- Wednesday Aft - September 26, 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 31 32 33 34
Field strength:  Mean: 20 MP  Geomean: 17 MP
(based on 6 players, 6 non ACBL players ignored)
★ ★ ★  Masterpoint Winners  ★ ★ ★
Partnership Pct Rank MP
Joyce Tuttle - Kay Mendel 71.25 1st A 0.36
Bert Fickerson - Ernestine Fickerson 62.50 2nd A 0.25
Richard Cathcart - Robert Carrier 53.75 2nd B 0.18
EVENT>49er Pairs               |SESSION>Wednesday Aft|SECTION> B
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
DATE>September 26, 2018 |CLUB NO.>131102    | 09/26/2018 15:16
---------------------,-- ------------------- -------------,---------------------
DIR> Tom Ciacio      |RATING>Club Masterpoint (60%, 50%, 40% Open)|MOVEMENT>ONE WINNER
------------,-------- ,-------------------------,--------- ---------------------
AVE>   20.0 |TOP>   2 |MP LIMITS>50/30/15       |CLUB>Ventura Unit Bridge Club
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=6/B=5/C=3                       ,---,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |           Section       |      |Section  |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 1 Joyce Tuttle           Kay Mendel               B    1     1     .     28.50  71.25  0.36(A)
 2 Dana Johnson           Chris Johnson            B    .     .     .     14.50  36.25
 3 Ernestine Fickerson    Bert Fickerson           A    2     .     .     25.00  62.50  0.25(A)
 4 Carol Marquez-Olson    Linda Forsyth            C    .     .     .     14.50  36.25
 5 Carol Howe             Lucien Lacour            C    .     .     .     16.00  40.00
 6 Robert Carrier         Richard Cathcart         C    .     2     1     21.50  53.75  0.18(B)
                                          Totals                         120.00

Hands and Results
1 ♠AT863
A3
K32
♣K86
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠KQ7
QJ986
QT5
♣92
♠J952
54
AJ976
♣Q3
♠4
KT72
84
♣AJT754
14
108
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 5♣ 1 3/2NT  ♦6/5 ♠6
EW: 1♠  ♣2 ♦6 ♥6 NT4
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: +400 3NT-S/5♣-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  430          2.00   0.00  3N N +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
  180          1.00   1.00  2N N +2   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Howe-Lacour
  150          0.00   2.00  1N S +2   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 1NTPass2
Pass2Pass3NT
All pass   

I'm not a big believer in upgrading 14 HCP hands to open 1NT, unless you specifically agree to do it often. In this case, the North hand is a tempting upgrade anyway. If North doesn't open 1NT, it's hard to see how N/S can get to game. The bidding will likely be 1-1NT-P or 1-1NT-2-3, and it will be hard for either pair to see that their hands fit perfectly for 3NT to be a good spot. If North does open 1NT, then South will look for a fit, and when one isn't found, has an easy 3NT bid, holding a good source of tricks in s. Against 3NT, East is likely to lead a . Declarer will win and have to decide how to tackle the suit. With known length in the East hand, it isn't unreasonable to play West for length, and lead a to the Ace and finesse West for the Queen next. It is a close call. If East's lead is from a four card suit, it is better to play for s splitting, if from a five or six card suit, it is better to play West for the Queen. Assuming that East leads the 7, odds certainly favor the lead being from a five or six card suit, so overall odds favor finessing West for the Queen. This will potentially be a disaster on the actual hand, as East will win the Queen and can run the suit. With the 10 missing, it won't be clear to East that playing the Jack is correct, and not all West players will recognize this as a request to unblock the 10, so hope isn't completely lost for declarer. Most players will simply start the suit with the King, which absent any information from the opening lead would be correct, as the only 4-0 break that declarer can handle is if East has four s. Playing s this way will quickly lead to a top, as 10 tricks will come quickly home. In a contract, declarer can make 10 tricks on any lead by playing either for two ruffs, getting overruffed once, or by setting up a long trick.



****************************************
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 ♠Q4
AQ72
KJ
♣KQ863
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠92
63
AQT876
♣T52
♠JT3
KT854
4
♣AJ74
♠AK8765
J9
9532
♣9
17
69
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/-♣ 1/- 2 3♠ 3NT
       ♣7/6 ♦7/6
EW:  ♣5 ♦6 ♥5 ♠3 NT3
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: +600 3NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  620          1.50   0.50  4♠ S      B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  620          1.50   0.50  4♠ S      B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Howe-Lacour
  140          0.00   2.00  3♠ S      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
  Pass2
Pass2NT1Pass32
Pass3NTAll pass 
  1. Asking about the 2 bid
  2. Good suit, poor hand

South has a pretty normal 2 bid, and North will have to decide how to proceed. Most players will use 2NT as some sort of asking bid. The bidding diagram illustrates an approach known as Ogust, whereby the weak two bidder responds to 2NT by telling something about the quality of the suit and their overall hand strength. The responses to Ogust should be based on the vulnerability, and at unfavorable vulnerability, South has a below average overall hand strength, but has a good suit, and should indicate that. Since North is holding the Q, North should realize that the only way for South to have a good suit is for their suit to be AK(J)xxx, With the opening lead coming into the North hand, the lead is likely to get North up to eight tricks if North declares 3NT, and thus game is likely to depend on a finesse at worse, assuming that s break. If South has the Jack, 3NT is certainly the place to be, but without the Jack, it isn't as certain. North has no way to find this out, so it looks best to just bid 3NT. You might be wondering why North shouldn't bid 4. To me this feels a little bit like a hand where nine tricks will be easier than 10 tricks, but even more important is the fact that North will be the declarer in 3NT, and South would be declaring 4. With South showing a hand with little outside the suit, it's clear that the red suit holdings in the North hand need to be protected, and I think most experts would choose the NT game.

It turns out that a contract had chances to make. West has to find the Ace on opening lead and continue the suit to legitimately beat the contract, or lead a . If West leads a , declarer can go up with the Ace, pull trump, and the friendly layout of the cards will eventually result in just one loser in each side suit. If declarer ducks the lead, then East will win and switch to a , and declarer will quickly go down. How likely is West to lead a ? It's hard to say, so 4 will make at some tables and go down at other tables.

A NT contract will easily make nine tricks. Let's say East leads a . If declarer plays the nine from dummy, this will hold and declarer can lead a next. East does best to duck this, but in any case, declarer will be up to nine tricks and will have a lot of play for a tenth trick. Even if declarer plays the Jack at trick one, a switch will again get declarer to nine tricks, with a lot of play for a tenth trick. A lead to the Ace followed by a switch to another suit looks like the only realistic way for the defense to hold declarer to nine tricks.



****************************************
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 ♠A43
75
K942
♣QJ43
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠K95
KT6
JT863
♣87
♠T762
QJ9843
AQ
♣K
♠QJ8
A2
75
♣AT9652
10
712
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 1♠ 3NT  ♦6 ♥4
EW: 3  ♣3 ♦6 ♠6 NT4
LoTT: 19 - 19 = 0
Par: +200 4*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  130          2.00   0.00  3♣ S +1   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  100          1.00   1.00  3 E -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
        140    0.00   2.00  2 E +1   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Howe-Lacour

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
   1
Pass2123
3PassPass4
All pass   
  1. Limit raise or better in s.

I admit that the South hand is an easy opening bid for me, despite holding only 11 HCP, given the rebiddable six card suit, and reasonable defensive values. From here, the bidding will depend on whether East decides to enter the bidding or not. With a six card suit, good distribution and 12 HCP, that might seem like an obvious 2 bid, but there are a number of drawbacks to East bidding. The vulnerability is terrible, and both of the opponents have shown good hands, leaving not much for West to hold. Also, most of East's honors are in the short suits, and the King is looking particularly poor. If East's hand were AQxx KQJxxx xx x, it would be a much better hand, and the only difference is switching the honors into the long suits. For those who like Losing Trick Count evaluation, notice that by moving the honors around, the East hand goes from a seven loser count to a five loser count hand. If East passes, South will show a minimal hand, and N/S are likely to stop in a partial contract.

Can South consider 3NT even opposite a minimal limit raise from North? Certainly the looks like a source of tricks, but any intermediate honors in the North hand may be wasted and North has only one quick side suit trick. It looks like 3NT will be a bit of a gamble opposite a minimum, and indeed, 3NT only makes on the actual hand with both black suit Kings onside. It turns out that 5 can also make if declarer works out to play for the Ace to drop, rather than to be onside, which is actually more reasonable than it sounds, as West is likely to lead the Jack. If South passes originally, N/S will certainly not bid game, and E/W may end up being able to steal a contract. South will certainly overcall 2 if they pass originally, so it still looks like a partial will be the most likely final resting place.



****************************************
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 ♠K3
AQJT32
9873
♣K
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠JT85
87
AK6
♣A985
♠Q74
K9
52
♣QT7643
♠A962
654
QJT4
♣J2
13
127
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2 3  ♣3 ♠4 NT4
EW: 3♣ 3♠ 3NT  ♦4 ♥4
LoTT: 18 - 19 = -1
Par: -200 4*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  140          1.50   0.50  2 N +1   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  140          1.50   0.50  2 N +1   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Howe-Lacour
        130    0.00   2.00  4♣ W      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
11313
4All pass  
  1. Mixed Raise, 7-9 HCP, 5+ s

The vulnerability might keep the bidding lower on this hand, as both sides will be worried about getting too high and getting doubled. West has a normal 1 opening bid and North is a little too strong to bid 2 and should just start with 1. East will either bid 2 or 3 depending on their partnership agreements. East has a hand that will be familiar to the long time readers of my commentary, the Mixed Raise. A Mixed Raise is a hand that has 4+ card support in a major (5+ in a minor), about 7-9 HCP, with a little defense, and usually some shortness. In other words, a hand that desires to be a little preemptive, but isn't really weak either (thus the name "Mixed" Raise.) Here, East doesn't have shortness, but does have a sixth . Most experts will have a Mixed Raise available on almost every bidding sequence, and after a minor suit opening bid and an overcall in the major, the Mixed Raise might be jumping to three of the minor, as shown here, or might be bidding 2NT. In any case, if East doesn't have a Mixed Raise available, they are too strong for a weak raise to 3 and will have to content themselves with bidding 2. No matter what East does, South is likely to raise in s. Both East and West can make a case for competing to 4, as they each have a more than their minimum. If E/W let N/S play in this will not be a good result for them. Assuming East leads a and West wins and leads three round of s, East ruffing the third round, declarer will now know that East has to have the King given their bidding can drop the King, and make nine tricks. Even if declarer errs and finesses in s, +100 for E/W will still not beat their likely score if they play in a contract.

The only way for N/S to beat 4 is for North to lead the King or lead the Ace and switch to the King, so that South can give North a ruff. The second possibility looks more likely, as North might will lead the Ace given South's raise in the suit, and no other appealing looking lead. Any time dummy can win the next trick in a suit on opening lead, the partner of the opening leader should be indicating suit preference, not count or attitude, so here, South can play the 6 asking for a switch by North. This should lead to North getting their ruff, but I think a lot of players will not be up to this defense, and I expect +130 to be a common result when E/W declare a contract.



****************************************
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 ♠72
T6
765
♣KQ9753
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠T84
AKQ
AJ8
♣AJT6
♠QJ95
8532
92
♣842
♠AK63
J974
KQT43
♣-
5
193
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 2  ♥5 ♠5/6 NT5
EW: 1♠ 2NT  ♣6 ♦5 ♥6
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: -120 2NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        100    2.00   0.00  3♣ N -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        200    1.00   1.00  3 S -2   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        430    0.00   2.00  3N W +1   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
6 ♠KQJ32
T4
AJ
♣QJ73
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠-
AQ9875
985432
♣2
♠T7
KJ6
QT6
♣K9865
♠A98654
32
K7
♣AT4
14
69
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 5♠ 1NT  ♦3 ♥3
EW: 4 4  ♣4 ♠2 NT2
LoTT: 21 - 20 = +1
Par: +450 5♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  450          1.00   1.00  4♠ S +1   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  450          1.00   1.00  4♠ S +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
  450          1.00   1.00  4♠ N +1   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
7 ♠-
K865
65
♣KQJ8432
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠AJT8
QT
AKJ874
♣9
♠76542
J73
Q9
♣AT6
♠KQ93
A942
T32
♣75
9
157
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2  ♦3 ♠3 NT3
EW: 2/3 3♠ 2NT  ♣3/4 ♥4
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: -140 3♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        100    2.00   0.00  3♣ N -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        200    1.00   1.00  4 S -2   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        710    0.00   2.00  4* W     B5-Howe-Lacour vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
8 ♠983
QJT74
753
♣JT
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠AKT7654
63
QJ6
♣K
♠J
AK95
92
♣Q87532
♠Q2
82
AKT84
♣A964
4
1310
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦6 ♥6 ♠3 NT3
EW: 2♣ 1 4♠ 4NT  ♦6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -430 4NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        170    2.00   0.00  3♠ W +1   B3-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        420    1.00   1.00  4♠ W      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        450    0.00   2.00  4♠ W +1   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
9 ♠J96
AK9765
J82
♣9
Dlr: North
Vul: E-W
♠K854
Q82
K3
♣K864
♠T73
JT3
T7
♣QJT75
♠AQ2
4
AQ9654
♣A32
9
114
16
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 5/6 4/5 2/3♠ 2NT
EW:  ♣6 ♦1 ♥2 ♠4 NT4
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: +920 6-N
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          2.00   0.00  3N S      B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
  150          0.50   1.50  3 S +2   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B5-Howe-Lacour
  150          0.50   1.50  3 S +2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
10 ♠Q852
KJ975
Q
♣AT5
Dlr: East
Vul: Both
♠KT6
Q832
JT
♣J986
♠AJ74
T6
8543
♣KQ7
♠93
A4
AK9762
♣432
12
710
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/-♣ 4 2 1♠ 4/3NT
       ♣7/6
EW:  ♣6 ♦2 ♥5 ♠5 NT3
LoTT: 16 - 14 = +2
Par: +630 4NT-S
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  600          2.00   0.00  3N N      B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
  180          1.00   1.00  2N N +2   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B5-Howe-Lacour
        200    0.00   2.00  4 S -2   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
11 ♠6
KJ74
T76
♣J8643
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠QJT832
A3
KQ4
♣95
♠A95
Q852
AJ8
♣QT2
♠K74
T96
9532
♣AK7
5
1213
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣6 ♦5 ♥5 ♠4 NT4
EW: 1/-♣ 2 1 3♠ 3NT  ♣7/6
LoTT: 15 - 17 = -2
Par: -400 3NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        400    2.00   0.00  3N E      B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        420    0.50   1.50  4♠ W      B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B5-Howe-Lacour
        420    0.50   1.50  4♠ E      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
12 ♠A63
T763
73
♣9875
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠T5
Q42
AKQT85
♣42
♠KQJ87
AK9
962
♣KQ
♠942
J85
J4
♣AJT63
4
1118
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦2 ♥4 ♠2 NT2
EW: 2♣ 5 3 5♠ 4NT
LoTT: 16 - 18 = -2
Par: -450 5♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        430    2.00   0.00  3N E +1   B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        490    0.50   1.50  3N W +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
        490    0.50   1.50  3N E +3   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B5-Howe-Lacour
13 ♠KQ85
6
JT43
♣KT92
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠T92
QJ32
KQ52
♣AJ
♠A64
9854
97
♣Q854
♠J73
AKT7
A86
♣763
9
136
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2 2♠ 2NT  ♥6
EW:  ♣5 ♦5 ♥6 ♠5 NT5
LoTT: 14 - 15 = -1
Par: +120 2NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          2.00   0.00  1N E -3   B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
    PASS       1.00   1.00  Pass Out  B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
        100    0.00   2.00  2N N -1   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
14 ♠AQT43
8743
K7
♣Q7
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠K2
JT9
T6
♣AJ9432
♠J6
AK62
AQ54
♣K85
♠9875
Q5
J9832
♣T6
11
917
3
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣2 ♦5 ♥2 ♠6 NT2
EW: 5♣ 1 3/5 -/1♠ 2/5NT
       ♠6/7
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: -460 5NT-W
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  100          2.00   0.00  4 E -2   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        150    1.00   1.00  3♣ E +2   B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
        210    0.00   2.00  2N W +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
15 ♠AJ93
K865
K63
♣A2
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠QT
942
87
♣KQ9743
♠K642
J3
T5
♣JT865
♠875
AQT7
AQJ942
♣-
15
75
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 6 7 5♠ 6NT  ♣6
EW: 1♣  ♦1 ♥0 ♠1 NT1
LoTT: 19 - 20 = -1
Par: +2210 7-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  690          2.00   0.00  3N N +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
  680          0.50   1.50  4 N +2   B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
  680          0.50   1.50  4 N +2   B5-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
16 ♠AJ94
K
Q98
♣KJ853
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠7632
T8542
AJT
♣2
♠KQ
973
K7532
♣AQ9
♠T85
AQJ6
64
♣T764
14
514
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 1♠  ♦5 ♥5 NT5
EW: 2 1 2NT  ♣4 ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 17 = -1
Par: -100 3♣*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
         50    2.00   0.00  3♣ N -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth
         90    1.00   1.00  2 E      B5-Howe-Lacour vs B2-Johnson-Johnson
        150    0.00   2.00  3N N -3   B1-Tuttle-Mendel vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
31 ♠AKJT87
AT74
KJ
♣J
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠53
KJ3
Q74
♣K5432
♠Q64
Q52
T8
♣QT876
♠92
986
A96532
♣A9
17
96
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4 4 4♠ 2NT  ♣6
EW: 1♣  ♦0/1 ♥2 ♠1 NT1
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: +620 4♠-NS/4-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  170          1.50   0.50  2♠ N +2   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
  170          1.50   0.50  1♠ S +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Howe-Lacour
        100    0.00   2.00  4♠ N -1   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
32 ♠A42
T65
A7532
♣K8
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠T93
742
JT8
♣T754
♠KQJ7
K98
K4
♣QJ62
♠865
AQJ3
Q96
♣A93
11
115
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 4 4 2♠ 3NT
EW:  ♣6 ♦2 ♥1 ♠5 NT2
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +420 4-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          2.00   0.00  1N W -4   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Howe-Lacour
  200          1.00   1.00  1N E -2   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
  140          0.00   2.00  2 S +1   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
33 ♠K975
T87
AT9
♣AJ2
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠QJ64
AK52
7654
♣8
♠T
J964
KQJ8
♣KT94
♠A832
Q3
32
♣Q7653
12
1010
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 1♠  ♦4 ♥4 NT5
EW: 3 3 1NT  ♣6 ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -140 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   90          2.00   0.00  1♣ N +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Howe-Lacour
        100    1.00   1.00  3♠ N -2   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
        130    0.00   2.00  1 W +3   B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
34 ♠Q6543
94
K4
♣KQ72
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠AJT
Q75
AQ7
♣J963
♠K8
AK863
JT53
♣54
♠972
JT2
9862
♣AT8
10
1411
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦3 ♥2 ♠6 NT4
EW: 1♣ 4 4 1♠ 3NT
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -420 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        170    2.00   0.00  2 E +2   B2-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Fickerson-Fickerson
        400    0.50   1.50  3N W      B4-Marquez-Olson-Forsyth vs B1-Tuttle-Mendel
        400    0.50   1.50  3N E      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B5-Howe-Lacour