EDITORIAL

This issue takes me into my third year as Editor of ARBITNG MATTERS. I am delighted to say there has been no shortage of contributions. Thanks to all who have sent me pieces or ideas for this issue, but do keep them coming and what about something from those who have not yet written to me. My experience tells me that every event throws up some situation or anecdote which is of interest.

I am also pleased to report that we have a record number of members (Full and Associate). The combined membership is now approaching the three figure mark.
By the time you receive this issue the FIDE Congress in Paris will have been and gone. At least three of our members will be attending, namely David Wallace, Stewart Reuben and David Sedgwick. I hope they will decide amongst themselves what topics they will cover for inclusion in ARBITING MATTERS 8. It would be an achievement if all our members could have an up-to-date and accurate account of the various goings-on. My deadline for copy for the next issue is the end of January, with early to mid-March as the planned time of distribution.
Mention of David Sedgwick reminds me that at our AGM in Swansea, David was appointed Secretary in succession to Steve Boniface. I am confident he will keep up the good work.

There are a number of points in this issue on which I would really like some reaction.  For a start there is the diagrammed position on page 10, my article on Accelerated Pairings and various situations where the pawn promotion procedure is not followed (letter by Dave Vigus). Let me have your views so that some informed opinions can be gathered. There are times when we all have to make quick decisions in the heat of battle.
Remember me to Eddie at Hastings !

Black is considering his 40th move.
WHITE : Your flag is down.
Black makes his move, stops his clock. BLACK: Oh was it I	True!

THE CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP

by Peter Richmond. BCF Arbiter

Club Championships are notoriously difficult to bring to a successful conclusion. In this article Peter explains the system he has employed at West Bridgford Chess Club.
West Bridgford is a typical medium sized club with some keen players, some casual members and a few transients. Trying to organise a club championship which caters for all members is not easy. The membership did not want to use a slow time limit so games were limited to a maximum of sixty minute:>. The wide range of strengths of the membership was a further complication so a time handicap was introduced. Players were divided into six categories as follows :

1) 175+ 		2) 150-174 	3) 125-149 	4) 100-124	5) Seniors below 100 	6) Juniors below 100

For every category or difference five minutes was transferred from the higher to the lower player. Therefore a Category 1 player would have 15 minutes against 45 when playing a Category 4 player.
Colours were allocated according to the tournament number of each player. This was decided by the order that they played their first game. If both players had an odd number or both had an even number then the higher numbered player had White. If one had an odd number and the other an even number then the lower player had White. As number 1 in the draw I had White against all the even numbers and Black against all the odd.
The tournament was run as an A-P-A from August 1989 to June 1990. 142 out of a possible 406 games were played 35%.

Placings in the final table were based on quality of performance rather than on quantity. This was achieved by working out the final table from the bottom upwards. The player with the worst result(s), Graham Jennings, was placed last (29th) and then his results were ignored. The last player in the resulting 28-player tournament was then placed 28th and then eliminated from further calculations, leaving 27 players, and so on.

Additional tie-splitting methods were required at both the top and the bottom. At the top I referred back to the previous table. Paul Edwards and Michael Harris could not be split in either the 2 or 3 player tables, but Paul was placed first because of his better result against John Harrlson in fourth place.
At the bottom of the tournament my choice was to use sum-of-opponents' scores because this rewarded the players who actually played I needed another method at the start to split players with identical results. I chose to favour the player who had played earliest, again trying to encourage players to play.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9         SOS
01 P.Edwards 		x – 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 – 1 1 – ½ - 1 – 1 - - - - 1 - - - 12½/13
02 M.Harris 		- x 1 ½ 1 – ½ - 1 – 1 - - - - - - 1           1           7/8
03 P.Richmond 	0 0 x 1 0 1 1 – 1 1 0 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 – 22/26
04 J.Harrison 	0 ½ 0 x 1 0 1   1   1   1 1   1       0 1   1             9½/14	
05 M.Kennedy 		0 0 1 0 x 1 0           1     1   1   ½         ½         6/11
06 R.Higham 		0   0 1 0 x 1 0 1 1       1 1                             7/11	
07 R.Clunie 		  ½ 0 0 1 0 x   1       1 1   1   1                       8½/12	
08 P.Grimsey 		    0         x 1   1 0             1  1  1               7/9	
09 M.Harper 		  0 0 0     0 0 x   1 1 0 0 ½ 1   1    1  1 1             7½/16	
10 C.Budd		0   0     0       x 1   1 1       1                   1   5/8 	
1l S.Tys		0 0 1 0         0 0 x   1 ½   0     ½                     4/12	
12 F. Bradwell	0   0       0 1 0     x 1   1       1   1   1             6/10 	
13 J.Blackburn 	    0 0 0   0   1 0 0 0 x 1   1   1     0   1 0         1 6/15	
14 D.Tys		0   0 0   0 0   1 0 ½   0 x 1               1             3½/11
15 H. Williams 	0   0     0     ½     0   0 x 1 1 0 0       1     0	     3½/12
16 M. Barlow		    0 0 0 0 0   0   1   0   0 x   1     1 0 1 1   1       6/16
17 I.Coldicott 	½   0                       0   x   1           ½         3/6	
18 E.Jasper		  0 0   0   0   0 0     0   1 0 0 x 1       0             3/13	
19 T.Lavalle 		0   0       0 0     ½ 0     1   0 0 x       1             2½/10	
20 R. Tarling 	      1 ½                             x         1         2½/3	
21 R.Godfrey		0   0 0       0 0     0 1     0         x   1 1           3/10	
22 M.Abdolmaleki 	    0                         1           x 1             2/3	
23 T.Williamson 	    0 0       0 0   0 0   0 0 0   1 0   0 0 x 1           2/15
24 F.Hill		  0 0           0       1     0         0   0 x	     1/7  53½ 
25 S.Maxwel1		    0   ½                       ½     0         x         1/4   33½ 26 S.Housego		    0                               1 0           x       1/3   31½
27 C.Asher		0   0                             0                 x     0/3   37½  28 J.Conway		    0             0                                   x   0/2   27	
29 G.Jennings		                        0                               x 0/1   6	

It is clear from the table that Paul Edwards was a deserving winner of the tournament. This result was even more meritorious as he left the club in October. Unfortunately his membership did not overlap with Michael Harris so the key game remained unplayed.
The system fulfilled its main aim of producing a table based on who you beat, not on how many points you scored. Note how irrelevant my string of wins against the bottom of the table turned out to be. The most intriguing position in the table is that of Ray Tarling, who was away at university for most of the year. His 2.5/3 kept him in second place until March when young Edgar Jasper's second win pushed the entire middle order above him. This demonstrates that a minimum number of games have to be played to get a high finishing position. That this number is not large can be demonstrated quite easily. If Harris and Tarling had played and drawn, then Harris would have moved up to first and Tarling would have been second!

The way I worked out the results was to use a grid. As a player was placed at the bottom, I simply subtracted the results against that player of the remaining players in the tournament. This simply requires methodical working rather than any real brain power.

THE RECORDING OF GAMES
by David Welch. BCF Chief Arbiter

At the AGM in August 1992 we discussed Article 11.1 concerning the recording of games. There was such strong agreement among the Arbiters present that it was decided that I should put forward the official position of the CAA.
The Rules Commission of FIDE avoided giving a clear ruling, so the position recorded here, although objectively correct according to Article 11.1, is unlikely to be backed by FIDE Arbiters worldwide.

CAA POLICY ON RECORDING OF GAMES
1 It is ethically correct that a player should write down his opponent's move before replying to it.
2. When an opponent is short of time and a player who is not short of time makes an immediate reply, neither writing down the opponent's last move nor pausing for thought, the Arbiter may decide that the first opponent has been distracted by this action.

Possible reaction by the Arbiter would include (a) before the time control, to add to the opponent's unused time, (b) at the time control, to warn the offender about his conduct.
3. Even when the opponent is not short of time, if the player's lack of attention to the scoresheet is distracting the opponent, the Arbiter should take action.

In practically all cases a warning will be sufficient.
4. If a player blitzes his opponent, that is plays a move when he has not recorded the last move by White and the last move by Black, the Arbiter should intervene immediately.
A warning and adding to the opponent's unused time would seem appropriate, but persistent offenders may suffer the loss of the game.
5. Of course none of the above applies if the player himself has less than five minutes remaining.
This is a case where the BCF Quickplay Finish Rules are better thought out than the FIDE Laws. We can now act in the same way during a normal time control and a Quickplay Finish.

The wording of our QPF Rule 6 is absolutely clear, namely, "The opponent's move must be written down before the reply move is made."
Similarly when using a digital clock in a mode where a player receives at least 20 seconds additional time for each move, the scoresheet must always be kept up-to-date. A GM and an IM had to have this pointed out to them in a recent event where I was Arbiter.
Richard Furness

PROMOTION
The following letter is taken from a recent issue of the SCCU Bulletin.
You might like to include in the SCCU Bulletin ... the following interesting arbiter's decision which occurred at the Intel World Grand Prix Qualifying Tournament in Hastings on the 28th-29th August.
The strength of this 11-round swiss tournament was extraordinary; there were 45 Grandmasters among the 119 entrants from 19 countries. Each player had 25 minutes for the entire game and the rules (Intel/PCA version - RAF) stated that if an illegal move was made and replied to it must stand.

In a game between two foreign GMs, Black, with 10 seconds left, pushed a pawn from the seventh to eighth rank and, without substituting it with a Queen, Rook, Bishop or Knight, pressed his clock. His opponent, with 7 seconds left, moved his King and pressed his clock. The first player then tried to put a Queen where his Pawn was and an argument ensued with both players pressing their clock buttons simultaneously and ferociously.
The arbiter stepped in quickly and managed to stop the clocks before giving his decision that the Black Pawn on the eighth rank was clearly a Pawn, and should remain so. His logic was that moving it to the back rank and not substituting it was illegal but, under the Tournament rules, as White had replied Black's move must stand. The situation was further complicated as both players affected not to speak English. However, after a heated discussion in what sounded like several languages, a draw was somewhat grudgingly agreed.

This led me to wonder what the ruling would have been if, before pressing his clock, Black had reached to the adjacent board for a Queen and mistakenly picked up a King, substituting this for his Pawn. If White in his haste had not noticed and had made a reply, presumably by analogy Black would have had to continue with two Kings. And what then? Would White have needed to mate both simultaneously in order to win?
Dave Vigus (Chislehurst)

Similarly from ChessMoves (October) ,.. an interesting conundrum from the Insurance Chess Club's quickplay event. Player A pushes a pawn to the eighth rank and replaces it with a queen of the wrong colour. Question: could the opponent effectively "accept" the illegal move by not objecting to it and thereby acquire an extra queen for himself?

Conversation between two female players at Eastbourne some years ago.

OR	She keeps stopping her clock without making a move.
FA	I made a move but you weren't looking.
OR	What was it?
FA	I'm not telling you. You should have been watching.

SORRY - I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE THE BYE
by John Turnock, BCF Arbiter

These familiar words illustrate the fundamental mathematical problem which confronts organisers of swiss tournaments - that only an even number of players can be accommodated in any one round. Competitors receiving the news react in very different ways. Some are annoyed and demand to have the full logic of the draw explained to them, others accept it gracefully, some may be secretly happy to have a free session while others may have worked out their fate in advance. Arbiters usually try to find alternative opponents but this is not always possible and the alternative may not be an opponent of the required strength; there is an element of fudge in the whole process. The advent of the half-point bye has made the problem more volatile in the sense that an even number of players in Round 1 does not prevent certain rounds having an odd number of competitors. is it not time that the CAA considered adopting a code of practice to deal with the enforced bye 7
The most promising way to look at the problem may be to view it from the perspective of the competitor. Many players enter swiss tournaments without high expectations of winning a prize but in order to play a finite number of games against opponents of reasonably equal strength. To be deprived of one (or in extreme cases more than one) of these games is therefore a considerable diminution of the value provided by the competition and the receipt of a full point bye may be only marginal compensation. A substitute game may be acceptable, but surely that should be for the competitor to decide.
I suggest that the entry fee into a swiss tournament should not only be seen as income for the prize fund, but also be seen as a payment for one game per round within the specific tournament concerned. If this cannot be provided, then the competitor should be entitled to financial compensation.

If a substitute graded game can be provided, then the player can elect to take this instead. If a player who is entitled to financial compensation wins a prize, then he/she can choose either the prize or the compensation but not both.
What should be the level of compensation?  In my view it should approximate to (A divided by B) times C, where A is the entry fee paid, B is the number of rounds and C the number of occasions that compensation is claimed by a player. (This could be more than one in a case where a player who had received an enforced bye was then unfortunate enough to be paired with a defaulting player). It might also be sensible to round down the compensation to the lower full pound to simplify payment and to remove the need for compensation in most small rapidplay events. There should never be more than one unit of compensation per tournament per round (due to re-pairing) so the total financial commitment of the tournament should never exceed the entry fee of one competitor.
There is one other area germane to the discussion - the Game Fee. It is surely true that any competitor receiving a bye and not playing a graded game has a right to the return of his Game Fee payment. In this context, one competitor asked me for 20 pence at Norwich!  The compensation paid would amply cover that obligation. This raises the question of whether the half-point bye merchants are also entitled to the return of their Game Fee I

This is very much an article written to stimulate discussion and I expect that the idea will be shot down in flames, but I do think it is an area of legitimate interest.

On a slightly different point, but to do with refunds, I have always given a full refund of entry fee to any player who notified me of his withdrawal before the day of the event. I am interested in keeping the goodwill of prospective entrants (RAF)

SIMPLIFYING THOSE ACCELERATED PAIRINGS
by Richard Furness, BCF Senior Arbiter

The current rules for Accelerated Pairings (APs) remind us that they "are designed to avoid games between players of widely differing grade and to reduce the number of players on the 100% score level" .

When introduced into this country by Stewart Reuben in the late 1960s, their purpose was to enable large numbers of players to compete satisfactorily in 6 round weekenders. At that time it was common for each section of a large congress to have in excess of 150 or even 200 entrants. It was deemed undesirable for there to be two or three players tieing for first with 6/6 and obviously not having played each other.
Later APs were used to enhance the norm prospects in international Opens by keeping contenders away from very low
rated players and so keeping the category high.

I use APs only twice a year, namely in the 'Hastings Challengers and in the Monarch Assurance Open in the Isle of Man. That is the difficulty!  Their infrequent use. The rules run to almost a full A4 typed page which I believe to be unnecessarily complex for achieving their simple objective.
In this article I am not arguing the justification for using APs, but am advocating a simpification of the rules.
My replacement rules are as follows.
For the rounds where acceleration is used, players in the top quarter (A) and the second quarter (B) have a notional score (NS) one point greater than their actual score. The NS of players in the third and fourth quarters (C and D) is their actual score. Notional Scores are marked in green at a convenient place on the pairing card.

Pairings are then done according - to BCF Seeded Pairing Rules but using the Notional Scores. When all CD players have dropped one point, acceleration ceases.

Less than a hundred words as against over five hundred, and simpler!  But will simplified acceleration be as effective 7

APs assume a round has already taken place - top half (AB) have played and beaten the bottom half (CO). The first real round is thus A vB and CvD. Let me take the recent Monarch Assurance in the Isle of Man as my example. There were 55 players plus 1 filler. Players 1-14 were group A, 15-28 were group B, 29-42 were group C and players 43-56 were group D.
Round 1
AvB 9-0 with 5 draws
CvD 6-3 with 4 draws plus one D with a HPB. The filler was not needed.

Round 2 (actual)
Boards 1-4 A winners v A winners
Board 5	A winner v A on half point
6-14 CD winners v AB non-winners *
	(4 games A vC, 2 BvC, 3 BvD)
15-22 CD draws v highest available non winners (these were Bs)
23-27 Remaining Os (1 BvD, 4 CvD) *
	* these include the D (Rd 1 HPB) but exclude two Rd 2 HPBs (a C on half and aD on O).
The results were that on boards 6-14 all nine CDs were beaten and on boards 15-22 one CD drew, but all the other seven CDs lost. The "chopping session" was thus highly successful. All bottom half players had now dropped at least one point and normal pairings could be used from Round 3. Normally I would have expected one or two CDs to have escaped the chop and would have continued acceleration for one more round.

There were drawbacks. Four A Round 1 non-winners played Cs. They were Sadler, Hebden, Milov and Sher - all potential tournament winners. Indeed Sadler and Milov were eventually amongst five players who did finish equal first Their Round 2 opponents were, on average, 418 FIDE points weaker.

Suppose instead I had used my Simplified Acceleration. The Round 2 pairings would have been :

Boards 1-4 No change
Board 5 No change
6-9 AvB all with NS of 1.5
10 BvC NS 1.5 v NS 1
11-15 BvC NS 1 v 1
16-18 BvD NS 1 vI
19 CvD 1 v 0.5
20-22 CvD 0.5 v 0.5
23-26 CvD 0 v 0
27 DvD (filler) No change

The advantages are that :
a) the A players on 0.5 (NS 1.5) have much stronger opponents (average 226 points weaker as against 418).
b) only 3 pairings involve players two quarters apart (boards 16-18) compared with 13 by the conventional method.
c) pairings much simpler to do - normal seeded pairings, but with Notional Scores. 
d) pairings much easier to explain to any puzzled players.
The main drawback is that, if I may mix my metaphors, where CDs are meant to be chopped, the sledgehammers are not heavy enough. The main weakness is on boards 19-22. One further round of acceleration on just a few boards would probably be needed - but then in the normal run of things I would have expected that anyway even with the present system.

I know that just one test does not mean a great deal, but I do think my Simplified Acceleration has much to commend it. As a celebrated female once famously said, "But he would wouldn't he." Any reaction from all you expert accelerators out there?

Trevor McDonald to be English arbiter
So ran a recent headline in The Independent. Before you come to the conclusion that the CHESS ARBITERS ASSOCIATION is about to gain an illustrious new member, perhaps I should say a bit more. The article began, "Trevor McDonald the Trinidadian born ITN newsreader who grew up in awe of voices on the BBC World Service was yesterday appointed chairman of a new committee to improve children's spoken English. Gillian Shephard, the Education Secretary, announced that Mr McDonald would lead a crusade to replace 'communication by grunt'."

Please don't shoot the controller
Another newspaper headline from earlier in the year. Not a bad idea you might think, but again nothing to do with chess. "It is time to spring to the defence of Alan Yentob, the embattled Controller of BBC1. For two years now this important custodian of our national values has had the task of reconciling the irreconcilable." Just like an Arbiter I

TIME CONTROL
by Neville Belinfante
The rule "42 moves in 105 minutes and then 15 minutes quick-play finish" seems quite straight-forward, but one competitor at the Frome congress this year managed to misinterpret it. When I was driving the player concerned back to Yeovil after the congress, he was telling me that there was a dispute at the end of his last game, as both he and his opponent ran out of time. I was in charge of the section that he played in, and was very surprised at this, as I had seen nothing untoward, and the result of his game (a draw) was handed in at least an hour before the end of the round, so it was not possible for both flags to fall.

I asked him to clarify the sequence of events; Did you make the first time control 7 (Yes, and I was a pawn down). Did you put the clocks back 15 minutes 7 (Yes). And what happened next 7 (We kept playing until our time ran out). But that won’t happen until the end of the playing session (That is what happened). If you had a problem, why didn't you call me over?  (We couldn't see you).
I finally managed to establish what happened. They reached move 42 with my passenger having an hour left, and his opponent ten minutes. They put the clocks back 15 minutes, and kept playing. Half an hour later, the clocks were showing the same times that they were at the time control, and my friend thought that was it. He told his opponent that their 15 minute quickplay finish was over and said the game was a draw, as both their times had expired. His opponent, still being a pawn up, at first objected, but finally agreed to it.

My friend was extremely anguished when I explained that time unused at the first time control is carried forward, and he promised to write to his opponent to apologise. I do not know if he has yet.

IS IT A DRAW?
This position occurred in a County U14 Championship. White, with less than two minutes remaining, claimed a draw. The Arbiter told them to continue playing. After about a dozen moves, most of which were checks, White's flag fell and a draw was awarded as Black had been unable to advance his Pawn or improve his King position.
During those dozen moves, White had a couple of opportunities to play Nxd4, in which case, after... Rxd4, the Arbiter said he would have awarded a draw immediately. Some spectators suggested that White's refusal to play this move proved he was playing for a win not a draw and so should lose on time. The players were 12-year-olds graded 120ish. What do you think ?

THESE THINGS ARE SENT TO TRY US
by Richard Furness

Llandudno Congress
Round I Friday, during the Quickplay Finish

As 1 pass a board 1 notice Black trying to stop both clocks and White being unhappy about it. I pause and ask if there is a problem. "Can I help?" The Clockstopper, who has five rninutes left, says he has offered his opponent a draw and is stopping the clock.  I tell him he should not stop the clock to offer (deliberate emphasis) a draw. I start White's clock and say it is up to White to accept or play on. I continue my travels, occasiona1ly noticing the game continuing in front of a few spectators. On returning to my table I see the result slip which tells me the Clockstopper has lost. He looms in front of me. "I want a word with you. You lost me that game because you wouldn't let me stop my clock We do that in Liverpool." (Watch out PWP and DW) I tell him that he may stop the clocks to summon an Arbiter to claim a draw. "That's what I was doing", he said. "I offered him a draw and told him if he didn't accept I would claim a draw when I got to two rninutes!. “   "And did you claim a draw when you got to two minutes ?" I ask "No and I lost because of you."

Round 5, Sunday Afteroon
Two players approach Player A says Player B touched me of Player A's pawns and was about to take it with his Queen but realised if he did he would lose the Queen. Player B - Yes, it's Mr Clockstopper from Friday night - agreed with this but said that since he had not touched his Queen he did not have to take it. I said that as it was agreed the Pawn was touched, it had to be captured if there was a piece which could effect the capture. Since on1y the Queen could do this I ruled that Player B was obliged to play QxP. Player B said that would mean he would lose his Queen.

He continued, "I know the rules. I have a rule book at home. "I didn't touch my Queen so I don't have to move it. You are wrong Mr Arbiter." I could see we were close to the pantomime sequence of "Oh yes you do. Oh no I don't." Who says Arbiters don't have a sense of humour? - see the next article. I repeated that he had to capture the touched Pawn. He continued to talk about his rule book "Okay I'll resign. You're the Arbiter but you're wrong. That's the second dispute I've had with you this weekend and you've ruled against me both times." He clearly thought Arbiter's decisions work on a Balance Sheet principle. If the Arbiter rules against you the first time you will get the decision the next, to be fair.

I suppose I should have left it there but I do not like having players going away from an event feeling aggrieved. I realised we had present at the event the father of a well-known chess-playing family. I asked if he would come over. For the sake of anonymity let's call him Mr H.

I explained that the gentleman was not happy with my ruling and would he listen whilst the player explained the situation to him. Mr H. had no doubts.  The Pawn had to be taken.  "Thanks Mike." Mr Clockstopper-Rulebook spent the next half-hour smoking and fuming furiously.

ROOM 101
This seem to be a new craze, What about :

•	.Officious Arbiters
•	 Inefficient Arbiters 
•	Fussy Arbiters 
•	Arbiters

Your ideas for Room 101 please,

IT'LL BE ALRIGHT ON THE KN IG HT 
by Steve Boniface

One criticism which can justifiably be laid against Arbiters is that they don't appear to have a sense of humour. This comment comes of course from a player who perhaps has found the wrong side of a controller's tongue when perhaps he deserved it. Unfortunately one bad experience can label the person for life and establish a quite unjustified reputation. My first attempt lit running a training course by post had a question which demanded to know the key qualities of an Arbiter, to which the candidate replied finally, "... and of course a sense of humour." I gave him bonus points for that. Without a sense of humour we would have been driven mad many years ago. Shades of Fischer and Petrosian. My fellow controller suggested a thick pair of leather gauntlets.

Some of us remember the late night game at Swansea in 1987 where an unbelievably tedious endgame was finally brought to a halt when one of the players was charged with being drunk in charge of a chessboard.

The late Dick Boxall had a wicked sense of humour, but this was rarely appreciated by the players, some of whom he threatened to execute if found playing five-minute chess with his best clock

Playing practical jokes on players is a dangerous game but can come off if done sparingly and at the right time. We've all heard of incidents with Blue-tak and floppy boards, but Jack Speigel waited several years to play his special trick on Good Friday, 1st April 1994. No, I'm not giving it away…..  I caught John Nunn on this date many years ago at Exeter when I contrived to give him the black pieces in rounds two and three. On the Sunday morning (Round 4) his board was set up with the black pieces on both sides. Unfortunately the best of all controller games - Potty Pairings has been exposed in CHESS magazine, and so our little secret is out.

Anyone who has not worked alongside Neil Graham will be unaware of the excruciating puns he manages to contrive.

One of the skills that an Arbiter should have is the ability to write clearly so that players can read the pairings. Copperplate is not required, in fact big block capitals are probably best for those with poor vision. My own handwriting let me down at one event when I got confused between a Mr Gardner and a Mr Gardiner. The result was the black pieces for the first gentleman in the first three rounds. When he enquired politely whether it was possible he might see the white bits in the next two rounds, I made him a solemn oath. Incidentally, mis-spelling a competitor's name seems to be an offence only just short of Grievous Bodily Harm.

Spelling is not normally so critical, but I was amused to read an account of a trainee arbiter explaining that his club had recently moved "into a pup" - no doubt to play the Colle System! (sorry Neil).

The same person's C.V. included in his controlling history three "Alcohol Handicap" events. These tend to penalise good players, and wins; by enforcing the consumption of, usually, cider. I played in one myself and found out only a week later that I'd come joint first!  When I tried to suggest tactfully that controlling in those conditions was hardly appropriate experience, he replied that it was more difficult when drunk.

Ability to act under pressure when things go wrong is one of the greatest assets of a good controller. That is one reason why the BCF Examination deliberately places students in situations where they can think for themselves. And with a sense of humour, and the recognition that errors can be made, and things can go wrong, the good Arbiter remains in control.