣ promises less than 4 losers,it is very easy to raise to slam.

[1eyedjack]

It doesn't show fewer than 4 losers. It shows fewer than 5 losers, which is a weaker hand.

 

I don't think that it is ever easy to bid slam on the basis of losing trick count. As an evaluation method its accuracy shines at the 2 - 4 level, where the precise location of losers tends to be less relevant as aspects that reinforce the potential of the hand and those which detract have a good chance of cancelling out.

 

It may still be right for GIB to bid slam on this hand, on balance of probabilities, but I would not call it easy.

[Bbradley62]

It may still be right for GIB to bid slam on this hand, on balance of probabilities, but I would not call it easy.

We don't know whether GIB would do it, sitting West.

 

But, I agree with Jack that the slam bid isn't clear; you could easily have had two spade losers off the top.

[georgi]

We don't know whether GIB would do it, sitting West.

 

But, I agree with Jack that the slam bid isn't clear; you could easily have had two spade losers off the top.

 

GIB sitting West would pass on 5♣