Being asked to do the commentary for a Simultaneous Pairs is a bit like being asked to write a report on the proclivities of a football crowd. For the most part you can predict what the sensible people will get up to, but you'll always end up looking stupid in the face of the sheer mass of utter insanity and incompetence that the minority will throw at you. Take this hand from the recent EBU Autumn Sim Pairs:

This is what the commentator had to say and it's all perfectly reasonable: "When West opens 1, East, with only seven losers, does well to raise directly to 4. That way it's unlikely a vulnerable South will bid clubs and N/S won't find the good 5 sacrifice, which only goes two down on any defence." Yes, and I'm sure that in a Thomas More book this is exactly what would happen. So we scrutinise the frequencies, look up a few unusual scores, and find North/South scoring +1540 (6X=), +1110 (4X+2), +950 (5X+1), a slightly mysterious +400 (5XX-1 perhaps?), a fabulous -230 (3+3?), lots of -680s (good pitching, South), three -850s (5X=), -930 (3X+1), -990 (4X+1), -1190 (4X+2) and one inspired genius who bid the slam, avoided the three cashing tricks and managed to con South into pitching a spade to score his twelth trick and -1430. Actually, someone probably just revoked a couple of times. Ah well, akinasu wa yome ni kuwasuna, as my old grandfather used to tell me.

This week's actual deal is taken from the same event. We've rotated it to make South declarer, as that seems to be what all the really cool books do.

"Probably the first three hands pass and fourth in hand South bids 1. North scrapes up a 1 response and gives preference to 2 when South rebids 2. Now surely South will bid 4. The alternative is for South to open 4 in fourth seat just to make sure he gives nothing away. On A lead every declarer makes eleven tricks, surely a flat board all over England!"

Oh, what a silly thing to say...

If I'd been playing with my regular partner I would have opened the bidding as dealer and the analysis would have been wrong on every single count. As it happened, the first two calls were correct but then things went off-script. My partner, East, opened 2 showing spades and a minor. South overcalled a rather chunky 3 and I decided that I quite fancied playing in partner's minor. So I bid 3NT — surely that can't be natural when I'm a passed hand, I thought. This was passed around to South, who can pass for +350 if she fancies it but who decided to protect with 4, which is where the auction finished. North was presumably used to her partner's canape three-level overcalls. Or something.

No analysis is given in the booklet on how the play in 4 should go, but when the Q drops immediately, you wouldn't think it was too difficult to draw trumps and cash six heart tricks to make +150. Think again. I kicked off with two top clubs, declarer ruffing. Declarer played a heart to the Q and tried the J — Q — A. Another top diamond revealed the "bad" break and so the next round had to be won by the 9 on table, leaving this position:

Declarer has obviously made a bit of a meal of this contract but, with nobody able to ruff the heart back to hand, will still make her overtrick. She had other ideas, though, and, seeing something that nobody else could (or would ever want to), decided to play a spade to the Queen instead. East won this (which, amusingly, is a slight misplay — not that we cared at the time) and played a club, forcing declarer's last trump and giving me control of the hand. I ruffed a heart and claimed the rest. Down three.

My advice to anyone who has been asked to write a set of commentary notes: don't. If you do, hedge. Say things like "a sane North will open..." or "if East/West aren't drunk they will end up in...". And never ever say that a board will be flat, because there will always be somebody going for 1100.

"His interest in the laws is informed by his study of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand." — David Stevenson, describing Adam Wildavsky, a commentator for the 2005 EBU Appeals Booklet.