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.
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 | 440 | 0.9519 |
| 1957 | 445 | 1.1724 |
| 1958 | 326 | 0.9385 |
| 1959 | 310 | 1.0294 |
| 1962 | 415 | 1.1684 |
| 1967 | 256 | 0.9800 |
| 1973 | 255 | 1.0208 |
| 1974 | 191 | 0.9111 |
| 1975 | 192 | 1.2500 |
| 1977 | 191 | 1.1714 |
| 1979 | 188 | 1.0222 |
| 1981 | 186 | 1.2500 |
| 1983 | 351 | 1.5185 |
| 1987 | 278 | 0.9153 |
| 1991 | 135 | 0.8056 |
| 1995 | 319 | 2.0000 |
| 1997 | 1,202 | 1.1933 |
| 2000 | 700 | 1.3281 |
| 2001 | 255 | 1.6136 |
| 2005 | 1,869 | 1.3958 |
| 2007 | 2,698 | 1.2012 |
| 2009 | 2,931 | 1.1738 |
| 2011 | 3,590 | 1.1813 |
| 2013 | 4,182 | 1.1127 |
| 2015 | 3,350 | 1.4212 |
| 2017 | 4,304 | 1.3022 |
| 2019 | 3,760 | 1.4935 |
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eric Rodwell/Jeff Meckstroth | 384 | 192 | 98.32% | 98.70% | 97.93% | 96.63% | 96.70% |
| 2 | Mikael Rimstedt/Ola Rimstedt | 208 | 107 | 97.93% | 97.92% | 97.94% | 96.49% | 96.30% |
| 3 | Grzegorz Narkiewicz/Krzysztof Buras | 350 | 181 | 97.90% | 97.35% | 98.43% | 97.37% | 96.14% |
| 4 | Bauke Muller/Simon De Wijs | 352 | 171 | 97.89% | 97.63% | 98.15% | 96.91% | 97.24% |
| 5 | Bobby Levin/Steve Weinstein | 398 | 182 | 97.87% | 98.22% | 97.51% | 97.22% | 96.97% |
| 6 | Boye Brogeland/Espen Lindqvist | 335 | 164 | 97.87% | 98.26% | 97.48% | 97.83% | 97.91% |
| 7 | Linlin Hu/Yinghao Liu | 223 | 114 | 97.72% | 97.60% | 97.85% | 96.13% | 96.53% |
| 8 | Louk Verhees/Ricco Van Prooijen | 368 | 180 | 97.58% | 97.50% | 97.66% | 96.46% | 96.11% |
| 9 | Antonio Sementa/Norberto Bocchi | 238 | 128 | 97.49% | 97.80% | 97.18% | 95.56% | 96.16% |
| 10 | Andrew Robson/Tony Forrester | 269 | 133 | 97.45% | 97.88% | 97.02% | 97.12% | 97.24% |
| 11 | Fredrik Nystrom/Johan Upmark | 223 | 112 | 97.42% | 97.89% | 96.96% | 97.70% | 96.62% |
| 12 | Nils Kvangraven/Ulf Tundal | 239 | 105 | 97.37% | 97.69% | 97.05% | 96.85% | 97.52% |
| 13 | Jacek Kalita/Michal Nowosadzki | 415 | 205 | 97.35% | 97.31% | 97.38% | 96.89% | 96.88% |
| 14 | Artur Malinowski/David Bakhshi | 254 | 119 | 97.30% | 97.20% | 97.38% | 97.41% | 96.17% |
| 15 | Alon Birman/Dror Padon | 206 | 116 | 97.23% | 96.95% | 97.52% | 98.22% | 96% |
| 16 | Alfredo Versace/Lorenzo Lauria | 192 | 76 | 97.13% | 97.33% | 96.92% | 96.92% | 97.17% |
| 17 | Chris Jagger/Jeffrey Allerton | 208 | 100 | 96.97% | 97.12% | 96.82% | 97.40% | 95.97% |
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 | 157 | 0.8409 |
| 2000 | 256 | 1.1356 |
| 2005 | 286 | 1.2063 |
| 2007 | 1,039 | 1.1931 |
| 2009 | 1,589 | 1.1714 |
| 2011 | 1,538 | 1.3772 |
| 2013 | 1,837 | 1.0911 |
| 2015 | 1,620 | 1.4839 |
| 2017 | 2,709 | 1.3636 |
| 2019 | 3,337 | 1.5179 |
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nicola Smith/Yvonne Wiseman | 208 | 100 | 98.31% | 97.75% | 98.87% | 96.65% | 96.13% |
| 2 | Ya Lu/Yan Liu | 255 | 124 | 98.11% | 97.84% | 98.37% | 96.10% | 96.29% |
| 3 | Justyna Zmuda/Katarzyna Dufrat | 223 | 99 | 98.03% | 97.30% | 98.78% | 96.76% | 97.38% |
| 4 | Qi Shen/Wen Fei Wang | 367 | 188 | 97.86% | 97.85% | 97.88% | 96.22% | 97.81% |
| 5 | Catherine Draper/Gillian Fawcett | 272 | 153 | 97.74% | 97.45% | 98.03% | 96.63% | 96.54% |
| 6 | Martine Verbeek/Weitske Van Zwol | 256 | 121 | 97.67% | 97.85% | 97.48% | 96.44% | 96.49% |
| 7 | Anna Sarniak/Danuta Kazmucha | 205 | 110 | 97.45% | 97.11% | 97.80% | 96.49% | 96.85% |
| 8 | Cecilia Rimstedt/Ida Gronkvist | 366 | 180 | 97.44% | 97.95% | 96.94% | 97.82% | 96.57% |
| 9 | Heather Dhondy/Nevena Senior | 352 | 177 | 97.40% | 97.41% | 97.38% | 96.24% | 96.14% |
| 10 | Irina Levitina/Kerri Sanborn | 238 | 120 | 97.34% | 97.81% | 96.86% | 95.64% | 97.04% |
| 11 | Laura Dekkers/Merel Bruijnsteen | 320 | 155 | 97.29% | 97.37% | 97.22% | 95.80% | 96.50% |
| 12 | Jessica Larsson/Kathrine Bertheau | 208 | 104 | 96.95% | 96.95% | 96.95% | 97.48% | 97.58% |
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 | 762 | 1.1166 |
| 2007 | 663 | 1.3761 |
| 2009 | 1,057 | 1.1354 |
| 2011 | 1,311 | 1.2112 |
| 2013 | 624 | 0.8986 |
| 2015 | 981 | 1.3333 |
| 2017 | 1,815 | 1.3179 |
| 2019 | 3,140 | 1.3112 |
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michel Lebel/Philippe Soulet | 188 | 95 | 98.29% | 98.55% | 98.02% | 97.02% | 96.88% |
| 2 | Alan Mould/John Holland | 398 | 196 | 97.69% | 97.26% | 98.12% | 97.01% | 97.10% |
| 3 | Jorgen Hansen/Steen Schou | 350 | 171 | 97.67% | 97.63% | 97.71% | 96.96% | 97.10% |
| 4 | Subrata Saha/Sukamal Das | 285 | 132 | 97.62% | 97.72% | 97.52% | 97.26% | 96.50% |
| 5 | Alain Levy/Michel Abecassis | 223 | 104 | 97.56% | 97.33% | 97.79% | 96.76% | 95.85% |
| 6 | Hans Nielsen/Knud-Aage Boesgaard | 303 | 146 | 97.30% | 96.53% | 98.05% | 96.42% | 95.66% |
| 7 | Ramamurthy Sridharan/Subhash Dhakras | 222 | 133 | 97.29% | 96.90% | 97.68% | 97.80% | 97.61% |
| 8 | Frans Ten Brink/Hans De Vrind | 221 | 117 | 97.29% | 97.50% | 97.09% | 96.85% | 95.56% |
| 9 | Andre Mulder/Hans Vergoed | 255 | 110 | 96.99% | 96.90% | 97.08% | 96.28% | 96.67% |
| 10 | Hofland/Van Der Ho | 191 | 99 | 96.96% | 97.50% | 96.42% | 97.01% | 95.88% |
| 11 | Christians/Norman Han | 207 | 115 | 96.94% | 97.81% | 96.07% | 97.53% | 97.38% |
| 12 | David Kendrick/Trevor Ward | 271 | 140 | 96.91% | 96.57% | 97.25% | 96.89% | 95.85% |
| 13 | Mingkun Shen/Xiaonong Shen | 192 | 99 | 96.80% | 96.40% | 97.20% | 97.16% | 96.16% |
| 14 | Dipak Poddar/Jitendra Solani | 287 | 129 | 96.74% | 96.86% | 96.62% | 95.83% | 97.07% |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2,799 | 1.4058 |
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allan Graves/Jill Meyers | 304 | 142 | 98.13% | 98.38% | 97.88% | 96.90% | 97.25% |
| 2 | Fiona Brown/Michael Byrne | 219 | 115 | 98.00% | 97.82% | 98.18% | 97.04% | 97.40% |
| 3 | Daniele Gaviard/Jerome Rombaut | 191 | 91 | 97.86% | 97.57% | 98.13% | 96.25% | 97.35% |
| 4 | Alexander Dubinin/Tatiana Ponomareva | 271 | 124 | 97.79% | 98.01% | 97.57% | 97.49% | 97.69% |
| 5 | Andrey Gromov/Anna Gulevich | 336 | 170 | 97.66% | 97.77% | 97.55% | 97.35% | 97.93% |
| 6 | Cheri Bjerkan/Howie Weinstein | 240 | 138 | 97.48% | 97.65% | 97.30% | 96.80% | 96.67% |
| 7 | Frances Hinden/Graham Osborne | 205 | 109 | 97.48% | 97.03% | 97.93% | 95.40% | 96.47% |
| 8 | Marina Stegaroiu/Marius Ionita | 235 | 115 | 97.44% | 97.87% | 97.00% | 96.82% | 96.75% |
| 9 | Geta Mihai/Radu Mihai | 205 | 111 | 97.44% | 97.28% | 97.61% | 97.06% | 97.59% |
| 10 | Bogdan Marina/Mihaela Balint | 192 | 97 | 97.38% | 97.67% | 97.09% | 96.32% | 96.94% |
| 11 | Jelena Alfejeva/Karlis Rubins | 224 | 106 | 97.13% | 96.12% | 98.13% | 96.88% | 96.91% |
| 12 | Chris Willenken/Migry Zur-Campanile | 175 | 91 | 96.89% | 96.90% | 96.88% | 97.24% | 96% |
| 13 | Janis Bethers/Maija Romanovska | 223 | 118 | 96.86% | 96.60% | 97.11% | 96.53% | 97.27% |
| 14 | Christal Henner/Uday Ivatury | 191 | 98 | 96.56% | 96.88% | 96.25% | 97.52% | 95.46% |
| 15 | Barry Myers/Sally Brock | 240 | 100 | 96.48% | 96.75% | 96.21% | 95.95% | 96.59% |
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 | 440 | 0.9519 |
| 1957 | 445 | 1.1724 |
| 1958 | 326 | 0.9385 |
| 1959 | 310 | 1.0294 |
| 1962 | 415 | 1.1684 |
| 1967 | 256 | 0.9800 |
| 1973 | 255 | 1.0208 |
| 1974 | 191 | 0.9111 |
| 1975 | 192 | 1.2500 |
| 1977 | 191 | 1.1714 |
| 1979 | 188 | 1.0222 |
| 1981 | 186 | 1.2500 |
| 1983 | 351 | 1.5185 |
| 1987 | 278 | 0.9153 |
| 1991 | 135 | 0.8056 |
| 1995 | 319 | 2.0000 |
| 1997 | 1,202 | 1.1933 |
| 2000 | 700 | 1.3281 |
| 2001 | 255 | 1.6136 |
| 2005 | 1,869 | 1.3958 |
| 2007 | 2,698 | 1.2012 |
| 2009 | 2,931 | 1.1738 |
| 2011 | 3,590 | 1.1813 |
| 2013 | 4,182 | 1.1127 |
| 2015 | 3,350 | 1.4212 |
| 2017 | 4,304 | 1.3022 |
| 2019 | 3,760 | 1.4935 |
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.