EDMONDS Jodi · EDMONDS

14rank
-13.0Butler · 14 bds
-0.93per board
±6.4swing
+1.29vs par /bd
-0.87adjusted /bd
by round

vs par split: bidding +0.64 · play +0.64

Strength of schedule: opponents averaged +0.06/bd (a tough draw) → opponent-adjusted -0.87/bd

Card play — on target: opening leads 75.0% · declarer play 50.0% · defence 88.9%

Card play by contract type — on target
vs NTvs a suit
Opening leads100.0% (1)66.7% (3)
Declarer play·50.0% (2)
Defence0.0% (1)100.0% (8)

Opening leads by suit led: ♠ 0.0% (1) · ♥ 100.0% (1) · ♦ 100.0% (2)

vs par by strain: NT -4.50 (4) · a suit +3.60 (10)

vs par by level: part-score +0.33 (3) · game +0.50 (10) · slam +12.00 (1)

By role: declaring -2.80/bd (-4.20 vs par · 5) · defending +0.11/bd (+4.33 vs par · 9)

By vulnerability: vulnerable -3.20/bd (-0.86 vs par · 7) · not vulnerable +1.34/bd (+3.43 vs par · 7)

By round↑ top

RoundPartnerOpponentsRoomBdsButlerAvgvs par
SemifinalI.LevitinaH.Eythorsdottir – J.Seamon-MolsonOpen14-13.0-0.93+1.29

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
+11.7SemifinalTRI POLAR25♦♠K-4+11
+10.0SemifinalTRI POLAR114♥♣8-1+10
+3.7SemifinalTRI POLAR43♠x♣A-1+8
+3.3SemifinalTRI POLAR93♠♦J-2+5
+1.3SemifinalTRI POLAR64♠♦A-2+0
-0.0SemifinalTRI POLAR53NT♦10+2+0
-0.0SemifinalTRI POLAR83NT♣7-1-10
-0.3SemifinalTRI POLAR143NT♦3+1-1
-4.0SemifinalTRI POLAR14♥♠3-1+2
-5.7SemifinalTRI POLAR33NT♥2=-7
-7.3SemifinalTRI POLAR134♥♦3=+1
-8.0SemifinalTRI POLAR74♠♦10+1-1
-8.0SemifinalTRI POLAR126♦♣8+1+12
-9.7SemifinalTRI POLAR102♠♥2-2-12