Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Maybe the claims are legitimate; maybe they are not.

Sounds suspect to me and I work in this industry. I'd be happier with hearing those claims from an unbiased person with more IT experience than the board people seem to have.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A looooong time ago I used to work for a publisher. I can confirm those numbers were routine.
Oct. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never so much as seen a copy, but I've heard sufficient good things about it that it would certainly be on my Amazon wish list.
Oct. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're not using duplicated boards, then obviously it is desirable that the two tables are close(ish) to one another to enable board sharing. In which case teams (or rather the NS pair) are not likely to be stationary from round to round. In which case table number assignment has to be part of what you think about.

And if you're not using bridgemates (or similar), then there is a time after each round when scores are being agreed and then directors are chasing pieces of paper rather than policing slow tables. In which case you get slow finishing tables and in which case you get this whole discussion about doing some of the round assignments before the round has fully completed. I get all that.

But…. if you guys can conceive for a moment how a Swiss competition should run with duplicated boards and electronic scoring, then much of the problems in this thread go out the window. Of course, this does assume adequate hardware to accomplish all that - which I don't suppose you can always assume….

Nick
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, assuming all the assignments are done at once (desirable, if not to say routine in a well run competition), it is quite feasible to have teams assigned to the table corresponds with their team number. Then NS stay where they are and EW goes to the table of the team they've been assigned to play against.

This does assume an adequate supply of duplicated boards and the whole room is playing the same set for that round. This is routine in Europe.
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's none of my business (not from North America). However, if it was my business I'd be thinking about bypassing the ACBL in it's entirety.
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm. I originally clicked pass - but then I noticed it was 3rd seat. Oh well 1 it is for this dren.

Hands like this make me want to be playing Polish twos
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner will downgrade poor balanced 12 counts to pass, then I will raise his/her weak NT to 3 with this. This is rather more than a case of 11 upgrading to 12, it is worth a good 12 imo. Two good 12 counts make (on average) reasonable play for 3NT, two poor 12s do not.
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't the directors keep on top of the slow tables where you are?
Oct. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm normally conservative with balanced hands, but if you don't upgrade this, then there isn't much you ever will imo.
Oct. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe, even with all results in, there is no algorithm that absolutely guarantees a “100% optimum” set of pairings. I seem to recall a similar problem with pairings between potential couples in a dating algorithm - which is not exactly the same, but similar.
Oct. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, there is merit in what you say. At the table I X'ed along with the majority of answers here. Partner had something like:

6xxx
QT
Qx
J9xxx

and chose to take out into 3 in the hoped for 4-4 fit at one trick less than 4 with the possibly more likely 5-3 fit. Naturally 3 was not a pretty contract. You can blame bad luck, you blame me for a poor choice or you can blame partner similarly, (or just shrug!)

Not that it proves anything but by DD results their 3 was making as was 3 our way and 4 was one off. 3 should have been 3 off.
Oct. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely it can't provide too much of a problem… Say, add your fictitious team if that helps the algorithm, then merge the two bottom pairings.

Slightly worse is the case of an odd number of teams with an odd number of rounds (assuming the three ways last two rounds to avoid problems with scaling the VP assignments). Say a one day Swiss of 7x7 boards rather than 6x8. I don't know how to fix that unless the final 3 way lasts one round only with appropriately scaled VPs.
Oct. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't forget the case of an odd number of teams (requiring at least one 3 way match) - which I am sure isn't really much of a problem provided you remember it.
Oct. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
predictable on both sides. tldr;
Sept. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always think auctions like this are something of a lottery. However, FWIW, given the rubbish I could be holding, I'd have given it (6) a go last round - but not at all confident of being right!
Sept. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin said

>Maybe the ACBL's decision was driven by a desire to re-assert total control of its “supply chain.”

Well, if that is the case, then you have a problem because ACBL will never embrace the open architecture that is required while that position is allowed to stand.
Sept. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Old is a relative term. Trying to find experienced developers that are Subject Matter Aware (SMA), i.e. bridge players, that are available, skilled in modern tools is harder than you think. Some are posting to this site, but most have full time jobs elsewhere and would not be willing to work on a 2 year contract with no long term prospects once the project is over.

Appreciate the problem. I work full time and am not interested at this time in short to medium term stuff. Plus though I've got SQL (Oracle mainly, some mySql) the main languages that I've got that are relevant are java and php - which you probably already consider as “old”. Probably many of the people who do have the time and inclination and are SMA are the same or worse.

Re Agile, what you're describing is basic common sense management. Wish I had a pound for every time I've heard it called some new fangled methodology.
Sept. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the (very) well known case of 4333 opposite 4333 is best in 3NT rather than a 4-4 fit and the also well known (but not as well known) case of the 5-3 fit with 5332 opposite 4333 is generally better of in 3NT (you're not getting a ruff in the short hand).

Never the less, one can't just dismiss Pavlicek's numbers like that. Sure some of the deals are not a case of two classic balanced hands. However, they do not suffer from the D/D objection about the lead being more significant at NT. Nor can one say that they are just hands taken from ordinary club or online play - they were taken from top class competition - and if the experts can get into the “wrong” contract (and get lucky or not thereby), then the expectancy must be that most of mere mortals will do so too.
Sept. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I see. Fortunately I've never had to find out first hand about so called “Agile”.
Sept. 25, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top