23rd June 2026

Winners

North/South: Sandra & Stephen Saltissi finished first with 62.50%, beating Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster by 6.25%.
East/West: Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme won the field with 63.10%, clear of David Platt & Roy Lubman (60.32%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 3, 4, 6))

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 4, Simon and Ann defended 4*♥ doubled by W to collect 500 points (2 down). Another pair made 2*♥ and scored 870 — a swing of 1370 points.

View Hand Diagram

N

♠ Q43

♥ KJ92

♦ AK75

♣ JT

W

♠ AJ8

♥ AQT54

♦ 94

♣ K72

Board 4

2♥ by E

E

♠ K65

♥ 8763

♦ J83

♣ AQ6

S

♠ T972

♥ —

♦ QT62

♣ 98543

Slams

- Kieron McPartland & Paul Hozack: On Board 3, Kieron McPartland & Paul Hozack advanced to 6♠ for 980. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 32 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 530 points over the field.

- Sandra & Stephen Saltissi: On Board 3, Sandra & Stephen Saltissi advanced to 6♠ for 980. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 32 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 530 points over the field.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair	Avg Diff	Bds
1. Michele Woodward & Pam Stevenson	+1.82	11
2. Gill Czarnecka & Rob Timlin	+1.71	7
3. James Jones & Alex Hurst	+1.45	11
4. Debbie Rooney & Myrna Bennett	+1.33	9
5. Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme	+1.22	9

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 18 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 4♠ scoring up to +650 (S making), while others preferred 2♠ scoring up to +200 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Simon & Ann Harding / Table 18 South: 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 21.1 HCP compared with 18.9 for East/West. This 2.2-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.

22nd June 2026

Winners

Jane & Martin Canning finished first with 60.48%, edging Hilary Rowland & James Jones by -4.52%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 7, 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 6 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 5, 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 22, Lesley and Jan defended 5*♣ doubled by W to collect 200 points (1 down). Another pair made 4*♣ and scored 910 — a swing of 1110 points.

View Hand Diagram

N

♠ 86

♥ KQ8654

♦ AK6

♣ 76

W

♠ AT95

♥ 3

♦ 87

♣ AKQJT9

Board 22

5NT by E

E

♠ QJ3

♥ A97

♦ QJ432

♣ 54

S

♠ K742

♥ JT2

♦ T95

♣ 832

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.

Pair	Avg Diff	Bds
1. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes & Patrick King	+1.71	7
2. Irene Ashcroft & Jean Simpson	+1.42	12
3. Nigel Smith & Galina Piunovskaya	+1.07	14
4. Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts	+1.00	8
5. Lesley Beilinsohn & Jan Pearson	+0.60	10

Where the choice of contract made a difference

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

Individual Tops

- Jane & Martin Canning / Table 22 West: In 4*♣, declarer secured an overtrick that other tables missed. This extra trick improved the score to -910, differing from the standard achieved by the field.

Distribution of Points

North/South held an average of 20.5 HCP compared with 19.5 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.

17th June 2026

Winners

Nigel Smith & Pam Stevenson finished first with 64.24%, edging Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts by 0.35%.
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 1, 6, 7))

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 21, Judith and Penny bid and made 4♠ for 650. Another pair made 6*♣ and scored 1090 — a swing of 1740 points.

Slams

- Eileen Mitchell & Julie Bromley Kelly: On Board 21, Eileen Mitchell & Julie Bromley Kelly advanced to 6*♣ for -1090. While most other pairs stopped in 4♠, they bid this slam with 20 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1740 points over the field.

- Simon Kenny & Duncan Ferguson: On Board 7, Simon Kenny & Duncan Ferguson advanced to 6NT for -1470. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 28 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1280 points over the field.



- Eileen Mitchell & Julie Bromley Kelly: On Board 7, Eileen Mitchell & Julie Bromley Kelly advanced to 6♥ for -1460. While most other pairs stopped in 3NT, they bid this slam with 28 combined HCP. This decision produced a gain of 1280 points over the field.

Killer Leads & Par Breakers

HCP Efficiency (Performance vs Par)

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

Pair	Avg Diff	Bds
1. Indira Maddison & Ann Ap-Thomas	+2.89	9
2. Hilary Rowland & Jackie Greasley	+1.92	13
3. Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts	+1.75	16
4. Penny Houlden & Irene Ashcroft	+1.55	11
5. Gabriel McCarthy & Jean Simpson	+1.50	14

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 14 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to +490 (S making), while others preferred 4♠ scoring +480 (N making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Judith Sutton & Penny Roberts / Table 21 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 20.4 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.

16th June 2026

Winners

North/South: Penny Houlden & Beryl Webster finished first with 63.75%, beating Sandra & Stephen Saltissi by 1.87%.
East/West: Ann Jones & Alex Hurst won the field with 67.50%, clear of Pam Stevenson & Michele Woodward (63.13%).
(Winning margin analysis: secured by several large swings (notably Boards 20, 22, 23))

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 10 game/slam opportunities while East/West had 2, 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, Sandie and David bid and made 5*♠ for 850. Another pair made 5♦ and scored 600 — a swing of 1450 points.

View Hand Diagram

N

♠ AQJ764

♥ J

♦ 5

♣ AKQT6

W

♠ 5

♥ 6

♦ 976432

♣ 97532

Board 20

5♠ by N

E

♠ 3

♥ AKQ74

♦ AKQT8

♣ J4

S

♠ KT982

♥ T98532

♦ J

♣ 8

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.

Pair	Avg Diff	Bds
1. Bill Burrows & Ted Hulme	+1.38	8
2. Ann Jones & Alex Hurst	+1.33	9
3. Debbie Rooney & Roy Lubman	+1.00	6
4. Pam Stevenson & Michele Woodward	+0.86	7
5. Sandie Mitchell & David Cotton	+0.79	14

Where the choice of contract made a difference

- Board 3 split the field. Multiple pairs chose 3NT scoring up to +490 (S making), while others preferred 4♠ scoring up to +420 (S making). This purely auction-based decision created a swing distinct from play or defense.

Individual Tops

- Simon & Ann Harding / Table 20 North: 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 22.4 HCP compared with 17.6 for East/West. This 4.8-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.