There is a logical mistake in your code. On line 111, you checked if(k[i].size()==5) so on line 137, you should check if(k[i].size()==1) instead of ==2.

OK, you took a block like this:

        g+char(t+'A');
        v.resize(0);
        for(i=0;i<k[t].size();i++)
        {
            v.pb(k[t][i]);
        }
        for(i=0;i<5;i++)
        {
            k[i].resize(0);
        }
        for(i=0;i<1;i++)
        {
            cout<<5*v[i]+4;
            s++;
            cout<<endl;
            //char a;
            cin>>a;
            k[a-'A'].pb(v[i]);
        }
        for(i=0;i<5;i++)
        {
            if(k[i].size()==1)
            {
                t=i;
                break;
            }
        }

And then you copied it a few times.

By hand.

Changed some values on the way (probability of mistake increases with each such change).

Changed the header for every block except the first one (clearing the variables for reuse, instead of creating them in a scope every time). Again, bear in mind that, in every place you change, there is a probability that your change is incorrect, so more changes means more bugs, on average.

Then it happens that each block has a bug which was copied to each of them. Once more, fixing the same bug in five places is more likely to go wrong than fixing it just once in one place, as we can see with the g+char(t+'A'); situation.

Instead, we can stop and think: what changes between such blocks? Looks like it's just a couple of constants, and they can be used as parameters. So you can declare the constants that change as, well, arrays of constants in your program. And then loop four or five times, with the loop body representing one block. Or maybe declare a function instead of a loop body, and call it five times with different parameters. As a bonus, if you declare local variables like v64 v; inside the loop body, or inside the function body, you don't have to clear them before each such block.

Why would the programmer do the repetitive work of copying, changing, then fixing the bugs in five places? Repetitive jobs are best delegated to the computer, it's powerful at doing them.