I'm sorry, but I can't see anything which is "not true" in the remarks of my which you quote.David Shepherd wrote:This is not true I dislike both adjudications and adjournments - I will never again pick or offer adjudication, and dislike adjournments as it means you may be forced to travel long distances after work just to play a few moves where your opponent has probably studied the position on a computer. In one game this year I was put under pressure to resign a "lost" position to avoid my opponent having to travel a large distance. In the end I went back to their club a second time (a round journey of about two hours after work - as the club although in the Surrey league was not in Surrey) as it did seem slightly unfair to make the opponent travel to finish in a position where I would have resigned had the outcome of the match not depended on it. In the end I drew but was left with a dislike of adjournments.David Sedgwick wrote:In the Surrey Main League, all three possibilities (Adjournment, Adjudication and Quickplay Finish) are permitted. At the start of the game the away player offers the home player the choice of at least two of the three options and the home player selects one of the choices offered. In this way nobody can be forced to conclude the game by a particular method which he or she really dislikes; everyone gets at least his or her second choice.John Upham wrote:Representatives from the Surrey League ...... make your case for retention!
If you have an antipathy to one of the three methods, you can avoid it. I accept that that doesn't help you, as you have an antipathy to two of the three methods.
I don't think that you should have had any compunction about asking your opponent to travel to your club to play the adjournment session. If he wasn't prepared to make the journey, he shouldn't have offered Adjournment in the first place. He would then have offered Adjudication and Quickplay Finish, you would have selected the latter, and everyone would have been tolerably happy.