The results were as follows:

Oxfordshire A v Gloucestershire A -

Scored as teams of 4 the A team was:

Oxfordshire B v Gloucestershire B -

Pairs are ranked as follows:

Clearly, one enormous card won the A team match for us. Congratulations to David and Marian, for whom the sun came out with a vengeance - very fitting, considering how miserably it stayed behind the clouds on their previous outing. It would be equally easy to suggest that Denis and Kathy’s modest card decided the B match but, as always, comparisons are odious. David and Marian would be the first to admit that they could have scored even better by avoiding the odd error and would confirm that they had virtually no unlucky boards. The Talbots, on the other hand, found the going uphill (as happens to all of us from time to time): they actually scored a goal or two but were on the wrong end of a number of boards - as when their opponents were the only pair to find a slam on board 11. I would say that the Glos B team appeared to play considerably better than their A team, so there were many less gifts on offer in the B match. Bearing this in mind, the Bygotts can be cautiously pleased with their first outing. Other pairs were all marginally either side of average. Mike and Nick were unlucky to have 4© bid against them on board 32, when 3NT or even 4ª would seem more normal (both doomed). The unluckiest pair were undoubtedly Rob and Sandra: they had a 27-point 6§ bid against them, which no other pair on either side could reach, and then had a 6ª +1 contract adjusted to 5ª +2 in circumstances which I still feel to be dubious in the extreme (more of this later). The cross-IMPing inevitably favours those pairs who had an opportunity to IMP up with the Day/Green card. It’s difficult even to estimate what aggregate score is reasonable, given board 29:

North ªAQ8 ©Q64 ¨KQ52 §KQ9 South ªJ52 ©AK1093 ¨J64 §A7

Three pairs were in 6© , all in the A match, two for Glos and one for Oxon. This is a tiny bit worse than 50%, given that it needs the spade finesse, hearts to behave (except that you fortuitously have the 109) and no diamond ruff. Indeed, if you’re going to bid a slam, 6 NT is better. I’m not for a second criticising anyone on either side who bid it, but the only answer to the question is this a good slam to be in? is yes, when it makes (which is purely a matter of luck). So there is a premium on this occasion for bidding it and for IMPing up with it if it wasn’t bid against you, and a corresponding price to pay if it was bid against you or if you have to IMP up against it.

The following boards carry some history of the fortunes and misfortunes of our pairs...

After a pass by West, North opens 1§ (or at least he did at my table - I suppose that 1© is possible, with ªAJ63 ©AJ84 ¨10 §KJ87). Over 1§ there’s only one practical bid and that’s 3NT. After a 1© opening you would need to play that a 3© overcall shows a solid suit somewhere and looks for a heart stop (don’t we all do that these days?) Leading clubs and persisting until the Ace is forced out brings certain defeat - declarer has 8 tricks, then the defence 5. This was a lucky board for Oxon as both Brian and I and Marian and David were allowed to make 3NT. The Fearnheads chose the wrong moment to save in 4© , unfortunately, losing 800.

There are 9 easy tricks in 3NT and 6 pairs out of 8 wandered into the right spot. Brian and I unfortunately had special methods to show strong three-suiters so could start 2¨ - 2© - 2NT (19-22, three-suited with short clubs). My § K didn’t look wonderful now opposite a likely small singleton or void with no-trumps already wrong-sided, so I bid a quiet 3¨ , ostensibly to play. Brian might have tried 3 NT anyway, to show his stiff § A, but offered his extra values with a raise to 4¨ and I gave it one for the road. 5¨ can make in that hearts are 3-3, allowing declarer to ditch one spade loser and ruff the other, except that it can’t because trumps are 4-1 A bit unlucky perhaps, but have you noticed how rarely special agreements prove superior to blind man’s buff? Just one of life’s little ironies... The other pair to miss 3NT, Marian and David, at least went plus in 3ª

Board 9 was an amusing hand. North/South have 21 points and the black suits, East/West 19 points and the red suits. At my table both sides indicated happiness to sign off at the two level but proceeded to pursue each other to the four level. We could have defended 4© , cashed four winners in our own suits and left declarer with an inescapable fifth loser. I went on to 4ª , however, against which the defence could cash three winners in their suits and leave me with a two-way finesse for the trump Queen. Serves me right that I got it wrong to go 1 down. The Talbots did better to make game whilst other declarers in spades recorded 140 or 170. The oddity is that the two declarers who played heart part scores as East/West, both from Glos, made 11 and 13 tricks respectively!

Obviously, 6ª or 6© is laydown providing one doesn’t take a first-round spade finesse the wrong way (unlikely). At my table I opened 2NT (pre-empt in a minor), West doubled and Brian bid 4§ (pass or correct). I persisted with 5§ over 4©, which was promptly doubled. On a diamond lead, Brian put in the 9, West played the Ace and then went very red. -100 was a partially undeserved triumph for us. I would certainly have bid 5© with Wests’s cards, but how do you ever get to 6? As I said earlier, this feat was accomplished against the Talbots. Other scores were either 300 against clubs or 480-ish in a major.

This is very much a bridge column hand. Knowing all about bidding on at the 5 level, I persisted with 5© over 4ª after partner had volunteered 4© on his own. Looks clear cut, but it was a nasty blow when East cashed ª Ace, gave his partner a diamond ruff and saw the § A cashed for 1 down. The thought that an opening diamond lead would have meant 2 down was no consolation. Oh, cruel world! Mostly, 4ª drifted off but the Bygotts gave up to 4© (which needs the diamond lead to defeat it, of course) and Day/Green were afforded the luxury of being doubled in the same contract.

6ª was bid at every table bar one and I imagine that all auctions were uncontested. Sandra and Rob bid 1ª -2§ -3¨ -3ª -4§ -4¨ -4NT-5¨ -5ª -6ª . 4© might have been preferable to 4NT, after which partner would check on controls and sign off in 6ª when one was missing. No matter, the job had been done. Unfortunately the 5ª bid had been slow and the opposition called in the fuzz. Despite Rob’s protestations that after the game-forcing 3¨ rebid he was only interested in whether the final contract should be 6 or 7 (absolutely!), and therefore his final raise was evident even after the break in tempo, both the ruling and the subsequent appeal adjusted the contract to 5ª +2. I still find this hard to swallow. What I find most sad is the poverty of mind and spirit which induces some players to seek an advantage from situations like this. Most of us might well be tempted to seek agreement as to a major break in tempo, just in case the final bid opposite turns out to have been outrageously influenced, but I hope we would all join in the joke here when dummy went down, before getting on with the next board. Bridge is meant to be played at the table in a proper spirit, not argued over in some grubby courtroom. Seriously, I hope Oxfordshire players would all have conducted themselves differently in the present case.

This was certainly the most dramatic board of the afternoon and one which played a major part in Oxfordshire’s A team result. The highs and the lows both occurred to our advantage in that encounter. At one table, after North opened 3©, doubled for take-out and passed by South, Nick Smith for Oxon essayed 3NT (!). You might say he was lucky that N/S were unable to dash off a large number of heart tricks but 10xxx is certainly a promising holding in this situation. The biggest risk is that North, who is at red and unlikely to pre-empt first in hand on rubbish, has a re-entry, or perhaps solid hearts and nothing else. I haven’t heard Nick’s statement as to what he would have done if doubled - bid 4§ probably? - but the more you look at it, 3NT on the way to 4§ is only daft if partner bids on (which seems unlikely). Anyway, 3NT yielded an enterprising 400. At another table a Glos West decided to rescue the match by psyching an opening bid of 1ª . It was no surprise that East couldn’t then be silenced below 6ª (!) At this point David Green, who had kept himself in check commendably to date, found a red card which resulted in 1400 to Oxon. In the B team match two Wests, one for Glos and one for Oxon, tried to buy the contract in 3ª after partner had doubled the opening pre-empt, but in each case partner raised to game and South enjoyed an early Christmas (a mere 800, though, at this level). Mysteriously, the Talbots found themselves defending 2NT as N/S, which they obviously couldn’t beat, but no harm was done. The other three tables played contracts in clubs. Going for 800 is a cruel price to pay for the view taken to bid 3ª rather than 4§ (most of us wouldn’t have thought of 3NT). Note that 4§ should make against best defence, when played by West. I’ll come out of the bushes, however, to say that a 4§ bid in this situation is easier to justify: (a) you have four of them and (b) you haven’t promised any values by bidding at the four level. This is a very different situation to the 1 level, where you are less likely to be doubled for a telephone number, or indeed at all, and you have room to consider escape.

North doesn’t have an ideal rebid after 1ª -2¨ . Brian chose 2NT (15+ with 5 spades, denying four hearts, obviously). I could have bid 3© anyway, or conceivably 3ª or 3¨ , but 3NT looked the obvious bet. East led his 5-card club suit, came in with ¨ A and cashed out for down 1. All perfectly normal. 3NT went down at 5 tables out of 8 though it mysteriously made for Day/Green, despite East being on lead. One Glos B team pair tried 4ª , only to run into a 5-1 trump break. One is always taught that in general, the best 7-card fits to play in are the 6-1s or the 5-2s, but another Glos pair found 4© in a 4-3 fit against Smith and Goldsmith. Admittedly, diamond ruffs can be taken in the short trump hand, but club forces have to be taken in the other, and trumps are 4-2. Despite this, 4© proved to be unbeatable on a club lead (won and diamond up, the Ace being onside); not even ducking the ¨ Ace works. Unlucky!