Apologies for late arrival of this report.

We started the day with the A team needing to get its season back on track against the Pachabo champion county – no small task. B and C needed to consolidate on winning starts. In the end we recorded three fine wins: the A team by 7 IMPs for 11-9, B by 18 for 13-7 and C by a resounding 90 for 20-0. So after two matches Oxon A has 11VPs, B has 29 and C 32. The full results were:

A: Duttons, Hayes/Landy +7 IMPs; Bygotts, Webley/Wilkes 0 = +7

B: Claridges, Williams/Wilson –31 IMPs; Prior/Smith, Slater/Stephens +49 = +18

C: Brown/Clark, Flower/Stead + 96 IMPs; Elliott/Jordan, King/Watkins -6 = +90

Jeremy Bygott has provided cross-imp results.

One has to remember that good scores are harder to achieve, the higher one goes up the ladder from C to A, in theory at least. Nonetheless it’s most encouraging to see that the two best scores were recorded by pairs making their debut. Well done to them but also to all our pairs – no one did badly.

The hands were often difficult, particularly for defenders, and there was no shortage of mistakes. One apparent theme was the inability of the defence to cash top tricks to defeat contracts, as will be seen.

No one has offered hands, so it’s inevitable that the narrative which follows has a personal slant.

I’ll try, as usual, to concentrate on points of general instructive interest. However, it may turn out that most of the good things that happened can be attributed to me and the bad to partner. Don’t worry, he’s used to it….

At my table North opened 1¨ and after a pass by East, South responded 1© . I passed as West (it would be crazy to bid in so exposed a position). However, things got interesting when North rebid 1ª and Chris wandered in with 2§ . What sort of hand could he have to pass first and bid now - a weak jump (3§ immediately would have been the dreaded Ghestem) or some general overcalling hand that supposedly posed less risk now than a round earlier? It was the first board of our afternoon, so he wasn’t asleep just yet. We’d never discussed this situation. Eventually I concluded that as little as KQ to 6 clubs and Queen of hearts would offer some play for game, so I leapt to 3NT on a man-or-mouse basis. South wasted no time in doubling this so I retreated to 4§ on a strictly mouse basis, South doubled again and they took 5 top tricks in the majors plus a spade ruff for 500. A great start to the afternoon! Had I stood for 3NT* the result would have been -300 on a major lead or -100 after a diamond, so I’d made my one mistake of the afternoon at the first opportunity (actually, it was kind of the second as I’d failed to notice that I was East, holding the West cards – perhaps I could have called for a ruling to get our score cancelled, NS having put the board on the table the wrong way round). Incidentally, we’ve now agreed that in future we’ll make a weak jump on the second round with Chris’s hand – so nothing can go wrong, can it? At Sandra Landy’s table she overcalled immediately with 2§ (pass not being among Sandra’s usual options) and Lynne leaped to 3NT but escaped a double. She got a diamond lead and set about cashing the clubs but on the first round, both opponents showed out! After a proper interval for reflection on this unusual event, she played to the next trick, thus establishing a revoke. Of course, South now had a club stop to which he wasn’t entitled, so the ruling had to restore equity, ie 1 down. Unfortunately, a Derbyshire player hadn’t observed the proprieties fully (it’s always difficult sitting opposite a manifest idiot, as my partners all know), so early Christmas presents were not exchanged. This was not a good board for the county because, in addition to our –500, Brown/Clark went for -300 in 3NT* and Prior Smith let through the same contract for –550.

Things were scheduled to get better now.

I opened 1© as East (feeling more confident now that I was holding my own cards) and South bid 2© (black suits, weak or strong). Chris stretched slightly with 3© (but it could have been wrong to pass) and I raised to game. South doubled to show he was strong not weak (well, OK, I suppose) and North – the lady who had wielded the red card to such effect on the last board – passed for penalties (!) The play went ª Ace, spade to King, club to Ace, spade ruff, diamond ruff. I could have ruffed the third spade with © K, of course, but developments after that are murky and dangerous. Anyway, only –300 this time. Never mind, we thought, a good view in spades produces a vul game for NS, but nobody bid and made game. The only good result for Oxon was King/Watkins making 3ª * (all right, very good result).

West ª Q986 © K5 ¨ J54 § AQ63

East ª A74 © AQ72 ¨ 832 § K94

We bid 1NT-3NT, as one does, and Chris got a low club lead. After much thought he put in the 9 (a mite anti-percentage?), which was covered by the singleton J and now the contract had no price. But even with 4 club tricks in the bag it would have been no play anyway without leading a spade up to the Queen. And then all South has to do is win and switch to a diamond: from his perspective, how is this possibly going down unless there are four diamond tricks to go with the spade? 3NT actually made at 7 tables – fortunately, with Oxon as declarer 4 times. The Bygotts had the good fortune to defend 5§ , which went 4 down though they didn’t quite manage a double. As a team of four with Brian and Sandra, Chris and I had shipped 24 IMPs in the first three boards.

West ª K6 © 8752 ¨ 972 § AJ96

East ª J8 © AKQ1064 ¨ A8 § K83

EW have an easy game in hearts despite both spades being wrong. In fact you can make 11 tricks if you have to, even after two spades and a diamond switch, because South holds § Q1042. Elliott/Jordan did well to accept a push to 5© - have you noticed NS have a double fit in spades and diamonds? – and make it, whilst five tables had a quiet time in 4© . But 4ª , vulnerable and on a combined 15-count, is a terrific save. Losing out on the board were Webley/Wilkes who defended 3ª making, and Hayes/Landy who could get no more than 100 from 4ª (not their fault), in the middle were the Bygotts who got to 4ª but lost 500, and big winners were Flower/Stead who lost only 200 in the same contract, Slater/Stephens who made it (!) and Prior/Smith who pushed opponents to 5© (they didn’t bother to make it).

North ª J10 © Q63 ¨ A987 § AQ65

South ª K9764 © J1072 ¨ KJ10 § K

Chris did well here, playing 3NT from the North hand. After a club lead he simply played a low spade from dummy, happy to lose two spades and © AK, whilst keeping the tempo of the hand and the ease of communication in his favour. You can easily ruin everything by coming to hand to run ª J (and if you do, it loses to Q anyway). 3NT went down 5 times and the one declarer out of game also made 8 tricks only.

West ª QJ98 © K3 ¨ A3 § AK1092

East ª AK10742 © 1092 ¨ J § Q83

No one managed to find 6§ or 6NT by West, which only need the (actual) 3-2 club break, and it’s asking too much to get West as declarer in 6ª . As it happens, © A is right anyway, so all slams make. This was a bad board for the county when 6ª from the wrong side was made against us three times (the A team being particularly unlucky when Webley/Wilkes and Hayes/Landy both conceded 980; Elliott/Jordan lost the same score for the C team), the only 980 in coming from Prior/Smith for B.

North ª K75 © AK7 ¨ 842 § Q1054

South ª Q3 © 832 ¨ KQ6 § AJ862

My man did OK on this one too. If you play 3NT as North and get a diamond lead (from A1073 as it happens), you can win the Q, come to hand with a heart, pick up the clubs via a winning finesse and knock out Ace of spades for 9 tricks. But Chris got a spade lead from 3 small. Now you have to put up the Queen to force the Ace, win the third round of spades, pick up the clubs and pray ¨ A is right for you. 3NT was missed four times (twice each way) and went down twice (against Hayes/Landy and Flower/Stead).

North ª none © KJ732 ¨ AK5 § AKQJ4

South ª KJ1097632 © 108 ¨ Q7 § 9

This ought to be easily biddable to the right spot, given partnership trust. We bid 1© (the suit’s a bit thin for an Acol two) - 1ª - 3§ - 4ª - P. One Oxfordshire pair played 4© , making a very lucky 12 tricks, but two Derbyshire pairs played NTs, game being OK but Flower/Stead taking 6NT 1 off.

The first question is, should NS save in 5§ over 4ª . Of course not, you say, 4ª has three hearts and a diamond to lose, whereas 5§ is a sure 1 down and could just go down a couple, double dummy (if the play starts with two rounds of diamonds, a club to the Ace and a spade to the King – so declarer has to cash three rounds of hearts throwing a diamond before exiting with § Q, so as to ruff high on a diamond through).

At my table we defended 4ª on a club lead. Declarer eliminated clubs, drew trumps and led a heart off the dummy. I played the 10 in case there was a guess and Chris did very well to overtake with the Queen to switch to ¨ J. Declarer could have made the hand trivially by winning ¨ A and exiting with another low heart. If I held © A10 alone I would be endplayed after cashing ¨ King, and if I held © K10 alone I would be endplayed similarly because partner could not overtake without setting up © J. However, declarer took the finesse. I won and exited a diamond, playing to set up another trick in the suit, neglecting to cash © A first. Result, endplay as before. I can’t be blamed for this comedy of errors, because if I am I’ll sulk. So I’ll just point out that 4ª made no less than 5 times (once doubled)! So perhaps we should have bid 5§ after all. This also happened 5 times and was down 1 every time. The other two results were 5ª *-2 by the Claridges and 4ª -1 by Flower/Stead, so we have to give best to Derby, who were the only people capable of cashing four top tricks against game in spades.

West ª KQJ10642 © 1032 ¨ 52 § 5

East ª none © KQ96 ¨ AKQ76 § AQ83

The East hand or something like it must have appeared in many bidding manuals, asking what you should say if partner (as here) opens 3ª . The answer is 4ª , of course, (a) because if you lose the lead in spades your hearts and clubs may succomb to continued attack and (b) because if partner’s spades are very strong (as here, again), how do you reach them in no-trumps? Here’s the proof of the pudding: 3NT was tried twice and went down each time (once by –3); 4ª was tried 8 times and went down only once (against me, declarer was careless with trumps 5-1 and eventually succumbed to a trump promotion). The other two results were bearable for Oxfordshire, Prior/Smith and Flower/Stead each taking 1100 from - let’s say – a slightly ill-judged 5c* by NS.

North ª A95 © AKQ965 ¨ KJ9 § 7

South ª Q72 © J1043 ¨ A864 § K4

I’ve always subscribed to the rule of thumb that an opening hand opposite an Acol Two should be playable in slam, and the only issue is which one. However, it’s important to keep up to the required criteria in each case before making such an assumption. The North hand here isn’t quite an Acol 2© and even if North stretches to it, South shouldn’t rush to bid a slam without careful investigation. Here, 4© is quite high enough: five tables yielded 620 and one managed an overtrick, but 6© went down three times, 5© twice and even 4© once. After 1© - 3© the North hand may be worth one slam try, but not more.

West ª KJ3 © AKJ10 ¨ KQ83 § 94

East ª AQ7 © 7 ¨ A1042 § KQJ32

Two Derbyshire pairs stayed in 3NT, making 12 tricks, but everyone else got to slam. 6¨ is clearly superior to 6NT but only 6 pairs got there. It looks routine. Chris and I bid 1§ - 1¨ - 3¨ - 4NT - 5© - 6¨ . Chris got a heart lead, laid down K and Q of trumps to discover the 4-1 break, finessed ¨ 10 and claimed. Most of the time, of course, he wouldn’t have needed the bit of luck in the trump suit. 6NT, however, fails whenever South hold A10XX of clubs and North the heart Queen, even if diamonds are 3-2. Chris was very curious to see who, if anyone, reported a brilliancy on this hand because 6¨ can actually go down as well. Do you see how? There is a text-book deceptive play available to North when declarer lays down the first top trump. He must, sorry must, play the 9. If this is a singleton declarer needs to win the next round with the Ace in order to run the 10 or finesse the 8. Half the time he will guess wrong to go down. Good, eh? PS: everyone in 6¨ made it, so anyone who played ¨ 9 and still conceded 1370 will have to take a lie-detector test before their article is accepted for the website.

West ª AK753 © AQ8 ¨ KQ86 § 3

East ª QJ92 © 106 ¨ J102 § AQ76

We stayed out of this one when partner discovered it was on a finesse at best. It may appear to be a 50% slam depending purely on the position of © K, so in a sense it’s not a crime either to bid it or to miss it. In a funny way it’s slightly worse than that because there are two finesses available – hearts and clubs – and like John Slater, you might guess the wrong one to take. Or does that make it better than 50%? I don’t know. Me, I’d rather take the plus score, which was a pity on this occasion because the heart finesse was right all along.

North ª Q © A7 ¨ 10876 § AKJ973

South ª 9853 © QJ10986 ¨ K § Q5

I opened the South hand a weak 2© (and was later derided by partner for holding a 4-card spade suit – since when was he such a goody-two-shoes?), smug-features responded 3§ (non-forcing) and there we played, for 1 down (huh!) when 4© seemed to have good chances. Actually, it’s not as straightforward as it looks against good defence (try club leads whenever in, for example), but of the five pairs who tried, only one failed.

West ª 2 © Q63 ¨ KQJ1092 § 643

East ª AKJ9 © K842 ¨ A64 § 107

Chris and I defended 1NT, led a club and took four top clubs and the © A for –120. The Duttons went 1 down in 3© , Brown/Clark took 4© down 3 and the Bygotts went 4 down in the same contract. So much for the interesting results. At seven tables, 3NT was bid and made (PriorSmith made 11 tricks). The answer, of course, is that Queen of spades is onside and North has 5 of them, so if you don’t mention the suit it might be led. However, it seems to me you have mention an awful lot that isn’t there to get to game in the first place.

 Board 31: NS game, dealer S

Something of a mixed bag to finish with. Our oppo played in a sensible 5¨ , just making (you discard a spade on © A, ruff the suit good, play trumps whenever convenient, throw clubs on spades, claim). Overall, EW played this in 3¨ +2, 3NT+2 (twice), 4ª +1, 4ª +2 (3 times), 5¨ -1, 5¨ making, and 6ª -3 (against Webley/Wilkes). Finally two Derbyshire NS pairs thought they knew best and played in 4© *-3 (800 to the Bygotts) and 5© *-4! (1100 to Flower/Stead).

So there we are. I’m going off to practise cashing top tricks

I hope everyone gets something of a mention somewhere, and in not too bad a light. The bridge may not have been uniformly great but three wins can’t be bad

I’d be more than happy to record three such results after the coming weekend against Leicestershire. Good luck to all who are down to play.

07/10/2003.