McBruce

A club game can be worth as much as 1.50, more if it is a club championship or other special game. Most club TDs do not realize that playing a Howell or an arrow-switch movement increases the masterpoints for the winner, while eliminating the biggest problem with Mitchell movements: 3rd place and masterpoints in one direction may be a worse game than 5th in the other direction. If you have eight tables and play a Mitchell each direction winner gets 0.80 (0.10 per pair in each direction), but if you instead play an arrow switch in the last round and make it a one-winner game, there are sixteen pairs in the field and the winner gets 1.50.

The Laws of Bridge DO give kibitzers the right to kibitz. Well, it's correct that spectators are not disallowed according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but whether that is the same as they have the right to spec is a matter of interpretation. You may argue, of course, that if it's not specifically stated that spectators are not allowed, it must mean that they have this right. Judge for yourselves: LAW 76 - SPECTATORS A. Conduct during Bidding or Play 1. One Hand Only A spectator should not look at the hand of more than one player, except by permission. 2. Personal Reaction A spectator must not display any reaction to the bidding or play while a deal is in progress. 3. Mannerisms or Remarks During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player). 4. Consideration for Players A spectator must not in any way disturb a player. B. Spectator Participation A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. .... Roland Not to mention the simple fact that the Lawmakers would define a spectator as a physical presence at the table, whose movements can be easily seen. Online spectators are quite different: --they can arrive and leave without being noticed --they can talk to other spectators without being noticed --they can send information to other people without being noticed The WBF Laws Comission, I suspect, had no idea we were going to broaden the role and possibilities of spectators when Law 76 was last reviewed.

What about online points makes you say that? Is it the limitation on overall points or what? As far as I can tell, the "online point" requirement are tougher on NLMs who can't move up unless 2/3 of the points at any level are "colored". As far as being past LM, a point is a point, essentially. There certainly doesn't seem to be much of an advantage for a LM to play at a club game over an ACBL online tournament, unless they are trying for a masterpoint race. I don't know the current rules for online masterpoints very well, but the ACBL is never going to give out points online in the same proportions that it gives out points at Regionals and NABCs, where winning a mid-level KO (4 wins) will get you several dozen gold points for four sessions of bridge against people who are about at your masterpoint level. How many online tournament wins must one get to score 24 masterpoints?

Hi all: It has been almost ten months since the end of Alphabet Points tournaments on BBO. They shutdown when my desktop began to shutdown without warning. In the interim I have acquired a new laptop, and when the desktop is finally repaired (after months of struggling in safe mode and a Windows reinstall, we now beleve it is simply an insufficient power supply that is the problem) in a few weeks, I will be ready to go again. I could just let the series fade into history, but my perception is that there is a need for free tourneys run by a single person, now that most are paid tourneys run by organizations. Also, I cannot log on to BBO without a few people asking me, in a very supportive way, when the Alphabet Point series will continue. It's hard to refuse such support! The purpose of this post is to spend a few weeks working out the details for version 2.0. I hope we can avoid being bogged down on one aspect in this thread. There's a significant portion of posters here that think the format is not bridge, some who publicly advocated a boycott: despite this we averaged over 25 tables per session. (In trying to improve the format here we'll ignore the hysterical detractors.) At some later post I shall announce some new dates and adjusted regulations and we'll be off again! The details of Alphabet Point tournaments (version 1.0) are decribed at: http://members.shaw.ca/ooga/alphacocs.htm In a nutshell these are the ground rules: 1. Individual, 15 boards, one-board rounds, no kibitzers until all players have played 10 boards. 2. Militantly SAYC-only (I adjust if I am informed of an auction that features a non-SAYC bid which is fielded by partner.) No alerts or explanations are ever required since all play the same system. 3. Twice a week, matchpoints once, IMPs once; 7:30pm. 4. Unclocked with penalties for slow play. 5. A rating system maintained on my website which awards 'alphabet points'--which decay over time--to all above average, based not on the BBO results but on the official results which may include penalties for slow play or behavioural issues. Topics for discussion (and topics I will ignore): 1. Individual, 15 boards, one-board rounds, no kibitzers until all players have played 10 boards. These are all non-negotiable. I don't want all the TD trouble with "who is wired" that pairs games bring. I like at least the possibility that you can play with 15 different people, even though in practice that doesn't happen very often. I will not allow kibitzers except to allow the fastest finishers to watch at the end. I know this last is controversial and I accept that many will boycott, but my mind is made up. It''s not going to change: nobody is forcing you to play here. I will not respond here to any post that questions it. 2. Militantly SAYC-only (I adjust if I am informed of an auction that features a non-SAYC bid which is fielded by partner.) No alerts or explanations are ever required since all play the same system. What could conceivably happen here is a change to BB Basic (which includes Landy), and I might allow negative doubles to 3♠ in order to smooth out some problem areas. We may even try a few BB Advanced tournaments, although I might have to restict these to Alphabet Points leaders who have demonstrated that they know SAYC/BBB. 3. Twice a week, matchpoints once, IMPs once; 7:30pm. While often I can handle a twice-weekly schedule, sometimes I cannot. In the past I tried to make this up with extra tourneys following a missed one, but this won't be happening anymore. It will be twice a week when I am home, probably 2-3 missed dates each month on average. Unlike most other online tourney series, I don't think it helps to appoint a substitute TD whose decisions and experience with the format will be different. Better to be consistent. Tuesday and Fridays are likely to remain as the two nights although I will not be making up missed tourneys in order to keep Tuesday as IMPs and Fridays as matchpoints. 4. Unclocked with penalties for slow play. This has a strong possibility of changing. My original idea in unclocked was to have the fast pairs stop after 5 and 10 boards to let the slow pairs catch up and allow more possible pairings and less chance of replays. Of course, nobody did this and the slowest 3-5 tables were left (along with their random victims) to play repeatedly amongst themselves. Probably I will go to a clocked survivor movement (7 minutes per board with an extension in the first and maybe the second round) and cut about 20% of the field after 5 and after 10 boards. I really am not sure what is possible here and what the effect will be. Will this type of movement ensure (in a 20+ table field) that there are no replays in each segment? 5. A rating system maintained on my website which awards 'alphabet points'--which decay over time-- to all above average, based not on the BBO results but on the official results which may include penalties for slow play or behavioural issues. This has worked fairly well. The question now is whether to start anew or continue the points over despite the ten month gap. The leader had 325 points (100 for a win in most games) when the last game ended; with the decay applied, the total today is only 111. I could find a compromise somewhere and adjust the dates of the first 46 tournaments to reduce the decay somewhat, or even adjust the dates so that the games seem contiguous to the decay formula. On the other hand, it might be better to leave the decay in and allow some new players a chance to crack the leaderboard, while still giving the old hands an advantage, albeit smaller. OK. Up to you, Alphabet Points supporters! I cannot log on without a few of you sending me an encouraging private message, now I am ready to go. Let's get started again and make it even better! Tell me how...

This approach worked so well in Buenos Aires in 1965 that some people still believe that there is no correlation between the pages of notes and the hand records, and the photos of Reese and Shapiro holding their cards like nobody else ever has don't reveal a thing. Who knows? Maybe there is video and the committee chose not to mention it publicly, but kept it in case of a lawsuit.

Luis: I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments. That doesn't sound like a scientific method. In fact, I am quite amazed by the argument, "what would a real cheater do? certainly not this" which we see made in this case and by Reese-Shapiro apologists. If you play bridge at a high level successfully, you MUST not make gestures or movements that could be misinterpreted. Even if a committee doesn't get you, hearsay will. And yet what do we hear about this pair? They habitually put their heads down on the table. They look at defenders cards without asking when dummy. Having done so, they deny it, but then in almost the same breath mention that they have 20% vision in one eye. They "rest" their right arm on their left forearm so that three fingers point to the player with three trumps, and they do this in three different and distinct ways, coincidentally while partner, on the other side of a screen, is "napping" while thinking about a textbook decision, head conveniently placed so that he can see the fingers clearly through the partition. I too do not say that one hand is enough to call them cheats. But an expert player should know better than to make any one of those gestures, let alone six or seven in fifteen seconds. Luis again: So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far. Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go. The pair was expelled for passing and apparently using unauthorized information; the word cheating is not mentioned. Even if one considers the evidence against using the signals as flimsy, by way of argung that the questions alerted declarer to the bad break, the signals were still passed according to the committee's finding. At each stage (not just the reason for the anti-percentage play) the North-South pair gave unconvincing responses: --on the reason for the play, the diamonds-breaking-badly comment, the 'need a swing' comment with only two boards played --on whether dummy had peeked, a flat denial followed by an excuse involving poor eyesight --on whether signals were passed, an excuse that this dummy always takes that particular posture, one which makes it impossible to play cards without abandoning the posture, and can hardly be restful if you have to lift your head thirteen times before play ends. The committee decided that Law 73B2 ("The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion.") had been broken, based on the indirect evidence. If all this, from the peeking to the finger tapping to the declarer nap, is a big coincidence, then the North-South pair have been expelled without reason--but they have only themselves to blame.

A simple solution which works well in my Wednesday night club game is this: --Any pair with one or two non-members is in strat A (actually, this is not normally done in club bridge, but I can see why it would be necessary online) --Any pair of two ACBL member Life Masters is also in strat A. --Any pair containing two ACBL members, one of whom is a Life Master, is in strat B. --Any pair containing two ACBL members, neither of whom is a Life Master, is in strat C. Simple--the software counts letters in the first character of player numbers. There is absolutely no need to have any preset minimum sizes for a strat. If there are not enough pairs in a strat, there are simply no awards for that strat. But everyone is always eligible for the top strat. If you have 16 pairs, 2 in A, 14 in B and 2 in C, your actual strat sizes are 16/14/2. You may not be able to give out awards in C but the C players are eligible for B and A. Note though that strat A, despite only 2 A pairs, has 16 pairs eligible. Those who think that strats should be set higher are mistaken. Online points are virtually worthless to LMs. The purpose of the ACBL games should be to encourage non-LMs to play and earn points, and encourage non-members to join. What better (and simpler) way to do this than to stratify by number of LMs in a pair?

The diamonds breaking badly comment is by no means the only silly ailbi presented by B-L. This is what I wrote yesterday on rgb: ... Possibly the best evidence here is the silly (I'm being charitable here) alibis given by declarer (South) and dummy (North): -- North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them. -- (South) "Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament." -- North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side. ...and yet... -- When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards. ...leading one to naturally wonder why the previous statement was even made! And then we have the obligatory shocked team official: -- The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he ... had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team. It all seems like 1965 all over again, doesn't it? Where have we come in the meantime? One side accuses, the other side denies: the Committee decides based on who they believe and whether they would lead the J♦. Nobody seems to care about whether the gestures were actually made, because even with screens and bid-boxes that is still completely unprovable. As long as the playing conditions are as they are, some cheating, and some allegations of cheating, will continue. We'll never have a provable case no matter how much indirect evidence we collect. Wouldn't it be better if we had some video to look at, or at least a kibitzer or two to ask? No other sport allows its major championships to be played incognito, with the officials on call. ... (North, Lanzarotti, was dummy.) "North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them." I assume this explanation followed some sort of question about the position of his arms. My next question would be "from this position, how on earth did you manage to play the cards from dummy when called by declarer? Telekinesis?" ;) On the question of looking at his screenmate's hand, we have this: "When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards." However, Lanzarotti also felt the need to add that "he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side." Maybe he only leaned over far enough to look with his left eye, but wait: We had the A♥ lead and a discouraging 8♥ (I assume it was discouraging as West asked several questions before switching at trick two) from East. Assuming from this declarer has the KQ♥, from North's point of view, what other outstanding red honour is there? Don't get me wrong--I would much prefer having a neutral kibitzer's testimony or a videotape as evidence than the statements from both sides and one antipercentage play, even in this case when the accused's alibis are not quite up to the standard of "America's Dumbest Criminals."

Why is it that any discussion of what should be alerted on BBO inevitably ends with some reference to some FTF bridge organizations rules? What the ACBL or EBU or NZBA or whatever does in FTF play is completely irrelevant to online play. That should be the first rule: 1. Failure to alert something because you don't have to at the bridge club down the road is taking a risk here, because players in another hemisphere play at a different club with different rules. The second rule should be about self-explanations and why the online world has very little need for Law 16. 2. Here in the online world, we can talk privately to both or either opponents when we need to let them know details of the bids we make. There is no way to pass unauthorized information if you keep it private. We alert and explain our own bids and partner hears and sees nothing. Now that that is out of the way, what to alert... 3. Alert any call you make that is, by partnership agreement, conventional. If you bid diamonds and by agreement you have no intention of playing in diamonds, that's an alert. If you bid notrump and by agreement you have an unbalanced hand, that's an alert. We all have an idea of the simple bidding novices use. If you're beyond that and your opponents may be novices, you owe them an alert when you make one of these advanced calls. It doesn't matter what your national bridge organization says. Online is different. ...and what to do when the opponents ask: 4. When you are asked privately for an explanation of a bid, remember that your answer will not be heard by anyone other than the questioner. You can tell the questioner everything and partner will never get any unauthorized information. If it's a silly question and you make a great sarcastic comment, nobody else will hear how witty you are, and the questioner will simply ask again--so don't bother. It wastes time. Anything else we need? I don't think so. Common sense is far better than dozens of pages of regulations.

Where on earth did South get his double from?

You know, this would be a lot easier if we had a better call-TD mechanism. Like maybe this: --Once someone at the table hits the Director button, the button changes colour for all four players and when anyone else hits it, they get a canned message like "The Director has already been called by Sec_Bird. This call is on the TDs list and a TD will arrive as soon as possible." (Of course, Sec_Bird is a fictional name...) --TDs have three ways to attend to calls: 1) Tables where the TD has been called are displayed in a different colour, or perhaps blink, slowly at first, then quicker as more time goes by ;) 2) A button on the TDs screen takes him to the next Director call in the list. 3) Another button on the TDs screen lists the calls in order, including the name of the caller, the reason entered by the caller, and buttons to "go to this call" which takes the TD to that table, and "ignore this call" which sends the players a message that their call has been discarded by the TD. It would be even better to keep the list active, with all calls listed as "pending," "resolved," or "ignored." It would be easy to see which players call far too often and penalize them somehow.

(Back to the original question: 1♦ - 2NT showing clubs and hearts, no alert, adjusted score awarded by TD.) It would have been better for us to make a judgment by seeing the full hand and other pertinent information. Without it we have no way of answering questions like: Did you have a convention card loaded that the opponents might have looked at? What is the nature of the damage claimed by the opponents? Is this damage directly related to the non-alert? Were the opponents experienced players, enough to know better before coming into an auction on a dubious assumption about the meaning of a bid? It's far from clear that an adjustment is called for here, although I can see cases where one might be given. 2NT has so many possible meanings that I think in online bridge the onus should be on the opponents to ask privately if they need to, when any such ambiguous bid is not alerted. The idea that an opponent hearing the 2NT bid can take a shot and ask for an adjustment later if it doesn't work troubles me, ESPECIALLY in an environment where we can ask about a bid privately with no chance of unauthorized information being passed.

Not that far out of line. A one-session IMP Pairs game will often be won with a score of about 3-4 IMPs per board. That's on 26 boards, so it is not surprising to see a 12 board game won by the pair that gets lucky most often.

Yesterday i planed to play a tourney at 9 pm. At 7.p.m. i was askes to join at 12 board tourney starting in 4 minutes. So it should have been finisched at 20:44 so i joined. It acually finished 20:52 leaving me 8 minutes time. I have no problem with that, but a last minute change of the number of boards even one more would have been to much. My point is simply this: if you are entering a tourney and following it with another, you should leave at least two minutes per board for time expansion, and you better check to see that the number of boards is the same when you show up to play. We live in luxury at BBO. At a club you need to plan a route to the club that gets you there 15 minutes before so you can cope with traffic, pay the entry fee, find partner, find your assigned seat, etc. Online we can play, chat, surf, read the newspaper, do whatever we want without worrying about when the tourney starts, because the software places us. This means that many people don't even bother to go to the tournament room a few minutes in advance of the tournament. If you signed up a few days ago and the TD changed the start time or the number of boards AND you need to be somewhere else at such and such a time in the future, why on earth wouldn't you take 30 seconds to check? I continue to be utterly amazed at the extended "spin" in this thread. First, as noted earlier, we were changing the statement that the TD made, from slightly huffy to dictatorial power trip. Now we are ASSUMING that the TD made the change from 10 to 12 boards at the last minute. This is NOT what the original poster said happened, and it is quite self-evident that we all think this is wrong. Suggestion: lock in the number of boards and the minutes per board five minutes before the start of a tourney. Warn the TD with ten minutes left that he has five minutes to make final changes.

I'd agree if the TD changed from 10 to 15, 10 to 14. But 10 to 12 is trivial. Are people really splicing their time that finely? What's next: "I want to complain, I joined a 84 minute tournament and it took 88 minutes when the TD added a minute to four rounds. I missed the next tournament I had signed up for by one minute!" I think it is unreasonable online to expect NEVER to have to play 2 minutes extra per board when deciding which following tournament to sign up for. I'm not saying that I would do it: but that in this specific case it is just not a big enough deal to complain about. If your time is spliced that finely, you SHOULD be checking for slight changes in the conditions in the last few minutes before the tourney begins.

In a club game, depending on the number of tables that attend and decisions of the TD, you may get 24 (6-table byestand Mitchell), 25 (3 table Howell), 26 (13 table Mitchell), 27 (9 table Mitchell), or 28 (7 table Mitchell) boards. Anyone ever heard a player complain about the uncertainty of knowing how many boards there were as they walked in? Uday says that the number of boards cannot be changed after the start, ergo, a player wanting to play 10 and not 12 could have bailed once the change was made with no effect on completed-tournament stats. (This is of course assuming it was not made with 3 seconds left before the start--a trick I may have to try some April Fools Day...) :rolleyes: We're talking about an extra quarter-hour here: even in clocked tournaments many TDs add that much time to 'difficult' rounds over the course of ten boards. I think if I were running the tournament I would be a bit irked (as it seems that this TD perhaps was) by a complaint about such a trivial change. But one of the first things a good TD must learn is to get past the 'irked' and concentrate on finding solutions to problems. I would probably have said "Sorry, I changed it some time ago from the original setting and I guess you did not see the change. I can get you a sub for the last two if you prefer." We're a little hard on the TD here. Last I saw we had changed "I changed the boards'cause I am the TD" to "because by damn i'm the td and that's all there is to it" and allegations that the TD was on a "power trip." Must be the election cycle. Let's not embellish the original reported quote to make a point, and let's understand that there are language barriers here that are quite formidable sometimes.

Hi folks: I'm online now and my computer is working, but I have no idea how long this will last. My computer has been shutting itself down and restarting Windows at unexpected times during the past month or so. Just when I think I am making progress on the problem my screen goes blank again. So let me type this fast--just in case--and apologize to those who have showed up expecting a tournament on one of the scheduled dates. Special apology to Uday, who the next tournament was going to be named for (U is for UDAY) and was rescheduled a few times, then ultimately didn't come off. Needless to say, I need to be assured that I can log on and stay on before I run another. Check back in a few weeks.

I'm certainly not getting many Flight C responses that are not locals. Everyone is welcome. If you enter as a Flight C player you are elgibile to win all three flights, but your vote counts less towards the consensus.

Thanks to all who have responded (and those who will in the next few weeks). The addition of 'out-of-town votes' will make for a better consensus in the same way that you get better field protection in a large game than in a 3-table Howell... :) When I put together the next issue of the magazine I will send the It's Your Bid report to all those responders who have entered an e-mail address.

Hi folks: As publisher of the Matchpointer, the quarterly ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Magazine, I run a bidding poll each issue. Instead of having some subjective person score the answers giving his own favourites the highest scores, I score by weighted consensus, with entrants self-flighting themselves and experts votes receiving more vote points than beginners. In the most recent issue our consensus was smaller and I have decided to open it up to anyone. The bidding system is a simple, standard system, not quite 2/1, with a smattering of modern frills. The online form for entry is at this link: 'It's Your Bid' Link There's a place to enter your comments on the questions and even a spot to enter questions for future polls. Let me know if there is a problem and I'll try to fix it. We give out a few prizes as free plays to the highest local score, but I will print the names of the online entrants who score the highest as well. Want to see the full magazine (including the most recent results of It's Your Bid)? This link leads to the online version of the Matchpointer but it is a large pdf file and may take some time to download. Good luck!

I directed the game at the Vancouver Bridge Centre. The package we got was quite clear that the double-entry sheet was only necessary if you were not using ACBLScore. It was quite a fun set, with many wild hands, including one (#26) where three of the four suits had singleton aces, including two in one hand.

What I read somewhere was that the IOC recently decreed that a prospective Olympic sport needed to involve physical exertion of some kind.

mink to McBruce: As far as I know the only case where the laws say that "session average" should be adjusted to is for boards that are not played as a part of the movement, i.e. at a sitout table. Can you please give me a hint where in the laws that common practice in f2f clubs is regulated? In my f2f club I always assign a+- or very seldom a-- if there was no time to start the second board of the round. McBruce to mink: I think that in late play situations it is perfectly reasonable to assign artificial adjusted scores if the board is not played later, under L12A2. L12C1 instructs us to assign AVG- to a pair which is 'directly at fault,' AVG+ to a pair with is 'in no way at fault,' and AVG= to a pair which is 'only partially at fault.' You'd have to balance which side was unable/unwilling to stay after 11pm with who was late during the round that the late play came from. But L12A2 does not DEMAND that an artificial adjusted score be given; it says "The Director MAY award an artificial...". Therefore I think it is also reasonable to simply decide that the board simply was not played and score it as such--especially when 1) the TD will seldom be able to determine conclusively who is at fault, 2) most places in the world have computers that can use the WBF formula* for adjusted scores and fouled boards without breaking a sweat. :) BTW, L12C1 defines A= as 50% in pairs, regardless of what your score for the rest of the session is. *This is the formula that usually (on a 12 top) takes 0.06 matchpoints off of your top (or adds them to your zero!) when someone gets an A+/A- at another table.

Why apply L12 when the real problem here is that BBO clocked tournaments are set up in contravention of L8B? B. End of Round In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. Unclocked tournaments may have their own problems, but at least they allow for the possibility of catching up when you are behind. In the incident mentioned, I see nothing in the Laws that forces a TD to award A+ unless it is crystal clear that the contestant is in no way at fault. I only run unclocked tourneys so I can't make a judgment there. I would prefer to see a 'not played' option for directors, where essentially you get your percentage score for the rest of the tournament: if you're having a 55% game, you get 55% on the board not played. This is what is commonly done in clubs when there is a late play and one of the pairs needs to leave. It's a bit much to award the pair that can stay late an A+. Bravo to mink for asking politely for a change and for waiting to the end of the tournament to discuss further. Too often this doesn't happen, as we have seen...

In a large tournament, sometimes several boards or rounds will occur between the time that a TD is asked to review and possibly adjust, and the time he actually does adjust, assuming he decides to do so. The players involved get the message that the score has been adjusted, but it is quite time consuming (especially in an indy) to find the location of all four players and send them a message explaining the reason for the adjustment. Without a reason for an adjustment supplied, some players seem to feel put off because they were not consulted, as we've seen in another thread... It might be a good idea to add a way for a short message to be passed to the players explaining the TDs basic reason for adjusting: Board ___ Any Player ____________ Adjustment ______ ( ) to save time . . . . . . . . . . ( ) because of infraction ( ) misclick . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) substitute misinformed ( ) other: _______________ The system would send the 'score adjusted to [whatever]' message, plus 'Reason for Adjustment: [reason]' and perhaps something like 'Please do not hold up play discussing this adjustment. Scores can be adjusted after the end of the tournament if an adjustment error needs correction.' -- to avoid the abuse we TDs take whenever we make an error.