Buchanan Congress - Part Two

This is the second part of the report of the Buchanan Bridge Congress Teams Event, featuring me and Jake, and John Faben with Neil Wylie. Last time I left us we were at the half way stage and were about in the middle of the eight teams.

In the second half we played the same seven teams again, this time with four board matches. Since this happened a while ago now I'm just going to mention a few interesting hands that I remember well.

I was determined not to be cowed, but this perhaps lead to a bit of over-stretching, and I quickly got myself into trouble. On the very first board I'd have done well to wind my neck in.

Danny Jake W N E S 1♠ 2♥ 4♠ - - x - 4NT* x 5♣ - - x - - -

Anne sitting South opens 1♠, playing 5 card Majors. I have a chunky 15 point sitting West, and I'm right in there with 2♥. Norman bids an immediate 4♠, and it's back round to me. I have a nice hand, with short Spades, so decide to weigh in with a double. After all, can't let Norman's 4♠ steal the board. Jake has a bit of a quandary as East, as he's got a terrible hand and knows there's no good options. He decides against leaving in 4♠x (which might be cheapest for us, even if it makes), and bids 4NT, for minors. I choose 5♣ and end up playing this, doubled.

The defence begins with two Spades. I ruff the second one, and cash the ♣A, North playing the ♣Q. It's obvious I'm not going to make this contract, or get anywhere near making it, but as I've got myself into this mess I need to try and come out of it reasonably well. The safest thing to do I think is to set up my second suit before I run out of trumps, so I play a Heart to the Jack and Ace. South plays ♦A and another, which I win with the ♦K. It's looking pretty bleak, as I've already lost one Spade, one Heart, one Diamond and still have two Clubs and another Diamond to lose, for six losers and four off. But the good news is that South only has Spades and Clubs left, so after she wins her last trump is forced to give me a ruff and discard, and my second losing Diamond goes away. 5♣x-3 is -500, which as Jake immediately points out means we'll only lose 2 IMPs against the easy -420 for 4♠ their way. In fact 4♠ makes +2 (if played by South, as West then can't lead a Diamond), so we only loes 1 IMP.

The hand record claims that in fact East-West can't even make 1♣, but I think that relies on a defence where North-South unblock their diamonds before cashing Spades, unlikely in practice.

Getting out for -500 (still an expected loss) is a relatively good result, and has got my pulse racing. In retrospect I'm happy with my Double of 4♠, though it worked badly here I'd do it again.

Danny Jake W N E S 2♦ - 3♦ x - 3♥ - 4♥ - - -

Me and Jake were playing three Weak Twos, which left him free to open this East hand 2♦. Much better than Reverse Benji. I topped him up to 3♦ with the West cards, and North could only double. When South bid 3♥ North had no idea whether her partner had a 0 count or a 9 count, so decided to bid game. Should I double this as West? I didn't, and felt a bit disappointed when it went three off.

There was an ounce of controversy on this hand. The room was very loud and at one point Jake misheard declarer calling for a card from dummy, and failed to follow suit. The director ruled the card was a penalty card (no problem), but also added lead penalties meaning that as soon a Jake was on lead he was forced to lead (or not lead) that suit. I'm not sure but someone later said that actually the rules are only that your forbidden to lead (or not lead) that suit if it's unauthorised information. Declarer was already two off at this point, so luckily no one really cared.

Danny Jake W N E S 1♣ 3♣* - 3NT x 4♥ - - x - - -

This hand was always likely to produce a swing, and it went heavily against us. On our table Jake manoeuvred into 4♥ via a 3♣ cue bid then taking out of 3NT. Apparently that shows a hand too good for a direct 4♥ overcall; I'd never seen it before. My dummy was useless and it went one off. Notice my cheeky decision to reply 3NT to Jake's 3♣ bid, promising that I have a Club stop. On the other table East overcalled with only 1♥, then bid 2♥, then bid 3♥, and was lucky enough to get doubled by North and make it exactly. I don't think North can be blamed for doubling, East bid the hand strangely which is mostly going to result in missed games, but here brought home the bacon.

Danny Jake W N E S - - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♠ - - -

Third in hand and non-vulnerable Jake doesn't like to pass. He found a tasty 1♥ opener for this East hand (we play five card majors too). Luckily I didn't go overboard as West, and made the contract exactly, for a good result. It felt like we were doing quite well at this point, but we weren't.

Danny Jake W N E S 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ 4♦ - 4♠ - - -

How often are you thinking about slam and go down in game? It happens to me a lot. This last hand shows what I think is an unlucky auction. I've got the lopsided West hand, and open 1♥. I don't think anything else is sensible, when I also have four Spades. Jake does indeed reply 1♠, and now I'm getting excited. South overcalls 2♣, and I have to decide how good my hand is. It's only five losers, so I decide it's good enough for game. I'd much rather have a void in South's suit than Queen doubleton, but with all those Hearts game's likely to have a decent shot. Rather than just bidding 4♠ I splinter with 4♦, which Jake swiftly passes. The defence take their ♣AK then later come to a Spade and a Heart, for one off. Jake's ♦AK are a very poor match for my hand.

In the end our team finishes a very middling joint 4th out of 8.

Try this

Here's a question from he bidding quiz in Mr. Bridge magazine, June 2013:

After an unopposed auction of 1♥-2♥- 3♥, do you bid game with this hand?

♠Q7 ♥K532 ♦743 ♣A832

It's nine points, which is a maximum. But using Losing Trick Count it has but nine losers, which is a minimum. So, should you bid game or not? It's actually a bit of a trick question, as the 3♥ bid was not an invitation to game, it just showed long Hearts and is designed to make it harder for the opposition to enter the auction. If opener actually wants to invite to game, he bids something else. You should just pass whether maximum or minimum. Opener has:

♠65 ♥AJT876 ♦AQ8 ♣75

The same meaning applies to the final bid in the similar auctions 1♣-2♣-3♣, 1♦-2♦-3♦ and 1♠-2♠-3♠.

So what about when opener actually does want to invite to game? Suppose the auction so far is 1♥-2♥. Depending on agreement, opener can now bid:

Long suit trial	Shows a good second suit, looking for a double fit, e.g. bid 3♣ with ♣KJxx
Help trial	Shows a suit with losers, e.g. bid 3♣ with ♣Qxx

In all cases responder re-evaluates his hand, and based on that decides whether or not to bid game. Against the long suit trial an ideal holding is something like ♣Qxx. Against the help trial an ideal holding is something like ♣x or ♣Axx. If responder is maximum he always bids game.

I'm now going to propose a third system, which is something like a Short suit trial. It's based on the observation that low point count games tend to be the ones where there is something like ♣xxxx or ♣Axxx in one hand opposite ♣x in the other. It's actually specifically looking for singletons. It also has the advantage of finding a singleton in either hand.

After 1M-2M opener bids:

Cheapest Bid	Asks responder for a singleton.
Suit at three level	Shows that singleton.

Just for clarity here's what opener bids after 1♠-2♠:

2NT	Asks responder for a singleton.
3♣/3♦/3♥	Shows that singleton.

It's slightly messier over 1♥-2♥, as both opener and responder have to use the available bid of 2NT to show a Spade singleton:

2♠	Asks responder for a singleton. Responder bids 2NT with Spade singleton.
2NT	Shows a Spade singleton.
3♣/3♦	Shows that singleton.

Finally here's a (made up) example of the devastating power of these singleton trials.

♠ A Q 4 3 2 ♥ A 5 4 2 ♦ 9 4 ♣ A 5

♠ K J 6 2 ♥ 3 ♦ J 7 3 ♣ J 8 7 3 2

W E 1♠ 2♠ 2NT* 3♥ 4♠

West open 1♠ and East replies 2♠. West has 6 losers so is worth a game invite. He ask East for a singleton, with the artificial bid of 2NT. Although East is minimum with 9 losers he shows his Heart singleton and West bids the game. Declarer should make ten tricks; five Spades, four Hearts and one Club.

Mearns Castle High School Bridge Club

I just spend ten weeks as a Student Teacher in a very good school in Glasgow. It was such a good school I thought a Bridge Club might work.

There were about 10-15 children each time, mostly Second Year girls who kept the club going even when I was away for a couple of weeks. The kids were fantastic, very eager and competitive and lots of fun. Sadly, I'm not sure if it will continue any more without me, as we didn't get very far learning bridge. Think a lot of the appeal might also have been me making lots of cakes.

I made some handouts to try and leave some sort of legacy, and also gave a couple of presentations in classrooms. Here's my super dense "bridge-in-one-page" handout.

(See it bigger here http://freepdfhosting.com/2ff7d4143c.pdf)

For the final week I tried to move things along a bit, by gathering everyone around one table, and talking through a hand. We focused on remembering how many trumps were left, and I tried to demonstrate a couple of finesses. It was a bit shambolic as the defenders kept trying to play their high cards out of turn, making it obvious whether or not the finesse would work.

Here's the whole hand, which I set up in advance. I do this more or less every week, as we don't have long and otherwise the children spend too much time shuffling and sorting cards.

S deal ♠ K 9 8 3 ♥ 6 5 ♦ A Q 9 5 ♣ 8 7 2 ♠ Q 6 ♥ Q J T 7 ♦ J 4 ♣ Q J 6 3 9 9 8 14 ♠ J T ♥ 9 8 3 ♦ K T 8 7 3 ♣ A T 9 5 4 ♠ A 7 5 4 2 ♥ A K 4 2 ♦ 6 2 ♣ K 5

W N E S 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♠ - 4♠ - - -

With me egging them on we got to 4♠. "That's ten tricks!" someone pointed out.

I hoped the hand would demonstrate lots of good principles. How do you think it should go, after West is encouraged to make the ♥Q lead?

I lead the declarer through it. We drew two rounds of trumps, and then I asked how many trumps the defenders have left. We worked out that they were all out now. Then we took a Diamond finesse (which lost), and a club finesse (which won). So we only had two losers. At this point I said that declarer should take all of the rest of the tricks for 4♠+1, and left Holly to bring it home. Not sure if she did, I wandered off to help shuffle for a bunch of boys who'd never played before.

I hope a few of the kids will come back to bridge years later, and I have increased the amount of bridge playing in the world.

Four Hearts Doubled

I can't yet face writing about Part 2 of the Buchanan Congress, so here's a hand me and Anna played on line. It was on Bridge Base against strangers, so features some truly awful bidding. The play is interesting though.

NS vul S deal ♠ A J T 6 ♥ A Q 7 4 ♦ 9 ♣ K J T 3 ♠ 9 ♥ T 6 5 3 ♦ 6 3 2 ♣ Q 9 6 5 4 15 2 15 8 ♠ Q 7 5 4 3 ♥ - ♦ A K Q T 4 ♣ A 7 2 ♠ K 8 2 ♥ K J 9 8 2 ♦ J 8 7 5 ♣ 8

Danny Anna W N E S - - 1♣ x 1♥ - 3♥ 3♠ 4♥ - - x - - -

This was in the Acol club, and me and Anna had both had a couple of glasses of wine. Presumably East had too. I was sitting North and opened 1♣. We've not really decided what to do with 4-4-4-1 hands, but if it's short Diamonds it's easy, we always open 1♣. East has a bit of a tough decision between bidding some sort of Unusual 2NT or just overcalling 1♠, but instead went for a double. Anna bid 1♥ and I have a nice six loser hand so went for 3♥. East, perhaps regretting her first double, now decided to come in with 3♠. Anna bid 4♥, and now East doubled it.

West led her ♠9, and Anna saw the dummy. How would you play it? After you play one round of trumps East shows out.

First thing to note is that we've got pretty good Spades between us, so East must have rubbish Spades. In fact, on this lead, you have an easy four Spade tricks. So right now you could draw trumps, and take four Spade tricks along with your five Hearts. Unfortunately this still leaves you one trick short. If you try to set up the ♣K after drawing trumps as soon as you lose the lead you'll lose three Diamonds and a Club.

Anna realised this and instead went for Diamond ruffs. This is a decent shot, but fails against good defence. East won the first Diamond, gave partner a Spade ruff, and West returned a Club for another ruff (well defended). That meant four tricks for the Defence, so one down. This was likely to happen, as the lead was obviously a singleton, and it's almost certain that East has the ♣A. So, as long as the defence gets it right they're going to get four tricks.

So what's the solution? I think you should draw three rounds of trumps, then set up your Clubs (with a low one to the Jack). You will suffer a Spade ruff, but only one, and this is OK. You come out with five Hearts, three Spades, one Club and one Diamond ruff.

Tricky.

Buchanan Congress - Part One

After our poor performance at the Melville congress in Edinburgh, this time it was Jake's turn to come through to Glasgow for the Buchanan Congress. He got a £7 return ticket on the bus, and arrived half an hour early.

As we settled in, I got out a box of rock cakes. In a bold variation I'd triple-sieved the flour for a smoother biscuit. Me and Jake set about our system discussion. I suggested my favourite defence to Multi 2♦, double shows Diamonds, but he flatly refused. We settled on playing 5 Card Majors, and a saucy 11-14 1NT opening. As we left the table and headed up the stairs there was a flurry of conversation, and we rapidly also agreed that strong jump shifts were invitational, except for passed hand with a fit jump, and something else too which I've now forgotten, and forgot at the time too.

As an unfamiliar partnership we should have been keeping it simple. Zia Mahmood says that new partnerships benefit from having fewer misunderstandings, as they have fewer understandings. But we unfortunately now had so much going on I was now struggling to keep up, and wrote down everything I was likely to forget on the convention card and put a big ring round it.

The Congress was small, with only eight teams, so the format was rearranged. Or, to put it another way, we automatically qualified for the final! In the first session we played a three board match against every team, then after a break another four board match against the same teams. Horst informed us it was to be a familiar Thurner movement, which meant nothing to me, but with Jake's assistance I avoided ever playing against my team-mates. These esteemed team-mates were John Faben and Neil Wylie, and of course an unofficial mascot sheep, doubling up as non-playing captain.

On the very first board Jake impressed me with his defence.

Board 20Q Both vul W deal ♠ A T 9 8 ♥ A 7 3 ♦ 5 3 ♣ J 9 6 2 ♠ 5 4 3 2 ♥ T 2 ♦ T 7 2 ♣ Q T 7 5 9 2 16 13 ♠ K Q J 7 ♥ 8 6 5 ♦ A K 9 ♣ K 8 3 ♠ 6 ♥ K Q J 9 4 ♦ Q J 8 6 4 ♣ A 5

Danny Norman Jake Anne W N E S - - 1♣ 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - - -

On our table Jake had the East cards. With our weak NT and five card Majors it's not a good hand for us, and he was forced to open 1♣ with only three of them. South overcalled 1♥m and Norman sitting North bid 2♣ as a Heart raise. When South only bid 2♥ that was passed out.

I was slightly tempted to come back in with 3♣, but decided that since this was IMP scoring there was no need to be that competitive on the part score. I'm glad I didn't bid again, as actually Jake only had three clubs, something I'd forgotten was possible. Later in the day (Board 18F) when Jake again opened 1♣ I had a poor five count with only three clubs. I passed, leaving him in a very bad 3-3 fit when almost any other contract would have been better.

On the above hand I led a my fourth highest ♣5, and Anne played the ♣6 from dummy. Jake inserted his ♣8, and I was impressed when declarer was forced to play the ♣A. Jake's defence was really good all day, and that wasn't the only time his frugal low card forced a high card from declarer. Afterwards in the pub though we noticed that Jake's ♣8 might have been a bit foolish if declarer started with ♣AT.

Declarer twice lead Diamonds through East, and so lost only one Club and two Diamonds, for 2♥+2. On the other table Jake and Neil bid the game, so we made 10 IMPs. In general there were a lot of flat boards and not many game swings, so this one was very welcome.

I was playing quite well, except that whenever I had a big decision to make I seemed to get it wrong. At the interval I mentioned that I'd made three or four blunders. "Only three?" Jake said. Here was an unfortunate one. In a bold 4♠ contract (Board 12Q) I need to pick up this trump suit for no losers:

A K 7 2		J T 5 4

North had previously made a takeout double so I was already thinking about finessing. I cashed the Ace and saw North drop the ♠9. Hmm. I gave it a bit of a think, then finessed and lost to North's doubleton Queen. I said to Jake that I could have made it if I dropped the doubleton Queen. Jake agreed, and said I probably should have got it right, as North dropping the ♠9 is most likely to have been from ♠Q9 (if it's ♠9 there's no way to play trumps for no losers). A missed opportunity then.

Then against Sheila Macdonald and Maida Grant I was declarer again in 3♠ (Board 2Q), and was feeling quite pleased with myself for staying out of game. I still had to make 3♠ though, and it all came down to a two way finesse position in Clubs. I played the whole hand slowly, then thought for ages at the end before finessing the wrong person and going down one. Later against the same pair I was also in 3♠ and also went down one. "I could probably have put it down two," said one opponent, "but lost the will to live a bit.".

But in case you're thinking I'm always slow, witness this. On the three Boards we played against Horst I was declarer every time, and we finished the round early. The second of those Boards was a good one - we had a riotous auction to 5♥x.

Board 5Q NS vul N deal ♠ A J T 7 4 ♥ 7 4 ♦ J 7 5 ♣ 9 7 4 ♠ 5 3 2 ♥ Q J T 8 3 2 ♦ K Q 3 2 ♣ 6 8 10 16 ♠ Q 8 6 ♥ A K 6 5 ♦ 6 4 ♣ J 8 6 5 ♠ K 9 ♥ 9 ♦ A T 9 8 ♣ A K Q T 3 2

Danny Jake Horst W N E S - - 1♣ 3♥ - - 4♣ - 4♠ 5♥ x - - -

After two passes, Horst sitting South has an excellent 1♣ opener. I have the West hand, and it's ideal conditions to pre-empt. Favourable vulnerability, partner has already passed, and I've got a nice solid suit. So although it's only a six card suit I go for a bold 3♥. I know that's probably a routine bid for lots of people, but for me that's the first time I've stretched to bid at the three level like that. North passed, and East passed too. South looked a bit uncomfortable, but bid a very reasonable 4♣ (the highest making contract in fact). North corrected this to 4♠, and now Jake woke up and bid 5♥, doubled by South.

In the play South lead a top Club, which I ruffed. I cashed one top trump by crossing to dummy to lead a Diamond up. South took his ♦A and started on Spades. I was now convinced I was going to lose three Spade tricks, and wished I'd drawn more trumps. But the nice layout meant I ended up losing just two Spades and one Diamond for 5♥x-1. To get the full two down South needs to find the not lead of the ♠K, which is quite reasonable when partner has bid Spades. On the ♣A lead I should maybe have drawn two rounds of trumps to avoid any possibility of a ruff, but was worried I'd need to use all my dummy entries to lead Diamonds up to my ♦KQ32 twice in case South ducked his Ace.

Jake called this hand his worst blunder of the day (trust me it's nothing), as he really should have raised me to 4♥ the first time round, which actually has a great chance of making. Once they've got to 4♠ though he could do well by passing, as 4♠ is hopeless.

My worst hand of the day was much worse. It came at the end of a torturous competitive auction against a very slow and angry pair in the corner of the room (Board 9Q). Sitting West I decided to make one more push to 4♣, over which the opponents bid a mad 4♦. Even though it was unfavourable vulnerability I now fancied another go, and since I hadn't shown my sixth heart yet weighed in again with 4♥. I initially didn't notice the double and was getting ready to play the contract, then I noticed people were waiting for me to bid. I retreated to 5♣, also doubled, and Jake sitting East had to play it.

This was his trump suit.

T 7 5 4		A Q J 9 6 2

Jake not unreasonably finessed. This lost and when the defence were later able to play another round of trumps we ended up two down. 5♣x-2 was -500. As it happens South has a singleton King, and if it had of been dropped there was a two trick swing and the contract could have made for 5♣x= and +750. On the other table East-West were also playing 5♣, undoubled. John sitting North made his own blunder, and when he could have taken the contract down instead lead a low Club from the North hand. I think this makes it pretty clear for declarer to not finesse and go up with the Ace, but he didn't and went one off. -500 and +100 still didn't lead to a good score though.

Traditionally me and Jake like to open 1NT whenever possible, so have agreed to play an 11-14 1NT. We also now officially allow a singleton. I think this bigger range makes invitational bids useful again, as partner has a genuine four point range. I though this 11-14 1NT was a totally original idea, and have never seen anyone else play it. I was surprised then to find several other pairs in the event playing it too. A real test of the system came when Jake got dealt this horrible 11 count when vulnerable, but forced himself to follow the system and open it anyway (Board 16Q):

♠ 9 8 6 5

♥ A 8 4

♦ A 8 4

♣ K 4 2

.

I had a ten count opposite and passed. With the cards well placed 1NT made exactly. And here's a hand where Jake actually upgraded what he called an "excellent ten count" and also opened 1NT:

♠ T 3

♥ A 6 5

♦ 4 3 2

♣ K Q J 6 3

I had a two count opposite and passed. Perhaps due to our pre-emptive bidding the opponents, with a combined 27 count and 4-4 spade fit, missed their game, so that was a good one for us.

My favourite thing in bidding is to agree trumps, then bid a second suit to look for a double fit. It can occasionally confuse partner, but the idea is that partner knows to bid on if you have a double fit, and pass or double them if you don't. Here's a good example, perhaps my highlight from the first half of the Congress:

Board 20Q EW vul S deal ♠ T 5 3 ♥ T ♦ J T 9 6 3 ♣ A T 7 3 ♠ 4 ♥ A K Q 8 6 ♦ K Q 8 7 5 2 ♣ 5 5 14 6 15 ♠ 9 7 6 2 ♥ J 5 3 2 ♦ A ♣ J 9 6 4 ♠ A K Q J 8 ♥ 9 7 4 ♦ 4 ♣ K Q 8 2

Danny Jake W N E S 1♠ 2♠* - 4♥ 4♠ 5♦ 5♠ x - - -

South opened 1♠, and I was ready for business in the West seat. Our rock-cake based system discussion included that Michaels could be any strength, and also that it was non-specific suits (so here just Hearts and a minor). So I gladly bid 2♠, and Jake alerted it. I would have had a think in the North hand, and probably raised, but North decided to pass. Jake raised to 4♥ and I had a bit of a think. I didn't know what sort of strength the 4♥ bid showed, and was pondering whether or not to bid on, when South came back in with 4♠. Looking at the South hand now that seems pretty bold. I decided with my four loser hand (I'd miscounted, it's actually three losers), I was worth another bid. Rather than just bidding 5♥ I made a highly descriptive 5♦ bid, to show Jake my second suit. North now bid 5♠, and since Jake knew we didn't have a double fit he swiftly doubled, which was passed out.

I was considering my opening lead, when to my surprise South produced the ♠K. This was highly irregular, as South was in fact the declarer. Not sure what she was thinking. But, as John pointed out later, declarer can do what she wants as there's no one to give unauthorised information to. So South bashfully put her ♠K away, and I had another think.

The solid ♥AKQ looked mighty tempting. According to matchpoint legend Barry Crane "If God deals you an AK, say thank you for not having to think about what to lead". But a trump could be right, to cut down ruffs. I'd also just noticed I had six Diamonds, and not only five like I'd previously thought. Partner is known to have Diamond shortage, maybe a lead from ♦KQxxxx is right? Finally there's the very decent option of my singleton Club. But, according to Bridge News (News for Serious Duplicate Bridge Players), August 2010 Volume 5 Issue 8, "Don’t lead a singleton when you have a better alternative." Did I have a better alternative?

That's a window into my head before I make a killer opening lead. I went for the singleton Club. Declarer won in hand, and lead a low Heart. I had another mini crisis as West. I really want partner to win this trick, so I can get my club ruff (Jake will know for sure it was a singleton from the bidding). But dare I play a low Heart? What if declarer actually has the ♥J in hand? I'll feel like a muppet if I let dummy's ♥T win. I wish I had something like ♥AQxxx so I could play the Queen and give partner the choice of whether to overtake. I decided to win the Heart trick, and switched to a Diamond. The ♦Q in fact, to make sure partner overtook if he had the Ace. Jake won and gave me my ruff, for one down.

Notice that this time I actually did find the killer lead. If I play a Heart declarer can in theory make the contract, by ruffing two hearts in dummy and guessing Clubs.

On Board 19Q I had another critical opening lead. Against the auction 1♥-4♥ I had the following:

♠ K 8 5

♥ 5 3 2

♦ J 8 5 3

♣ K 8 5

I pulled out the ♠5, and declarer made an easy ten tricks. Maybe leading away from the King is a bad idea, as the only other lead to give away the contract easily is a Club. So I got this one wrong. Sorry partner. Anna if you're reading, and have noticed I've got a problem, here's some advice from bridge teacher Brent Manley

When you find that your partner is consistently making leads that you know are counterproductive, you will have to be tactful.

At the end of the first half we rushed down for some delightful sandwiches. Mandy had been to M & S, and there were meringues too. We were in joint third out of eight teams. Can we turn it around in the second half?