Oxfordshire had limited availabilities for the first match of the new season. The selectors wanted to give the fairly new partnership of Badiani/Cohen a run in the A team and the squad had plenty of experience otherwise. In the event, the B team we put out was probably the strongest in the County’s history: all pairs had regular A team experience and all but one (I think) had represented us in the Tollemache.

Both teams proved too strong for modest opposition on the day, the Oxon. A team winning by 56 IMPs (17-3 VPs) and the B by 137 IMPs (20-0 VPs). Overall we scored buckets of IMPs on the part score hands, frequently buying the contract at both tables. We had only a small edge in terms of games bid but we made many more of ours than they did of theirs. It comes out clearly that the Notts. B team, in particular, was weak on card play. There were very few slams around: neither side showed it had acquired the art of bidding the making ones and avoiding the others. The full tally was:

Scored as teams of 4 the A team was:

The B team came out:

Cross-IMPed across both teams, the performances by pairs came out as follows:

However, I have no faith whatsoever in cross-IMP statistics. A very good or bad card in one direction influences unduly all scores for pairs sitting in the opposite direction (this is true even in a teams of 4 match, where a loss by 40 IMPs is shared 20 each when one of the pairs might have actually had a winning card!). The figures above are therefore offered only for those who keep records of such things. The only proper assessment of performance by pairs is a listing of notable earned or lucky results on the one hand, and chucks or unlucky results on the other. I won’t attempt such listings here, though the commentary which follows - and which concerns itself only with one or two instructive hands - inevitably mentions a few examples of fortune and misfortune, good efforts and poor. However, no Oxon. pair played particularly badly. Badiani/Cohen were the most impressive, given that their score was achieved in A team competition and that (like Claridge/Procter) they had a slam bid against them which was missed elsewhere. I would reckon that anywhere around +3000 is very satisfactory for the pairs who started E/W - and -3000 otherwise, obviously. There were many gifts on offer for those who bettered such figures. The two pairs who didn’t had the odd error on their card, but generally found the opposition playing better against them (or less abjectly) than elsewhere.

This was a very encouraging start to the season but not a reliable indicator.

This was a terrible board for all E/W pairs, except one Notts. B pair who managed +620 against the Lintotts. Results at the other 7 tables varied from -100 in 5© to -500 in 6© * (by Landy/Walker, following a Landy slam-try bid of 5©). I don’t know how the bidding started everywhere but I imagine that after 1ª - 2© West rebid either 4§ (as at my table) or 4©. Even after the latter it’s difficult to blame East for making a try, so I’m broadly sympathetic, but I do think that a 4§ splinter is overdoing things. The one advantage is that it’s below game. However, splinters are meant to be precursors to slam exploration, at the very least, and East can’t be expected to sign off here, even with § Q pulling no weight. West has too many losers in the red suits to justify the action. At my table, 4§ was followed by 4NT and Brian was able to double the response, so the play in 5© didn’t take long. Otherwise, South must find a diamond switch at some reasonably early stage - not a problem here.

There are 5 top diamond losers and a club in 3NT, and three diamonds and a club in 4© so those who (like me) avoided game could feel virtuous. However, only Day/Green went down in game (4© ) and only Badiani/Cohen defeated game! The Fearnheads and Lintotts got away with it, as did Bennett/Noble’s opponents. The reason is not hard to find: West’s diamonds are Kx and East’s AQxxx so it’s not automatic to lead the suit from either side.

  Board 9: E/W game, dealer E

5 tables, 3 of them for Oxon., recorded a quiet 630 or so in 3NT and Landy/Walker were gifted +200 from 6NT. At the other two tables N/S, Badiani/Cohen for Oxon and a Notts pair against Day/Green, profited from some brave interference over East’s 3§ opening. It’s a wafer-thin TO double, certainly, but enough to encourage North to save in 4© over 3NT. As you can see, N/S can persevere successfully with 4NT but not 5§. In the real world, however, West will take the money, hoping it’s enough. Badiani/Cohen conceded a satisfying -300 but Day/Green took it only 1 off (you can see how this might happen). Brian and I were lucky: we open 2NT to show a minor-suit pre-empt (a much-derided method - perhaps rightly so, but useful here because double sounds strong and balanced, so unless you have methods it’s not easy to intervene on hands like South’s).

Only Day/Green for Oxon stayed alive in 4 of a major, whilst three Notts pairs managed the feat. Badiani/Cohen got a rare gift when their declarer misplayed 4 ©. The Fearnheads and Lintotts were -2 and -4 respectively in 6ª. Against me, North tried 2§ over 1ª and Brian made a Sputnik double. Both South and I were conned by the overcall - the world’s worst ever? - into believing that 5§ would be a profitable spot for N/S. From my point of view a slam could still be on for us so I went on with 5© , eschewing what would have been a hurtful double. On repeated club leads I had to go 1 down after taking the spade finesse.

Oxon recorded 6 plus scores on this one. Claridge/Procter got 420, Landy/Walker 170, Badiani/Cohen and Bennett/Noble 140 each. Defending, Claridge/Williams and Lintotts got 50 from 4ª and Fearnheads conceded 170 against 3ª. Day/Green were the only pair to lose 420, and this after a heart lead (no club switch). The heart lead is hard to find unless West has bid them. I didn’t and Brian led ¨10 (now declarer takes a club discard and has to guess immediately whether to play for ©A or §A onside).

One needs good methods to bid 6¨ here, even given a free run. If partner opens 2NT you want to bid 3¨ (natural) followed by 4§ , but I doubt many of us can do that. All that seems left is 4¨ followed by 5§ . After South opens 2ª or a multi, West might decide to overcall in diamonds, followed by clubs, but it’s really just as murky. Scores ranged from 600 to 690 except at two tables, where Badiani/Cohen and Bennett/Noble each recorded 1370. Congratulations to them.

A 25-point slam for E/W to bid. No Oxon pair managed it but two Notts pairs did - unlucky for Badiani/Cohen and Claridge/Procter.

You obviously start 1© - 2¨ - 3¨. Then what? Brian jumped to 4© at my table, ending matters. When I got a diamond lead I feared a ruff after knocking out ©A. This didn’t happen. 6¨ is the spot, however, only reachable I think if East refuses to commit the contract after 3¨ and make an advance cue-bid of 3ª (intending to bid 4© over the hypothetical 3NT). This should encourage West to co-operate with 4§ and the miracle fit is established. Not easy, though, is it?

Everybody played 3NT, and Oxon profited when two Notts declarers went down (against Fearnheads and Lintotts) compared with only Landy/Walker for us. Declarer has a nasty guess at trick 1 when West leads a spade, particularly if he has overcalled (as I confess I had). It is now fractionally more likely to be from KQ without the 10, rather than 10 plus one higher honour. Anyway, putting up the Jack spells instant defeat. Even after putting in the 9, declarer should be put to a stern test after he wins, unblocks ¨A and takes a club finesse. East should duck, cutting declarer off from quick tricks in his own hand.. In practice the contract should still succeed because ¨J comes down and ©Q or J will furnish the ninth trick, but declarer may go wrong and even if not, should be made to suffer.

The best hand of all comes last.. All four Oxon declarers made 4ª but in the other direction only Day/Green conceded it. The contract is unmakable from either hand if E/W defend double-dummy. Having said that, the only certain route to defeat is for South to play it and for West to lead a club: East now has two quick tricks and two certain trump tricks provided he uses the Ace only to beat the Jack. If North plays it after a transfer, East must lead a heart and must cling to his long heart when the third diamond is ruffed in dummy. Then he has an answer to any manoeuvre declarer tries (I’ve checked them all out). In any case, declarer is likely to look no further than the club finesse finally, playing for one card out of ¨A and §A to be right. I know of at least one Oxon declarer who got ¨A lead. I suspect there may have been others. Really, with a strong balanced hand on your right, only a heart lead is with the odds in the long run.