Liverpool Bridge Club
Want to play Bridge?
We will teach you!
Results
Wednesday Evening
Director: Jackie Greasley
Scorer: Liverpool Bridge Club
Tuesday Afternoon
Director: Hilary Rowland
Scorer: Liverpool Bridge Club
Monday Afternoon
Director: Hilary Rowland
Scorer: Liverpool Bridge Club
Monday Evening
Director: Tom Nicholls
Scorer: Liverpool Bridge Club
Thursday Afternoon
Director: Jackie Greasley
Scorer: Liverpool Bridge Club
Bulletin
Bank Holiday Bridge Notice

There will be no Afternoon Bridge Sessions on the upcoming Bank Holidays:

Monday 4th May
Monday 25th May

Evening session as normal.

🃏 Looking for a Bridge Partner?

We have a dedicated WhatsApp group to help you find a partner.

Group Name:
Strictly Bridge Partners ♠️♥️

If you'd like to be added, please contact:

Duncan on 07896 067850
or any Committee Member

Mersey House Our Home
Mersey House Our Home
Overall Winners Liverpool Pairs Sunday 29th March 2026
Overall Winners Liverpool Pairs Sunday 29th March 2026

Congratulations David Stevenson & Liz Commins

Winners 9 High Competitition 29 March 2026
Winners 9 High Competitition 29 March 2026

Our Very Own - Penny Roberts and Gabriel McCarthy!

Welcome to Liverpool Bridge Club
Cup Winners 2025
  • Bill&Ted Ivy Blackwell TT Trophy
  • Gabriel&Beryl
  • Reg Pearson Trophy Sven&David
  • Churney Cup- Gabriel and Penny
  • Victory Cup - James
Match Report

Latest Match Reports

📊 Evening Session - 29-04-2026 [NEWEST]

29th April 2026

Winners

Lorraine Krasner & Jackie Greasley finished first with 56.50%, beating James Jones & Alex Hurst by 1.50%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 1, 4, 7))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring 2 slam opportunities and 14 game boards. North/South faced 8 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 8, so exposure to high-value boards was evenly balanced. 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 4, Lorraine and Jackie defended 7♠ by W to collect 200 points (2 down). Another pair made 6NT and scored 1440 — a swing of 1640 points.

Slams

- Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts: On Board 4, Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts advanced to 6NT for -1440. While most other pairs stopped in 5♠, they bid this slam with 34 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1640 points over the field.

N
Q97
Q97
J984
T96
W
KJ532
AT5
A32
84
Board 4
6NT by S
E
A84
KJ4
KQ5
AKQ5
S
T6
8632
T76
J732

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

Board 1: 4S by S (420)
Lorraine Krasner beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 7), yet Declarer somehow brought home 10. (Lead: 10C)
View Diagram
N
9
Q96532
JT6
J72
W
7643
AJ8
A743
T6
Board 1
5♦ by W
E
K4
952
AKQ98543
S
AKQJT852
T7
KQ8
Board 1: 5C by E (-420)
Tish Trevaskis beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 12. (Lead: AS)
View Diagram
N
9
Q96532
JT6
J72
W
7643
AJ8
A743
T6
Board 1
5♦ by W
E
K4
952
AKQ98543
S
AKQJT852
T7
KQ8
Board 1: 4S by S (420)
Simon Kenny beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 7), yet Declarer somehow brought home 10. (Lead: 10C)
View Diagram
N
9
Q96532
JT6
J72
W
7643
AJ8
A743
T6
Board 1
5♦ by W
E
K4
952
AKQ98543
S
AKQJT852
T7
KQ8

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair Avg Diff Bds
1. James Jones & Alex Hurst +8.00 13
2. Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts +6.94 16
3. Tish Trevaskis & Erik Gjemdal +6.17 12
4. John Chandler & Jan Pearson +5.54 13
5. Sandie Mitchell & Kieron McPartland +5.45 11

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 4 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 7♠ scoring up to +100 (W down 1), while others preferred 6NT scoring -1440 (E making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Val & Peter North / Table 7 West: In 4♠, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -650, differing from the standard achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 19.2 HCP compared with 20.8 for East/West. This 1.6-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.

Select a pair above to view performance details...

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.

📊 Afternoon Session - 28-04-2026

28th April 2026

Winners

North/South: Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster finished first with 61.11%, beating Paul Hozack & Kieron McPartland by 3.97%.
East/West: Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme won the field with 61.90%, clear of Lesley Beilinsohn & Judith Sutton (59.92%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 2, 3, 6))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring 2 slam opportunities and 13 game boards. North/South faced 10 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 5, 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 12, Penny and Beryl bid and made 6NT for 1440. Another pair went down in 6NT scoring -200 — a swing of 1640 points.

Slams

- Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster: On Board 12, Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster advanced to 6NT for 1440. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 33 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1640 points over the field.

N
KJ2
KQJ8
84
KT73
W
9743
T974
K95
86
Board 12
5NT by N
E
T865
53
JT73
QJ4
S
AQ
A62
AQ62
A952

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

Board 1: 4H by S (450)
Penny Houlden beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 11. (Lead: KC)
View Diagram
N
JT8
KQT53
862
96
W
96
864
Q54
KQJT3
Board 1
5♦ by E
E
K7532
KJ973
742
S
AQ4
AJ972
AT
A85
Board 1: 4H by S (450)
Paul Hozack beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 11. (Lead: KC)
View Diagram
N
JT8
KQT53
862
96
W
96
864
Q54
KQJT3
Board 1
5♦ by E
E
K7532
KJ973
742
S
AQ4
AJ972
AT
A85
Board 1: 4H by S (450)
Chris Sexton beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 11. (Lead: 10C)
View Diagram
N
JT8
KQT53
862
96
W
96
864
Q54
KQJT3
Board 1
5♦ by E
E
K7532
KJ973
742
S
AQ4
AJ972
AT
A85

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair Avg Diff Bds
1. Pat Quinney & Julia Burge +6.64 11
2. Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster +5.33 12
3. Sandra Saltissi & Malcolm Stone +5.10 10
4. Debbie Rooney & Annette Haft +5.00 10
5. Chris Sexton & Ann Jones +4.86 14

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 18 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to -200 (S down 2), while others preferred 4♠ scoring -100 (N down 1). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme / Table 7 West: In 3NT, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -690, differing from the -660 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 21.8 HCP compared with 18.2 for East/West. This 3.6-point difference favored North/South, providing them with a consistent structural advantage.

Personal Pair Lookup

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

Select a pair above to view performance details...

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.

📊 Evening Session - 27-04-2026

27th April 2026

Winners

Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts finished first with 60.42%, edging Penny Houlden & Alex Hurst by 0.42%.
(Winning margin analysis: gained through consistent small margins (bettering the field on 15 of 24 boards))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring 1 slam opportunities and 14 game boards. North/South faced 10 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 5, 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 21, Tom and Miranda bid and made 1**♥ for 1120. Another pair went down in 3♠ scoring -100 — a swing of 1220 points.

View Hand Diagram
N
QJ84
98
Q643
A83
W
A762
KQ
T982
K74
Board 21
3NT by N
E
T5
T7652
A75
T95
S
K93
AJ43
KJ
QJ62

Slams

- Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts: On Board 18, Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts advanced to 6NT for -990. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 31 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 560 points over the field.

N
532
9653
963
K63
W
KQT9
J
74
AQJ954
Board 18
6♠ by E
E
AJ6
AT72
AKQ2
87
S
874
KQ84
JT85
T2

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

Board 1: 3NT by W (50)
Lesley Beilinsohn found the killer defense: Computer predicted 9 tricks (making), but the defense found the way to hold it to 8. (Lead: JS)
View Diagram
N
JT97
J98
K984
J7
W
Q42
Q75
AT5
K863
Board 1
3NT by S
E
AK6
A62
7632
AQ4
S
853
KT43
QJ
T952
Board 2: 4S by E (-420)
Harriette Goldsmith found the killer defense: Computer predicted 11 tricks (making), but the defense found the way to hold it to 10. (Lead: JD)
View Diagram
N
AJ7
54
KJT65
QJ4
W
K9
T93
A987
A963
Board 2
5♠ by E
E
QT86542
AK
42
KT
S
3
QJ8762
Q3
8752
Board 2: 4S by E (-420)
Loretta Goldsmith found the killer defense: Computer predicted 11 tricks (making), but the defense found the way to hold it to 10. (Lead: QD)
View Diagram
N
AJ7
54
KJT65
QJ4
W
K9
T93
A987
A963
Board 2
5♠ by E
E
QT86542
AK
42
KT
S
3
QJ8762
Q3
8752

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair Avg Diff Bds
1. Harriette Goldsmith & Michele Woodward +6.58 12
2. Nigel Smith & Galina Piunovskaya +6.22 9
3. Lesley Beilinsohn & Jan Pearson +5.18 11
4. Irene Ashcroft & Jean Simpson +4.42 12
5. Jane & Martin Canning +3.60 10

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 20 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to +630 (S making), while others preferred 5♦ scoring up to +620 (N making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Loretta Goldsmith & Michael Taxman / Table 20 North: In 5♦, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to 620, differing from the 600 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.

Select a pair above to view performance details...

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.

📊 Afternoon Session - 23-04-2026

23rd April 2026

Winners

Beryl Webster & Gabriel McCarthy finished first with 62.50%, beating Lorraine Krasner & Bill Burrows by 4.89%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 9, 13, 21))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring no slam opportunities and 12 game boards. North/South faced 3 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 9, so East/West 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, Lorraine and Bill bid and made 3NT for 600. Another pair went down in 2♥ scoring -200 — a swing of 800 points.

View Hand Diagram
N
74
T82
AT
AKT763
W
QJ862
973
K853
5
Board 13
5♦ by E
E
A953
K64
62
QJ98
S
KT
AQJ5
QJ974
42

Slams

No slams were bid or made in this session.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

Board 1: 5D by E (-400)
James Jones beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 11. (Lead: 4S)
View Diagram
N
QJ5
KQ754
T7
864
W
A62
92
J965
AJ97
Board 1
6NT by W
E
3
AT83
AKQ8
KQ32
S
KT9874
J6
432
T5
Board 1: 5D by E (-400)
Liz Teasdale beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 11. (Lead: 4S)
View Diagram
N
QJ5
KQ754
T7
864
W
A62
92
J965
AJ97
Board 1
6NT by W
E
3
AT83
AKQ8
KQ32
S
KT9874
J6
432
T5
Board 1: 5D by E (-420)
Beryl Webster beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 12. (Lead: 10S)
View Diagram
N
QJ5
KQ754
T7
864
W
A62
92
J965
AJ97
Board 1
6NT by W
E
3
AT83
AKQ8
KQ32
S
KT9874
J6
432
T5

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair Avg Diff Bds
1. Beryl Webster & Gabriel McCarthy +7.17 12
2. Tish Trevaskis & Jean Simpson +7.14 7
3. Lorraine Krasner & Bill Burrows +6.64 11
4. James Jones & Ted Hulme +6.30 10
5. Judith Sutton & Jackie Greasley +6.25 12

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 10 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to +630 (S making), while others preferred 2♣ scoring up to +130 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Lorraine Krasner & Bill Burrows / Table 10 South: In 2♣, 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 19.0 HCP compared with 21.0 for East/West. This 2.0-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.

Select a pair above to view performance details...

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.

📊 Evening Session - 22-04-2026

22nd April 2026

Winners

North/South: Nigel Smith & Gabriel McCarthy finished first with 67.06%, beating John Chandler & Jan Pearson by 11.90%.
East/West: James Jones & Aidan Prescott won the field with 65.63%, clear of Lorraine Krasner & Alex Hurst (58.68%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 6, 8, 10))

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 11, Nigel and Gabriel defended 4♥ by E to collect 50 points (1 down). Another pair went down in 4*♦ scoring -800 — a swing of 850 points.

View Hand Diagram
N
75
2
KQ6543
KJ54
W
AQJ
J75
JT872
96
Board 11
5NT by S
E
9843
AQT94
AQ32
S
KT62
K863
A9
T87

Slams

- Lorraine Krasner & Alex Hurst: On Board 16, Lorraine Krasner & Alex Hurst advanced to 6♥ for -1430. While most other pairs stopped in 5♥, they bid this slam with 32 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 770 points over the field.

N
A9642
6
J643
T76
W
K75
AKJT2
KQ2
32
Board 16
6NT by S
E
QJT
Q754
AT
AK95
S
83
983
9875
QJ84

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

Board 2: 1NT by N (90)
Penny Houlden beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 7. (Lead: 3S)
View Diagram
N
K965
T52
J2
AKJ5
W
A
AQ93
96543
643
Board 2
3NT by S
E
Q843
KJ86
KQT
T9
S
JT72
74
A87
Q872
Board 2: 2D by W (-110)
Patrick King beat the odds: Computer says this contract fails (Par: 0), yet Declarer somehow brought home 9. (Lead: AC)
View Diagram
N
K965
T52
J2
AKJ5
W
A
AQ93
96543
643
Board 2
3NT by S
E
Q843
KJ86
KQT
T9
S
JT72
74
A87
Q872
Board 2: 2S by S (-100)
Linda Begon found the killer defense: Computer predicted 9 tricks (making), but the defense found the way to hold it to 7. (Lead: 9D)
View Diagram
N
K965
T52
J2
AKJ5
W
A
AQ93
96543
643
Board 2
3NT by S
E
Q843
KJ86
KQT
T9
S
JT72
74
A87
Q872

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair Avg Diff Bds
1. John Chandler & Jan Pearson +7.00 9
2. Sandie Mitchell & Michele Woodward +6.13 8
3. Nigel Smith & Gabriel McCarthy +6.00 9
4. Penny Houlden & Irene Ashcroft +5.75 8
5. Alan Bornat & Nicky Crosby +5.60 5

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 11 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 2♥ scoring up to -170 (E making), while others preferred 4♥ scoring up to -420 (E making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Val & Peter North / Table 11 East: In 2♥, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -170, differing from the standard achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 18.8 HCP compared with 21.2 for East/West. This 2.4-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.

Select a pair above to view performance details...

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.

Showing the last 5 reports. Click the results box above for full detail

Location and Facilities

Welcome to Liverpool Bridge Club. Explore our excellent location, modern amenities, and comfortable playing environment.

Find Us

Mersey House, MATCHWORKS site
Speke Road, Liverpool L19 2PH

View on Google Maps

Transport & Parking

Excellent public transport links and ample, secure car parking available on-site for all members and visitors.

Spacious Playing Room

Enjoy a large, light, and airy playing room accommodating up to 12 tables in a comfortable setting.

Amenities & Access

Fully equipped with coffee and tea making facilities. The club is fully accessible with disabled access throughout.

Club Bridge Games Schedule

 

Partners are available on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday afternoons.
Please arrive 15 minutes early.

Monday Afternoon

1:30 pm

  • Guided Play
  • No Master Points
Monday Evening

7:30 pm

  • Duplicate Bridge
  • Master Points Awarded
  • 2nd Mon: Churney Cup
Tuesday Afternoon

1:30 pm

  • Relaxed Duplicate (18+ boards)
  • No Master Points
Wednesday Evening

7:30 pm

  • Duplicate (21+ boards)
  • Master Points Awarded
Thursday Afternoon

1:30 pm

  • Duplicate (21+ boards)
  • Master Points Awarded
Need a Partner?

Contact Hilary

Annual subscription for 2025-2026 is £25.
Table money: £4.00 (Members) / £6.00 (Guests).

Member Privacy & Data Notice

Log in to view the information our club holds about you and manage your privacy preferences. The club takes its responsibility for protecting your personal data seriously. If you’ve forgotten your password or haven’t registered yet, click Password Reset to receive an email link to get started.

2026 John Armstrong Swiss Pairs
MERSEYSIDE AND CHESHIRE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION

JOHN ARMSTRONG GREEN POINTED SWISS PAIRS

SATURDAY MAY 16th 2026 | 11.00 am start

Venue:
Deva Bridge Club, WI Hall
Village Road, Christleton
Chester CH3 7AS
Format:
Seven matches of 7 boards
Green Point Awards to EBU Scale
TD: Ken Johnston

Catering

Tea and coffee will be available all day. No food will be on sale at the venue, but you are welcome to bring your own food along to eat at the break.

Entry & Payment

  • Entry Fee: £20 per player
  • Limit: 20 Tables
  • Eligibility: All players must be members of their Home Union
Online Entry Form

BACS Payment Details:
Merseyside and Cheshire Bridge Association
Sort code: 09-01-50
Account number: 05876354
Reference: JA25 surname

ALL ENTRIES MUST BE PAID FOR IN ADVANCE

Tip of the Day: Use the Rule of 15 in fourth seat.
..... see less

The Rule of 15 is a guideline used when you are in the fourth seat (the last player to act) and no one else has opened the bidding. To decide whether to open, add your high card points (HCP) to the number of spades in your hand. ..........

..... see more
Liverpool Bridge Club

Explore Liverpool Bridge Club

 

Learn more about our club, the game of bridge, and our members' exclusive Acol Pool website.

👋 Welcome to Our Bridge Club

Liverpool Bridge Club
Established over 70 years ago
A friendly club with 140+ members
Sessions for all levels of play
Well-regarded teaching programme
(see the Teaching section for details)

🌟 New Members & Guests

New members and visitors are always welcome!
To join, please contact Jackie on 07881 300472.
Guests may attend up to 4 times a year.
Guest fee (2025/26): £6 per visit.

🌟 New to Bridge?

Bridge is a fascinating card game of logic, memory, and teamwork. It’s played in pairs, where you and your partner work together to win tricks and outthink your opponents.

You don’t need to be a maths genius or a card expert to start. Bridge is easy to learn, and it rewards clear thinking, patience, and cooperation rather than luck.

💡 Why Play Bridge?

  • Keeps your mind sharp – strengthens memory and concentration.
  • Social and friendly – meet new people and share laughter over the cards.
  • Endlessly engaging – no two deals are ever the same.
  • All ages welcome – everyone can play and enjoy the challenge.

Whether you’re completely new or returning after a break, we offer beginner lessons and relaxed games to help you get started.

🎥 Watch Video on YouTube

💻 A Feature for Liverpool Bridge Club Members

Our Acol Pool Website is available — a dedicated resource featuring common conventions, key ideas, and frequently applied EBU rules.

You need a password. Login to the Members Area to get this. If you have forgotten your Members Area password or not registered before click the password reset link.

🌐 Visit the Acol Pool Website

 

🃏 Visit Hand Analysis Site

The Book Club

 The Matchless Book Club
Meets: 3rd Friday of the month at 12:15 pm

All LBC members welcome

 See Penny Houlden for details.

Calendar
4th May 2026
Monday Evening
7.30 pm
5th May 2026
Tuesday Afternoon
1.30 pm
6th May 2026
The Reg Pearson Trophy
7.30 pm