JIN Jing · JILINSHENGQIAOPAIXIEHUI
vs par split: bidding -2.24 · play -0.62
Strength of schedule: opponents averaged +0.24/bd (a tough draw) → opponent-adjusted +0.30/bd
Card play — on target: opening leads 80.0% · declarer play 50.0% · defence 100.0%
| vs NT | vs a suit | |
|---|---|---|
| Opening leads | · | 80.0% (5) |
| Declarer play | 0.0% (1) | 60.0% (5) |
| Defence | 100.0% (1) | 100.0% (8) |
Opening leads by suit led: ♠ 100.0% (1) · ♦ 100.0% (2) · ♣ 50.0% (2)
vs par by strain: NT +0.40 (5) · a suit -3.88 (16)
vs par by level: part-score -3.00 (8) · game -2.00 (12) · slam -12.00 (1)
By role: declaring -1.25/bd (-7.08 vs par · 12) · defending +1.79/bd (+2.78 vs par · 9)
By vulnerability: vulnerable -0.11/bd (-1.90 vs par · 10) · not vulnerable +0.20/bd (-3.73 vs par · 11)
By round↑ top
| Round | Partner | Opponents | Room | Bds | Butler | Avg | vs par |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 6 | R.Li | P.Niedzielski – L.Majdanski | Closed | 7 | +21.6 | +3.09 | +0.14 |
| Round 7 | R.Li | C.Pellegrini – A.Wildavsky | Closed | 7 | +1.6 | +0.23 | -1.86 |
| Round 8 | R.Li | C.Li – G.Xin | Closed | 7 | -22.1 | -3.16 | -6.86 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +12.4 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 10 | 3NTx | ♠K | -4 | +14 |
| +8.1 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 11 | 5♣x | ♣2 | -2 | +10 |
| +7.2 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 14 | 5♥ | ♦6 | -1 | +8 |
| +4.2 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 15 | 4♠ | ♣K | +1 | -11 |
| +2.8 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 18 | 1NT | ♥6 | +1 | -1 |
| +2.0 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 9 | 4♥ | ♣Q | +1 | -12 |
| +2.0 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 26 | 3NT | ♠3 | = | +0 |
| +0.6 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 17 | 2♠ | ♦5 | +1 | +0 |
| +0.2 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 23 | 1NT | ♠6 | -1 | +0 |
| -0.0 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 19 | 2♦ | ♠A | = | +1 |
| -0.1 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 13 | 2♠ | ♥A | = | -1 |
| -0.3 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 20 | 4♠ | ♦3 | +2 | +13 |
| -1.8 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 28 | 4♥ | ♠3 | -1 | -10 |
| -2.0 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 21 | 4♠ | ♣3 | -1 | -5 |
| -3.0 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 8 | 2♦ | ♣A | -3 | -7 |
| -3.2 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 27 | 3♠ | ♣6 | = | -6 |
| -3.7 | Round 7 | VIRGINIA | 16 | 3♦ | ♠10 | +2 | -10 |
| -4.0 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 22 | 6♦ | ♠A | -1 | -12 |
| -5.0 | Round 6 | CONSUS POLAND | 12 | 3NT | ♠2 | -2 | -11 |
| -5.7 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 24 | 4♠ | ♥Q | -2 | -8 |
| -9.6 | Round 8 | QINGDAO BRIDGE ASSOSIATION | 25 | 5♥ | ♠A | -1 | -12 |