Oxfordshire fielded a strong team, I felt, full of experience and ability. The draw was as kind to us as can be expected, too - a middling group with few notably weak or strong teams, so every opportunity to prevail over the sort of sides we meet regularly in the Dawes League. However, as seems to happen all too often in this event, Oxfordshire failed to impose itself on the proceedings. Indeed, our start was so bad that qualification for the final as group winners or runners-up was soon a distant and unlikely prospect. It took a resolute comeback on Sunday to achieve a reasonable mid-table position.

Our matches, in order, went like this:

The final table for our group read:

The scoring was by cross-IMPs converted to VPs on a special scale. In arriving at the scores achieved by individual pairs I have divided by the number of comparisons (ie 2) so as to express figures more normal over a teams event of 98 boards. This also enables me to cross-check the scores by pairs against those of the team, match by match and overall. The resulting table is:

Alex and Paul had an excellent weekend with a low error count and high enterprise. They admitted to receiving reasonably regular gifts - something which no other pair enjoyed. Keith and Steve had a plus card generally, only spoiled by a couple of moments of inattention (one obviously caused by tiredness). Richard and Stuart suffered more than their fair share of bad luck in the early part of the event which, as often happens, seemed to breed the odd error. But they came back well on Sunday. Lynne and Sandra were given very little and had a generally uphill weekend whilst this was even more true for Amit and Suzanne, who must have begun to wonder what an opponent’s error looked like. The team played with excellent spirit throughout and was a pleasure to captain. As for me, I suffered the usual problem in this event of having no time between matches to do more than calculate the scores and agree them with opponents. In compiling the narrative which follows I have had to rely frequently on what I believe happened at the tables I wasn’t watching. So if I’m inaccurate or unjust, I apologise now.

Board 6: E/W game, dealer E. Stuart was in 3NT with ª AQJ9 © Q4 ¨ Q972 § K93 opposite ª 432 © K763 ¨ None § AJ10874. Well, we’ve all been in worse than that. North led ¨ J and South (who held A43) played Ace and another to 9 and 10. North switched to © J, a good shot on which South should play his A to put another diamond through. The defence would have taken the first 7 tricks, with declarer still to find § Q (South had it plus two small) or ª K (North had it). South, however, ducked the heart switch and Stuart thought he might have been reprieved. Unfortunately a misguess in clubs now led to down 5 for -500! How’s that for a start?

Board 10: game all, dealer E. West ª A96 © K1082 ¨ Q6 § A985 East ª KJ843 © AJ ¨ K8543 § K

This looks like a close call between 3NT and 4ª , but spades are 5-0 and both Lancs declarers lost 200 in 4ª . Elsewhere, Alex responded 2§ to Paul’s 1ª . When North intervened with 2© , Paul doubled for take-out. Pass would have won most coconuts (partner has better trumps than he might!) but 3NT was an excellent second prize.

Board 13: game all, dealer N

West ª 8 © AKQ ¨ AK643 § A1094 East ª AKQJ9 © 105 ¨ Q1052 § Q8

At the table I was watching, a Lancs East opened 1ª playing Precision, and then felt justified in rebidding 4¨ after partner’s 2¨ response. After all, he had already limited his hand by not opening 1§ . Partner went on with 4NT followed by 5NT. He admitted he should have bid 7¨ at this point, on the strength of his running spades. However, both Lancs pairs languished in 6¨ +1 whereas both Oxon pairs - Fearnheads and Lonsdale/McPhee - sailed into 7NT despite East rebidding only 3¨ . This brought in 52 cross-IMPs, much more than our margin of victory.

I don’t think any of us expected what we got from Northants, who are usually easy meat in the Dawes. Certainly, I thought without complacency that we could rest the Fearnhads early, bearing in mind our tough programme for the rest of the day. How wrong can you be! Northants played with great spirit and skill, plus a little luck - no doubt the form they sustained throughout the weekend to finish as runners-up. In particular, Amit’s LHO, who I watched, spent ages fingering all the wrong cards on deal after deal, before pulling out the right one like a rabbit from a hat.

Board 19: E/W game, dealer S

North ª 652 © J9832 ¨ 83 § A95 South ª AKQ10843 © 54 ¨ 104 § QJ

4ª looks a long way off when dummy goes down, but the fact that West might be reluctant to lead from his AQ and others in both red suits earns some reprieve. The best chance is that he will try a club from K82 and that East will put up the 10 rather than the 6. Amit went down after much heavy breathing all round, Richard and Stuart defended the making 3ª and 4ª slipped through against Lynne and Sandra. At the fourth table, E/W went to 5§ ; Keith (South) consulted partner by passing but when Steve chose to double 5§ , Keith had an aberration and went on to 5ª anyway, losing 300 instead of gaining 200 or even 500. Our four minus scores added up to 41 IMPs.

Board 22: E/W game, dealer E

N/S have four defensive tricks against 4© , on a spade lead to the 10 and a switch to § 10. It’s normal to bid on to 4ª , however. Now E/W have to judge to go on to 5© and N/S must decide finally to defend. Richard and Stuart took a big position when they doubled 4ª , and found they couldn’t beat it. Everyone else contrived to make this a small board, though I confess I don’t know how Keith and Steve lost 100 as N/S. Did they bid yet one more for the road, or go down in 4ª *? Not wishing to re-open wounds, I haven’t asked.

On the last board Richard and Stuart got some important IMPs back when they contrived to lose only 150 while the other three N/S pairs all bid and made a thin vul 4ª . But the 69 IMPs we lost on the two boards illustrated were enough to see us lose the match by 61 - and 4 VPs to 16.

We have to own up to Gloucester having the best of things more often than us in recent years (though we’re still smiling over our Dawes result this season). Here, we led by 11 IMPs after 8 boards, but then the roof subsided a little.

Board 10: game all, dealer E

North ª K109 © 874 ¨ J109 § K1072 South ª 8542 © AK32 ¨ KQ75 § 9

Paul had to play 2© as North after a competitive sequence. Unfortunately this was one of those occasions where it’s better to defend. Nobody managed to double but the contract went 4 off on the lie of the cards, a result Glos managed to avoid duplicating.

Board 11: love all, dealer S

Stuart as West held ª 932 © KQ1086 ¨ KQ874 § None - a perfect opportunity to wheel out a Michaels cuebid after South opened 1ª , you would think. Unfortunately partner held a 4-1-1-7 shape and North was waiting in both red suits. The penalty was down 5 doubled for -1100. Both our Souths opened 1NT rather than 1ª with their semi-balanced 12 count, despite the five-card suit, both their Wests bid 2§ to show hearts and another and both our Norths competed with 2¨ . A Great Escape for Glos!

Board 13: game all, dealer N

Sandra told this story against herself. You hold ª 10754 © None ¨ KQ985 § KQ62. The opponents opt to play in 2© and you have the opportunity to balance with a double. OK, you do it but how happy are you when partner leaves it in (as is all too likely). You can’t blame her, holding ª K8 © AQJ86 ¨ J43 § 1085. The danger of auctions like this is that partner might place you with high cards you don’t have in the other three suits. Here, Lynne led a bold ª K from K8 and the contract made. At another table, Alex also played 2© * but from the opposite hand. On a different opening lead, she didn’t risk a spade finesse into the (inferentially) long spade hand and wound up 1 down.

The three boards above cost us 102 IMPs and the match was lost by 110 for 1-19

Board 15: N/S game, dealer S

West ª Q © A6 ¨ Q32 § AKJ10832 East ª A964 © Q874 ¨ 104 § 754

Keith and Steve scored a goal for us by reaching 3NT and finding ¨ AK onside. Amit and Suzanne also had 3NT bid against them but unfortunately had done enough bidding themselves to warrant a double. An overtrick resulted, so our only minus on the board was enough to lose it.

Board 16: E/W game, dealer W

How confident are you that when partner doubles one major, he has 4+ cards in the other? Here, North opens 1© , East doubles, South bids 3(or 4)© and, at the table I watched, West bid 4ª like a man. (The big winner might be via bidding clubs, of course, because 6§ is a likely make). It looks routine for N/S to bid on over 4ª or 5§ , and both our E/W pairs took 100 from 5© *. Paul and Alex managed an incredible +650 as N/S - presumably the defenders weren’t up to cashing out - but most of our advantage went when at the fourth table, our other N/S pair decided to defend.

Board 20: game all, dealer W

Julian Whitwick for Cambs and Hunts showed commendable enterprise when he picked up

ª K109 © Q1083 ¨ QJ86 § 92. Sandra on his left opened a weak 2ª after two passes and partner overcalled 3© . He tried 3NT and dummy hit with ª K109 © AK7654 ¨ 10 § Q64. 4© has no play against normal defence, whereas 3NT rolled in when Sandra led her own suit. Mind you, had Sandra led the card nearest her thumb (§ J from J7) he would have gone 4 down. Perhaps Lynne should have opened her chunky 10-count.

Amit brought in a thin vul game on 21, Lynne and Sandra missed one on 23 and on 28, everyone except the Fearnheads’ oppo were up to playing trumps from the right hand in a 4© (they divide A singleton opposite 10xxx). We finished just 9 adrift after a sweaty encounter against tough opponents. Our position overnight was unpromising, to say the least. We had not made a large number of unforced errors, however. The problem was that the mistakes we did make were severely punished and on the other side, most pairs found it difficult to engineer significant entries in the plus column, despite their best efforts.

We began Sunday still in good heart against opponents we know well. I watched the Haytacks bent on self-destruction against Richard and Stuart, who took their chances very well.

Board 10: game all, dealer E

West ª AK1076 © A ¨ AKJ98 § 92 East ª J854 © 9864 ¨ 2 § AKJ6

You would always want to be in slam on this one. In practice, the 2-2 trump break leads to all 13 tricks without the need for any finesses. Keith and Steve missed it for us, as did the Haytacks for Derby, but Paul and Alex got to 6ª to flatten the board. They didn’t have an Acol 2ª available, which would make it particularly easy. Even so, 1ª - 3ª - 4¨ - 5§ should be enough.

Board 11: love all, dealer S

Paul held ª AQJ8 © None ¨ Q8532 § 9532 and had to lead against 4© after the sequence 1NT (15-17) - 2§ (Stayman) - 2© - 4© . Your choice? It looks close between a low ¨ and a second-highest § . Paul blamed himself for opting for the passive § , which gave the contract for - 32 IMPs. It’s true that you’re hoping for 2 ª tricks yourself and a trump and one other from partner, so a ¨ might build that quickly. In fact, partner’s five trumps don’t produce a quick trick at all and she holds only ¨ Jx, but the key is not to ruin her § holding (AJx).

Board 12: N/S game, dealer W

Stuart had to find a lead on the next board, having effectively pushed the oppo into game (4© ). He held ª J7643 © 632 ¨ J85 § K4 and had raised partner’s 1ª overcall of an opening 1¨ to 3ª . This was the time to try § K as partner holds AJ5 over dummy’s Q76, to go with ª A.

Suddenly, the game didn’t seem quite such heavy going any more.

Board 16: E/W game, dealer W

You hold ª 10762 © J872 ¨ 873 § J6 and the oppo bid 1¨ - 2NT (Baron) - 3ª - 3NT. Your lead? Amit fished out § J, finding partner with AQ983. Well done! Sandra got the same lead to flatten the board. As Paul points out, the only helpful inference you have is that partner has not overcalled in one of a major.

Board 18: N/S game, dealer E

West ª 9874 © Q43 ¨ Q73 § K104 East ª K5 © A6 ¨ AKJ1065 § QJ8

South has ª AQJ103 and © KJ105, with North holding § A, so 3NT has no chance on the double dummy defence of a club lead and spade return. If you get ª Q lead it’s no use trying to sneak a club trick early. This is a classic exaample of running your long suit immediately to exert pressure on South. If he throws two hearts and two clubs you can exit with a spade, endplaying him. If he throws a spade rather than the second club, looking for a heart through after putting partner in with § Ace, you can exit with a club instead. At the table, of course, there is a lot of fog for both sides to see through. Anyway, the Fearnheads brought 3NT home with an overtrick (well done). Amit and Suzanne went down and our N/S pairs recorded +150 and -150, by undisclosed means. This board, plus another where we recorded 4 plus scores including a sharp 300, was enough to see us home 15-5

Any reasonable win would leave us above middle - a major achievement after our struggles on Saturday, but this was always going to be difficult against these opponents. The only encouraging sign was that at the table where I watched Steve and Keith, one particular opponent announced himself as having a nightmare weekend, and proceeded to demonstrate why.

Board 31: N/S game, dealer S

Steve sat North holding ª K98 © 92 ¨ A987 § A873 and heard the following extraordinary auction:

I don’t record the fact that Steve eventually passed throughout in order to gain a cheap laugh at his expense, but merely to show how the mind can play tricks on one as it becomes tired at the end of a gruelling event. I remember failing to double in even more obvious circumstances in the Pachabo some years ago (I’ve not been allowed to forget, quite rightly). What had happened here was that our hero from Manchester had made his 3NT overcall - after two minutes of apparent thought, let it be said - on ª 5 © 8 ¨ KJ1062 § Q96542. His partner, who held ª AQJ762 © K764 ¨ 54 § K, naturally anticipated a bucketload of playing tricks opposite and had half an eye on a grand slam. Anyway, 6ª went 4 down for a quiet +200 to us. Had Steve doubled the carnage might have been even greater because Keith would presumably not have led © A, setting up the King.

On the next board Keith misjudged to go for 800, no disaster with a vul game available to opponents, except that the game is not certain to make. Paul got home when the defence opened a critical side-suit, and Richard and Stuart’s opponents made it too, whether by good guessing or not I don’t know. At the fourth table, Amit and Suzanne got 10 tricks but had stayed out of game. On board 35, our Manchester team member was on lead against 5© *, with three winners if he leads the partnership’s agreed suit. However, he preferred K from Kx in Keith’s side-suit and that was 750 to the good guys. At another table some of the advantage slipped away when the Fearnheads failed to save at red in 4ª over 4© - it’s difficult to judge that 4ª is actually solid unless opponents take their ruff. On board 36 our hero was at it again, pushing too hard to a grand slam which needs a guess for the trump Q, plus some. Those in 6© were very relieved to make it.

Board 37: N/S game, dealer N

West ª KJ842 © KJ ¨ A92 § 764 East ª 7 © None ¨ KQJ763 § AJ10853

South was bound to bid strongly, holding ª Q1053 © AQ108642 ¨ 10 § K. He was also likely to lead © A, so Paul’s considerable optimism in going all the way to 6§ proved justified, and won us the board.

Manchester had the last word, however, when a wafer-thin vul game got home on board 42, giving them 22 IMPs and victory by 10, for 11-9 VPs.

If I’ve missed anyone’s favourite coup of the weekend, I’m sorry. You’ll have to put it down to the fog that envelops NPCs in this event. And if I’ve pinpointed errors on the part of any players, it doesn’t mean I think poorly of them. In fact I’ve the highest regard for the ability of this particular team. The truth is that our error count was normal for an event of this length, but the luck was marginally against us on a few critical hands. Our failing, I felt, was a general lack of enterprise (with honourable exceptions), which failed to generate enough in the plus column. It’s been a familiar theme for years, as though we pay the event too much respect and feel that we’re playing for our future reputations. There’s a lot to be said for relaxing into one’s natural game and enjoying oneself, if that’s possible. Somehow, we always looked like a team under pressure.

Never mind, there’s still the Dawes league to fight for.