Mismatch between EBUScore Pairs and Bridgemates

At yesterday afternoon's session we had eight full tables. We only play 24 boards in an afternoon, and those sessions have a fair proportion of our improvers and less experienced players, I wanted to avoid people having to enter boards out of order, and only one strong pair was sitting E/W, so as director I chose a Double Weave Mitchell movement, single winner, arrow-switching the last round. The scorer checked the movement in EBUScore and it seemed ok (as in fact the same movement been the previous week).

However, when we got to the last round the Bridgemates did not recognise the arrow-switch. We went with what the Bridgemartes specified (no arrow-switch), but when the data was retrieved there were error messages for all boards in the last round, and the scorer had manually to enter the results (fortunately, because of the hanging problem mentioned on another thread, we are keeping travellers as well as Bridgemates until that we are satisfied that problem is solved).

Has anyone else encountered that problem? Is there a way round it?


  • I have seen the symptoms which you describe caused by the arrow switch being added to EBUScore after the Bridgemate database has been created without updating the movement in the Bridgemate database from some round up to and including the last round.

    When you came to the last round the pair numbers sent from the Bridgemate database did not match the pair numbers expected by EBUScore. It was EBUScore which produced the error message. This can be prevented by changing the EBUScore movement to match the Bridgemate database. The results will then be accepted from the Bridgemate database.

    You could have played the arrow-switch once you had made this change, the Bridgemates would report this the wrong way round, this would be accepted by EBUScore and then you arrow-switch in EBUScore by typing an 'A' against the line.

    I am not aware of anything else other than a change in EBUScore after the Bridgemate database has been created which would cause what you describe but perhaps others know of something else.

  • I agree with Paul that this is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.

  • Thank you both. I am not sure at what point the BCS was started relative to the final selection of movement, but I can well believe it was as you specify. It won't happen again!


Sign In or Register to comment.