SUBECK Stanton · TORLOVEBECK
26rank
+10.7Butler · 14 bds
+0.76per board
±3.2swing
-0.50vs par /bd
+0.00adjusted /bd
by round
vs par split: bidding -0.21 · play -0.29
Strength of schedule: opponents averaged -0.76/bd (an easy draw) → opponent-adjusted +0.00/bd
Card play — on target: defence 80.0%
| vs NT | vs a suit | |
|---|---|---|
| Defence | 100.0% (1) | 75.0% (4) |
vs par by strain: NT -5.33 (6) · a suit +3.12 (8)
vs par by level: part-score -1.67 (9) · game +1.60 (5)
By role: declaring -0.24/bd (-4.11 vs par · 9) · defending +2.58/bd (+6.00 vs par · 5)
By vulnerability: vulnerable +1.57/bd (-0.29 vs par · 7) · not vulnerable -0.04/bd (-0.71 vs par · 7)
By round↑ top
| Round | Partner | Opponents | Room | Bds | Butler | Avg | vs par |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round of 64 | S.Subeck | M.Passell – N.Noland | Open | 14 | +10.7 | +0.76 | -0.50 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +7.0 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 10 | 3♦ | ♦2 | -3 | +9 |
| +5.6 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 6 | 4♠ | ♦J | -1 | +10 |
| +2.8 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 14 | 2NT | ♦2 | +1 | +0 |
| +2.3 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 11 | 4♥ | ♠2 | = | +3 |
| +2.1 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 3 | 1NT | ♠Q | -3 | +0 |
| +1.9 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 1 | 2♠ | ♥7 | = | -1 |
| +1.7 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 7 | 2♣ | ♠2 | -1 | +0 |
| +1.3 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 12 | 3NT | ♣8 | +3 | -11 |
| -0.2 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 2 | 3♣ | ♣2 | +1 | +0 |
| -0.8 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 9 | 3NT | ♥J | -1 | -5 |
| -1.3 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 13 | 2NT | ♦2 | = | -10 |
| -3.3 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 4 | 1NT | ♠A | -1 | -6 |
| -3.5 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 8 | 5♦ | ♣K | +1 | +11 |
| -4.9 | Round of 64 | NOLAND | 5 | 3♥ | ♦2 | +1 | -7 |