24th March 2026

Winners

North/South: Michele Woodward & Pam Stevenson finished first with 58.33%, beating Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster by 2.77%.
East/West: Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme won the field with 59.72%, clear of David Platt & Roy Lubman (57.87%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 8, 10, 17))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was marked by frequent scoring opportunities, featuring no slam opportunities and 11 game boards. North/South faced 7 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 15, Duncan and Julia bid and made 6NT for 1440. Another pair went down in 6NT scoring -100 — a swing of 1540 points.

Slams

- Duncan Ferguson & Julia Burge: On Board 15, Duncan Ferguson & Julia Burge advanced to 6NT for 1440. While most other pairs stopped in 5♦, they bid this slam with 22 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1540 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 15 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 6NT scoring up to +1440 (N making), while others preferred 3NT scoring up to +690 (N making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Michele Woodward & Pam Stevenson / Table 15 South: In 4♠, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to 680, differing from the standard achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 21.0 HCP compared with 19.0 for East/West. This 2.0-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.

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.

19th March 2026

Winners

Jackie Greasley & Lorraine Krasner finished first with 61.11%, beating Roy Lubman & Ann Jenkey by 6.35%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 7, 8, 10))

Did you have the cards?

In this Mitchell movement, the session was limited in scoring potential, featuring 1 slam opportunities and 8 game boards. North/South faced 5 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 4, 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 23, Sandie and Ann bid and made 6♠ for 1460. Another pair scored 260 in 2♠ — a swing of 1200 points.

Slams

- Sandie Mitchell & Ann Jones: On Board 23, Sandie Mitchell & Ann Jones advanced to 6♠ for 1460. While most other pairs stopped in 5♣, they bid this slam with 28 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1200 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 16 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to +520 (S making), while others preferred 4♦ scoring +170 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Michele Woodward & Jean Simpson / Table 16 South: In 3NT, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to 520, differing from the 490 achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.3 HCP compared with 19.7 for East/West. The balanced distribution meant results were determined more by contract choice and defence than raw strength.

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.