SCORING ERRORS and ISSUES (Updated 24/01/2011)

It is now standard practice when scoring ⁽¹⁾ to enter the contract, tricks made, Declarer's orientation, and the score as on the traveller. Inconsistencies arise quite regularly – see point (c) below.

In order to minimise errors in published results we always score TWICE. This process does take extra effort, and it delays publication of the results on Friday mornings by an hour or more, but given that we regularly ‘pick up’ one or two anomalies we consider the practice to be justified.

Whenever possible, the club uses ‘computer scoring’ type of travellers that enable entry of results in order played, rather than by North / South pair number order. This practice gives more flexibility for the completion of the traveller, and copes better with high pair numbers, e.g. an ‘arrow switch’ with a high number of tables.

There are different types of scoring errors:

1. When manual travellers are used, there is a possibility of misinterpretation or mistyping by the scorer.

2. The traveller is completed with a logically impossible score, e.g., a score of -50 when the declaring side is vulnerable

3. The traveller is completed with an inconsistent score: e.g. 2♠+1 by North, making 10 tricks, scoring +170 to East / West (yes – it happens!)

4. The traveller is completely plausible and internally consistent, but never-the-less it is wrong

5. Scoring issues can arise on boards where there is a disputed outcome, e.g., following a director call-out for an infringement. [The plan is that after resolution all such issues will be publicised on this website within the members’ area (user-name and password required), though at present (January 2011) the record is not complete.]

PLAYERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Players should check the travellers carefully at the time the score is recorded and ensure that the result is clearly set out and correct. If necessary cross out the entire row and re-enter it in the next available row.

2. If an odd-looking result is evident from play at an earlier table, then the Director's attention should be drawn. The Director may ask you to resolve it if he is playing but has not yet reached the board in question

3. When the results are published on the club’s website, the ‘personal scorecards’ and ‘travellers’ are also available. Players should check these aspects of the results and report any apparent issues promptly.

4. When requested to confirm or clarify a score, e.g. by phone or e-mail, the player should respond promptly

SCORING POLICY

1. Any errors of type (a) will be corrected providing attention is drawn to them by 7 p.m. on the week after the date of the event. Any consequential impact ⁽²⁾ of the change will also be rectified.

2. For errors of type (b) or (c) the following process is followed ⁽¹⁾. All players concerned will be alerted immediately to the issue by e-mail where possible, and if a resolution has not been achieved by the time the results are otherwise confirmed (i.e., the SECOND scoring has been completed) then the results will be published based on a ‘best guess’ but labelled as PROVISIONAL. Consequential actions ⁽²⁾ will be held back until resolution is achieved.

3. For errors of type (d) an error will not become apparent unless it is raised by one of the players involved. If it is alerted within 48 hours and if both pairs agree that there has been an error, then the scores will be revised and republished on the website, along with consequential actions ⁽²⁾. Any recording errors identified after that time will be scored at face value and will not be adjusted. Please remember ‘Player Responsibility 1’ as above.

4. For issues of type (e) the board will be scored initially at face value, and published, but labelled as ‘PROVISIONAL’. Once the presence or absence of an infringement has been confirmed and any adjusted score as necessary has been recorded then any consequential actions ⁽²⁾ will be completed.

(1) It is unreasonable to expect ‘guest scorers’ - such as Bill West or Jill Tattersfield – to follow this process: they will operate on a ‘best judgement’ basis.

(2) E.g., impact on Local Points, ladder score, rank position, and possible prizes, including weekly wine wines and club championship trophies