This page contains statistical data only about the performance of players at a tournament. None of the data in this page is related to cheating. The calculation of these values produces a better reflection of a pair's performance than Butler scores. The rankings are based on fewest errors on defense after the opening lead. Names are from BBO (Bridge Base Online). Some names have been converted from BBO handles to names.

Wuhan, China 2019

Information current after day 2 of the finals. The last segment of the finals has not yet been uploaded to BBO so there may be one more iteration.

It is possible to measure the 'quality' of Bridge. Also a polite way of saying you can measure the level of cheating. See Chapter 13 at http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/selections.html.

The following table shows the Bermuda Bowl MF values for 1955 to present. The MF value works best with a large number of boards. For individual tournaments before 1995 the values do not mean much but the average for earlier years shows a low number.

The value jumped significantly in 2015 when all players became aware that players could be detected cheating through video. This was the cleanest Bermuda Bowl on record ... until 2019. I'd like to think that the book had something to do with this. The top pairs know that they can be detected cheating using statistics.

Year # Boards MF Value
1955 4400.9519
1957 4451.1724
1958 3260.9385
1959 3101.0294
1962 4151.1684
1967 2560.9800
1973 2551.0208
1974 1910.9111
1975 1921.2500
1977 1911.1714
1979 1881.0222
1981 1861.2500
1983 3511.5185
1987 2780.9153
1991 1350.8056
1995 3192.0000
19971,2021.1933
2000 7001.3281
2001 2551.6136
20051,8691.3958
20072,6981.2012
20092,9311.1738
20113,5901.1813
20134,1821.1127
20153,3501.4212
20174,3041.3022
20193,7601.4935

The lower the MF value, the more likely there is cheating at the event. The higher the MF value, the less likely there is cheating at the event. Note the big jumps in 2015 and 2019.

Results after day 2 of finals

Minimum number of boards to qualify: 191

Players ranked by performance on defence after the opening lead.

Rank Names # Boards # Def
Boards
Rating Player 1
defense
rating
Player 2
defense
rating
Player 1
declarer
rating
Player 2
declarer
rating
1Eric Rodwell/Jeff Meckstroth38419298.32%98.70%97.93%96.63%96.70%
2Mikael Rimstedt/Ola Rimstedt20810797.93%97.92%97.94%96.49%96.30%
3Grzegorz Narkiewicz/Krzysztof Buras35018197.90%97.35%98.43%97.37%96.14%
4Bauke Muller/Simon De Wijs35217197.89%97.63%98.15%96.91%97.24%
5Bobby Levin/Steve Weinstein39818297.87%98.22%97.51%97.22%96.97%
6Boye Brogeland/Espen Lindqvist33516497.87%98.26%97.48%97.83%97.91%
7Linlin Hu/Yinghao Liu22311497.72%97.60%97.85%96.13%96.53%
8Louk Verhees/Ricco Van Prooijen36818097.58%97.50%97.66%96.46%96.11%
9Antonio Sementa/Norberto Bocchi23812897.49%97.80%97.18%95.56%96.16%
10Andrew Robson/Tony Forrester26913397.45%97.88%97.02%97.12%97.24%
11Fredrik Nystrom/Johan Upmark22311297.42%97.89%96.96%97.70%96.62%
12Nils Kvangraven/Ulf Tundal23910597.37%97.69%97.05%96.85%97.52%
13Jacek Kalita/Michal Nowosadzki41520597.35%97.31%97.38%96.89%96.88%
14Artur Malinowski/David Bakhshi25411997.30%97.20%97.38%97.41%96.17%
15Alon Birman/Dror Padon20611697.23%96.95%97.52%98.22%96%
16Alfredo Versace/Lorenzo Lauria1927697.13%97.33%96.92%96.92%97.17%
17Chris Jagger/Jeffrey Allerton20810096.97%97.12%96.82%97.40%95.97%

It is possible to measure the 'quality' of Bridge. Also a polite way of saying you can measure the level of cheating. See Chapter 13 at http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/selections.html.

The following table shows the Venice Cup MF values for 1955 to present. The MF value works best with a large number of boards. For individual tournaments before 2007 the values do not mean much but the average for earlier years shows a low number.

The value jumped significantly in 2015 when all players became aware that players could be detected cheating through video. This was the cleanest Venice Cup on record ... until 2019. I'd like to think that the book had something to do with this. The top pairs know that they can be detected cheating using statistics.

Year # Boards MF Value
1997 1570.8409
2000 2561.1356
2005 2861.2063
2007 1,0391.1931
2009 1,5891.1714
2011 1,5381.3772
2013 1,8371.0911
2015 1,6201.4839
2017 2,7091.3636
2019 3,3371.5179

The lower the MF value, the more likely there is cheating at the event. The higher the MF value, the less likely there is cheating at the event. Note the big jumps in 2015 and 2019.

Results after day 2 of finals

Minimum number of boards to qualify: 200

Players ranked by performance on defence after the opening lead.

Rank Names # Boards # Def
Boards
Rating Player 1
defense
rating
Player 2
defense
rating
Player 1
declarer
rating
Player 2
declarer
rating
1Nicola Smith/Yvonne Wiseman20810098.31%97.75%98.87%96.65%96.13%
2Ya Lu/Yan Liu25512498.11%97.84%98.37%96.10%96.29%
3Justyna Zmuda/Katarzyna Dufrat2239998.03%97.30%98.78%96.76%97.38%
4Qi Shen/Wen Fei Wang36718897.86%97.85%97.88%96.22%97.81%
5Catherine Draper/Gillian Fawcett27215397.74%97.45%98.03%96.63%96.54%
6Martine Verbeek/Weitske Van Zwol25612197.67%97.85%97.48%96.44%96.49%
7Anna Sarniak/Danuta Kazmucha20511097.45%97.11%97.80%96.49%96.85%
8Cecilia Rimstedt/Ida Gronkvist36618097.44%97.95%96.94%97.82%96.57%
9Heather Dhondy/Nevena Senior35217797.40%97.41%97.38%96.24%96.14%
10Irina Levitina/Kerri Sanborn23812097.34%97.81%96.86%95.64%97.04%
11Laura Dekkers/Merel Bruijnsteen32015597.29%97.37%97.22%95.80%96.50%
12Jessica Larsson/Kathrine Bertheau20810496.95%96.95%96.95%97.48%97.58%

It is possible to measure the 'quality' of Bridge. Also a polite way of saying you can measure the level of cheating. See Chapter 13 at http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/selections.html.

The following table shows the Senior Bowl MF values for 2005 to present. The MF value works best with a large number of boards. For individual tournaments before 2015 the values do not mean much but the average for earlier years shows a low number.

The value jumped significantly in 2015 when all players became aware that players could be detected cheating through video.

Year # Boards MF Value
2005 7621.1166
2007 6631.3761
2009 1,0571.1354
2011 1,3111.2112
2013 6240.8986
2015 9811.3333
2017 1,8151.3179
2019 3,1401.3112

The lower the MF value, the more likely there is cheating at the event. The higher the MF value, the less likely there is cheating at the event.

Both the Venice Cup and Bermuda Bowl showed a big increase in the MF values, but the MF value for the Senior Bowl did not. Hmm. Wonder why. They played the same boards. OK.... you are smart, I hope I really don't have to spell it out for you...

Yup. The software tells me who the most likely suspects are but I can't mention their names. I don't publish the cheating detection data for events but at least one pair triggered an alert. Does it help if I tell you that I gave WBF a list of suspect pairs for the Senior Bowl before the event started and all the pairs I mentioned triggered alerts in the cheating detection software event? Amazing how that can happen.

After the WBF upload the videos to Youtube, I will see if the quality of video is good enough to see if there is anything suspicious on videos.

Results after day 2 of finals

Minimum number of boards to qualify: 188

Players ranked by performance on defence after the opening lead.

Rank Names # Boards # Def
Boards
Rating Player 1
defense
rating
Player 2
defense
rating
Player 1
declarer
rating
Player 2
declarer
rating
1Michel Lebel/Philippe Soulet1889598.29%98.55%98.02%97.02%96.88%
2Alan Mould/John Holland39819697.69%97.26%98.12%97.01%97.10%
3Jorgen Hansen/Steen Schou35017197.67%97.63%97.71%96.96%97.10%
4Subrata Saha/Sukamal Das28513297.62%97.72%97.52%97.26%96.50%
5Alain Levy/Michel Abecassis22310497.56%97.33%97.79%96.76%95.85%
6Hans Nielsen/Knud-Aage Boesgaard30314697.30%96.53%98.05%96.42%95.66%
7Ramamurthy Sridharan/Subhash Dhakras22213397.29%96.90%97.68%97.80%97.61%
8Frans Ten Brink/Hans De Vrind22111797.29%97.50%97.09%96.85%95.56%
9Andre Mulder/Hans Vergoed25511096.99%96.90%97.08%96.28%96.67%
10Hofland/Van Der Ho1919996.96%97.50%96.42%97.01%95.88%
11Christians/Norman Han20711596.94%97.81%96.07%97.53%97.38%
12David Kendrick/Trevor Ward27114096.91%96.57%97.25%96.89%95.85%
13Mingkun Shen/Xiaonong Shen1929996.80%96.40%97.20%97.16%96.16%
14Dipak Poddar/Jitendra Solani28712996.74%96.86%96.62%95.83%97.07%

It is possible to measure the 'quality' of Bridge. Also a polite way of saying you can measure the level of cheating. See Chapter 13 at http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/selections.html.

The following table shows the Mixed Teams MF values. The MF value works best with a large number of boards. This is the first time this event has been held so there is no history.

Year # Boards MF Value
20192,7991.4058

The lower the MF value, the more likely there is cheating at the event. The higher the MF value, the less likely there is cheating at the event.

Compare this value to the Bermuda Bowl (3,760 boards - 1.49), Venice Cup (3,337 boards - 1.52), Senior Bowl (3,140 boards - 1.31), Mixed Teams (2,799 boards - 1.41)

The higher the value the better the quality of bridge.

Results after day 2 of finals

Minimum number of boards to qualify: 175

Players ranked by performance on defence after the opening lead.

Rank Names # Boards # Def
Boards
Rating Player 1
defense
rating
Player 2
defense
rating
Player 1
declarer
rating
Player 2
declarer
rating
1Allan Graves/Jill Meyers30414298.13%98.38%97.88%96.90%97.25%
2Fiona Brown/Michael Byrne21911598.00%97.82%98.18%97.04%97.40%
3Daniele Gaviard/Jerome Rombaut1919197.86%97.57%98.13%96.25%97.35%
4Alexander Dubinin/Tatiana Ponomareva27112497.79%98.01%97.57%97.49%97.69%
5Andrey Gromov/Anna Gulevich33617097.66%97.77%97.55%97.35%97.93%
6Cheri Bjerkan/Howie Weinstein24013897.48%97.65%97.30%96.80%96.67%
7Frances Hinden/Graham Osborne20510997.48%97.03%97.93%95.40%96.47%
8Marina Stegaroiu/Marius Ionita23511597.44%97.87%97.00%96.82%96.75%
9Geta Mihai/Radu Mihai20511197.44%97.28%97.61%97.06%97.59%
10Bogdan Marina/Mihaela Balint1929797.38%97.67%97.09%96.32%96.94%
11Jelena Alfejeva/Karlis Rubins22410697.13%96.12%98.13%96.88%96.91%
12Chris Willenken/Migry Zur-Campanile1759196.89%96.90%96.88%97.24%96%
13Janis Bethers/Maija Romanovska22311896.86%96.60%97.11%96.53%97.27%
14Christal Henner/Uday Ivatury1919896.56%96.88%96.25%97.52%95.46%
15Barry Myers/Sally Brock24010096.48%96.75%96.21%95.95%96.59%
It is possible to measure the 'quality' of Bridge. Also a polite way of saying you can measure the level of cheating. See Chapter 13 at http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/selections.html.

The following table shows the Bermuda Bowl MF values for 1955 to present. The MF value works best with a large number of boards. For individual tournaments before 1995 the values do not mean much but the average for earlier years shows a low number.

The value jumped significantly in 2015 when all players became aware that players could be detected cheating through video. This was the cleanest Bermuda Bowl on record ... until 2019. I'd like to think that the book had something to do with this. The top pairs know that they can be detected cheating using statistics.

Year # Boards MF Value
1955 4400.9519
1957 4451.1724
1958 3260.9385
1959 3101.0294
1962 4151.1684
1967 2560.9800
1973 2551.0208
1974 1910.9111
1975 1921.2500
1977 1911.1714
1979 1881.0222
1981 1861.2500
1983 3511.5185
1987 2780.9153
1991 1350.8056
1995 3192.0000
19971,2021.1933
2000 7001.3281
2001 2551.6136
20051,8691.3958
20072,6981.2012
20092,9311.1738
20113,5901.1813
20134,1821.1127
20153,3501.4212
20174,3041.3022
20193,7601.4935

The lower the MF value, the more likely there is cheating at the event. The higher the MF value, the less likely there is cheating at the event. Note the big jumps in 2015 and 2019.