The system was developed with only a vague notion of what the final product should be and largely without involvement from the bridge playing community. Terminals were developed with maximum functionality and minimum cost in mind and turned out to be resilient and reliable.

The wireless link is potentially the weakest link of an automated scoring system.  Considerable effort therefore went into the design, development and testing of the communication subsystem. Features like built-in error detection, steps to reduce message collision and automatic re-transmission of failed mesages eventually turned this into a surprisingly reliable subsystem.

Testing took place over a period of 15 months during which time the computer software was gradually adapted and refined to provide more and improved functionality. It was an evolutionary process that resulted in a very different product to the one of 15 months before.

The main issues identified during testing are presented below.

System tuning reduced the average terminal response time from about 1 s to about 0.5 s.

The wireless link uses a range of public broadcast frequencies which are subject to interference that can impact its reliability. Initally, about 10% of transmissions were affected by interference. The system had been designed to compensate for interference by automatically re-transmitting messages when required. With automated re-transmission in effect, reliability of the link was barely acceptable at about 99%.  Further testing revealed that a small change in message transmission format eliminated most of the interference and resulted in an improved reliability of more than 99.9%. The number of messages requiring re-transmission has subsequently stabilised at about 1 per hour.

The methods used to score bridge events (and award master points) differ from one country to the next. For example, stratified events are popular in some countries but not in others. The system's underlying data model was adapted to make provision for different approaches that were identified.

Fouled boards are scored in accordance with WBF guidelines. Since it is impossible to foresee and provide automated solutions for all other possible exeptions, the approach adopted was that the Director would always have the final say in the scoring process. Results are therefore considered "Provisional" and subject to change until declared "Final" by the Director.

The use of terminals to record bridge scores is a radical departure from traditional behaviour at the bridge table and it is to be expected that it would not appeal to everyone.  Computer-literate people did not have a problem using the terminal and competitive bridge players, whether computer-literate or not, quickly acquired the necessary skills to operate the terminal. Some people admitted that they did not like using the terminal.

Slow play is sometimes a problem during Club events. The automated scoring system records the amount of time taken for the play of each board and reports it on personal scorecards. Although this does not prevent or eliminate the problems associated with slow play it is an objective measure that could conceivably assist in finding an acceptable solution to the problem.

Several questions were raised by players when they first received personal scorecards. In some instances it was clear that the players did not fully understand the concept and implications of matchpoint scoring. It was helpful to these players when their scores were explained to them by referring to the reproduced travelling scoresheets.

Players use their membership numbers of a national bridge organisation to register themselves on the computer before the start of the event. However, not all players are members of such an organisation and therefore some players had to be issued with "temporary" numbers to allow the automated registration process to function.

The automated system has a number of features that the Director can customise or select from to suit local conditions. These include specifying the amount of time allowed per board and between rounds, whether or not there should be a (bio or tea) break during play and if so, what its duration should be, how terminals are to be deployed, whether or not the computer should provide voice prompts and if so, whether a male or female voice should be used. The system can handle both pairs and teams events and a large number of Howell, Mitchell and barometer movements is available. The number of movements is not limited and additional movements can be added if required.