3NT versus four of a major
Measure whether the notrump premium and nine-trick target beat the control and ruffing value of a major-suit game.
Bridge SolverBidding decision analysis
Compare Bridge Contracts Across Thousands of Deals
Put two target contracts on the same generated deals and measure the scoring consequences. Compare notrump with a suit game, part-score with game, or game with slam without relying on make percentage alone.
Analyses require a Bridge Solver account.| Contract | Make | Average | IMP difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4♥ | 64.8% | +412 | +0.71 |
| 3NT | 56.1% | +376 | -0.71 |
Measured edge4♥Example data, not a live result
Workflow
How to compare bridge contracts
Contract comparison is a simulation question: which target produces the better result over hands consistent with what the players knew?
- 01
Define the hand population
Enter the known hand and describe the other seats with HCP, suit, card and bidding-related constraints.
- 02
Set contract A
Choose level, strain, declarer, doubling and vulnerability for the first target contract.
- 03
Set contract B
Describe the alternative independently, including a different declarer position when the auction permits it.
- 04
Compare every board
Both contracts are evaluated on each accepted deal before the score and IMP differences are aggregated.
Common decisions
Questions the contract calculator can test
The comparison is useful whenever two plausible contracts expose the partnership to different scoring risks.
Part-score versus game
Test whether accepting a plus score is worth more than the game bonus at the relevant vulnerability.
Game versus slam
Compare the slam bonus with the cost of going down when controls, fit or high cards lie unfavorably.
Different declarer positions
See whether playing a contract from North rather than South protects a stopper or changes the opening lead.
Doubled contracts
Include doubled or redoubled scoring when those contracts are the actual targets being compared.
Best-contract search
When the choice is broader than two targets, use Best Contract mode to rank candidate contracts by average score.
Example
3NT versus 4 hearts
A partnership with an eight-card heart fit and balanced values may have a genuine choice between 3NT and 4 hearts.
Use the same deals for both targets
Enter the known hand, then describe partner’s range and heart length from the auction. If the opponents have shown spades, add the relevant suit lengths or fixed honors instead of assuming random breaks. Configure 3NT and 4 hearts with the correct declarers and vulnerability, then run Compare Targets.
The illustrative preview above gives 4 hearts the higher make rate, average score and IMP result. A real analysis can easily go the other way: 3NT needs one fewer trick and may score better when both contracts make, while 4 hearts gains when notrump lacks a stopper or declarer can ruff losers.
Scoring
Why make percentage is not enough
Make percentage treats every success as one success, but duplicate scoring assigns very different values to a part-score, game, small slam and grand slam. It also distinguishes vulnerable and non-vulnerable penalties. A vulnerable game that makes 44 percent of the time may outperform a part-score that makes 78 percent, depending on the undertricks and overtricks on the remaining boards.
Bridge Solver therefore reports board-level contract results, average scores and IMP difference for Compare Targets. The saved result also includes matchpoint comparisons. Use the metric that matches the event: IMPs reward large game and slam swings, while matchpoints care how often one contract outscores the other.
Interpret the result in layers
- Make rate explains reliability.
- Average score captures the complete duplicate score.
- IMP difference shows the team-game swing.
- Matchpoint percentage shows board-by-board frequency.
- Individual boards explain which layouts create the edge.
Methodology
A comparison inherits the simulation assumptions
The contracts are solved with all four generated hands visible to the double-dummy engine. That makes the comparison consistent but can overstate lines that require seeing the hidden cards. It also assumes the specified target is reached; it does not simulate the safety or disclosure effects of the auction used to get there.
A narrow partner range, an assumed stopper or a suit-quality rule can materially change the answer. Preserve the assumptions with the saved result and run sensitivity checks. A conclusion that survives several reasonable versions of the auction model is more useful than a precise number from one fragile interpretation.
Questions
Bridge contract comparison FAQ
Can Bridge Solver compare 3NT with four of a major?
Yes. Compare Targets accepts two contracts with separate levels, strains, declarers, double states and vulnerability settings, then evaluates both on the same generated deals.
Why can the lower make percentage still be the better contract?
Bridge scoring is not linear. A vulnerable game or slam bonus can outweigh more frequent failures, while overtricks, undertricks and doubles also change the average score and IMP result.
Can I compare contracts played from different seats?
Yes. Each target has its own declarer setting, which is important when the opening lead or positional value of an honor changes the number of available tricks.
Are the numbers in the preview a live analysis?
No. The compact table on this page is explicitly illustrative. Your result is calculated only after you define the hands and run a simulation in the Bridge Solver application.
Does contract comparison replace bidding judgment?
No. It measures the specified contracts over the hand population you define. It does not decide whether the auction can reach those contracts safely or model opponents choosing different actions.
Keep exploring
Related bridge analysis tools
Run your own analysis
Measure the contract choice
Define the matching hand population, place both contracts on the same deals and compare the scoring outcome.