Back in the Day

When clearing out my loft recently I came across a tatty old notebook where I used to record interesting hands. Here are a few examples from over 40 years ago in the Knight Cup.  This is now the Dorset county pairs championship, a one day event where it is a struggle to get more than eight tables. Back in the 1980s it was a different story; the local EBU county (Southern Counties) covered Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset, and the Knight Cup involved heats at local clubs and two semi-finals before a ten table final. Just reaching the final was no mean achievement. 

In 1983 Graham Pearce and I qualified for the final for the first time. We were minnows amongst sharks but it was one of those rare days where we could do no wrong so I was hopeful of getting the half a green point that I needed to become a Regional Master. Back then there was no instant computer scoring or internet so you had to wait until the following evening and phone the scorer to find out the result. I remember him telling me that we had won by 'a considerable margin'.

 This was an example of our good fortune from that Knight Cup final.  

When Reese and Flint first developed the Multi 2♦ opening in the early seventies, it included strong 4441 hands as well as the usual weak twos in either major. If it was good enough for them it was good enough for us, so 3♣ showed 4441 with a singleton diamond and 18+ HCP. I had a little to spare but 4♥ was still a bit of a punt. West had read the textbook that told you to lead a trump after this sort of auction, but mistakenly chose to lead the nine of hearts. Graham won, cashed the top spades, ruffed a spade with the seven, then played a diamond to the ace and ruffed another spade with the eight. Meanwhile our friendly West discarded two clubs. When declarer led a club West took the ace and exited with a diamond, but now dummy was high so we made 12 tricks for a rather fortuitous top. 

Strong 4441 hands are pretty rare and including them in a Multi has now gone out of fashion, but the system came up again in the Knight Cup semi final the following year. 

On a club lead I won the ace, ruffed a club and led a heart to the queen and king. On a diamond return I was able to ruff two more clubs in hand and make 12 tricks when both major suits broke 3-2. In the final everything seemed to go well and we had another comfortable win. This hand helped.

In the 21st century I would make an immediate splinter bid 4♣ over 1♠, but back then we played it as some form of Swiss. It didn't matter as I was able to show my hand type on the next round. I should have redoubled 4♣ to show first round control, but we ended up in the right spot. The slam made with an overtrick for an outright top and helped us to keep hold of the cup.

Tollemache Final 2026

Last November Dorset did exceptionally well to win their group and qualify for the Tollemache final, no doubt helped by the fact that Ann and I were not playing. We were added to the team for the final to make up a team of 10. It was a nice change to play in a high level face-to-face event, but results were rather disappointing and we finished 7th out of 8. Ann and I held our own on the first day, but were out of form and luck on Sunday. This hand was a typical example.

Ann won the spade lead in dummy and ran the eight of clubs to West's ten. West defended accurately by returning a trump. After drawing trumps, West won the first round of diamonds and when both defenders kept their clubs there was no way home. 

The hand record showed that ten tricks could always be made, but we had to put the deal into Deep Finesse to find the winning line. The key play, not at all obvious, is to ruff a spade at trick two, and eventually West can be endplayed to concede a second club trick. You can follow the play by clicking Next on the diagram. Four hearts was the contract at 11 of the 16 tables, but was only defeated twice. I would be willing to bet that the other declarers succeeded due to a friendly defence rather than finding the double dummy line.

Violating Burn's Law

I expect that you have heard of Burn’s Law of Total Trumps: When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents.

But in bridge, there are exceptions to most rules. Take this spectacular deal from the 2025 Bermuda Bowl final between USA and Denmark.

South's 2♣ rebid was Gazilli, showing various hands and not promising anything in clubs, 2♦ just showed a game force and I believe that 3♠ promised a very strong red 2-suiter. So the Danes played a grand slam in a 5-1 fit in a suit that was bid for the first time at the 7 level. So much for Burn's Law.

Schaltz did remarkably well to pass 7♣ and after a trump lead, he brought home the slam by squeezing West in diamonds and spades. That was worth 17 imp when the Americans were two down in 7♦. 

A few weeks later, this hand came up in the rather more mundane surroundings of a club duplicate at Poundbury.

We were playing 2-over-1 so my 2♥ was forcing to game and I had a problem over 3♦. I was reluctant to bid 3NT with such a feeble stop and I thought that partner would expect three trumps if I bid 3♠, so I tried 3♥ and ended up in another contract that Mr Burn would not approve of. 

I won the spade lead in hand and played a top trump to East's ace. A low club switch would have given me a tricky guess but he returned another trump. I played the other top trumps, cashed the ace and queen of spades (throwing a club) and ruffed a spade. Now a diamond finesse and the last spade meant that East could only make his master trump.

On reflection I think that 3♠ is probably the best bid over 3♥, and in this specific sequence does not have to have three trumps. 4♠ would also have made but I was right to avoid 3NT as it goes down on a club lead.

 

Gold turns to Lead

Having made it to the last 16 of the Gold Cup (for only the second time in about 40 attempts) we were drawn against the number one seeds and holders, Janet de Botton with Thor Erik Hoftaniska, Artur Malinowski, David Bakhshi, Thomas Charlsen and Tony Forrester. Unfortunately we could not find a suitable date to play face-to-face, and the oppo were not keen on RealBridge, so we ended up playing on BBO.

I don't really like playing matches on BBO. Unable to see or hear anyone else, I find it hard to concentrate and it feels too much like playing against the robots on the computer. Except that on this occasion the robots were of rather higher standard...

We began with three flat boards before things started to go rapidly downhill.

Forrester and Malinowski bid to an optimistic game, which rolled in when I failed to find an unlikely diamond lead. In the other room North chose a cautious pass over 1♣, so East-West were allowed to make 1NT. Next came 

 

In our room the strong NT opener made life easy, I overcalled 2♣ to show the majors, South bid a forcing 3♣ and North settled for 3NT, making 11 tricks on a spade lead.

It's not so easy playing a weak NT. I think North should pass at his second turn as if you discount the king of spades his hand is only a minimum for a possible club contract. Then South could double to show extras and North could bid 3NT. 

Against 4♥ East started with the ace of spades and West played the queen - showing the jack but denying the king. Hoftaniska switched to a diamond. If you win in hand, cash two top hearts and play on clubs all is well but declarer erred by winning the diamond in dummy and went off when hearts did not break.

We then lost two part-score swings and the final board of the set gave this bidding decision

What should West bid now? We passed it out, they doubled and ended in 4♦. Both contracts made - partner had ♦Kxx and little else - and we lost another 7 imp.

43 imps down after boards, we were hoping for some respite but things went from bad to worse. This was the next board

You can follow the play by clicking on 'Next'.  After the spade ruff, declarer can still get home by playing North for a doubleton trump, discarding a spade on a top club and eventually ruffing a spade in dummy. Not easy, though South might have been more likely to cover the queen of hearts with Kx.

In the other room North opened 3♣ and the opponents bid double - 4♣ - 4♠. This was also a tricky contract to play although the 3♣ opener gave a useful clue. The defence started with two rounds of clubs. Declarer won in dummy and played a top spade. Cashing the other top spade will lead to defeat when the trumps are 4-1, but Hoftaniska found the great play of ducking a spade, keeping trump control and making game. 

 

The points continued to build up in the Out column, with this being a hand where I might have done better.

I was East and chose to bid 2♠ rather than double; on reflection I think that is a bit pessimistic. That was passed out and I made ten tricks on a diamond lead. At the other table the defence was under more pressure when East chose to double and ended in 4♠. South gave us a chance by finding the heart lead which declarer won and played four rounds of trumps. The defence need to cash out now but when they continued with two rounds of hearts declarer was home. How could the defence have got this right? South is known to have five minor suit cards and might have led a singleton club. That suggests that declarer has four diamonds and so the defence need to cash their club winners. But South might have helped his partner by discarding a discouraging diamond on the run of trumps. 

 

With a score of almost 100 imp after 16 boards, everyone knew that the match was over. We played on for three more sets and managed to pull back 20 imps, although no one was concentrating too hard. 

 

 

Gold Cup 2024

It's almost exactly 50 years since I first played in the Gold Cup. Back then the entry was about 600 teams and the quality was variable so that we could usually expect to get through a couple of rounds. Nowadays the entry has dropped below 100 teams but the standard is much higher and there are no easy matches. 

After a comfortable win in Round 1, we were pleasantly surprised to survive a close match against Clive Owen's team and then had to play against Peter Lee's team in the last 32.  We were big underdogs for this match, as the opposition could field two players with Gold Cup victories on their palmares. 

We were down by a few imps after 8 boards, but then came one of those rare sets where everything we touched turned to gold.

Ann and I had a rather agricultural auction to slam, which made easily on a heart lead. At the other table Richard Granville and David Burn were playing Richard's own Mosso system, which is partly based on the methods used by Fantoni and Nunes (before the Italians were banned for their illegal signals on defence). On this hand South opened a natural but unlimited and forcing 1♥ and after a few relays showed a balanced 17+ and then a mimimum.  North might have tried for slam but chose to leave matters in 3NT. The irony is that during the Mosso relays South had spades first, so that they had the chance to reach the optimum contract of 6♠ by South.

On the next board you had to find a lead from

after the auction 1NT-3NT. I led the queen of spades which in our methods asks for an attitude signal, while in the other room a low spade was chosen. Although I think it is normal to lead a top card from this holding, it is easy enough to find layouts where a low card works better. This hand was not one of them.

At our table declarer ducked the spade lead and after I switched to a heart he ended down two, while the low spade lead gave Chris an easy ride in the other room.

The opponents then went off in a ridiculous slam, but the icing on the cake was this piece of outrageous good fortune.

The opponents stopped in a sensible 3♠, but my partner had the rose-tinted specs on and pushed us into a seemingly hopeless game. East kicked off with a top club but it was not clear who had the singleton so he switched to the jack of diamonds. I drew trumps and led a heart to the eight, ten and ace. The contract seemed to have no play but when West went into the tank I began to figure out what was going on. Eventually he exited with a low heart so I could win in hand and lead a club to set up a discard while West's heart winner was stranded.

West missed a chance there - if he exits with a diamond I can win in dummy and lead a heart, but he can rise with the ace and play another diamond to take out my entry to dummy while the heart suit is blocked. I can counter this by playing all my trumps before touching hearts. In order to keep four hearts, West must come down to two diamonds. Now I cash my diamonds ending in dummy and lead a heart towards the queen. It's a much easier game when you can see all four hands.

All that added up to a 47 imp set. Last year we had a similar purple patch in our Crockfords match against David Mossop's team and contrived to give it all away on the last set, but this time there were no major alarms and we kept a healthy lead to the end.

Déjà vu all over again.

Since Covid we have played all of our knockout matches online, which has some advantages in avoiding travel and being able to play a wider range of opponents. But when we were drawn against David Mossop's team of professionals in the third round of Crockfords, we were surprised that they insisted in playing the match face-to-face even though Mossop had to travel from Switzerland and Diego Brenner from Barcelona.

In the first set Ann and I missed a good slam that was bit by the Hackett twins, but we had a few small gains and only trailed by 4 imp. The second set was rather more exciting.

On the first board I was on lead with  ♠ 10 4 3 2   ♥ K J 10 8 5   ♦ K Q 3   ♣ 8   after the auction 2♥ - 4♣ - pass - 6♣. Ann's 2♥ was weak with hearts and a minor, and 4♣ showed clubs and spades. Fortunately I had an obvious diamond lead and we took the first two tricks for a gain of 12 imps when Keith and Roger stopped in 5♣.

Two boards later came this

Ann led a club to the jack, king and ace and declarer now played a heart to the ten which I ducked in tempo. The contract makes easily if declarer plays for a 3-2 heart split, but he was worried that Ann might have king jack to four hearts, so he cashed a top spade and led a diamond up. I won and cleared the clubs, and when declarer took another heart finesse I was able to cash the clubs for two down and a gain of 11 imp when 4♠ made at the other table. Gunnar had a little chunter to himself but was kind enough to say 'good duck'. 

The opponents missed a slam and then came this declarer play problem. (Hand rotated for convenience). West led a spade to the ace and a spade was returned. I took the king and cashed two rounds of trumps to get the bad news. Now I can either cross to the ace of clubs to take a diamond finesse and ruff the third diamond in dummy, or just take the club finesse. If the minor suit kings are split than both lines will work or both fail, so the critical case is where both kings are in the same hand.

It seemed to me that it was slightly better to play West to hold both kings.  He has more vacant spaces in his hand as he has the singleton trump, and with small cards in a suit he might have led that suit rather than a spade. I'm not sure if this argument is totally sound, but the club finesse worked and we gained another 10 imps when Paul Hackett took the diamond finesse at the other table.

 

The next board brought a further 11 imps when Hackett and Brenner lost the first six tricks in 3NT instead of making an easy 4♠, and we had won the set by 56 imps to 8! That was not in the script.

The sponsor had now played his quota of boards and retired to the sidelines, leaving his four pros to try and retrieve the situation, but the third set was fairly quiet and we only lost four imps. 40 imps up with only eight boards to play - could we hang on?

 

We needed a lot of part scores or flat games but the great dealer had other ideas, giving us only one part score and potential for game swings on all of the other hands, but with two boards to go we were still 21 imp ahead. This was the penultimate board and the auction at our table

At the other table our boys had no good reason to bid and the Hacketts had an unopposed auction to 4♠. Brenner's decision to open his nine count worked out very well and the 3♣ fit jump enabled them to find their double fit. But I should both have bid on to 5♠ which would have saved a few crucial imps.

 

This was the final hand, where both tables played 4♠ on the nine of diamonds lead.

At our table Brenner covered the opening lead with the jack and ruffed Ann's queen. Now he played a trump to dummy and led the ten of diamonds, which Ann correctly ducked and I ruffed as declarer discarded a heart. I now cashed the ace of hearts and gave Ann a heart ruff, but that was the end of the defence as declarer could cross to dummy in trumps and take a ruffing finesse to finally set up a dimaond winner. 

 

I would have done better to return a trump rather than playing ace and another heart, but declarer can still prevail by ruffing out the diamonds and leading a low club from hand. Would Brenner have found this? I expect so but we shall never know.

 

At the other table West had entered the auction with a double on the second round, so declarer played him for a 5-5 shape. After the same start declarer played two rounds of trumps and tried to cash the ace of diamonds but West ruffed and exited with the king of clubs. There is still a way to make double dummy, but this is not at all obvious and the contract failed. This gave the opponents a 10 imp swing to win the match by 3. 

It was disappointing to lose and we can all think of several hands where we could have done something different to change the result. But at least we gave a top professional squad a good run for their money and can always look back on the 56-8 set. 

In August 2018 we also played Papa Hackett in the semi final of the Faulkner. We lost by 3 imp in that match as well.

Better to be Lucky than Good

In our second round Gold Cup match we scraped a single figure win against a team from London, helped by this rather fortunate slam deal.

Chris and Keith had stopped in game, so a lot of IMPs were riding on whether declarer could bring home his slam.  Declarer ran my club lead to the jack and ace, cashed a top spade, crossed to the ace of hearts and took a losing trump finesse. I exited with my last trump and declarer unblocked the king of hearts, crossed to the ace of diamonds, cashed the queen of hearts and returned to hand with a heart ruff. He then ran the remaining trumps, hoping to squeeze Ann in the minors. (The squeeze would also have worked if I held the king of diamonds and queen of clubs, but in that case I would probably have led a heart.) Unlucky for declarer.

Or was it? Go back to the bidding where North has shown a diamond control but South has denied one. Surely this suggests a diamond lead if West doesn't hold the king? And if Ann did hold the king of diamonds, I could have broken up the squeeze by returning a diamond when I won the queen of trumps. Given that I am likely to hold the king of diamonds, maybe declarer should play king of hearts, ace of clubs, queen of hearts throwing a club, club ruff and run the trumps to squeeze me in the red suits. But I don't mind being insulted if it means that we gain 13 IMP.

I think the best line is to win the opening lead in dummy and take an immediate trump finesse - better than cashing a top trump first as Qxxx is four times more likely than singleton queen. Then you can come down to a three card ending with ♥10 ♦Q ♣7 in hand and ♥AQ8 in dummy, winning if the hand with long hearts has either the king of diamonds or sole control of clubs. It's an easy game when you can see all four hands.

Winkle Picking

The Expert Game is Terence Reese's classic book on card play, first published in 1958 and widely considered to be one of the best bridge books of all time. In the last chapter Reese describes three types of 'secondary' squeeze - so called because a trick must be lost in the end-game - and gives them descriptive names; the vice, the winkle and the stepping stone.

You might think that these obscure squeezes are only of academic interest, but one came up on this hand from last Friday's Allendale pairs. West led the two of clubs against Ann's 3NT. There only appear to be eleven tricks, but watch what happens...Can you believe that declarer might make two diamond tricks in the end game?

Declarer wins the first trick with the ace (an essential move to avoid blocking the suit) and runs eight winners in the major suits. West is forced to release a diamond, leaving this position. 

 

Now declarer plays a club to the ten and exits with a diamond, leaving the opponents to choose their poison. The defence can win the diamond in either hand, but must then concede the last two tricks.

It's a shame to spoil a good story, but honesty compels me to record that it wasn't quite like that in real life. Ann slipped at the final hurdle by cashing the king of clubs at trick eleven, although East returned the favour by playing the ace on the diamond lead from dummy.

When I dug out The Expert Game from an obscure corner of my bookshelf, I discovered that the play on this hand is a winkle, 'a rare squeeze in which a trick is offered to the defenders but whichever wins the trick is then endplayed'. Declarer winkles an extra trick from the diamond suit where both opponents hold top cards.

The Official Encylopedia of Bridge gives this remarkable hand as an example of a winkle. It also features a suit of Jxx facing 10xx where declarer makes two tricks. But the similarity ends there; this hand occurred in the US International Team Trials rather than a local duplicate, the players were Hall-of-Famers rather than honest hackers, and the winkle brought in a slam rather than an extra overtrick in a mundane 3NT.

 

 

The silly final contract was due to a bidding misunderstanding. North thought that 4♠ was a two-ace reply to Gerber (!) while South thought that 4♠ was natural and implied a singleton heart. 

West led a diamond; declarer finessed, threw a heart on the ace of diamonds and ruffed a diamond. He then crossed to the ace of clubs, ruffed another diamond to remove the king and cashed two trumps ending in dummy. The established queen of diamonds forced East to throw a heart and declarer now played the the queen of spades and a spade to the ten and king. He then exited with a heart - the defence could win in either hand but then had to concede the last two tricks.

 

County KO Final

In the Dorset County Knockut our cause was helped by the two favourites being eliminated before the final, and we ended with a comfortable win in the final against Mike Jackson's team. This hand gave us the largest swing of the match, though the swing would have gone the other way if the opponents had found the right play at both tables.

At our table declarer won my lead of the ten of clubs in dummy and played a diamond to the ten and  queen. I returned my remaining club which declarer won and he then cashed the ace and nine of diamonds. Now declarer crossed to the ace of hearts, cashed the king of diamonds and ran the jack of spades, so we took all the remaining tricks for down three.  

Maybe this was unlucky but the carding in clubs (and the lead-directing double on a queen high suit) suggest that the clubs are 6-2. In that case West has eight major suit cards to East's six and is more likely to hold the king of spades, so the better line is to lead a low spade from hand after cashing the nine of diamonds. 

At the other table the auction and opening lead were identical but Chris ducked the first club. This seems reasonable but Deep Finesse tells me that the contract can no longer be made against best defence.  Chris won the club continuation and ran the jack of spades which West ducked, but only after a hesitation that gave away the position of the king. Now he played a diamond to the ten and queen. The heart continuation was ducked to East's queen to give this position.

At the table East continued with a club and West threw an innocent looking small diamond, but now Chris could cash the diamonds ending in dummy and run the jack of spades to set up a ninth trick.

At first glance it looked as if the defence could prevail by continuing hearts in the diagrammed position but declarer can counter by ducking to set up an extra heart winner. If the defence continue hearts to take out dummy's entry while the diamonds are still blocked, declarer cashes the thirteenth heart, crosses to the ace of diamonds and cashes the king of clubs to squeeze West. 

To defeat the contract East must return a spade in the diagrammed position, and if declarer ducks West must win and return a heart. Declarer can no longer untangle his tricks and will have to lose a heart or diamond at the end. A tough defence to find.

 

 

 

Tollemache on RealBridge

The Tollemache qualifier was rather different this year - played on RealBridge and with an all-play-all format rather than four groups.

After a trial session where it took over an hour to play six boards, I had worried that the EBU might be a bit ambitious in running a fairly complicated event on a newish software platform, but my experience was entirely positive. There were a few minor problems with players losing connection, but the software seemed to work perfectly and the event ran almost exactly to the schedule.

I find that the ability to see and hear the other players – and team-mates between rounds - is a huge plus for RealBridge over BBO. It’s much closer to face-to-face bridge and less like a computer game. The Tollemache used the 'screen' mode which tries to mimic the diagonal screens that have been used in major international competitions for many years.  You alert your own bids (as in BBO) and can only see and hear one opponent during play. This was my first experience with screens (real or virtual) and I found that this made for a very sociable game, with plenty of good natured chat between screen mates.

Although Dorset finished in the nether regions of the table, it was a very enjoyable weekend. When (if?) life returns to normal, I wonder whether events like this will still be played online. There is certainly an advantage in being able to play a national event without needing a 300 mile round trip and an overnight hotel stay, though I did miss the chance to go over the hands in the bar after play.

Here are a couple of hands that might be of interest. First, a simple but effective play by my partner that helped declarer to go wrong.

Most auctions led to 3NT by North but our opponents managed to right-side the contract after a strong club sequence and I led a low club to the ten and jack. Maybe declarer should work on hearts now but he began with a spade to the ten and queen. Declarer took the club return and played the queen of hearts which Ann ducked. If he had continued with the king of hearts there would have been no defence, but when he played a low heart I could win the jack and clear my club trick. Now when Ann won the ace of hearts I made two more tricks with the ace of spades and a club.

That was a clear error by declarer, for if I had held the ace of hearts and Ann the jack, I would have taken the first round of hearts and played a club, but these things are always much easier to see in the post mortem than at the time. In any case, if Ann had taken the ace of hearts on the first round declarer would have had an easy ride. 

Now for a bidding problem that we failed to solve, along with over two-thirds of the field.  

It is an easy grand, though you need some gadgetry to be able to bid it with confidence. Exclusion Blackwood would make this hand a doddle.  It is a jump to a new suit above game level, showing a void and asking for key cards outside of the void suit, using the same step responses as Key Card Blackwood. Then we could bid

1♠  -  2NT (game forcing with 4+ spades)

3♠  (extra values with 6+ spades) -  5♦ (exclusion)

6♣  (2 key cards outside diamonds and the trump queen) - 7♠

Simples. I must persuade partner to add Exclusion Blackwood to our armoury, and hope that we remember it when it next comes up in 2023.

Tollemache 2019

In the Tollemache qualifier Dorset ended in sixth place out of nine. Although this was the same position as last year, we had a much better VP total (70 rather than 53, with 80 average) and avoided any very large losses. More importantly, we managed to just finish above local rivals Somerset.

Ann and I finished just above half way in the cross-IMP table, our performance spoiled by a couple of slam accidents and my letting Gunnar Hallberg make a ridiculous 3NT where the details are too embarrassing to relate. We had a particularly hard time against Suffolk, although this hand was a rare piece of good news.

South's 3♦ was explained as a fit-jump - diamonds and clubs. The contract is easy on a heart lead but fortunately I chose to start with the ace of spades to have a look at dummy. The heart position was now clear so I cashed the king of spades and switched to a club, but declarer was unable to generate a ninth trick and drifted one off. North-South played in 3NT at eight tables; the other seven all made the contract, usually after a heart lead.

The hand record showed that 3NT can be made but when we discussed this hand over dinner we were unable to come up with a winning line. That fine player Mr D P Finesse provided the answer - take two rounds of clubs ending in dummy and lead a low heart, covering East's card. West is now endplayed and has to concede an extra trick in one of the red suits. This line works on any layout, assuming that West started with ace-king doubleton in spades.


We enjoyed these two hands against Somerset, although the first was an outrageous piece of good fortune. South's 3♠ gave me a tricky problem. I considered 3NT and 4NT before eventually doubling, expecting to face another problem over a response of 4♥. When partner surprised me by jumping to 5♣ I could hardly bid less than six, worried that we might be missing an easy grand.  I hadn't noticed the rose-tinted specs that she was wearing. Better to be lucky than good... 

Now for something more sensible, to show that we occasionally manage to bid a hand correctly. For once I was pleased with our auction on this hand, where we were only pair (out of 12 tables) to bid to 5♦. Everyone else was in 3NT, usually going down although a couple of declarers managed to get home by sneaking a diamond through while South was having an after-dinner nap.

Silence is Golden

This hand from the Western League match against Somerset set a personal record for the largest gain on a single board at teams-of-eight with four IMP comparisons.

Where Somerset sat North-South, both players chose to open the mouldy 11 count, and both Dorset Easts (I was one) decided to keep quiet. That led to North declaring 3NT, making 9 tricks at one table and 10 at the other.

Events at the other two tables were rather more exciting. Both Dorset Norths chose to pass and both Somerset Easts opened a weak 2♥, which was followed by two passes and a double from North. At one table West chose to stick in 2♥ doubled and lost 1400, while at the other table West jumped out of the frying pan into a very hot fire and lost 1700 in 3♣ doubled. All that added up to a swing of 59 imps on the board. We still lost the match, though only by 11-9.

The Somerset players involved seemed to think that their bids were normal and it was just bad luck. I may be biased, but I’m inclined to disagree.  I remember a piece in one of Martin Hoffman's books where he advised against opening marginal 4441 hands - you  are content if the opponents play in one of your 4-card suits and can show your hand in one bid with a take-out double on the next round if they bid your shortage. And opening 2♥ as East does not have a lot going for it because of the poor suit, adverse vulnerability and a hand playable in two other strains.

Two Black Eights

The Mixed Pairs at the London Year End Congress was a game of two halves. The first session went well and we were lying 7th (out of 76) with 57%.  Then things went rapidly downhill. We started with a lot of boards where we got poor scores without doing much wrong, a few self-inflicted wounds did not help, and we drifted down the field to finish just above halfway.

This slam was my biggest regret - it came near the end and my partner's optimistic bidding was an attempt to recover ground from a run of poor results. Even with my maximum, 6NT is a poor contract, needing both black suits to behave with some small extra chances of a squeeze.

I won the diamond lead in dummy and cashed a top club on which East played the jack. Undecided whether to play East for a singleton or for doubleton honours, I came to hand with a diamond to lead a club up and West solved my first problem by putting in the ten. I won in dummy and played another club to establish my eight. West returned a diamond. Meanwhile East had needed to find two discards, eventually throwing a diamond and a heart after some thought.

East's thinking about her discards gave me hope that she would be squeezed in the majors, so I cashed the eight of clubs, throwing a heart from dummy, and then played off the three top spades. No cigar. East held onto her spades and I lost the last trick to West's queen of hearts for a near zero.

It was only later that I realised that I had missed an extra chance which took advantage of the eight of spades. East's pondering over her first discard strongly suggests that she started with a 4441 shape that included the jack of spades. In that case I can always take four spade tricks if West started with a doubleton nine. After cashing the eight of clubs I should have crossed to the ace of spades and advanced the ten, setting up four spade tricks regardless of whether East covered. Nothing would be lost if East started with J9xx, as I would still be able to play for the major suit squeeze.

This grand slam provided some light relief on the last round. Ann's intermediate jump overcall promised a 6-card suit, so my only decision was whether to play in what looked to be an iron-clad 7♠ or to try 7NT. I chose to go for the jackpot, though in retrospect I should probably have settled for 7♠.

I had expected a heart ruff to provide the thirteenth trick in 7♠ , but with Ann having a singleton heart there was no advantage in playing in spades, and 7NT had the unforeseen benefit of concealing my hand. I won the heart lead and ran the spades, and when a East discarded a club I was able to take 13 tricks for a top on the board.

This hand cropped up the Spectator bridge column - at one table in the open pairs West opened 4♥, North overcalled 4♠, and Zia Mahmood as East found a double! Conceding 1190 for two overtricks in 4♠ doubled was better than minus 1430 in 6♠, but still a poor board for Zia as many North-South pairs were going off in 7♠ or only scoring 500 from a 7♥ sacrifice.

Tollemache 2018

Dorset qualified for the Tollemache final in both 2016 and 2017, although our hopes for what Mr Trump's subjects would call a three-peat were lowered by the absence of the three best players from last year's team, two on the injured list and one lost to a rival team in exchange for a seven figure transfer fee (that's 0.000001 p).

Our hopes were even lower after the first two of seven matches, when we had amassed the grand total of 1 VP out of 40. At that stage our ambitions were limited to avoiding the wooden spoon and winning the local derby against Wiltshire. Fortunately our play improved for the rest of the event (it could hardly get any worse) - we were above average for the remaining five matches and both the minor objectives were achieved.

The most interesting hands were in our match against Surrey, which we lost 20-0 and, in the words of the great Bill Shankly, 'were lucky to get nil'. Here are two of my contributions to the debacle.

Ann's 2♠ was a weak jump shift and North's 3♦ was alerted. I asked about it before making the opening lead and was told that it 'ought to show heart support'. Thinking that we might have a heart ruff I started with the ace of hearts and was very pleased to see a 6-card suit in dummy. Surely partner could ruff the next round, after which a club return would lead to at least two down.  So I continued with a second heart whereupon declarer promptly claimed 12 tricks.

North assured me that her 3♦ did promise heart support, and offered to show me their system file on the tablet which was in her handbag. So I had no redress as it was a misbid rather than an incorrect explanation.

My first thought was to feel rather miffed that I had been misled by two internationals in a long-established partnership forgetting their system, but then I realised that without the inference of North's heart support I would almost certainly have led a spade (5♦ made at the other three tables on a spade lead). The misexplanation had actually led me to find a winning lead. I was just too greedy - I should have cashed the ace of clubs at trick two. If nothing happens I can revert to hearts but on the actual hand partner's king would tell me what to do.

This was the very next board

What do you think that I should bid on the first round? Exclusion Blackwood would have been an option except that we do not play it as it comes up so rarely, so I decided to try and bid the hand scientifically by starting with a splinter bid.  This got us to the par contract, although I had allowed South to make a lead-directing double and the heart lead held us to 11 tricks.

We lost heavily on the board as both Surrey pairs made 6♠ (doubled at one table), when North led a club. Maybe the best tactic with the East hand is just to punt 6♠ on the first round without giving anything away. I ran a short simulation of this problem, generating 30 different hands, and 6♠ was the correct spot on more than half of the hands at double dummy.

So Near, So Far

In the semi final of the Faulkner Salver we were up against the all-international team of Brian Senior, Paul Hackett, Sandra Penfold and Norman Selway. Our realistic expectations were to avoid a complete mauling, and things seemed to be going according to plan when we were 29 imp down after 20 of the 40 boards. Then the tide started to turn - we only conceded 10 imps in the second half and gained three game swings, but it was not quite enough and we lost by 3 imp.

This was an early deal

Barrie's 4♦ was a bit aggressive, but I would still have bid 4♥ if he had made a responsive double over 3♦. 

I ruffed the diamond lead and then played to set up clubs; ace of clubs, club ruff, return to hand with a spade, club ruff. The 3-3 break was good news but when I played a second round of spades East ruffed and forced me with a low diamond. She could now be counted for a 1453 shape. I ruffed the diamond and played a winning club which collected three trumps; six, queen and king. East played another diamond which I ruffed and I was now down to a single trump in each hand while East still held the jack and ten. So I played another winning club discarding dummy's last diamond. East ruffed and exited with a diamond on which I ditched the king of spades while ruffing in dummy. A winning spade forced East to ruff with her last trump but I could overruff with the ace and win the last trick with a club. You can follow the play by clicking on 'Next'.

It was a really neat hand, extracting all of the opponents' trumps without playing a single round. Subsequent analysis with Deep Finesse showed that drawing even one round of trumps would have been fatal. I could also have made the contract by playing a spade instead of a club at trick 8, although the ending would have not been so elegant.

The play at the other table was a comedy of errors. Senior and Hackett had a bidding mix up and finished in 4♠. East led a top diamond which declarer ruffed to play ace and another heart. West ruffed this which was not necessarily fatal but the switch to the queen of diamonds allowed declarer to establish a diamond trick and make the contract.

Neither team distinguished themselves on this slam deal but we lost a big swing. This was the auction at our table

At our table (playing Acol style) Barrie's 4♥ locked us into the wrong trump suit. To be fair to the Rev, I gave his hand to a couple of other decent players and they both suggested 4♥ or a 4♣ splinter.  I think that it is better to rebid 3♠ over 4♥. If partner bids 3NT you can always revert to 4♥. The spade grand is a reasonable proposition, making if hearts are 3-2 and spades not 4-0, with some extra chances if spades are 2-2.  I make it about 65%.

Six hearts by South is not a great contract, but after West led a club it only needed a 3-2 trump break. No such luck, and I ended down three.

At the other table Hackett and Senior were playing 2-over-1 game forcing, so East was able to rebid 2♠ and there was no danger of playing in hearts, but for some reason they stopped in five spades. Their reward for missing a 98% slam (or 100% if you managed to find 6NT) was a gain of 14 imp. Sometime life just aint fair.

This hand was my biggest regret

My 3♣ was supposed to be weak, although anything goes opposite a passed partner. Barrie led a club to the king and ace. I cashed another club and started thinking. Too late. Eventually I switched to a trump which did not trouble declarer. What I needed to do was take two clubs and switch to the two of spades in tempo. If declarer reads that as a singleton he would go up with the ace and try to draw trumps - down two. Though he might wonder why North had not opened a weak two with K J to six spades. We will never know. At the other table Norman Selway played the same defence, so it was a flat board but a missed opportunity.

One Out of Two

Last month we had two matches where we were very much the underdogs. First up was a quarter final in the Faulkner Salver against Gary Watson's team, one of the original seeds. After the first set we were 10 imp behind, mostly due to a couple of bad boards from Ann and me, and the opponents had seating rights for the next set. Conventional wisdom would suggest sticking to a winning line-up, but they chose to swap opponents. This was the first board we played in the second set.

Ann led the queen of clubs, and Patrick Shields chose to go for a psychological rather than a technical line by ducking the first trick smoothly. If a club was continued and the suit broke 3-2, he would be able to get rid of two of his diamond losers. The operation was a success, as Ann continued clubs, but the patient died when I ruffed and switched to diamonds and we took the first six tricks.

In the other room the opening lead was the same but East had doubled a 4♥ splinter bid during the auction. Keith won, drew trumps and took a heart finesse to throw one of dummy's diamond losers and a 14 imp swing.

That hand changed the momentum of the match, as we had several other good boards and were 27 imp up after the second set. The third set was even and although the final set had plenty of swingy boards, with one grand and two small slams, we held on to win by 10 imps.

Three days later we played the final of the Hubert Phillips Plate against Tom Gisborne's Yorkshire team. Our presence in the final was somewhat fortunate, as Neil Rosen's team had been forced to concede our semi-final match due to illness.

Once again we suffered a small loss in the first set, but this time there was no big turnaround and we lost the second set heavily, with four big swings in the out column.  This one was largely down to me.

I led a top diamond which declarer ruffed. When he led a trump I went up with the king, consulted the ceiling and eventually exited passively with another trump. Barrie won this and switched to a club so the contract made. One of us needed to switch to a heart. From my point of view, a lead away from either king could cost a trick, while Barrie was worried that a heart lead could cost if declarer had ♥AKx. I'm not sure that is quite right, as I am unable to find a hand where a heart lead gives the contract.

But the most serious error was my overcall of 2♦, as was shown by events at the other table where South overcalled 1NT. West raied to 2♠, North bid 3♥ and East bid 4♠. After that auction it was natural for South to lead a heart when in with the king of trumps, leaving declarer with no chance.

That set meant that we were 2100 points down after 16 boards, and although we gained a little in the remaining 32 boards we never looked like turning over the deficit. A disappointing result, although we would probably have settled for one win out of two beforehand.

Hubert Phillips Plate

In the quarter final of the Hubert Phillips plate we were drawn against John Williams' Oxford team. This was an early hand where the Reverend tried to dispel his reputation for cautious bidding.

4♣ was maybe a tad optimistic (3♣ wouild have been forcing after fourth suit), but the slam had reasonable chances. How do you play when West leads the queen of spades?

I ducked this and  when West continued spades I was able to play on cross-ruff lines, ruffing hearts in dummy and spades in hand to come to 12 tricks. The reason for ducking the first trick is that if the defence find a trump switch, you have an alternative line of setting up dummy's diamonds with the ace of spades as a late entry. I think the best line is to win the trump switch in dummy, take the ace of hearts and ruff a heart, then cash the top diamonds and ruff a diamond with the eight. If diamonds are 3-3 you can now claim, but if diamonds are 4-2 and West has not over-ruffed, you can ruff another heart, ruff a diamond with the ten, draw trumps (needing a 3-2 break) and cross to the ace of spades to cash the thirteenth diamond. I would have gone two down on the actual lie of the cards, so there were a lot of points resting on West's play at trick 2.

After two sets the match was almost level, but then we got almost all of the decisions right on a tricky set of boards to run out comfortable winners by almost 2000, though this was a missed opportunity.

I ponderered for a long while over Ann's 3NT opener; my options were to pass 3NT, bid 4♣ and let Ann play in 4♦, or bid 5♦ and keep my hand concealed. 5♦ was the winning move, though I was very fortunate to get a singleton spade in dummy and find the ace of clubs with East.

In the other room West opened 2♠, weak with spades and a minor, and the opponents bid 3♦ - 3♥ - 4♥.  West kicked off with the king of spades but East ducked this and the contract made with an overtrick.

It's a tough defence for East to find but I think the clues are all there - West has at most nine points and you know five of them, so the contract cannot be defeated with high cards and the only chance is to find West with a diamond void. Much easier in retrospect than at the table though..  

One in Three

It's a long time since I have posted anything, but here are three interesting declarer play problems that came up in the last few months. Unfortunately I only got one right. First, from a Faulkner match against Jeremy Baker's team, where we gave the opponents a 35 imp start but somehow managed to win.

West led a heart which I won in hand and played a trump to get the bad news. I went up with the ace and tried a cross-ruff, but East was able to ruff the third round of hearts with the ten and draw two more rounds of trumps to defeat the contract.

I should have played the nine (or jack) on the first round of trumps. Say East returns a heart. I overtake the queen to win in dummy, ruff a heart in hand and cash the top clubs. Now king and ace of diamonds and ruff a diamond. That's eight tricks, and East has only trumps left, so it is easy to endplay him to make dummys AJ of trumps. This line works whenever East has a 5332 shape, and some of the time when he is 5422.

A few days later, another match in the Hubert Phillips plate, and I was again declaring a major suit game holding four small trumps, when 3NT would have been an easier proposition.

West led a heart to the king and ace, and East switched to the eight of clubs. I tried the queen but West won this and played another trump. Considering the heart suit in isolation, the odds favour a finesse of the ten, but a trump lead from Jxx is dangerous so I suspected that East held the jack.

I went up with the queen, cashed the ace of clubs and ruffed a club, then played off the diamond winners. East ruffed the fouth round and led a spade, and when the nine drew West's king I was home.

This was another hand where I went wrong, completely missing a simple point that seems obvious in retrospect.

2NT in the protective position showed 18-20 balanced, 3♣ asked about majors, 3♦ showed at least one 4-card major, and 4♦ asked me to bid it.

West kicked off with ace and another club. I led a low trump up, and West won to play a third round of clubs, ruffed and over-ruffed. East now played a diamond.

I need to find the queen of diamonds. If I play for the drop, the chance of a singleton or doubleton queen is about 18%. I realised that East had passed her partner's 1♣ and had already showed up with a queen, but there was still room for her to hold the queen of diamonds, so I thought that the finesse was a better chance.

Wrong! The point that I missed was that if East has the queen of diamonds then West must have the queen and jack of hearts (otherwise East would have enough to repond), so the finesse needs three cards to be well placed, about a 12% chance rather than 50%. Another indication is the opening lead - the Ace of clubs is an unattractive lead, especially when I have bid 2NT, suggesting that West has honours in all the other suits.

There is another line of play that I did consider at the table - discard a diamond on the third round of clubs. This would seem to work whenever East has four diamonds, regardless of who has the queen.  But West can thwart this plan by playing a fourth round of clubs, allowing East to discard two hearts.

Tollemache Final

Last November Dorset managed to qualify for the final (eight teams out of an original 36) of the Tollemache Cup for county teams of eight.  This was our first appearance in the final for over 20 years, so our targets for the weekend were suitably modest - to win a match or two, and to finish above local rivals Somerset.

We got off on the wrong foot when our star striker missed the first seven boards after going to the wrong hotel, only noticing the absence of bridge players ten minutes before the event was due to start. This required a last-minute change to the line-up and we lost the first match to Somerset. Then we got hammered by Kent, mostly due to events at our table where the opponents did everything right and I was playing misère. This was the sort of thing that was going on.

With a huge hand for the 2♣ overcall I tried to show my extra strength with a redouble, and when I bid 3♣ I was more worried about missing a vulnerable game than conceding a big penalty. I was soon to be disappointed. Not only had we violated Burn's Law but the trumps broke 7-0. I managed to escape for two down as West was endplayed in trumps so I was able to score five trumps and the two outside aces.

At the other table where Dorset were North-South, Phil bid 3NT on the first round and played there. A club lead must have been a pleasant surprise, but the contract had no hope and drifted two off. On reflection I think that 3NT is a much better bid than 2♣ - you don't need much opposite to make 3NT and how is partner to know that Q x of clubs is enough to make game?
 
One of the Kent North-South pairs contrived to stop in 2♦, the last making spot, while their other pair had exactly the same auction as at our table, except that West forgot to double 3♣, worried that the opponents might have a better spot in one of the red suits.

This board caused some carnage in the other matches - one North-South pair contrived to lose 1700 in 6♣ doubled, and another was allowed to make 2♣ redoubled.

A loss to Middlesex in our next match left us well adrift at the bottom of the table.  Ann and I had refrained from drinking during dinner but a glass of wine seemed called for. Fortified with some very nice Malbec (it needed to be good as the hotel bar charged £10.50 a glass) we returned to play Berks and Bucks. One of the opponents was a bit grumpy and went into Ann's black book, but they lost 400 on a part score hand and let through a rose-tinted 3NT, which was just enough to win the match. It was only by 11-9, but we were grateful for anything at that stage.

On Sunday we started against London, who were well ahead of the field and had won all of their matches. Our international opponents showed that there is hope for us all by butchering a trivial defence to let Ann make a ridiculous 3NT, and they also went astray on this hand.

I led a top spade and switched to a sneaky ten of clubs. Declarer gave this a very long look before going up with the ace and playing a trump to the ten. Now he needs to play ace of hearts and ruff a heart, then ruff a club bringing down the king.  Another heart ruff is followed by two winning clubs and a club ruffed with the king. Dummy is left with A J of trumps and a club while East has Q 7 6 of trumps so declarer can endplay East to claim the last two tricks. You can follow the play by clicking 'Next' on the hand diagram. The declarer at our table managed all of this except that he ruffed a spade rather than a heart in dummy, on which Ann was able to discard a club. Now declarer was a trick short and Ann had to make two trump tricks at the end.

Mark and Krzysztof also reached 5♦ after the same auction, but West switched to a heart at trick two. Krzysztof took the club finesse, ruffed a club and cashed the king of trumps. He now ruffed a heart and played winning clubs through East. This led to the same endplay when East was left with Q 7 6 of trumps at trick 11.

Mike chose to open 1♦ and ended up declaring 5♦ as North.  The defence led two rounds of spades, so he ruffed with the eight while East threw a heart. He then played a trump to the ten, a club to the king and ace, and ran the winning clubs. East discarded hearts on the last two clubs, but was then forced to ruff a heart and lead away from the queen of trumps.


At the fourth table the auction started as at our table but South chose to bid 5♥ over 4NT, which could have been the right move if North's shape was 1-2-4-6, but was not a success here and ended three down.  All that meant that we gained 52 imps on the board, which helped us to an honourable 10-10 draw. 

After this we were able to finish on a high note with 16-4 wins in our last two matches against Oxford and Manchester, to finish in 5th place (out of eight), the same position as in our previous appearance in the final.

A great hand from the Camrose

Usually when you are watching top level bridge on BBO Vugraph you have a pretty good idea of what might happen in the play. It's a much easier game when you can see all four hands. But occasionally someone comes up with a great play that you never saw coming, even with a sight of the full deal. This was such a hand. It comes from the Camrose match between England and Ireland, where Tony Forrester found a brilliant deceptive defence to defeat a cold game.

In the other room David Gold and Mike Bell had played in a safe 3♣, so it looked as if the Irish were set for a big gain when they bid well to reach a Moysian 4♥, the only makeable game contract. Forrester opened with the king of spades and when this was ducked he switched to the queen of diamonds – necessary if declarer’s singleton was the jack. John Carroll played a trump to the king which was ducked, ruffed his losing diamond in hand and played another trump to the ace. David Bakhshi returned a diamond which Carroll won and drew the remaining trumps.

Declarer had a choice of playing for extra tricks in either black suit, but Bakhshi had given false count by playing the 8 on the first spade, so it looked as if the spades were not breaking and Carroll discarded two spades from dummy.

Now Carroll played a club to the ace. The hand looked an easy make but Forrester had other ideas and dropped his king of clubs under the ace. If this was a true card, the contract could still be made if Bakhshi had started with a 3 3 3 4 shape, so Carroll cashed the ace of spades, ruffed a spade and exited with a club, hoping to endplay Bakhshi who would now be down to J 10 x of clubs. No such luck; Bakhshi won and led a diamond so that Forrester could take the last two tricks with the 6 and 7, earning a beer in the process.