Secrets of Trapping Pieces: Bishop Dominated by Pawns Part 4 of 5

I'll presume everyone has played enough to have trapped a Bishop with pawns, or had a Bishop trapped by pawns. But there is quite a variety of traps that Bishops can fall into--and the defender may have ways to make those traps partially or fully ineffective. 

"Some General Observations" were presented in Part 1. I won't repeat that material here for the sake of brevity, merely point to it.  Secrets of Trapping Pieces--Bishop Dominated by Pawns Part 1 of 5 - Chess.com

CRITICAL POINT that bears repeating: Just because a piece is trapped, does not mean you are necessarily winning or losing. It's just one feature of the game.

The most interesting aspect of these two configurations is that the Bishops are shown as potentially trapped behind their own pawns. And blocked by their own pawns on both diagonals along which the Bishop would normally be peering. And if the side battling against the blocked Bishop can blockade those enemy pawns, preferably with a Knight on at least one of the squares (preferably the more central square) then there may be some claim to an advantage.

It is useful to note that such configurations occur quite frequently.

Right-Hand Side
Obviously a more compressed situation. If my Bishop were trapped thus on the third rank I would, in general, consider the situation a bit more temperamental, prone to flare ups and disagreements, than the situation seen in the left-hand side.

How might this have happened?
White sacrificed a pawn on f4 and then pushed the g-pawn to g5.

Left-Hand Side
Differences. 
A. A potentially significant difference is that the Bishop is both one file closer to the center and one rank further up the board. Certainly this may offer the Bishop more opportunities in the hinterland, on their own territory.
B. The pawns are also one rank and file closer to the center of the board. This suggests that the pawns may have more influence, hindering the movement of enemy forces. Conversely, White has more room behind the pawns, suggesting more flexibility. That said, the pawns might be overextended.
C. There is no enemy pawn on c5. This choice was made to showt that it is conceivable that this configuration could occur with an an enemy piece directly in front of the trapped Bishop.

An observation based on the above. White might have opportunities to play boa constrictor and keep Black's forces tied up based on those relatively advanced pawns. Were they both on the sixth rank that would certainly be a consideration.

How might this have happened?
In the same manner as for the Right-hand side, or any number of other ways. The most important thing is to be aware of some examples and how to best proceed for either side. After all, one day you might be on one side of the board, and in another round you might find your position reversed!

A SUGGESTION BEFORE YOU GET STARTED ON THE PUZZLES
For learning purposes, you might want to take some mental or other notes on how you would assess the position before starting and after completing the puzzles you suspect are difficult. Nothing too deep, just some key points. Then compare your thoughts to my assessment.

Brinck Claussen, Bjorn 2320 - Hove, Esben 2300 Copenhagen ch 1998
A relatively standard Caro-Kann opening. Brinck Claussen won several games with this line as White in the late 1990s. Black can go astray if not properly prepared. White now makes a well-known pawn sacrifice to achieve a position in which Black's light-squared Bishop is stranded, at least temporarily, behind its own pawns. Standard fare in the opening, not such a pleasure on the third rank as the middle game is about to commence. How did White proceed?

Brinck Claussen, Bjorn 2320 - Hove, Esben 2300 Copenhagen ch 1998
From the prior position play continued for a few more moves until reaching this position. White is still a pawn down but has much more space in the center and that well-posted Knight on f4. Still, given enough time Black may eventually lock the position up, consolidate, and seek chances over the long haul. What did White play?

Brinck Claussen, Bjorn 2320 - Hove, Esben 2300 Copenhagen ch 1998 Analytic line
In the last puzzle we noted that 12.Bh3 was also a very good move. Let's examine what happens if Black focuses immediately on developing the Queenside, attempting to unpack that cluster of Knights on b8 and c8 by playing 12...Nd7.

Shabalov, Alexander 2566 - Lohou, Staphane 2165 Bayern-chI Bank Hofmann 3rd 24.10.1999
The three previous puzzles all looked at one game and some analytic lines thereof. But the starting position has been reached multiple times. So now we move to a different game that demonstrates what can happen if Black tries to free the Bishop on g6 by pushing their pawn to f4 as soon as possible! Black just played 9...f4. They clearly feared that White would blockade the f-pawn and perhaps the h-pawn. The thematic 9...c5 break was best, giving White's central pawn mass a vigorous shake. But this is a different approach. Find the best plan for White.

New puzzle, new game...same opening! We repeat some of the opening moves as repetition is our friend.

Carlsen, Magnus 2832 - Topalov, Veselin 2749 Paris GCT Blitz 24.06.2017 #1
Black just played 26...f4?! The idea is to trap White's Bishop behind their own pawns on f4 and h4. It's blitz, so Topalov relies on a concept that often works, but is not appropriate here if White responds correctly.

Carlsen, Magnus 2832 - Topalov, Veselin 2749 Paris GCT Blitz 24.06.2017 #2
In the game Carlsen played 28.f5 sacrificing the pawn back immediately in order to liberate his Bishop. How would Topalov probably have responded if White had played 28.Nd2 instead?