- Saturday Morn - September 16, 2017

? Explanation of report features  
Download hands in PDF or PBN format (Right click and choose “Save Link As...” in Firefox or “Save Target As...” in IE)
Jump directly to board 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Field strength:  Mean: 1068 MP  Geomean: 598 MP
(based on 14 players)
★ ★ ★  Masterpoint Winners  ★ ★ ★
Partnership Pct Rank MP
Doris Jones - Elizabeth Sebring 62.50 1st OA 2.04
Carol Maggipinto - Mark Maggipinto 57.50 2nd OA 1.53
Joan Roberts - Keith Hedlund 53.75 3rd OA 1.15
EVENT>Sat Morning Open Game    |SESSION>Saturday Morn|SECTION> OO
------------------------,------ ------------,-------- --------------------------
DATE>September 16, 2017 |CLUB NO.>150680    | 09/16/2017 14:36
---------------------,-- ------------------- -------------,---------------------
DIR> Alan Hedegard   |RATING>Club Championship (100%, 80%, 70% Open)|MOVEMENT>ONE WINNER
------------,-------- ,-------------------------,--------- ---------------------
AVE>   24.0 |TOP>   2 |MP LIMITS>None/500/200   |CLUB>H & H  Saturday
------------ --------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
PAIRS IN STRAT A=7/B=5/C=4                       ,---,-----------------,-------------------------,------,---------,
-------------------------------------------------|   |      Overall    |           Section       |      |Final    |
No Name                   Name                   |Flt|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C|Rnk-A|Rnk-B|Rnk-C| Score | Pct  |Awards   |
------------------------------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---------
 2 Richard McCormick      Janet Hedlund            B   .     .     .   |   .     .     .     21.60  45.00
 3 Carol Maggipinto       Mark Maggipinto          A   2     .     .   |   2     .     .     27.60  57.50  1.53(OA)
 4 Richard Hendrick       Dennis Sapcre            C   .     .     .   |   .     .     .     21.00  43.75
 5 Peter De Gregorio      Ellen Lux                C   .     .     .   |   .     .     .     21.60  45.00
 6 Elizabeth Sebring      Doris Jones              C   1     1     .   |   1     1     1     30.00  62.50  2.04(OA)
 7 Joan Roberts           Keith Hedlund            C   3     2     .   |   3     2     2     25.80  53.75  1.15(OA)
 8 Elizabeth Nasr         Michel Nasr              A   .     .     .   |   .     .     .     21.00  43.75
                                          Totals                                            168.60

Hands and Results
1 ♠J764
T942
653
♣A7
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠K93
J86
K982
♣Q52
♠82
K53
AT4
♣KT963
♠AQT5
AQ7
QJ7
♣J84
5
910
16
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1 2♠  ♣5 ♦6 NT6
EW: 2♣ 1 1NT  ♥6 ♠5
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: +100 2NT*-EW/3♣*-EW-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
   90          1.50   0.50  1N S      2  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
   90          1.50   0.50  1N S      2  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
   50          0.00   2.00  2♣ E -1   Q  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO6-Sebring-Jones

Craig Hemphill Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 PassPass1NT
PassPassPass 

The mathematicians say that there is a sixty percent chance that South will have a four card major to fit North's holdings, giving a little bit of impetus to North to remove from 1NT, but not enough. Change one card -- the A -- and the resulting pattern so that North has A653 and the 7 singleton, and everyone would bid 2, passing the response. So while hardly anyone would actually bid Stayman with the North hand, it is not unreasonable to do so, just risky.

How else does one arrive at a spade partial? Well, how about using a weak notrump, so that South would bid 1, North 1, and then South's 1 rebid would end the auction?

Oh, dear! Then there is a school of thought, highly defended, that after 1 - 1, South should rebid 1NT, showing strength and "General" pattern, rather than continue the search for a four-four major suit. Those very articulate arguments go on to show how the later bidding will simply not reflect the balanced pattern of the South hand.

Yes, but they will miss the spade fit. It appears that most will miss the spade fit, so matchpoints will primarily be distributed based on the play of the hand, focusing on the opening lead. A club will do wonders for the defense, but either a diamond from West or a major suit, hoping to hit partner, will give declarer a head start.

Too many variations to predict a result, so a prime source of differentiation in the rankings. Here lie matchpoints.



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

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

CLICK HERE or email me directly at rcraigh@aol.com

2 ♠Q
A963
QJ6
♣KT643
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠AJT9872
J
93
♣QJ2
♠43
QT8752
82
♣A85
♠K65
K4
AKT754
♣97
12
96
13
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 4 3NT  ♥6 ♠5
EW: 2♠  ♣4 ♦3 ♥6 NT4
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: +300 4♠*-EW-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  130          2.00   0.00  4 S      J  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
   50          1.00   1.00  3♠ W -1   Q  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
        100    0.00   2.00  5 S -1   ♠A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO6-Sebring-Jones

Craig Hemphill Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
  23
Pass3NTAll pass 

You can't have everything. East makes a pushy but very reasonable first seat preempt at favorable vulnerability, far from discipline, motivated by destructive goals. Some seats and vulnerabilities require discipline, but this combination of factors opens the door for many partnerships.

South brushes the preempt aside, showing strength and a diamond suit, and North has ample strength, diamond fit, and heart stopper to trot out 3NT. Spade stopper? Who needs that? Partner overcalled and must have something else. Hope that includes a spade honor, then we are golden!

Such are the maneuvers required to overcome preempts. North would shrug if South had the A instead of a spade honor, and tip the cap to the preempt.



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

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

CLICK HERE or email me directly at rcraigh@aol.com

3 ♠K6
QT5
KJ92
♣AT98
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠AJ83
6432
T4
♣Q62
♠Q942
K9
AQ863
♣53
♠T75
AJ87
75
♣KJ74
13
711
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 4♣ 1 3 3NT  ♠6
EW: 1♠  ♣3 ♦6 ♥4 NT4
LoTT: 17 - 16 = +1
Par: +400 3NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  150          2.00   0.00  1N N +2   ♠2  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
  130          1.00   1.00  2♣ N +2   A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
  110          0.00   2.00  3♣ S      ♠8  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux

Craig Hemphill Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
   Pass
Pass1Pass1
Pass1NTPassPass
Pass   

Lucky lie of the cards plus a little guesswork brings home nine tricks in notrump, but there is nothing close to bidding it in the air. Matchpoints to good guessers. Two factors suggest playing West for the club queen: After the 6 lead, there will be extra room in the West hand to hold any particular card (Q), and also declarer will want to lose a club trick, worst case scenario, to East, so that a spade does not come through the king. Therefore, most will get the clubs right, ant then the Q may be advanced.

In the light of the foregoing, looks like a spade lead from East would have been better!



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

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

CLICK HERE or email me directly at rcraigh@aol.com

4 ♠AT82
963
T7
♣8752
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠543
QT75
K8432
♣9
♠K76
AK4
QJ65
♣KJT
♠QJ9
J82
A9
♣AQ643
4
517
14
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣  ♦3 ♥4 ♠6 NT4
EW: 3 3 1NT  ♣6/5 ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 18 = -2
Par: -140 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
        110    2.00   0.00  2 E +1   ♠Q  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
        140    1.00   1.00  2 E +1   ♠Q  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
        180    0.00   2.00  1N E +3   ♣4  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto

Craig Hemphill Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
PassPass1NTPass
2Pass2Pass
PassPass  

Hearken back to Board 1, where a hypothetical Garbage Stayman auction was suggested, but rejected. Here West has an absolutely fine GS hand -- bid Stayman and pass any response.

2 is the result, and while not perfect, far better than playing 1NT, and justifiable on both theoretical and empirical grounds.



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

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

CLICK HERE or email me directly at rcraigh@aol.com

5 ♠A72
83
AK986
♣KT2
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠KT865
A4
J742
♣86
♠3
KQ9765
T5
♣A943
♠QJ94
JT2
Q3
♣QJ75
14
89
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2 1♠  ♥6 NT6
EW: 1 1NT  ♣5 ♦4 ♠6
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: +90 2-NS/2♣-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
        100    2.00   0.00  2♠ N -1   K  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
        110    1.00   1.00  2 E      ♠Q  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
        300    0.00   2.00  3N S -3   A  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
6 ♠A932
9
AK742
♣642
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠KJ
JT72
Q3
♣K9875
♠Q8
AQ853
J986
♣AJ
♠T7654
K64
T5
♣QT3
11
1014
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1 2♠  ♣5 ♥4 NT6
EW: 2♣ 3  ♦6 ♠4 NT6
LoTT: 17 - 18 = -1
Par: -100 3♠*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  100          1.00   1.00  4 E -1   ♠4  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
  100          1.00   1.00  4 E -1   T  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
  100          1.00   1.00  4 E -1   T  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
7 ♠T9863
2
AJT84
♣87
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠AJ42
T7
2
♣QT6432
♠Q7
AJ983
KQ95
♣A9
♠K5
KQ654
763
♣KJ5
5
716
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣3 ♦6 ♥4 ♠5 NT4
EW: 4/3♣ 1 3/2 1♠ 3NT
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -600 3NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
        110    2.00   0.00  3♣ E      K  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
        150    1.00   1.00  2N E +1   2  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
        400    0.00   2.00  1N S -4   ♣4  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
8 ♠95
43
JT95
♣AQJ73
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠J72
Q865
Q72
♣KT8
♠AQT83
KT2
AK
♣942
♠K64
AJ97
8643
♣65
8
816
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 2 1NT  ♥6 ♠5
EW: -/1 1♠
       ♣5 ♦5 ♥6/7 NT6/5
LoTT: 15 - 16 = -1
Par: +90 1NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  150          2.00   0.00  3N E -3   ♣6  OO7-Roberts-Hedlund vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
         90    1.00   1.00  1N E      4  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
        120    0.00   2.00  1N E +1   7  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
9 ♠32
A632
T62
♣J542
Dlr: North
Vul: E-W
♠8
K985
QJ753
♣983
♠AQJ7
J7
K98
♣AKT6
♠KT9654
QT4
A4
♣Q7
5
618
11
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣4 ♦3 ♥5 ♠6 NT4
EW: 3♣ 4 2/1 3NT  ♠6
LoTT: 16 - 16 = 0
Par: -600 3NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  500          2.00   0.00  5N W -5   ♣J  OO6-Sebring-Jones vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
        600    1.00   1.00  3N E      A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
        630    0.00   2.00  3N E +1   4  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
10 ♠KQ9
Q54
AT7
♣6543
Dlr: East
Vul: Both
♠T72
AJT98
K2
♣AT9
♠J3
K63
QJ98643
♣Q
♠A8654
72
5
♣KJ872
11
129
8
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 2♠  ♦3 ♥5/4 NT6
EW: 4 2  ♣4 ♠4 NT6
LoTT: 19 - 18 = +1
Par: -130 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
        130    1.00   1.00  3 E +1   ♠A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
        130    1.00   1.00  2 E +2   ♠A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
        130    1.00   1.00  2 E +2   7  OO6-Sebring-Jones vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
11 ♠KT7
Q852
Q5
♣JT94
Dlr: South
Vul: None
♠QJ2
T73
K93
♣7652
♠A98643
64
42
♣K83
♠5
AKJ9
AJT876
♣AQ
8
67
19
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 5 5 2NT  ♠6
EW: 1/-♠  ♣4 ♦2 ♥2 ♠7/6 NT3
LoTT: 18 - 17 = +1
Par: +450 5-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  450          1.50   0.50  4 N +1   ♠A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
  450          1.50   0.50  4 N +1   4  OO6-Sebring-Jones vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
  420          0.00   2.00  4 N      ♣3  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
12 ♠A75
J852
KQ76
♣96
Dlr: West
Vul: N-S
♠T2
AK7
8532
♣KQJ5
♠93
QT963
JT
♣A742
♠KQJ864
4
A94
♣T83
10
137
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2 4♠  ♣3 ♥4 NT4
EW: 3♣ 3  ♦3 ♠2 NT3
LoTT: 19 - 17 = +2
Par: +300 5*-EW/5♣*-EW-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  170          2.00   0.00  3♠ S +1   A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto
   50          0.50   1.50  4 E -1   ♠K  OO6-Sebring-Jones vs OO2-McCormick-Hedlund
   50          0.50   1.50  3♣ W -1   ♠A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
13 ♠AQT
AQ74
T8
♣KQJ8
Dlr: North
Vul: Both
♠2
653
AK9652
♣T72
♠K543
92
QJ743
♣A3
♠J9876
KJT8
-
♣9654
18
710
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 5/4♣ 5 3♠  ♦4 NT5
EW: 3 1NT  ♣2 ♥2 ♠3
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: +650 5-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  650          2.00   0.00  4 N +1   ♣A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
  200          0.50   1.50  3♠ S +2   2  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
  200          0.50   1.50  2♠ N +3   9  OO5-De Gregorio-Lux vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
14 ♠9753
T6542
9
♣A96
Dlr: East
Vul: None
♠KT
KQ7
AKQT83
♣QJ
♠AQJ2
J
764
♣K8752
♠864
A983
J52
♣T43
4
2011
5
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣2 ♦1 ♥5 ♠2 NT2
EW: 4♣ 5 2 5♠ 5NT
LoTT: 16 - 18 = -2
Par: -460 5NT-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
   50          2.00   0.00  6N W -1   ♣A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
        150    1.00   1.00  4 W +1   T  OO5-De Gregorio-Lux vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
        990    0.00   2.00  6N W      4  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
15 ♠K5
KQ84
K62
♣A982
Dlr: South
Vul: N-S
♠AT73
AJT5
4
♣K754
♠QJ2
62
QJ9873
♣T3
♠9864
973
AT5
♣QJ6
15
126
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣ 1 2 1♠ 2NT
EW:  ♣5 ♦6 ♥4/5 ♠5/6 NT5
LoTT: 14 - 14 = 0
Par: +120 2NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  150          2.00   0.00  1N N +2   9  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
  100          1.00   1.00  2♠ W -2   K  OO5-De Gregorio-Lux vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
   50          0.00   2.00  2 E -1   ♠4  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
16 ♠J
JT86
AK83
♣J862
Dlr: West
Vul: E-W
♠A9753
72
JT954
♣4
♠QT6
AKQ4
Q762
♣KT
♠K842
953
-
♣AQ9753
10
516
9
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 1  ♦3 ♠4 NT5
EW: 3 3♠ 2/-NT
       ♣4/3 ♥6 NT8/5
LoTT: 18 - 19 = -1
Par: -100 4♣*-NS-1
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  200          1.50   0.50  4♠ W -2   A  OO5-De Gregorio-Lux vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
  200          1.50   0.50  4♠* E -1  ♣A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
        170    0.00   2.00  2♠ E +2   3  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
17 ♠94
A8
AJ93
♣J9875
Dlr: North
Vul: None
♠AKQ32
JT752
6
♣A4
♠J
K9643
Q842
♣KT3
♠T8765
Q
KT75
♣Q62
10
149
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♣ 1  ♥2 ♠5 NT5
EW: 5 2♠ 2NT  ♣5 ♦5
LoTT: 18 - 18 = 0
Par: -450 5-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
        420    2.00   0.00  4 W      ♠9  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
        450    1.00   1.00  4 W +1   ♣7  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        480    0.00   2.00  4 W +2   ♣9  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
18 ♠T8652
9
K53
♣AJ76
Dlr: East
Vul: N-S
♠KJ93
Q8
876
♣Q432
♠A74
T532
AJ92
♣T9
♠Q
AKJ764
QT4
♣K85
8
89
15
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 2 4 2♠ 3NT
EW:  ♣3 ♦5 ♥3 ♠5 NT4
LoTT: 15 - 14 = +1
Par: +620 4-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  660          2.00   0.00  3N N +2   K  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
  200          1.00   1.00  2 S +3   8  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        100    0.00   2.00  4 S -1   ♠3  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
19 ♠T63
QT7
Q984
♣943
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
♠AQJ8
95
J763
♣Q87
♠954
AK4
K52
♣JT65
♠K72
J8632
AT
♣AK2
4
1011
15
Double Dummy Makes
NS:  ♣4 ♦5 ♥6 ♠5 NT5
EW: 3♣ 2 1 2♠ 1NT
LoTT: 15 - 15 = 0
Par: -110 2♠-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  150          2.00   0.00  1N S +2   3  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
  120          1.00   1.00  1N S +1   ♠8  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
  110          0.00   2.00  1 S +1   7  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
20 ♠T93
K982
K932
♣T4
Dlr: West
Vul: Both
♠875
AQ4
J87
♣AJ62
♠K6
J76
AQT54
♣987
♠AQJ42
T53
6
♣KQ53
6
1210
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♠  ♣6 ♦4 ♥6 NT4
EW: 1♣ 3 1NT  ♥6 ♠5
LoTT: 17 - 16 = +1
Par: -110 3-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  110          2.00   0.00  2♠ S      6  OO2-McCormick-Hedlund vs OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre
  100          1.00   1.00  3 E -1   ♣K  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        110    0.00   2.00  3 E      ♣K  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
21 ♠75
T972
65
♣AK972
Dlr: North
Vul: N-S
♠T9
KQJ84
AJT973
♣-
♠AQJ6
3
Q842
♣J854
♠K8432
A65
K
♣QT63
7
1110
12
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 2♣  ♦1 ♥3 ♠5 NT6
EW: 6/5 2 1/-♠ 1NT
       ♣4 ♠7/6
LoTT: 20 - 19 = +1
Par: -920 6-E
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  100          2.00   0.00  2 W -2   ♣A  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
   50          1.00   1.00  3N E -1   ♣2  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        400    0.00   2.00  5 E      A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO6-Sebring-Jones

Craig Hemphill Hand Analysis
WestNorthEastSouth
 PassPass1
4!!Pass5All pass

Dear audience: You are all familiar with four level minor suit jumps over weak two bids showing two suited hands with the minor chosen and the "other major" not bid by the opponents (e.g., [2] 4, showing spades and clubs, such as AQJxx x xx KQJxx). Some totally incorrectly refer to these descriptive jumps as "Roman" jump overcalls, but those always showed the suit bid and the next higher, so 4 over a 2 opening bid would be defined as clubs and diamonds in "Roman" jumps.

Others inaccurately but comfortably refer to these jumps as "Leaping Michaels Cue Bid ," but Mike Michaels never used and certainly did not invent these bids. Perhaps inspired by Roman jumps, but refined, the actual inventor was Meyer Schleifer, a hall of fame player. Let us honor this exceptional player and resolve to use the correct name for this bid!

So much for the restricted use over a weak two bid. Some (few) world class players have been observed using the method after a three level preempt in a major, so that a four level minor overcall promises the same two suits as Schleifer. Too rich for my blood, but I am just reporting facts.

However, extending the use of Schleifer seems reasonable after a one level opening, as here. In one bid West gets to describe a very useful holding in the red suits, far more descriptive as to power, and faster in defining the actual suits, which may on occasion be most useful. Is it not the goal of bridge bidding to paint a picture for partner to use to make decisions? I commend this method. Several other applications have been discovered, and may be revealed in future pages. Keep reading the Common Game!

Too bad East could not be the declarer, for twelve tricks are then available (no spade lead through the ace).



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

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

CLICK HERE or email me directly at rcraigh@aol.com

22 ♠985
872
K2
♣AQ762
Dlr: East
Vul: E-W
♠KQJT2
QJ5
A975
♣5
♠A764
A9
QJT83
♣83
♠3
KT643
64
♣KJT94
9
1311
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3♣ 3  ♦2 ♠3 NT6
EW: 4 4♠ 1NT  ♣4 ♥4
LoTT: 19 - 19 = 0
Par: -300 5*-NS/5♣*-NS-2
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  100          2.00   0.00  5♠ W -1   ♣A  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        170    1.00   1.00  3♠ W +1   7  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
        620    0.00   2.00  4♠ W      8  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
23 ♠K986
AK5
AQ3
♣AQ5
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
♠A53
84
76542
♣J32
♠7
Q7632
J98
♣K986
♠QJT42
JT9
KT
♣T74
22
56
7
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 3/2♣ 2 2 5♠ 5NT
EW:  ♣4 ♦5 ♥5 ♠2 NT2
LoTT: 16 - 17 = -1
Par: +660 5NT-NS
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  650          2.00   0.00  4♠ N +1   J  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO6-Sebring-Jones
  620          0.50   1.50  4♠ N      J  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
  620          0.50   1.50  4♠ N      J  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
24 ♠T984
J754
Q98
♣K5
Dlr: West
Vul: None
♠-
AK962
JT65
♣QT84
♠KJ65
QT3
A3
♣A963
♠AQ732
8
K742
♣J72
6
1014
10
Double Dummy Makes
NS: 1♠  ♣2 ♦5 ♥3 NT4
EW: 5♣ 2/1 4 3/-NT
       ♠6 NT9/6
LoTT: 18 - 17 = +1
Par: -420 4-EW
  N-S   E-W    N-S    E-W   Contract  Ld
  150          2.00   0.00  4 W -3   ♠T  OO3-Maggipinto-Maggipinto vs OO5-De Gregorio-Lux
  100          1.00   1.00  4 W -2   ♠T  OO4-Hendrick-Sapcre vs OO7-Roberts-Hedlund
        150    0.00   2.00  4♠ S -3   A  OO8-Nasr-Nasr vs OO6-Sebring-Jones