Basically, the issue is that the word "closed" means different things to different people. Some meanings have to do with scores, others with audience, and a few with both.
"I propose the following terms and definitions:
- Open bout, a bout between two leagues where there is an audience and the score is published;
- Private bout, a bout between two leagues where there is no audience and the score is published;
- Closed [door] bout, a bout between two leagues where there is no audience and the score is not published;"
Nomenclature system sorted. I like this one, but any system needs people to adhere to it.
The issue to me is not what these bouts are called, but how they factor into a stats/ranking system.
Put simply, either scores are public or they aren't. I cannot, in good conscience, rank a team based on a bout with non-public scores. As far as the derby public is concerned, that bout did not exist. That's the main reason some teams have these bouts. No competitive sport can have rankings change based on closed-door, secret events, and thus these are excluded.
(Side note, can you imagine if MI6 had a football team? "We may or may not have played a match this weekend. Any scores, which may or may not exist, are protected under the official secrets act. However, we are now top of the table. Trust us.)
Sometimes, it seems that teams are not exactly clear with each other on the public status of scores. One team is convinced that the bout was closed, whilst the other one puts the scores on their own website, facebook page, or even EuroDerby.
Therefore, I recommend to include a clause in the bout contract for ANY bout concerning publicity of scores. Save yourselves the 'fun' of being surprised by 25 facebook comments on the score you thought was secret. Go ahead and hash out publicity ahead of time.