LINDEMAN Rob · BC DE LOMBARD

51rank
-12.3Butler · 16 bds
-0.77per board
±2.7swing
-3.31vs par /bd
-1.12adjusted /bd
by round

vs par split: bidding -3.06 · play -0.25

Strength of schedule: opponents averaged -0.35/bd (an easy draw) → opponent-adjusted -1.12/bd

Card play — on target: opening leads 57.1% · declarer play 75.0% · defence 85.7%

Bidding activity — not a pass: 51.0% (26/51)

Card play by contract type — on target
vs NTvs a suit
Opening leads33.3% (3)75.0% (4)
Declarer play50.0% (2)100.0% (2)
Defence66.7% (3)100.0% (4)

Opening leads by suit led: ♥ 50.0% (2) · ♣ 60.0% (5)

vs par by strain: NT -1.20 (5) · a suit -4.27 (11)

vs par by level: part-score -7.75 (4) · game -1.83 (12)

By role: declaring -0.72/bd (-4.11 vs par · 9) · defending -0.83/bd (-2.29 vs par · 7)

By vulnerability: vulnerable -1.01/bd (-5.00 vs par · 8) · not vulnerable -0.53/bd (-1.62 vs par · 8)

By round↑ top

RoundPartnerOpponentsRoomBdsButlerAvgvs par
SemifinalJ.JansmaA.Livgard – T.AaOpen16-12.3-0.77-3.31

Every board — best Butler first↑ top

vs par = IMPs this pair scored above (+) or below (−) the board’s double-dummy par — what bidding and play (theirs and the opponents’) added or gave away against perfect play.

ButlerRoundOpponentsBdContractLeadResvs par
+5.4SemifinalHEIMDAL BK43♦♥T+2-10
+3.1SemifinalHEIMDAL BK135♣♦Q=-2
+1.3SemifinalHEIMDAL BK52♥♣T-2-5
+0.6SemifinalHEIMDAL BK13NT♥7-2+5
+0.5SemifinalHEIMDAL BK73NT♠2=+0
-0.1SemifinalHEIMDAL BK84♠♣Q+1+0
-0.4SemifinalHEIMDAL BK113NT♣5+1-1
-0.9SemifinalHEIMDAL BK24♠♣A+1+0
-1.0SemifinalHEIMDAL BK123NT♥4=-10
-1.0SemifinalHEIMDAL BK153NT♣4+1+0
-2.3SemifinalHEIMDAL BK104♥♣Q+1+0
-2.5SemifinalHEIMDAL BK62♥♣T+1-6
-2.7SemifinalHEIMDAL BK145♣♥7=-2
-2.7SemifinalHEIMDAL BK162♥♦K+2-10
-2.8SemifinalHEIMDAL BK95♠♥8=+0
-6.8SemifinalHEIMDAL BK35♥♠9-1-12