We were in a group of 9 with a team of 8 (Warren & Kendrick, Wightwick & Woodruff, Barden & Mestel and Jagger & Young) plus Chris Larlham as npc. This worked well enough; we seemed to do less well at the end of each day, so perhaps tiredness was a factor, but the advantage of getting into rhythm by playing all the sets should not be underestimated.
The set against Lancashire was an early indication of the way I was playing:
|
||||||||||||||
|
At the other three tables, South led a diamond and 3NT made easily. But against us South led a heart, which went to the nine and king; this had the effect of removing an entry to East's hand. At trick two I led a club to the king and ace, then played on diamonds. South allowed the jack to hold, and when I cashed dummy's spade winners he alertly unblocked the queen and jack, leaving me without resource.
This was good defence, but soft play by me. I should have
tried a small spade off dummy after the jack of diamonds held.
No doubt North should rise with the ten; would you? Better
still is to lead the DJ off table without unblocking the 
A. South must duck this and then a small
spade is led off table. If N wins this and puts a heart through
he is squeezed in the black suits (or endplayed if only two
hearts are cashed.)
However, we got all that back and more two boards later:
|
||||||||||||||
|
The 3NT opening was Acol style, allegedly a solid suit with
nothing outside. My double just showed a good hand; we play
that 4 would be take-out of clubs, but
this hand is too defensive. South seems to have had a
brainstorm in passing the double. Jonathan bravely passed on
the strength of his king of hearts. This was very right and we
cashed the first eleven tricks in the red suits with the help
of suit preference on the second round of diamonds.
At other tables the hand was played in 5
by North or 5 by West.
Against 5, North led a top club and
then had to switch to spades; this looks like the right defence
and was found by Chris Jagger. Against 5 East led a top diamond and then had to switch to hearts.
This looks harder, and Fiske Warren (playing with David
Kendrick) scored up +550. But West should surely give suit
preference in this position, whereas against 5 South must give count.
My one good hand of the event came against Derbyshire:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
The auction was quick, but North took longer over 2 than 4NT (asking for plain aces), and I
smelt a rat. Reflecting that a lead from Kxx wasn't too likely
to cost if I was wrong, I led a club. Lucky this time, and
three off when declarer took the heart finesse. David and Fiske
played the same hand in 6, one off
when East also led a club.
There was an echo later in the event, when we played the second half of the match against the same pair:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
No inspiration this time, and I led the seven of spades.
North had a difficult decision to make, had I led from the
queen of spades, or could West be induced to take the queen if
the jack were played from dummy. He played the jack, and in due
course drifted three off again. [I like to think I might
have managed to duck holding 
Qxx as
West, but we'll never know. However, one opposing declarer
reached 7NT, and on a neutral heart lead, led the J at trick 2! East stared at this, but then
took the trick, as you don't expect to lose IMPS for setting a
freely bid grand. However declarer was only one down as a
result. Why declarer declined the reasonable shot of laying
down AK I cannot say. - JM] David
Kendrick made 6NT from the South hand by leading the jack of
spades early in the play, inducing an error from East, but no
one in our match managed to bid 7 or
even 6.
North on these two hands was Jim Tomlinson, who has sent me his write-up of them for the Derby Evening Telegraph. He was so charming that I made a horrible misbid in the first set to give most of the points back, and Jonathan joined in with a more understandable slip on this hand from the second set:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Actually I've forgotten the auction, but it did start with
an Acol 2
(not my choice). Jonathan
led the K and I unblocked the jack to
clarify (?) the situation for him. Declarer won, played a heart
to dummy, then a club to the king and ace. There was nothing in
the play after this and ten tricks were made when the clubs
broke 3-3.
I mention this hand because of the interesting play which results if Jonathan ducks the king of clubs. Declarer draws all my trumps, throwing a diamond from dummy, and West has to find three discards. The only winning defence is to throw two spades and a diamond. If he throws three spades declarer can duck a spade, win West's club exit in dummy, ruff a spade, and exit in clubs to make two diamond tricks. A possible alternative is to cross to dummy with a second heart and lead the jack of diamonds. Looking at the diamond suit in isolation East should cover this, but on this hand that lets the contract make. Declarer wins and again draws trumps, and this time the squeeze on West works against any defence. But if East ducks the jack of diamonds, West wins and plays two rounds of spades, East pitching a club. Now if declarer draws trumps he's lost control, and if not West can give East a club ruff when he takes the ace.
The eventual winners of our group were Berks & Bucks, with us quite comfortable in second place. This hand against them did not change that, but I was very angry about it:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
My 2 bid showed a sound diamond
raise. For some reason, Jonathan failed to alert it. He
mentioned this at the end of the auction, and our opponents
seemed unhappy, so we called the director. South now added that
Jonathan had passed slowly over 3, I
said he hadn't, North said he had. In view of the failure to
alert, the director offered North the opportunity to change his
final pass, which he declined. He led his singleton spade, and
Jonathan claimed two off. This was a poor score for us, since
teammates had played in a club partial; if West passes North
will bid 2, South 3, and North may well pass.
The director was called back because South thought I didn't
have a 5 bid. There was more
discussion; it was agreed that everyone knew all along that
2 was conventional, Jonathan conceded
that he had realised that he had failed to alert by the time
South bid 3 and had dithered to some
extent about correcting his error.
At the end of the set the director returned with his ruling;
in view of Jonathan's statement it was ruled that a hesitation
had occurred. It was ruled that pass was a logical alternative
to 5, and therefore the score was
adjusted to 4 making up one.
This is not too unreasonable a ruling for a TD to make, and
I was civil enough to him. But I was very angry about our
opponents' behaviour. They can see by cursory examination of
declarer's hand - and it was immediately available to them
since he claimed at trick one - that he could not have been
thinking about bidding over 3.
Therefore I have learned nothing from any hesitation. To my
mind it is wholly unsporting to seek an adjustment when no
unfair advantage has been gained.
At the end of the event I wanted to appeal, but Chris
Larlham refused to let me do so, as is his right. He knew that
the appeal would not affect the final standings, he felt that
there had in fact been a hesitation (he was kibbitzing at the
next table) and he had been advised (rightly, by Chris Jagger)
that pass was a logical alternative to 5. In fact the main thrust of my appeal would have been that
any hesitation would not suggest 5
over pass, but I had no wish to argue with Chris, so the appeal
went unheard. Since the event I've consulted neutrals, who have
expressed the unanimous view that I would lose an appeal. I'm
surprised by the unanimity, and it confirms my suspicion that
the rules on hesitations have gone too far.