Oxfordshire went into the last match of the season with realistic hopes of a runners-up spot in both A and B divisions. The A team lost 4-16 but held on to 3rd spot behind runaway winners Gloucestershire and behind Derbyshire, who also lost but more narrowly. In the B division Gloucestershire were again assured of 1st place, it seemed, but lost 0-20 to Warwickshire which gave us an unexpected chance to overhaul them if we won 20-0. Our actual 14-6 win (initially announced as 15-5 until a scoring error was discovered) proved insufficient even to hold on to 2nd: we were pipped in the end by Warwickshire. Whilst we can have regrets that we didn’t do better on the day (the B team could certainly have achieved its 20-0 had Abbey been playing with a human being rather than Mr. Blobby), two third places is not a major disappointment in view of the good players we have lost over the past year. It has to be said, however, that we are not yet within range of Gloucester, in terms of consistency of performance.

The results were achieved as follows:

A - Bennett/Noble, Hayes/Landy +23 IMPs

Procter/Smith, Pike/Wilson -63

B - Bygotts, Nicholas/Roberts +32

Claridges, Smith/Williams -5

Cross-IMPed over the whole field, performance by pairs was as follows:

David and Jeremy Bygott (B team, NS) +31.00

Brian and Sandra Claridge (B team, NS) +29.25

Lynne Hayes and Sandra Landy (A team, EW) +18.50

Time Pike and Alan Wilson (A team, EW) +07.50

Keith Bennett and Steve Noble (A team, NS) +00.75

Geoff Nicholas and Debbie Roberts (B team,EW)-00.50

Abbey Smith and John Williams (B team, EW) -32.00

Robert Procter and Nick Smith (A team, NS) -67.50

The match contained an abnormal number of swingy boards and a high proportion of mistakes (ie gifts given or received) which makes the cross-IMPing even less useful than usual. All four pairs in the B team saw their scores suffer when they IMPed up with the A team pairs (this applied particularly to the EW pairs) but a huge impact arises also from a hand played variously in game, small slam and grand slam - all making. This meant a big bonus for the oppo playing in game or alternatively a terrible undeserved penalty for them reaching the grand. I doubt if any pair in either team felt completely pleased with its eventual score.

West ª Q © A1085 ¨ AK7 § KQ764 East ª A9642 © 7 ¨ 954 § J932

At my table I opened 1§ fourth in hand as West, North overcalled 1© and Abbey fit-jumped to 2ª . I think it’s very tough to find the making 5§ rather than 3NT, which is down 1 on sound defence. Only Procter/Smith’s oppo managed the feat, and Nicholas/Roberts had the good fortune to defend 3ª * with the same cards, for +800. Most results were 3NT-1.

South ª KJ43 © AQJ ¨ AQJ1053 § none East ª A97 © 982 ¨ 92 § AQ742

At my table South opened 1¨ second in hand, East responded 1NT and South jumped to 3NT, relying on the known club suit opposite. This produced an easy game, as was the case at most tables. However, an injudicious overcall led to 3§ * at two tables for -1100, once in our favour and once against, whilst the Claridges were offered a mere 800 a level lower.

South has a very good hand on which to show a weak major 2-suiter, which should lead promptly to the easy game. Lacking such a system bid, do you settle for something less ideal, like a weak two in hearts, or pass and "see what happens"? Against me, South opened 2© and was raised to game. David Bygott opened a multi, heard 2ª from partner and bid an obedient 3© . When this was passed round to East that worthy asked about the bidding before re-opening with a double. West bid 4¨ and South recovered with 4© . This led to a ruling problem when East protested that he had received an inadequate explanation of the original 2ª . The two captains didn’t have too much difficulty in deciding that 2ª is invitational in hearts as a matter of bridge knowledge, so that East took a risk of his double rebounding on him and was not entitled to protection. The correct explanation of the 2ª bid in this sequence is of course, "to play opposite a weak two in spades, or to play at the three level at least opposite a weak two in hearts". This frees a 3© response to the multi to increase the pre-empt opposite a weak two in either suit. Anyway, game was bid and made in hearts at 6 tables. Bennett/Noble did well to save in 5¨ * for -500, losing two hearts, a spade and ruff (there are two ruffs available double dummy, but who’s going to find that!), whilst Procter/Smith defended 3NT after North opened 3§ but found the right lead, taking 6 heart tricks and a spade, only to find that even this secured an inadequate score..

NS got to play this hand 3 times: in 1NT* losing 800, 1NT* losing 100 and in 3¨ losing 50. EW played it 5 times: twice in 3§ for 110 and 130 respectively, once in 3© for 140 (!), once in 2© for -50 and once in 4§ for -100. The last effort, which was at my my table, was exciting. North opened 1NT, Abbey doubled and South passed, requiring a re-double so as to pass for penalties or remove to one of two touching suits (we’re still wondering which two). North duly redoubled and Abbey leapt to 3NT! South doubled and Abbey retreated to 4§ , which had to go 1 down on a spade lead, even after guessing clubs correctly. The odd thing is that standing her ground - not that I suggest she should - would have produced a minimum of +750 on the assumed heart lead, assuming the same correct club guess!

West ª K76 © 7 ¨ K62 § KJ9543 East ª 109 © AK9532 ¨ 95 § A62

All the human beings made a partscore in clubs when the Queen fell singleton. Mr. Blobby went down in 3§ by adopting a 0% line, A Notts pair went down in 3© against Bennett/Noble and the Bygotts pushed on to 3¨ as NS, down 1. Pike/Wilson essayed 3NT by West, however (on the way to 4§ if doubled?), bearing in mind that after 1© - 2§ , North had doubled to show the other two suits. North duly obliged by leading one of them, for an enterprising 630.

South ª 9 © 10 ¨ AJ1095432 § QJ4 North ª AK765 © A632 ¨ Q7 § 75

At my table South opened 3¨ , Mr. Blobby trembled and passed, holding ª Q4 © KQJ54 ¨ 86 § K986 and a score of 150 was recorded. Game was reached at five tables, however (only twice by Oxon pairs). Personally, if I couldn’t open 4¨ naturally because it would be Texas, I would open 5¨ - never 3¨ , which is simply asking partner to misjudge when he’s strong and is unlikely to cause sufficient mayhem when he’s not. And Mr. Blobby was right not to intervene: one of the best rules of thumb is to bid soundly against pre-empts, particularly in second seat.

Half the field played a comfortable 4© as EW, leaving their opponents dismayed to discover what they had missed with their combined 17-count (clearly, 4ª is a spread and even 5ª can survive - with ease against anything other than a club lead). The brave souls who found spade contracts were Hayes/Landy’s opponents, who made 4ª * with an overtrick, Procter/Smith’s opponents who recorded a quiet 420 and Bennett/Noble who settled for 10 tricks in 4ª *. At my table Abbey opened 1NT as East, South found a 2© overcall (transfer) (!), Mr. Blobby jumped to 4© and we now traded the majors until 5ª came round to West. Blobby appears to have done well to take the unusual step of saving in 6© * for -300.

Most of the field went off in 3NT or 4ª . 4ª is the closest (win the club lead and play Ace and a low spade - though I fancy a calm defence can still prevail as neither hearts nor clubs come in easily). Try asking Brian Claridge, the one declarer to bring it home, how he made it. At my table South opened a strong 1§ , North positived with 1© and Abbey tried a conservative 4¨ (well, she’s still too young to have acquired a competitive instinct). South doubled without climbing on the table, which was enough to persuade North to remove to 4© . At this point South lost her presence of mind, to use the well-worn phrase, and leapt to 6© . It would be churlish to criticise Abbey’s failure to double: for all she knew, there could be several better places for the oppo to play. Anyway, the slam went 4 down.

You open 1ª third in hand and a 2¨ overcall is passed round to you. Clearly, pass ensures an unremarkable result here but you’re not going to do that so do you opt for 2ª or double? Abbey settled for double, which could have been a big winner if Blobby had made a penalty pass. Personally I think 2ª works best in the long run on these hands. Double backfired here when it allowed South to re-enter with an enterprising 2© , surely implying excellent diamonds. Mr. Blobby could have influenced events by bidding 3§ now but with no fit for spades, this hardly seemed a sound action at red. Of course, North tried 2NT which was raised to game. Only a top club lead, or a safe diamond followed by top clubs when in with © K, could now save the day, and it wasn’t to be. In the A match three declarers got away with 3NT whilst Pike/Wilson were happy to record -110 for 3¨ made. Elsewhere the Bygotts played 2NT+1, Nicholas/Roberts conceded -400 for 3NT and the Claridges had to contend with West doubling their 2¨ overcall, apparently for penalties. They no doubt thought their eventual +200 from 3ª * had scored a goal!

Perhaps the most dramatic hand of the day and certainly testing for both sides. At my table Blobby opened 1ª and South doubled Abbey’s 2§ response for T.O. Blobby bid 3§ and wound up in 4ª over 4© . North led ¨ 7 and South won before switching to his singleton club, coming in with ª A to lead a heart for his ruff. Result: -650. The successsful defence, of course, is to start with three rounds of diamonds. Even if declarer guesses to ruff in with ª 10, cross to dummy with a club and lead a low trump, East can afford to rise with ª A and lead a fourth round of diamonds, promoting ª 9. In practice, declarer will play a spade to Q and A at trick 4, leading to the same promotion. Two NS pairs - the Bygotts and Hayes/Landy’s opponents - avoided the problem by pushing on to 5© , which is down 1 only and guards against major loss, whilst both our A team NS pairs conceded 790 for 4ª * made and Pike/Wilson’s opponents failed to beat 4ª undoubled. The only successful defenders were the Claridges and Nicholas/Roberts’ opponents - well done indeed. Having said that, the alternative defence stated is reasonable, isn’t it?

West ª K82 © KQJ654 ¨ AJ6 § 7 East ª A7 © A109 ¨ K93 § A10543

This was the other critical board of the day and one which shaped the destiny of many pairs’ scores. As can be seen, 7© needs only clubs 4-3 or the diamond finesse, so represents reasonable odds (both work). However, I’m not sure it can be actually be bid with the certainty one normally requires for a grand. On most of the auctions I’ve heard about it seems possible that East would have bid no differently with a spade more and a club less, which reduces even 6© to finesse or squeeze possibilities (unless trumps are 2-2, when the hand can be stripped and North endplayed with the third round of spades). My own auction began 1§ - 1© (just short of a jump shift, Blobby thought) - (1ª ) - 1NT (15-17) - 2ª - 3© - 4¨ - 4ª . Blobby now thought he had done enough and bid 5© , leaving the final decision to partner who passed, understandably. This is clearly pathetic as 4NT is only on the way to 5© anyway. However, in the B team match three out of four pairs played in game, the Claridges being the unlucky pair to concede a small slam. In the A team match two pairs played 6© and two 7© . The pair with the biggest bonus (for defending game only) was the Bygotts, whilst the unluckiest pair was Procter/Smith for having the grand bid against them. They were doubly unlucky, in that during the course of the auction, some but not all players heard the word "2210" called out from a nearby table where scoring-up was already taking place. When summoned before the beaks Willie Crook (who bid the grand) described his text-book auction, including a grand-slam try made and accepted, and stated categorically that he had heard nothing. That became the end of the matter. Congratulations to Hayes/Landy for bidding the grand for Oxon.

3NT should go off on a heart lead if played by either hand, assuming South has overcalled 1© if able, but Oxon scored well when two declarers made it. South led low from KJ10XX round to 9X.

South ª 6 © KQJ102 ¨ Q3 § 108532 North ª AQ3 © A8 ¨ KJ8 § AKQ96

There are 12 easy tricks in clubs, hearts or NT by North but slam was bid at only half the tables - three times by Oxon, fortunately (well done to Bennett/Noble, Procter/Smith and the Bygotts and hard luck to Nicholas/Roberts, who had it bid against them). It’s easy in strong club, presumably, but awkward if the auction starts 2§ - 2¨ - 2NT - 3¨ (transf) - 3NT. 4§ by South now could turn out poorly. The root problem is the oldfashioned Acol insistence on an Ace and a King in order to positive to 2§ . Really, a hand with this playing strength is worth more than, say, ª 6 © K5432 ¨ A3 § 108532 Unfortunately, you can’t adapt your agreed system at the table: I remember once years ago, playing with Rob in the Spring Fours, making a positive to 2§ with KQJXX in two suits - moments later I was going down in a grand off a cashing Ace, the only 4 points we were missing.

West ª J5 © A10 ¨ KJ2 § A97642 East ª K © K76 ¨ A1084 § KJ1053

5§ is clearly the spot, slam being on a two-way finesse, but half the field tried 3NT without success, three pairs bidding the right game and Nicholas/Roberts taking a smart 1100 from 5ª * after South had shown his weak major two-suiter and North had mislaid his senses. At my table East opened 1§ and the bidding continued 2§ (forcing) - 2¨ - 2© (what else?) - 2ª - ? 2¨ and 2© could both have indicated values rather than 4+ cards, why not 2ª as well? 2NT or 3NT would obviously have shown good spades and 3§ a modest hand without a spade stop. Mr. Blobby, having mused thus, jumped to 3NT. He had omitted from his musings the possibility that partner held a non-committal hand without a spade stop, to which the fourth suit would seem a useful tool. A human being might have decided that there wouldn’t be too many hands opposite on which 3NT made and 5§ went off. This would have led to a practical choice.

On board 30, 3NT appears to have no play but two Oxon declarers made it somehow. On 31, Pike/Wilson got 1000 from 1NT** but the euphoria seems to have led to letting game through on 32.

I don’t normally report at such length but as the next match isn’t until June I can take a lengthy rest now. I hope you find the hands interesting. Some of us certainly found them difficult!

3rd March 2002