Many thanks to Nick Perceval-Price and Michael Robinson for agreeing to play at the last minute when Nigel Wilkes was poorly. We also welcomed two debutantes to the County team: Lizzie Godfrey who has joined Oxfordshire (and Menagerie) to further her prospects of England Womens bridge with Abbey Smith, and Chris Wilson who has defected from Berks and Bucks. Both did very well, as can be seen from the statistics below - especially Chris who was playing in a new partnership with the county’s oldest known inhabitant. Oxfordshire A won their match 16-4 (Landy/Hayes, Godfrey/Smith + 42 IMPs; Lintotts, Procter/Smith - 3 IMPs) and Oxfordshire B bettered that with 18-2 (Williams/Wilson, PP/Robinson + 48 IMPs; Bygotts, Nicholas/Roberts + 13 IMPs).

Jeremy Bygott has computed cross-IMP statistics and also, for the first time, Butler scores for all the pairs. As I’m sure you know, Butler scoring involves averaging a datum on each board after omitting the biggest scores to NS and EW, and IMPing each score against that datum: this means that only the happy couple get to enjoy the full benefit of a Christmas present, and only the villains serve the full sentence for a major crime. This is perhaps fairer than straight cross-IMPing, particularly in a small field, but it still doesn’t cater for terrible results which arise from sheer bad luck. So we have even more figures to misrepresent what actually happened, but so what. Anyway, the results are as follows:

Williams/Wilson (E/W B) + 56.00 + 50.75 + 44

Bygotts (N/S B) + 38.50 + 41.75 +35

Godfrey/Smith (E/W A) + 27.50 + 34.50 + 22

Hayes/Landy (N/S A) + 32.50 + 29.75 + 19

Perceval-Price/Robinson (N/S B) +17.00 + 18.25 + 14

Procter/Smith (E/W A) + 10.00 +16.50 + 07

Lintotts (N/S A) + 05.00 + 05.00 - 05

Nicholas/Roberts (E/W B) - 00.50 - 07.00 -18

No one did badly. Nicholas/Roberts were hugely unlucky on board 23 (alone) and on boards 13 and 32 (along with some others). The following narrative attempts to straighten out some of the statistics and to look at some of the more instructive boards.

West ª 32 © J43 ¨ AQ10953 § 72

East ª AK5 © AK1082 ¨ 4 § KQ103

4© proved an infinitely superior contract to 3NT. This was an excellent start for Oxon with three of their E/W pairs making 4 or more hearts. No one made 3NT, including Procter/Smith and two Staffs pairs. In fact no Staffs pair made a contract because the two who found hearts couldn’t stop below slam level! My own auction, playing 4-card majors, was 1© - 2© - 4© (OK, partner might just have tried 4¨ on the way but it’s easy to get over-excited on these hands, which is clearly what happened to two Staffs pairs). I like the 2© response but even after 1NT - 3§ - 3© , the right game should be reached. West might be tempted to try 3¨ rather than 3© and that would possibly lead to the wrong spot, of course.

This is a curiosity. All E/W pairs for Oxon defended a spade partial for - 140. All the N/S pairs, however, went down in 4ª. It just proves the incompetence of the captain yet again - putting all his over-bidders in the same direction. Only joking.

At my table partner protected South’s 1© opening with 1NT in the pass-out seat - better than 2¨ , you agree? - and I raised to 3NT which made with no difficulty. I imagine events were roughly similar at most other tables because three Oxon E/Ws registered 600 compared with two for Staffs. The club blockage is very lucky but fortune is said to favour the brave. Our most spectacular result was when Jeremy Bygott declined to pass with the North hand and responded 1ª . David raised to 2ª , which made with an overtrick, E/W only discovering afterwards that they had missed a vulnerable game. Of course, Jeremy has a telepathic understanding with his father and knew there was no possibility of a 2¨ or 2© rebid from him. Fortune ditto ditto brave.

I held as West ª KQ96 © Q95 ¨ AQ73 § J5 and opened a weak NT which rode round to South who bid 2© . After two passes partner doubled. We’d spent the entire car journey discussing which penalties were business and which for take-out but had neglected this one, which you might say is fairly basic. On balance we seemed to be leaning towards take-out, so I removed to 2ª . This didn’t play well when I sustained numerous heart ruffs as well as four top losers. Partner, of course, had taken the reasonable view that in an undiscussed situation, the least complicated treatment would be assumed. He had also guaranteed us a useful plus score, that is until I intervened.

Another curiosity. I held ª KQJ97 © 94 ¨ KJ2 ¨ 1052 and passed as dealer. LHO opened a weak NT which came round. Man or mouse? Me mouse. Anyway, the curious aspect of the hand is that four men scored + 140 in 2ª while four mice got + 200 from 1NT. Fortune also favours the lily-livered.

 Board 13: game all, dealer North

At my table North opened 1ª , South responded 1NT and North’s 2ª rebid was passed round. All very normal. I could double protectively now without the danger of overexciting partner. He had fielder’s choice between passing and bidding, in a sense, but did very well to realise that his club length opposite mine argued against defending, as did the near-certainty of a spade lead at trick 1. 4© made in great comfort for + 620, whereas no one was able to defeat 2ª by more than one. Those who played 2ª were mostly undoubled in fact, because South had responded 2¨ rather than 1NT, cooling West’s ardour. This is where luck makes a mockery of statistics. Results were a mixed bag on this one, only one pair on either side managing the heart game.

South opens 1ª and what should West overcall? 2© is no doubt the value bid but the hand is so single-suited, ie unsuitable for defence, that I opted for a weak 3© . Partner did extremely well to raise to 4© with his spade values so poorly placed, but the diamonds were tempting, as was the prospect of possibly defending 4ª . 4© was bid and made only twice, once by either side, though I wasn’t the only declarer to make 12 tricks. I can see only one legitimate way to defeat it, which is cashing the club A before leading three rounds of spades for a trump promotion. If you kick off with three rounds of spades, declarer’s only chance is to ruff with © Jack, draw two rounds of trumps and discard two clubs on four diamonds before North can ruff. Hey presto! Hayes/Landy beat 4© and if they found the defence mentioned it was very well done.

West ª A7 © Q7543 ¨ A72 § KQ5

East ª KQ10982 © KJ1098 ¨ Q6 § none

Only three pairs missed 6© , one for Staffs and two for Oxon, of which I’m ashamed to say Chris and I were one.

Our auction was

(P) - 1ª - (P) - 2©

(2NT)- 4§ - (P) - 4¨

(P) - 4© - (P) - 4NT

(P) - 5¨ - (P) - 5© (end)

4§ was a splinter and 4NT RKCB. Although ¨ K is wrong, so ¨ Jack lead causes a momentary anxiety, the ruffing club finesse is now more certain than ever. After mature reflection we felt we could both have done better, me by cue-bidding 4ª instead of checking on Aces (this would certainly have elicited a 5§ cue-bid from partner) and Chris by raising 5© to 6© (he must suspect that I have counted two losers including a club). Still, well done to those pairs who did better than us.

At my table South sensibly opened 1© and North responded 2§ (who wouldn’t?). South jumped ecstatically to 4§ and North checked on Aces before leaping to 6© . As a spade lead was more likely to live than a diamond, I led a fourth-best ª 3, hoping that by some miracle, partner may be able to divine a suit-preference intention and return a club for me to ruff. Cloud cuckoo land, of course. Partner did realise the possibility of a club void in my hand but his own holding in the suit meant the risk was unnecessary. One down. As it happened, the choice of which suit to lead was actually the important (lucky) thing. Against PP/Robinson, the defence doubled 6© but went to bed with ª A for - 1210! Most people stayed sensibly in game. It only occurred to me later that if I wanted partner to find my void at trick two, I should have doubled. Have I finally invented something? - the Transfer Lightner Double (please find my void after I’ve hopefully found your entry).

It’s sad that one loses most of one’s faculties with the advancing years. Here I opened 1NT, partner enquired with 2ª and South, so they told me a little later, found a lead-directing double. Had my eyesight/brain not been failing, a smart redouble would have led to a calculator being required to compute our eventual score, one way or another. But I blearily bid 3§ , promising better than minimum (?) and was raised to 3NT after a bit of head-scratching. Having been advised by now of the opportunity I had passed up, it was imperative to recover. ª Jack was allowed to hold, as was ª 9 to the 10 and Queen. South, bless her, now switched knowingly to © 9. This was covered by Jack, Queen and King, after which it was easy to finesse ª 8 and © 7 before leading up to ¨ K for 9 tricks. Amazingly, all four Oxon E/Ws bid and made 3NT on this board, while three Staffs pairs missed it and the fourth bid it and went down!

South ª K10875 © A7 ¨ J97 § KJ3

North AJ94 © 6 ¨ AKQ8 § A852

All roads seem to lead to 6ª , which is spot on, missing Qxxx trumps and nothing else. One pair lucky enough to beat the statistics was Godfrey/Smith, whose opponents played 3NT+3. One desperately unlucky pair was Nicholas/Roberts, whose opponents played 7ª and guessed trumps to be 2-2.

South ª AQ © A107432 ¨ AQ3 § K10

North ª K75432 © none ¨ K7654 § 86

My opponents had a practical auction on this hand: 1© - 1ª - 3¨ - 3ª - 4ª .

Note that 3ª in this auction should always be played as forcing, in order to cope with the many hands like the above that occur. However, it was played in the wrong spot by Staffs in 3© once and 4© once, and 5¨ - 1 once, and by Oxon in 5¨ making once.

West ª AQJ © none ¨ K10432 § AJ876

East ª 1096 © AKJ1076 ¨ J76 § 9

Partner and I had the modest but controlled auction: 1¨ - 1© - 2§ - 2© - 3§ - 3¨ - P, making the obvious 10 tricks. This may seem unduly conservative but West has no reason to stretch for a thin non-vul game, unless East can co-operate at his final turn. As it happens, 3NT is very poor even with singleton ¨ Q under the King. Oddly, Smith/Procter seem to have got away with not only the contract but with a score of + 630 despite being non-vulnerable! All other attempts at game failed.

The Lintotts had to figure sooner or later. Here they held:

North ª J952 © QJ852 ¨ 83 § 54

South ª K © AK7 ¨ AK107 § Q10976.

I thought at first that trump leads would put paid to 4© , but with § J favourably placed and the suit 3-3, I think it’s probably cold. Everybody else played heart partials by N/S or spade partials by E/W.

West ª K107 © A107 ¨ K642 § AQ9

East ª A965 © QJ932 ¨ 8 § 764

The Lintotts feature again, but not so happily this time. Most E/W pairs played partscores in NT or hearts, generally making plenty of tricks but two pairs played 4© , Debbie and Geoff for Oxon going down by undisclosed means, and the Lintott’s opponents who made 420. As © K and § KJ (but not 10) are both onside it may come down to how you play the spades, where low to the 10 fails. Best here and in similar situations is to cash Ace and King, playing for either honour doubleton or a 3-3 break (as it happens, North holds Jx here). Not the greatest contract though, is it?

North ª AJ2 © QJ9 ¨ AJ92 § 964

South ª KQ8 © A43 ¨ Q853 § A105

This is the sort of hand which defeats all statistics. A combined 28 count with two balanced hands. So you play it in 3NT, from whichever hand system dictates. If South is declarer, which looks a fraction better, a club is led from KQxx and you go down because both red suit finesses are wrong. If North is declarer the defender on lead is unlikely to find a club from Jxx. He will find himself on lead again at trick two with ¨ K and the best indication he’s got is a Smith peter request to switch, but to what? If he takes notice, he’s more likely to switch to a heart than a club. So the contract makes. What price cross-IMPing - or Butler - now? Four Oxon pairs were lucky: Bygotts, Lintotts and Hayes/Landy to play the hand from North, plus Nicholas/Roberts to be on lead from West. The other four pairs were all unlucky, either because they played the hand from South or defended with East on lead.

End of story. I noted other odd things but have ignored them in the interest of your sanity and mine.

Jeremy Bygott has pointed out a fault in my analysis of board 15: if the defence kicks off with three rounds of spades, declarer can ruff with heart
Jack but North throws a diamond on this, so can ruff in before the second club loser disappears. Sandra Landy tells me that Lynne led a spade against 4H and she won the Queen, cashed club King and then reverted to Ace and another spade. Pretty good, eh?