LADOCHY Margaret · HANSEN
vs par split: bidding -1.00 · play -1.10
Strength of schedule: opponents averaged -0.11/bd (an easy draw) → opponent-adjusted -2.47/bd
Card play — on target: opening leads 100.0% · declarer play 66.7% · defence 66.7%
| vs NT | vs a suit | |
|---|---|---|
| Opening leads | 100.0% (2) | 100.0% (2) |
| Declarer play | · | 66.7% (3) |
| Defence | 0.0% (2) | 100.0% (4) |
Opening leads by suit led: ♠ 100.0% (2) · ♦ 100.0% (1) · ♣ 100.0% (1)
vs par by strain: NT -2.00 (2) · a suit -2.12 (8)
vs par by level: part-score -2.75 (4) · game -2.00 (5) · slam +0.00 (1)
By role: declaring -4.30/bd (-6.00 vs par · 4) · defending -1.07/bd (+0.50 vs par · 6)
By vulnerability: vulnerable -5.40/bd (-3.83 vs par · 6) · not vulnerable +2.20/bd (+0.50 vs par · 4)
By round↑ top
| Round | Partner | Opponents | Room | Bds | Butler | Avg | vs par |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 4 | H.Berger | J.Michalek – Z.Macior | Open | 10 | -23.6 | -2.36 | -2.10 |
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.
| Butler | Round | Opponents | Bd | Contract | Lead | Res | vs par |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +5.9 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 5 | 6♥ | ♥10 | = | +0 |
| +2.0 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 2 | 2♠ | ♥7 | -2 | +2 |
| +2.0 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 3 | 4♠ | ♣7 | -1 | +5 |
| +0.9 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 8 | 3♣ | ♠8 | = | +0 |
| -0.0 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 1 | 4♠ | ♣K | +1 | +0 |
| -1.6 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 7 | 1NT | ♠6 | +2 | -1 |
| -2.6 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 9 | 4♥ | ♠3 | +1 | +0 |
| -6.2 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 4 | 3NT | ♦5 | +3 | -3 |
| -11.5 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 10 | 4♠x | ♥A | -3 | -12 |
| -12.5 | Round 4 | SZENBERG | 6 | 2♦x | ♥6 | -3 | -12 |