This was an eagerly awaited encounter, with both counties’ A teams in the running for the Dawes League title.

Oxforshire A let slip a 65-IMP halftime lead to win eventually by 10 IMPs (12-8 VPs).

Oxfordshire B also let slip a half-time lead but theirs was only 2 IMPs. They lost eventually by 11 IMPS (8-12 VPs).

The scores achieved by pairs were remarkably close. The biggest aggregate plus was by Hayes/Landy (N/S) and the biggest minus was by the Lintotts (E/W). The cross-IMPing comes out as follows:

These figures are taken direct from the computer calculations. They should really be divided by 2 (the number of comparisons) to show figures comparing to normal IMPs. The absence of any particularly high or low scores should not obscure the fact that all Oxon pairs made one or two expensive errors. The slam bidding, in particular, was pretty gruesome, though it should be said that most decisions fell to E/W pairs.

West ª QJ © Q865 ¨ Q962 § AK2

East ª A642 © AJ7 ¨ AK1074 § J

At my table Rob, East opened 1¨ , I responded 1© and over the 1ª rebid I closed proceedings with 3NT. I might have valued my diamond holding enough to temporise with 2§ but, even then, it’s clear that we may not bid the slam unless Rob’s original rebid were a game-forcing 2ª , which is a bit of an overstatement. Otherwise, I will always tend to downgrade my hand when I discover that § AK are opposite shortage. Mind you, 6¨ is only just with the odds so is no big deal to miss. Two pairs on each side bid it, Hayes/Landy and Goldsmith/Smith being the unlucky pairs to concede 920. The Lintotts bid and made 6¨ but Richard Lonsdale judged to run the opening club lead to his Jack and went 1 down (the spade finesse is right and the heart finesse is wrong). It looks more normal to win trick 1 and rely on one of the other two finesses but what Richard did is not stupid. Richard and Stuart brought in a no-play vul game on the next board, to make amends.

This is the kind of board guaranteed to bring in mixed results, and so it proved. The major ones were when Richard and Stuart got caught in 2ª * for -500 and at my table where North opened a weak NT, Rob did well to pass as East and South introduced Stayman: I doubled this to pass the time of day and nobody had anything more to say. It looks as though declarer should get close but in practice he went 2 down. On the next board the Lintotts brought in a no-play 4ª whilst everyone else was going 1 off in that contract or buckets off in no-trumps

North ª K6 © AK963 ¨ None § AK9642

South ª Q9742 © J102 ¨ 10953 § 3

Apart from the Fearnheads, everyone who played in hearts made 10 or 11 tricks, but Webley/Wilkes got to 5© and went 1 down and Goldsmith/Smith played a quiet 3§ +1. The good news was at Keith and Steve’s table where they were able to double 6§ and take 300. On board 9, all the N/S pairs overbid to 3NT - against me, this went 4 down vul after a misguess on the opening lead - except for Hayes/Landy who played 3§ +1. On 11 the Fearnheads had their luck for the day defending 6NT -1, a result duplicated by the Lintotts, this time in the out column. And on 12, everyone failed in 3NT except against Rob and me, where Rob slipped on an imaginary banana-skin (whereas I slip on the real ones, plus those of apples, pears, cherries etc).

After a weak NT by South most Norths tossed a coin between passing and playing 3§ . The exceptions were where the Fearnheads took 100 from 3NT and the intrepid Richard and Stuart took 600!

West ª AQ973 © AK5 ¨ 10984 § 2

East ª 85 © 104 ¨ AKQ5 § A10976

No one got near this 6¨ except aagainst the Fearnheads. Of course, spades being 3-3 with the King right doesn’t half help. Rob and I made 12 tricks, but in 4ª .

North ª 76 © AKQ10432 ¨ K53 § 10

South ª QJ1083 © J6 ¨ A862 § A9

It’s difficult to keep low enough to be safe (ie 4© ) and only half the field managed it (the Fearnheads took 500 from 5§ *). The Lintotts got lucky when their oppo tried 6© , but you can’t make even 5© on a diamond lead. At my table the oppo ground to a halt in 5© after I doubled a 5§ cuebid, holding KQ8742. It seemed a good idea at the time but it served only to deflect partner from the winning lead. Oddly enough, all 7 declarers in 4 or more © made 11 tricks precisely.

This was an interesting 4© except at two tables - where (a) a Leics pair v the Fearnheads bid only 3© , knowing their limitations, perhaps, as that’s all they made, and (b) where Richard and Stuart decided to save in 5§ * going for 800. Everybody in 4© made it, except for the Leics pair against Rob and I, where declarer lost her way. Unfortunately, the curtain cards were missing afterwards (presumably some scribe took them away to report on his own genius). Nick Smith thinks the N/S cards were thus:

North ª xx © KQ9 ¨ AKxxxx § xx

South ª Jxxx © A8xxx ¨ x § Akx

The defence cashed K and A of spades before switching to a club (it was just the same at my table). A heart to the K produced J from East. Nick didn’t bank on the heart finesse, however, cashing the top diamonds and clubs and cross-ruffing. In practice, West discarded her fourth diamond on the third spade so he was able to change tack and establish diamonds. However, I agree that the crossruff seems to guarantee 10 tricks.

On board 22 I ruined our card by bidding a no-play 6NT avoided at all other tables. It didn’t help the team result either. Sorry.

Another fascinating 4© , and again the curtain cards are missing. 4© was bid and made 5 times and failed twice (by Mike and Nigel and against Richard and Stuart). Against Rob and I, North bid only 3© , which was all declarer made after ¨ K and A (upside down) and a switch to a low club. In fact the contract is cold against anything but a switch to § Q! (The low club goes to J, K and A, trumps are drawn, spades eliminated throwing a club from hand, after which declarer exits with a club, endplaying West to give a ruff/discard. Nick Smith got a spade switch, so he was able to draw trumps and lead a diamond towards his hand to establish a club discard in dummy while he still held § A. I don’t know how other declarers made it, but congratulations to any who achieved the endplay.

Board 24 was a 4ª or 6ª hand revolving around the red suits. Five pairs bid it (four of them from Oxon, unfortunately). Once the diamond finesse failed, the hand was dead.

North ª A © K ¨ AK10942 § KQ854

South ª Q54 © J875 ¨ 87 § AJ106

We bid 1¨ - 1© - 3§ - 3NT - pass, apparently missing a thin but easy slam. 3NT was no picnic either. However, slam isn’t great with diamonds 4-1. Two pairs made it, both against Oxon pairs and one went off, also v Oxon, while the Lintotts failed in 5¨ * and others were making 5§ or 3NT.

Board 29 was a popular 3NT or 4ª for E/W but was notable for two pairs getting caught in 2© *, Keith and Steve for Oxon who conceded 1100 and Mike and Nigel’s opponents, who suffered even more for 1400.

West ª AQ8753 © None ¨ K876 § K32

East ª K2 © A72 ¨ AQ105 § AQ87

Everybody managed 13 tricks in diamonds, spades or notrumps, but only one pair - the Fearnheads - bid the excellent 7¨ . The A team scored well on the board when one Leics pair didn’t even manage a small slam.