Do you know whether the VEBUnnnnnn accounts will still remain free, with their current abilities to set up future club sessions and team matches?

Thanks

Peter

Table 2 Round 2 has 2 7 17 12, it should be 2 12 17 7
Table 2 Round 3 has 2 17 12 7, it should be 2 17 7 12
Table 4 Round 18 has 30 18 19 16, it should be 20 18 19 16

All Boards 16-20 are scheduled to be played simultaneously. Either you need 4 sets or If these are circulated normally then the BM result at table 2 cannot be entered until at least 4 Boards are played It would be better if table 2 started with 18 10 8 9 6, table 3 with 19 and table 4 with 20

I also tried it with the movement as an attached file. I get a message something like "Attached files are not permitted" but the message is posted anyway - this is rather confusing for the reader and it would be better if the posting failed.

But the session loaded to BrigeWebs (Thakeham club) showed the same seating as for Session 1, without the switching of E/W pairs.
This doesn't affect the overall result, but we presume that if the same is true of the EBU session posted, then the wrongly seated pairs' NGS scores will be distorted?

We had a duplicated board in last night's multiple teams. It was spotted on the second round, so two teams played one variant of board 19 and everyone else played a second one.

This did not affect the scoring of the event but the cross imping, of so much concern to some, is now wrong. It would be useful if we could mark two of the results as fouled boards, for the purposes of cross imping.

The obvious solution is to replay hands that had been played in some big tournaments and compare ourselves to the average / median result (whatever is actually available) achieved in them. We have been lucky having recently acquired a second-hand dealing machine, Duplimate Mk4.3 by Jannersten, Sweden, which would allow this.

We have been using PairScorer for many years and have been very happy, as we could even define our own custom movements. However, the app is almost too good - it checks the entered scores and does not allow a number that cannot be a valid result of a bridge hand. That presents a problem because using an average of some tournament for the comparisons, I would need to enter the differences between the real results and the average - at least that is the solution I came up with - into the scoring programme and these would naturally not meet the check criterion.
So I decided to ask here in the forum if there's a way how to achieve my goal in PairScorer which I like before starting to look for some other scoring SW.

I would also appreciate a pointer to a source of publicly available tournament results and hand records in a format that the Duplimate can read (Duplimate for Windows .dlm; Portable Bridge Notation .pbn; Vugraph .lin). The files should obviously include average / median result for each board. We typically play 30 boards.

Any suggestions most welcome.

This says to also notify the scorer "to mark the player as exempt in the scoring program".

How / where do you do that in EBUscore please?

Grateful for an early response as this possibility has just struck me.

Top line:
1st digit ?
2nd digit - number of tables
3rd digit total number of boards in play
4th digit number of boards each round
5th digit number of matches/rounds

In EBU Score .. Bridgemates Scoring .. set BCS options ... BM2 The Players Names Name Source is set to Player & EBU Names table, which appears to be the default, and is how the old PC was set up, where this all worked.

Can someone suggest what might be wrong, or just what I can check to try and identify the problem.

Thanks

There were in fact 9 and a half pairs with a NS pair missing. The results were uploaded to Bridgewebs, and then to the EBU via Pianola. The latter is showing bad results.

If I go through the setup process again, changing missing pair to NS10, and then retrieve the results from BCS, will this produce the correct results acceptable to the EBU?

Keith

The score did not produce cross-imps for the individual pairs. Is this beacuse it was not a full movement, or is there another reason?
Scoring method was "teams of 4:IMPS" which has always previously showed x-imps for each pair , but always for a movement where each team played every other team.

Any thoughts on why no x-imps

In a Teams match, does Av+/Av+ award +3 Imps to both sides ? or is it 0 Imps each as one cancels the other?
WB 8.90.3 (e) suggests to me 0 Imps, but currently EBUScoreTeams is awarding the 3 Imps?

(Ref WB 8.90.3 quotes "AVE+/AVE+ or AVE/AVE or AVE−/AVE− make no difference in the result of a match." The problem is in a Multiple Teams rather than Head to Head match, it may affect the winner?)

However: what happens if you compare two pairs playing in opposite directions.

If T = tables, R = Rounds and Q = Rounds arrowswitched. (We will assume one board/ round and Single matchpoint/ board)

Given that the total matchpoints is R.(T-1) and the number of opposing pairs is (2T-1) we have.

Average competition = R.(T-1)/(2T-1) which is a bit less than R/2

However for our two pairs.

When they play each other (1 round) they are competing for (R-1) matchpoints.

On (R-1)-2Q rounds they are co-operating but for the 2Q rounds they are again competing - as they are now playing in the same direction. (2Q because each arrowswitched round affects two boards).

This gives us (R-1) + 2Q - (R-1)+ 2Q as the level of competition. The (R-1)s cancel leaving us with, unsurprisingly 4Q.

But this time 4Q is LESS than R/2 so you should arrowswitch less than one round in 8. The opposite.

Is this correct or is my argument (ignoring anomalous cases) flawed?

How do we configure this to display the names automatically? It used to work as wanted, but not now. I assume we misconfigured something.

I have made a 20-minute video of what I needed to do to resolve the problem. It is a little technical, but hopefully it is clear enough for most club scorers.

A key to my method is nothing is changed, or lost, from the club computer until everything is rectified so it remains a useful backup device.

Happy to answer any questions on our setup for those who make it to the end :)

Cheers

Paul