Problems from Israel/Answers

These problems are all from the Israel International Bridge Festival. Partner is capable, but you do not have a strong partnership. The opponents are often extremely random; the events are all Flight C events with a sprinkling of Flight A players. All IMP events are short matches (VPs) unless expressly specified.

Panellists today are: Dave Milton, Roberto Scaramuzzi, Ed Davis, Rolf Kühn, Steve Altus, Mike Shuster, Marcia Masterson, Jeff Rawlings (Partial), David Weiss (Partial)

  1. MPs, none vul, you hold

     S:Axxxx H:Qxxx D:A2 C:KQ

    YOULHOCHORHO
    1S:PassPass2D:
    Pass3D:3H:5D:
    ?

    If you pass or double, what do you lead?

    Dave
    C:K. [Figures that it's so obvious that something else must be right. --J]
    Roberto
    Double and lead C:K
    Ed
    Double. C:K is best chance for plus score. 2nd choice of S:A could run into something like  S:QJT H:AK D:Qxx C:xxxxx opposite  S:Kx H:x D:KJTxxxx C:Axx (partner holds  S:xxx H:JT9xxxx D:x C:JTx). [Nice construction. --Jeff] [Upon prompting from me...] I certainly feel that passing 1S: then bidding 3H: is more indicative of some safety in the form of a spade fit than what could be a big misfit with zero or one spades.
    JeffR
    Double. Lead the C:K
    Rolf
    pass, what do I know? I would lead a small H:.
    Steve
    Double, C:K. i'd almost say wtp...
    Mike
    pass. Lead the C:K without much thought.
    Marcia
    double and lead the S:A. I'm not going to lead the C:K; the D:A was dealt to me for a reason.
    Jeff at the table
    Pass (wimp) and lead C:K
    Jeff upon reflection
    double and lead C:K
    Winning Action
    Double and lead spades. Partner had  S:--- H:J10xxxx D:x C:J10xxxx.
    Votes
    Double: 6, Pass: 3 C:K: 7, H:x: 1, S:A: 1
    Consensus (plus, I, of course, get the last word :))
    The panel thinks that leading the C:K and doubling are too obvious actions for words. My failure to double was an error, but an irrelevant one, since +50 and +100 were pretty much the same score, as one might expect.

  2. IMPs, unfavorable

     S:K1098x H:xx D:x C:K1098x

    RHOYOULHOCHO
    1S:Pass1NT1Pass
    Pass?

    1not forcing

    Dave
    I pass, it is just too risky to try 2C:. Partner is sure to bid 2D: and the opponents are not going to let me defend 2S:. [Not undoubled, they won't! --Jeff] I cannot believe that we are missing a game on this crap if partner canot bid.
    Roberto
    pass; too weak to balance on a misfit auction
    Ed
    2C:
    JeffR
    Pass
    Rolf
    pass -- WTP? [He's afraid partner will double 2D: or 2H:. --Jeff]
    Steve
    partner is known to be short in spades and didn't double or overcall. something fishy is going on; i think i'll pass. at matchpoints unfavorable i would NEVER pass, btw. [Me, either. --Jeff]
    Mike
    Pass. Do I look like I want to go for 1100?
    Marcia
    Pass
    Jeff at the table
    2C:.
    Jeff upon reflection
    2C: still seems right, but I can be talked out of it now. But partner ought not pull very often; he should realize that I see the vulnerability and I'm not balancing into a crappy suit. That Dave predicted that partner would bid 2D: and go for a number really makes me wonder that bidding is wrong, because that's exactly what happened. The upside is only +5-6 IMPs, but the downside is -13 and a big blast to partnership morale. In the long run, it seems to be worth bidding, but the short run disasters can be a little discouraging.
    Winning Action
    Pass. Partner had  S:QJ H:AKJ D:108xxxx C:Jx and ran (!) from 2C:x (which is probably but not surely going down) to 2D:x, which went for sticks and wheels. I am quite impressed by Dave's ability to predict the actual outcome.
    Votes
    Pass: 7, 2C:: 2
    Consensus
    pass. The upside gain vs. the downside risk ratio seems to convince the panel not to balance here. I think it's closer than that myself. The real losses ought to come when they find a red suit contract and make when 1NT was going down, but partner is not going to lead anything helpful, so I bet 1NT is making, and therefore those losses will be small. On the other hand, I think 2C: will make more often than not, and 1NT will, too, so I think the upside will be realized a fair bit of the time. At matchpoints one would have to worry about their reaching 2H: making three instead of 1NT making one or two, but at IMPs, that's not relevant. I'd much rather see them get pushed into 2S:; that'd be a nice gain for us. So, all in all, I'm unrepentant. I would bid 2C: again. Bidding 2D: was silly, of course.

  3. MPs, none vul

     S:KJxx H:KQ7x D:Ax C:K108

    YOULHOCHORHO
    1C:1NT2D:Pass
    Pass2H:PassPass
    ?

    Dave
    I double. Dummy is almost guaranteed to be an entryless void and probably balanced
    Roberto
    hmm.. weird auction. I guess I'll double, but I really am not sure what's up. The auction does not sound like 1N was comic.
    Ed
    Pass
    JeffR
    Double
    Rolf
    pass -- no alternative.
    Steve
    light it up! wtp?
    Mike
    More Passing. We don't have a fit. Why rock the boat?
    Marcia
    Pass. How nice of partner to balance them into something for which I have some defense.
    Jeff at the table
    Pass
    Jeff upon reflection
    now that I know how Israelis bid, DOUBLE.
    Winning Action
    Double. LHO was out of his mind and had only four hearts. Life in Israel was like this all the time.
    Votes
    Double: 4, Pass: 5
    Consensus
    None. I guess this is a table feel situation. Helpful hint---if you are in Israel, double.

  4. IMPs, unfavorable

     S:AQxx H:AJ10x D:K10x C:xx

    YOULHOCHORHO
    1D:Pass1S:Pass
    2S:PassPass3C:
    PassPass3H:Pass
    3S:?4C:PassPass
    ?

    ? Do you? (I wouldn't, but did. Guess why.)

    Dave
    I would have passed 3H:, but, now I am going to bid 4H:. I was almost max for my raise to 2S: the first time and after all down 200 against a Vul game is a reasonable risk. I cannot imagine going down more than 1.
    Roberto
    I think 3S: was right. Guess I'll bid 4H: now. If partner wanted me to shut up over 4C: she would have just bid 3S:; 4H: brings me back into the picture, I think.
    Ed
    I would bid 4S:... everything considered I think partner is likely to be 5-5-2-1 (why else a NF 3H: bid if not to cater to three spades and four hearts in my hand). I like my chances to make 4S: opposite that distribution.
    JeffR
    I take the chance and bid 4H:.
    Rolf
    pass -- I gave my chance away to describe my hand more accurately by passing 3H: so partner cannot act accordingly. 4H:/S: can easily go for 200-500, 4C:X for even more
    Steve
    i'm bidding one more for the road here. btw, why didn't you open 1NT? [good point. This is a strong notrump, I agree. --Jeff]
    Mike
    Looks like a pretty obvious pass to me.
    Marcia
    double and lead trumps [If this were right, wouldn't partner have doubled 4C:? --Jeff]
    Jeff at the table
    4H:
    Jeff upon reflection
    bidding game is clear to me. But see the side topic for complications.
    Winning Action
    double. They go for 300. Partner had  S:KJxxx H:9xxx D:A C:xxx. (3H:?) 4S: happens to be a pretty decent contract, but fails when hearts are 4-1 offside without a stiff honor. Worse still, RHO doubled and partner went down 500 trying to make it on a small heart lead.
    Side topic
    No one worked this out. I think 4H: (or 4S:) over 3H: is right, not 3S:, but partner hesitated before passing 2S:, so I thought that I was pretty much barred from bidding 4H: there. Once the opponents, however, have told me that they have 9+ clubs, I know my D:K is a cover card (or pard is 5-5) and thus I just have too much to pass or double 4C: this time around.
    Votes
    4H:: 5, 4S:: 1, Pass: 2, Double: 1
    Consensus
    bid game.
    Further word
    RHO didn't have his double. It took me awhile to work out that I could ethically bid game; partner claimed that RHO doubled because of the slow bid. I think otherwise. I think he doubled because he knew about the hesitation, too. If game happened to make, he'd call the director and try to get the score rolled back to 4C:. A side note---I won an appeal in Israel. I'm 2 for 2 outside the ACBL and 0 for life inside it now.

  5. IMP Pairs, none vul

     S:AKQxxx H:K9 D:Ax C:Jxx

    RHO opens 2H:, weak. What's your plan?

    Dave
    I am going to bid 3S:. If partner can supply the trick or so that I would need for 3NT to be the correct call (?) 4S: should have a shot and he should bid it.
    Roberto
    I'll double, then bid 3S:; this should suggest notrump interest, as opposed to a direct 3S: bid. A jump to 3N over 2H: has merit.
    Ed
    Double, followed by 3NT.
    JeffR
    Double
    Rolf
    Difficult hand! I think I choose X followed by 3NT depending on partner's response
    Steve
    this looks like ALMOST a 3S: bid. but not quite. i guess i'll double and bid spades. i like to have a seventh spade and only 1 card outside for 3S:. i wouldn't quibble with either action, though.
    Mike
    3S:. Seems really clear.... the only problem is we might miss 3NT when it's right, but then if partner has H:QTx, he might try it anyway.
    Marcia
    3NT
    Jeff at the table
    3S:
    Jeff upon reflection
    I now prefer doubling followed by 3S:. This hand is flexible enough to allow for alternative strains, and 3S: ought really have a better suit. Give me the S:10 and 3S: (or 3NT) looks better.
    Winning action
    probably pass; we can't make anything (spades are 5-2 and diamonds 4-1) but that's unreasonable. Partner claims he'd pass 2H:x with  S:--- H:AJxx D:Kxxxxx C:xxx, but that's a bit hard to believe.

    I just realized that partner will bid 3D: constructive over a double. That would make 3S: then forcing (right?) which will definitely get us to 3NT or higher. That's not good. That means 3S:, which ought to end the auction, should have been better than double in real life.

    Votes
    Double...3S:: 2, Double...3NT: 2, 3S:: 3, Double+?: 1, 3NT: 1
    Consensus
    None.

  6. Unfavorable, IMPs

     S:xx H:xx D:AQx C:KQ10xxx

    CHORHOYOULHO
    1S:Dbl?

    a) what is your plan with your favorite methods

    Dave
    2C: forcing
    Roberto
    1NT, transfer to clubs, then 3C:
    Marcia
    Redouble, then cue hearts if they bid them, 3NT otherwise.
    b) what is your plan if everything is natural and 2C: is constructive but not forcing?
    Roberto, Dave
    Redouble, followed by a club bid
    Ed
    2C:
    c) what is your plan with no agreements?
    Dave
    2C: and hope to survive
    Roberto
    Redouble, followed by a club bid
    Ed
    Redouble, followed by a club bid.
    Rolf
    XX, followed by 3C: and hope that it will be enough for game [He plays that nonforcing with 2NT artificial and forcing to game. --J]
    Steve
    XX then bid, to show good 1-suiter
    Mike
    2C:
    Marcia
    XX, then cue hearts
    Jeff at the table
    2C:, with agreements in question.
    Jeff upon reflection
    I have no clue. Get some agreements, and CAP/1Mx looks really happy on this hand.
    Winning action
    force to 3NT, which is making vs.  S:Axxxx H:Axx D:109x C:Ax.
    Votes
    Redouble: 5, 2C:: 3
    Consensus
    we all hate our methods here. It's time to start playing CAP/1Mx. Most redoubled and forced to game. That makes sense under the conditions.

  7. Unfavorable, IMPs

     S:--- H:J98 D:xx C:AKQxxxxx

    LHOCHORHOYOU
    1H:Pass1S:4C:1
    4H:Pass4NTPass
    5C:Dbl25H:?

    1 Do you?
    2 Suggests no club honor/lead averting

    Dave
    OK, so I double for a spade lead (first bid suit by dummy) and hope that partner has the D:A for a reentry.
    Roberto
    pass; what do you want me to do? The time to bid 5S: was over 4N.
    Weiss
    Double. The IMP odds are too good not to do this. [He sticks out the redouble.] 4C:, however, is unthinkable. I would bid 3NT, 3S:, or 2C:. [ Really? --Jeff]
    Ed
    Assume opener might continue on... will double if they bid 6H:. [He thinks LHO might have three or four keys and be bidding on. --Jeff]
    Rolf
    X for NO C:--lead. As two aces are missing I neither expect a XX nor overtricks, it's IMPs and a good chance to beat the contract.
    Steve
    double
    Mike
    I think I can double.
    Marcia
    Pass. I don't see the problem.
    Jeff at the table
    double
    Jeff upon reflection
    I still like the double, but when LHO redoubles, maybe I ought to chicken out. I'll feel idiotic if partner has the D:A, though.
    Winning action
    6C:. Partner has  S:Kxxxx H:x D:xxxx C:xxx.
    Votes
    Double: 6, Pass: 3
    Consensus
    double. Nothing is crazy, I think. No one considered bidding 6C:, but it's not as silly as it sounds. You have 8 clubs, two heart ruffs, and if they can't make a slam, a side trick. That's -200 vs. a white game. In practice, they are likely to lead a heart or a spade (they can't lead trumps) and you will get out for -200, a big win.

  8. Matchpoints, none vul

     S:10x H:Axx D:87654 C:Kxx

    LHORHO
    3C:3NT
    Pass

    What's your lead?

    Dave
    H:A. I expect that 9 tricks will not be available without the Club suit and that I will be getting in again. I think if I lead the H:A it will not be fatal and it will give me three chances to hit the right suit. I should be able to tell whether or not to continue hearts, or switch to the S:10 or the D:8.
    Roberto
    a middle diamond. no imagination
    Ed
    Anything but the C:K
    Rolf
    I lead H:A and take a look on dummy and partner's signals. If it's bad I take all the blame. [I don't think you deserve any. --Jeff]
    Steve
    i'm going passive... diamond.
    Mike
    H:x
    Marcia
    H:A. You have to lead agressively on these auctions.
    Jeff at the table
    H:A
    Jeff upon reflection
    I think the H:A is unequivocally right. The folks who lead something else do not seem very convinced. I think it's right to lead ultra-agressively against preempt->3NT auctions. At IMPs, the decision would be trivial.
    Winning action
    anything but a heart (including the C:K)
    Votes
    Passive/Diamond: 3, H:A: 4, H:x: 1
    Consensus
    none.

  9. Vulnerable, IMPs

     S:Qx H:Q D:10987 C:K8xxxx

    Partner opens 1NT 15-17. What's your plan?

    Marcia, Dave, Roberto
    sign off in clubs
    Mike, Rolf, Ed
    invite in clubs
    Steve
    let's play 3C:
    Jeff at the table
    invite in clubs
    Jeff upon reflection
    I have no clue. It was a guess at the table and it's one now.
    Winning Action
    sign off in clubs
    Votes
    signoff: 4, invite: 4
    Consensus
    none

  10. both white, IMPs

     S:KJ H:x D:Qxxxx C:Jxxxx

    LHOCHORHOYOU
    2D:1Dbl23H:3Pass
    3S:4Dbl5Pass?

    1 Multi
    2 Dbl = 16+ balanced or some very good difficult hands
    3 3H: was both majors, preemptive (multi)
    4 3S: was a weak 2 in spades
    5 2nd Dbl = 19+ balanced, almost always

    Dave
    Pass
    Roberto
    3NT
    Ed
    3NT
    Rolf
    Pass. I wanna get a plus score. [Sorry. --J]
    Steve
    i think i'm going to bid 4S:, which must be pick-a-minor.
    Mike
    My first thought is 4NT. On second thought 3NT might work. But then 3NT might also work very poorly. Hearts figure to be wedged and even if a minor runs I don't see 9 tricks. In fact I don't see 11 in a minor either. I think I'd've bid 4D: over 3H:. Now I'm gonna bid 4NT and try to get to a making minor game. Who knows what's right?
    Marcia
    4D:
    Jeff at the table
    5C:
    Jeff upon reflection
    If I could figure out a way to get partner to choose a minor, then let me play the hand so that my S:KJ didn't get led through, that'd be my choice. Failing that, I decided to guess a minor. That's probably silly all in all; 3NT is probably going to make often enough that I ought just bid it.
    Winning Action
    4S:, 4NT, 5C: or 5D:. Partner held  S:x H:A10xx D:AKxx C:AQ109 and decided that this hand was too good for 2H:, takeout of spades. That's not unreasonable. In practice, 3S: makes, as does 5 of either minor from either side. Not 3NT, though.
    Votes
    3NT: 2, Pass: 2, 4NT: 1, 5C:: 1, 4S:: 1, 4D:: 1
    Consensus
    None. A lucky choice by me won a bunch of IMPs.

  11. IMPs, none vul

     S:Qxx H:9xxx D:--- C:KQxxxx

    RHOYOULHOCHO
    PassPass1H:2D:
    2S:PassPass3C:
    Pass?

    Dave
    4C:, second choice pass
    Roberto
    I'll bid 5C:. I don't think I'm making this, but since I'm going to have to bid it anyway over 4 of a major, I'll just go ahead and do it now, so I won't get doubled (hopefully)
    Ed
    4C:
    Rolf
    At IMPs it's a clear cut 5C: bid. It makes or not -- who knows. At MP I favor 4C: but this is more to be able to blame partner in the postmortem :)
    Steve
    how about a gentle 4C:?
    Mike
    I think I'll bid just 4C: and put down dummy kinda sheepishly.
    Marcia
    4C:. Sort of an insurance policy.
    Jeff at the table
    5C:
    Jeff upon reflection
    5C:. Partner bid 3C: this time; he didn't bid 2NT either the first time or the second. Why not? If he were 5-4 with good high card, he'd've doubled the second time. With 5-4 balancing strength, he'd either pass initially or bid 2NT the second time, I think. I think that suggests that partner has 5-5 with the intermediate hand that won't bid 2NT the first time: something like  S:x H:Kx D:AQxxx C:AJxxx. If so, 5C: ought to make. Will partner bid game if I bid 4C: with this hand? I don't know, but maybe not. On the other hand, such a subtle inference seems way out of line in an inexperienced partnership, so while I think 5C: is right in theory, it's wrong in practice.
    Winning action
    pass. Partner had  S:xx H:Kx D:AJxxx C:AJxx. Hearts were 6-1. As a result, they make 4S:, but they'll never bid it after this start.
    Votes
    4C:: 5, 5C:: 3
    Consensus
    4C:. We still go minus, but so it goes.

  12. Both white, IMPS

     S:x H:A10xx D:KJxx C:Jxxx

    LHOCHORHOYOU
    1H:*1S:1NTPass
    2C:2S:3H:Pass
    Pass3S:Pass?

    * Opponents are playing blue team club; 1H: is canape and 11-14.

    Dave
    Ok, partner has a stiff heart and not more than 2 clubs. If he has something like AQJxxxx of spades and the diamond A or Q game should be about 50%. Not an unreasonable expectation. I will bid 4S:.
    Roberto
    I'm still passing.
    Weiss
    Pass. Partner had several stronger ways to get to 3S:. This way is strictly competitive; I'm not expected to bid here.
    Ed
    Pass [I asked for a construction:] How 'bout  S:AKQxxxx H:x D:xxx C:Qx?
    Rolf
    4S: -- I trust my partner. H:A is ok (but not great), D:KJxx are great, C:Jxxx might help. S: are solid anyway.
    Steve
    i would have acted over 3H:. i would have doubled, i guess. not having done that, i don't know what to do. the heart ace could be totally useless. if pard needed this hand, they could have bid 3S: over 2C:. i think i'll go quietly; maybe they'll bid again.
    Mike
    Abstain/knew the hand.
    Marcia
    Pass.
    Jeff at the table
    Pass
    Jeff upon reflection
    Pass. Partner is playing me for this much. He had several chances to bid more strongly. I'm allowed to put down decent dummies once in awhile :) At the table, it never occurred to me to bid on, but maybe it's not as insane as I thought.
    Winning action
    4S:, but that hasn't anything to do with the problem; partner was sandbagging with  S:AKQJ10xxx H:x D:Qxx C:x.
    Votes
    Pass: 6, 4S:: 2
    Consensus
    pass.

  13. both white, IMPs

     S:K9x H:Qx D:Axxx C:Q10xx

    LHOCHORHOYOU
    Pass1C:4H:Dbl?
    Pass4S:5D:?

    ? Negative. Do you?

    OK, this is a thinly disguised theory problem. Do negative doubles at the four-level create forcing pass auctions? If of 4S:, I think the answer is clearly, "yes." If below 4S:, I have no clue.

    Dave
    I don't know either. I double.
    Roberto
    I'm cracking 5D:, then 5H:, whether a pass is forcing or not (I think it should be).
    Ed
    I think they should [create forces]. I would pass expecting my LHO to bid 5H:. Partner has already shown some distribution along with at least 4 spades by his 4S: bid. If partner wants to bid over 5H: I am not going to discourage him by doubling 5D:.
    Rolf
    X - I have minimum and don't wanna go further as my offense to defense ratio is really bad. Pass would be forcing.
    Steve
    i don't care whether they do or not. i'm doubling. [He thinks double does create a force, though. --Jeff]
    Mike
    This is a forcing auction. Double. The first double was sick.
    Marcia
    Double to warn partner off and because I don't have a fourth spade. We are in a force. The first double was right.
    Jeff at the table
    pass
    Jeff upon reflection
    unclear. Make an agreement about this situation.
    Winning action
    shouldn't matter
    Votes
    Double: 6, Pass: 2
    Consensus
    Pass is forcing. I think it ought not, myself, but I understand that this is an idiosyncratic view. I think that a negative double of 4H: begins a 4S:/4H: exploration, which means that there ought be no forcing passes in my style. Same goes for if I were to have bid 4S:; even red on white, I strongly believe that it ought not create a force. Let's assume, though, that pass is forcing. In that case, what ought to be done? The doublers look at their minimum with only three spades and double to discourage partner from bidding. I think that's shortsighted. If partner has only four spades, he will double. He'll only bid when he's 6-5. If that's the case, I have a great hand for him---the only wasted card is the H:Q. If he bids 5S:, I am worried about missing a slam, though with the expected bad breaks, maybe it won't make anyway. Why ought partner never bid with only four spades? Even if you don't believe the Law of Total Tricks, with 8 spades and probably 8, maybe 9 hearts, that's 16-17 trumps. If we make 11 tricks, they are getting obliterated. Even if the LTT is off by two tricks, and looking optimistically, let's claim 19 tricks available. They go for 500 if we make. So, the basic question here is "shall we discourage partner if he's 6-5?" The answer, I think, is clearly "no," so we ought not double, but pass. So, the consensus is to double, but I've convinced myself that this is wrong, that my reasoning at the table was correct. Arrogant, aren't I?

  14. Vul, IMP pairs

     S:Q10x H:Q10xx D:Axxx C:Qx

    Partner opens 1H:. What's your plan?

    Dave
    2-only-hearts
    Roberto
    2H: (If constructive) 110 (I imagine that was not available)
    1N followed by 3H:100
    3C: (Bergen)90[*]
    2H: (random)70
    3H: (limit)30
    [* Bergen plays 3C: as 7-10 with 4 trumps, that is, a constructive single raise with four trumps. That has to be even better than any of the other choices were it available. Perhaps Roberto is used to playing 3C: as non-constructive, 6-8+ish, as is pretty common, in which case his rankings seem sensible. --Jeff]
    Ed
    Life is too tough in Israel if this is a problem. 10 HCP (with no jacks), four trumps and a doubleton with no huge flaws. Obvious limit raise.
    Rolf
    limit raise
    Steve
    well, with four trumps and the ten, i think i'm probably worth a limit raise.
    Mike
    Limit Raise.
    Marcia
    Limit raise. Close to 2H:.
    Jeff at the table
    limit raise
    Jeff upon reflection
    limit raise...why did I really think this was a problem? Build a bunch of 5332 14-counts and see if 4H: will make. I did. It did. This, therefore, has to be a limit raise. This was a rather roundabout way to convince myself of something that I thought was obvious at the table :) Is 1NT...3H: better? The hand looks notrumpy, but my generated hands seemed strongly to suggest that 4H: was better.
    Winning action
    shouldn't matter; you won't get to the no play slam in any case, and you'll always get to game. Partner held  S:x H:AKJxxxx D:x C:A10xx; Ed did a small simulation and claims that that hand will make a slam vs. a limit raise about 22% of the time.
    Votes
    3H:: 6, 1NT...3H:: 1, 2H:: 1
    Consensus
    limit raise

Just for fun, I did some correlations. Numbers are how many answers agree (in principle) with each other; win is the actual winning action. Of course, these were selected as problems because I didn't get them right, so the correlations will be a little skewed, but what the heck.
ProbDMRobEdJeffRolfSAMSMMWin
1.C:KC:KC:KC:K H:xC:KC:KS:AS:A
2.pp2C:2C:ppppp
3.XXpppXppX
4.4H:4H:4S:4H:p4H:pXX
5.3S:X-3S:X-3N3S:X-3NX-3S:3S:3NT3S:
6.2C:xxxx2C:xxxx2C:xxxx
7.xppxxxxp6C:
8.H:AD:D:H:AH:AD:H:xH:AD:
9.stopstopinvinvinvstopinvstopstop
10.p3N3N5C:p4S:4N4D:5C:
11.4C:5C:4C:5C:5C:4C:4C:4C:p
12.4S:ppp4S:pAbsp4S:
13.xxppxxxxx
14.2H:1NT3H:3H:3H:3H:3H:3H:2H:

DMRobEdJeff RolfSAMSMMWin
DMx63668757
Rob6x64410366
Ed36x757562
Jeff647x65842
Rolf6456x4764
Steve810754x677
Mike735876x54
Marcia5664675x6

Winners for best partnership are Steve & Roberto, worst are Dave and Ed or Roberto and Mike.

At first, I thought that many of these problems were too easy, that they were mostly just sanity checks, but I've been convinced otherwise by the range fo the responses. Only three problems had six or more agreements; two of those are Jeff & Ed solos. A couple seem to be pretty darn good problems. In particular, hand 10 had 6 different answers out of 8 respondants!

Thanks all for the effort.

Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov, Feb. 7, 1996