Oxfordshire failed to make further progress in the Dawes and Porter Leagues last Sunday, our A team making an exact draw and the B team losing narrowly. The A team now has 51 VPs from its four matches and the B 57, so we remain well placed in both divisions. League tables are awaited and will be added to this report if received in time.

Results: A:(Lintotts, Webley/Wilkes +11 IMPs; Bennett/Noble, Procter Smith -11 IMPs) = 10-10 VPs

B:(Bygotts, Hayes/Landy + 13 IMPs; Claridges, Williams/Wilson -32 IMPs) = 07-13 VPs

Click here for Jeremy Bygott's statistical analysis.

I’ve never known figures so close. Clearly there were no outstandingly good or bad performances, though from what I’ve heard and will reveal, everyone had grounds for disappointment on certain boards. I don’t know whether the A team felt themselves to be lucky or unlucky overall but there’s no doubt in my mind that the B team (which I’ve just realised fielded no less than four Grand Masters, for what it’s worth!) were extremely fortunate to emerge with 7 Victory Points: Leicester B played pugnaciously for the most part and tended to outplay us on the boards we lost, but many of our winning boards owed a lot to our luck and/or their occasional madness. They fielded one pair who admitted to both being deaf but it took a while to realise that they were also blind and daft. All will be revealed in the narrative, for which I’m grateful to reports from Nick Smith and Jeremy Bygott.

You hold ª QJ962 © 4 ¨ 1096 § KQ108 and the bidding, starting on your right and with partner silent, goes 1NT - 2¨ (transf) - 3© - 4© . What do you lead? It’s worth remembering, particularly when both opponents have shown good values, that ª Q is much less likely to cost a trick than is § K. So I’ll start off by congratulating my partner on finding the killing lead here, when dummy went down with ª K © 107653 ¨ AQ2 § J974. I had ª Ace and a trump trick (unless declarer was up to finessing the 9 on the first round) and declarer was sufficiently duplicated in shape with dummy to mean that we had two inescapable club winners. 4© was made only three times - by Hayes/Landy and the Claridges, and against the Lintotts (Bennett/Noble held 3© to 9 tricks).

 Board 3: EW game, dealer S

At all tables bar one this was a part-score battle in the red suits, with varying but modest outcomes. At the table where the Bygotts were NS, West opened 1¨ , North overcalled 1ª , East made a negative double and South passed - all very normal. However, instead of the 3¨ rebid mostly found elsewhere, West essayed 2NT and was raised to game. Jeremy led a spade to the Jack, David starting a peter with the 10, and declarer played a club to the Queen and King. Taking declarer for one of several possible17/18 counts including © K and modest diamonds, Jeremy exited with a club but declarer guessed to play the 8 in seconds flat and now had 9 tricks for + 600, where a heart switch would have resulted in an awful lot less - double dummy, - 400! Jeremy is still wearing sack-cloth as you read this, and it’s true that the turn-around on this board alone was worth the whole B team match result, but I think he should get dressed properly again without delay. This was not an unforced error. The most that can be said is that it may have been worth the risk of laying down © Ace just in case, but I guess there are layouts where this could have been fatal. As a footnote, if your normal signalling style is to show length rather than attitude, it should be recognised that a signal in a potential cash-out situation in the middle of a hand should always indicate attitude - hopefully without standing on the table, which David would have been sorely tempted to do here....

This is the sort of board which tells you whether it’s your day or not. NS will mostly bounce to 4ª after whatever intervention East makes, and EW then have to apply pressure with 5§ or 5¨ , which stands to gain a minimum of 4 IMPs as the cards lie (- 500 if they double and keep their heads, against - 620) but may bring in a bigger dividend, as when Chris at my table took out insurance with 5ª and failed to drop Kª singleton, for 1 down. I don’t think this is terrible by any means. Landy/Hayes got 200 from 5ª and Bennett/Noble did double 5¨ and take 500, but that was the end of the good news. Procter/Smith sold out to 4ª to complete our misery but again, it has to be said that they hardly committed a glaring error in doing so.

West ª AJ © Q985 ¨ Q1053 § K93

East ª 108764 © 3 ¨ A742 § Q64

Not the greatest ad for the weak NT because you are likely to play 2ª and go quietly 3 down for -300 against best defence. This happened at no less than 4 tables (the Lintotts oppo managed only 2 down). Playing a strong NT you will either play 2¨ - not making but playing better - or will defend (the Claridges beat 2© ).

West ª Q42 © K7 ¨ AKQJ5 § AQ10

East ª AJ7 © AJ985 ¨ 7 § J984

Two Leics pairs bid 6NT, which makes an overtrick because diamonds behave and every finesse is right. Two pairs bid failing slams - the Lintotts’ oppo who ran into a 5-1 trump break in 6© and Hayes/Landy who had a similar experience in 6§ - and everyone else languished in game, so this was a poor board for Oxon. East has a small problem after partner opens (or rebids) 2NT to show a strong balanced hand, if he happens to be playing 5-card Stayman, because he doesn’t know whether to transfer into hearts or find out whether or not partner has 5 spades. On the whole, I think it’s better odds to transfer and then bid 4NT over 3© , assuming this is quantitative (as most teachers will tell you it should be). If you don’t like the 4NT bid, are you confident that 4§ (a) would be natural and (b) would be the right bid, if so? There’s lots of food for discussion here.

This is another non-ad for the weak NT. Four EW pairs had to toil in 2© * after a weak NT opening, three of them going for 500 (two Oxon and one Leics) whilst Procter/Smith could only manage 200. At my table it became apparent that the opponents were more than just deaf when the bidding proceeded:

(1) Do I have to do this? (2) Hope the idiot remembers this shows a 5-card suit somewhere

(3) I think he’s got a five-card-suit somewhere - what’s the betting it’s hearts?

(4) I like these guys - let’s give them a break (5) Opinions on a postcard to C Wilson, Intensive Therapy Ward, Oxford Psychiatric Hospital (6) Pardon? (7) I’m an Ordinary Bloke, Get me out of here! (8) I really love these guys, especially the bald one with the beard who looks so miserable (9) I’m tempted, but perhaps I’ve done enough (10) Pardon?

The play in 3NT pretty much matched the auction. I led a heart, having nothing obviously better to do. Declarer won in dummy and ran ª 9, which held. Without pause for further thought he then played a second spade to the 10 and King and won my heart continuation in dummy. At this point declarer’s own hand could have been binned until he came in again at trick 12, by which time he was 1 down. He led a diamond to the 8 and 10 but I could exit with § 10 to the Jack. A diamond to the Queen, followed by Ace and another diamond, left him locked in dummy again to concede a club trick. The Lintotts also defended 3NT but with a human being at helm, so it made.

South ª KJ962 © 5 ¨ AKQJ § K53

North ª A874 © AQ976 ¨ 6 § A62

Seven tables got to 6ª on this one but Sandra Landy could only manage the Grand. Being in regular touch with the Almighty, she knew that trumps were 2-2, which was a great help in bringing in 2210 and 13 IMPs.

All roads seem to lead to 3NT by West. Chris got ¨9 lead, at which point he could have saved us all a lot of time by writing 50 in the out column. I think this happened at a few tables, though Jeremy Bygott still got home on a diamond lead, which must have taken great skill and a bit of help. 3NT was otherwise made only by the Lintotts and the Claridges’ oppo. Nick Smith tells how his declarer missed a chance after he had led § 2 to the 4, 8 and Jack. Declarer played Ace, King and another spade, correctly playing for a 3-3 break or any honour doubleton, after which Robert did well to switch to ¨ 3 rather than an honour. Declarer appeared to be in with a chance when the Queen held, indeed might have prevailed had he crossed to © Ace to knock out the last spade loser. He can duck the next diamond and win the third round before leading up to § K for 9 tricks - three in spades and two in each of the other suits. (I think Nick has missed the point that Robert can switch to a low heart after the second round of diamonds.) However, declarer actually finessed © Jack instead of knocking out the last spade, allowing Nick to exit a diamond. Declarer did his best by winning the third round and playing Ace and another heart, but Nick could exit a low club to guarantee enough defensive tricks, assuming partner held § 10.

North ª KQ98 © Q976 ¨ A65 § 65

South ª AJ764 © K8 ¨ 7 § K10743

4ª is pretty laydown for NS, even when West holds § AQ82 over South, because trumps are 2-2. 10 tricks were made at 7 tables, though the Claridges stayed out of game. At the eighth table my favourite opponents (pardon?) were in charge. I opened 1© , only marginally light, in the East seat, and South bid 2NT, showing two suits of either the same rank or the same colour. This seems to be a method designed to confuse partner rather than the opponents, and so it proved when North - who had just explained the convention to us, bid 3§ . This rode round to Chris who, thinking the oppo had the minors, gave them a second chance with a penalty double. So the trick is to misuse the gadget so as to confuse the opponents as well as yourselves. We needn’t have worried because 3§ * became the final contract, going down one. At the end of the hand the opponents, despite their deafness, heard every word they said to each other.

West ª Q93 © A82 ¨ KJ8 § A754

East ª AJ65 © Q ¨ 943 § KQ1032

When North opens 1© first in hand, it’s tempting for EW to doubt that their combined holding in the suit is sufficient to underwrite 3NT. Several pairs tried 4ª and went down but everyone who played 3NT made it. Even if North is inspired enough to lead © K, and given that ¨ AQ is over the KJ, 3NT can still be made by playing North for KX of spades.

West ª K6 © Q762 ¨ QJ1064 § A10

East ª AQJ75 © 10 ¨ K95 § J532

4ª is solid, given trumps 3-3, but half the field played 3NT by West and made it on a low heart lead away from AKXX. Frustrating! North can’t be blamed, but if he leads anything but a heart, South has to come in with ¨ Ace to switch to © Jack. Only the Lintotts beat game.

At my table the bidding went 1¨ - P - 2¨ - Dbl - 5¨ - 5© , doubled for the obvious and slightly unlucky 1 down (only slightly because spades are 2-2 to compensate for the unexpected trump loser). I suppose partner might have jammed the EW auction successfully with a weak jump of 2© but I suspect East would have bid 3¨ anyway. It’s another hand where pressure works. 5¨ * went for 500 to Leics once whilst Oxon took 200 once and lost the same twice. The big bonus was the 200 against me. However, Procter/Smith and the Claridges both sold out to 4© and the only good news was one 4© * made by the Lintotts.

South ª Q1032 © Q104 ¨ J63 § A63

North ª AKJ4 © A8762 ¨ A104 § 9

4ª by South is just OK when an obvious singleton heart is led, North having shown both majors. You let them have © K and a ruff but you can’t now lose more than a diamond. The Claridges had a rare stroke of luck when their opponents decided a slam was in order but the Lintotts found their way to 4© which failed by one trick.

South ª Q107652 © K ¨ K1062 § Q9

North ª none © 10753 ¨ A984 § AKJ72

This was a partscore non-event at 7 tables but events at the eighth haunt me still, because I not only opened 1ª but accepted partner’s later invitation to 5¨ The defence started with © Q to the Ace and King, followed by a second heart. I thought I could ruff three hearts in hand, cash ¨ K, enter dummy, cash ¨ A and run clubs until they took their trump trick. I could, but only at the expense of having no trumps left at that point, so I was 1 down. Partner pointed out that as clubs are 3-3 and hearts 4-4, the hand can be made trivially after tricks 1 and 2 by spade ruff, club to Queen, spade ruff, two clubs cashed, heart ruff, spade ruff, heart ruff, spade ruff with ¨ A (East under-ruffing), ¨ King still to come. Aren’t partners nice? Trouble is, it’s true. I had no right to bid the game but having done so, to go down when it’s there is unforgiveable. And Jeremy worries about his error?

The bidding at my table was 1§ - (4ª ) - 5© (end). Given that the 3-3 diamond break makes the contract, even if a club has gone to the Jack and Queen (which it probably hasn’t anyway), maybe we should have gone on to 5ª ? Not really, everyone knows the 5 level belongs to the opponents and anyway, it’s impossible to judge. As you might imagine, there was a real mixed bag of results. Not everyone in 5© made it, and some defended 5ª or even 4ª . Nick Smith bid 5¨ with the North hand after 2§ (Precision) - 4ª , intending to retreat to 5© if doubled. Here the diamonds really had to behave, and the opponents had to fail to find their heart ruff but all was well.

South ª Q2 © 5 ¨ KQJ10965 § 432

North ª 93 © AKJ2 ¨ A42 § AJ75

If East decides he’s worth a weak 2 first in hand on ª A10XXXX and out, NS will wind up taking the money (+300) from 4ª *, as happened for the Claridges. Otherwise, South will open 3¨ and North will shoot 5¨ , which makes with © Q onside. This happened at 6 tables so the Bygotts were lucky that at the last table they were allowed to defend 3¨ only.

This was a horrid board for Oxon to finish on. It mostly represented an exercise in knowing one’s defence to intervention after 1NT. One outcome was 4ª played by North after a Lebensohl sequence and when © A revealed the dummy it was pretty obvious to switch to a low diamond for down 1. However, 4ª was played sometimes by South and now it is more difficult to beat. After a low heart to the King and Queen, the sight of ¨ Q in dummy makes the killing switch psychologically more difficult to find. At my table Chris had led a trump after a confused sequence by an oppo who who freely admitted they didn’t know whether they were playing Lebensohl or not, and we had no chance. The odd thing is that according to the scorecards, 4ª was made twice by North and twice by South, and went off once by North and once by South, so perhaps I’m talking nonsense as usual. Hayes/Landy defended 2© * after forgetting/confusing their methods, which wasn’t a good idea, and Webley/Wilkes defended 3© making, which wasn’t either - a depressing board on which to finish, our only plusses being 420 from Smith/Procter and 50 from Bennett/Noble and the Bygotts.

All in all, not a great day!

..