Report by John Auld 

Playing Worcestershire is always a pleasure. Apart from the agreeable opponents we were also provided with an outstanding tea.

The Porter and Markham squads did well,winning 15-5 and 13-7,  but the Dawes lost 4-16

The teams with cross imps:

DAWES

Lloyd Eagling & Stan Zydaglo      10.08

Steve Raine & Mark Goddard     -2.73

Patrick Gaudart & Andrew Scott -32.12

Irene & John Auld                      -38.35

PORTER

Richard Milne & Pravin Tailor         20.46

Keith Rodgers & Maciej Lejman    15.54

Frank Ball & Graham Lee             12.55

Toni Smith & Steve Fordham        3.48

MARKHAM

Richard Page & Philip Gross         18.47

Graham Brindley & Clare Batten   13.56

Peter & Margaret Savage               2.94

Sue McIntosh & Philip Cooper       -7.1

Plenty of good scores in the Porter and Markham squads. Pravin & Dick were best. Conratulations also to Phil & Richard playing I believe in their first county match

The most interesting board for me was number 3, the first we played :

This was a common sequence. 2NT showed 18/19. That was raised to 3NT and South had a difficult lead. Against me Mike Willoughby thought for quite a while before producing the H10. Presumably he felt that diamonds were out, a club from  KQXX into a big balanced hand was a bad idea, and spades were flimsy especially as partner decined to overcall 1S. So he led his H10 expecting four in dummy. I almost never lead a singleton against NTs but I sympathise on this hand.

Now I had the problem as declarer with only 8 clear tricks. I wanted to lead clubs from table finessing once or twice against North, but entries were lacking, so I won in hand and played CA and another  won by North with CJ. A long pause preceded a  heart continuation and another pause from Mike before a diamond discard. He remained with the problem that a spade or diamond led from his hand might give me the ninth trick which I could not develop on my own. I gave Mike his club tricks and awaited developments.  On a diamond I have to guess to play the 9. On a small spade I would win in hand collecting the 10 and finesse the J for 9 tricks.  But Mike led the Jack of spades. If I played him for S J10 x I would be down, but I reflected that he would have led a spade with J10, rather than a sngleton heart. I covered the J with SK and finessed the spade return for 9 tricks.  (I dont know if I would get diamonds right if I were put to the test. There were some clues like Norths decision not to play diamonds).

So that was hard work. Elsewhere small clubs and small spades were being led which did declarer no harm. Twice a diamond was led -probably because they were not bid- and declarer went wrong playing the Q..

The best lead? In practise it is the SJ! Declarer will not get that right. This is the hindsight system but it is not a ridiculous idea, particularly if declarer has denied four spades.

There were just two slam hands and a familiar theme: board 10 was a laydown major suit slam which most pairs managed. Board 30 was a laydown minor suit slam which nobody bid:

Stan & Lloyd were our best pair in the Dawes match but missed 6D like everyone else. Lloyd  blamed himself for not cue bidding 4H; certainly Stan cant move without that. At our table I doubled 1D and the opponents bid unopposed 1S-2C-3D-5D. To be fair I believe that 1D might not be diamonds. If 1D is natural I think that immediate support is the practical action. One might bid 2H over 1H showing values for 3D upwards. A smart move from North now is 3S as a splnter. South in turn could bid 5C as another splinter. The partnership would cruise into slam. Another approach would be a direct 4C over 1H if that is a splinter. It is a great shame that none of the counties' finest managed 6D.  It is definitely minor suit aversion.

And not only minor suit slam bidding needs collective attention. Board 27 suggests that defence is a bit of an issue: 

The sequence shown probably occured a few times. 3H is a good hand with long hearts. Too good for a simple overcall but non-forcing. It is a maximum, as is Wests pass- but there are 4 top losers so well done.

Quite understandably half the field reached 4H. Less understandably 5 of those 6 declarers made ten tricks. No doubt South cashed 2 spades and played CJ. The club play is correct because you may need to remove CA in declarers hand before diamonds are played to enable club discards. (In fact a club should be played at trick 2 before the SJ is established). Once in with CA North presumably continued clubs playing declarer for CQ9 and DA. That would give South CKJ10 with which he/she should lead CK not CJ. Fortunately I was not presented with this opportunity to err.

I cant really end this report without referencing board 22. This harks back to our last match when partner did not open 3D first in hand vulnerable on DKJ75432 (choosing 2D instead). The opponents unhindered found 7C. There was no overt criticism but a distinct feeling that us oldies did not preempt enough:

I came out fighting with 3D which in a blink of an eye went for 1100. I was particularly sad to see that noone else was similarly courageous. I suppose I should mention that we were vul v non vul as against game all in the last match which probably tips the scales even for the inveterate preemptors. 

I think the real moral is that you have to stick to your own style.