The summary of our results is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Northants 11

Bedfordshire 14

Gloucestershire 9

Manchester 1

Worcestershire 10

Warwickshire 2

Sussex 17

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 74 / 140

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks very simple set out like that, and rather modest. With one round to go we were below average, but a good win in the last match, coupled with Manchester’s run-away results, meant that we had tied for second place with Gloucestershire and Warwickshire. Had the ties been broken (which they weren’t) we would have finished behind Warwickshire but ahead of old enemies Gloucester. When you consider that we had one occasional partnership in Harvey and Richard (their only other game together had been in last year’s Regional Final) and one recently reformed partnership in Rob and Mike (getting re-acquainted with each other’s eccentricities, you might say), this was a fine team performance in which everyone played a full part. The T-shirts with the logo We Did It For Abbey and Harriet are on order.

We played 7 boards against each county, so you can work out who suffered at our hands and vice versa: session 1 covers the first four matches and session 2 the other three.

West ª Q93 © none ¨ AKQ9632 § 832

East ª AK842 © AK10 ¨ 7 § 10974

North opens 3© and East winds up in 4ª . South leads off A, K and Q of clubs, on the third of which North discards his singleton J of diamonds. He then accepts a diamond ruff for down 1. As usual, the only making contract is 3NT. Silly me, I should have bid it immediately over 3© .

West ª 4 © 8 ¨ KJ9875 § J8432

East ª 87 © AJ1072 ¨ AQ62 § Q6

Chris did very well here. I opened 1© as East, South overcalled 1ª , Chris doubled and North bid 4ª . When this rode round to him, Chris re-opened with 4NT and I got to play 5¨ for -50. It was difficult for me to bid it on the previous round as he could still have held defensive values, for all I knew. Chris had judged very well because, although my two Aces allow us two heart ruffs, this is difficult to carry off with only a singleton trump. 4ª made at all three other tables.

West ª J © KQ954 ¨ AQJ3 § 1082

East ª 1098732 © 76 ¨ K107 § AK

Left to their own devices, EW do well to avoid a big minus on this one, as everything is stacked offside. I suppose the only successful auction is 1© -1ª -2¨ -3ª -P but the quest for a vul game at teams scoring makes this unlikely. Brian and Sandra were down 4 in 3NT and our two NS pairs got 200 against 3NT and 100 against 4ª . At the last table Chris and I achieved the remarkable feat of not bidding at all! South opened a weak 2§ on Jack to five and an outside King, I passed as West (we’d put the board on the table the wrong way round), North raised pre-emptively to 3§ , Chris passed and South increased the pre-empt further with 4§ . That ended the auction. The oppo had done very well in a way to talk us out of playing the hand for a certain minus. 4§ was down 4. I’ve always believed in the maxim that one shouldn’t bid over pre-empts without genuine strength or playing tricks, because of the likelihood of bad breaks. Put another way, I’m an incurable wimp.

South ª A65 © K ¨ J10743 § 10543

North ª KQJ8 © Q43 ¨ AKQ9 § J8

3NT is a spread. Both Northants NS pairs bid it but neither of ours got there. I can picture North opening 1¨ fourth in hand, South raising pre-emptively to 3¨ and North converting to 3NT, but I guess if you don’t play pre-emptive raises it’s not so easy.

South ª A2 © 74 ¨ K852 § AKJ109

North ª K85 © J963 ¨ A106 § Q73

Here’s another 3NT one doesn’t mind being in (given that nobody’s bid hearts) but only Rob and Mike bid it in the match. Maybe EW got in the way - though we didn’t at my table.

South ª K4 © KQ863 ¨ AK74 § 63

North ª Q1073 © J952 ¨ 32 § KJ8

A triumph for Oxon as both Harvey and Richard, and Rob and Mike, bid the sort-of 50% game and made it by finessing § J, whilst our opponents stayed out.

West ª QJ8 © A94 ¨ 87 § KQ1097

East ª 73 © 76 ¨ AQ6532 § AJ4

Just a curiosity at my table. Chris (West) opened 1NT, North intervened with 2© and I tried for game with 3NT. North led © J and South failed to overtake with Q52. Chris followed small. North now switched to a club! Chris won, finessed ¨ Q successfully and had 10 tricks after knocking out the King. North’s comments to South were less than gentlemanly - but has declarer really ducked at trick 1 with © AQX and diamonds to be broached?

South ª 102 © AK ¨ 9763 § AK754

North ª 986 © 1092 ¨ Q104 § QJ98

At two tables EW emerged with 10 tricks in a spade partial and at a third, Brian and Sandra were pleased to take 3§ one off. At the fourth Harvey was doubled in 1NT and stood his ground. He has 7 tricks all right but the defence had 7 first and when West switched to K and another diamond after his 5 spades, and Harv had reasonably let one go, that was -800. Painful!

West ª AJ2 © AKJ72 ¨ 107 § Q82

East ª KQ743 © 1093 ¨ A2 § A106

We bid 1© -1ª -1NT(15-16)-2§ (general ask)-2ª -4ª . I won the opening club lead with the Ace, drew trumps, ran heart 10 successfully, then the 9 (North showing out) and claimed 12 tricks. Masterful. Equally masterful at two other tables. Against Rob abd Mike the contract was 6© . Excuse me, but doesn’t this play exactly the same? Anyway, it wasn’t for us to argue as +100 was more than welcome.

South ª 852 © K876 ¨ Q853 § 96

North ª AK © AQ10432 ¨ AK9 § A4

Against me the bidding, starting with North, went 2§ -2¨ -2© -3© -3ª -4© -5§ -5© -P. Making 7 when diamonds were 3-3. As 3© was known to be stronger than 4© , Joe Angseesing felt strongly that his partner’s cue bid efforts were pointless: he could either have assumed 3© promised the King, or used RKCB to find out. I suspect the partner felt that even so, Joe might have managed to bid 6 at his last turn, opposite such determined efforts. Anyway, the good news was that both our NS pairs bid the slam - well done - and neither Glos pair did..

RHO opens a strong NT and LHO raises to 3NT after a negative response to Stayman. You hold ª K76 © 43 ¨ 942 § AQ753. Your lead? I didn’t look further than a low club and dummy went down with ª Q632 © KJ87 ¨ K6 § J64. Declarer thought a while before putting up the Jack, which held, and playing a spade to his Jack and my King. Partner had played § 2 on the opening lead, showing an odd number. I decided (probably wrongly) that our best chance was to cash out the clubs, if partner had three, but of course he had only one and the contract made, as it did at two other tables. At the fourth Harvey, playing a weak NT, opened 1§ holding K1098, so East looked elsewhere for a lead and hit upon a diamond. Disaster! Now Harv found every finesse wrong, as well as ¨ QJ103 on his right, and went 4 down - stinking luck.

South ª J65 © K62 ¨ KQ86 § AQ4

North ª A94 © Q1043 ¨ A1073 § 83

South played in 3NT and Chris led © 7. My heart suit was J5 so I played the Jack, giving declarer his 9th trick without a struggle. Chris had led 4th best from A987 and the rule of 11 should have told me that declarer had only one card to beat the 7, so I should have played small. What a lemon! Rob went down in 3NT when © J was with-held and no one else was in game.

West ª AKQ95 © AKJ98 ¨ J6

East ª 107 © Q764 ¨ A1093 § Q53

A good hand to stay out of 6© , which needs spades to be 3-3. Unlucky for Rob and Mike, therefore, when the slam was bid against them, because spades were 3-3. Everyone else stayed out.

South ª AK105 © none ¨ KQ98 § AK983

North ª QJ82 © 1042 ¨ A3 § Q1076

7ª (or 7§ ) looks mighty good. At my table the bidding round the table was 1§ -P-1ª -2© -4§ -4© -5§ -P-6ª . There was doubt expressed as to the meaning of 4§ , which didn’t help. The Lonsdale/Fox auction was briefer: 1§ -1ª -(Dbl)-6ª ! Rob and Mike got to 6§ but Oxon gained substantially on the board when Brian and Sandra’s opponents had no ambitions beyond game.

West ª 63 © KJ1082 ¨ A108 § AQ10

East ª AQ1075 © A93 ¨ 74 § 754

4© by West seems to be doomed on a spade lead (KJ92 are offside)) because there’s just too much to do. It duly went down at three out of four tables. Harvey and Richard were unlucky

again when their opponents contrived to play it the other way up, so the spade lead was out. The defence was probably now a step behind anyway, but Richard led a trump, to solve all problems for declarer..

This was one of very few genuinely competitive hands - not that you’d have noticed at my table, where the bidding went: North East South West

2§ P 2¨ 2ª (!)

4© (end)

2§ was Benjamin and 2¨ a relay. 2ª was something else (in fairness, Chris has volunteered an appropriate comment). Declarer wasn’t troubled in 4© . Nor would he have been in 5© . But over the normal 4ª intervention, who knows what might have happened? To get 500 out of 4ª *, North has to lead © K (promising any switch is to a singleton when it holds), followed by a club, a club ruff and an underlead of ¨ A for a second ruff. Brian and Sandra lost 500 in 5ª *, so the defence wasn’t found there, and Rob and Mike - under pressure, no doubt - pushed on to 6© and lost 50. The other two tables were flat in 450.

South ª J9 © K10 ¨ 96 § K1076432

North ª KQ72 © AJ ¨ AK54 § Q95

Three tables made 3NT with overtricks, played by North. At my table I led a heart and declarer admitted afterwards that he nearly blew the hand by playing the 10 from dummy and the Jack from hand. But he recovered just in time to put the Jack away and win with the Ace before playing § Q (I had § AJ8). At the fourth table Rob played 5§ - not exactly a crime - and failed to guess trumps, so was down 1. Very unlucky.

South ª K6432 © 4 ¨ KJ8 § Q964

North ª AQ98 © QJ65 ¨ AQ § A72

This hand is about avoiding 6ª . Three tables managed it. At the fourth, where Rob and Mike were NS, EW were aware of the favourable vulnerability and pushed them all the way. Unfortunately for EW, the penalty for 5© *-6 is 1400, even at green.

South ª 1098 © KJ6 ¨ AK643 § A5

North ª AKQJ4 © A5 ¨ 752 § QJ10

At three tables the excellent 6ª was reached. Despite the 4-1 diamond break, a diamond could be ducked and another one ruffed, to set up the fifth for a discard (though in practice the club finesse was right anyway). Rob and Mike were in 6NT however, where the diamond break is a serious impediment. The contract can still be made double-dummy via five spades, three hearts (the Queen is doubleton offside), two diamonds and two clubs via the finesse. In practice, of course, it went down.

West ª Q2 © K1085 ¨ AK § QJ1087

East ª AK976 © A4 ¨ 74 § 9542

At our table I opened 1ª , Chris responded 2§ , I rebid 2ª (3§ would have been forcing) and Chris ended matters with 3NT - no problem on a heart lead. Much the same happened at Brian and Sandra’s table, I guess, so we had two games in the bag. However, Harvey and Richard got a break at last when their oppo played 3NT from the East hand and a diamond lead gave the defence an unbeatable tempo. To make matters even better, Rob and Mike’s opponents tried 6§ , which proved to have a major defect.

South ª 7 © AK5 ¨ AK106 § AJ983

North ª A6432 © 64 ¨ QJ § Q1052

The hands fit beautifully but someone has to take the bull by the horns to get to slam. A possible sequence, starting with South, is: 1§ -1ª -2¨ -4§ -4© -4ª -6§ . Rob and Mike bid the slam, as did Brian and Sandra’s opponents, so we drew the board.

West ª Q96 © J106 ¨ KJ2 § KJ54

East ª none © A53 ¨ AQ109765 § Q82

A light-hearted board to finish on. North opened 1ª and I overcalled 2¨ . South bid 2ª , Chris 2NT and North 3ª . I bid 3NT but when this was doubled by South I removed to 4¨ (we now agree that partner should perhaps have bailed out ahead of me!). I made 11 tricks when the defence rushed in with § A, but Rob and Mike showed that 5¨ can be beaten. Clubs are not 3-3 and South holds © 984, so a second heart trick can be built by the defenders. Brian and Sandra also had to go down in 5¨ , whilst Richard and Harv took 3NT* 1 off when the opponents amazingly stood their ground (only 1 down because spades were 6-4 but blocked!)

So there it is. In the Regional Final we had managed to confine all our major errors to two matches. Here, as the results show, one four blew one match and the other another, but overall we can be pleased with our overall performance.

24/06/03 .