Wuhan 2019

Wuhan, China 2019

None of the data in this segment 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

© Copyright 2015-2023, Hammond Software
Opening Lead Double Dummy Accuracy Rate (DDOLAR)

Opening lead double dummy accuracy rate (DDOLAR) statistics

This is the double dummy opening lead accuracy rate (DDOLAR) for players from different types of events. The data was generated by Bridgescore+. The following data is shown:
  1. ACBL tournaments (speedballs/regionals). Mid March-mid December, 2020.
  2. Virtual ACBL clubs. Mid March-mid December, 2020.
  3. Top level face-to-face (FTF) tournaments, 1955-2020.
  4. Various charts


ACBL tournaments (speedballs/regionals). Mid March-mid December, 2020.

2,000 total boards played by partnerships as cut off. Note this is not the number of leads.

Approximately 2,300 pairs, 4,600 players. Top 50 pairs for the Double Dummy Opening Lead Accuracy Rate (DDOLAR).

BBO names are case-insensitive and may contain spaces. For presentation purposes, names have been capitalized and all spaces replaced with an underscore.

Last updated with new names displayed: November 4, 2021.

Rank Names Number of
leads
DDOLAR
1ALLANBW - ZINGERZ191,04688.91%
2LEILA19 - TUMAN461,34688.11%
3Names removed1,23388.08%
4Names removed1,03387.90%
5Names removed1,29487.48%
6Names removed2,14687.33%
7Names removed2,63087.03%
8Names removed1,59787.04%
9NARESH001 - SUZIE7832,37086.84%
10Names removed1,26786.82%
11Names removed1,69686.73%
12Names removed1,07786.63%
13Names removed1,30186.55%
14Names removed1,28186.49%
15Names removed2,04986.38%
16Names removed1,18286.13%
17Names removed2,52086.11%
18Names removed3,03086.11%
19Names removed1,23186.11%
20MIKADO999 - ZEVSALOMON2,18686.09%
21Names removed1,17486.03%
22LN - RKK1,11385.89%
23Names removed1,40685.78%
24Names removed3,78485.76%
25Names removed2,37985.71%
26MAXTALENT1 - NONS561,37185.70%
27Names removed1,70485.68%
28Names removed6,61985.65%
29Names removed2,92385.63%
30RICKYNY72 - TONY1010101,03585.60%
31Names removed1,10385.49%
32Names removed1,53985.38%
33Names removed2,47185.35%
34Names removed4,23985.33%
35Names removed2,08385.26%
36Names removed1,03885.26%
37Names removed1,04585.26%
38JMBRPLYR - ROXANNSWEN3,30285.16%
39Names removed1,22085.16%
40Names removed1,21285.15%
41SAMZEINE - ZAK101,30785.08%
42Names removed1,53185.04%
43Names removed1,89085.03%
44Names removed1,34085.00%
45Names removed1,20484.97%
46Names removed1,25584.94%
47Names removed1,13084.87%
48Names removed1,36984.81%
49Names removed1,91484.80%
50Names removed2,03284.74%

Pairs in red have one or more players that have been suspended by ACBL.


Virtual ACBL clubs. Mid March-mid December, 2020.

2,000 total boards played by partnerships as cut off. Note this is not the number of leads.

Approximately 550 pairs, 1,110 players. Top 10 pairs for the Double Dummy Opening Lead Accuracy Rate (DDOLAR).

BBO names are case-insensitive and may contain spaces. For presentation purposes, names have been capitalized and all spaces replaced with an underscore.

Rank Names Number of
leads
DDOLAR
1DGORDON123 - ROZGORDON1,19586.11%
2Names removed92285.79%
3Names removed95585.55%
4Names removed1,26185.09%
5Names removed1,11585.02%
6Names removed1,35084.81%
7Names removed77784.81%
8Names removed78284.78%
9Names removed1,00884.33%
10Names removed85484.07%


Top level face-to-face (FTF) tournaments, 1955-2020.

1,000 total boards played by partnerships as cut off. Note this is not the number of leads.

There are 88 pairs with their Double Dummy Opening Lead Accuracy Rate (DDOLAR) and number of boards.

Rank Names Number of
leads
DDOLAR
1Names removed56485.82%
2Names removed54684.43%
3Alexander Smirnov - Josef Piekarek1,28284.01%
4Names removed63483.91%
5Names removed96083.65%
6Names removed63683.65%
7Names removed58583.42%
8Names removed3,08782.83%
9Names removed1,66082.83%
10Names removed2,00482.78%
11Entscho Wladow - Michael Elinescu78082.56%
12Names removed1,43282.54%
13Cedric Lorenzini - Jean-Christophe Quantin61582.44%
14Names removed54482.35%
15Lotan Fisher - Ron Schwartz68382.14%
16Names removed1,41682.06%
17Names removed64281.93%
18Names removed52681.94%
19Names removed1,47981.74%
20Names removed73281.69%
21Names removed76181.60%
22Names removed91281.58%
23Names removed64881.48%
24Names removed56781.48%
25Names removed1,50881.43%
26Names removed96981.42%
27Names removed71881.34%
28Names removed4,72681.32%
29Names removed53581.31%
30Names removed2,58081.28%
31Names removed71081.27%
32Names removed66781.26%
33Names removed43681.19%
34Names removed1,29081.16%
35Names removed98781.16%
36Names removed50481.15%
37Names removed3,19481.09%
38Names removed69881.09%
39Names removed77681.06%
40Names removed1,57281.04%
41Names removed95581.05%
42Names removed4,10581.02%
43Names removed1,18980.99%
44Names removed1,31780.94%
45Names removed1,08480.90%
46Names removed2,84880.90%
47Names removed2,03580.84%
48Names removed67280.80%
49Names removed1,55880.68%
50Names removed99980.68%
51Names removed2,44380.56%
52Names removed55580.54%
53Names removed86080.47%
54Names removed96980.39%
55Names removed1,63980.35%
56Names removed56980.32%
57Names removed81080.12%
58Names removed1,40080.00%
59Names removed1,12979.98%
60Names removed1,70879.92%
61Names removed71279.92%
62Names removed1,43379.83%
63Names removed58079.83%
64Names removed57979.79%
65Names removed2,45679.72%
66Names removed66679.73%
67Names removed1,14379.70%
68Names removed53179.66%
69Names removed74179.62%
70Names removed77579.61%
71Names removed66279.61%
72Names removed1,48879.50%
73Names removed75679.50%
74Names removed81479.48%
75Names removed46379.48%
76Names removed54879.38%
77Names removed46479.31%
78Names removed99879.26%
79Names removed1,17579.23%
80Names removed77879.18%
81Names removed70679.18%
82Names removed83878.88%
83Names removed65278.83%
84Names removed56978.73%
85Names removed89978.64%
86Names removed90278.16%
87Names removed51677.91%
88Names removed50777.51%

Pairs in red have one or more players that have been convicted by a Bridge Organization or have confessed to cheating in Bridge events.

BBO ACBL Games - partnerships - 4,000+ leads - through December 31, 2020

The cut-off is 4,000 leads. There are 41 pairs. There are 7 pairs above 82%.

BBO ACBL Games - partnerships - 5,000 total boards cut off through November 30, 2020

The cut-off is 5,000 total boards played (i.e. about 2,500 on lead). There are 178 pairs. There are 21 pairs above 82%. 8 of the top 21 pairs were in the Bridgewinners anonymized data experiment and BW volunteers determined they were cheating. Two of the 21 pairs are known to be married couples.

The following data is up through September 2020. The cut-off is 1,000 total boards played (i.e. about 500 on lead). Data is shown for partnerships, and for individual players.

BBO ACBL Games - partnerships - 1,000 total boards cut off

BBO ACBL Games - players

BBO Virtual ACBL Games - partnerships

BBO Virtual ACBL Games - players

World class events (1955-2020) - partnerships

World class events (1955-2020) - players

© Copyright 2015-2023, Hammond Software