The first matches of the new season brought good news for Oxfordshire. Despite the absence of several established home pairs, both A and B matches were won convincingly - the first by 94 IMPs (20-0) and the second by 49 IMPs (17-3). So there is no reason to believe that the considerable promise of last season can’t bear fruit this time round.

The results were achieved as follows:

A - Bennett/Noble, Procter/Smith +86 IMPs

Hayes/Landy, Lintotts +8

B - Green/Strachan, Constable/Jalie +27 IMPs

Bygotts, Perceval-Price/Williams+22

Cross-IMPed over the field, performance by pairs can be expressed as follows:

Procter/Smith (E/W) +63.75 IMPs

Bennett/Noble (N/S) +52.25

Green/Strachan (E/W) +48

Lintotts (N/S) +41.75

Bygotts (N/S) +33

Perceval-Price/Williams (E/W) +25.75

Constable/Jalie (N/S) +10

Hayes/Landy (E/W) -0.50

It was very good to see the Procter/Smith partnership, re-introduced after many years, do so well on its first outing. Jim Strachan also did well on his debut with David Green. The truth is that no one performed badly. The Derbyshire teams looked as useful as ever on paper but didn’t play up to expectation. The cross-IMP results are as unreliable as usual, in that there were several good contracts rendered impossible by bad breaks, leading to undeserved minusses for bidding them or for opponents staying out of them, and equally undeserved plusses for having them bid against you or staying out of them yourself. Several very good slams were generally missed, which meant that on the rare occasions they were bid, it was hard luck if this was against you. Taking the extreme results, it is noticeable that Procter/Smith made no obvious unforced errors at all and just about had the balance of the luck, whereas Hayes/Landy had two boards that could be described as good, two bad, two lucky and two unlucky: we all have afternoons like that, and worse.

I’ll limit comments on individual boards to those that seem to have some instructive interest.

West ª A6 © 109 ¨ KQJ8 § AJ873 East ª J105 © AKQ862 ¨ A105 § 6

You would always want to be in 6© , which needs no more than trumps 3-2. On this occasion they’re 4-1 offside and the slam fails so there were unfair swings here. I was one who benefitted, after a sequence (starting with East, Nicky) 1© -2§ -3© -3ª -3NT-4© -pass. Nicky had made his effort with the game-forcing jump rebid and was never going to accept my one mild slam try. Don Smedley had an identical sequence for Derbyshire. He was told by team-mates that he should have bid 5© rather than 4© at his last turn. Well, maybe. The lucky pairs, apart from me, who benefitted from staying in game were Procter/Smith and Green/Strachan and the even luckier ones (in the sense that they had only to follow suit to take the slam off) were Bennett/Noble and the Bygotts (the latter had found the spade lead, which meant two down after declarer had won and played two rounds of trumps). Those unlucky enough to defend games were the Lintotts and Constable/Jalie and the really unlucky pair were Hayes/Landy, who bid the good slam and went minus.

West ª 95 © J7 ¨ AQ10842 § A108 East ª AQJ83 © Q5 ¨ J96 § KJ9

Our auction was 1¨ -1ª -2¨ -3§ -3¨ -3NT and Nicky was lucky enough to have a heart ducked to his Q at trick 1. But the diamond finesse was wrong for down 2. 5¨ fails for obvious reasons. The best shot is actually 4ª , in that trumps are 3-3 onside but South has a diamond void and can take a ruff while North must still make the King. Green/Strachan were the only pair to find 4ª and went 2 down. The really odd results were the Bygotts beating 3NT by 5 tricks (they took 6 hearts and switched to a club, which found the Q for declarer, but he played a spade to the Ace having discarded several of them and so had spade losers after taking the losing diamond finesse), and 3NT making twice, once by Procter/Smith and once against the Lintotts (with three overtricks?!)

West ª J6 © A ¨ Q983 § AQJ1094 East ª AQ1098 © 962 ¨ AKJ § K7

An uncontested bidding challenge for E/W. Our auction, starting with Nicky (East) was 1ª -2§ -2¨ -2© -(Dbl)-P-3© -4§ -5§ -P. We were playing rebids in NT at the lowest level as 12-13 HCPs so had to invent rebids in 3-card minors on hands too strong or otherwise unsuitable for 2NT, as here. When 2© * was passed back to me I didn’t like to risk ** as mistakes can happen (!), hence 3© . My bidding sounded strong to me, whereas all partner’s efforts could have been strangled cries. I was also worried about my ª JX. In practice, 7§ or 7NT makes on the spade finesse. But slam was only bid twice, once by Procter/Smith (though Rob tells me that they only got there by accident because he made a wrong bid at some stage) and once by Bennett/Noble’s opponents. At least those in 5§ got close. Half the tables played 3NT, which seems to be giving up prematurely and may be going down more often than 5§ if a card or two is changed around.

North ª 5 © A76 ¨ K107642 § A54 South ª A10 © KQJ53 ¨ AJ98 § 73

This time a bidding challenge for N/S after East opens a multi or a weak 2ª . At my table it went 2¨ -2© to me as West and at the vulnerability it wasn’t too tempting to leap about in spades, with no outside singleton or suit. As it turned out, North just raised to 4© , missing the laydown grand (all right, you need diamonds OK and no trick 1 ruff). It was much like this at three other tables. Three of the four Oxon pairs bid 6© - Lintotts, Bygotts and Constable/Jalie - while Derbys bid it only once (against Procter/Smith). The Bygott auction:

(2ª )-3© -(3ª )-4¨ -5¨ -6© . Pretty neat. As Jeremy says, if South bids 5ª over 5© the grand might be reached, just.

This was certainly the most dramatic board if not the most interesting in the play. E/W have an easy 13 tricks in clubs, not needing even the diamond finesse if © A is led. 6§ is the preferred target, obviously, but only one pair bid it (for Derbys, on the sequence 2§ Precision, 6§ ). This was against Procter/Smith, again proving that they had plenty of bad luck to go with the good. Three Oxon declarers (Lintotts, Bygotts and Constable/Jalie) played in game, as did Green/Strachan’s opponents. Three N/S pairs elected to play in hearts, however, not a good idea here, as you can see. Bennett/Noble took 800 from 3© * and Hayes/Landy conceded the same. As the owner of the biggest score of all, I can’t let our auction pass without comment. West opened 1§ , Nicky overcalled 1© and East bid 1ª . I contented myself with 2© , hoping for better things to come. It now went pass-pass-3ª and I decided that such had now arrived and doubled - a bit trigger-happy perhaps but the temptation was too much. Of course, I assumed 3ª was invitational, in which case the auction to date suggested that partner had a reasonable hand. West passed this and whether East would have done so also must remain a matter for conjecture because Nicky - remembering his Leprachaun ancestry - pulled to 4© and lost whatever comes after 800. There may be some double-dummy line to make 3ª *, though in practice this particular player had shown no signs of genius and in any case, -530 would have been no disaster. I think it can also be assumed that there was no way they were reaching the club slam, had East pulled to 4§ or 5§ . I haven’t examined the play in 3ª * because I’d sooner forget this hand.

North ª Q95 © A98652 ¨ A106 § A South ª K74 © Q103 ¨ Q843 § QJ6

Jeremy gives his auction as 1© -2¨ (10+ HCP) -2© -pass, and asks if anyone bid and made 4© . The answer is yes: all the other three Oxon pairs (Bennett/Noble, Lintotts and Constable/Jalie), while Hayes/Landy conceded 620 against the same contract and Green/Strachan got away with -170. Procter/Smith were able to defend 2NT (!). The other good news was at my table, where a Derbys declarer went down in 4© . My hand was ª 863 © KJ ¨ KJ95 § K1095, sitting over dummy. As far as I can see, the contract can’t be made as long as I play a spade (which partner ducks to the King, of course) when in with my trump trick. I just wait for a diamond trick to put another spade through.. This would vindicate the Bygotts bidding, though personally I think North should stretch to a 3© rebid after 2¨ . Otherwise, one will always be out of game on hands like this.

This is the most interesting deal of the day. It was a bad board for the County as none of our defending pairs managed to defeat game while only two of declaring pairs, Procter/Smith and Price/Williams, made it. In all cases but one I’m talking about 4ª contracts. The exception was where the Bygotts defended 3NT - a superior contract whenever spades behave but vastly inferior when they don’t. After a club lead and three rounds of spades, declarer tried ¨ J covered by the Q and K and a low diamond to dummy’s 8. David did well to duck this, leaving declarer in dummy to concede a tempo. In practice he played a heart to the 10, King and Ace but David had discarded © 9 earlier and both defenders were sufficiently confused to lose track of the winning defence. Nicky was in 4ª on a low diamond lead and could have succeeded trivially by running it, but that would have been stupid with so many other options available. He made eventually when South threw two hearts away. A heart to the King lost to the Ace but the Queen now fell on thin air when the suit was returned. Looked at double dummy, the only safe opening lead is a club but David Green has pointed out that the contract is always makeable on a squeeze provided, of course, that declarer gives up on the possibility of © A being onside. You might enjoy trying out the various possibilities.

North ª AQ © A87 ¨ 98654 § K10983 South ª J82 © KQ1096 ¨ AQ103 § 7

I was very careless here. West opened a weak NT , Nicky passed and East bid 2§ , alerted. This is a very dangerous position in which to enter the auction at red and I passed, which meant that when the oppo settled in 2ª I really had to pass again. The contract made, but the real shock was not only seeing partner’s hand, but East’s. It was ª 96543 © 4 ¨ J2 § K10983.

The alerted 2§ bid had been good old Gladiator, not Stayman at all, ie their only way of playing in 2ª . And I hadn’t looked at their card, or asked what the bid meant. Meanwhile 4© makes our way despite a 4-1 trump break. Although ¨ K is wrong it is doubleton, and ª K is onside. Well done to Green/Strachan, who were the only pair to bid and make 4© for 620.

North ª A1075 © None ¨ K102 § KQJ962 South ª J63 © A7543 ¨ 964 § A10

Nicky missed a good chance here, by his own admission. West opened 1¨ third in hand and Nicky overcalled 2§ . I decided 2© was a worthwhile risk in the hope of a fit, given that I wasn’t ashamed to return to clubs. As you can see, the heart fit wasn’t exactly there but Nicky had enough to try 2ª in his turn and I duly returned to 3§ . 3NT looks the obvious shot now and indeed this succeeds even on repeated heart leads, providing you win the third round and lead a diamond up. Unfortunately, Nicky bid 4§ , looking for the wrong game, and this went 1 down. Only Procter/Smith and Hayes/Landy bid 3NT and both pairs made it.

West ª KQJ64 © 953 ¨ K864 § 6 East ª 7 © AKJ10642 ¨ None § K10987

At my table Nicky (North) opened 5¨ second in hand, East bid 5© and I passed, holding two black Aces and Q to three hearts, not because I’m chicken but because I thought there was a real chance of being able to double 6© . West gave a lot of thought to this before passing, so I was nearly right. Anyway, +100 instead of the 200 at four of the tables was no big deal. Two Oxon pairs, Bennett/Noble and Constable/Jalie, judged to defend 5¨ for a plus score - talk about landing on a pin head! Of course, the auction may have been entirely different. I only mention events at the last table because confession, as we’ve already seen, is good for the soul and Jeremy has confessed that he opened 1ª as West. Pretty sprightly, first in hand at red. David then more or less blasted into 6© and attracted the 500 I’d been hoping for, but this time in the minus column.

Sorry this report has taken so long. I’m always busy. Also lazy. I’ll send it out on paper, together with a summary sheet of contracts and scores at all tables, along with the report on the Gloucester matches on 13th May.