2nd April 2026

Winners

Pat Quinney & Duncan Ferguson finished first with 56.35%, beating James Jones & Ted Hulme by 3.18%.
(Winning margin analysis: gained through consistent small margins (bettering the field on 12 of 21 boards))

Did you have the cards?

In this Howell movement, individual exposure varied by starting seat. Pairs starting at Board 1 (e.g. James Jones) faced an action-packed opening set, meeting game opportunities immediately. Overall, the session was low-ceiling with 0 potential slams and 15 game hands. Your final result depended less on "good cards" and more on whether you met the opportunity-rich boards when your system was firing.

Big Swings

- On Board 4, Penny and Tish held the opposition to 4♦ for -150. Another pair made 6♦ and scored 1370 — a swing of 1220 points.

Slams

- Krystyna Eitner & Jean Simpson: On Board 4, Krystyna Eitner & Jean Simpson advanced to 6♦ for -1370. While most other pairs stopped in 4♦, they bid this slam with 27 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1220 points over the field.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

Average tricks won above/below Double Dummy expectations per hand.

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 17 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring +50 (E down 1), while others preferred 4♠ scoring up to +50 (E down 1). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Beryl Webster & Gabriel McCarthy / Table 10 West: In 4♠, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -680, differing from the -620 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 17.8 HCP compared with 22.2 for East/West. This 4.4-point difference favored East/West, providing them with a consistent structural advantage.

Personal Pair Lookup

Select your name or pair number to see your personalised session summary.

Glossary: What does all this mean?

Double Dummy: The computer plays the hand as if everyone can see everyone else's cards. It never guesses and never takes a finesse that won't work. It's bridge played with the lights on.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers: "Par" is the computer's prediction of perfect play. A Par Breaker is when a human proves the computer wrong—either by making the "impossible" or finding the one Killer Lead that sinks a "sure thing."

HCP Efficiency: This measures what you actually did with your cards (Performance vs Par). A Positive (+) Diff means you're squeezing blood from a stone (winning more tricks than theory says you should). A Negative (-) Diff means you likely left a few tricks on the table as a charitable donation.

Avg Diff: The average number of tricks gained or lost per hand against the "perfect" baseline.

1st April 2026

Winners

Hilary Rowland & Jackie Greasley finished first with 63.89%, beating Nicola Walsh & Lianne French by 2.43%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 2, 20, 22))

Did you have the cards?

The cards were evenly distributed across all directions, with no seat holding a significant structural advantage.

Big Swings

- On Board 2, Penny and Gabriel bid and made 4♥ for 620. Another pair went down in 4♥ scoring -200 — a swing of 820 points.

Slams

No slams were bid or made in this session.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

Average tricks won above/below Double Dummy expectations per hand.

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 2 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 4♥ scoring up to +620 (S making), while others preferred 2♥ scoring +170 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Michele Woodward & Tish Trevaskis / Table 23 West: In 2♠, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -140, differing from the -200 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.4 HCP compared with 19.6 for East/West. The balanced distribution meant results were determined more by contract choice and defence than raw strength.

Personal Pair Lookup

Select your name or pair number to see your personalised session summary.

Glossary: What does all this mean?

Double Dummy: The computer plays the hand as if everyone can see everyone else's cards. It never guesses and never takes a finesse that won't work. It's bridge played with the lights on.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers: "Par" is the computer's prediction of perfect play. A Par Breaker is when a human proves the computer wrong—either by making the "impossible" or finding the one Killer Lead that sinks a "sure thing."

HCP Efficiency: This measures what you actually did with your cards (Performance vs Par). A Positive (+) Diff means you're squeezing blood from a stone (winning more tricks than theory says you should). A Negative (-) Diff means you likely left a few tricks on the table as a charitable donation.

Avg Diff: The average number of tricks gained or lost per hand against the "perfect" baseline.

31st March 2026

Winners

North/South: Sandie Mitchell & David Cotton finished first with 55.95%, edging Michele Woodward & Pam Stevenson by 0.39%.
East/West: James Jones & John Lambert won the field with 60.19%, narrowly ahead of Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme (59.26%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 13, 14, 20))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring no slam opportunities and 10 game boards. North/South faced 6 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 4, so North/South were exposed to more of the session’s high-value boards. Most boards were part-score dominated, indicating that results relied on accurate partial contracts and defense rather than High Card Points. Ranking differences were largely driven by performance on the minority of high-scoring boards.

Big Swings

- On Board 13, Sandie and David bid and made 4♠ for 650. Another pair made 2*♥ and scored 870 — a swing of 1520 points.

Slams

No slams were bid or made in this session.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

Average tricks won above/below Double Dummy expectations per hand.

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 21 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 4♠ scoring +620 (S making), while others preferred 3♠ scoring +170 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Steve Bamforth & Duncan Ferguson / Table 7 East: In 3♠, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -200, differing from the -170 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.2 HCP compared with 19.8 for East/West. The balanced distribution meant results were determined more by contract choice and defence than raw strength.

Personal Pair Lookup

Select your name or pair number to see your personalised session summary.

Glossary: What does all this mean?

Double Dummy: The computer plays the hand as if everyone can see everyone else's cards. It never guesses and never takes a finesse that won't work. It's bridge played with the lights on.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers: "Par" is the computer's prediction of perfect play. A Par Breaker is when a human proves the computer wrong—either by making the "impossible" or finding the one Killer Lead that sinks a "sure thing."

HCP Efficiency: This measures what you actually did with your cards (Performance vs Par). A Positive (+) Diff means you're squeezing blood from a stone (winning more tricks than theory says you should). A Negative (-) Diff means you likely left a few tricks on the table as a charitable donation.

Avg Diff: The average number of tricks gained or lost per hand against the "perfect" baseline.

30th March 2026

Winners

Steve Bamforth & Jean Simpson finished first with 62.86%, beating Nigel Smith & Galina Piunovskaya by 1.91%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 8, 11, 20))

Did you have the cards?

The cards were evenly distributed across all directions, with no seat holding a significant structural advantage.

Big Swings

- On Board 3, Nigel and Galina defended 4♠ by E to collect 300 points (3 down). Another pair made 4♥ and scored 620 — a swing of 920 points.

Slams

No slams were bid or made in this session.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

Average tricks won above/below Double Dummy expectations per hand.

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 24 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 1NT* scoring up to -280 (W making), while others preferred 2♥ scoring up to -50 (N down 1). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Alan Bornat & Nicky Crosby / Table 11 West: In 1♦, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -110, differing from the -130 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.3 HCP compared with 19.8 for East/West. The balanced distribution meant results were determined more by contract choice and defence than raw strength.

Personal Pair Lookup

Select your name or pair number to see your personalised session summary.

Glossary: What does all this mean?

Double Dummy: The computer plays the hand as if everyone can see everyone else's cards. It never guesses and never takes a finesse that won't work. It's bridge played with the lights on.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers: "Par" is the computer's prediction of perfect play. A Par Breaker is when a human proves the computer wrong—either by making the "impossible" or finding the one Killer Lead that sinks a "sure thing."

HCP Efficiency: This measures what you actually did with your cards (Performance vs Par). A Positive (+) Diff means you're squeezing blood from a stone (winning more tricks than theory says you should). A Negative (-) Diff means you likely left a few tricks on the table as a charitable donation.

Avg Diff: The average number of tricks gained or lost per hand against the "perfect" baseline.

26th March 2026

Winners

Nigel Smith & Ann Jenkey finished first with 59.17%, edging Judith Sutton & Jackie Greasley by 0.84%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 4, 5, 6))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring no slam opportunities and 15 game boards. North/South faced 9 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 6, so North/South were exposed to more of the session’s high-value boards. Most boards were part-score dominated, indicating that results relied on accurate partial contracts and defense rather than High Card Points. Ranking differences were largely driven by performance on the minority of high-scoring boards.

Big Swings

- On Board 20, Nigel and Ann bid and made 3NT for 630. Another pair went down in 3NT scoring -400 — a swing of 1030 points.

Slams

No slams were bid or made in this session.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

Average tricks won above/below Double Dummy expectations per hand.

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 5 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 4♠ scoring +50 (W down 1), while others preferred 2♠ scoring -140 (W making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Nigel Smith & Ann Jenkey / Table 10 North: In 4♥, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to 650, differing from the 620 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.8 HCP compared with 19.3 for East/West. The balanced distribution meant results were determined more by contract choice and defence than raw strength.

Personal Pair Lookup

Select your name or pair number to see your personalised session summary.

Glossary: What does all this mean?

Double Dummy: The computer plays the hand as if everyone can see everyone else's cards. It never guesses and never takes a finesse that won't work. It's bridge played with the lights on.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers: "Par" is the computer's prediction of perfect play. A Par Breaker is when a human proves the computer wrong—either by making the "impossible" or finding the one Killer Lead that sinks a "sure thing."

HCP Efficiency: This measures what you actually did with your cards (Performance vs Par). A Positive (+) Diff means you're squeezing blood from a stone (winning more tricks than theory says you should). A Negative (-) Diff means you likely left a few tricks on the table as a charitable donation.

Avg Diff: The average number of tricks gained or lost per hand against the "perfect" baseline.