No report on the match would be complete without a few words about our travel adventures. It seems in retrospect that Leics hadn’t bothered to inform us about the venue because they assumed we would know they always now play at LGS: our own secretary had assumed they still played at the venue he last remembered, Leicester Bridge Club, but had sent an email in advance notifying our arrival there: this never arrived because the intended recipient had changed his email address. So if any of you are in Cyberspace and spot an email floating around, you will know what to do with it. Our hero was Kaz from the C team, who spotted the impending disaster on Sunday morning whilst browsing the Leicestershire web site and pressed the panic button. Between us we managed to divert 7 of the 8 cars setting out, after frantic telephone tracking. The eighth was Mike Robinson, travelling alone from a family anniversary in Stoke-on-Trent. He had a fault with his mobile phone (it wasn’t switched on), so messages were left at Leicester Bridge Club to await his arrival. The match started 15 minutes late with a Leics substitute partnering Rob Procter in the B team. This potential timebomb ticked for only two boards before Mike arrived. All this added up to an extremely stressful day, which may have affected some of us who were involved in the panic stages – you can judge from the account which follows later. Meanwhile, these are the match statistics, compiled as ever by Jeremy Bygott:

A Team

Lonsdale,McPhee/Lintotts 0

Williams, Wilson/Webley,Wilkes –18

Net = -18 (7-13 VPs)

Bygotts/Dawe, Thomson –26

Procter,Robinson/King,Watkins –4

Ne = -30 (5-15 VPs)

Brown, Clark/Quainton, Russell +73

Kazmierczak, Nicholson/Gascoyne,Squires -3

Net = +70 (18-2 VPs)

So our C team marches on with 50 VPs out of 60, whilst B has 34 and A a paltry 18.

Results cross-IMPed across all three teams are available.

North ª 853 © 4 ¨ AK107 § KQ976

South ª AQ © AQJ986 ¨ 64 § A105

This is a pig of a hand to bid. If you limit your ambition to game, then 3NT by South is clearly the best, but how to get there with certainty? You start 1© -2§ -3© (GF) and North is a bit stuck. 3ª would normally show rather than ask and 4¨ is (a) too high and (b) likely to be taken as a cue-bid. Even if 3ª asked, South would have to chance the diamonds to bid 3NT. At my table, Chris bid 4© , which seems the best practical shot. East turned up with © K10753 and West with ª KJ1096 but my trumps were just strong enough to hold losses to two trumps and a spade. Only three pairs found 3NT whilst eight made 4© and one (Lonsdale/McPhee) found a good strain (clubs) but at a level too high for comfort (the grand!)

Only one pair, Procter/Robinson, bid the excellent 6¨ (East making a two-suited overcall, West jumping to game and East adding one for the road – well done). The contract was 5¨ +1 five times and a slightly nervous 4ª twice. That left the big winners and losers, NS making 2© (!) once and going 1 down in 3© once, EW once making 5¨ *+1 (the Lintotts) and once 4ª *+1 (Brown/Clark). So overall, this was a big board for Oxon.

North ª A652 © A ¨ AQ109 § K1072

South ª QJ7 © K ¨ 763 § AJ6543

Chris and I bid: 1¨ -2§ -2ª -3© -4§ -4¨ -6§ . Expecting longer diamonds opposite, I meant 4¨ as natural, but no matter. Had my © K been ¨ K, as partner pictured, slam would have been excellent, of course. As it was, prospects were poor. I won the heart lead and led a trump off dummy, East showing out (first hurdle surmounted). Having drawn trumps with the aid of the marked finesse, I led a small spade from dummy and East went in with the King (from K1094 – second hurdle). Now all I needed was for a diamond to the Q to hold, which it did, for +1370. As it happens, ¨ J was right also, so I suspect this was Williams-proof. Jeremy Bygott made it in identical fashion, but from the other hand. Lonsdale/McPhee were the only other pair to bid and make 6§ . It went down three times through misguessing trumps (the lucky defenders being the Lintotts, Webley/Wilkes and Thomson/Dawe) and was otherwise not bid. So another good board for the county.

West ª K4 © 873 ¨ KQJ1064 § 73

East ª AQJ2 © AK6 ¨ A953 § AJ

Against me they rocketed into 7NT when after a Benji 2¨ and a positive 3¨ , West still found space to show his 6^th diamond and his spade King. Lonsdale/McPhee suffered 7¨ bid against them but the only Oxon pair to bid a grand was Webley/Wilkes with 7¨ - well done to them but this time, a poor board for the county with one of our pairs only in game.

North ª J1086 © Q5 ¨ J986 § A74

South ª Q93 © A84 ¨ A10 § KQ1092

At my table East opened 1ª third in hand and I overcalled 1NT. West came in with 2© , denying the values to double, and partner bid 2NT which I alerted as Lebensohl and followed with a forced 3§ . Partner, having recovered from the shock of forgetting the system, retreated to 3NT and was soon writing a very fortunate 430 in the plus column. I mention this not to embarrass him (would I ever set out to do that?) but to issue a reminder that if you play responses to a 1NT overcall "as to opening", then this applies equally to Lebensohl – and indeed why not? Four other pairs stretched to game on this one: sadly, they were all from Leicestershire.

Chris and I bid unopposed 1§ -1© -1ª -2ª -4ª . Well done, partner. The contract had no chance, of course, but neither did the defence to 4© the other way. I suspect the bidding was not dissimilar at most other tables but occasionally EW didn’t go quietly. The good news for Oxon was when Brown/Clark got to 4© and were doubled for +790, and when King/Watkins’ oppo pushed on to 5© over 4ª , lost control and went three down. The bad news was when we defended 1ª making (!) and when we also phantomed over 4ª to go 1 down doubled.

West ª Q84 © A103 ¨ AKJ § 9842

East ª KJ10752 © KJ9 ¨ 65 § 53

You normally look for some kind of 16-count to make a forcing enquiry over a weak 2 or multi, but here the West hand is so crunchy that the lure of a vul game should tempt the winning action. OK, you might have a guess to make in hearts, but so what? Well done to Brown/Clark, the Lintotts and Webley/Wilkes who brought in 620 and hard luck to King/Watkins who conceded the same score. Lonsdale/McPhee were going that way also until they decided to save in 5§ , but that cost rather more!

North ª 2 © A107 ¨ AKQJ542 § K3

South ª 543 © KJ9854 ¨ 96 § A9

Chris and I bid, starting with South, 2© -2NT-3§ (better than min with a club feature) –4NT-5© (2 of 5 without © Q)-P. Chris knew we were missing QXXX in trumps and ª A. He pictured the play starting with two top spades and didn’t fancy the slam. I don’t blame him. In fact I didn’t get a spade lead at all, trumps were 2-2 and I made 13 tricks. The Bygotts arrived at a similar position in the bidding, also stayed out and also made 13 tricks. In fact slam was bid only twice, each time by Leics: the unlucky pairs were Procter/Robinson and Dawe/Thomson.

North ª AK1093 © 832 ¨ 106 § AQ4

South ª QJ86 © QJ ¨ Q42 § J863

Just a curiosity, this one. At my table the bidding went 1ª -P-2ª (end). South has a heap of junk, West held a weak NT and East a 1-5-4-3 four-count. It would seem impossible for any other sequence to have occurred. Yet 2ª was bid and made (just) at only five tables. 3ª was bid and down 1 four times, 4ª was also down 1. The most extraordinary results were 4© -1 as EW by the Lintotts and 4ª making (!) by Lonsdale/McPhee.

North ª none © 85 ¨ KJ832 § AK10764

South ª 109764 © J1097 ¨ Q10 § J8

How far are you prepared to go with the North cards after West opens 1© ? Well, Chris overcalled 2NT and after East’s 4ª was followed by two passes, pushed on with 5§ . I’m sure this is the right thing to do. Every so often you may have done the wrong thing but on balance, you show a profit by bidding. Here 5§ was mostly an excellent save against 4ª . Sometimes you get a bonus from bidding on, as here when West took the push to 5ª instead of whatever money was going, and went minus. Perhaps I should have doubled 5ª but I’d no idea that two club tricks would stand up.

West ª A84 © AJ ¨ K1072 § AK94

East ª 10 © KQ875 ¨ QJ86 § J105

7 tables out of 12 bid this to 3NT, one made it but six went down on a spade lead. Jeremy Bygott recalls that against him the bidding went 1§ -1© -2NT-3¨ -4¨ -5¨ , making 12 tricks for 420. The same happened against Lonsdale/McPhee. Unluckiest of all, and sealing a rotten board for the county, were Chris and I, against whom the bidding went 1¨ -1© -3NT-4¨ -6¨ . Try beating it!

West ª J7 © K5432 ¨ J83 § A94

East ª AK962 © AJ986 ¨ A5 § 6

Against me the bidding went P-1ª -2© -4§ -4© -P. We all stared at the dummy in disbelief when it went down. Only one slam try with that lot? Had spades been 3-3 declarer would have made the lot, but he had to settle for 12 tricks. Lonsdale/McPhee, King/Watkins and Quainton/Russell were equally fortunate to concede only 480, balanced by three of our own pairs who stopped short. Well done the Lintotts, Procter/Robinson and Webley/Wilkes for bidding it, though, and hard luck to Kazmierczak/Nicholson and the Bygotts who conceded 980.

North ª KQJ1086 © K5 ¨ A10 § AK3

South ª A9 © A62 ¨ K85 § QJ1075

This is the moment I haven’t been waiting for. With 15 top tricks available in any of three denominations you would expect a grand to be bid more often than not, and so it proved. The only Oxon pair to benefit from the oppo’s benevolence was Gascoyne/Squires, who defended 6ª . Two mega disasters ruined an otherwise excellent performance from the Oxfordshire A team, however. First, Stuart McPhee decided to upgrade his hand slightly, opening 1§ and re-bidding 1NT (15-16) after a quiet 1ª response from partner. The next bid he heard was 4NT and there matters rested. Stuart and Richard have talked this one through since, and reached an accommodation. However, if you think a wheel came off there, observe what happens when the axle breaks. I preferred to open 1NT (12-14) and the bidding continued 3ª (GF and inviting a cuebid)-4© -4NT-5© -5NT-6¨ -6© -P! This was clearly not a bridge error but a complete aberration on the part of a frazzled, clapped-out, over-stressed old fool. Chris had bid the hand exceptionally well: he had set the suit with 3ª (we have all the usual means of showing second suits) and after 6¨ he knew I needed to hold a Queen or some compensating extra to guarantee 13 tricks; so he made a final request – to which, as they say, he is still awaiting an answer. 6© went 5 down. The A team lost 37 IMPs on this deal, to turn a 13-7 victory into a 7-13 defeat. As to how to bid the grand slam with certainty, I would suggest our own auction, with the notable addition of 7ª or 7NT at the end. Jeremy Bygott tells how he and his Dad bid to 7ª after a 1NT opening: North chose an apparently odd but highly successful first response of 2ª , which was an artificial range enquiry. South had an obvious reply of 3§ (non-min with clubs) and now RKCB asked in clubs, the response promising 2 Aces and § Q. After checking on Kings , it was easy for North to count 13 tricks, so he bid 7ª - just to see the look on partner’s face.

West ª KJ932 © 8743 ¨ K7 § J4

East ª Q © KJ2 ¨ AQ54 § AQ987

I wasn’t feeling good after the previous board, and probably didn’t look too good either, but it was nice to see that partner remained quietly composed (still the hardest lesson to learn for all of us). The uncontested auction, starting with East, was 1§ -1ª -2¨ -3§ -3NT. I managed to lead a diamond from 3 small, which was enough to beat the contract as partner had J109X and I retained © AQX over declarer. Mike Robinson found he couldn’t make 3NT either, after a spade lead, ducked to the Queen. However, 3NT made at 8 tables out of 12.

At nine out of 12 tables this was counted as a game-hand only (8 in 3NT, 1 in 5¨ ). Kazmierczak/Nicholson were very unlucky to concede 1440 for 6NT made. This is a very poor contract needing South to be endplayed at trick 1 (as he is) followed by a winning finesse elsewhere. At two tables the contract was 6¨ , which is better odds. Mike Robinson went down after a spade lead to the Q and Ace: North threw a club on the third round of hearts and declarer subsequently suffered an over-ruff in clubs as well as losing to ¨ K. I was on lead against 6¨ (the third slam to be bid against us on the day) and opted for a spade as being least likely to blow a trick. Chris with-held the Queen, as he did his top trump when ¨ Q was run at trick two. Declarer now played Ace, King and another heart on which Chris threw a spade, not a club, and was able to navigate backwards and forwards without difficulty to garner 12 tricks. In the car going home there was a typical discussion - had Mike gone down when de didn’t have to, had Chris let it through – and the emails flew for a day or so after. Our eventual conclusion was that the contract should always make. Dave Thomas, when given it, came up with a succinct and elegant line: win the spade lead in hand with the Ace or Jack as necessary, cash the other three Aces throwing a heart on the club, take © K and ruff the last heart with ¨ 10, lead two of diamonds to Q to knock out the K, win the black suit return in dummy, draw trumps and claim.

To finish, this is one of those hands which detractors of the weak NT can’t wait to seize on. If South opens 1NT, West doubles and North and East pass, OK – South might have the machinery to escape into 2¨ but he might not have, or might not use it. Even if he does, how is he placed here after three rounds of hearts and three of clubs? In other words, the point is that East should strain for a penalty at this vulnerability. Out of our twelve tables only one declarer had to play 1NT* and that was against Procter/Robinson. Those worthies could have taken the first twelve tricks for a penalty of 1700 but messed it up, emerging with a "mere" 800.

So there we are. More than a week has elapsed, which means that I now reflect on board 26 no more than once per hour. Congratulations once again to the C team - in particular to Mike Brown and Finn Clark for their second big card in a row, and to Ron Quainton and Peter Russell, Norman Gascoyne and Jean Squires for doing so well on their debut.