- Wednesday Aft - April 24, 2019

? 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
Field strength:  Mean: 23 MP  Geomean: 20 MP
(based on 7 players, 9 non ACBL players ignored)
★ ★ ★  Masterpoint Winners  ★ ★ ★
Partnership Pct Rank MP
Richard Cathcart - Robert Carrier 69.84 1st A 0.48
Bob Deal - Merrily Lewis 61.11 2/3rd A 0.29
Chris Johnson - Dana Johnson 61.11 2/3rd A 0.29
Marianne Prudhome - Ruff Smith 53.97 1st C 0.09
EVENT>49er Pairs               |SESSION>Wednesday Aft|SECTION> B
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
DATE>April 24, 2019     |CLUB NO.>131102    | 04/24/2019 15:35
---------------------,-- ------------------- -------------,---------------------
DIR> Tom Ciacio      |RATING>Club Masterpoint (60%, 50%, 30% Open)|MOVEMENT>ONE WINNER
------------,-------- ,-------------------------,--------- ---------------------
AVE>   31.5 |TOP>   3 |MP LIMITS>50/20/9        |CLUB>Ventura Unit Bridge Club
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=8/B=6/C=3                       ,---,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |           Section       |      |Section  |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 1 Miriam Edgar           Katarina Bernbaum        C    .     .     .     26.00  41.27
 2 Marianne Prudhome      Ruff Smith               C    .     .     1     34.00  53.97  0.09(C)
 3 Linda Forsyth          Nancy Savage             B    .     .     .     21.00  33.33
 4 Ernestine Fickerson    Bert Fickerson           A    .     .     .     31.50  50.00
 5 Marc Welter            Nancy Bejuene            C    .     .     .     18.50  29.37
 6 Robert Carrier         Richard Cathcart         B    1     1     .     44.00  69.84  0.48(A)
 7 Bob Deal               Merrily Lewis            B   2/3    2     .     38.50  61.11  0.29(A)
 8 Dana Johnson           Chris Johnson            A   2/3    .     .     38.50  61.11  0.29(A)
                                          Totals                         252.00

Hands and Results
1 ♠KT985
K
AKT
♣A764
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠Q4
QT9753
98
♣JT9
♠J76
A842
74
♣Q532
♠A32
J6
QJ6532
♣K8
17
57
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 6 5♠ 1NT  ♥6
EW:  ♣5 ♦1 ♥6 ♠2 NT3
LoTT: 18 - 19 = -1
Par: +920 6-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  450          2.50   0.50  4♠ N +1   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
  450          2.50   0.50  4♠ N +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
  200          1.00   2.00  3♠ N +2   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
  150          0.00   3.00  3 S +2   B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B7-Deal-Lewis

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 1Pass1NT
Pass2Pass3
Pass4All pass 

Although 6 makes on this hand, thanks to East holding length in both black suits, it is a lucky contract, and I don't see how N/S would (or should) get to s anyway. 4 looks like it will be the normal contract. North has a normal 1 opening, and South will have to decide whether to call his hand a game forcing raise, or invitational. Most pairs will have to show a three card limit raise as shown in the bidding diagram, which means they are forced to the three level with a three card raise and an invitational hand. Due to this and due to the modern trend for light openings, my personal preference is to be conservative both in making a raise to the two level and in showing an invitational three card raise. This is particularly important at matchpoints, where going plus is paramount and game bonuses are less important than at IMPs. In any case, on the current hand it won't matter, as North will clearly accept any game invite. In fact, if South calls their hand a Game Force , North might push to slam. Notice that slam is not a bad prospect if South's J were in s instead.

With 4 the contract at the majority of the tables, most of the matchpoints will depend on how many tricks declarer can take. If declarer is in slam, 12 tricks would be almost impossible, as East will either lead the Ace, or the defense will cash it when in with a trump trick. However, in a 4 contract, the defense will not be quite as clear. Looking at the suit in dummy, I think the defense should realize that they need to cash out their tricks quickly, so playing the Ace when in with a trump should be easy. However, I can definitely see that some defenders will not recognize the danger of the suit and will allow declarer to make 12 tricks. +450 should be by far the most common score for N/S and anyone who goes +480 will do very well.



****************************************
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 ♠T72
A975
KT75
♣63
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠AK4
QJ2
842
♣QJ42
♠QJ8
KT8643
AJ
♣87
♠9653
-
Q963
♣AKT95
7
1311
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 2 1♠  ♥4 NT4
EW: 3 1NT  ♣6 ♦5 ♠6
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: -140 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        140    2.50   0.50  3 E      B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
        140    2.50   0.50  2 E +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        180    1.00   2.00  1N W +3   B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B7-Deal-Lewis
        420    0.00   3.00  4 E      B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
  1Pass
2Pass2Pass
3Pass4All pass

It's hard to see how E/W can avoid playing in 4 on this hand, unless N/S get themselves into trouble in the bidding. With a six card major suit and 11 HCP, East will open 1 at most tables. Some South pairs will double this. However, at unfavorable vulnerability and with only 9 HCP, this would be a hazardous action. Notice that if South doubles on the actual hand, North might choose to bid 1NT and if West doubles this, N/S will be lucky if they successfully scramble to 2. Furthermore, the double might slow down E/W enough that they don't get to game.

Assuming a more normal bidding sequence leading to a 4 contract by E/W, will E/W make 10 tricks? South is likely to lead a high even if West has bid the suit. The danger of dummy's s should be immediately apparent, but South won't be certain that North doesn't have a singleton . Given that East has at least as many s as North, shortness is more likely in the East hand, but this won't deter some South pairs from continuing s. If they do, they will have a chance to switch to s after the second high . For declarer to end up with 10 tricks, the defense has to fail to switch to s twice. Good defenders should get this one right, and I think -50 will be a common score for E/W. Anyone who makes game will have a clear top.



****************************************
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 ♠T
T42
AQT62
♣QJ42
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠AKQJ2
K53
KJ
♣A95
♠9763
A6
8754
♣763
♠854
QJ987
93
♣KT8
9
214
6
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 1 2  ♠4 NT5
EW: 3♠ 2NT  ♣6 ♦5 ♥5
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: -140 3♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        140    3.00   0.00  1♠ W +2   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        150    1.50   1.50  2N W +1   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
        150    1.50   1.50  2N W +1   B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B7-Deal-Lewis
        620    0.00   3.00  4♠ W      B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
   Pass
2NTAll pass  

For E/W to go positive on this hand both partner's will need to take a negative view of their hand. West will have the first choice. Some players might be tempted to open 1 or 2 followed by 2 with the West hand, given the concentration of values and the five card suit. However, both of these approaches have severe drawbacks. 1 would be a significant underbid and West will never be able to later show their partner the value of their hand. 2 followed by 2 should be used to show a unbalanced hand, either only with s or with another suit. I expect most experts will just call the West hand balanced and either open 2NT or bid 2 followed by 2NT. If West starts with 2, East will have a clear Game Force and E/W will end up in either 3NT or 4. So, the only real chance for E/W looks to be if West starts with 2NT. In this case, East will have a choice to make. Some players would argue that an Ace is sufficient to bid game opposite a 2NT opening, but East has such a poor hand otherwise (no five card suit, no spot cards) that it isn't completely clear. If East does bid over 2NT, E/W will likely end up in 4.

Does either game contract have play for E/W? 4 looks hopeless, with both honors offside, and North sure to lead anything but a . A 3NT contract will depend completely on North's opening lead. For many players, a lead would look completely normal. It is true, that absent any knowledge of the bidding, that a lead would look pretty standard against 3NT. However, most experts will be aware that when the opponents have ended up in 3NT and declarer's hand is significantly stronger than their partner (2NT opening or stronger), then it is usually best to make a safe lead, rather than leading from a long suit with broken honors. The reason is that declarer will often be struggling to make their contract due to the lack of entries to dummy. This is particularly true at matchpoints, where giving up an extra trick on opening lead in an attempt to maximize your chances of beating a contract is often not worth it. At IMPs, leading a from the North hand, hoping to find partner with the King, or an outside entry is not unreasonable. But I think many expert North players would choose a high , or even a lead against 3NT at matchpoints, given the bidding. In any case, a lead will be disastrous, as declarer will happily cash out their nine top tricks and take their top score. I would expect this to be a relatively common result if 3NT were the clear contract for E/W, but with a good part of the field playing 4, I think -100 will be the most common result for E/W.



****************************************
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 ♠J9862
AQ7
952
♣T2
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠54
42
T743
♣Q9854
♠AKQ7
KJ86
AQJ
♣J6
♠T3
T953
K86
♣AK73
7
221
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/-♠  ♣4 ♦4 ♥6 ♠7/6 NT6
EW: 3♣ 3  ♥6 ♠6 NT6
LoTT: 16 - 14 = +2
Par: -110 3-EW/3♣-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          3.00   0.00  3N E -3   B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
  200          2.00   1.00  2N E -2   B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
  100          1.00   2.00  2N E -1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        120    0.00   3.00  2N E      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B7-Deal-Lewis

Kenny Horneman Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
PassPass2NTAll pass

2NT is a lot more likely to be the final contract on this hand than it is on Board 3. East has a normal 2NT opening, and now West has just a Queen opposite, and will not feel like game will make. Most of the matchpoints will depend on the defense. As mentioned in the discussion for Board 3, when the opponents are in a NT contract with most of the points concentrated in one hand, it is often right to play passive defense. This is even more true when the bidding has been 2NT passed out than when it has been 2NT-3NT. When 2NT is passed out, dummy will always be broke. On the actual hand, South's opening lead won't be as important as the rest of the defense. A high will work the same as a . Essentially, the defense needs to not ever duck a and not lead s twice in order to maximize their tricks. For this reason a lead will be the worst for the defense, as South has a very good chance of later being endplayed to lead s again. Even worse, North might win the Ace and lead the Queen back which could result in declarer eventually getting three tricks. The defense will be unable to prevent a good declarer from making three tricks, two tricks and eventually a trick, as declarer should never touch the suit themselves. So the race will be for an seventh or eighth trick for declarer. I don't think the defense is as easy as it might first appear, and a lead or switch after a high are both very plausible defenses. Overall, this means that declarer will often end up with seven tricks. I expect their will be a surprisingly broad range of number of tricks taken by declarer and -100 will be about average. Certainly any N/S pair going +200 will get an excellent result, as will any E/W pair going +120.



****************************************
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 ♠T8653
Q643
5
♣KT4
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠Q94
AJ2
T987
♣QJ5
♠AK2
K87
Q42
♣A872
♠J7
T95
AKJ63
♣963
5
1016
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣4 ♦5 ♥6 ♠6 NT4
EW: 3♣ 2 1 1♠ 3NT
LoTT: 15 - 14 = +1
Par: -400 3NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          3.00   0.00  3N E -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B7-Deal-Lewis
         90    2.00   1.00  2♣ E      B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
        150    1.00   2.00  2N E +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        400    0.00   3.00  2 S -4   B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
6 ♠J762
AKJ83
J6
♣AJ
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠T854
Q
A85
♣KQ953
♠9
976
KT97
♣T7642
♠AKQ3
T542
Q432
♣8
15
113
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 5 4♠ 4NT  ♣4 ♦6
EW: 3♣  ♦6 ♥2 ♠2 NT3
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: +450 5-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  450          2.50   0.50  4 N +1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B7-Deal-Lewis
  450          2.50   0.50  4 N +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
  420          1.00   2.00  4 N      B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
         50    0.00   3.00  4♠ S -1   B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
7 ♠A932
532
Q4
♣J542
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠QJ87
J86
J9
♣AT87
♠K5
AKQT4
AT65
♣K3
♠T64
97
K8732
♣Q96
7
919
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣3 ♦4 ♥2 ♠3 NT2
EW: 4♣ 3 5 4♠ 5NT
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: -660 5NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        180    3.00   0.00  2N E +2   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
        620    2.00   1.00  4 E      B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        630    1.00   2.00  4N E      B7-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        660    0.00   3.00  3N E +2   B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
8 ♠AT9
T87
KT5
♣KQJT
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠K3
QJ53
QJ84
♣A85
♠8652
K964
72
♣743
♠QJ74
A2
A963
♣962
13
133
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 3 1 4♠ 3NT
EW:  ♣2 ♦3 ♥6 ♠3 NT3
LoTT: 16 - 15 = +1
Par: +420 4♠-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          3.00   0.00  3N N      B7-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
  140          2.00   1.00  2♠ S +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
  100          1.00   2.00  1 W -2   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
   90          0.00   3.00  2♣ N      B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
9 ♠T8754
2
AJ642
♣T3
Dlr: North
Vul: E-W
♠AK2
KQJ86
-
♣AKJ94
♠-
AT954
KQT87
♣Q75
♠QJ963
73
953
♣862
5
2111
3
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣0 ♦2 ♥0 ♠6 NT1
EW: 7♣ 3 7 1♠ 6NT
LoTT: 19 - 20 = -1
Par: -1700 7♠*-NS-7
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
        690    3.00   0.00  5N W +1   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        710    2.00   1.00  4 W +3   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
       1460    0.50   2.50  6 E +1   B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
       1460    0.50   2.50  6 E +1   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
10 ♠AJT
QJ94
K97
♣J42
Dlr: East
Vul: Both
♠8652
732
J65
♣QT5
♠KQ93
AT65
2
♣A973
♠74
K8
AQT843
♣K86
12
313
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 4 2/1 3NT  ♠6/5
EW: 1♠  ♣6 ♦2 ♥5/3 NT3
LoTT: 17 - 17 = 0
Par: +600 3NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  150          3.00   0.00  2 S +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
  130          2.00   1.00  2 S +2   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
  110          1.00   2.00  2 S +1   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B7-Deal-Lewis
        100    0.00   3.00  4 S -1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
11 ♠AT
765
KQ743
♣953
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠QJ8632
K3
AT9
♣K7
♠9754
JT842
5
♣Q82
♠K
AQ9
J862
♣AJT64
9
133
15
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 4/5 2NT  ♥6 ♠4
EW: 3♠  ♣3 ♦2 ♥6 NT2
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: +300 5♠*-EW-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  110          3.00   0.00  3 N      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
         50    2.00   1.00  4 N -1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        110    1.00   2.00  1♠ W +1   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B7-Deal-Lewis
        170    0.00   3.00  1♠ W +3   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
12 ♠AQJT6
52
T875
♣J2
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠9743
9
AKQ9
♣A743
♠2
AK643
432
♣QT85
♠K85
QJT87
J6
♣K96
8
139
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣3 ♦4 ♥5 ♠6 NT6
EW: 4♣ 2 2 1NT  ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -130 4♣-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          2.50   0.50  3N E -1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
   50          2.50   0.50  2 W -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
        130    1.00   2.00  3♣ W +1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        200    0.00   3.00  3♠ N -2   B5-Welter-Bejuene vs B7-Deal-Lewis
13 ♠AQ432
A6
T52
♣AJ5
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠JT8
QJ982
84
♣872
♠9765
T74
A93
♣T96
♠K
K53
KQJ76
♣KQ43
15
44
17
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 6♣ 6 3 5♠ 6NT
EW:  ♣1 ♦1 ♥4 ♠2 NT1
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +1440 6NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  690          2.50   0.50  3N N +3   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
  690          2.50   0.50  3N N +3   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
  620          1.00   2.00  5 S +1   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
        200    0.00   3.00  6* S -1  B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
14 ♠AJ87
AQ
K863
♣T94
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠6
JT9742
A72
♣AK2
♠Q54
K53
QJ54
♣QJ3
♠KT932
86
T9
♣8765
14
1211
3
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1/-♣ 2♠  ♣7/6 ♦5 ♥3 NT6
EW: 2 3  ♣6 ♠5 NT6
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: -100 3♠*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          3.00   0.00  4 W -1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
        170    2.00   1.00  3 W +1   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
        420    0.50   2.50  4 W      B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        420    0.50   2.50  4 W      B7-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
15 ♠854
75
AT9865
♣92
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠KQT3
AJT3
K72
♣Q3
♠962
Q64
4
♣AJT854
♠AJ7
K982
QJ3
♣K76
4
157
14
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2 1/2NT  ♣3 ♥4 ♠4
EW: 4♣ 3/2 2♠  ♦5 NT5
LoTT: 18 - 17 = +1
Par: -140 3-E
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  150          3.00   0.00  1N S +2   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
  100          2.00   1.00  4♠ E -2   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
   50          1.00   2.00  2N W -1   B6-Carrier-Cathcart vs B1-Edgar-Bernbaum
        150    0.00   3.00  3♣ W +2   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
16 ♠Q4
T7
K653
♣Q9753
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠K92
9
J982
♣AKJ86
♠T653
AQ854
QT4
♣4
♠AJ87
KJ632
A7
♣T2
7
128
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 2 1NT  ♦6 ♠6
EW: 1  ♣6 ♥5 ♠6 NT6
LoTT: 15 - 14 = +1
Par: +110 2-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  300          3.00   0.00  4♠ E -3   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
  100          2.00   1.00  2♣ W -1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
         50    1.00   2.00  3 S -1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
         90    0.00   3.00  2 W      B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
17 ♠KQ5
A6
842
♣K8652
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠A
KQ952
AKT96
♣J3
♠JT9832
J
QJ7
♣AT4
♠764
T8743
53
♣Q97
12
179
2
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣5 ♦1 ♥4 ♠4 NT4
EW: 1♣ 5 3 3♠ 3NT
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -400 3NT-EW/5-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
   50          2.50   0.50  2N W -1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
   50          2.50   0.50  3 W -1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
        130    1.00   2.00  2 W +2   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
        200    0.00   3.00  3♠ E +2   B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
18 ♠82
KT3
J852
♣AJ63
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠KJT3
QJ6542
6
♣95
♠AQ65
A9
93
♣QT842
♠974
87
AKQT74
♣K7
9
712
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3 1NT  ♣5 ♥4 ♠3
EW: 2♣ 3 4♠  ♦4 NT5
LoTT: 19 - 18 = +1
Par: -420 4♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  130          3.00   0.00  3 S +1   B7-Deal-Lewis vs B2-Prudhome-Smith
   50          2.00   1.00  3 W -1   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
        140    0.50   2.50  3 W      B3-Forsyth-Savage vs B4-Fickerson-Fickerson
        140    0.50   2.50  2 W +1   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
19 ♠2
AT
AQ7
♣AQJ9854
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠KJ9754
K7
T3
♣T62
♠T86
Q65
K98642
♣7
♠AQ3
J98432
J5
♣K3
17
75
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 5♣ 1 4 4/5NT  ♠5
EW: 1♠  ♣2 ♦6 ♥1/3 NT1/2
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: +460 5NT-N
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  400          1.50   1.50  5♣ S      B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
  400          1.50   1.50  5♣ N      B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
  400          1.50   1.50  5♣ N      B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
  400          1.50   1.50  5♣ N      B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B7-Deal-Lewis
20 ♠JT87643
KT3
-
♣K76
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠Q95
AJ95
3
♣AJ842
♠AK
Q762
KT9752
♣Q
♠2
84
AQJ864
♣T953
7
1214
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣4 ♦5 ♥3 ♠6 NT4
EW: 2♣ 1/2 4 -/1♠ 3NT
       ♠6/7
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -620 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
  500          3.00   0.00  4* E -2  B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
  300          2.00   1.00  4 W -3   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart
  200          1.00   2.00  4 W -2   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B7-Deal-Lewis
        200    0.00   3.00  3♠ N -2   B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
21 ♠AKJ7
AJ
KT862
♣K8
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠QT843
T843
-
♣Q974
♠2
972
Q9753
♣T653
♠965
KQ65
AJ4
♣AJ2
19
42
15
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 5 6/7 5♠ 7NT
EW:  ♣3 ♦2 ♥0 ♠1/2 NT0
LoTT: 14 - 16 = -2
Par: +2220 7NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract
 1440          3.00   0.00  6N S      B4-Fickerson-Fickerson vs B5-Welter-Bejuene
  690          2.00   1.00  3N S +3   B8-Johnson-Johnson vs B7-Deal-Lewis
  660          1.00   2.00  5N S      B1-Edgar-Bernbaum vs B3-Forsyth-Savage
        400    0.00   3.00  4 S -4   B2-Prudhome-Smith vs B6-Carrier-Cathcart