Oxfordshire recorded two further wins last Sunday to stay in contention in both the Dawes (A) and Porter (B) leagues.

The A team won by 6 IMPs (Hayes/Landy, Webley Wilkes - 20 IMPs; Lonsdale/McPhee, Pike/Wilson + 26 IMPs), for 11-9 and a running score of 41 VPs out of 60.

The B team won by 88 IMPs (Bygotts, Lintotts + 57; Procter/Smith, Williams/Wilson + 31), for 20-0 and a running score of 50 VPs out of 60.

Jeremy Bygott has again given us a welter of statistical information on the performance of pairs, which pans out as follows:

Lintotts(NS, B) +76.50 +64.25 +59

Williams/Wilson (EW, B) +63.50 +53.50 +53

Pike/Wilson (NS, A) +18.00 +27.75 +15

Lonsdale/McPhee (EW, A) +11.00 +24.75 +17

Bygotts (E/W, B) +21.50 +08.75 -04

Webley/Wilkes (EW, A) -05.00 +03.00 -02

Procter/Smith (NS, B) +08.50 +03.00 -12

Hayes/Landy (NS, A) -12.00 -05.00 -22

Several factors distort the figures: (1) the Derby A team was reasonably up to strength whilst the B team, if it looked like the usual culprits, played way below normal form; (2) the large disparity between the two results - both the really big cards were in the B team match - means that all A team pairs fared better when cross-IMPed over the entire field, and vice versa; (3) there were a number of really wild hands where a fractional difference in choice of bid/lead etc sprayed bucketloads of IMPs in either direction. I’ll touch on these in the narrative that follows, for which I’m grateful to Nigel Wilkes, Jeremy Bygott and Nick Smith who contributed reports of their own. It’s pleasing to see that no one recorded a really bad score, a further indication of our strength in depth and ability to compete.

It seems to me that in 4© you probably need ª Ace to be right so your task is to avoid losing two trumps and a club. Chris got us off to a good start when he led ¨ 6, which probably looked to declarer like a doubleton or singleton. There are various ways of combining chances on this hand (eg, win ¨ King, cash © Ace and play on diamonds discarding a club then possibly spades, covering a trump from East whenever you have to), but our declarer merely played a club to the King and Ace and a trump to the Queen, after which Chris cashed § Q and exited with ¨ 8, killing the suit. After two further rounds of trumps I could afford the luxury of a club exit, in case we had another trick there, knowing that if partner held ª Ace it couldn’t run away.

Only one pair - Procter/Smith - bid and made 4© , while Lonsdale/McPhee’s oppo got away with 3NT by South (it’s very difficult to find the killing King of clubs lead). Most of the rest made 10 or 11 tricks in a heart partscore.

I only mention this hand to give you some idea of the oppo’s idea of bidding, which resurfaced in various forms throughout the afternoon. A normal sequence would seem to be

Making an easy vul game. Playing in clubs on the lead of A then K of diamonds you could ruff with § 8, cash outside winners and cross-ruff to 12 tricks. I think only a trump lead (and continuation when in with ¨ Q) beats 6§ . At my table, however, South doubled the 1¨ opening (!), Chris bid 1© and North passed (!). I rebid 1ª which was raised to 3ª and passed out. I didn’t make it. 5§ or 3NT was made at all other tables, except where Derby saved against Hayes/Landy, losing 1100 in 5ª doubled!

LHO opens 1NT (weak), which is raised to 3NT, against which partner leads ª Q. Dummy goes down with ª A872 © K96 ¨ J53 § AJ10 while you hold ª K4 © J83 ¨ Q984 § 9632. What card do you play when declarer ducks in dummy? If the answer is the King, followed by a small one, you have just donated 600 points in a bad cause, because declarer holds

ª 963 © A1054 ¨ A762 § KQ. The lead of the Queen promises the Jack plus the 10 or the 9 but not both. So you have to play small and hope partner continues with a low one. If you overtake and switch to a diamond, declarer can still escape by ducking the first round. 3NT was made at 6 tables. Well done to Smith/Procter and Pike/Wilson for defeating it at the other two.

This is a similar story to the last hand. Starting with LHO, the uncontested auction goes

1© - 2© - 3§ (long-suit try) - 4© . Partner leads ª 10 and dummy puts down

ª J754 © QJ94 ¨ 65 § A106 while you hold ª A86 © 105 ¨ 109432 § 943. What do you play to tricks 1 and 2, and why? Well, it certainly looks as though you’re not going to be involved in this hand later so you might as well try and get it right now. Declarer seemed content with his holdings in spades and diamonds. If partner has led from Q!09 or K109 there’s probably no hurry to return the suit because there are no discards coming from that dummy. If he’s led from shortage it can’t be a singleton because declarer would then hold five. So you could hold up in case it’s a doubleton and partner comes in with a trump or a diamond. Alternatively, you could win ª Ace and hope to set up a trick in a red suit, which means diamonds because any trump tricks are there anyway. In fact, either play will do because partner holds ¨ King and © King to go with his doubleton spade and sure club trick (he holds § QJ82). What you can’t afford to do - and this is pretty hard to see - is win the spade and return the suit. Now partner has no good exit except a trump when in with his trump trick, and when in with his club trick he’s endplayed to lead a diamond into AQ or concede a fatal ruff and discard. This was a good board for Oxon as only Procter/Smith conceded 620, whereas Chris and I and Lonsdale/McPhee made it and Webley/Wilkes avoided the problem by taking 300 from 4¨ doubled (obviously, not all auctions were uncontested!)

The first point of interest on this one is how E/W bid to 6© , assuming this is where they want to be and, in particular, what East opens playing "normal" methods. I’m of the school which likes to guarantee 5+ cards in the first-bid suit, when rebidding in a lower-ranking suit a level higher, so I can’t open 1© or 1ª here because I’ve no satisfactory rebid after a 2§ response. You might say it’s equally unsatisfactory to open 1¨ and rebid the suit after 2§ from partner but in my experience the roof rarely falls in at this point. So our auction was 1¨ - 2§ - 2¨ - 2© - 3© - 3ª - 4© (end). I’m not remotely proud of the last bid but I wasn’t sure that 3ª was an out-and-out cuebid (why, I’ve no idea now) and didn’t like the club shortage. In fact, 6© by West, which is where we were headed until I screwed up, is an excellent spot. Some opened 1© as East and were quickly propelled to slam, which is theoretically less good on a spade lead. Thanks to the actual layout, however, 6© by West seems to be doomed on ª Jack lead. Nick Smith tells the sad story of how he and Rob came to lose half a million cross-IMPs by being the only pair to concede 1430. Nick, holding 4 trumps, opted for the softly-softly § 10 lead against 6© by East. Declarer won, played a heart to the King and a low diamond. Rob took the Ace and exited with § Jack. Declarer won in dummy, pitching a spade, and played © Q, getting the bad news. He now proceeded to play double-dummy, cashing § Q and throwing a diamond, as did North. He then ruffed a club to hand and cashed ¨ KQ, throwing spades from dummy. Finally he played a spade to K and Ace, ruffed dummy’s last club with © Ace and claimed, dummy’s last two cards being J9 of trumps sitting over 108. 6© went down five times whilst the Bygotts and Williams/Wilson got a rather undeserved bonus from playing 4© +1. However, I’ve heard it said that if you spent your entire bridge career without bidding a single slam, you’d probably show a profit, and there’s maybe a hint of truth in this.

Derbyshire had arranged for all the boards to be duplimated but neglected to tell us before two keen Oxons set about shuffling and dealing. The result of this was that board 11 was a completely new deal (I’ll come to board 15 later).

I include this hand only because David Bygott wants to record that it gained the county a massive 22 IMPs (two of our E/W pairs went plus while everyone else made 10 or 11 tricks in 4ª ). It’s easy to see that 3NT proved less than ideal against Lonsdale/McPhee on a club lead but David wonders how Chris and I beat an apparently lay-down 4ª and suspects a brilliancy. Alas, blunders usually outnumber brilliancies by some 10,000 to 1 in this game, and here was no exception. Chris led a club to Jack and Ace and declarer - a very old friend of mine - ruffed a club, came to hand with a top trump and ruffed his last club with dummy’s last trump. He came to hand again with © Ace and cashed the other top trump. He then played a diamond to King and Ace and I exited with © 9, trying to look like a man who wasn’t end-played. At this point, to use a well-worn phrase, declarer finally lost his presence of mind, winning with the King and exiting with a further heart to my Queen. I had to exit with a red card, leaving dummy with mountains of winners, but poor declarer was trump-bound and had to ruff the next trick in order to lead away from ª 108 into my J9 (an odd echo of the previous board). So it wasn’t brilliant, or even funny.

A rare poor board for Oxon when the E/W pairs held:

West ª Q9842 © A7 ¨ AJ § A1094

East ª A © J10986 ¨ 1082 § KJ86

With South holding © KQ bare, EW can make 3NT, 4© or 5§ with ease. Derbyshire bid and made game three times to our one (Webley/Wilkes made 4© +1). Chris and I bid 1ª - 1NT - 2§ - 3§ - P, making 12 tricks (!) and though I wondered whether I should bid 2© rather than 3§ as East, it looks as though only 3© would be guaranteed to do the business. Partner might have tried something over 3§ , I suppose (3¨ ?), which would have done the trick equally, but it’s not clear that anyone did anything very wrong. The Bygotts bid 1ª - 1NT - P.

North ª K1042 © 32 ¨ K942 § AK10

South ª J763 © Q8 ¨ A6 § Q8742

Chris and I were fixed horribly when our opponents, no doubt smarting from previous indignities in the set, bid 1ª - 3ª (pre-empt) - 4ª . When a spade to the 10 drew the Ace and the Queen dropped on the next round, the contract became unbeatable. I could have ducked the Ace smoothly, I suppose, but declarer has no real choice but to go to dummy again and lead a small trump, playing small if West does. Everyone else played partscores, spurning the obvious vulnerable game.

North ª J10543 © AQ ¨ K108 § AJ7

South ª K72 © K76 ¨ AJ95 § 862

Everyone who played 4ª made it, three for Oxon, one for Derbys, leaving their opponents wondering whether they could and should have done better. Two Derbys declarers made 3NT whilst both Oxon declarers who bid it went down. Nick Smith got a club lead (from KQ954 round to his Jack. A spade to the King would have worked now: when it holds declarer can continue the suit, knocking out East’s Ace on the second round, and with it his only entry. After running ª Jack to the Queen, however, all reasonable continuations fail.

This was the other hand mutilated in our eagerness to get dealing. When re-constituted, the original North and East hands were switched inadvertently, but for all tables. The fact that all scores stood was much to Oxon’s advantage in that we went plus at seven out of eight tables, earning at total of 28 IMPs. Jeremy Bygott recalls how at his table, North opened a weak NT and he protected as West with 2§ (Astro) on his 6-count, after which David bid and made 2© , but not before everyone had a good laugh when dummy went down. Events at my table were even more bizarre. North, playing a strong NT, opened 1§ . South responded 1© and North rebid 1NT which rode round to my partner. Chris doubled protectively to show his massive spade-diamond two-suiter. Not being overkeen to play in my 3-card spade suit or doubleton diamond, I passed for penalties and led ¨ 10 against 1NT*. The sight of dummy wasn’t especially encouraging, particularly when dummy’s ¨ Q won. Then partner threw a low spade as a club went to Jack and Queen, so there didn’t seem to be much joy there and I continued with a diamond to the King. A second club went to the 6 (!) in dummy, partner pitching another spade, and a spade to the 10 forced my King. I switched to a low heart, partner winning the Queen to clear the diamonds. Declarer could have cashed out now for down one, but continued with § 10 to the Ace. A heart to the King, followed by two winning diamonds and a heart back, netted us +500. Virtue rewarded, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

I can just about see how N/S might come to land in 4© though most were content to play in 2© or 3© , or defend 3ª by the opponents. Game was bid twice by either side but was made only by Lonsdale/McPhee’s oppo, whereas most in heart partscores made 10 tricks, West being endplayed at trick 1 and on other occasions thereafter. Nigel Wilkes tackled the problem of defending the hand head-on when he underled ¨ Ace at trick 1. Declarer won with the King and led © Jack, overtaking in dummy as Nigel threw a club. A diamond to the 10 followed, East signalling three, so Nigel ducked again! Declarer now led a spade to the King and drew trumps by finessing but was stuck in hand. ª Queen lost to the Ace and East could be put in with ª Jack to lead a club through - so 2© was held to 9 tricks. Doesn’t declarer do better to lead a spade from dummy when there with ª King? Perhaps not, as he’s lost his last chance to draw trumps without loss. I think someone told me that Sandra Landy was favoured with a club lead but went down in game by pulling © King from hand when meaning to play the Jack. Hard luck.

North ª A109653 © K ¨ AK106 § 92

South ª 872 © A95432 ¨ 72 § 63

At my table North opened 1ª , I passed with my 2-2-4-5 12-count, as did South, and partner doubled (dubiously) in the pass-out seat. North bid 2ª , I satisfied myself with 3§ and there matters ended. I was expecting to have maybe missed a thin non-vul game until I saw dummy. Moments later I was 2 down and discovering that thanks to the 2-2 spade break, it was the opponents, not me, who had missed game. Surely South is worth 3ª in competition after the auction stated? This might just persuade North to have a go. Game was actually bid and made by 3 Oxon N/S pairs and by one Derbys pair.

North ª K62 © A96 ¨ Q95 § KJ86

South ª AQJ7 © J1087 ¨ 842 § A3

Six tables made a vulnerable 3NT, very comfortable when East can’t sensibly lead a diamond from J73, but making even if he does. One Derbys pair contented themselves with 2NT against Lonsdale/McPhee and at the last table Jeremy Bygott found a 1NT opening, not with the North cards but as dealer, after which N/S played 2© +2.

South ª A73 © QJ963 ¨ AQ2 § K5

North ª 62 © 72 ¨ 98 § AQJ10874

What should North respond after a 1© opening by South? I know we all tend to play two-level responses as 10+ or even more these days, but aren’t you entitled to bid 2§ with six playing tricks? Or, put it another way, if your agreed style is to respond 1NT on hands like this, surely that same style should require South to raise 1NT to 2NT here? Five pairs got to game whilst two - Pike/Wilson and (inevitably) my opponents - languished in 1NT+3. Hayes/Landy played mysteriously in 3§ +1.

Another tale of spirited bidding by Derbyshire. Chris and I as West and East had an uncontested auction of 1§ - 1ª - 2§ - 2ª (end)! Elsewhere, Stuart McPhee opened 1© as West, North overcalled 2§ , East tried a forcing 2ª , West rebid 3NT and East retreated, wisely, to 4ª which went quietly 2 down undoubled. (Sorry, my machine has run out of exclamation marks, as you’ll notice again later.) Of course, game in 4© or 3NT by N/S isn’t exactly routine despite the 26 HCPs. The Lintotts made 4© (with an overtrick), Procter/Smith made 4© and the Bygotts oppo 3NT. I don’t seem to have mentioned the Lintotts yet, which is unintentional: their card is truly astounding where mine is, mostly, astoundingly lucky. Game otherwise went down (against Webley/Wilkes, this was 5¨ -4, undoubled). Nick Smith found a good line in 4© , taking the spade lead in dummy and cashing three rounds of diamonds throwing a club before exiting in spades. East won and cashed ¨ 9, Nick throwing his last club. A spade went to the Queen, ruffed and over-riffed. It remained only to ruff a club to hand and lead © 10.

Against me the uncontested auction was 1© - 2§ - 2ª - 3NT. I started with ¨ King, which seriously threatened declarer’s communications. He won and led ª Q, covered by King and Ace, and followed with § Ace and King, getting the (very) bad news. Then came § Q, followed by © 9 to the 10, Jack and Queen. Chris did very well to cash ¨ J before returning a diamond to my Queen. I could now cash § J and exit with a heart to lock declarer in dummy. Depending on what he had kept there, he had to give me a spade or Chris a heart, for the setting trick. OK, so declarer might have done better to duck ¨ A at trick 1, but we felt this one wasn’t all luck. Every other table made 3NT (the Lintotts with 3 overtricks). On the very next board, opponents missed a lay-down 6© against us, as did two other Derbyshire pairs and one Oxon pair.

So why did luck desert us here? North opened 1© , I overcalled 2ª (weak), South bid 3ª and Chris 4ª . We allowed ourselves to be pushed to 5ª over 5© and somehow, North then knew it was our hand and saved in 6© . He ruffed the spade lead, knocked out © A, won the trump return, drew the last trump and eliminated clubs before playing a diamond to the Queen and King. He misguessed the diamond back to go down two, but this was no consolation in view of the large scores made available through doubling high-level spade contracts at five of the tables, which frankly looks the normal action. The Bygotts misjudged to play 6ª *-1 so Oxon’s only consolation came when Diana Lintott was allowed to play 5© and guessed diamonds correctly at the end to bring in 650.

Partner and I had spent a large part of the car journey discussing the difference between an opening 4 of a major and a SA Texas opening . Here I had a perfect 4© opener, by the terms of which Chris really had no right to enquire with 4NT, as he proceeded to do, apologising as he put down the dummy in 5© . Clearly this is beaten by ¨ A and a ruff but our luck returned when South wasn’t up to it (as who would be?). He led a club, came in with the second round of trumps in order to get a signal from his partner, then cashed ¨ Ace anyway before trying a spade. Just made. A disciplined 4© was made by two Oxon declarers whilst Lonsdale/McPhee also got away with 5© . We "let through" 5© at three tables, though, and at the fourth a Derbyshire pair bid 4© - 4NT - 5¨ - 5© - 6© (sorry, still no exclamation marks til I get to PC World). Clearly, East had a void, but where? Alan Wilson led a club and was back in again at trick 2 with the Ace of trumps. He also knew from the bidding that partner held ª A, but which was more likely to stand up - his own Ace or partner’s? It looked odds-on to lead a spade, so moments later he was writing down -980. Unlucky, or what?

Crazy hands, or what?

This report writing is ruining my computer. I think the question marks are next to go - they keep sticking. Anyone else want to do the next one??????????????????????????????????????