English Bridge Union National Masters 01/03/2008 Multisection Session 1 Section Green
Board 1 NS Datum=170
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 1 3Sx-2 E   300 4 -4 Hoffman & Hoffman Barker & Wing
9 8 3NT-1 S   -50 -6 6 Taylor & Taylor Lee & Paul
8 6 2S-1 E   50 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Love & Tapp
7 4 3C-2 W   100 -2 2 Griffiths & Pryor Clarke & White
6 2 3Sx-2 E   300 4 -4 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lang & Lang
5 9 3Sx-2 E   300 4 -4 Boss & Johnson Doran & Thompson
4 7 3NT-1 S   -50 -6 6 Goldman & Wernick Cambery & Courtney
3 5 3D= S   110 -2 2 Bainbridge & Larkin Moss & Moss
2 3 3NT= N   400 6 -6 Hillyard & Smith Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
Board 2 NS Datum=-390
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 1 2Hx-1 S   -200 5 -5 Hoffman & Hoffman Barker & Wing
9 8 4S= E   -420 -1 1 Taylor & Taylor Lee & Paul
8 6 4S= E   -420 -1 1 Abisch & De Mercur Love & Tapp
7 4 4S+1 E   -450 -2 2 Griffiths & Pryor Clarke & White
6 2 4S+1 E   -450 -2 2 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lang & Lang
5 9 5Sx= E   -650 -6 6 Boss & Johnson Doran & Thompson
4 7 4S+1 E   -450 -2 2 Goldman & Wernick Cambery & Courtney
3 5 4S= E   -420 -1 1 Bainbridge & Larkin Moss & Moss
2 3 3C= N   110 11 -11 Hillyard & Smith Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
Board 3 NS Datum=180
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 1 3NT-3 E   300 3 -3 Hoffman & Hoffman Barker & Wing
9 8 2S+1 W   -140 -8 8 Taylor & Taylor Lee & Paul
8 6 2H+2 N   170 0 0 Abisch & De Mercur Love & Tapp
7 4 4H-1 N   -50 -6 6 Griffiths & Pryor Clarke & White
6 2 4Sx-1 W   200 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lang & Lang
5 9 2NT= N   120 -2 2 Boss & Johnson Doran & Thompson
4 7 5D-2 W   200 1 -1 Goldman & Wernick Cambery & Courtney
3 5 4D= W   -130 -7 7 Bainbridge & Larkin Moss & Moss
2 3 2NT-1 N   -50 -6 6 Hillyard & Smith Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
Board 4 NS Datum=730
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 2 3NT+2 S   660 -2 2 Hillyard & Smith Lang & Lang
1 9 3NT+2 S   660 -2 2 Hoffman & Hoffman Doran & Thompson
9 7 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Taylor & Taylor Cambery & Courtney
8 5 3NT+1 S   630 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Moss & Moss
7 3 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Griffiths & Pryor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
6 1 3NT+2 S   660 -2 2 Foster & Liebeschuetz Barker & Wing
5 8 6D= N   1370 12 -12 Boss & Johnson Lee & Paul
4 6 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Goldman & Wernick Love & Tapp
3 4 3NT+2 S   660 -2 2 Bainbridge & Larkin Clarke & White
Board 5 NS Datum=200
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 2 2S-1 N   -100 -7 7 Hillyard & Smith Lang & Lang
1 9 4D= S   130 -2 2 Hoffman & Hoffman Doran & Thompson
9 7 3D+1 S   130 -2 2 Taylor & Taylor Cambery & Courtney
8 5 3NT= N   600 9 -9 Abisch & De Mercur Moss & Moss
7 3 3NT-2 N   -200 -9 9 Griffiths & Pryor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
6 1 3NT= N   600 9 -9 Foster & Liebeschuetz Barker & Wing
5 8 3NT= N   600 9 -9 Boss & Johnson Lee & Paul
4 6 2Hx-3 W   500 7 -7 Goldman & Wernick Love & Tapp
3 4 3H-2 E   100 -3 3 Bainbridge & Larkin Clarke & White
Board 6 NS Datum=10
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 2 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Hillyard & Smith Lang & Lang
1 9 3NT+1 N   430 9 -9 Hoffman & Hoffman Doran & Thompson
9 7 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Taylor & Taylor Cambery & Courtney
8 5 3NT-3 N   -150 -4 4 Abisch & De Mercur Moss & Moss
7 3 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Griffiths & Pryor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
6 1 1NTx-1 W   200 5 -5 Foster & Liebeschuetz Barker & Wing
5 8 3NT= N   400 9 -9 Boss & Johnson Lee & Paul
4 6 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Goldman & Wernick Love & Tapp
3 4 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Bainbridge & Larkin Clarke & White
Board 7 NS Datum=-10
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 3 2D= E   -90 -2 2 Bainbridge & Larkin Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
2 1 2H-1 N   -100 -3 3 Hillyard & Smith Barker & Wing
1 8 4H-5 N   -500 -10 10 Hoffman & Hoffman Lee & Paul
9 6 1H-1 N   -100 -3 3 Taylor & Taylor Love & Tapp
8 4 3D-1 E   100 3 -3 Abisch & De Mercur Clarke & White
7 2 2D= E   -90 -2 2 Griffiths & Pryor Lang & Lang
6 9 3S-1 S   -100 -3 3 Foster & Liebeschuetz Doran & Thompson
5 7 3D-1 E   100 3 -3 Boss & Johnson Cambery & Courtney
4 5 3D-1 E   100 3 -3 Goldman & Wernick Moss & Moss
Board 8 NS Datum=290
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 3 3NT-2 N   -100 -9 9 Bainbridge & Larkin Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
2 1 3NT-1 N   -50 -8 8 Hillyard & Smith Barker & Wing
1 8 3NT= N   400 3 -3 Hoffman & Hoffman Lee & Paul
9 6 3NT+1 S   430 4 -4 Taylor & Taylor Love & Tapp
8 4 3NT= N   400 3 -3 Abisch & De Mercur Clarke & White
7 2 3NT-1 N   -50 -8 8 Griffiths & Pryor Lang & Lang
6 9 3NT= S   400 3 -3 Foster & Liebeschuetz Doran & Thompson
5 7 4Sx-5 E   1100 13 -13 Boss & Johnson Cambery & Courtney
4 5 3NT+1 S   430 4 -4 Goldman & Wernick Moss & Moss
Board 9 NS Datum=90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 3 2NT+1 N   150 2 -2 Bainbridge & Larkin Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
2 1 1NT+2 S   150 2 -2 Hillyard & Smith Barker & Wing
1 8 3NT-2 N   -100 -5 5 Hoffman & Hoffman Lee & Paul
9 6 1NT+2 S   150 2 -2 Taylor & Taylor Love & Tapp
8 4 2H-2 N   -100 -5 5 Abisch & De Mercur Clarke & White
7 2 3NT-1 N   -50 -4 4 Griffiths & Pryor Lang & Lang
6 9 1NT+2 S   150 2 -2 Foster & Liebeschuetz Doran & Thompson
5 7 2S+2 N   170 2 -2 Boss & Johnson Cambery & Courtney
4 5 1NT+2 S   150 2 -2 Goldman & Wernick Moss & Moss
Board 10 NS Datum=930
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 4 6H= N   1430 11 -11 Goldman & Wernick Clarke & White
3 2 4H+2 S   680 -6 6 Bainbridge & Larkin Lang & Lang
2 9 6H= S   1430 11 -11 Hillyard & Smith Doran & Thompson
1 7 5H+1 N   680 -6 6 Hoffman & Hoffman Cambery & Courtney
9 5 4H+1 N   650 -7 7 Taylor & Taylor Moss & Moss
8 3 4H+2 N   680 -6 6 Abisch & De Mercur Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
7 1 4H+2 S   680 -6 6 Griffiths & Pryor Barker & Wing
6 8 4H+2 S   680 -6 6 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lee & Paul
5 6 6H= S   1430 11 -11 Boss & Johnson Love & Tapp
Board 11 NS Datum=-90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 4 5S-3 S   -150 -2 2 Goldman & Wernick Clarke & White
3 2 4S-2 S   -100 0 0 Bainbridge & Larkin Lang & Lang
2 9 4S-1 S   -50 1 -1 Hillyard & Smith Doran & Thompson
1 7 4S-2 N   -100 0 0 Hoffman & Hoffman Cambery & Courtney
9 5 4S-2 N   -100 0 0 Taylor & Taylor Moss & Moss
8 3 4S= S   420 11 -11 Abisch & De Mercur Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
7 1 5S-2 N   -100 0 0 Griffiths & Pryor Barker & Wing
6 8 4Sx-2 S   -300 -5 5 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lee & Paul
5 6 3S-1 S   -50 1 -1 Boss & Johnson Love & Tapp
Board 12 NS Datum=-180
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 4 3NT+1 E   -430 -6 6 Goldman & Wernick Clarke & White
3 2 2D+4 W   -170 0 0 Bainbridge & Larkin Lang & Lang
2 9 2D+1 W   -110 2 -2 Hillyard & Smith Doran & Thompson
1 7 5D= W   -400 -6 6 Hoffman & Hoffman Cambery & Courtney
9 5 2D+2 W   -130 2 -2 Taylor & Taylor Moss & Moss
8 3 2D+2 W   -130 2 -2 Abisch & De Mercur Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
7 1 2D+3 W   -150 1 -1 Griffiths & Pryor Barker & Wing
6 8 2D+3 W   -150 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Lee & Paul
5 6 2D= W   -90 3 -3 Boss & Johnson Love & Tapp
Board 13 NS Datum=-670
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
5 5 5S= E   -650 1 -1 Boss & Johnson Moss & Moss
4 3 4S+2 E   -680 0 0 Goldman & Wernick Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
3 1 4S+1 E   -650 1 -1 Bainbridge & Larkin Barker & Wing
2 8 4S+2 E   -680 0 0 Hillyard & Smith Lee & Paul
1 6 4S+1 E   -650 1 -1 Hoffman & Hoffman Love & Tapp
9 4 4S+2 E   -680 0 0 Taylor & Taylor Clarke & White
8 2 4S+1 E   -650 1 -1 Abisch & De Mercur Lang & Lang
7 9 4S+2 E   -680 0 0 Griffiths & Pryor Doran & Thompson
6 7 5S= E   -650 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Cambery & Courtney
Board 14 NS Datum=70
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
5 5 3NT+1 N   430 8 -8 Boss & Johnson Moss & Moss
4 3 3H-1 S   -50 -3 3 Goldman & Wernick Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
3 1 2H= S   110 1 -1 Bainbridge & Larkin Barker & Wing
2 8 2H= S   110 1 -1 Hillyard & Smith Lee & Paul
1 6 4H-1 S   -50 -3 3 Hoffman & Hoffman Love & Tapp
9 4 4H-1 S   -50 -3 3 Taylor & Taylor Clarke & White
8 2 4H-1 S   -50 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Lang & Lang
7 9 3NT+1 N   430 8 -8 Griffiths & Pryor Doran & Thompson
6 7 4H-1 S   -50 -3 3 Foster & Liebeschuetz Cambery & Courtney
Board 15 NS Datum=680
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
5 5 4S+2 S   680 0 0 Boss & Johnson Moss & Moss
4 3 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Goldman & Wernick Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
3 1 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Bainbridge & Larkin Barker & Wing
2 8 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Hillyard & Smith Lee & Paul
1 6 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Hoffman & Hoffman Love & Tapp
9 4 4S+1 N   650 -1 1 Taylor & Taylor Clarke & White
8 2 4S+2 S   680 0 0 Abisch & De Mercur Lang & Lang
7 9 4S+1 N   650 -1 1 Griffiths & Pryor Doran & Thompson
6 7 5Cx-5 E   1100 9 -9 Foster & Liebeschuetz Cambery & Courtney
Board 16 NS Datum=70
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 6 1NT-1 E   100 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Love & Tapp
5 4 2D-1 E   100 1 -1 Boss & Johnson Clarke & White
4 2 1NT-2 E   200 4 -4 Goldman & Wernick Lang & Lang
3 9 2NT-1 E   100 1 -1 Bainbridge & Larkin Doran & Thompson
2 7 2NT-1 N   -50 -3 3 Hillyard & Smith Cambery & Courtney
1 5 1NT-2 E   200 4 -4 Hoffman & Hoffman Moss & Moss
9 3 2S= W   -110 -5 5 Taylor & Taylor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
8 1 1NT= E   -90 -4 4 Abisch & De Mercur Barker & Wing
7 8 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Griffiths & Pryor Lee & Paul
Board 17 NS Datum=320
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 6 4H= N   420 3 -3 Foster & Liebeschuetz Love & Tapp
5 4 4H= N   420 3 -3 Boss & Johnson Clarke & White
4 2 2S+2 S   170 -4 4 Goldman & Wernick Lang & Lang
3 9 3H+1 N   170 -4 4 Bainbridge & Larkin Doran & Thompson
2 7 4NT= N   430 3 -3 Hillyard & Smith Cambery & Courtney
1 5 4H= N   420 3 -3 Hoffman & Hoffman Moss & Moss
9 3 2S+1 S   140 -5 5 Taylor & Taylor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
8 1 4H= N   420 3 -3 Abisch & De Mercur Barker & Wing
7 8 4H= N   420 3 -3 Griffiths & Pryor Lee & Paul
Board 18 NS Datum=-90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 6 2S= E   -110 -1 1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Love & Tapp
5 4 2NT-1 E   50 4 -4 Boss & Johnson Clarke & White
4 2 2S+1 E   -140 -2 2 Goldman & Wernick Lang & Lang
3 9 1NT= W   -90 0 0 Bainbridge & Larkin Doran & Thompson
2 7 1NT= W   -90 0 0 Hillyard & Smith Cambery & Courtney
1 5 2D+1 W   -110 -1 1 Hoffman & Hoffman Moss & Moss
9 3 2S= E   -110 -1 1 Taylor & Taylor Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
8 1 1NT+3 W   -180 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Barker & Wing
7 8 2S= E   -110 -1 1 Griffiths & Pryor Lee & Paul
Board 19 NS Datum=30
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
7 7 3S-1 E   100 2 -2 Griffiths & Pryor Cambery & Courtney
6 5 3D= N   110 2 -2 Foster & Liebeschuetz Moss & Moss
5 3 2D= N   90 2 -2 Boss & Johnson Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
4 1 2H-1 S   -50 -2 2 Goldman & Wernick Barker & Wing
3 8 3H-2 S   -100 -4 4 Bainbridge & Larkin Lee & Paul
2 6 3D+1 N   130 3 -3 Hillyard & Smith Love & Tapp
1 4 2S= E   -110 -4 4 Hoffman & Hoffman Clarke & White
9 2 1NT+3 N   180 4 -4 Taylor & Taylor Lang & Lang
8 9 2NT-3 N   -150 -5 5 Abisch & De Mercur Doran & Thompson
Board 20 NS Datum=370
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
7 7 4S= S   620 6 -6 Griffiths & Pryor Cambery & Courtney
6 5 4S+1 S   650 7 -7 Foster & Liebeschuetz Moss & Moss
5 3 4S= S   620 6 -6 Boss & Johnson Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
4 1 2S+3 S   200 -5 5 Goldman & Wernick Barker & Wing
3 8 4S+1 S   650 7 -7 Bainbridge & Larkin Lee & Paul
2 6 4H-1 N   -100 -10 10 Hillyard & Smith Love & Tapp
1 4 2H+1 N   140 -6 6 Hoffman & Hoffman Clarke & White
9 2 3NT-1 S   -100 -10 10 Taylor & Taylor Lang & Lang
8 9 3H= N   140 -6 6 Abisch & De Mercur Doran & Thompson
Board 21 NS Datum=-110
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
7 7 2S= E   -110 0 0 Griffiths & Pryor Cambery & Courtney
6 5 1NT= E   -90 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Moss & Moss
5 3 3S-1 E   50 4 -4 Boss & Johnson Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
4 1 3H-1 S   -100 0 0 Goldman & Wernick Barker & Wing
3 8 2S= E   -110 0 0 Bainbridge & Larkin Lee & Paul
2 6 1NT-2 N   -200 -3 3 Hillyard & Smith Love & Tapp
1 4 2S= E   -110 0 0 Hoffman & Hoffman Clarke & White
9 2 2S= E   -110 0 0 Taylor & Taylor Lang & Lang
8 9 2S= E   -110 0 0 Abisch & De Mercur Doran & Thompson
Board 22 NS Datum=-440
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 8 3NT= E   -600 -4 4 Abisch & De Mercur Lee & Paul
7 6 6C-2 W   200 12 -12 Griffiths & Pryor Love & Tapp
6 4 5C= E   -600 -4 4 Foster & Liebeschuetz Clarke & White
5 2 4H= E   -620 -5 5 Boss & Johnson Lang & Lang
4 9 3NT+2 E   -660 -6 6 Goldman & Wernick Doran & Thompson
3 7 4S-1 W   100 11 -11 Bainbridge & Larkin Cambery & Courtney
2 5 5C= E   -600 -4 4 Hillyard & Smith Moss & Moss
1 3 4S= W   -620 -5 5 Hoffman & Hoffman Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
9 1 3NT= E   -600 -4 4 Taylor & Taylor Barker & Wing
Board 23 NS Datum=-50
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 8 3H= E   -140 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Lee & Paul
7 6 3H+1 E   -170 -3 3 Griffiths & Pryor Love & Tapp
6 4 3H-1 E   100 4 -4 Foster & Liebeschuetz Clarke & White
5 2 3D-1 S   -100 -2 2 Boss & Johnson Lang & Lang
4 9 3S-1 S   -100 -2 2 Goldman & Wernick Doran & Thompson
3 7 3H-1 E   100 4 -4 Bainbridge & Larkin Cambery & Courtney
2 5 4H-1 E   100 4 -4 Hillyard & Smith Moss & Moss
1 3 2S-1 S   -100 -2 2 Hoffman & Hoffman Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
9 1 3H+1 E   -170 -3 3 Taylor & Taylor Barker & Wing
Board 24 NS Datum=-240
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 8 6D+1 W   -940 -12 12 Abisch & De Mercur Lee & Paul
7 6 6NT-1 E   50 7 -7 Griffiths & Pryor Love & Tapp
6 4 5S-2 E   100 8 -8 Foster & Liebeschuetz Clarke & White
5 2 6NT= W   -990 -13 13 Boss & Johnson Lang & Lang
4 9 4S-1 E   50 7 -7 Goldman & Wernick Doran & Thompson
3 7 4S-1 E   50 7 -7 Bainbridge & Larkin Cambery & Courtney
2 5 6D-1 W   50 7 -7 Hillyard & Smith Moss & Moss
1 3 4S-2 E   100 8 -8 Hoffman & Hoffman Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
9 1 5D= W   -400 -4 4 Taylor & Taylor Barker & Wing
Board 25 NS Datum=-700
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 9 4H+2 W   -680 1 -1 Taylor & Taylor Doran & Thompson
8 7 4H+2 E   -680 1 -1 Abisch & De Mercur Cambery & Courtney
7 5 4H+3 E   -710 0 0 Griffiths & Pryor Moss & Moss
6 3 4H+2 E   -680 1 -1 Foster & Liebeschuetz Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
5 1 4H+3 E   -710 0 0 Boss & Johnson Barker & Wing
4 8 3NT+4 E   -720 -1 1 Goldman & Wernick Lee & Paul
3 6 4H+1 W   -650 2 -2 Bainbridge & Larkin Love & Tapp
2 4 4H+3 W   -710 0 0 Hillyard & Smith Clarke & White
1 2 4S+3 E   -710 0 0 Hoffman & Hoffman Lang & Lang
Board 26 NS Datum=90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 9 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Taylor & Taylor Doran & Thompson
8 7 3NT-2 S   -200 -7 7 Abisch & De Mercur Cambery & Courtney
7 5 3NT+2 N   660 11 -11 Griffiths & Pryor Moss & Moss
6 3 3NT-1 N   -100 -5 5 Foster & Liebeschuetz Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
5 1 2H+2 S   170 2 -2 Boss & Johnson Barker & Wing
4 8 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Goldman & Wernick Lee & Paul
3 6 2H+2 S   170 2 -2 Bainbridge & Larkin Love & Tapp
2 4 3NT-1 N   -100 -5 5 Hillyard & Smith Clarke & White
1 2 2NT+2 N   180 3 -3 Hoffman & Hoffman Lang & Lang
Board 27 NS Datum=320
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 9 4H-2 S   -100 -9 9 Taylor & Taylor Doran & Thompson
8 7 3H+2 N   200 -3 3 Abisch & De Mercur Cambery & Courtney
7 5 3H= N   140 -5 5 Griffiths & Pryor Moss & Moss
6 3 4H= S   420 3 -3 Foster & Liebeschuetz Nastaszczuk & Roxburgh
5 1 4H= S   420 3 -3 Boss & Johnson Barker & Wing
4 8 4H= N   420 3 -3 Goldman & Wernick Lee & Paul
3 6 3H+2 N   200 -3 3 Bainbridge & Larkin Love & Tapp
2 4 4H+1 S   450 4 -4 Hillyard & Smith Clarke & White
1 2 3D-2 W   100 -6 6 Hoffman & Hoffman Lang & Lang
Session 1 Section Blue Howell
Board 1 NS Datum=170
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 4 2Sx-1 E   100 -2 2 Lee & Poole Howarth & Howarth
5 1 3Sx-2 E   300 4 -4 Ottley & Radford Foster & Prior
3 9 2NT= N   120 -2 2 Gold & Sharff Downing & Stretch
10 8 5Cx-4 W   800 12 -12 Gurney & Harden Rowe & Peters
7 6 3C-3 N   -150 -8 8 Smith & Willis Feldman & Murray
Board 2 NS Datum=-390
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 4 4S= E   -420 -1 1 Lee & Poole Howarth & Howarth
5 1 4S= W   -420 -1 1 Ottley & Radford Foster & Prior
3 9 4S+1 E   -450 -2 2 Gold & Sharff Downing & Stretch
10 8 3Cx-1 N   -200 5 -5 Gurney & Harden Rowe & Peters
7 6 4S= E   -420 -1 1 Smith & Willis Feldman & Murray
Board 3 NS Datum=180
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 4 4Hx= N   590 9 -9 Lee & Poole Howarth & Howarth
5 1 3Hx= N   530 8 -8 Ottley & Radford Foster & Prior
3 9 4Sx-1 W   200 1 -1 Gold & Sharff Downing & Stretch
10 8 4D-1 W   100 -2 2 Gurney & Harden Rowe & Peters
7 6 2Hx+2 N   670 10 -10 Smith & Willis Feldman & Murray
Board 4 NS Datum=730
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 7 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Rowe & Peters Smith & Willis
3 5 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Gold & Sharff Ottley & Radford
6 2 3NT+3 S   690 -1 1 Feldman & Murray Lee & Poole
4 1 3NT+2 S   660 -2 2 Howarth & Howarth Foster & Prior
10 9 6D= S   1370 12 -12 Gurney & Harden Downing & Stretch
Board 5 NS Datum=200
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 7 2H-1 W   50 -4 4 Rowe & Peters Smith & Willis
3 5 3D+1 S   130 -2 2 Gold & Sharff Ottley & Radford
6 2 5D-2 S   -200 -9 9 Feldman & Murray Lee & Poole
4 1 3NT= N   600 9 -9 Howarth & Howarth Foster & Prior
10 9 2S-1 N   -100 -7 7 Gurney & Harden Downing & Stretch
Board 6 NS Datum=10
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
8 7 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Rowe & Peters Smith & Willis
3 5 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Gold & Sharff Ottley & Radford
6 2 3NT= N   400 9 -9 Feldman & Murray Lee & Poole
4 1 3NT-1 N   -50 -2 2 Howarth & Howarth Foster & Prior
10 9 3NT-2 N   -100 -3 3 Gurney & Harden Downing & Stretch
Board 7 NS Datum=-10
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
10 1 3D-1 E   100 3 -3 Gurney & Harden Foster & Prior
9 8 2NT-1 W   100 3 -3 Downing & Stretch Rowe & Peters
4 6 3S-1 S   -100 -3 3 Howarth & Howarth Feldman & Murray
7 3 2D= E   -90 -2 2 Smith & Willis Gold & Sharff
5 2 4Sx= N   790 13 -13 Ottley & Radford Lee & Poole
Board 8 NS Datum=290
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
10 1 5C-3 N   -150 -10 10 Gurney & Harden Foster & Prior
9 8 3NT= S   400 3 -3 Downing & Stretch Rowe & Peters
4 6 3NT= S   400 3 -3 Howarth & Howarth Feldman & Murray
7 3 3NT= S   400 3 -3 Smith & Willis Gold & Sharff
5 2 3NT= S   400 3 -3 Ottley & Radford Lee & Poole
Board 9 NS Datum=90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
10 1 3NT-1 N   -50 -4 4 Gurney & Harden Foster & Prior
9 8 1NT+1 S   120 1 -1 Downing & Stretch Rowe & Peters
4 6 3NT= N   400 7 -7 Howarth & Howarth Feldman & Murray
7 3 1NT+1 S   120 1 -1 Smith & Willis Gold & Sharff
5 2 2S+1 N   140 2 -2 Ottley & Radford Lee & Poole
Board 10 NS Datum=930
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 3 6H= N   1430 11 -11 Feldman & Murray Gold & Sharff
10 2 5C+1 N   620 -7 7 Gurney & Harden Lee & Poole
1 9 4H+2 N   680 -6 6 Foster & Prior Downing & Stretch
5 7 4H+2 N   680 -6 6 Ottley & Radford Smith & Willis
8 4 6H= N   1430 11 -11 Rowe & Peters Howarth & Howarth
Board 11 NS Datum=-90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 3 4S-2 N   -100 0 0 Feldman & Murray Gold & Sharff
10 2 4S-1 S   -50 1 -1 Gurney & Harden Lee & Poole
1 9 4Sx-2 S   -300 -5 5 Foster & Prior Downing & Stretch
5 7 3H-1 E   50 4 -4 Ottley & Radford Smith & Willis
8 4 4S-1 S   -50 1 -1 Rowe & Peters Howarth & Howarth
Board 12 NS Datum=-180
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
6 3 3NT+3 E   -490 -7 7 Feldman & Murray Gold & Sharff
10 2 2D+3 W   -150 1 -1 Gurney & Harden Lee & Poole
1 9 2D+1 W   -110 2 -2 Foster & Prior Downing & Stretch
5 7 2D+4 W   -170 0 0 Ottley & Radford Smith & Willis
8 4 3NT-1 E   50 6 -6 Rowe & Peters Howarth & Howarth
Board 13 NS Datum=-670
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 5 5S+1 E   -680 0 0 Downing & Stretch Ottley & Radford
7 4 3NT+3 W   -690 -1 1 Smith & Willis Howarth & Howarth
10 3 3NT+3 W   -690 -1 1 Gurney & Harden Gold & Sharff
2 1 4S+1 E   -650 1 -1 Lee & Poole Foster & Prior
6 8 4S+1 E   -650 1 -1 Feldman & Murray Rowe & Peters
Board 14 NS Datum=70
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 5 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Downing & Stretch Ottley & Radford
7 4 3H= S   140 2 -2 Smith & Willis Howarth & Howarth
10 3 2H= S   110 1 -1 Gurney & Harden Gold & Sharff
2 1 4H-2 S   -100 -5 5 Lee & Poole Foster & Prior
6 8 2S-1 W   50 -1 1 Feldman & Murray Rowe & Peters
Board 15 NS Datum=680
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
9 5 4S+2 S   680 0 0 Downing & Stretch Ottley & Radford
7 4 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Smith & Willis Howarth & Howarth
10 3 3NT+3 N   690 0 0 Gurney & Harden Gold & Sharff
2 1 4S+2 S   680 0 0 Lee & Poole Foster & Prior
6 8 4S+2 N   680 0 0 Feldman & Murray Rowe & Peters
Board 16 NS Datum=70
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 6 3C+1 N   130 2 -2 Foster & Prior Feldman & Murray
8 5 1NT+1 N   120 2 -2 Rowe & Peters Ottley & Radford
10 4 2S= E   -110 -5 5 Gurney & Harden Howarth & Howarth
3 2 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Gold & Sharff Lee & Poole
7 9 1NT-1 E   100 1 -1 Smith & Willis Downing & Stretch
Board 17 NS Datum=320
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 6 3H+2 N   200 -3 3 Foster & Prior Feldman & Murray
8 5 2H+3 N   200 -3 3 Rowe & Peters Ottley & Radford
10 4 4H= N   420 3 -3 Gurney & Harden Howarth & Howarth
3 2 4H+1 N   450 4 -4 Gold & Sharff Lee & Poole
7 9 4H-1 N   -50 -9 9 Smith & Willis Downing & Stretch
Board 18 NS Datum=-90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
1 6 1NT+2 W   -150 -2 2 Foster & Prior Feldman & Murray
8 5 3D-1 E   50 4 -4 Rowe & Peters Ottley & Radford
10 4 1NT-2 W   100 5 -5 Gurney & Harden Howarth & Howarth
3 2 2S= E   -110 -1 1 Gold & Sharff Lee & Poole
7 9 1NT+1 W   -120 -1 1 Smith & Willis Downing & Stretch
Board 19 NS Datum=30
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 7 3D= N   110 2 -2 Lee & Poole Smith & Willis
9 6 3NT= S   400 9 -9 Downing & Stretch Feldman & Murray
10 5 3D= N   110 2 -2 Gurney & Harden Ottley & Radford
4 3 2S= E   -110 -4 4 Howarth & Howarth Gold & Sharff
8 1 2S= E   -110 -4 4 Rowe & Peters Foster & Prior
Board 20 NS Datum=370
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 7 2H+1 N   140 -6 6 Lee & Poole Smith & Willis
9 6 4S= S   620 6 -6 Downing & Stretch Feldman & Murray
10 5 4H= N   620 6 -6 Gurney & Harden Ottley & Radford
4 3 2H= S   110 -6 6 Howarth & Howarth Gold & Sharff
8 1 4S+1 S   650 7 -7 Rowe & Peters Foster & Prior
Board 21 NS Datum=-110
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
2 7 2S= E   -110 0 0 Lee & Poole Smith & Willis
9 6 3H-1 S   -100 0 0 Downing & Stretch Feldman & Murray
10 5 2S= E   -110 0 0 Gurney & Harden Ottley & Radford
4 3 2S= E   -110 0 0 Howarth & Howarth Gold & Sharff
8 1 2S= W   -110 0 0 Rowe & Peters Foster & Prior
Board 22 NS Datum=-440
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 8 5C= E   -600 -4 4 Gold & Sharff Rowe & Peters
1 7 3NT= E   -600 -4 4 Foster & Prior Smith & Willis
10 6 3D-1 N   -50 9 -9 Gurney & Harden Feldman & Murray
5 4 4H+1 E   -650 -5 5 Ottley & Radford Howarth & Howarth
9 2 6C-2 E   200 12 -12 Downing & Stretch Lee & Poole
Board 23 NS Datum=-50
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 8 2S= S   110 4 -4 Gold & Sharff Rowe & Peters
1 7 3H= E   -140 -3 3 Foster & Prior Smith & Willis
10 6 3S-1 S   -100 -2 2 Gurney & Harden Feldman & Murray
5 4 4H-1 E   100 4 -4 Ottley & Radford Howarth & Howarth
9 2 2H+1 E   -140 -3 3 Downing & Stretch Lee & Poole
Board 24 NS Datum=-240
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
3 8 3NT+2 E   -460 -6 6 Gold & Sharff Rowe & Peters
1 7 6NT-1 W   50 7 -7 Foster & Prior Smith & Willis
10 6 3S-1 E   50 7 -7 Gurney & Harden Feldman & Murray
5 4 6NT= E   -990 -13 13 Ottley & Radford Howarth & Howarth
9 2 3NT+2 W   -460 -6 6 Downing & Stretch Lee & Poole
Board 25 NS Datum=-700
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 9 4H+2 E   -680 1 -1 Howarth & Howarth Downing & Stretch
2 8 4H+2 E   -680 1 -1 Lee & Poole Rowe & Peters
10 7 4H+3 E   -710 0 0 Gurney & Harden Smith & Willis
6 5 3NT+4 E   -720 -1 1 Feldman & Murray Ottley & Radford
1 3 3NT+4 E   -720 -1 1 Foster & Prior Gold & Sharff
Board 26 NS Datum=90
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 9 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Howarth & Howarth Downing & Stretch
2 8 4H-1 S   -100 -5 5 Lee & Poole Rowe & Peters
10 7 3H= N   140 2 -2 Gurney & Harden Smith & Willis
6 5 2H+1 S   140 2 -2 Feldman & Murray Ottley & Radford
1 3 2H= S   110 1 -1 Foster & Prior Gold & Sharff
Board 27 NS Datum=320
NS EW Contract Dec Lead Score IMP IMP NS EW
4 9 4H+1 S   450 4 -4 Howarth & Howarth Downing & Stretch
2 8 4H+1 N   450 4 -4 Lee & Poole Rowe & Peters
10 7 4H+1 S   450 4 -4 Gurney & Harden Smith & Willis
6 5 4H= N   420 3 -3 Feldman & Murray Ottley & Radford
1 3 1NT+1 N   120 -5 5 Foster & Prior Gold & Sharff