Derbyshire versus Worcester   17th January 2010

Don's 'Chuck Analysis'

Bd 1  This looks like a straight 50% slam, so no chucks or credits. It was bid at 4 tables by each side, so an honourable draw (see bd 3 for a dishonourable draw!)

Bd 2  Difficult to know what should be happening on this freaky hand, but it’s clear that neither side should be pushing on to game. There was a disaster in one 1st team match: Don-John were doubled in 4H, but escaped for -1 because of a misdefence; Paul-John doubled 3H and let it through on a (different) misdefence.  [Don-John -8,  Paul-John -15,  Randy-Doreen -6,  Mo-John -7]

Bd 3  Another tricky part-score hand. The optimum contract, according to DF, is 3S by EW, but a more realistic par is 3C by NS. 3NT NS has no chance on a D lead or switch. There was a curious co-incidence in one 1st team match, when 3NT made at both tables, and at each table there had been a mis-bid which suggested that S held good Diamonds. The captains decided to call it a draw – so no crimes or credits.   [Paul-John -6]

Bd 4  A H lead defeats 3NT NS, but not everyone found that. However, 5 of a minor always makes, and one oppo pair bid and made 6C. The 2nd team lost 26 imps.  [Mick-Sheenah -14, Andy-Malcolm -10;  Amanda-John, Cedric-Ron, Randy-Doreen -7*;  Mo-John +6*]

Bd 5  4S NS is not quite 50%, but should be bid at the vul. The play is simple – the S finesse simply has to be right. However, one pair bid to 4H (don’t ask!), and luckily the chances are just as good, unless H are 5-1. But there is a subtle trap: 4H has chances even if the S finesse is wrong, and Don-John duly fell into the unlucky-expert bear-pit.
 [Don-John -13, Mick-Sheenah -10]

Bd 6  [Pim-Steve -4]

Bd 7  Oppos outbid us 5-3 to reach 4S NS.  Certainly it’s borderline, but again it’s a vul game.  All 4 tables in the 1st team bid it.  [Andy-Malcolm, Derek-Malcolm, Amanda-John -10]

Bd 10  NS run into severe trouble on this hand, and it’s surprising there were not more doubles; only Paul-John managed to find one. I reckon a realistic par is about -300!  Mary-David were unlucky in that oppos disobliged them by not proceeding over their 3D.
[Amanda-John +5*, Paul-John +4*, Derek-Malcolm +3*]

Bd 11  Any EW pair who stopped out of 4H judged well. It should go -2 on the bad trump break.  [Alex-Peter -5,  Mary-David -6]

Bd 12  One would think this was one of the easier slams to bid:  1S – 4NT should get the job done!  Amanda-John’s oppos missed it, and Pim-Steve’s oppos bid 7S.  [Randy-Doreen -11]

Bd 13  4 oppo pairs missed 3NT. Don-John went off on a S lead (try it and see). [Don-John -6]

Bd 15  Alex-Peter did exceptionally well to bid 5C – full credits for this, I think. Derek-Malcolm did exceptionally badly to let oppos make 3H – this looks like 3 tricks too many.  [Malcolm-Derek -7,  Alex-Peter +10]

Bd 16  A huge board for the 2nd and 3rd teams: +37 imps. A curious board: EW can make no more than 8 tricks in a suit contract, but 9 tricks in NT with good guesses;  Cedric-Ron duly did.  [Cedric-Ron +6*]

Bd 18  The D pips are just good enough for 4H to make, and, again, the vul suggests it ought to be bid.  We were outbid 4-2, but one oppo pair went off.  [Andy-Malcolm -9,  Don-John, Amanda-John-6*;  Mick-Sheenah -5*]

Bd 20  [Derek-Malcolm -12,  Mo-John -3]

Bd 21  One pair either side bid the slam missing 2 Aces.  [Andy-Malcolm -13]

Bd 22  [Dave-Mary -13]

Bd 23  Amanda-John’s oppos bid another slam missing 2 Aces.

Bd 25  Another very borderline game contract vul.  This time 4S really has to go off, despite the favourable H position.  [Andy-Malcolm, Amanda-John -12;  Dave-Mary, Cedric-Ron -3*;  Paul-John, Pim-Steve, Randy-Doreen, Mo-John  +3*]

Bd 26  ....and yet another thin 4S vul. It’s true the very best defence will beat it, but in practice it’s likely to make.  Alex-Peter and 2 oppo pairs bid it. 3 of our EW pairs were allowed to play in 2H.  [Alex-Peter +5*]

Bd 27  Only a part-score hand, but 2 of our pairs got rather excited and lost -500. 
[Derek-Malcolm, Cedric-Ron -12; Paul-John -5, Randy-Doreen -4]

Bd 28  Although NS can make at least 3D, in practice a NS score of -100 looks to be a practical par.  [Mo-John -6, Mick-Sheenah -5, Don-John -3, Amanda-John +3*]

Bd 29  DF says EW can make 5D, but in practice they are likely to accept a smaller plus from NS overbidding.  [Derek-Malcolm -12,  Mo-John -5]

Bd 30  Alex-Peter bid 5H, presumably a phantom against 4S. [Alex-Peter  -5]

Bd 31  The par contract is 4C NS, but several pairs tried 3NT.  Now it’s a test of the defenders’ discarding when the Clubs are run.  [Andy-Malcolm, Amanda-John -8; Paul-John -5, Alex-Peter-3*, Don-John, Derek-Malcolm +5*;  Cedric-Ron, Randy-Doreen +6*]

Bd 32  [Cedric-Ron -9, Paul-John -5]

 

 

Summary of chucks: 1st team: Alex-Peter +2, Dave-Mary -22, Paul-John -29, Don-John -31

    2nd team:  Pim-Steve -1, Cedric-Ron -19, Mick-Sheenah -34,  Andy-Malcolm -62.

    3rd team:  Mo-John -12, Randy-Doreen -19, Amanda-John -35, Derek-Malcolm -45.

Butler scores:  Alex-Peter  +66, Pim-Steve +45, Mo-John  +34,  Cedric-Ron +21, 
Amanda-John +14,  Randy-Doreen +5,  Don-John -4,  Derek-Malcolm -7,  Mick-Sheenah -27,  Andy-Malcolm -31,  Dave-Mary  -34,  Paul-John -74.

Comments.  You will notice that, except for Alex-Peter, who had a huge card, all the NS chuck scores are higher than the EW!  2 explanations are possible, one that we sat all our duffers NS, the other that there were more opportunities to go wrong with the NS cards – or, at least, that there were more opportunities for expensive errors. Naturally, I incline to the latter view.  It was a great pity that the Worcs 1st team played pretty well and, with one exception, we didn’t.  But congratulations to the 3rd team, who maintained their winning run.