Bridge Results: VanLawn Bridge After Dark Section A Monday Evening June 1

Work In Progress! This HTML page with results combines the ACBLscore results, the BridgeMate data, and the actual cards in each hand to make a page that displays nicely on most screens. I'll continue to develop it as I hear about problems from people. So far I have only really had time to test it on the large monitor I have at home. I've done a little bit of work in making it fit on my iPhone 15 screen (turned sideways), but the typical cellphone screen is not wide enough to display the hands alongside the results, so it relocates the hands below the results and you may need to scroll down a bit. The key is in the tabs at the top, which mean you don't need to scroll to get from results to Board 32! Just click or tap on what you want to see next!

Two things that may help: If your browser program is old, some of the tech in this page might not work 100%: the system of tabs at the top of the page requires a recent version. You really aren't doing your computer many favours if you avoid requests to upgrade the programs you use most often, like browsers. If the page works but there are large areas of a monitor unused, you might be able to make it more readable by adjusting the size of things with CTRL + (plus key), which upsizes text and other screen elements a bit. CTRL + (minus key) also works if you go too far, and CTRL + (zero) resets to the default. (This doesn't work on cellphone screens.)

How is a pair's matchpoint score on a board calculated? Your raw score is compared one by one with all of the other raw scores on the board made by pairs sitting in your direction. You get one matchpoint for each score you beat, and a half-point for each score that is the same as yours. The top score on a board is one less than the number of times it is played. If the board was not played as many times as other boards for some reason, the scores may be factored up to compensate, so that each board has the same top score.

How is a pair's total score calculated? The scoring program first checks all boards to see how many times they have been played. Usually this will be the same for all boards, but if there is a sitout or a glitch of some sort in the movement, or an artificially assigned score due to an irregularity, the scoring program must first FACTOR scores on boards played fewer times, so that the top score on every board is the same. Once that is done, the scoring program also checks to see that each pair played the same number of boards: some may have sat out and missed a round: these pairs will have their total matchpoints FACTORED so that they get matchpoints for the boards they missed, based on their percentage on the boards they did play. The total of all this summing and factoring is your final score.

How does this factoring work exactly? There are actually two types of factoring: the most common is to factor a pair's score that has not played as many boards as the other pairs. Their sum of matchpoints on the boards they played, is divided by the number of boards they played, and then multiplied by the number of boards most pairs played. The other type is covered in the next question.

I have the best score on a board but got slightly fewer matchpoints than tops on other boards, why is that? This is the other type of factoring, which happens when a board is played fewer times than other boards for some reason. Maybe a pair didn't get to it, or there was a artificial score assigned after an irregularity. Factoring a board has to take into account the small chance that, had it been played the correct number of times, the extra plays might have produced a score that is better than the current top, or lower than the current bottom. To do so, the ACBL and the World Bridge Federation use the Neuberg formula, which you can read about on Wikipedia if you want the complete details. It has its detractors, but is sort of like Winston Churchill's ranking of democracy as the second-worst system of government ... all the others being tied for first!

HCP and FRK, what on earth are they? HCP stands for highcard points, and the four numbers surrounding it show how many points each player has in a hand. The colour behind the word "HCP" is gray when the 40 points are evenly distributed between North-South and East-West, but turns more and more orange (North-South) or purple (East-West) if one side has a majority. FRK stands for Freakness, a way to describe just how freaky a hand's distribution is, on a scale from 0-20, with average for a hand being just slightly less than 3, and the average for a full deal, the sum of the freakness ratings of the four hands, is about 11.93 on average. A hand gets one freakness point for each card in a suit beyond the fourth, or less than three; plus a bonus if the hand contains at least one void (2 points) or at least one singleton but no void (1 point). The background colour behind the "FRK" shows whether the deal is hot (red), average (gray), or cold (blue) in terms of Freakness! Freakness was created by bridge expert Richard Pavlicek and searching for "pavlicek freakness" will get you quickly to his article on the subject.

Something New! The tabs with the board numbers now indicate which side had the bulk of the high-card points (above the board number: NS: orange, EW: purple, evenly-split: gray), and the freakness rating of the deal as a whole (below the board number: flat: blue, average: gray, freaky: red)! Want to see only the hands where N-S had the points, or the freakiest ones? Check the tabs!

What are "tricks available" and how are they calculated? Computers these days can analyze all the possible legal play lines on a deal, given a trump suit (or notrump) and a declarer, and sort all of these lines into successes and failures to come up with an optimum line of play that perfect defenders and a perfect declarer would take. The result of this line of play is the "tricks available" and is sometimes unrealistic, requiring opening leads that few if any would find, or declarer taking only the finesses that work and dropping offside singleton honours where possible. You will very quickly see from the results which deals have unrealistic "tricks available" expectations, and it is often a fun exercise to work out how you can make that many tricks. But for most deals, it is a fairly good guide as to how high a pair should bid.

Why are the masterpoints not the same as what is on ACBL Live for Clubs? This is in my view an own goal by ACBL: they have new rules for club game masterpoints but are not willing to expend the time to upgrade ACBLscore to show the masterpoints under the new rules. Luckily, most masterpoint awards actually get bigger when they go through the "engine" and are reposted on Live. The main effect is to give more masterpoints to games where the non-sitting out pairs play more boards. The problem is that the masterpoint awards that come out of ACBLscore, before being posted online, are not what you eventually get.

How can I contact McBruce to tell him what's not working for me? By e-mail: oogashawca@gmail.com (the old shaw.ca address is gone)


Results for Section A, North-South
Pair#	Percent	Score	A	B	C	MPts	Players
A5N	57.50%	69.00	1	1		1.12(A)	Sharene Jansen - Geraldine May
A2N	57.08%	68.50	2	2	1	0.80(C)	Patti Gies - Joel Fuhrman
A6N	54.58%	65.50	3			0.56(A)	Adelina Wong-Chor - Lorne Greenberg
A1N	51.67%	62.00					Bruce McIntyre - William Osten
A3N	45.42%	54.50					Grant Gayman - Veronica Peacock
A7N	42.50%	51.00					Stephen Pickett - Hugh Woolley
A4N	41.25%	49.50					Cindy Chan - Brenda Maclean
North-South had 50.98% of the highcard points in today's deals. The average freakness rating of today's deals (measuring the amount of distribution in the dealset as a whole) was 13.07, a bit above the average of about 11.93.


Results for Section A, East-West
Pair#	Percent	Score	A	B	C	MPts	Players
A2E	59.17%	71.00	1	1		1.12(A)	Linda Morgan - Virginia Forrester
A3E	57.92%	69.50	2	2		0.78(A)	Karen Cunningham - Sandy Young
A7E	50.42%	60.50	3			0.56(A)	Pamela Moore - Maarten Tjebbes
A6E	49.17%	59.00			1	0.80(C)	Lana Chow - Calvin Caborn
A5E	47.92%	57.50					Rangie Sylvestre - Tessa Bruekels
A1E	43.33%	52.00					Scott Turner - Stefano Urbani
A4E	42.08%	50.50					Gita Sheikholeslami - Karen Levine
North-South had 50.98% of the highcard points in today's deals. The average freakness rating of today's deals (measuring the amount of distribution in the dealset as a whole) was 13.07, a bit above the average of about 11.93.


Tricks Available (best play by both sides)
	in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎		in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎
by N	5	8	7	4	7	by E	4	4	4	8	6
by S	6	8	8	4	7	by W	5	5	5	9	6


Tricks Available (best play by both sides)
	in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎		in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎
by N	6	5	5	7	5	by E	6	7	5	5	7
by S	7	6	5	7	4	by W	6	7	5	5	7


Tricks Available (best play by both sides)
	in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎		in NT	in ♠︎	in ♥︎	in ♦︎	in ♣︎
by N	4	2	3	2	7	by E	8	11	9	11	6
by S	4	2	3	2	7	by W	8	11	9	11	6


Board 5 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Adelina Wong-Chor & Lorne Greenberg	A6N	100	6.00	600	5♣︎n	=	♥︎2	—	0.00	0	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	75	4.50	150	3♦︎s	+2	♠︎A	—	1.50	25	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani
Bruce McIntyre & William Osten	A1N	75	4.50	150	3♣︎n	+2	♠︎T	—	1.50	25	A7E	Pamela Moore & Maarten Tjebbes
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	50	3.00	—	5♣︎n	–1	♠︎6	100	3.00	50	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	17	1.00	—	5♣︎*n	–1	♥︎K	200	5.00	83	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	17	1.00	—	5♣︎*n	–1	♥︎K	200	5.00	83	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	17	1.00	—	5♣︎n	–2	♠︎T	200	5.00	83	A2E	Linda Morgan & Virginia Forrester


Board 6 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Bruce McIntyre & William Osten	A1N	83	5.00	420	4♠︎n	=	♥︎4	—	1.00	17	A7E	Pamela Moore & Maarten Tjebbes
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	83	5.00	420	4♠︎n	=	♠︎8	—	1.00	17	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels
Adelina Wong-Chor & Lorne Greenberg	A6N	83	5.00	420	4♠︎n	=	♥︎6	—	1.00	17	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	25	1.50	170	3♠︎s	+1	♣︎8	—	4.50	75	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	25	1.50	170	3♠︎n	+1	♣︎8	—	4.50	75	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	25	1.50	170	3♠︎n	+1	♣︎3	—	4.50	75	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	25	1.50	170	2♠︎n	+2	♣︎8	—	4.50	75	A2E	Linda Morgan & Virginia Forrester


Board 7 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	92	5.50	660	3NTn	+2	♦︎A	—	0.50	8	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani
Bruce McIntyre & William Osten	A1N	92	5.50	660	3NTn	+2	♦︎A	—	0.50	8	A7E	Pamela Moore & Maarten Tjebbes
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	67	4.00	200	2♥︎n	+3	♦︎A	—	2.00	33	A2E	Linda Morgan & Virginia Forrester
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	50	3.00	140	2♠︎n	+1	♥︎2	—	3.00	50	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	25	1.50	110	2♠︎n	=	♥︎2	—	4.50	75	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Adelina Wong-Chor & Lorne Greenberg	A6N	25	1.50	110	3♣︎s	=	♦︎T	—	4.50	75	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	0	0.00	—	4♥︎n	–1	♦︎A	100	6.00	100	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels


Board 19 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	69	4.17	140	2♥︎n	+1	♣︎9	—	1.83	31	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	69	4.17	140	3♥︎s	=	♣︎9	—	1.83	31	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	69	4.17	140	2♥︎s	+1	♣︎9	—	1.83	31	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	69	4.17	140	3♥︎n	=	♣︎Q	—	1.83	31	A2E	Linda Morgan & Virginia Forrester
Bruce McIntyre & William Osten	A1N	21	1.25	110	2♥︎s	=	♠︎3	—	4.75	79	A4E	Gita Sheikholeslami & Karen Levine
Grant Gayman & Veronica Peacock	A3N	1	0.08	0	PASS			0	5.92	99	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani


Board 25 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Adelina Wong-Chor & Lorne Greenberg	A6N	100	6.00	130	4♦︎n	=	♠︎A	—	0.00	0	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	50	3.00	110	3♦︎n	=	♦︎J	—	3.00	50	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	50	3.00	110	3♦︎n	=	♣︎A	—	3.00	50	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	50	3.00	110	2♦︎n	+1	♠︎A	—	3.00	50	A4E	Gita Sheikholeslami & Karen Levine
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	50	3.00	110	2♦︎n	+1	♠︎A	—	3.00	50	A4E	Gita Sheikholeslami & Karen Levine
Grant Gayman & Veronica Peacock	A3N	50	3.00	110	3♦︎n	=	♦︎J	—	3.00	50	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	0	0.00	100	3♠︎w	–1	♦︎K	—	6.00	100	A7E	Pamela Moore & Maarten Tjebbes


Board 26 Results
North-South	Pair#	NS %	NS MP	NS Score	Contract & Result		Op. Ld.	EW Score	EW MP	EW %	Pair#	East-West
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	92	5.50	200	3NTw	–2	♣︎3	—	0.50	8	A4E	Gita Sheikholeslami & Karen Levine
Patti Gies & Joel Fuhrman	A2N	92	5.50	200	3NTw	–2	♣︎3	—	0.50	8	A4E	Gita Sheikholeslami & Karen Levine
Stephen Pickett & Hugh Woolley	A7N	67	4.00	100	3♠︎e	–1	♦︎3	—	2.00	33	A7E	Pamela Moore & Maarten Tjebbes
Adelina Wong-Chor & Lorne Greenberg	A6N	50	3.00	—	2♠︎e	=	♥︎3	110	3.00	50	A5E	Rangie Sylvestre & Tessa Bruekels
Grant Gayman & Veronica Peacock	A3N	25	1.50	—	3♥︎w	=	♣︎3	140	4.50	75	A6E	Lana Chow & Calvin Caborn
Sharene Jansen & Geraldine May	A5N	25	1.50	—	3♥︎w	=	♠︎5	140	4.50	75	A3E	Karen Cunningham & Sandy Young
Cindy Chan & Brenda Maclean	A4N	0	0.00	—	3NTe	=	♣︎5	600	6.00	100	A1E	Scott Turner & Stefano Urbani