If you have tears to shed, prepare to shed them now. The A team saw its hopes of the title take a severe dip when it lost by 90 IMPs (0-20). Having just received the updated league tables, I can tell you that we have dropped from first to fifth, 16 VPs behind leaders Leicestershire: we now need two very big performances, one of them against perennial winners Gloucestershire who are lying second. On the other hand, smile - why not? Our B team has consolidated its first place in the table with a win by 80 IMPs (19-1). Well done them. We now lead second-placed Warwickshire by 8 VPs, so the next match - which is against them - will be critical.

The A team suffered no less than three withdrawals from the personnel selected originally, which meant promotions from below and the introduction of reserve pairs and hastily convened partnerships in the B team. In fairness, though, we had no reason to be ashamed of either team we fielded on the day. I was very grateful to Alan Wilson (whose partner Tim Pike had had to withdraw) for playing at short notice with an alternative partner, Jim Strachan. It was pleasing to see them do so well - also the Duttons who ended a long spell as uncomplaining reserves with a commanding performance. Ironically, we might have benefitted from yet another withdrawal in that the Lintotts turned up feeling distinctly poorly, particularly Andrew who had a torrid time trying to keep concentration going. I suspect this was a match the A team were never going to win anyway, as everything came up roses for Worcester. And they played pretty well, too...

Results:

Oxfordshire A - Lintotts/Bennett-Noble -63 IMPs, Procter-Smith/Williams-Wilson -27 IMPs

Oxfordshire B - Strachan-Wilson /Duttons +83 IMPs, Bygotts/Nicholas-Roberts -3 IMPs

Click here for the cross-imp summary.

Thanks as usual to Jeremy Bygott for the statistics and his insight into one or two hands. The figures show that Worcester B were much less effective than their A counterparts. My reading of the A match was that despite one or two lapses, Worcester A showed a little more aggression than we did on the competitive deals, and this made a critical difference overall.

North ª KJ3 © Q8654 ¨ KQ § QJ4

South ª 42 © AJ93 ¨ J432 § A65

This is only just worth bidding NV but one can’t fault the sequence 1© - 3© - 4© , or equivalent. As it happens ª AQ, © K10X and § K are all onside so it’s 10 or 11 tricks. Oddly, the only pairs not to bid this were the Duttons and Bygotts, both of whom chose to defend 2ª for +100. Jeremy laments that he opted (for once) to open a weak NT with the North hand and never recovered, but the experience was useful in that he won’t ever do it again. Apparently.

The trick is to bid 4ª as EW and then make it. At my table South opened 1§ after two passes, Chris overcalled 3ª , North doubled negatively and South bought it in 4§ . To add insult to injury, we were even denied a plus score when South guessed to finesse me for § J. The only way to get to game is for East to open 1© , of course. The only way to make it is to lead a trump from dummy. The danger of doing this after finessing © J is that a third round of clubs will promote a trump trick for the defence anyway, assuming the finesse loses. Better to do it via ¨ A and rely on guessing the hearts later. If South has 6 clubs and his fair share of the diamonds then he has only two hearts, so it looks right to play North for the Queen. Hey presto! Only two pairs managed the feat - Strachan/Wilson and Procter/Smith’s oppo. The Lintotts and Bennett/Noble’s oppo got there but went down, Nicholas/Roberts were down in 4© and the Bygotts defended 3ª doubled, which was not destined for success and in fact made with an overtrick (the auction was P-P-1§ -3ª -P-P-Dbl and I have to say that if South is to bid, 4§ looks better than dbl).

West ª 1042 © K64 ¨ AJ § 109742

East ª A53 © AQJ3 ¨ Q873 § QJ

What should West bid after partner opens 1© and South overcalls 1ª ? My partner chose 1NT, being balanced, and I caught a whiff of a vul game. So I raised to 2NT, setting off in search of Valhalla, partner naturally went on and we found ourselves in Grimethorpe instead, for -300. Three pairs tried 3NT. It’s close, but I prefer 2© to 1NT. Partner is now likely to take a dim view of his § QJ and pass. A sputnik double may work OK too (if partner bids 2¨ you simply correct to 2© ). The point is, there’s really no need to bid 1NT without a spade stop.

West ª K5 © Q8 ¨ A10854 § J542

East ª Q108643 © J ¨ J9763 § K

As a sop for having to spend hours writing these reports, one occasionally gets to mention the odd out-of-the-blue good board. Here South opened 1§ , North (who was looking at ª AJ © AK109742 ¨ 2 § 1063) risked a 1© response and I was there with 2© (better spades than diamonds - this was certainly true). Chris duly saved in 5¨ over 4© . North made what he assumed was a forcing pass and is still waiting for partner’s 5© bid (flat board) or dbl (-4 IMPs)

West ª 5 © J652 ¨ AQ7 § KJ1098

East ª AKQ986 © 93 ¨ K53 § 75

The bidding against me was 1ª - 2§ - 2ª - 2NT - 3NT. Partner found the disastrous lead of © K from KQ1084, blocking the suit, so 3NT made (spades were 3-3). Didn’t anyone tell him about fourth best of your longest and strongest? Only kidding. Most tables were in 3NT and all made it, of course. The exceptions were the Duttons, who made 4ª , the Bygotts who went down in it, and Bennett/Noble who played 2ª only. Note that 4ª is beaten by a trump promotion if the defence kicks off with three rounds of hearts.

I thought originally that this was a bad hand for Texas, but I’ve changed my mind. I opened 4¨ so partner had to play 4ª on the lead of a singleton club. We were lucky because West chose to put in the 10, rather than win and give a ruff, which would have led to an eventual two down. As it was, the position of © J brought the contract home. However, if South plays 4ª , ¨ 6 lead from West is quite likely, enabling East to switch to a club at trick two and this time it looks more like a singleton. In practice, 4ª made four times and was defeated only twice (by the Duttons and the Lintotts’ oppo) - the scorecards don’t always tell me who was declarer. By way of diversion, Strachan/Wilson played 3ª (which was just as well because that’s all they made) and Bennett/Noble defended 3NT making (wot, no diamond lead?).

North ª Q65 © Q106532 ¨ 852 § 5

South ª AK9874 © 7 ¨ K10 § A1097

At my table East opened 1§ third in hand, I overcalled 1ª , West passed, Chris bid 2ª , East doubled, I bid 4ª and East found a second red card. One can understand this as he was looking at a balanced 19-count, but with trumps 2-2 and ¨ A onside, only an original trump lead beats 4ª . Results on this hand were decidedly weird: I made 790 and Nicholas/Roberts bettered this with 3ª * for 930 (!), whilst our other plus scores were via Strachan/Wilson (100 from 2NT-2) and the Bygotts (110 from 3¨ making as EW). Procter/Smith and the Duttons conceded 620 for 4ª made, whilst Andrew Lintott lost 500 in 4ª * after a whoopsy. Luckily, Bennett/Noble knew what they were doing when they went 5 down in 5¨ for -250 (what they evidently knew was that the oppo wouldn’t double). Anyone for tennis?

You need to be playing a strong NT to avoid potential disaster on this hand. I was lucky that East chose to treat his hand as a heart club 2-suiter in preference to doubling. I got to defend 3§ , which looked to be great news until we found we couldn’t beat it. EW played making partscores in clubs, diamonds or NT at four tables. The Lintotts defended 3NT making (in truth, it looks hard to beat) whilst Bennet/Noble went down in 3NT. The big news for Oxon came from the Duttons, who made 3§ * for 470, and Procter/Smith who defended 2¨ * for a princely 1100.

RHO opens 2NT and is raised to 3NT after a fruitless enquiry about the majors. You hold ª AQ1093 © 8 ¨ AQ8 § 10974. You lead? Come on now, not a spade surely? Where’s the low diamond to partner’s King for a spade through? I didn’t find this and neither did 5 other leaders. Strachan/Wilson beat 3NT but only played by the other hand (they still did well, because declarer has 9 tricks unless you manage to cash your 3 diamonds and two spades at once). Procter/Smith elected to defend 1ª * by the hand shown after a strong club, which lacked the necessary in terms of trump tricks: result, -160.

I recall playing in 4¨ , making an unlikely overtrick when the defence started with ª Q and switched to Ace and another club, but how I got there I’ve no idea (North must have overcalled at the one level, for starters - perhaps East and South passed and Chris was able to double for TO). This was worth 8 IMPs when Procter/Smith were allowed to play 2ª +2. A good board for Oxfordshire, you might suppose? Wrong! Strachan/Wilson went 3 down vul in 3© to lose 11 IMPs when the Duttons were down 1 in 4ª *, and the Lintotts let through 3© * to lose another 13 despite Bennett/Noble making 3ª . It just wasn’t our day on the competitive hands.

North ª QJ984 © A5 ¨ AJ § AQ94

South ª None © KQ1082 ¨ Q95 § K10873

At my table the (unopposed) bidding went 1ª -2© -2NT (GF)-3NT. Making 6. Amazingly, this proved to be the normal result. Only one pair bid the easy 6§ , the Lintott’s opponents - finally establishing that Andrew and Dinah really should have stayed in bed. The Bygotts got agonisingly close via 1ª -2© -3§ -5§ -P, leaving Jeremy feeling distinctly cowardly. The problem, of course, is that South fears wasted values in spades opposite. In a funny way, the 2NT rebid offers the best chance, provided South bids 3§ next.

Assuming NS climb to 4© , as happened at 4 tables, the first three tricks are spade to the Ace, ¨ AK cashed. Chris cursed himself for not switching to § J at this point, ensuring that declarer gained access to the suit too early. However, good news, partner! The contract is declarer-proof. He can win, cash a second club to discard a small spade, play a heart to the 10, follow with a top spade until East covers, ruff this, play © Q and claim. The Bygotts played 4§ for +130, safe but hardly enterprising, whilst three pairs tried to buy the contract in spades as EW: Nicholas/Roberts were a trifle fortunate to escape for 2 down undoubled, Bennett/Noble sold out to 3ª for the same +100, whilst the Lintott’s oppo went on to 5© and were doubled for down 1.

North ª KQ85 © AKQ6 ¨ A92 § 63

South ª J72 © J104 ¨ 105 § AQ852

At my table, partner opened 1© after three passes and I raised to 2© . Partner made a game try with 2NT and I was happy to bid 3NT, avoiding the 4-3 fit. Joy was short-lived, however: East led his 5-card diamond suit (KXXXX) and when he proved to hold ª A that was 1 down. Something like the same story was repeated at four other tables. It was annoying to realise that despite a 5-1 break, 4© appears to have some play (though no one tried it). The Duttons proved that for them, this was definitely a day to get out of bed when they played 4ª and found the adverse trumps 3-3. Procter/Smith suffered a sad fate when North, playing a strong NT and 5-card majors, opened a (rarely) prepared 1¨ , South responding 1NT and being raised to 3NT. Poor West was supposed to lead his 3-card diamond suit, the only suit bid naturally by the opponents. Bennett/Noble also had to find a lead against 3NT by South (I don’t know the auction). Definitely not our day!

South ª 7 © AKQ42 ¨ K543 § J96

North ª Q4 © 108653 ¨ QJ82 § K8

At my table I opened 1© , partner raised pre-emptively to 3© , East butted in with 3ª and was raised to game (which made with ease). East held ª AK1062 © 97 ¨ A § Q10742. The 3ª bid looks very reasonable but if, as at Procter/Smith’s table, North raises to 4© , it’s not so obvious to get into the bidding at all. Three tables got to play 4ª painlessly but at all the others the hand was played at the five level, one way or the other, with varying results. I mention the hand only to point out that when pre-empting it’s best to go to the limit immediately. Playing Acol particularly, one knows that either partner is strong or is pretty certain to hold a 5-card suit, when the law of total tricks comes into play.

What should North bid after a 3¨ pre-empt is passed round to partner, who doubles for TO? At my table Chris bid 4§ and I tried 4ª , as happened at two other tables. West led ¨ A and continued with the Queen. Even having escaped the heart switch, I needed East to hold three spades and this was not to be. I’m sure 3NT is the more enterprising effort available to North. After all, even if partner doesn’t hold, say, a singleton Q or J of diamonds, there may be 9 tricks anyway, as here. Declarer has only to apply PRC to get home, even if the defence ducks the diamond lead. It’s not that 3NT is the obvious best bid, merely that it’s the one more likely to lead to a making game - and if you’re doubled, you can still decide to run to 4§ . 3NT was bid and made three times, always by Worcs pairs.

West ª A6542 © J10932 ¨ 6 § 42

East ª Q109 © K ¨ AKQ83 § KQJ9

4ª is thin but comes home with careful play. It was bid four times but for once, Oxon were rewarded for greater aggression, Chris and I being the only pair to concede 620.

North ª A92 © 2 ¨ AQJ832 § J73

South ª KQJ6 © KJ86 ¨ None § AK1096

I suppose that how you bid this hand depends on your style as to fourth suit and responses thereto. It might go 1§ -1¨ -1© -1ª -3ª (?)-3NT-P, leaving both players wondering whether they’ve missed something better. At my table I had to contend with a 2© opening from East, promising a weak two-suiter with 5+ hearts and 4-plus in another suit. The only bids I could conceive were double, 2NT and 3NT but there are obvious drawbacks to all three. I settled on double and heard the worst possible response from partner, ie 5¨ . So I shut my eyes and bid 6§ . After a heart to the Ace and a spade back I wasn’t too displeased with dummy. I won in hand, ruffed a heart to dummy and advanced § J. When East showed out I wished I was still in my pyjamas. East held ª 8753 © A10954 ¨ 10974 § None. Nothing is exactly a cakewalk, of course. Three pairs in all went down in 6§ , plus one in 5¨ and one in 6NT. Nicholas/Roberts hit the button in 5§ , while the Lintotts made 3NT and Bennett/Noble conceded the same.

I haven’t managed many laughs on this one. Wonder why?