- Wednesday Aft - May 2, 2018

? 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Field strength:  Mean: 9 MP  Geomean: 5 MP
(based on 14 players, 10 non ACBL players ignored)
★ ★ ★  Masterpoint Winners  ★ ★ ★
Partnership Pct Rank MP
Joyce Tuttle - Kay Mendel 71.41 1st A 0.36
Bert Fickerson - Ernestine Fickerson 66.41 1st A 0.36
Carol Marquez-Olson - Linda Forsyth 57.35 2nd A 0.25
Richard Cathcart - Robert Carrier 48.91 2nd A 0.25
Jeanette Mueller - Lois McCampbell 47.98 2/3rd B 0.10
Carol Howe - Lucien Lacour 47.98 2/3rd B 0.10
Carolyn Price - Judy Shaw 45.79 1st B 0.12
EVENT>49er Pairs               |SESSION>Wednesday Aft|SECTION> B N-S
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
DATE>May 2, 2018        |CLUB NO.>131102    | 05/02/2018 15:30
---------------------,-- ------------------- -------------,---------------------
DIR> Tom Ciacio      |RATING>Club Masterpoint (60%, 40%, 30% Open)|MOVEMENT>MITCHELL
------------,-------- ,-------------------------,--------- ---------------------
AVE>   40.0 |TOP>   4 |MP LIMITS>50/10/5        |CLUB>Ventura Unit Bridge Club
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=6/B=4/C=2                       ,---,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |           Section       |      |Section  |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 1 Robert Carrier         Richard Cathcart         B    2     1     .     39.13  48.91  0.25(A)
 2 Kay Mendel             Joyce Tuttle             A    1     .     .     57.13  71.41  0.36(A)
 3 Bob Deal               Merrily Lewis            A    .     .     .     39.00  48.75
 4 Carol Howe             Lucien Lacour            B    .    2/3    .     38.38  47.98  0.10(B)
 5 Lois McCampbell        Jeanette Mueller         C    .    2/3    1     38.38  47.98  0.10(B)
 6 Yvonne Graczyk         Jessica Harris           C    .     .     .     27.37  34.21
                                          Totals                         239.39

EVENT>49er Pairs               |SESSION>Wednesday Aft|SECTION> B E-W
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
AVE>   40.0 |TOP>   4 |MP LIMITS>50/10/5        |CLUB>Ventura Unit Bridge Club
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=6/B=3/C=3                       ,---,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |           Section       |      |Section  |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 1 Judy Shaw              Carolyn Price            C    .     1     1     36.63  45.79  0.12(B)
 2 Carol Marquez-Olson    Linda Forsyth            A    2     .     .     45.88  57.35  0.25(A)
 3 Dana Johnson           Chris Johnson            A    .     .     .     44.50  55.63
 4 Chara Clark            Katarina Bernbaum        C    .     .     .     33.68  42.10
 5 Ernestine Fickerson    Bert Fickerson           A    1     .     .     53.13  66.41  0.36(A)
 6 Weldon Farris          Yvonne Farris            C    .     .     .     25.88  32.35
                                          Totals                         239.70

Hands and Results
1 ♠87
AT73
JT
♣A8632
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠A96432
J82
96
♣T4
♠KQJ
KQ96
K87
♣QJ7
♠T5
54
AQ5432
♣K95
9
517
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3 1NT  ♥6 ♠5
EW: 1 2♠  ♣2 ♦3 NT4
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: +100 3♠*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          4.00   0.00  4♠ E -2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B6-Farris-Farris
   50          3.00   1.00  3 W -1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Shaw-Price
         90    2.00   2.00  1N E      B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        140    0.50   3.50  2♠ E +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        140    0.50   3.50  2♠ E +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 Pass1NTPass
21Pass2All pass
  1. Transfer

Most pairs will arrive in 2 on this hand, usually declared by East. If E/W are using a weak NT, then West might be the declarer. The declarer will matter on this hand. If West is declarer, North is likely to lead the Jack, and the defense should have no problems taking their two tricks right away, and realizing that they need to cash out their winners when they get in with the Ace. However, in the more common event that East is the declarer in 2, things are more complicated for the defense. South has a good chance of leading a major. If South leads s, North can win the Ace, but now what? If North thinks that South has a singleton, they will continue s and declarer will quickly pull trump and discard one of their s losers on the suit. If South instead switches to a , it doesn't necessarily get any better for the defense. After South wins the second , they will know, since North will play the 10 on the second round, that North has a doubleton. Some deep analysis of the hand would make it clear that continuing s is only likely to gain North a trump trick if North holds specifically QJ, but many Souths will just continue s anyway without thinking too much about it. Even if South decides to switch, I expect that many will choose to switch to a second round of s, or a trump, not desiring to lead away from the King into the East 1NT opening. This isn't even an unreasonable defense, as East might well have a hand such as QJx Kxx Kxx AQJx or similar and leading a will be deadly. The bottom line is that the defense will be much harder if East declares 2, and I expect there will be many +140 scores in the E/W direction, perhaps outnumbering the +110 scores.

It happens that N/S will do well in a contract. However, it's hard to see how they can get there. Even if South has a natural 2 bid available over 1NT, North might not raise with only a doubleton in support, albeit a good doubleton. Most pairs use an artificial defense to 1NT, and this will make it even harder for N/S as South won't be able to show s right away and will be forced to decide whether to compete to 3 with a poor quality suit and no certainty that the opponents have even found a fit.



****************************************
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 ♠J5
97
9872
♣JT432
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠9432
KQJ6432
5
♣K
♠KT6
A8
AJ3
♣AQ985
♠AQ87
T5
KQT64
♣76
2
918
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1  ♣5 ♥2 ♠3 NT2
EW: 2♣ 5/4 4/3♠ 5NT  ♦6
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: -460 5NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          4.00   0.00  5 W -2   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        450    1.50   2.50  4 W +1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Shaw-Price
        450    1.50   2.50  4 W +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        450    1.50   2.50  4 W +1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B6-Farris-Farris
        450    1.50   2.50  4 W +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
  11
1Pass2NTPass
3Pass3Pass
4Pass4Pass
4NTPass5Pass
6All pass  

E/W might well get too high on this hand, perhaps after a lot of cue bidding. Many pairs will just play in game. Looking at just the E/W hands, 6 is not a bad contract. At worst, the contract depends on the Ace being onside, but on a lead of either s or s, the chance also exists of setting up a long if the suit breaks 4-3, witht he finesse as a fall back. After East opens the bidding, most South players will overcall 1. East isn't quite strong to open 2NT, but even if they do and end up declaring 6, unless South leads the Ace, the contract will be doomed. As it happens, if North leads the Jack against a contract, the defense will take the first three tricks and even 5 will not make. As this lead looks unlikely, any North player who finds it will end up with an excellent result even if E/W are just playing 4.

A few comments on the bidding are appropriate. Assuming the South overcalls 1, the North hand isn't really strong enough to raise, despite holding four card support. It might be a little tempting to bid 3 if North had a singleton somewhere, but passing looks best on the actual hand. The last thing North wants to do is to propel South into a 5 sacrifice over 4. Also, note that preempting is far less useful when both opponents have already had a chance to bid, as the opponents already know a good bit about each other's hands. Thus, a 3 bid on this sequence should show a good hand for playing s and not just a hand that wants to be disruptive. After East bids 2NT, you might wonder whether West's 3 bid is forcing? Unless you have a specific agreement otherwise, all bids are forcing if your partner jumps to 2NT opposite your response to his opening bid, whether the opponents have been bidding or not. With East having shown a strong hand, and West unlimited, it is very important to be able to explore for slam and not worry about your partner passing. Most experts would play that the 3 bid establishes that s are trump and asks East to cue bid if they have a good hand for slam. If West only wants to play s if East has support, then they can start by bidding 3 over 2NT to "check back" for support. Should East cooperate in a slam try, and if so, what should they bid? If the East hand could still be a minimal opener, then the cheapest cue bid (3 here) is the preferred way to progress towards slam. However, when East has shown significant extra values, many experts play that a cue bid shows concentrated values, better than just an Ace or King. With this agreement, East should bid 4, and now West will know that East doesn't have a great holding in s and will likely just sign off in 4. This is a useful agreement particularly if East has opened 2NT or stronger, but can apply after the jump to 2NT. However, this is not a standard agreement and you should research further before considering it in your serious partnerships.



****************************************
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 ♠9732
QJT32
AQ
♣75
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠Q
9875
K9742
♣KQ6
♠AKT64
A
JT83
♣T82
♠J85
K64
65
♣AJ943
9
1012
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1  ♣5 ♦3 ♠4 NT6
EW: 1♣ 4 1♠  ♥5 NT6
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: -130 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
         50    4.00   0.00  3 N -1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B6-Farris-Farris
        130    3.00   1.00  2 W +2   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        140    2.00   2.00  1♠ E +2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Shaw-Price
        150    0.50   3.50  1N W +2   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        150    0.50   3.50  3 N -3   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
   Pass
Pass112
DblPass3All pass

A contract by E/W will be common on this hand, though aggressive N/S pairs might give E/W some difficulties. Holding both majors, third seat, at favorable vulnerability, and with a good suit, I admit that I would open the North hand without thinking too much about it. 3 seems a likely contract whether North opens, passes throughout, or passes initially and then overcalls 2. It's possible, though, that if North passes originally, the bidding will be p-p-p-1-p-1NT-2-p-3-all pass.

A contract has at most three losers, and might have only two losers if the defense fails to cash their Ace. A contract by N/S in theory can be held to seven tricks, if East leads the Ace and then a low so that the South hand can be prevented from ruffing the fourth round of s, but in practice this well never happen. More likely, East will lead a high and the defense is likely to end up with five tricks. So, 3 will be a good spot for N/S even if it is doubled. +130 for E/W is likely to be the most common score, so doing better than that in either direction should score well for somebody.



****************************************
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 ♠9
J94
AT987
♣8732
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠A2
AK3
K543
♣QT64
♠Q8765
76
QJ62
♣KJ
♠KJT43
QT852
-
♣A95
5
169
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1  ♣5 ♦3 ♠5 NT5
EW: 2/1♣ 3/2 2/1♠ 2NT  ♥6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -120 2NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  200          4.00   0.00  2N W -2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B6-Farris-Farris
  140          3.00   1.00  3 S      B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Shaw-Price
        110    2.00   2.00  2♠ E      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        120    1.00   3.00  1N W +1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        180    0.00   4.00  2N W +2   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
1NTPass21Pass
2Pass2NTPass
3NTAll pass  
  1. Transfer

E/W will play in a NT contract at most tables, though I expect there to be a close to even split between those playing 2NT and those playing 3NT. Some South pairs might double a 2 transfer bid by East, and this will lead to further variations in the contract, and the result. Doubling 2 with the South hand is certainly dangerous, having the drawback that the opponents might redouble if North is short in s, or the final contract might be 2, rather than NT, in which case South probably doesn't want a lead and the double might aid the opponents in discovering the right place to play. The main advantage to doubling is if the opponents are going to play NT, you really don't want North leading a . This hand is the perfect example of this. If South, reasonably, passes 2, then North will be on lead against either 2NT or 3NT. If North leads a , or indeed anything other than a , then declarer has almost no chance of making nine tricks, as long as South doesn't get stuck leading a at some point. On a lead from North, however, declarer's chances go way up. Declarer can win the King and lead another . If North ducks this and South ducks two rounds of s, the hand will still be a little tricky for the declarer, but that requires a lot of careful defensive play and declarer can still make the contract with just a little care. . Most likely, declarer will end up with three tricks in each minor to go with their three top tricks in the majors. Making nine tricks will be an excellent score for E/W whether they are in game or not, though certainly the top scores will go to those who both bid and make 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 ♠K943
AJT76
9
♣AQ6
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠Q72
94
A765
♣KJT9
♠AJT5
Q3
QT43
♣743
♠86
K852
KJ82
♣852
14
109
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4 1♠ 2NT  ♣6 ♦6
EW:  ♣5 ♦6 ♥3 ♠6 NT5
LoTT: 16 - 17 = -1
Par: +620 4-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  620          4.00   0.00  4 N      B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  170          3.00   1.00  3 N +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  140          1.00   3.00  3 N      B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B1-Shaw-Price
  140          1.00   3.00  2 N +1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B6-Farris-Farris
  140          1.00   3.00  2 N +1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
6 ♠QT876
A7
842
♣T72
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠A953
64
T96
♣J853
♠J42
KQ52
KQJ5
♣A4
♠K
JT983
A73
♣KQ96
6
516
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣6 ♦5 ♥6 ♠6 NT6/5
EW: 2 1 1NT  ♣6 ♠6
LoTT: 14 - 14 = 0
Par: -90 1NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          4.00   0.00  3♣ W -3   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B6-Farris-Farris
         50    2.50   1.50  2N S -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B1-Shaw-Price
         50    2.50   1.50  2 S -1   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        100    1.00   3.00  2 S -2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        120    0.00   4.00  1N E +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
7 ♠KQJ84
-
AK64
♣8762
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠A76
T92
J983
♣KQ5
♠T
Q8754
QT5
♣AJT4
♠9532
AKJ63
72
♣93
13
109
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1 4♠ 1NT  ♣6 ♦4
EW: 1  ♣6 ♥6 ♠3 NT5
LoTT: 16 - 17 = -1
Par: +620 4♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  170          3.00   1.00  2♠ N +2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B6-Farris-Farris
  170          3.00   1.00  2♠ N +2   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  170          3.00   1.00  2♠ N +2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  140          1.00   3.00  3♠ N      B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B1-Shaw-Price
  100          0.00   4.00  2 W -1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
8 ♠KJ94
K9853
7
♣AT8
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠32
4
QJT632
♣K965
♠A765
AQJ62
98
♣74
♠QT8
T7
AK54
♣QJ32
11
611
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 3 3♠ 3NT  ♦6/5
EW: 1  ♣5 ♥4 ♠4 NT4
LoTT: 16 - 15 = +1
Par: +400 3NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  150          3.88   0.13  2N S +1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  110          2.63   1.38  2 N      B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B6-Farris-Farris
   50          1.38   2.63  2 E -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B1-Shaw-Price
        300    0.13   3.88  4* N -2  B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
9 ♠KT82
864
T5
♣T976
Dlr: North
Vul: E-W
♠A9
AT
K87642
♣K43
♠J754
KJ752
J93
♣8
♠Q63
Q93
AQ
♣AQJ52
3
146
17
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/2♣  ♦2 ♥4/5 ♠6 NT4
EW: 4 2 2NT  ♣5 ♠6
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: -130 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          4.00   0.00  3 E -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B6-Farris-Farris
         90    3.00   1.00  2 W      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        100    2.00   2.00  3♣ S -2   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B1-Shaw-Price
        110    0.50   3.50  3 W      B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        110    0.50   3.50  2 W +1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
10 ♠A5
AQT5
J53
♣QJ53
Dlr: East
Vul: Both
♠KT
874
K964
♣T872
♠Q98742
96
Q
♣K964
♠J63
KJ32
AT872
♣A
14
67
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/2♣ 5 5 2♠ 4NT
EW:  ♣4 ♦2 ♥1 ♠5 NT2
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +650 5-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  650          3.50   0.50  4 N +1   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B1-Shaw-Price
  650          3.50   0.50  4 N +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
  630          2.00   2.00  3N N +1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
  170          1.00   3.00  3 N +1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B6-Farris-Farris
  110          0.00   4.00  3 S      B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
11 ♠9
JT653
T873
♣A65
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠K753
AQ
J64
♣J932
♠62
7
AKQ952
♣KQ74
♠AQJT84
K9842
-
♣T8
5
1114
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4  ♣3/4 ♦2 ♠6 NT2
EW: 2♣ 4 5NT  ♥2 ♠4
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: -300 6*-NS-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          4.00   0.00  5* E -1  B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B1-Shaw-Price
   50          3.00   1.00  5 E -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B6-Farris-Farris
        150    1.50   2.50  4 N -3   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        150    1.50   2.50  3 E +2   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        610    0.00   4.00  4* E +1  B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
12 ♠72
AJ5
K83
♣98732
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠J6543
KQ8643
Q2
♣-
♠T9
T97
AT9765
♣AT
♠AKQ8
2
J4
♣KQJ654
8
88
16
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 1♠ 1NT  ♦5 ♥4
EW: 2 3  ♣3 ♠5 NT3
LoTT: 19 - 20 = -1
Par: +100 4*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  600          4.00   0.00  5♣ S      B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B1-Shaw-Price
  100          3.00   1.00  4 W -2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        100    1.00   3.00  5♣ S -1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        100    1.00   3.00  5♣ S -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B6-Farris-Farris
        100    1.00   3.00  5♣ S -1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
13 ♠J73
72
AKQJ
♣T976
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠K
KQJ96
T63
♣J842
♠Q8642
4
8754
♣AKQ
♠AT95
AT853
92
♣53
11
1011
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2 1 2♠ 2NT  ♣6
EW:  ♣6 ♦5 ♥5 ♠5 NT5
LoTT: 14 - 14 = 0
Par: +120 2NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          4.00   0.00  2♠ E -3   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B1-Shaw-Price
  200          3.00   1.00  3N E -2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
    PASS       1.50   2.50  Pass Out  B3-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
    PASS       1.50   2.50  Pass Out  B4-Howe-Lacour vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        200    0.00   4.00  2 N -2   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B6-Farris-Farris
14 ♠KJT4
JT6
KQJT7
♣Q
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠Q762
K43
86
♣T832
♠983
Q87
53
♣J9654
♠A5
A952
A942
♣AK7
13
53
19
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 7 6 6♠ 6NT
EW:  ♣3 ♦0 ♥1 ♠1 NT1
LoTT: 16 - 18 = -2
Par: +1440 7-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  490          3.50   0.50  5N S +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  490          3.50   0.50  3N S +3   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B6-Farris-Farris
  460          1.50   2.50  3N S +2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
  460          1.50   2.50  3N N +2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  440          0.00   4.00  5 N +2   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B1-Shaw-Price
15 ♠Q
QJT7
K87532
♣T8
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠AKT7
A62
Q94
♣972
♠J8652
953
-
♣AKQJ5
♠943
K84
AJT6
♣643
8
1311
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3  ♣1 ♥6 ♠1/0 NT2
EW: 6♣ 6♠ 1NT  ♦4 ♥6
LoTT: 21 - 19 = +2
Par: -980 6♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        100    4.00   0.00  3 N -1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        130    3.00   1.00  3♣ W +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        230    2.00   2.00  3♠ W +3   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B6-Farris-Farris
        450    1.00   3.00  4♠ W +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B1-Shaw-Price
        480    0.00   4.00  4♠ E +2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
16 ♠AQ874
T5
Q3
♣K864
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠K2
KJ86
A74
♣AJ72
♠J63
Q932
JT965
♣3
♠T95
A74
K82
♣QT95
11
164
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2♠ 1NT  ♦4 ♥4
EW: 2 2  ♣5 ♠4/5 NT6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +110 2♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          4.00   0.00  3N W -3   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B6-Farris-Farris
  140          3.00   1.00  1♠ N +2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  100          2.00   2.00  1N W -1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
   80          1.00   3.00  1♠ N      B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B1-Shaw-Price
         50    0.00   4.00  1♠ N -1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
17 ♠K92
A9742
QJT3
♣4
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠JT73
-
A98642
♣652
♠8654
KQJT5
5
♣AJT
♠AQ
863
K7
♣KQ9873
10
511
14
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 1 1 2NT  ♠5
EW: 2♠  ♣5 ♦5 ♥6 NT5
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: +100 3♠*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          4.00   0.00  3N N      B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  120          3.00   1.00  2N N      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Shaw-Price
   90          2.00   2.00  2♣ N      B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        100    1.00   3.00  3N S -2   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        150    0.00   4.00  2N S -3   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
18 ♠A8
A54
932
♣AQJ95
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠KQ6
J3
JT64
♣K874
♠T94
KT762
AQ87
♣2
♠J7532
Q98
K5
♣T63
15
109
6
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3/2♠ 3NT  ♦5 ♥6/5
EW: 1/2 -/1
       ♣4 ♥6/7 ♠4 NT4
LoTT: 17 - 16 = +1
Par: +300 4*-W-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  130          4.00   0.00  2♣ N +2   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  120          2.50   1.50  2N N      B4-Howe-Lacour vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
  120          2.50   1.50  1N N +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Shaw-Price
  110          1.00   3.00  2♣ N +1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        200    0.00   4.00  2♠ S -2   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
19 ♠AJ6
T84
J987
♣T64
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠75
AQ96
AT52
♣A72
♠432
J753
Q43
♣KJ3
♠KQT98
K2
K6
♣Q985
6
147
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♠  ♣6 ♦5 ♥4 NT5
EW: 1/-♣ 2 3 1NT  ♣7/6 ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -140 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  110          4.00   0.00  2♠ S      B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
         50    2.50   1.50  3♠ S -1   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
         50    2.50   1.50  2♠ S -1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Shaw-Price
        100    0.50   3.50  3♠ S -2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        100    0.50   3.50  2♠ S -2   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
20 ♠QJ52
4
KQT65
♣J65
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠74
AQ8632
A43
♣KQ
♠K86
KJT7
J98
♣T42
♠AT93
95
72
♣A9873
9
158
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3 4♠  ♥5 NT5
EW: 2 1NT  ♣4 ♦4 ♠3
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: +620 4♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          3.00   1.00  4 W -1   B1-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  100          3.00   1.00  4 W -1   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  100          3.00   1.00  4 W -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        140    0.50   3.50  3 W      B4-Howe-Lacour vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        140    0.50   3.50  2 W +1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Shaw-Price
21 ♠KQ96
T
QT832
♣K98
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠T2
J43
J9765
♣632
♠J43
AK98
K4
♣QT54
♠A875
Q7652
A
♣AJ7
10
213
15
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3 3 5♠ 3NT
EW:  ♣4 ♦4 ♥4 ♠2 NT4
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: +650 5♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  600          4.00   0.00  3N N      B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
  180          3.00   1.00  2N S +2   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  170          2.00   2.00  2♠ N +2   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B6-Farris-Farris
  110          1.00   3.00  2♠ N      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        100    0.00   4.00  2N S -1   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
22 ♠AJ876
T5
AKJ4
♣T6
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠43
Q642
T
♣AQJ982
♠5
AJ93
Q98532
♣54
♠KQT92
K87
76
♣K73
13
97
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♠ -/2NT
       ♣4 ♦5/6 ♥3 NT6/8
EW: 2♣ 1 4  ♠3 NT5
LoTT: 20 - 18 = +2
Par: +200 5*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  450          3.50   0.50  4♠ S +1   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
  450          3.50   0.50  4♠ N +1   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B6-Farris-Farris
  420          2.00   2.00  4♠ N      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
         50    1.00   3.00  4♠ N -1   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        100    0.00   4.00  6♠ S -2   B4-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
23 ♠A
KQJ8
AQJT62
♣Q2
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠932
A3
K954
♣K986
♠KT8654
T4
83
♣A75
♠QJ7
97652
7
♣JT43
19
107
4
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 3 4 2NT  ♠5
EW: 2♠  ♣6 ♦4 ♥3 NT5
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: +500 4♠*-EW-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  600          4.00   0.00  3N N      B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B6-Farris-Farris
  300          3.00   1.00  3♠ E -3   B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
  110          2.00   2.00  3 S      B4-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        100    1.00   3.00  4 S -1   B3-Deal-Lewis vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        300    0.00   4.00  4♣ N -3   B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
24 ♠J4
KT7
T8
♣KQJ842
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠AK7532
AQ9
Q3
♣AT
♠Q
J8653
AJ974
♣65
♠T986
42
K652
♣973
10
198
3
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣  ♦2 ♥2 ♠3 NT4
EW: 4 5 3♠ 1NT  ♣5
LoTT: 19 - 17 = +2
Par: -450 5-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        140    3.50   0.50  3♠ W      B2-Mendel-Tuttle vs B3-Johnson-Johnson
        140    3.50   0.50  3♠ W      B5-McCampbell-Mueller vs B4-Clark-Bernbaum
        170    2.00   2.00  2♠ W +2   B6-Graczyk-Harris vs B6-Farris-Farris
        420    0.50   3.50  4♠ W      B3-Deal-Lewis vs B5-Fickerson-Fickerson
        420    0.50   3.50  4 E      B4-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth