We travelled to Cheltenham to meet perennial champions Gloucester, knowing that our A team needed a big result to achieve a "medal" position in the Dawes League, whilst the B team had already guaranteed first place in the Porter League.

We were short one or two players due to the county staging the Camrose match between England and Scotland at the Oxford Hotel. Notably, Sandra Landy was acting as Chief Commentator on vugraph. In the absence of Debbie Roberts, John Slater made his debut as Geoff Nicholas’s partner (it was pleasing to see them do so well).

Results:

Oxfordshire A beat Gloucester A by 3 IMPs (11-9 VPs)

Oxfordshire B beat Gloucester B by 114 IMPs (20-0 VPs)

Dawes League, final positions:

1st Leicestershire 100

2nd Gloucestershire 81

3rd = Notts and Oxfordshire 79

Porter League, final positions:

1st Oxfordshire 115

2nd Warwickshire 82

3rd Leicestershire 76

4th Gloucestershire 69

Our results on the day were achieved as follows:

A team: Lonsdale/McPhee, Pike/Wilson -35 IMPs Bennett/Noble, Webley/Wilkes +38 IMPs

B team: Bygotts, Nicholas/Slater +81 IMPs Procter/Smith, Williams/Wilson +33 IMP

Cross-IMPing has been provided by Jeremy Bygott.

Thanks to Jeremy Bygott for the above statistics, which were even more troublesome to arrive at than usual. The two A teams had great difficulty in agreeing a result: we offered them a win by 1, they counter-offered a win to us by 4 and eventually a win to us by 3 was agreed after much head-scratching. When the results went into the computer the answer which came out was a win to us by 2, which is a 10-10 draw according to the VP scale. As this affected final league positions as well as green point awards, we were asked to check it all out again. Fortunately it transpired that the A team couldn’t keep accurate scorecards, and after a minus 100 for down 1 non-vul had been corrected to -50, the original result was confirmed. With 7 very healthy plus scores (the centre column is perhaps the nearest to an accurate comparison) this points to a remarkably consistent performance. However, there ought to be a weighting factor in favour of the A team pairs, because they all faced a reasonable-strength Gloucester team, whereas their B team was not up to the usual standard and featured one pair who will feature as M for Misere in the narrative which follows.

North ª AQJ © Q97 ¨ A98 § K1054

South ª K9 © A82 ¨ K654 § A962

This represented 3NT with overtricks at 7 tables but at the eighth, against me, the bidding went 1§ -2§ (forcing)-3NT-4NT-5¨ (3 Aces)-6§ . You can guess what went wrong. North should have rebid 2NT to show the same 15-16 he would have shown with a rebid of 1NT over 1 of a suit. South now assumed that the actual 3NT showed 17-18 rather than a fast arrival in the desired spot. 6§ had no play despite the excellent controls. We wouldn’t get this wrong - would we?

West ª AQ3 © K10975 ¨ AQ5 § K8

East ª 872 © A8632 ¨ J9 § 953

I opened 1© , Chris raised to 2© , South doubled for TO, I bid 4© and North 5§ . Chris was persuaded by the vulnerability and his acute lack of defence to bid 5© , when I was obviously aching for a chance to double 5§ (this would have brought in 800 if we took our diamond ruff, 500 otherwise). I’ve some sympathy but Chris now agrees that he should have bid a pre-emptive 3© at his first turn: then he could have passed cheerfully on the next round. That’s the beauty of pre-emptive raises: they aren’t there just to embarrass the oppo but to describe your hand in one go. Anyway, 5© was a certain 1 down, unfortunately.

North opened a weak NT, partner ventured 3ª and RHO doubled, alerted as negative. Astonishingly, I held ª KJ © AJ9 ¨ KQ10632 § Q5. It looked obvious to pass, but what to do when the bidding continued 4© -P-P? 4© could be making (just) but so could 4ª . So I took the easier option and bid 4ª , which cost 300 when 4© would have been down 1 because my trump honours are over dummy’s KQ72. There was a variety of results on this board, naturally enough: at one end of the scale Nicholas/Slater were able to defend 5© * for 500 and at the other 4ª * was played three times. Difficult.

West ª 2 © QJ1085 ¨ KQ85 § AQ3

East ª A954 © AK76 ¨ 106 § J104

Is this posed as a problem in how to reach the making 6© after South opens 1NT, you may well ask? No, it’s posed as a problem in how to bid at all, with Weary Willie at the helm, and to demonstrate that I’m not afraid (just embarrassed) to be revealed as an idiot. The bidding went 1NT-2© (transfer)-2ª (end) and all the bids were made by NS. This went 3 down for 300 to us, which was -9 IMPs against the universal 680 elsewhere. Chris’s notes on our performance (ie sins) remarked on this one "JW to bid at some stage". Nuff said.

You hold ª 62 © 109432 ¨ QJ87 § 107. The bidding goes 1NT on you right, 3NT on your left. If you elect to lead a diamond, which is probably as likely to produce some tricks as anything, which one do you lead? I don’t know what the book says, but I agree with Nick Smith, who led the Queen for down 1, rather than my RHO who led the 7 against Chris for 600 in our column. Perhaps someone will write a book on this one.

North ª A5 © KQ10872 ¨ none § KJ864

South ª Q3 © 93 ¨ AQJ64 § AQ109

Against me the opponents agreed clubs and exchanged cue-bids in diamonds and spades, so it wasn’t very difficult (even for me) to lead my singleton © J against 5§ and get a ruff to hold declarer to 11 tricks. Other results were 6§ making three times (by Procter/Smith, Bennett/Noble and Nicholas/Slater’s oppo), 5§ making (Bygotts), 6§ -1 (Webley/Wilkes oppo), 7§ -1 (whoops! - Lonsdale/McPhee oppo). Pike/Wilson, who didn’t have a day for the memoirs, scooped the pool here with 6© making (singleton Jack of trumps came in handy).

At my table South opened 1ª third in hand and I took the opportunity to bid a Ghestem 2ª with a point or two to spare, partner being a passed hand (our normal arrangement is either weak or strong). Needless to say, partner took off and bid 4© after a nebulous double from North, then 5§ over South’s 4ª . South now fell from grace by pushing on with 5ª but both Chris and I thought the job was done and failed to appreciate that a double was appropriate. I led ¨ A before switching to a club. Partner came in with ª A, cashed ¨ K and gave me a ruff for 3 down. Personally I would have opened 4ª with the South hand (another good opportunity to say it all in one go) and accepted whatever happened thereafter, if anything. At Nick Smith’s table he overcalled 4ª after East opened 1§ (what was East going to rebid after a 1ª response from partner, I wonder?). West now went 5§ , naturally enough, and Nick wasn’t especially pleased to hear 5ª from partner. This was followed by a double (easier, of course, once East has shown opening strength) and shortly after by the labour of writing down -800. Results elsewhere were 4ª down 1 or 2, doubled or not, at all tables except one where the Bygotts judged to defend 4© -1. Our 300 turned out to be the second best score recorded on the board by EW.

West ª AJ5 © KQJ9763 ¨ 10 § J2

East ª Q976 © none ¨ K8543 § AKQ7

Our auction was 1© -2¨ -2© -2ª -4© -pass - normal enough, I would have thought, and indeed 4© was made, with or without overtricks at all tables bar two: Nicholas/Slater played a wobbly 3NT, which made despite ª K and ¨ AQ92 being offside (phew, sorry partner!). The Bygotts were facing M for Misere, however, who went slamming in hearts before trying to shut up shop in 5NT. They managed to find a double and 800 (well done! - there was work to be done).

North ª J106 © 763 ¨ AKJ10 § 954

South ª AKQ7 © AKJ ¨ Q95 § KQ7

The sequence 2§ -2¨ -2NT-6NT doesn’t look unreasonable. Unfortunately West holds © Q104 and § AJ62 and I don’t see any legitimate line to make this. Four declarers bid the slam and duly went down, though Rob Procter claimed to have been given a chance by a misdefence. One pair (Bennett/Noble) bid and made it, by undisclosed means, and two Gloucester A pairs stayed in game. Another Gloucester pair, M, bid as follows against me:

2¨ (reverse Benji)-2© -3© -4© -pass. This failed after Chris was able to lead a singleton spade and get two ruffs to go with my § A and trump Q. It was disappointing, to put it mildly, to find this was a flat board!

North ª A42 © J1083 ¨ KJ3 § 853

South ª Q863 © A2 ¨ A82 § AKJ9

3NT looks routine, but with © K, ¨ Q109765 and § Q107642 all offside, it doesn’t seem to have any chance. Indeed, Lonsdale/McPhee found a sharp double and netted 500. However, 3NT was made three times, by the Bygotts and by Pike/Wilson’s and Webley/Wilkes@ oppo. At the last table Smith/Procter avoided any problems in the play of 3NT by defending 3¨ * instead, for a princely 1100.

North ª none © AKJ1042 ¨ J10763 § 82

South ª AKQJ432 © Q63 ¨ AK9 § none

Against me, M bid 2© (weak)-2NT (asking)-3© (described as poor points, reasonable suit)-4NT-5¨ -7© . As 4 NT was ordinary Blackwood, South showed touching faith in partner’s bidding, given her performance on other boards. All was well however. Everyone got to 7© or 7ª , by various more reliable means, except at the Bygott’s table where the Gloucester West opened a vul 3§ , first in hand, on ª 86 © 98 ¨ Q54 § AQJ975. East followed this brave effort by bidding 6§ over North’s 3© . Now South couldn’t bid a grand with certainty, so didn’t. Well done Glos!

Undoubtedly the board of the day. Starting with the Gorblimey and leaving the Sublime till later, I opened 1NT as West, which was raised to 3NT and passed out with nary a flicker anywhere. North for M led ª 8 as if this was perfectly normal, South took the Queen with the Ace and switched to © A,4,8,Q. Then came © J,5,6,¨ 2 followed by © 2,9,K,§ 3. Without a second’s hesitation North switched to a club and I claimed 400 moments later. One can sort of see how it happened, but oh dear! Webley/Wilkes bettered this by making 460 in 3NT - against A team opponents, what’s more. I’m sure they’ll be delighted to tell you all about it. Elsewhere, 5¨ went off twice, once by Nicholas/Slater and once (doubled) against Pike/Wilson, whilst the Bygotts had to defend it played by East and failed to find their spade ruff, so it made. At three tables NS were made of stern stuff, however. Nick Smith came in with 4ª after 1NT-3NT and played there, doubled, for -100. Keith Bennett, after the same start, took his life in his hands and came in with 4¨ instead, banking on (a) partner not raising and (b) someone doubling. It went Dbl, P,P and he could now redouble, trusting that partner would read this as showing the majors. Steve Noble was there with 4© and wasn’t troubled in the play of 4© *, to record. +690 - not bad on a combined 14-count! Unfortunately, Lonsdale/McPhee sustained the same score in the minus column, no doubt congratulating their opponents with customary cheer.

West ª 10652 © Q74 AQ9 § 984

East ª KQ7 © AJ98 ¨ 6 § KQ762

Most people had the good sense to stay low on this one but two intrepid EW pairs brought in 3NT - Lonsdale/McPhee (who else?) and Pike/Wilson’s oppo. Alan’s account of how this got through, despite there being two club losers as well as © K and ¨ K offside, makes heartrending reading but is too strong for our more tender readers. Bennett/Noble’s oppo got all the way to 4ª (I’m beginning to doubt whether our A team pairs should have a premium, after all), which was doubled for 500.

It’s not routine for EW to do the right thing here (which is to play 4© if possible but otherwise take what’s going against 5 of a minor). Chris and I started with 1ª and a double of the inevitable 2NT, which showed interest in penalties. He had a 3¨ bid available instead of double but this would have shown 5 hearts and spade tolerance (we’ve now agreed to amend it to four hearts and spade tolerance). When 2NT* was passed to me as West I was trapped into passing in case there was a real bloodbath available. Chris was similarly trapped into doubling 3§ and there matters rested. Let’s commend Nicholas/Slater, Webley/Wilkes and the oppos of Bennett/Noble and Smith/Procter for finding their way to 4© . Lonsdale/McPhee landed in the less happy spot of 4ª but emerged with +650, whilst Pike/Wilson defeated the same contract by 2 tricks (declarer lost control after playing for hearts to be 2-2). And what of 3§ *? Well, the Bygotts made it without breaking sweat whilst against Chris and I, declarer succumbed to a forcing defence and went two down - but he had forfeited a tempo by winning the spade lead in dummy and ducking a trump to the Jack(!)

Bennett/Noble played a cautious 2NT as NS on this one, for a safe 120. The contract at every other table was 3NT by South, usually following a multi or a weak 2ª by West. This made five times after a spade lead. Declarer knows that there are now five spade losers if he loses the lead to West so is forced into playing a diamond to the Queen, which holds, and follows with ¨ 10. It’s a bonus when this draws the Jack. At the other two tables West preferred to lead a short suit in the hope of spades through declarer. I was one of those, and just like my Gloucester counterpart I blew a trick by leading © 9 (better than ¨ J, however!). Declarer won in dummy with the 10 and erred badly by playing a diamond to the 10 and Jack. I now found the club switch - don’t all applaud at once - and there was no way back for declarer. Partner came in with ¨ K to switch to a spade to Jack and King and I exited another club. One down. Tim Pike also won the opening heart lead with the 10 and played a diamond up but East rushed in with the King, anxious to switch to spades. West took ª K and, being as brilliant as me, exited a club. Now Tim had to guess what to do when a low diamond produced the 4 from East. It was the sort of day when all guesses are wrong: the 10 lost to the Jack and a further club exit left him without resource.

West ª 1095 © KJ4 ¨ AK96 § KQ2

East ª KQJ8 © Q108752 ¨ 2 § 107

EW bid and made 4© at every table bar one. This was where Weary Willie partnered Cautious Cuthbert. I opened 1¨ and rebid 1NT over 1© to show 15-16. I then passed partner’s 2© , knowing that he had a general try of 2§ available on all hands with game interest (ie I could bid 3© over it). Chris’s actual hand is almost too good for a mere 2§ enquiry. Never mind, it’s important to record that 4© can be defeated. A spade needs to be led and the Ace with-held. Then in with Ace of trumps for Ace and another spade, which produces a ruff. Pike/Wilson had a good chance when the hand was played upside down after a transfer sequence. The doubleton spade was led but the Ace was not with-held. The contract can be beaten from the other side as well, however. David Bygott led a club to Jeremy’s Ace and the latter switched to his doubleton spade: again, a first-round duck would have done the business.

So there we are. It’s been a great season for the county. Thanks and congratulations go to all our squad whether A team, B team or reserves. Our spirit has been excellent. As I think you know, we’re planning to enter a C team in the Markham League next season - we’ve enough good players and hopefully enough aspiring ones. Efforts will be made to expand the squad and the Selection Committee will send out availability requests after its next meeting on 18th March (the new season starts on 1st June).

27/02/03