.Blewbury lost to Banbury by 68 to 79 IMPs, giving us 8.14 VPs.

A narrow loss in a close-fought game against our strongest opponents in Division Two.  (We played them last year in Division One and lost by even more of a hair's breadth.)  The cross-IMPs are pretty tight, with no huge runaway numbers in either direction.

Cross-IMPs:

BANBURY: Carmen Ruiz-Castell & Brent Wormald = +1.03 IMPs
BANBURY: Brenda Macdonagh & David Stead = +0.71 IMPs
BLEWBURY: Finn Clark & Nigel Carter = +0.11 IMPs
BLEWBURY: Ian Van Maanen & Michael Allen = +0.04 IMPs
BANBURY: Rodney Jones & Dave Tarsky = -0.08 IMPs
BANBURY: David Southcombe & Mike Dancer = -0.40 IMPs
BLEWBURY: Dermot Paddon & Diane Bell = -0.67 IMPs
BLEWBURY: Shirley Moore & Malcolm Cochrane = -0.74 IMPs

Also, many thanks to Mike Allen for stepping in at the last minute when Matt Wright ran into train problems!

Click here for the RealBridge link to see all the hands again.

HAND 1 = +3 IMPs

Two tables bid and made game (4♠ for Banbury and 3NT from Dermot and Diane).  One table stopped in 3♠ (there are non-trivial questions of hand valuation), but the most surprising result was 3♣-2 when I bid a weak jump overcall on a three-count and got left there.  I wasn't even doubled!  My rationale had been that since partner had passed, I suspected that East-West could probably bid and make a game if left to their own devices.

HAND 2 = +4 IMPs

Banbury bought the hand at all four tables, but went off in three of them.  Theoretically, North-South can make 4♠, but the only declarer to make ten tricks stopped in part-score.

South has an interesting bidding situation.  Only five points, but a 5-5 hand, a void in the opponents' suit and three-card support for the suit partner's bid twice.  You're vulnerable, but even so I think that hand's definitely worth a bid.

HAND 3 = +12 IMPs

East-West can make 4♠ (although one pair stopped in 3♠)...  but I was allowed to make 4♥x as North-South.  West opened a 15-17 1NT and I overcalled an immediate 4♥.  I hadn't been bidding it to make.  I'd assumed that the opponents could probably make 4♠ (which was correct) and I'd simply been taking advantage of favourable vulnerability.

As it happens, though, the cards are sitting beautifully and the defence can't stop me making ten tricks.  As it happens, this is another good hand for the 12-14 no-trump.  Weak no-trumpers will open 1♠ on the West hand and immediately find their spade fit, whereas our West was a strong no-trumper and so made the unlucky-but-correct decision to suppress his ♠AKQ72.

HAND 4 = +12 IMPs

Nine tricks are unbeatable in 3NT, but it takes courage to cash them.  The entry situation is ugly.  Declarer's only option is to cash three hearts ending in dummy (potentially setting up extra heart tricks for the defence) and then to hope that the clubs are kind.  Happily, they are.

Nigel followed this line and made nine tricks.  The Banbury declarer wasn't brave enough...  and so ended up cutting himself off from his third heart trick.  Dermot and Diane were the only East-West to go plus on that board.

HAND 5 = -10 IMPs

A tricky 3NT.  Nine tricks are available if you guess well.

HAND 6 = +1 IMP

Most tables played in diamonds from South.  I replied 1NT as North to Nigel's diamond overcall and ended up making 1NT+2.  The South hand is probably worth a game raise after that start, given its high-card strength and diamond quality (i.e. a source of tricks), but 3NT would have been touch and go and I was lucky.  The entry situation is awkward.

HAND 7 = -1 IMP

Two sensible contracts: 3NT and 3NT+1.  One off-centre contract that was admittedly unlucky: 4♠-2.  (If partner makes a habit of raising on only three trumps, you might consider using 3NT rather than 4♠ to double-check on "do you really have four-card support?")

The latter tied with 6NT-2 from a Banbury pair whose auction started out on the wrong foot after an imaginative and off-centre 2♥ opening from Malcolm and Shirley.

HAND 8 = -4 IMPs

Left to their own devices, North-South do best to play in a part-score in no-trumps.  West often opened a Weak Two in 2♦, though, which either silenced North-South (at our table) or drove them overboard into 4♥-3 on a seven-card fit.

For what it's worth, I think the South hand is worth a 3♣ bid in the protective seat after that 2♦ opening.  You wouldn't be strong enough in the direct position, but you can allow yourself an extra king in the pass-out seat and you have a lot of playing strength.  You have a singleton in the opponents' diamonds, six clubs to the KQ and an outside ace.  (No three-level contract should make, for either side, but that's with hindsight and personally I'd bid with that hand.  You might have noticed that I bid a lot, and aggressively.  This is often good tactics and I recommend it generally.)

HAND 9 = -13 IMPs

Double-dummy analysis says that East-West should make 4♥ exactly.  Actual results included 4♥+1 and 4♥-1.  After the convenient club lead, I think the winning line is to pitch a spade from dummy on the club king, then do lots of cross-ruffing.  The defence only have three winners.  Trying to set up dummy's diamonds is tempting, but this will create a fourth loser and you have too many spades in hand for a discard to be immediately useful.

Other tables saw more colourful auctions.  Nigel and I played in 5♣x-2 (which I'd do again against the opponents' vulnerable heart game), while Diane and Dermot collected the unusual score of +250 from 3♠-5.  Looking again at that table's auction, I think that was an opportunity for an unassuming cue bid.  Raising West's 1♥ overcall to 3♥ is an aggressive action that you could do on all sorts of hands, some of them weak, whereas the actual East hand has so much game interest that aggressive players might have gone straight to four.

HAND 10 = +1 IMP

3NT by West everywhere.  The contract's unbeatable, but one declarer missed the overtrick.

HAND 11 = -14 IMPs

There was a dilemma here.  Having blasted 3NT after East overcalled 1♠, after a while Nigel found East leading spades through him.  Declarer had K53 and dummy had the stiff jack, which East pinned with the queen.

Nigel played low and now faced a continuation of the ♠10.  Playing the king is correct if East is being clever and underleading the ace, whereas ducking again is correct if East had Q109xxx and West Axx.  This is possible.  It could easily happen.  Nigel played for the later, ducking again, whereupon East cashed the spade ace and three more spade tricks for a final result of 3NT-3.

I have sympathy.  Ducking twice is an imaginative play.  On consideration, though, I think playing the king is correct for two reasons.  Firstly, North-South have a combined 28-count, leaving very little for East-West.  (They'd have been close to slam if they weren't missing two aces.)  Had the second spade duck been correct (i.e. West has exactly Axx), that would mean East had six spades and at most an eight-count, so you'd have probably heard a weak jump overcall of 2♠ earlier in the auction.  (East overcalled only 1♠, because he's got a very nice hand that's too strong for a weak jump overcall.  It's not his fault his partner has no points at all.)

Secondly, had West held Axx of partner's spades, that would make it even more surprising that he didn't lead one at trick one.  (There was a conversation between the defenders afterwards about why West hadn't led a spade anyway!)

HAND 12 = +10 IMPs

The normal contract is clubs by North-South, making ten tricks.  A Banbury North-South tried 3♠-1 on a seven-card fit missing the AKQJ10, while Ian and Mike stole the hand in 2♥ by East-West.

After a dramatic first half, we were exactly one IMP ahead.  43 against 42.

HAND 13 = -12 IMPs

There's an interesting play problem in 4♠.  North and South both have a six-card suit opposite a void.  The successful line is to do lots of cross-ruffing, but at our table Nigel was unlucky enough to get a trump lead while other declarers got a more helpful club.  On getting in again, this West continued with ace and yet another trump.  This made Nigel's task impossible.

HAND 14 = +1 IMP

3NT by everyone, with varying numbers of overtricks.

HAND 15 = -9 IMPs

Banbury's East-West at our table had a catastrophic bidding misunderstanding, but were rescued when I drew inferences from the (incorrect) bidding.  West pre-empted with 4♣, alerted by his partner as showing the black suits.  It didn't.  West only had a doubleton spade, but East didn't know that and cheerfully bid 4♠ anyway.  We could have taken 500 for a great score by doubling this, but I miscalculated based on the opponents' mis-explanation.

It's just one of those things, really.  No one psyched and no one's at fault.  East bid her 4♠ in good faith.  The unfortunate result, though, was that I played in 5♦-4 with a 5-0 trump break and the Q9872 of trumps sitting over me.

I'm just lucky that everyone else with our cards was also going off, albeit at a lower level (3♥-1, 3♥-2, 3♥-3).

HAND 16 = -5 IMPs

I held a load of garbage and was the only person to reply 1NT to partner's 1♠ opening.  This cost us 5 IMPs.

HAND 17 = +9 IMPs

All tables made 5♥+1...  except when Ian and Mike stole the hand in 4♠-2.  This contract can make, but even two off was a handsome save against the opponents' game and was Ian and Mike's biggest IMP gain of the evening.  The key to playing 4♠ is: (a) ruffing the second round of hearts high.  The chances of being overruffed should of course be zero, given the bidding, but your spades are so solid that it can't hurt and as it happens North had done something wildly unexpected in the auction.  (b) finding the club queen.  I have sympathy for declarer there, since you know South has far, far more non-hearts than North, but if you're going to finesse South for the queen then it can't hurt to start by cashing a top club first.  Again, this wouldn't usually make any difference, but on this one hand...

UPDATE: Ian Van Maanen has provided more information!  The 2♥ opening was alerted (not announced). Ian was getting ready to overcall 2♠ on general Aggressive Teams Bidding principles, but when 2♥ was alerted he asked what it meant.  (This was a last minute scratch pair after Banbury also had one player become unavailable at the last minute!)  The 2♥ bidder said that her partner's voice connection did not work, so he couldn't explain, and left it at that.  Ian now assumed that the partner on his left had alerted the bid because he didn't have a voice connection, and also that it was a weak two because almost no-one plays an Acol strong 2♥ these days.  When he saw dummy, he automatically assumed the hearts were 6-3 and ruffed trick 2 with a small spade, without thinking.  As it happens, though, North had ♥AKQ98732, an outside ace and an extra queen to boot, i.e. an old-fashioned Acol Strong Two.)

HAND 18 = flat

3NT+2 or 4♥+1, nothing in it.

HAND 19 = -2 IMPs

This is an interesting hand, but the results make it look flat.  3NT+2 or 3NT+3 everywhere...  but North has a 3307 hand with ♣KQJ10654, while South has the stiff ♣A.  North-South can make a club slam...  but only if South is declarer, which is impossible on natural systems.  If North is declarer, a spade lead holds declarer to eleven tricks.

HAND 20 = +3 IMPs

Blewbury got the better of a part-score hand when Dermot and Diane collected 200 from North-South's vulnerable 2♦-2.  (I could have raised Nigel's diamond overcall at our table, but I hated my queens-and-jacks pudding hand at this vulnerability.)

HAND 21 = +11 IMPs

4♥ on all tables, sometimes making an overtrick, but it failed against me and Nigel.  We did nothing clever.  Declarer had a critical hiccup and was so annoyed with herself afterwards that she went for a walk.

HAND 22 = flat

Impossible to bid anything except 4♠ and impossible not to make 10 tricks.

HAND 23 = +1 IMP

2♥ was the contract everywhere.  Everyone made it, in one case with an overtrick.  The trump position is interesting...  you hold AQJ954 opposite a small singleton.  Should you finesse the queen or the nine?  The nine would have been the winning play, as the cards lie, but the lead at our table meant declarer was worried about the defence possibly getting diamond ruffs and so I agree with the safer choice.  In fact, there's a good argument for not finessing at all and just bashing out from the top.

HAND 24 = -9 IMPs

3NT-1 from both Blewbury pairs, whereas both Banbury North-Souths made nine tricks in part-score.  We'd have won the match had we made our 3NT contracts!

The spade position is interesting.  West opened 1♠ and East leads the spade jack against your no-trump contract, with the spade Q92 in dummy and the A65 in hand.  Both Banbury declarers let the jack hold, which was a triumph because the suit split 6-1 and leaving East on lead meant he had to switch.  (Conversely, had the suit broken 5-2, this duck would have been embarrassing.)

Both Blewbury declarers covered the jack.  This goes jack-queen-king, unsurprisingly, and the natural action is now to win with the ace.  Slightly better, though, is to duck and let the king hold!  If the ten is in the spade bidder's hand, as seems likely, then West can't continue spades without letting you make your nine.  Unfortunately, my West was looking at both minor-suit aces and correctly pressed on with spades anyway.  I made my second spade trick, but I could only take eight tricks before letting West back on lead.

All things considered, the complete duck at trick one might well be best after all.  You're so short of quick tricks that your best choice might simply be to hope that the spades are indeed 6-1 and that West will be forced to switch at trick two, giving you a tempo.

Anyway, congratulations to everyone and thanks again to Mike Allen for stepping in at the very last minute!