GEORGE Susan · RATRUT
vs par split: bidding +2.00 · play -3.36
Strength of schedule: opponents averaged +1.04/bd (a tough draw) → opponent-adjusted -1.14/bd
Card play — on target: opening leads 100.0% · declarer play 0.0% · defence 71.4%
Bidding activity — not a pass: 37.5% (15/40)
| vs NT | vs a suit | |
|---|---|---|
| Opening leads | 100.0% (1) | 100.0% (1) |
| Declarer play | · | 0.0% (2) |
| Defence | 0.0% (2) | 100.0% (5) |
Opening leads by suit led: ♦ 100.0% (2)
vs par by strain: NT -3.17 (6) · a suit +0.00 (8)
vs par by level: part-score -0.17 (6) · game -2.25 (8)
By role: declaring -0.47/bd (-2.29 vs par · 7) · defending -3.90/bd (-0.43 vs par · 7)
By vulnerability: vulnerable -2.47/bd (-2.14 vs par · 7) · not vulnerable -1.90/bd (-0.57 vs par · 7)
By round↑ top
| Round | Partner | Opponents | Room | Bds | Butler | Avg | vs par |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 3 | R.Ghosn | L.Gan – X.Sun | Open | 14 | -30.6 | -2.19 | -1.36 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +7.3 | Round 3 | SHEN | 1 | 3NT | ♥8 | +1 | +7 |
| +3.4 | Round 3 | SHEN | 9 | 3♦ | ♠T | = | -1 |
| +0.0 | Round 3 | SHEN | 8 | 2♦ | ♥Q | +1 | +0 |
| -0.3 | Round 3 | SHEN | 13 | 4♥ | ♣3 | = | +13 |
| -0.5 | Round 3 | SHEN | 3 | 3NT | ♥4 | -1 | -6 |
| -0.9 | Round 3 | SHEN | 14 | 3♠ | ♦A | +1 | +6 |
| -3.0 | Round 3 | SHEN | 11 | 3♠ | ♣K | = | +0 |
| -3.7 | Round 3 | SHEN | 4 | 1NT | ♣7 | -1 | +0 |
| -3.7 | Round 3 | SHEN | 5 | 1NT | ♣4 | +1 | -6 |
| -3.7 | Round 3 | SHEN | 12 | 3NT | ♥7 | -1 | -4 |
| -4.2 | Round 3 | SHEN | 6 | 4♥ | ♦8 | = | +1 |
| -5.9 | Round 3 | SHEN | 7 | 3NT | ♦4 | = | -10 |
| -6.1 | Round 3 | SHEN | 10 | 4♥ | ♦3 | -1 | -12 |
| -9.3 | Round 3 | SHEN | 2 | 5♦ | ♠A | = | -7 |