[Lovera]

I am finally back on the Forum. After my last post that expressed satisfaction (and which was also contained compared to the truth) for a result that was unexpected and to be considered as it concerned a change of norm previously established, for a short time I stayed away. As time passed, I also noticed a certain resistance to return and this did not, however, agree with me. In the meantime, personal commitments and sad news events also took place (which were also reported abroad) which further distracted me and which I followed on the other social network. To try to resume I followed the "Wednesday Tournament" (Bridge Lesson) on YouTube where, however, it should be said that they could present it better. Then I found the Bridge Base Online site (where I took the opportunity to register) with Australian Joan Butts (Fourth Suit Forcing) tutor. I then resumed going to B ♠ B which I use instrumentally and in a more profitable way than just the game for verification / use of conventions, game situations or game objectives regarding the scores.(Lovera)

[Lovera]

Now it should be said that playing with GIB (in Play Anonymuosly) allows me to have a pre-set tool available without looking for other sites that would also require computer-related knowledge that I do not have. Moreover, I am happy with GIB perhaps because we have the same basic system (which I call Stayman Advanced as BBO Advanced which, however, is more complicated while mine is more flexible, effective and also aggressive / competitive and which fits well into the trend having been updated with the conventions in use). Obviously the only way to keep track of what is being done are the screenshots of the hands played. So I had time to organize the "Gallery" divided into "Screens" (only hands from slams also not declared)(94 hands), 2 Clubs (used when I made the topic on the defense against 2 Clubs to verify its use)(25 hands), Soloway Jump Shifts ( only hands of this type with indications on the Karen Library about that convention)(23 hands), Non-slam hands (partial contracts or with slam hands that do not have the conditions to continue in the bid)(50 hands), One-suit for Slam (weak 2 openings / at level 3 or 4(=barrage hands) for an opening suit ending in slam by the partner)(8 hands), MichaelsCappellettiUNT (only hands of this tipe)(3 hands).

[Lovera]

Some of the hands present in the "Gallery" are not recent but, as regards the slam contract, they are apted. The remaining majority part is not used to make statistics as they were deliberately "captured" in a short time (using the frequently repeated use of the "redeal") with predefined conditions (always the same) and, therefore, endorsing the hypothesis .I am saying that I want to present a "method" to increase the possibility of getting to bid slams without letting them slip away. This is something that was already present and used for another occasion but little known and that I have developed further (as usually you should always do when you become aware of something in order not to limit yourself unnecessarily). And now I provide the source:winning.pdf https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk A suggestion: it is not necessary that you see the whole pdf (it concerns the defense) since the author provides a few examples to verify its application in sacrifice bidding situations and develops the rest of the pdf on confirmation patterns and statistics, but stick to the concept of the initial part (if you like).

[Lovera]

Therefore the "Winning Trick Count" (WTC) will be used which has been clearly and thoroughly explained at the beginning of the pdf: length of opener's trumps + length of responder's trumps to which add the number of Aces, Kings and Queens in the hand opener's and that ones of responder's hand. Deducting 6 from the sum gives the game level. Except that while in the pdf it is explained "with cards seen" now it must be done instead at the table during the bidding phase. And that this speech was, for some, already considered, this screenshot seems to tell: https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk where the pair in N / S starting from level 3 (♦, ♥) then at level 4 (♣, ♦) Queens and Kings are reported continuing with 4NT to ask for the Aces. It could be said that it would have been better to do this also at the fifth level and, discovering that ♥ was not protected,to bid 5♠.

[Lovera]

Fortunately, the modern bidding is quite clear and descriptive, thus providing useful information on the length of the trump (since it is of interest for the "count") to both players. Regarding the number of the three top honors(A, K, Q), one part is displayed in the hand of a player and the other number can be deduced from the partner's bidding in this way: from the range in which that is placed, about pointings his/her bidding, you consider the minimum value (i.e. for the open bidding if the range is 12-14 / 15 the minimum value is 12) and divide it by three (this fact was independently verified by me then finding confirmation in the pdf) and you will have the number of top honors of the partner so that you can proceed to the final count (usually within the second round where the bidding is further defined for new additions or confirms the initial hypothesis). Initially (to improve) it is easy to check with GIB if, by repeatedly using 'redeal', you select an opening hand and at the same time you have a hand where you can use the Jacoby 2NT convention in response having something like this:https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk
After my cue-bid GIB goes directly in 6 ♠.

[Lovera]

However, here are the references that alert you to the possibility of a slam bidding: you must have a total of 17 (which corresponds to the 5.th level) or 16 but also having a second fit (which leads to having an additional trick, therefore arriving at 17) to bid the small slam. (This number could still be a little decreased but the slam that would be played would require additional conditions that would make it more "fragile"). For the grand slam 18 (or 17 with at least a 7-card suit on the line). Since there is the possibility of having two losers for the small slam, one of these must be necessary eliminable. Likewise for the grand slam there will be only one loser that must be eliminated but all suits must have a first round control. For this purpose the sequences such as Ace vs void, Ace / King stiff vs King / Ace x (doubleton), Kx vs AQx, up to a suit to be easily stabilized, where the long part of the sequence is opposite to the loser to be eliminated, are useful. It should be considered that if two suits are missing from the bidding where there are losers too this can mean that the points are concentrated in only two suits and, therefore, the slam should be avoided. Another point of attention if you have a sequence next to a loser to be eliminated which would therefore can be ineffective for the purpose.

[Lovera]

For hands with a void, the void is considered a "virtual Ace" to be inserted into the count. Sometimes the opener has only three top honors but in this case a length in some color provides an additional winner that brings the count back to four. I now present an interesting hand where the opener (with 4 winners) receives a splinter in response which shows an hand with same force and strength most likely 6-4.With the RKB we get to know K in ♠, A and K in ♥. Now this WTC impacts with the RKB in the sense that it is known that there is still a Q to be placed (untold in RKB and here in ♦ making a small sequence). But, sometimes, there can be two possibilities that make the difference between a small and a grand slam depending on its position (as you can see in the hand we would have a suit at least 7.th which brings the count to 18 usefull for bidding a grand slam that is here). I would have found a way to resolve or limit the ambiguity of that position through another convention. This is the hand:https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk

[Lovera]

The winning pdf explaining WTC (= Winning Trick Count) was found on a BBO sub-Forum but I don't remember which one (probably it had as subject the Law of Total Tricks or the Losing Trick Count) while I remember that the page before opening the pdf had a small index on the left and, looking down with other items in the column so if someone had identified the topic he could indicate it since this "count" had been developed for the bidding in defense as well as for completeness of speech. When I said "Initially (to improve)" I was not referring to the playing skill but to the verification of this method and its results with GIB. In this regard and in this phase it is not necessary to convert a small slam into 6NT which certainly gains more IMPs but it is better to leave the plan to suit to preserve the cutting power that can allow an extra trick. Still always in this first phase you don't have to worry about bidding a grand slam but just play for the small by registering that you have made an extra trick (there will be time later to apply) and, if playing a small slam you go down it doesn't matter if the slam has been made and bidded by other players or if the analysis tells that you can realize it. What matters only is that at least a small slam is bidded. Having up to now quite sufficiently provided indications on its use, I invite you to participate in the speech on this new evaluation method for slam research, thanks.

[Lovera]

I still present 2 screenshots of hands taken from the List of Interesting Tables: in the first the fourth card in Diamonds being a winner allows you to discard the loser of Hearts or to make 13 tricks for all the pairs that have not had the opening lead in that suit while in the second according to the biddings at level 3 they seem to indicate the top honors and the repeated sequence in Diamonds allows to discard the losers of Spades so as to have the possibility to ruff for 12 tricks. Once again I urge you to participate by interpreting this "silence" as a surprise for a new speech and which, as you can see, also works in other situations (Don't leave me this way): hand n. 1) https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk hand n. 2)https://drive.google...ew?usp=drivesdk

[Lovera]

I asked to integrate the speech considering what I have detailed and that can be further implemented as well as to find the post that explains what the Winning Trick Count is (from which the "winning" pdf is taken and which was inserted in a thread with dialogue relative) thing that should be easier on BBO's part. As mentioned, I use GIB in P.A. as a research gadget usefully used for the verification of situations for which feedback is needed (also for a comparison of results / indications generally speaking).

[Lovera]

As already requested, I would like to have some comments on what I have proposed (also in order not to make a speech without any reply) which can be of help or address to possibly redefine the path better or even just confirmation so as to proceed with a first analysis since the hands "extracted" (with the indicated characteristics) are not few in the gallery (about a hundred or so for the useful ones). Thanks in advance.

[Lovera]

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.