Esplanade Club 2013 Payoff Matrices

by Matthew Kidd
April 14, 2014

I introduced the Payoff Matrix concept last October and showed results for six years of the La Jolla unit game based on the output generated by the Payoff Matrix software. Here I present similar results for the 2013 calendar year for the Esplanade Club in San Diego. As usual, the data shown in the visual matrices is limited to regular partnerships who play in enough sessions to generate decent statistics but full data is presented in the tab delimited text files which are available as a download at the end of this page.

The Esplanade Club runs several sessions per week, both open and limited games. The following table shows the average field strength for each session in order of decreasing strength. The 2013 La Jolla unit and San Diego unit open games are also included for comparison.

Field strength for each session
Session	Mean (MP)	Geomean (MP)
San Diego Unit open pairs	2874	1787
La Jolla Unit open pairs	2711	1567
Esplanade Tue Eve open pairs	1770	940
Esplanade Thu Eve Mentor/Mentee open pairs	1468	531
Esplanade Wed Aft open pairs	1021	496
Esplanade Fri Mor open pairs	769	384
Esplanade Tue Mor 499er pairs	77	39
Esplanade Thu Mor 499er pairs	60	29

Both the mean and geometric mean is shown. I have argued previously that the geometric mean is a better indicator of field strength than the mean. In a geometric mean, the mean is taken in a logarithmic manner. For example, the geometric mean of two players with 10 and 1000 MP respectively, is 100 MP not 505 MP. Less experienced players drag down the geometric mean more than the arithmetic mean. A field with a high geometric mean should in principle be uniformly fairly tough and offer few gifts.

The Esplanade payoff matrices are presented below in the order of decreasing field strength according to the table above.

Esplanade Tuesday evening pairs

Timothy Flaherty and John Houde dominated the Tuesday evening game in 2013 with a 59.52% average, beating the runner up partnership of Timothy Flaherty and Rick Norton Jr. by a full 4.8%. This is a stunning difference considering that John Houde and Rick Norton Jr. have a similar number of masterpoints (2600 vs. 3000 at the end of 2013). The partnership of Timothy Flaherty and Rick Norton Jr at 54.70% barely edges out Spencer Emtage and Michele Zuniga (54.55%), Leon Fisher and Fred Flam (54.5%), Larry Erickson and Paul Foster (54.35%), and Rex and Sheila Latux (54.25%). These 54-something percent partnerships are close enough that we can only assert with 60% confidence that the partnership of Timothy Flaherty and Rick Norton Jr. is better than the partnership of Rex and Sheila Latux given the entire year of data for Tuesday evening.

There is a lot of payoff matrix data, an entry for every partnership-partnership interaction, easily several thousand interactions over the course of a year. But many of the interactions only involve a few boards. The payoff matrix can be simplified by limiting it to the interactions between regular partnerships. However, this reduction still leaves us with several hundred interactions. It helps to see the reduced results visually, as shown below.

Both axes list the partnerships in order of decreasing strength for partnerships who played at least 10 sessions in 2013. Each square shows how well the partnership listed on corresponding row does against the partnership in the corresponding column. The color scale runs from solid blue (30% or lower) to solid yellow (70% or better) with grey at 50%. White squares indicate partnerships that have never played any boards against each other. Pink squares indicate partnerships that can not interact because they have one or more players in common. The diagonal is always pink.

Move the mouse over the image to view the details for each square (matrix element). The hovering tooltip will show the names of the two partnerships, each partnership’s average against the field, the number of boards the partnerships have played against each other, and in bold the average results of those boards including an error. The average result shows how well the partnership on the row did against the partnership on the column. The matrix is anti-symmetric about the diagonal. Squares with a faint red X denote statistics based on relatively few boards, fewer than 10 in this case.

The upper right corner of the matrix is mostly yellow. This is because stronger partnerships usually have an advantage against weaker partnerships. Conversely the lower left corner is mostly blue. However, there are interesting exceptions. For example, Ginger Calvert and Cheryl Rodzach cross up Christine Denny and William Bidermann.

Over/Underperformance

Even a weak partnership might cause another partnership a lot of trouble by doing far better against that partnership than the difference in skill against the field would suggest should be the case. We could say that the weak partnership is overperforming against the stronger partnership.

The matrix below corrects for the difference in partnership skill, showing how much each partnership overperforms or underperforms against another partnership. The blue to yellow scale runs from -20% to 20% with grey at 0%. Move the mouse of the image to view the details for each square (matrix element). As before the partnership names and average percentage are shown. The over-perform / under-perform percentage is shown in bold. The ordinary percentage from the previous figure is also shown. Note: the previous figure also shows the over/under-performance statistics after ‘OU:’ as in ‘OU: 9.7%’.

The more yellowish and bluish square in the second matrix above are interesting because they indicate a pair that is strongly over/underperforming against another pair. The following table lists these relations in descending degree of payoff (or “exploitability”) where the pair-pair percentage is derived from at least 16 boards. Cnt is the number of boards that each interaction percentage based on.

Biggest Over/underperforming partnership interactions in the payoff matrix
Overperforming Pair	Underperforming Pair	Cnt	OU%
Sheila Latus - Rex Latus	Ginger Calvert - Cheryl Rodzach	23	14.18
Michele Zuniga - J Spencer Emtage	Leon Fisher - Fred Flam	16	12.73
Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	Sheila Latus - Rex Latus	24	11.97
Lawrence Hauser - Barbara Hauser	Ginger Calvert - Cheryl Rodzach	22	11.78
Rashad A Ansari - Jeffrey Leach	Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	18	11.61
Richard Thome - Arthur Ostroff	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	36	11.27
M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	Mary Woo - Roberta Massey	32	11.13
Suzanne Anson - Kay Childs	Rick Norton Jr - Timothy Flaherty	16	10.78
Ginger Calvert - Cheryl Rodzach	Richard Thome - Arthur Ostroff	21	10.53
Mary Woo - Roberta Massey	Lawrence Hauser - Barbara Hauser	17	10.10
Vic Dhooge - Diana Glimm	Barbara Naschold - Donald Cooper	56	9.99
Leon Fisher - Fred Flam	Mary Woo - Roberta Massey	16	9.81
Rashad A Ansari - Jeffrey Leach	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	18	9.57
Richard Thome - Arthur Ostroff	Vic Dhooge - Diana Glimm	29	9.17
Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	Rick Norton Jr - Timothy Flaherty	17	8.89
Joe Houde - Timothy Flaherty	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	19	8.86
Suzanne Anson - Kay Childs	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	32	8.45
Richard Thome - Arthur Ostroff	Leon Fisher - Fred Flam	19	8.38
Emily Berkov - Barry Berkov	W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	20	8.33
Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	Emily Berkov - Barry Berkov	31	8.30
Mary Woo - Roberta Massey	Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	31	8.29
Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	Rashad A Ansari - Jeffrey Leach	23	8.23
Barbara Naschold - Donald Cooper	Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	48	8.00
Lawrence Hauser - Barbara Hauser	Michele Zuniga - J Spencer Emtage	22	7.95
M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	Christine Denny - William Bidermann	20	7.81
Paul Foster - Lawrence Erickson	Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	60	7.71
Emily Berkov - Barry Berkov	Barbara Naschold - Donald Cooper	35	7.69
Michele Zuniga - J Spencer Emtage	Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	25	7.32
Christine Denny - William Bidermann	Vic Dhooge - Diana Glimm	30	6.83
Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	Christine Denny - William Bidermann	29	6.59
Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	Emily Berkov - Barry Berkov	16	6.51
Paul Foster - Lawrence Erickson	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	28	6.25
Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	Ginger Calvert - Cheryl Rodzach	38	6.18
Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	21	5.95
Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	Christine Denny - William Bidermann	46	5.93
Dan Dayani - Bette Cornelius	Mary Woo - Roberta Massey	16	5.88
Michele Zuniga - J Spencer Emtage	Sheila Latus - Rex Latus	69	5.79
Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	27	5.78
Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	Michele Zuniga - J Spencer Emtage	18	5.66
Suzanne Anson - Kay Childs	Paul Foster - Lawrence Erickson	54	5.57
Christine Denny - William Bidermann	W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	39	5.48
Paul Foster - Lawrence Erickson	Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	27	5.42
Emily Berkov - Barry Berkov	Vic Dhooge - Diana Glimm	16	5.33
W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	Dan Dayani - Bette Cornelius	17	5.32
Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	Lynn Wells - Janice Wells	20	5.23
Rick Norton Jr - Timothy Flaherty	Sheila Latus - Rex Latus	20	5.16
M Ali Mahdavi - Nicholas Krall	Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	19	5.05

The table gives us much to speculate about and yet it is still a lot to absorb. Part of the difficulty is that many pairs are listed multiple times. A graph may be a better representation. Here is an example: OU ≥ 6%, where the graph represents the data in the table above down to advantages as small as 6%.

Unlike the Social Network graphs, the payoff graphs are directed, i.e they represent flow, the transport of over/underperformance around the partnership network. An incoming arrow represents a payoff to a partnership; an outgoing arrow represents payoff from a partnership.

It should be noted that although these are directed graphs, they are not directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), an important and well studied class of graphs. Cycles are easy to spot. For example Lynn and Janice Wells payoff to Mary Woo and Roberta Massey who payoff to M Ali Mahdavi and Nicholas Krall who payoff to Rashad Ansari Jeffrey Leach who complete the cycle by paying off to Lynn Wells Janice Wells. So turns the wheel of exploitation.

Scientists and mathematicians may be concerned about the fact that inflow and outflow are not equal at each node (pair) given that the over/underperformance numbers have compensated for the difference in partnership ability. There are two reasons for this. First, only the most prominent and statistically confident payoffs are shown. Many smaller payoffs are suppressed in order to avoid total clutter. Second, the payoff calculations are based on different numbers of boards. For example, an underperformance of 3% over 40 boards would be balanced by a overperformance of 6% over 20 boards.

Esplanade Thursday evening mentor/mentee pairs

This session has a fairly high mean field strength but a comparably low geometric mean field strength because half the players are mentees.

The straight up and over/underperformance matrices below list the partnerships in order of decreasing strength for partnerships who played at least 7 sessions in 2013. Nicholas and Diane Krall (55.96% from 7 games) barely edge out Spencer Emtage and Afick Sharar (55.57% from 15 games), with Paul Foster and Sandy Kucha (55.28% from 15 games) in third place. These are close results. Statistically we can only say with 58% confidence that the Kralls are better than Spence and Afick in this game. Best Thursday evening game of the year goes to Lance and Anne Malkind, one time visitors who walked away with a 71.5% game.

Here is the Over/underperformance table where the pair-pair percentage is derived from at least 16 boards and OU ≥ 4 is shown. Cnt is the number of boards that each interaction percentage based on. Or view the graph.

Biggest Over/underperforming partnership interactions in the payoff matrix
Overperforming Pair	Underperforming Pair	Cnt	OU%
Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	19	17.76
Barbara Naschold - Pat Matsumoto	Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	19	13.22
Sandy Silverman - Vicki Shepperd Chin	Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	20	12.76
Lynn Chambers - Tom Chambers	Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	19	12.57
Lynn Chambers - Tom Chambers	Sandy Silverman - Vicki Shepperd Chin	17	9.39
Sandy Silverman - Vicki Shepperd Chin	Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	22	9.12
Paul Foster - Sandy Kucha	Diane Krall - Nicholas Krall	16	8.86
Diane Krall - Nicholas Krall	Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	20	8.66
Paul Foster - Sandy Kucha	Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	27	7.73
Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	34	7.03
J Spencer Emtage - Afick Sharar	W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	26	6.93
J Spencer Emtage - Afick Sharar	Donna Wood - David Goldfarb	16	6.79
Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	Donna Wood - David Goldfarb	16	6.17
Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	Lynn Chambers - Tom Chambers	16	5.84
Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	Barbara Naschold - Pat Matsumoto	17	5.72
Paul Foster - Sandy Kucha	Ralph Dilley - John Kroener	16	5.06
Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	Lynn Chambers - Tom Chambers	27	4.36
Janice Joerger - Marilyn Kalabsa	Harriet Smith - Judy Litman	26	4.18
Lynn Chambers - Tom Chambers	Richard Thome - Lawrence Erickson	40	4.15
Sandy Silverman - Vicki Shepperd Chin	Joan Kroener - Jeanette Bentley	20	4.05

Esplanade Wednesday afternoon open pairs

The matrices are limited to pairs who have played at least 10 sessions. John and Rima Sharron lead the Wednesday afternoon game with a 58.09% average over 24 games. But they are closely followed by Larry Sherman and John Sack (57.63% over 18 games), a pair seasoned for several years by the often tough Soledad Thursday night game. Statistics only allows us to assert with 67% confidence that the Sharrons are the better pair. In third place, significantly behind is the partnership of Jan Gallagher and the late John Devine (55.85% over 24 games), allowing us to assert with 82% confidence that Larry and John are the better partnership.

Here is the Over/underperformance table where the pair-pair percentage is derived from at least 20 boards and OU ≥ 4 is shown. Cnt is the number of boards that each interaction percentage based on. Or view the graph.

Biggest Over/underperforming partnership interactions in the payoff matrix
Overperforming Pair	Underperforming Pair	Cnt	OU%
Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	Marvin Bauch - Robert Mann	29	13.58
Marvin Bauch - Robert Mann	David Hawkins - Sharon Gabriel	22	13.13
Sharon Kambestad - Marcia Trombold	Lawrence Sherman - John Sack	21	12.73
Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	38	11.53
Eric Juline - Peter Clark	Barbara Klein - Yael Aires	20	11.19
Wootsie Stockton - Jamie Detweiler	Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	37	10.63
Florence Cohen - Judy Dveris	W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	32	10.47
Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	Hanan Deeby - Alice Lane	22	10.28
Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	Mary Lou Kammerer - Barbara Scherman	21	10.02
Harriet Smith - Edie Block	Wootsie Stockton - Jamie Detweiler	24	9.28
Harriet Smith - Edie Block	Eric Juline - Peter Clark	26	9.10
David Hawkins - Sharon Gabriel	Florence Cohen - Judy Dveris	28	8.97
Paul Foster - Sandy Kucha	Barbara Coffey - Charles Coffey	26	8.21
Barbara Klein - Yael Aires	Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	21	7.76
Patricia Newman - Carol Abramowitz	Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	28	7.72
Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	37	7.57
Barbara Klein - Yael Aires	Richard Thome - Bob Schork	21	7.29
Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	Patricia Newman - Carol Abramowitz	33	7.17
Lawrence Sherman - John Sack	Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	22	7.14
Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	Vicki Shepperd Chin - Mary Fenton	23	7.10
Vicki Shepperd Chin - Mary Fenton	Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	21	6.54
Eric Juline - Peter Clark	Barbara Coffey - Charles Coffey	47	6.45
Paul Foster - Sandy Kucha	Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	23	6.42
Hanan Deeby - Alice Lane	Florence Cohen - Judy Dveris	24	6.19
Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	27	5.88
Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	Rose Zakarian - Emily Berkov	27	5.84
Wootsie Stockton - Jamie Detweiler	Barbara Klein - Yael Aires	30	5.76
Eric Juline - Peter Clark	Sharon Kambestad - Marcia Trombold	25	5.46
Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	Sharon Kambestad - Marcia Trombold	25	5.44
Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	Terry Paul - Chrissy Fried	34	5.30
Marvin Bauch - Robert Mann	W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	36	5.03
Rose Zakarian - Emily Berkov	Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	40	4.91
Kevin Chaisson - Meena Sethi	Richard Thome - Bob Schork	21	4.85
David Hawkins - Sharon Gabriel	Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	20	4.65
Barbara Coffey - Charles Coffey	Raghubir Mathur - Ruth Aronsohn	24	4.61
W John Devine - Jan Gallagher	Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	28	4.09
Rima Sharron - John Sharron Jr	Sharon Kambestad - Marcia Trombold	27	4.01

Esplanade Friday morning open pairs

As with the Wednesday afternoon open game, the matrices are limited to pairs who have played at least 10 sessions. The partnerships of Joe Houde and Ron Kay (61.05% over 11 games), and Kevin Chaisson and Philippe Lamoise (58.28% over 16 games) are a clear first and second place, ahead of a pack of partnerships averaging 55.81 and below. We can be more than 90% certain both that the first place partnership is better than second place partnerships and that the second place partnership is better than the third place partnership.

Biggest Over/underperforming partnership interactions in the payoff matrix
Overperforming Pair	Underperforming Pair	Cnt	OU%
Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	Christine Denny - J Spencer Emtage	20	12.90
Christine Denny - J Spencer Emtage	Barbara Farfel - Martin Farfel	20	12.52
Donald Cleveland - Harvey Schleifstein	Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	21	12.47
Michele Zuniga - Roberta Massey	Chris Kelly - Isabella Pommier	23	12.10
Mary Lou Kammerer - Patricia Prahm	Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	25	11.04
Donald Cleveland - Harvey Schleifstein	Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	25	10.28
Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	Vic Dhooge - Mike O'Leary	20	9.05
Marilyn Kalabsa - Ruth Aronsohn	Kevin Chaisson - Philippe Lamoise	20	8.51
Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	Paul Foster - Judd Halenza	23	8.18
Leah Stark - Edgar Wessel	Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	30	7.93
Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	Michele Zuniga - Roberta Massey	38	7.04
Kevin Chaisson - Philippe Lamoise	Vic Dhooge - Mike O'Leary	22	6.31
Barbara Farfel - Martin Farfel	Michele Zuniga - Roberta Massey	30	6.01
Kevin Chaisson - Philippe Lamoise	Donald Cleveland - Harvey Schleifstein	20	5.83
Leah Stark - Edgar Wessel	Lawrence Hauser - Barbara Hauser	23	5.70
Jeanette Bentley - Chuck Siggins	Leah Stark - Edgar Wessel	20	5.68
Lawrence Hauser - Barbara Hauser	Paul Foster - Judd Halenza	20	5.37
Mary Lou Kammerer - Sandra Musbach	Barbara Farfel - Martin Farfel	20	5.21
Michele Zuniga - Roberta Massey	Mary Ballin - Abe Gleiberman	30	5.19
Marilyn Kalabsa - Ruth Aronsohn	Jane Petering - Paula Alexander	23	4.54
Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	Christine Denny - J Spencer Emtage	26	4.24
Joyce Pickersgill - Vivian Entous	Marilyn Kalabsa - Ruth Aronsohn	39	4.17

Esplanade Tuesday and Thursday morning 499er pairs

There is considerable overlap between the pairs in both morning 499er games. Therefore, it makes sense to create a single set of payoff matrices from the combined dataset.

The matrices are limited to pairs who have played at least 10 sessions between the two 499er sessions. It’s a close race at the top around 55% led by Alan and Lorna Strang (55.45% over 60 games), Wallace Mccoy and Leroy Wisper (55.34 over 17 games), and Vivian Entous and Ray Miller (54.83% over 26 games).

Here is the Over/underperformance table where the pair-pair percentage is derived from at least 20 boards and OU ≥ 5 is shown. Cnt is the number of boards that each interaction percentage based on. Or view the graph.

Biggest Over/underperforming partnership interactions in the payoff matrix
Overperforming Pair	Underperforming Pair	Cnt	OU%
Wallace Mccoy - Leroy Wisper	Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	21	15.20
Joyce Pickersgill - Darlene Bigos	Lori Eichenfield - Fran Subar	21	15.00
Batia Kvashny - Isabella Wilf	Mary Anne Curray - Dolores Boily	29	13.60
Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	Greg Smith - Kay Earley	25	13.54
Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	Nat Cordova - Geri Cordova	38	12.65
Greg Smith - Kay Earley	Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	23	11.65
Bernard Goott - Joan Goott	Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	21	11.17
Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	Judee Feinberg - Claire Altman	40	10.36
Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	Janie Killermann - Sheri Meek	26	9.97
Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	Sharon Mack - Irene Cooper	45	9.47
Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	Nancy Shelmon - Maureen Sage	24	9.05
Lori Eichenfield - Fran Subar	Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	23	8.48
Simma Nemeth - Joyce Pickersgill	Batia Kvashny - Isabella Wilf	27	8.03
Nat Cordova - Geri Cordova	Joyce Durra - Cheryl Griffiths	21	7.76
Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	Joyce Pickersgill - Darlene Bigos	24	7.67
Sharon Mack - Irene Cooper	Mary Anne Curray - Dolores Boily	21	7.19
Wallace Mccoy - Leroy Wisper	Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	27	6.97
Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	20	6.75
Nancy Shelmon - Maureen Sage	Greg Smith - Kay Earley	44	6.70
Mary Anne Curray - Dolores Boily	Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	34	6.56
Don Glickman - Maureen Culhane	Rosemary Love - Sheri Meek	20	6.19
Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	Nancy Shelmon - Maureen Sage	22	6.05
Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	Judee Feinberg - Claire Altman	27	5.93
Bernard Goott - Joan Goott	Rosemary Love - Sheri Meek	23	5.81
Bernard Goott - Joan Goott	Nancy Shelmon - Maureen Sage	32	5.80
John Oden - Miki Oden	Joyce Pickersgill - Darlene Bigos	20	5.71
Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	Rosemary Love - Sheri Meek	50	5.46
Mary Anne Curray - Dolores Boily	Janie Killermann - Sheri Meek	28	5.42
Thomas Boardman - John Trombold	John Oden - Miki Oden	24	5.18
Janie Killermann - Sheri Meek	Wallace Mccoy - Leroy Wisper	21	5.18
Vivian Entous - Ray Miller	Alan Strang - Lorna Strang	24	5.09
Nancy Shelmon - Maureen Sage	Nat Cordova - Geri Cordova	43	4.85

Get the data

Download a zip file (1 MB) of all the tab delimited text files created by the Payoff Matrix software and used to generate the payoff matrix images above. For convenience, an Excel version of some files is also included. A filename such as Esp-2013-Wed-Aft-min-10-payoff-matrix.txt means the 2013 Esplanade Club payoff matrix data for the Wednesday afternoon session after restricting to partnerships that have played at least 10 sessions. If min-# is not included in the filename, no minimum session cut has been applied. The definition of each column is explained in the Payoff Matrix software documentation. The zip file also includes the images and the image specific JavaScript files.