- Wednesday Aft - December 27, 2017

? Explanation of report features  
Download hands in PDF or PBN format (Right click and choose “Save Link As...” in Firefox or “Save Target As...” in IE)
Jump directly to board 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 27 28 29 30
Field strength:  Mean: 18 MP  Geomean: 14 MP
(based on 9 players, 3 non ACBL players ignored)
★ ★ ★  Masterpoint Winners  ★ ★ ★
Partnership Pct Rank MP
Bob Deal - Merrily Lewis 60.00 1st A 0.36
Richard Cathcart - Robert Carrier 56.25 2nd A 0.25
EVENT>49er Pairs               |SESSION>Wednesday Aft|SECTION> B
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
DATE>December 27, 2017  |CLUB NO.>131102    | 12/27/2017 15:31
---------------------,-- ------------------- -------------,---------------------
DIR> Tom Ciacio      |RATING>Club Masterpoint (60%, 50%, 30% Open)|MOVEMENT>ONE WINNER
------------,-------- ,-------------------------,--------- ---------------------
AVE>   20.0 |TOP>   2 |MP LIMITS>50/20/9        |CLUB>Ventura Unit Bridge Club
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=6/B=4/C=3                       ,---,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |           Section       |      |Section  |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 1 Ken Richardson         Patty Richardson         C    .     .     .     18.00  45.00
 2 Robert Boschan         Bobbie Boschan           A    .     .     .     18.00  45.00
 3 Judy Roberts           Vi Schroder              C    .     .     .     17.50  43.75
 4 Merrily Lewis          Bob Deal                 B    1     1     .     24.00  60.00  0.36(A)
 5 Ernestine Fickerson    Bert Fickerson           A    .     .     .     20.00  50.00
 6 Robert Carrier         Richard Cathcart         C    2     2     1     22.50  56.25  0.25(A)
                                          Totals                         120.00

Hands and Results
1 ♠KQJ9
98
82
♣KT865
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠T753
QJT52
53
♣32
♠A86
A63
AKJ97
♣J7
♠42
K74
QT64
♣AQ94
9
317
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 1 2NT  ♥5 ♠6
EW: 2  ♣4 ♦6 ♠4/5 NT4
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: +100 3*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          2.00   0.00  2 E -2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
   50          1.00   1.00  2 E -1   B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        140    0.00   2.00  2 E +1   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B4-Lewis-Deal

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 Pass1Pass
1Pass2NTPass
3Pass3All pass

I admit that if I were holding the E/W cards, I would get too high on this hand, and I expect that to happen at many tables. A couple of weeks ago, I suggested opening 1NT on an 18 HCP hand that had 4333 distribution and a lot of queens and jacks. On this hand, the East is an example of the opposite principle. With a great five card suit, and a hand full of Aces and Kings, the East hand looks too good to open 1NT, despite holding 17 HCP. As it happens, on the actual hand, opening 1NT will work out better, as West will get their side to the last making contract, 2 either by using Stayman or by transferring. If East opens 1 instead, either West will pass and North will also pass, or North will compete and N/S will get to a making NT contract, or West will bid 1 and E/W will end up too high. All of these results are worse for E/W than making 2, of course. If East does open 1, should West bid? With both majors and poor support, it's usually right to be a little pushy in bidding over 1, particularly non-vulnerable. However, with only 3 HCP, passing is certainly not the worst bid ever.

Assuming West does bid 1 and East jumps to 2NT, what should West do now? Some pairs will be playing something known as Wolff Sign-off and West can sign off in 3. Even if not playing that, though, West should attempt to get to a major suit fit, as their hand is likely to be almost useless in a NT contract. West can bid 3 and when East shows three card support, East can quickly pass. E/W will go down one in 3 and 1 but both contracts will be better than 2NT which will go down at least two and possibly three tricks. If N/S declare a NT contract, eight tricks are easy, and nine tricks will be made if the defense doesn't work on the suit off the get go.



****************************************
Comments? Questions?

CLICK HERE to submit a question or join the BridgeWinners.com board discussion.

CLICK HERE or email me directly at krhorneman11@gmail.com

2 ♠AKQ6
4
AJ73
♣A965
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠J984
KQ
KQ654
♣83
♠T73
AJT9852
-
♣K74
♠52
763
T982
♣QJT2
18
118
3
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3 1/-♠  ♥4 ♠7/6 NT5
EW: 3 2NT  ♣4 ♦4 ♠5
LoTT: 18 - 17 = +1
Par: -140 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        570    2.00   0.00  2* E +1  B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        590    1.00   1.00  4* E     B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        630    0.00   2.00  3* E +1  B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B4-Lewis-Deal

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
  4Pass
PassDblAll pass 

At favorable vulnerability, many will open the East hand 4, though some will certainly open 3 as well. Whichever opening bid East chooses, the next two players will pass and North will double. If East's opening bid was 4, I think South should pass the double. South is far from confident that the contract can be beaten, although at this vulnerability, North should have a pretty good hand. The general principle is, though, that the higher the level at which your partner is making a Negative Double , the more often you should choose to pass if you don't have nice distribution of your own. Partner is much more likely to have a good hand with less than perfect takeout double distribution when they have to double a high level contract at their first chance to bid. South knows that their hand is likely worth zero tricks on defense, but can hope that North has enough defense on their own to beat the contract, and passing looks better than trying to play in a minor suit contract at the five level. If East has only opened 3, then it's a different situation for South. Passing is more dangerous, as North now needs one more trick on defense, plus North has doubled a contract one level lower, so they will, on average have a less strong hand. Unfortunately for South, their will be no way to get North to pick a minor over a double of a 3 opening bid. South will do better to choose 4 as this will likely end the bidding. 4 is likely to get doubled by West and will end up down at least one. In a contract, South is likely to lead a black suit, and the defense should end up with four tricks. If South leads a , declarer might make 10 tricks, although careful defensive play can still prevent declarer from getting a ruff. Any positive E/W result on this board should be good for them.



****************************************
Comments? Questions?

CLICK HERE to submit a question or join the BridgeWinners.com board discussion.

CLICK HERE or email me directly at krhorneman11@gmail.com

3 ♠7
QT762
Q
♣QJ7432
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠QT6
K854
AK872
♣A
♠AKJ
3
J543
♣KT865
♠985432
AJ9
T96
♣9
7
1612
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦1 ♥5 ♠3/4 NT2
EW: 2♣ 6 2 3♠ 5NT
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: -1370 6-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        600    2.00   0.00  5 E      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        630    0.50   1.50  3N W +1   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B4-Lewis-Deal
        630    0.50   1.50  3N W +1   B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
   Pass
12NT33
3NTAll pass  

Although 6 is a decent contract, E/W will have a hard time getting there, whether North bids or not and I expect most to settle in 3NT. Even at favorable vulnerability, the South is so terrible, that opening 2 isn't really an option. Some will certainly do it anyway, in an attempt to be maximally destructive, but it's not a bid I would recommend. If West is allowed to open 1, North has a much better hand for bidding than South does. At any other vulnerability, North should eye their poor suit quality and pass, but with a 6-5 hand and favorable vulnerability, North can bid 2NT, showing the two lowest unbid suits (i.e. s and s.) Several bidding approaches are popular when the opponents have shown a two suited hand with both suits known. One approach is to use cue bids of the known suits to show good hands in partner's suit or in the Fourth Suit , allowing you to bid the fourth suit naturally and non-forcing. Under that agreement, East's 3 bid would show a good hand for s on the bidding shown. Another approach is to cue bid the suit you have stopped, looking for NT. In that case, East's 3 bid would promise a stopper here. Either approach can work, and this is something worth discussing with your regular partners. East could also double here, showing a desire to penalize at least one of the opponents suits. However, East can be pretty confident that N/S are headed to a contract and not a contract, and East has too good a hand for s and for NT to want to defend at this vulnerability.

With the Ace onside, and the suit coming in for no losers, 6 will make, but most of the matchpoints will be decided by how many tricks declarer makes in NT. 11 tricks looks likely, but if North leads a , declarer might run all of their tricks before leading a , and this will set up tricks for South, holding declarer to 10 tricks. Any E/W pair who defend 3 can, theoretically set it by four tricks, and will need to do so to have a good score.



****************************************
Comments? Questions?

CLICK HERE to submit a question or join the BridgeWinners.com board discussion.

CLICK HERE or email me directly at krhorneman11@gmail.com

4 ♠KQJ9872
AKQ53
6
♣-
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠T5
T762
AT97
♣Q84
♠64
98
QJ52
♣A7532
♠A3
J4
K843
♣KJT96
15
67
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 1 6 6♠ 2NT
EW:  ♣6 ♦6 ♥1 ♠1 NT1
LoTT: 18 - 17 = +1
Par: +1430 6♠-NS/6-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
 1430          2.00   0.00  6♠ N      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
  680          1.00   1.00  4♠ N +2   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B4-Lewis-Deal
  230          0.00   2.00  3♠ N +3   B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
Pass1Pass1NT
Pass3Pass4NT
Pass6All pass 

North has a powerful two suited hand, and will not have an easy way to bid it. North really wants to be able to use "Exclusion Blackwood" to ask for keycards excluding the suit, but most pairs will not have a way to do this unless South is able to raise s at some point. One possibility is to open 2 but what will North's plan be after that? Let's say South bids 2 waiting. North can jump to 3, setting trump, but a 4 bid by South over that doesn't help North. A 4 bid by South would mean North can now ask for keycards, knowing South doesn't have a high honor, but this is the only good possibility, and North has hidden the suit, which might be the best place to play.

Alternately, North can open 1. This isn't particularly dangerous, as North's distribution and HCP make it virtually impossible that this will pass out. Furthermore E/W cannot preempt high enough to make North uncomfortable about bidding again. South is almost, but not quite good enough to force game and should start with 1NT. North can now jump shift to 3. At first it looks like South has a comfortable 3NT rebid. However, the South hand is really too good for that over North's jump shift. With a maximum, good minor suit honors, a possible source of tricks, and useful major suit cards, South can make a natural 4NT rebid. If you play that 4NT is keycard asking for the last bid suit, then you will be really stuck for a bid with a hand like South has here. If South were to choose 3NT, would a 5 bid by North be Exclusion Blackwood for s? It's an interesting, but mostly academic question, as few pairs will be sophisticated enough to make that bid.

So, it looks like in almost all circumstances, North will just be forced to jump to slam at some point, hoping that South has one of the Aces that North needs, or perhaps that the defense leads s and South can provide a trick there. All is well on the actual hand as South not only has the Ace, but also a useful Jack. If East leads the Ace, this will not work out well for E/W as declarer will now have an easy time making all 13 tricks. +1460 should be a top score for N/S, and top E/W results will come when North is too conservative and only bids game.



****************************************
Comments? Questions?

CLICK HERE to submit a question or join the BridgeWinners.com board discussion.

CLICK HERE or email me directly at krhorneman11@gmail.com

5 ♠T85
A764
6
♣96532
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠K76
Q
AQ9432
♣AJ7
♠J2
K932
KT875
♣Q8
♠AQ943
JT85
J
♣KT4
4
169
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: -/1♣  ♣6/7 ♦2 ♥6 ♠6 NT3
EW: 5 3NT  ♣6 ♥6 ♠6
LoTT: 18 - 19 = -1
Par: -400 3NT-EW/5-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        150    2.00   0.00  2 W +3   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        400    0.50   1.50  5 W      B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B4-Lewis-Deal
        400    0.50   1.50  5 W      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
6 ♠7
J9854
J54
♣8652
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠AKQ52
T63
Q62
♣Q7
♠J98
AKQ7
AK3
♣KT9
♠T643
2
T987
♣AJ43
2
1320
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣3 ♦2 ♥2 ♠1 NT1
EW: 3♣ 5 4 6♠ 6NT
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: -1440 6NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        660    2.00   0.00  3N E +2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
       1430    1.00   1.00  6♠ E      B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B4-Lewis-Deal
       1440    0.00   2.00  6N E      B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
7 ♠Q6
984
KQ2
♣KQT42
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠AT543
AJ72
9754
♣-
♠K2
T53
AT8
♣J9765
♠J987
KQ6
J63
♣A83
12
98
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 1NT  ♦4/5 ♥4 ♠5
EW: 2/1 2 1/2♠  ♣6 NT6
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: -110 2♠-W/2-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  110          2.00   0.00  3♣ N      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
        100    0.50   1.50  2N N -1   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        100    0.50   1.50  3♣ N -1   B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B4-Lewis-Deal
8 ♠A5
J8
AT32
♣KJ532
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠QJT98
AQ975
J
♣AQ
♠42
KT642
985
♣T96
♠K763
3
KQ764
♣874
13
163
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 5 1NT  ♥4 ♠5
EW: 3  ♣2 ♦2 ♠6 NT6
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: +300 5*-EW-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        140    1.50   0.50  2 W +1   B3-Roberts-Schroder vs B4-Lewis-Deal
        140    1.50   0.50  2 W +1   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        420    0.00   2.00  4 W      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
9 ♠84
9542
AT8
♣KJ85
Dlr: North
Vul: E-W
♠KT3
A63
Q3
♣T9642
♠Q9652
KQ8
KJ5
♣A7
♠AJ7
JT7
97642
♣Q3
8
915
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦5 ♥5 ♠3 NT4
EW: 2♣ 1 1 4♠ 3/2NT
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: -620 4♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        150    2.00   0.00  2N E +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
        180    1.00   1.00  2N E +2   B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
        620    0.00   2.00  4♠ E      B4-Lewis-Deal vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
10 ♠J43
65
AKT97
♣932
Dlr: East
Vul: Both
♠9852
Q32
Q52
♣AJ6
♠A6
984
J84
♣T8754
♠KQT7
AKJT7
63
♣KQ
8
95
18
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 4 4 4♠ 2NT
EW:  ♣6 ♦3 ♥3 ♠2 NT5
LoTT: 16 - 15 = +1
Par: +620 4♠-NS/4-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  600          2.00   0.00  3N S      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
  170          1.00   1.00  2♠ S +2   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  140          0.00   2.00  2♠ S +1   B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
11 ♠A653
T42
KT9
♣A74
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠JT
AK65
AQ86
♣T63
♠KQ9874
QJ987
7
♣K
♠2
3
J5432
♣QJ9852
11
1411
4
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 3 1NT  ♥2 ♠2
EW: 4 5♠  ♣3 ♦3 NT6
LoTT: 20 - 18 = +2
Par: -300 6♣*-NS-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          2.00   0.00  4 E -1   B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
        450    1.00   1.00  4 W +1   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        690    0.00   2.00  4* W +1  B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
12 ♠2
AJ8642
AKQ85
♣2
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠AT984
53
J9642
♣6
♠K6
KQ7
73
♣KQT854
♠QJ753
T9
T
♣AJ973
14
513
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 2 4/3 1♠ 1NT
EW:  ♣6 ♦5 ♥3 ♠5/6 NT5
LoTT: 16 - 15 = +1
Par: +620 4-S
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  620          1.50   0.50  4 N      B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
  620          1.50   0.50  4 N      B4-Lewis-Deal vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        100    0.00   2.00  5 N -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
13 ♠Q853
95
K87
♣QJ83
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠AK2
KJT4
AQ5
♣965
♠JT74
8632
T3
♣K72
♠96
AQ7
J9642
♣AT4
8
174
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2/3♣ 2/3 -/1 1/2♠ 1NT
       ♥6/7
EW:  ♣4 ♦4 ♥6 ♠5 NT5/4
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: +110 2♠-N/3-N/3♣-N
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          2.00   0.00  1N W -4   B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
  200          1.00   1.00  1N W -2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Lewis-Deal
   90          0.00   2.00  1N S      B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
14 ♠JT63
Q4
K3
♣A9542
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠9
9765
QJ542
♣KQJ
♠AK2
AK83
986
♣T87
♠Q8754
JT2
AT7
♣63
10
914
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♠  ♣6 ♦4 ♥4 NT6
EW: 1♣ 3 2 1NT  ♠5
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: -100 3♠*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          2.00   0.00  1 E -1   B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
        110    1.00   1.00  2 E      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Lewis-Deal
        140    0.00   2.00  2 E +1   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
15 ♠T6
92
AKJT2
♣K842
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠QJ975
Q6
76
♣AQJ7
♠K32
KT873
943
♣96
♠A84
AJ54
Q85
♣T53
11
126
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 3 1 2NT  ♠5
EW: 1♠  ♣5 ♦4 ♥6 NT5
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +120 2NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  110          2.00   0.00  3 N      B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
  100          1.00   1.00  4♠ W -2   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
        200    0.00   2.00  3 S -2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Lewis-Deal
16 ♠-
KQT6
K843
♣KQ752
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠K97
J72
752
♣J983
♠AQ642
A9
JT6
♣AT6
♠JT853
8543
AQ9
♣4
13
515
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2 3 1♠ 1/-NT
       NT7/6
EW:  ♣5 ♦4 ♥4 ♠6 NT5
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: +140 3-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  500          2.00   0.00  2♠* E -2  B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Lewis-Deal
  120          1.00   1.00  1N S +1   B5-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B2-Boschan-Boschan
  110          0.00   2.00  2 N      B1-Richardson-Richardson vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
27 ♠64
T74
JT963
♣KQ3
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠Q5
K962
AK2
♣J954
♠AKT3
QJ
84
♣T8762
♠J9872
A853
Q75
♣A
6
1310
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1  ♣4 ♥5 ♠4 NT5
EW: 3♣ 2/1 3♠ 2NT  ♦6
LoTT: 16 - 17 = -1
Par: -140 3♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  150          2.00   0.00  3N W -3   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        110    1.00   1.00  1♠ E +1   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
        430    0.00   2.00  3N E +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
28 ♠A9852
J4
874
♣QT5
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠K7
KQT85
Q92
♣A42
♠Q43
97632
J3
♣K98
♠JT6
A
AKT65
♣J763
7
146
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 3 2♠  ♥4 NT6
EW: 2  ♣5 ♦4 ♠4 NT6
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: +100 3*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          2.00   0.00  3 W -1   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        140    0.50   1.50  2 W +1   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
        140    0.50   1.50  2 W +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
29 ♠AK
AQ753
65
♣KQ96
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠QJ832
J
Q9843
♣82
♠T96
K94
AKT7
♣A53
♠754
T862
J2
♣JT74
18
614
2
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 3  ♦3 ♠3 NT6
EW: 3 3♠ 1NT  ♣4 ♥4
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: -140 3♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  140          1.50   0.50  3 N      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  140          1.50   0.50  1 N +2   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B1-Richardson-Richardson
        110    0.00   2.00  3 E      B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
30 ♠AQJ98
8
K
♣AK9873
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠KT752
A9762
76
♣4
♠64
J53
AT98532
♣5
♠3
KQT4
QJ4
♣QJT62
17
75
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 5♣ 3 3♠ 5NT  ♦6
EW:  ♣2 ♦6 ♥4 ♠4 NT2
LoTT: 17 - 20 = -3
Par: +460 5NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  430          2.00   0.00  3N S +1   B2-Boschan-Boschan vs B3-Roberts-Schroder
  400          1.00   1.00  5♣ S      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  150          0.00   2.00  3 E -3   B4-Lewis-Deal vs B1-Richardson-Richardson