Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin O'Brien
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alas, Nic, “stories/rumors I heard” are worth less than you paid for them without adequate evidence of what really happened. I believe we will never receive such evidence.

I (or better, any one (or several) of many more qualified than I) could write a Swiss Team matching algorithm as Open Source. You might then use it in a further enhancement to BridgeScore+, and have the ability in BridgeScore+ to run a Swiss from start to finish, much quicker than ACBLscore, and requiring fewer TDs.

But the bottom line is that ACBL Management will never use it, and they will do their own separate not just “invented here” but “we own the copyright and no one else has any ownership of our proprietary code” enhancement to ACBLscore.

So I will plug along running my small club and using ACBLscore, because nothing better is available to me. When I go to tournaments, with only a few exceptions (Gatlinburg 2015), I'll endure the long delays for a KO to start, and the crowd around the rack between rounds of the Swiss Teams events. I'll probably pay increased entry fees too, to make up for the multi-million-dollar write-offs ACBL has taken and their additional expenses to re-invent the already-in-BridgeScore+ wheel.
Jan. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rich DeMartino is self-reported as the Director who submitted the motion, see p. 4 of his report on the D25 website at – he writes in part

“As a result, I submitted a motion that recommended we stop work on updating the old system and conduct an independent review by outside systems experts to evaluate the decision and to decide how best to move forward. When I learned of the plan described below, I chose to withdraw my motion.”

I don't believe he has spoken on the topic in public since his report. He may read this (he is a BridgeWinners member) and choose continued silence; that's his prerogative.

I found it worthwhile to read Mr. DeMartino's full report on ACBLscore. Here's the next paragraph (“plan described below”)

“The proposed plan is to have a committee evaluate the current ACBL Score plan both to determine whether enhancing the existing ACBL Score is viable and, if so, to evaluate the work planned for 2015. The Committee will have three Board Members, including Jay Whipple, three members from ACBL Staff and three outside systems experts (bridge players). Jay assures me the three outside systems experts selected will be outstanding and he further assures me he is confident the group is fully capable of carrying out the task assigned.”

Note that the “task assigned” has nothing to do with evaluating the ACBLscore+ code which was already evaluated and discarded by an advisory group which included or received input from most (6 of 10) of the current Management (CEO's) Technology Committee.

Mr. DeMartino references Jay Whipple, BoD Director for District 9. Here's the link to Mr. Whipple's report from the Providence BoD meeting –

Here's what Mr. Whipple has to say about ACBLscore+
“We are also taking non-cash write-offs of approximately $1,905,328 for the failed ACBLScore+ effort”

Apparently ACBL Management wants nothing to do with ACBLscore+/BridgeScore+ and that isn't about to change. Alas.

Jan. 18, 2015
Kevin O'Brien edited this comment Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please refresh my memory, Kevin Lane (or Nic Hammond, or anyone else who knows the facts). Which BoD member was silenced from speaking on the issue, and prevented from learning more of the facts of the ACBLscore issue?
Jan. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Of the ten on the CEO's Technology Committee, you (and interested BW readers/commenters) already know that the Technology Committee Chair, BoD members Merlin Vilhauer and Russ Jones, ACBL employees Ken Horwedel and Bruce Knoll, and ACBL Consultant Tony Lin, by their work with/membership on the ACBLscore+ evaluation committee that met in 2014 between when the ACBL/Hammond Software contract ended and the Las Vegas NABC, are unlikely to be listening to anything you say with any degree of openness. That committee is already on record as recommending (unanimously) that ACBLscore+ be written off and discarded.

That leaves CEO's Technology Committee members Greg Humphreys, Uday Ivatury, Ralph Lipe, and Jay Whipple (also on BoD) as the audience you are trying to influence with your words – a minority on a committee that, in the end, can only evaluate and recommend anyway.

The BoD's Technology Committee has the same Merlin + Russ already on record about ACBLscore+, and Jay Whipple and Don Mamula. Have they met? What are they doing? What influence will their recommendations carry?

From what I have read from you, it seems to me that much of what Bridgescore+ can now do was not a part of the ACBLscore+ that was evaluated and discarded after the ACBL/Hammond Software contract ended last year, but has since been added by you and your people and used in Atlanta and Augusta Regionals (or is waiting to be used at Gatlinburg 2015).

The $600,000 being spent by ACBL now is not only to “re-invent the wheel” (implement in ACBLscore features either in the ACBLscore+ they discarded or later implemented in BridgeScore+), but also to (in your words) “fully integrate the Bridge Scoring Program (ACBLscore) with Electronic Scoring Devices (ESDs)” – at least for Swiss Teams.

For Matchpoint events, the workaround to the integration is already working with Bridge Composer and ACBLMerge, and ACBL produces output with contracts and results (not just numeric scores) posted on ACBL Club Results. The Common Game also does it for results from participating clubs. It would be cleaner to enhance the BSP, but that's not necessary for producing output useful for study and analysis from the ACBLscore gamefiles and various .bws files from the ESDs.

As far as I know, neither ACBLscore nor BridgeScore+ has a working implementation for Swiss Teams, although developers for both appear to be working to implement such. So sad! As each work day passes, more money (and unpaid volunteer time) is gone forever.

Nic, your efforts to inform the interested public of what has happened (from the viewpoint of Hammond Software), both here and on the BridgeScore+ website, are successful.

But you don't have all the facts. For example, you don't know the internal work of the ACBL committee that recommended the discarding and writing off of ACBLscore+, thus don't know what led them to that recommendation. You know what ACBL management and ACBL Counsel said to you about the legal issues of copyright and ownership, but can only speculate on what happened between ACBL Management, ACBL in-house Counsel, and the outside counsel that evaluated the ACBL/Hammond Software contract.

Getting the ACBL management/IT/Counsel side of the story to the public is most likely not going to happen – for whatever reason(s), doing so does not appear to ACBL management to be in their best interest.

ACBL management's public silence (which you have termed “cover-up”) makes it impossible for those of us on the outside to make informed judgments. You can't change that. So far, neither can the interested public or even the Board of Directors. (What are these “confidential agreements” to which Mr. Vilhauer refers? I doubt we will ever know; I doubt that even the full membership of either CEO's or BoD's Technology Committee will ever know).

Your efforts to influence the future course of ACBL IT, especially with respect to what they are doing with the Bridge Scoring Program (ACBLscore), appear (at least from where I sit as an ACBL member and club director who only sees what's happening at tournaments, the changes in ACBLscore, and what I read on the Internet from ACBL, you, and Bridge Winners) doomed to failure.

Other than 2014's Gatlinburg, Atlanta, and Augusta Regionals, (plus a peek at the 2014 Spring NABC in Dallas), where has ACBLscore+ or BridgeScore+ been used at tournaments? Have any Districts in addition to your home District 7 asked for you to demonstrate or use BridgeScore+ at any of their Regionals? Even in District 7, there was no BridgeScore+ presence at the North Charleston Regional. Is BridgeScore+ in use at any ACBL-sanctioned clubs?

I'm sure I'm not the only interested person who regrets the current sorry state of affairs, and wishes there was more I could do to bring about a situation where cooperation between what now appear to be “rival software developers” led to more rapid improvements in the software and less cost to ACBL and ultimately its members.
Jan. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they (ACBL Management) haven't said anything substantive to the membership about the ACBLscore+ debacle by now, I doubt they ever will.

I suspect even the CEO's Technology Committee (and especially those in it who are newcomers) will never even be allowed to see the “confidential agreements.”

But of course I am not sure. It's always possible something of substance will be revealed if enough pressure is applied . . . but what good will come of that?

Will ACBL Management stop spending what's left of the $600K budgeted to re-invent the wheel, and use what they already bought and paid for which seems to work? Don't hold your breath waiting for that! No sign that is happening, but we wait to see . . .

“failed rewrite?” ACBL Management and their previous committee say so, but Nic Hammond showed much that works at Gatlinburg, Atlanta, and Augusta last year.

Mr. Hammond seems to have gone about as far as he can go to tell his side of the story, the other side remains hidden behind “confidential agreements” – so it goes.
Jan. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, you are probably correct on that one. The Technology Committee, appointed by the CEO, is now called the “Technology Management Committee,” although I doubt the Technology Committee actually manages anything.

Managing is the purview of the CEO, Bruce Knoll, the ACBL's Director of Information Technology, and Ken Horwedel, the project manager on the ACBLscore update.

The “Technology Management Committee” is certainly not managing to stop the CEO from directing ACBL IT to spend that budgeted $600K in re-inventing the wheel.
Jan. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now we see the CEO's Technology Committee re-branded as “management’s technology committee.” We see ACBL employee Kelley McGuire taking the meeting minutes, and we see the minutes of the first meeting published on ACBL's website less than two weeks after that meeting. We see the CEO himself not working on any of the subcommittees (that's most probably good).

“You can't tell the players without a scorecard” – so here's the scorecard:

= = = = = = = = = Scorecard = = = = = = = = = =

From Adam Parrish:
“The three board members on the committee are Jay Whipple (District 9), Russ Jones (District 10), and Merlin Vilhauer (District 20), unquestionably the three most technically knowledgeable members of the BOD. The outside experts are Greg Humphreys of Bridge Winners, Uday Ivatury of Bridge Base Online, and Ralph Lipe, a former system architect at Microsoft. The members of the committee from management are Tony Lin, a consultant brought in this year, Ken Horwedel, the project manager on the ACBLscore update, and Bruce Knoll, the ACBL's Director of Information Technology.”

and from Nic Hammond:
“6 of the 10 were involved with/on the committee to drop ACBLscore+ in May/June 2014. Robert, Tony, Ken, Bruce, Merlin, Russ. Surprised no-one pointed it out before. I don't know who else was on the committee that looked at ACBLscore+ - I wasn't involved or asked.

Tony is new; he's a consultant ACBL brought on-board in March 2014. Never met him. Talked to him in March, seems like a sharp guy. Tony is not a bridge player, but don't hold that against him.

Bruce is ACBL IT Manager (apologies if I got his title wrong), if it's a working committee he belongs on it; if it's a supervisory committee, then they are really supervising his department. He is not a bridge player. He joined ACBL about 2+ years ago.

Ken is a TD, works v. hard, he does not have a tech background. He was i/c of roll-out of TourneyTrax (not the developer/consultant on the project, but the ACBL face to the project). He got added to the ACBLscore+ project towards the end.

Merlin created a pre-cursor to ACBLscore (yes, that long ago!). He does work on results in D20. He was on the ACBLscore+ email list and Wiki etc. but not involved with it.”

= = = = = = = = = End of Scorecard = = = = = = = = = =

We also see “Group needs to be on same page with all decisions before they are announced and disseminated;” in other words it seems that “the . . . minutes are the interested ACBL members' only glimpse into what the CEO's Technology Committee is doing.”

For specifics, we see the self-selected (that's good) subcommittee members on two areas of great interest to BridgeWinners posters:

ACBLscore – Jay, Greg, Ralph, Russ, Tony, Merlin, Ken – three “outsiders” – new to the deliberations (Jay, Greg, Ralph), two who are being paid by the CEO and were also on (or involved with) his previous committee which recommended ditching ACBLscore+ and thus writing off $1.9 million (Tony and Ken), and two ACBL BoD members (Merlin, Russ) who were also on the CEO's previous committee.

Budget 600K items – Jay, Russ, Tony Ken – four of the above six, two being paid by the CEO (Tony and Ken), both veterans of the CEO's previous committee, and one other (Ken) who was also on the CEO's previous committee. The one of those four with a fresh outside perspective is Jay.

In the meantime, ACBL is burning through that $600K re-inventing the wheel, duplicating the functionality of the ACBLscore+ code it already owns and which has been demonstrated successfully at Gatlinburg 2014, Atlanta 2014, and Augusta 2014 Regionals.

If the BoD had considered and passed Rich DeMartino's proposed motion (withdrawn before it had a chance to do so), at least more of the fast-disappearing $600K would still be in the bank.

In the meantime, Nic Hammond is on the outside peddling his software at a popular price to any takers with endorsement from their ACBL District.

What have I missed here? Are Kevin Lane's elephants truly being ignored?
Jan. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, lack of appropriate testing culture at ACBL IT, and the need for both an appropriate test environment and a staff culture change.
Jan. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Money can buy you competent maintenance coders to fill in in emergencies. Enough money can buy you the equivalent of a fully completed ACBLscore+.
Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ACBL has no key person insurance on Mr. Lopushinsky, perhaps they need to revisit the issue. The recent bug, and delay in its resolution, shows that at present he is indispensable. Not having key person insurance could be a disaster, and whoever makes the decision “no such insurance” escapes only as long as Mr Lopushinsky is healthy and competent and continues to work, or until his knowledge and skill set are shared enough with the remainder of the IT staff so that he is no longer indispensable.
Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It doesn't make sense to re-write large parts of ACBLscore just for the sake of re-writing them.”

True, but if the intent is to keep using the ACBLscore product for the next thirty-five (or more) years, and the expectation is that Mr. Lopushinsky will not be available for continued maintenance/enhancement of the product for that entire time, then perhaps it DOES make sense to rewrite critical portions to streamline and centralize the code, and make it considerably easier for ACBL IT to maintain and enhance/change the code in the Lopushinsky-less future.
Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Nic, for this behind-the-scenes look at current ACBL Masterpoint reality.

- - - - - - - - -

“But ACBLscore implements what it wants and doesn't follow the rules in the MPBOOK.”

So it seems that up until now it more or less doesn't matter what the Board of Directors mandates, ACBLscore does things the way its programmer implements them, and its results (except for the occasional egregious and embarrassing-if-exposed-to-the-public bug) are what are used for Masterpoints. Thus the many (?) differences between MPBOOK and reality (ACBLscore).

To return control of Masterpoints to the players (through their elected Unit Board members and the Unit-Board-Members-elected Board of Directors), this situation must change. Will it? Whether the MPBOOK or ACBLscore is changed is like a Bridge partnership's workings. It doesn't matter so much which page you are on, what matters is that both are on the _same_ page. Will someone with power and authority mandate this? Will the IT department and the Board of Directors and ACBL management cooperate to make it so?

We wait to see . . .

- - - - - - - - -

Three different sets of calculations in ACBLscore for Masterpoints is a nightmare. I bet ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ in its implementation has only one, but I have neither seen its code nor confirmed my speculation with Nic Hammond.

Will the CEO's Technology Committee be willing and able to recommend massive reforms to ACBL Game Scoring such as streamlining/centralizing the Masterpoint calculations so that the charts and the gamefiles use the same underlying code? Will they recommend that the games as scored have a real chance to have 100% match with what the charts mandate?

We wait to see . . .

- - - - - - - - -

“There are requirements on ACBL TDs to manually check the results for MPs by using the masterpoint chart functionality but not all do as it is a very time-consuming process.”

“10% of game files have masterpoint errors in them. Usually it was a TD mis-configuration, because it is very easy to mis-configure ACBLscore for a “complex” event for masterpoint calculations/awards.”

Better software (more streamlined and centralized in the Game Scoring and Game Setup areas) could reduce the burden on ACBL Tournament Directors, ad this would result in a much lower percentage of game files in error. I'm pretty sure that ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ has such software (maybe not complete due to lack of specs from ACBL), but again I have neither seen the code nor confirmed my speculation with Nic Hammond.

Will the CEO's Technology Committee be willing and able to make recommendations for the appropriate software improvements? Does ACBL IT have the necessary resources to follow up and get it done?

We wait to see . . .

- - - - - - - - -

Will the CEO's Technology Committee be willing and able to recommend that ACBL IT develop a modern and adequate testing methodology? Apparently ACBL IT already has (bought and paid for) the “gfprint” tool available for their use, and it would cost relatively little to receive appropriate instruction in its use, plus the examples of how Hammond Software used it in their own testing.

“Relatively little,” of course, depends on the availability and willingness and generosity of Nic Hammond and/or any of those who worked with Hammond Software to develop or use the “gfprint” tool. It would be a shame to discard such a powerful tool, or let it gather dust because no one knows how to use it.

“Setting up any of these test environments would take time. You then have to implement a process to make sure that a software release goes through a testing cycle. If you are the developer, or the test engineer, then you need to make sure that each time there is a software release that all the tests are updated. If there is a ‘bug’ you have to figure out if it is in the test code, or the in the production code. ACBL does not have that development mentality.”

Will the CEO's Technology Committee be willing and able to recommend that ACBL IT undergo the change to acquire that development mentality? Will they be willing and able to recommend that ACBL IT hire “someone with solid Test Management credentials?” Don't be surprised if such people exist among active ACBL bridge-playing members, perhaps not willing to relocate to Horn Lake but as Hammond Software has proved, working remotely is not out of the question.

We wait to see . . .

- - - - - - - - -

If the CEO's Technology Committee is able and willing to make such recommendations, is ACBL IT able to implement them?

And if the CEO's Technology Committee is unable or unwilling to make such recommendations, is the Board of Directors' Technology Committee willing and able to make such recommendations? Is the Board of Directors then willing and able to mandate that ACBL IT make it so?

We wait to see . . .

- - - - - - - - -

Finally, it appears that whatever ACBL is paying for “key person” insurance on Mr. Lopushinsky is not too much.
Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When a tournament has a choice of sites, negotiating for free WiFi for FastResults use might be a criterion for choosing between competing sites.

My small club has enjoyed free WiFi; it's how I can guarantee that players leaving the game will have (links to) their results from The Common Game in their in-boxes when they get home. As we change locations, that's big on my list of amenities for the new location.

At the same time, Nic is One Hundred Percent correct – internet access cannot be a requirement for either a club or a tournament.
Jan. 11, 2015
Kevin O'Brien edited this comment Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Tom,

As I understand it, ALL motions affecting Masterpoints must be approved at two consecutive Board of Directors meetings before they become official.

ACBL publishes the gist of the approved motions in the ACBL Bulletin, but not the details. People interested in the details have to track down the motion text if their District Director's report is not absolutely clear.

Although I am not in District 10, I found Russ Jones's write-up to be most clear. You can see it at; it was posted after the Las Vegas BoD meeting.

The only problem I have with his explanation is he talks in terms of “% of Sectional Rating” when he means “% of pre-2015 Sectional rating.” Last year special club games had R factors of:
6.5 (quarterly club championship),
7.0 (ACBL Fund/Foundation games),
8.5 (Unit Championship games),
10.0 (GNT. NAP, Upgraded Club Championship, October Club Appreciation pairs/team, and a few others)

The 2015-01-01 changes to the R factors which affect special games at clubs are that the 6.5 and 8.5 games were both changed to 7.0, and the 10.0 games were all changed to 9.0. These seem to be relatively simple changes, and would be in any well-written code in a modern programming language. I don't know how the formula is coded in Jim Lopushinsky's possibly undocumented 1980's Pascal, modified each time ACBL tweaked its Masterpoint formula, but any competent programmer should be able to decipher the code and make the appropriate changes.

With the increase in the T factor for Pairs from 1.0 to 1.25, I believe all Club Special Games now award more Masterpoints than Club Special Games of the same size in 2014, but I haven't done the math to check that.

Any good test plan would test each type of Club Special Game and ordinary Club masterpoint game in all permutations and combinations, and have the tester (or appropriate software) compare the results with each test scenario Gamefile against the expected results. Set the date to 2014-12-31, run the gamefiles through the calculations, check that the results are as expected. Change the date to 2015-01-01 and do the same thing, against the NEW expected results. Lots of test scenario gamefiles to cover all the possible calculations, but over the years the appropriate gamefiles should, in the best of all possible ACBL IT testing worlds, have been developed and should be available for the testing. Actually, one could use .bws files as generated by the wireless electronic scoring devices, and have ACBLscore just input the player numbers and scores from the boards played at each table; then ACBLscore produces the gamefile as is done now at clubs which use the electronic scoring devices. Saving the .bws files for more testing is easy. Ask Nic Hammond how Hammond Software did its testing while developing ACBLscore+ and now Bridgescore+; I'm pretty sure he did something similar or even more simple and elegant.

Obviously ACBL IT failed to do this before sending 7.89 out to clubs and tournaments. I doubt they did it for 7.90 either, but I'll leave the investigation and reporting on that to the CEO's Technology Committee, and if they fail to so investigate, I expect the Board of Director's Technology Committee will do so.

On Dec 29, ACBL (Manager, Club and Member Services) told me “We are also currently working on updating the masterpoint charts and all places where masterpoints information needs to be updated. It’s very possible that everything will not be updated before January 1, but several people are diligently working on the updates.” One hopes and expects that several people are still working diligently on the updates. I won't hold my breath waiting for complete and accurate updates, but I expect we'll see them posted in the next month, perhaps even before the end of January – although we all know these ACBL employees also have other duties of perhaps higher priority.

I'll bet they miss that Platinum Points are now awarded in the 0-10K events at NABCs which DO have upper Masterpoint limits, though. We'll see, eventually.
Jan. 9, 2015
Kevin O'Brien edited this comment Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

The new Masterpoint calculations were first approved in JULY 2014 at the BoD's meeting at the Las Vegas NABC. If ACBL IT were not busy trying to reinvent code already tested and proved in FastResults (Jay Whipple's or Nic Hammond's from ACBLScore+), ACBLscore+ fast starts to KOs and Swiss Teams competitions, and other tested and proven new features in ACBLscore+, they could have been writing and testing the code for the proposed Masterpoint formula changes, under the hardly-any-risk assumption that the Las Vegas BoD approval would be followed up by Providence BoD approval.

That they were busy re-inventing the wheel instead, in addition to their proven-inadequate test-before-release process, is the problem,

One hopes the CEO's Technology Committee will address at least the test-before-release process, and the appropriate culture change will take place in ACBL's IT department.
Jan. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was at that North Charleston Regional, and I visited the Tournament Office and read with interest Doug Gtrove's memo to the TDs there about the ACBLscore 7.89 bug, and a workaround for the 3K strat problem.

Sure looked to me as if Doug was the only tester of that release.

A listing of th problems Tom Moore's club has had with ACBLscore would be a good start (if no start has yet been made) for a set or regression tests, to insure that bug fixes and product enhancements do not un-fix previously solved problems.

I doubt that hiring a full-time QA/testing IT professional would lose anything for ACBL from a cost/benefit analysis, especially if ACBL continues on its “We must invent it here if we are to use it” path rather than embracing proven working products they own (parts of ACBLScore+) or are offered for free (e.g. either Jay Whipple's or ACBLscore+'s FastResults).

At least ACBL IT took Matthew Kidd's ACBL Bulletin Viewer software and is using it, even though they did not invent it.
Jan. 9, 2015
Kevin O'Brien edited this comment Jan. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Greg,

It's good to hear the CEO's Technology Committee has begun its work. As far as “we've identified a number of preliminary technology projects / issues that require our immediate attention. Sub-groups of our committee were formed to tackle each one.

”More specifics will surely be forthcoming when the minutes are published, which I expect to happen soon." I have a few questions:

1) Who is responsible for taking the CEO's Technology Committee meeting minutes?
2) How soon, and where, are these minutes to be published? Specifically, will they be available to any interested ACBL member?
3) Are CEO's Technology Committee members ordered or even requested to be silent about what occurs in these meetings so that the eventually-published-somewhere minutes are the interested ACBL members' only glimpse into what the CEO's Technology Committee is doing?
Jan. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True – only the voters (and the Grim Reaper) have the power to oust the incumbent. The rest of us can, Unit by Unit, oust the voters - but that's a long process. So for the BoD members (if any) who, as most elected politicians, have the prime objective of preserving their incumbency, the electorate to whom they listen are first and foremost the Unit Board members.
Jan. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problem downloading here; Windows Defender found no virus or malware, and it seems to have installed correctly as well.

Next Monday's evening club game will give me personal reassurance; this weekend's local Sectional will come first and reassure every bridge player in the area.
Jan. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Greg,

It's the CEO's Technology Committee “outsider” members and those with proven records in bridge and bridge-related software who are the main reason I (and I presume most of us posting skeptically and cautiously here) have any hope at all for any success (i.e. real change) from the process you are about to begin. That's at least you, Uday, and Jay. To the extent that you guys can “make it happen,” we're sure that you will. What extent that is, we're unsure of.

See what happens if, at the first formal face-to-face meeting of the CEO's Technology Committee, you place a pocket voice recorder on the table and turn it on . . . the reaction of the others and especially the Committee Chairman, will give you a good clue of the atmosphere in which the CEO's Technology Committee will be doing its work.

Sorry I didn't get to greet you and Adam at the North Charleston Regional. I did want to pass on a few words of both thanks and encouragement.
Jan. 7, 2015
Kevin O'Brien edited this comment Jan. 11, 2015

Bottom Home Top