District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2007

 by Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria

1. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable          

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4D	100	11	4
4C	90	3	61
5C	80	1	0
4NT	70	2	18
6NT	70	1	12
6D	70	0	2
7NT	60	0	2
Pass, 4H	50	0	4

West	North	East	South
--	1D	Pass	1H
Pass	3NT	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  J   AK10965   74   AQJ6 ?

The panel was skewed towards what seems like the most straightforward call of 4D. I am hard pressed to score any of the other calls lower because I am uncertain what they all mean, including "Super-Gerber" and "Planet Mongo".

Feiler: "4C. Maybe 4D is forcing; maybe 4NT is Blackwood; maybe my grandmother was a love slave on the Planet Mongo. But maybe not. At least partner won't pass 4C, and when I next bid 6D, maybe he'll make a good decision."

Nelson: "4C. Long running minor, and guess what folks, it is Diamonds. I can bid 4C and ask partner to run to 4D. I guess I will then bid 5D."

Vongsvivut: "4C. Play as Gerber, asking for aces, or Roman Key Card and follow with 5C if appropriate. Aim for 7D or 7NT."

Bernhard: "4NT. Assuming (bad idea, I know) partner has her bid with something like  Ax  x  AKQxxxx  Kxx, we should be cold for 7, or 6 with the spade king instead of the ace. So, trot out the old Blackwood. This hand has no chance of being played in hearts or clubs."

Dodd: "4NT. It would be nice to have a mechanism to sort out specific side-suit aces and kings here. I at least have to give Blackwood a try at matchpoints to see if the higher scoring 6NT is possible."

Hudson: 5C. Super Gerber. If partner shows all the keycards, solid diamonds and the club king, I'll  bid 7NT, but I might as well check for the spade ace first. If partner would bid that way with QTx of spades, we might want to play in 6D. That will be hard to diagnose."

As our panel is not in agreement as to the meaning of club and notrump calls, I would be afraid to make them. I would think that 4C would be Gerber in this auction, and 4NT would be quantitative, but since partner's 3NT isn't a "normal" notrump rebid showing a specific point range, you'd probably want to agree on that in advance. With all of these questions, I think a simple 4D should be the place to start, as did the majority of the panel:

Williams: "4D. Now when I use Keycard Blackwood over 4S, partner will know what trumps are. If partner bids 5D (almost impossible), I'll bid 6D."

Spear: "4D. Set trumps, then cuebid clubs and hearts. My regular pard would respond key cards, but my present pard should cuebid his spade ace, then accept my grand slam try with AKQ of diamonds, which I will convert to 7NT."

Walker: "4D, Partner is showing a good hand with 6-7 solid diamonds, usually with shortness in my suit. I don't think our standard system plays 4D as Minorwood here, but the natural meaning (big hand, set diamonds as trump) works okay. Partner will either Blackwood or cuebid. If the latter, then I'll Blackwood."

Pokorny: "4D. Since 3NT should promise solid diamonds, I'm going toward slam (intending to follow with 4NT over 4S). 4C would probably show some 5-5 heart-club pattern, so, I won't speculate with this bid (subsequent 4NT would be hardly interpreted as Keycard for diamonds)."

Klemic: "4D. Forcing. See what partner does. I expect to be playing no less than 6NT. Set trump, then later on wheel out Keycard Blackwood."

Feldheim: "4D. Intended as keycard for diamonds. Anyone who thinks this is a weak runout needs concept lessons."

Paulo: "4D. I set the trump suit. Partner has at least  Q10x  x  AKQxxxx  Kx and we'll make 6D. But he may hold Axx  x  AKQJxx  Kx and we'll make 7 NT."

Strite: "4D. Pard has running diamonds in light of my fit, and must have the king of clubs, so 6D is the bare minimum we make if he has a only slow spade stopper. Add the spade ace and 7NT is cold, so I angle toward Keycard by agreeing diamonds first."

Kessler:  "4D. Let's set trumps and attempt to find out about the ace of spades. 4D is 100-percent forcing and 4NT is not Blackwood. With a cuebidding auction, you have a chance to find out about the king of clubs for 7NT. Over 4D, if pard bids 4S and we bid 5C, pard will probably bid 5D. We can then bid 5H -- a grand slam try -- and pard can bid 6C on the way to 6D. Now we can hope it is not a club singleton and bid 7NT."

These quotes all get at a concept of keeping things simple and keeping all of your options open. Note that almost all of the columnists mentioned counting tricks and thinking about partner's hand. Level and strain are both very much in question.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
1S	Pass	1NT*	Pass
2C **	Pass	Pass	???

* (Forcing NT)   ** May be a 3-card suit

What is your call as South holding:  AKJ10   Q96   A9754   J ?

This is the kind of hand that is the nuts and bolts of a bridge session. It is also why even the best players in the world end up taking different views and playing in different contracts. You have a deeply flawed hand for three actions, but is there insight that can be drawn?

Those who make the seemingly passive call of just tapping the table are looking to be on the right side of the 100/90 divide (down one vulnerable vs. two of a minor making).

Spear: "Pass. My guess is that the declaring side will go minus on this hand, but I will not risk the poor result when pard has the wrong hand for a double by me. Trying for plus 90 in 2D is definitely not my choice."

Williams: "Pass. 2D or Double is strange. We have a good shot for a plus if we can get clubs going quick enough, or perhaps even by tapping declarer."

There's definitely a good argument for passing, but I don't agree that the other two choices -- 2D and double -- are "strange". Bridge is a bidder's game, and there are certainly Law implications here, seeing as how they probably have eight trumps. I simply can't get behind going peacefully and defending.

The Solvers put in a big vote for 2D, but no panelist chose that call. The panel thought a takeout double was a better description, and several were swayed by the possibility that partner could leave it in.

Bernhard: "Double. What else? Bid the moth-eaten diamond suit or pass-- I think not ! Anyway, partner needs practice in playing 3-3 fits! It might even play well. Otherwise, she might pass the double, which should be fun."

Dodd: "Double. To go meekly into the night when they apparently have a home at the 2-level is not a good way to score matchpoints."

Feiler: "Double. It always worries me when there seems to be an obvious bid that shows my hand perfectly. What am I missing?"

Feldheim: "Double. This may not work out, but if partner passes for penalties, this could be a record-setter. Who knows? We may end up in a 3-3 heart fit, so ... play it well!"

Hudson: "Double. Pass would be spineless, 2D too committal. Maybe something good will come of my double, and if not, maybe I can blame the bad result on partner."

Kessler: "Double. I cannot imagine bidding anything else. This will either get us a number or to the correct red suit."

Klemic: "Double. Takeout of clubs ... seems like what I have. If they have found a bad 4-3 fit to play in, this will reap a huge penalty."

Nelson: "Double. Think I have bid my hand....Pass my partner's 3H bid."

Paulo: "Double. If partner passes for penalties, it looks fine. More likely, he bids hearts, and this Moysian fit should play well with club ruffs in my hand."

Pokorny: "Double. When it smells like +800, let's go for it. Partner will pull my takeout double without a club stack to 2H (which I'll pass) or 2D (when I'll cue 3C). If RHO runs to 2H, I won't double it."

Strite: "Double. I know what to do now, but have less idea what to do next, so maybe I get lucky and partner leaves this in."

Vongsvivut: "Double. Give partner a option to bid a suit or convert to penalty."

Walker: "Double. The hand has some definite flaws for a balance - too much in spades, too little in hearts -- but you just can't let them play 2C when you have this much. The diamonds are too weak for me to suggest that suit as our only option."

Ms. Walker seems to sum up exactly the way I feel about this hand. Whatever the case, I feel that all those other crazies in the event are going to bid with this hand, so you certainly have field protection (note that less than 10 percent passed this hand) with making some sort of nasty call.

3. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5D	100	7	32
6D	80	4	7
3S	80	2	17
4H	70	2	12
4C	60	2	4
4D	60	0	14
Pass	40	1	6
DBL	40	0	4
3NT	30	0	4

West	North	East	South
--	--	1S	2D
DBL *	3D	3H	???

* (Negative)

What is your call as South holding:  A9532   Void   KQ10954   AQ ?

We have the proverbial 50-point deck, and either or both sides could make a slam. We are in a guessing game. The good news about this  guessing game is that we get to take the first shot. So what do we do with that opportunity?

Feldheim: "3S, the cheaper cuebid. Give partner something like x  Jxxx  Axxx  J10xx  and a 2-1 trump split makes 6D icy cold. If partner holds two spades, then the quality of dummy's diamond spots may be the key issue."

Kniest:  "3S. Let's get pard's bid regardless of what LHO does. If partner jumps to 5D over a pass, or if he bids 5D over their 4H, I'm a 6D bidder. The club finesse figures to work and pard rates to be short in spades. Let' em find a trump lead on this auction."

Spear: "4C. I should bid 4H, trying for a high Master Solver score, but I want pard to get excited with a singleton spade and four trumps . . .and no trump lead. Or is this too much to ask for? I am hopeful the opponents do not bid 5H, and that they lead a spade against my diamond game/slam."

Vongsvivut: "4C. Cuebid, asking partner to cuebid back if appropriate. I plan to compete to at least 5D."

Klemic: "4H. With a bad hand, partner will sign off in 5D. With a good hand, he may keycard. I'm ready for all of the above."

Pokorny: "4H, I'm trying to find the thin slam when partner has a little as Kx  xxxx   Jxxx   xxx. Since partner already showed some 3-7 HCP (he had a 2H cuebid for a better raise), I hope he will cue the spade king looking at his beautiful fourth trump. Even if the club king isn't right, a club lead from Kxxx may easily occur."

I am almost never a fan of the "bid what you think you can make" school of bridge when there are other ways to investigate. This hand does have cuebid options, but I simply can't see the value of a cuebid. Your hand has all of the controls, and it sure looks like partner isn't going to get the opportunity to make a meaningful bid after the opponents bid more hearts. Whatever the case, I am even more confused about making the highest cuebid (4H), which is the one most likely to force us into a tough situation after it goes 5H - DBL - Pass. So that leaves us with:

Walker: "6D. A heart or spade cuebid isn't likely to drag anything helpful out of partner, so I'll just bid what I think I can make. As little as a stiff spade and Jxxx of diamonds in partner's hand gives me a play for slam."

Dodd: "6D. Don't you just love hands like this where both sides might have a laydown slam? I can honestly say I can't remember ever holding a hand with all three  first-round side-suit controls after an auction like this, so I might as well bid what I think I can make and hope they guess wrong. The real question will be what to do if it goes Pass-Pass-6H to me."

Kessler: "6D. Let the opponents guess. My experience is to bid a lot with these hands immediately."

I like what this crew says, but I just can't help but think about having dummy put down something totally reasonable and then getting some sort of awful splits and going down. A 5D bid makes me feel like I am a heavy favorite to go plus, and I may still have another chance if they end up bidding over me. At that point, I can hope the extra round of bidding has given me more useful information.

Bernhard: "5D, Let them guess."

Feiler: "5D. I don't want to discourage a heart lead and encourage a trump lead by bidding 4H. C'mon pard, let's see J8xx of diamonds and a singleton spade."

Nelson: "5D. I might have some problems in 5D, but think I can handle this hand, especially since I think they're cold for 4H."

Paulo: "5D. I'm afraid that partner doesn't hold enough trumps to ruff my spade losers; for instance, with x 10xxx Jxxx Kxxx a trump lead sets the slam."

Williams: "5D. They may have frozen us out of a slam, but it's going to be difficult to find out. 5D should have some sort of play."

Hudson: "5D. I don't see how to get partner's cooperation in a slam investigation, so I'll be content with game. If they bid on to 5H and partner fails to double, I'll take a shot at slam."

Pay your money and bid something. On this hand, I got nothing. There are tens of thousands of masterpoints disagreeing with my choice (5D), and I am not vain enough to suggest that I am more correct than them on this hand.

4. IMPs, NS vulnerable 

West	North	East	South
1S	2S *	Pass	???

* (Michaels -- hearts and a minor)

What is your call as South holding:  AJ107    4   64   A109854 ?

I didn't see this hand as a problem, but then I didn't score full points. Did the panel convince me of the error of my ways?

Dodd: "2NT. Obvious? Why not give North a chance to show the strong version of the Michaels bid? 3D would be the call if you held one fewer ace."

Pokorny: "2NT. Will partner understand my 3D as preference for his minor in the 0.01% of cases when he holds clubs? I doubt it. So, I feel better by bidding 2NT intending to pass the 3D reply. If he bids 3C, I'll cuebid 3S."

Strite: "2NT. One day per month, partner will show clubs and I'll have to consider my next bids, but what else could I possibly do now? If partner bids the expected 3D, I pass. Should he show strength, I'll bid game, 3NT, if I still can."

Williams: "2NT. There is no other possible bid than 2NT. While I am 'certain' that pard's minor is diamonds, sometimes there is a surprise!"

Feldheim: "2NT. Although the majority might choose 3C as the correct strategic bid, I'm really not that interested in advertising the misfit. If partner has the likely red hand, then 3D might escape the double. If, against all odds, partner holds clubs. that would be good to know. This hand is a good argument for 'specific suit' cuebids. And maybe they'll bid more, (yummy)."

Kniest:  "2NT. Regardless of methods, you need a second bid and 2NT assures one. You can investigate slam via 3S if pard bids clubs, or you can bid 3NT if he bids diamonds ...with a runout to 4C available if RHO doubles 3NT for a heart lead."

Whew! Most of our panel is trying to find a partscore, and Kniest is talking about slams. However, most of the non-slam arguments for 2NT are very compelling. Why would we advertise what we expect to be a misfit and at the same time not allow our partner to potentially show the suit we want to hear or the values that would make us likely to have a game?

Feiler: "3D. This looks like it will play better from my side, and I want to give the opponents a chance to bid 3S. I hope we don't miss our 12-card club fit!"

Hudson: "3C. Even a 6-1 fit may be better than 5-2, and I'm hoping for 6-2. But we're probably in trouble whatever I do."

Kessler: "3C. I'm trying for a plus. Anything else is looking for trouble. 3C does not rate to be doubled."

Klemic: "3C. 3C is clubs, not pick a minor. If partner is 6-6 and bids again, I will respect it."

Nelson: "3C. Here we go . . . if partner bids 3D, that's where we will play. I will double anything else they bid."

Paulo: "3C. I don't ask for partner's minor suit, so he should see my bid as natural."

Spear: "3C. I wish 3C were for play, but I will bid it no matter what it means, then sit for whatever pard bids and hope for the best. Maybe I will run to 4C if 3 of a red suit gets doubled. How could it be worse? (Don't answer that!)"

Vongsvivut: "3C. A misfit hand. I'm tempted to pass."

Walker: "3C. Try to find a safe partscore. Partner should have a good hand at this vulnerability, but with no fit, a notrump game rates to be hopeless. A 6-1 club fit rates to play better than our 5-2 diamond fit. The alternative -- 2NT (asking partner to bid his "known" minor) -- takes us past 3C. This hand is a good argument against playing 3C as pass-or-correct."

I don't know what to say except that I disagree completely with these panelists. There is also a negative inference here that people are not mentioning, which is the lack of a bid by RHO, which would be quite a bit more likely if he had a spade fit. I would bid 2 NT seven days a week and twice on Sundays.

5. Board-a-match, both  vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1D
1H	2H*	3H	???

* (Diamond support, limit-raise or better)

What is your call as South holding:  A1085   74  A953    AQ7 ?

This set ends with two board-a-match problems, which I think is a sick joke by our editor. If I haven't sat down at the table in years, my BAM insight may be even a bit rustier. Whatever the case, this is a real BAM problem, where scoring even 10 points fewer than your opponents means you lose the board, which makes a big difference in your final score.

Klemic: "3S. My first thought is double, but this auction smells like someone has a diamond void, which may severely dent our defensive values. I'm not sure what partner will take 3S for, but I'm comfortable with any continuation."

Williams: "3S. Again, there is only one possible action available. I have more than a minimum and a spade stopper. I will let partner evaluate his hand accordingly."

The scientist in me likes this call the best, but it really feels like shooting at a small target. Any call that partner makes -- Pass, 3NT, 4S -- is going to put all of our declarer talents to the test, and it really throws all Law principles out the window.

Nelson: "5D. Another minor-suit contract. This time, I have a note from my mother for playing five of a minor."

This is the most forward moving call, and will probably strike fear into the hearts of the opponents, I just worry that it will end up as a loss. On the other hand, all of my calls look likes losers as well. At least this one has style!

Dodd: "Pass. North still has a turn coming to clarify. The real test will come if it goes Pass-Pass-Double-Pass to me."

Pokorny: "Pass. Tough problem. Although a double would grab my sympathy, I think it is better to pass always with balanced hands of 12-14 points. If partner has 12+ points, he'll often reopen with a double, after which I have an easy 3S bid, hoping to find a good Moysian game."

Vongsvivut: "Pass, which should be a forcing pass here. Give an option for North to try for 5D or double for penalty."

I disagree with the analysis from the passers. Pass cannot be forcing here. If partner doubles, I would be excited to leave it in. If the passers had said something to the effect of "I really have no idea what to do and all other calls seem fraught with too much danger", I would have agreed a whole lot more.

Bernhard: "Double. Partner, look at your hand. Should we defend or bid on? This has to be cooperative, as they have bid and raised the suit. Give partner KJx   xxx  Kxxx   Kxx and repeated heart leads and this could/should be a winner."

Feiler: "Double. I think this is a low-level 'forcing-pass- auction, or at least I don't see how partner can pass out 3H. If so, my double just suggests that we not bid any higher."

Feldheim: "Double. This is cooperative and purely BAM. With 3.5 tricks on defense, I'm better than 50% and with no sure game in sight, +200 would be delightful."

Hudson: "Double. Maybe I should pass, but this is my chance to show a balanced hand with a little extra defense. If I thought that at the other table the bidding would go 1NT-3NT, I'd pass."

Kessler: "Double. This should be an action-type double. I have a good hand, defense, and am not sure what to do. The opponents can get awfully pushy at board-a-match, and need to be punished at every opportunity -- especially red. Partner may not want to defend, but at least he'll know what I have. I'm old enough to know pluses are generally good at BAM scoring."

Spear: "Double. I will not pass, so I hope pard does the right thing."

Walker: "Double. Partner knows I don't have a trump stack, so this isn't a pure penalty double. It suggests decent defense and probably a fairly balanced hand.  Partner -- who doesn't have four spades and didn't have a strong-enough heart stopper to bid notrump on the last round -- will leave it in fairly often and we'll get +200 or +500 instead of -100 in 3NT or 4D."

Strite: "Double. Don't experts always double when they don't know what to do? With three nice spears and a defensive hand, I'm happy to ask partner to 'do something intelligent'."

The last comment is the most on track for me. I don't know why experts are as good as they are, but there is something in their makeup that compels them to hammer anyone at any opportunity. "Pass, Pass, double their ass" used to be a motto. It is marginally apropos here, but it feels like the right sentiment nonetheless.

6. Board-a-match, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	11	45
3C	80	7	12
Pass	60	0	34
3S	40	0	6

West	North	East	South
1S	Pass	2S	???

 What is your call as South holding:  Void    Q1032   AQ4   QJ10876 ?

This is a tough one, and on any day, either doubling or bidding clubs could be correct. The other possible action, chosen by more than a third of the Solvers, was a pass, but our panel rejected that option as far too cautious, especially at board-a-match scoring.

Feiler: "3C. In the post mortem, I'll explain this as an 'early' balancing bid. Do you think partner will buy it?"

Hudson: "3C. "Clear-cut. If it goes 3S-Pass-Pass, I'll risk a takeout double, though that is not clear-cut."

Strite: "3C. There's no reason partner can't bid a red suit over 3C. I don't think we're winning this board if it goes double by me, all pass."

Vongsvivut: "3C. Five or six losers, a void in their suit, only one or two defensive tricks. Having a void is not appropriate for takeout double. If this hand passes, then partner will also have tendency to pass."

Walker: "3C. Double would get hearts in the picture, but it's just not worth the risk, especially when they have the master suit and will be able to outbid us. Double hides the main feature of my hand and suggests more defensive strength, which could be a disaster if partner decides to penalize their contract."

Pokorny: "3C. Doubling with spade void and only two controls can lead to an easy -670. Passing is anti-bridge, and 4C looks a bit too aggressive."

I think our guest panelist said it best. While the downside of a 3C call is a lot less obvious, other panelists thought that hiding your red suits could be just as dangerous as what they admitted was a pushy double.

Kessler: "Double. I know I'm light, with a terrible defensive hand, but I just can't pass, and 3C loses the heart suit where we may even have a game. Besides, 3C runs the risk of partner leading the ace of clubs when defending and blowing a very important trick at BAM."

Dodd: "Double. Playing aggressively is what wins BAM tournaments."

Klemic: "Double. Seems most flexible. We'll occasionally play 4-3 diamond fit instead of a 6-2 club fit, but this auction caters to opener bidding again (you want partner to make a natural lead, not necessarily a club). With a spade stack, partner should know you might be light on high-card points."

Nelson: "Double. I guess I could bid 3C, then double when they bid 3S, but I like an immediate takeout double."

Paulo: "Double. This call may be dangerous if partner passes, but I want to show hearts. On the other hand, if I bid clubs and the opponents compete, a club lead may be fatal."

Williams: "Double. I can see an easy 3C bid in a team game, but this, of course, is BAM! Double stands out at this form of scoring as we must get to hearts when partner has 4 or 5, or perhaps play 2S doubled when partner has 4 or 5 spades."

Spear: "Double. I made a takeout double when I held this hand, and I do not want to ever talk about it again."

Well, Jack, since you brought it up, the word is that your partner, who held  A987  J10x  K10x  xxx , doubled their 4S contract and was a bit disappointed when your hand took only one trick. There is, however, one nice thing about this form of scoring. Minus 790 would never be an average in a matchpoint event, but it can be at BAM. If the same result happens to occur at your team-mates' table, you'll score a half point on the board and maybe win a national championship.

So, the real-life result aside, 3C or double? Both sides argue very compellingly. I really wish I had something valuable to add.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this interesting and high-scoring set. Congratulations to Sasanka Ramanadham of Kirkwood MO, who topped all Solvers, and to runner-up Rich Pestien of Peoria IL. They're invited to join the December panel. 

The six new problems for December are below. Please submit your solutions by November 23 on the web form or by email to our December  moderator: 
     Tom Dodd  -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com 
 

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 548):	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL	4NT	DBL	5D	3C	DBL	DBL	570
Harold Feldheim, Camden CT	4D	DBL	3S	2NT	DBL	DBL	570
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	5C	DBL	5D	3C	DBL	3C	560
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	4D	DBL	6D	3C	DBL	DBL	580
George Klemic,  Bensenville IL	4D	DBL	4H	3C	3S	DBL	540
Tom Kniest, University City MO	4D	DBL	3S	2NT	DBL	3C	550
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	6NT	DBL	Pass	2NT	Pass	DBL	480
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	4C	DBL	5D	3C	5D	DBL	550
Manuel Paulo, Lisboa, Portugal	4D	DBL	5D	3C	DBL	DBL	600
Dean Pokorny, Croatia	4D	DBL	4H	2NT	Pass	3C	520
Jack Spear, Kansas City MO	4D	Pass	4C	3C	DBL	DBL	540
Toby Strite, San Jose CA	4D	DBL	6D	2NT	DBL	3C	550
Arbha Vongsvivut,  Godfrey IL	4C	DBL	4C	3C	Pass	3C	510
Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	4D	Pass	5D	2NT	3S	DBL	540
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ	4NT	DBL	6D	2NT	Pass	DBL	560
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	4C	DBL	5D	3D	DBL	3C	540
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria	4D	DBL	5D	2NT	DBL	DBL	590
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	4D	DBL	6D	3C	DBL	3C	560
Solvers Honor Roll   (Average Solver score:  488)
Sasanka Ramanadham, Kirkwood MO	4C	DBL	5D	2NT	DBL	DBL	580
Rich Pestien, Peoria IL	4C	DBL	5D	2NT	DBL	3C	560
Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb, Croatia	550	Ken Vogelbaugh, Bloomington IL					540
Linda Lubeck, Troy IL	550	Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN					530
Sandy Barnes, Wildomar CA	540	Bill Lindemann Sr., Champaign IL					530
Steve Brauss, St. Louis	540	Bill Rotter, Granite City IL					530
Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	540	Bill Walsh, Champaign IL					530