Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nicolas Hammond
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 127 128 129 130
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Yes. ACBL has video. It was used to prosecute F/N by ACBL. Not sure how much is public.

2. EBL focused on data from their own tournament. They did not need additional data as there was more than enough. However, data/video from WBF events was mentioned and submitted in advance of the CAS hearing. The CAS judges stated that they could not tell from these videos if leads were H or V. This was probably part of the problem.

3. It could have been appealed. EBL chose not to.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
F-N were convicted by ACBL. The ACBL report is private. F-N were found not guilty by CAS. The EBL report detailing the evidence has not been made public. There is plenty of material published by Kit Woolsey back in 2015 that is more than sufficient for any reasonable person to decide how guilty F-W were.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good start, but … any motion passed by the BOD can be replaced with a subsequent motion later passed by a future BOD.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The word “bracketed” could/should be added before the words “Open KO”, similar to how Swiss teams are advertized. I'll mention it to the D7 TOC next week. As Steve points out, it is described in more detail on page 2.

D7 also runs a seeded KO at some Regionals, hence the probable use of the word “open”.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be nice.

I don't get a member database until a couple of hours before the tournament starts so can't offer anything online. Therefore, no link…

ACBL policy. Complain to your DD. The BOD sets policy.

If your team is Bill, Brian, Doug, William, then I have your information from last year and will pre-register that team. I can't give you your team ID until Monday morning. Come see me behind the selling tables before 12:45pm on Monday and I will have your form for you.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Hammond Software” not “Hammond Services”.

ACBLscore+ software project was just under $1.5M. ACBL wrote off approx $2M. The other 500K was $100K for a a prior Java effort (2010??) to re-write ACBLscore, $100K (??) for a consultant to look at ACBLscore+ (the report was buried because… um… they liked the software and its implementation - ask your DD for a copy) and an estimated $200-300K for lawyers. Apart from the ACBLscore+ number, the other numbers are approximate. The ACBL took the opportunity to write all this off on their books at the same time. For example, the ~ $100K on the Java version should have been written off a long time ago.

The constant dig at “Industry standard” is because ACBLscore+ had a web-based architecture. ACBL and BOD can use the term without having to explain what it means because it has a nice sound to it. ACBLscore+ also used a SQL database. What's industry standard about that? Look at some 2014-2015 era postings from ACBL/BODs trying to discredit ACBLscore+. They used the same jargon back then - some of you fell for it, but it you are remotely involved in technology you know what is being said. Remember…. all of the technology decisions were approved by ACBL before the work on ACBLscore+ started.

For the last 18 months, Whipple has been trying to discredit ACBLscore+. I heard at some forums, he was stating that the “ACBLscore+ didn't work” - not true. Draw your own conclusions on the reasons why.

Here's the current state of affairs….

Bridgescore+ (the renamed version of ACBLscore+) has been certified by ACBL to run events. It is the only non-ACBL product to be certified. I had to spend 26 days on the road at ACBL tournaments for this to happen. ACBL are now doing everything they can to stop clubs and tournaments using it. Bridgescore+ runs in the cloud (I only wish that some other industries would come up with that so it becomes industry standard) - it requires a member database to run events (duh!) - ACBL refuses to provide its member database, even in stripped down form (I don't care about members email/phone - I do care if they are life masters/paid-up etc) so that clubs can use the software. I have clubs that want to run Bridgescore+ but ACBL won't provide a member database to let the clubs run the software. Happy to do everything under NDA, but ACBL refuses to provide.

Bridgescore+ is about to run over half the events in Gatlinburg. (Don't ask/won't tell about the ACBL member database).

You cannot refer to this as a “technology loss”, as the software is there to be used. The “technology loss” was a “legal loss”. The reason ACBL didn't use the software back in 2014 is because they negotiated away the Copyright in 2011 and an external law firm told them in 2013 and again in 2014 to throw the software away if they didn't own the Copyright. Ask your DD for full details.

Chris: you are a lawyer - chat to anyone who was on the board in 2014, particularly the board members who are lawyers - about the Copyright issues - they will explain it to you better than I can. IANAL.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve. The CAS argument on statistics was different. I was in the room for part of the hearing, including the summing up by both the defense and prosecution. The issue wasn't the statistics. There were other issues.

Separately…. the amount of data you need to “prove” cheating depends on many factors, including how high a threshold is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not defined statistically. It is possible to look at past data and deduce the known cheating pairs using statistics.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard “> one million dollars from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to
> teach bridge in schools and colleges in the US.

1. Were those grants every spent? If so, by who and on what?
2. Were those grants contingent on Bridge's status as a ”sport“?”

I happen to know these answers:

1. Yes. Various, including some individual programs. I am personally aware of at least one individual program. The balance was given to a single entity. Since all spent.
2. No.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No screens.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are in there. The book is out for review at the moment. The charts make it much easier to see who is cheating than just tables/lists. Probably later this year before it is published.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael: The question is how much naming I'm allowed to do. For example, if I generate lists based on statistical data, but it is obvious from the list that this is also a list of cheating players, can I list the names? Example: opening lead to partner's honor. Just a statistical list of partnerships and percentages. But the implication is obvious when you see the known cheaters and then you see some other names as well. Probably going to have to remove all names from all lists apart from the known cheating pairs. I've fighting to keep some of the names in. If there are any top pairs (I base most of the work on the top 100 pairs based on the amount of data I have) that are willing to have their names listed; I'll be happy to include them. Examples would be percentage of times that you happen to find partner with an honor. There are other stats that I might be able to keep the names and the data, for example, percentage of time that you lead trumps.

@Avon: Thanks. I chat with Bob at most NABCs. We had breakfast in Memphis. I guessed the wrong last digit on a bill (odd/even) so I had to pay. I need to figure out how to cheat at that. Bob was able to verify some of the names on my list; including some from long ago.

B/L is an example where statistics can catch a cheating pair. There are others.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff: “The Hammond Software was not in the best interests of Members”.

I think, if I understand your remark correctly, that you were implying that was an insult to the members from management/BOD.

Just in case….

ACBLscore+ was developed and delivered. It's now renamed Bridgescore+. ACBL choose not to use ACBLscore+ because they don't own the Copyright. That's a management and BOD decision. Peter Rank was the league counsel who negotiated the contract for ACBL negotiated away the Copyright early on; after he was told it was important he threatened BOD members with the Star Chamber for discussing anything to do with ACBLscore+.

Bridgescore+ is going to be used in Gatlinburg next week for nearly all of the team events. I also manage to find time to play two sessions a day; in other words it doesn't need a full time person on staff to run it. The KO events will start two minutes after game time (or the last sale/last team MP correction, which ever happens last). Previously it was 25 minutes after the last sale. It requires 7-8 TDs to start the big KOs, previously it was 13+. Swiss events will run 15-25 minutes faster than ACBLscore and require fewer TDs.

Every time I run Bridgescore+, players seem to like it.

If you are going to be in Gatlinburg, ask the Members if they like the software.

Oh…. and no single member of management from Horn Lake has ever wanted to see Bridgescore+ in action. Only one BOD member has ever seen it work at a tournament. Every other BOD member doesn't want to be seen near it.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm reasonably computer literate. I've worked as a Vugraph operator. I talked with Jan. Based on my knowledge, I think it is fairly easy. It's not like writing some new Bridge scoring program or something like that.

The harder issues for Gatlinburg are logistics. We need a bar stool, table of some sort (there are alternative if we use a bar stool), laptop. Somewhere safe to sit. Corner of the hall is the best suggestion as we have no little rooms available. Hand security is an issue; but we have TDs at Gatlinburg who have done this. Including providing the hand records on a USB stick for the Vugraph operators. Jan has written procedures that are easy to follow; she was willing to provide. Gatlinburg has a dedicated WiFi network that is separate from the Guest network so no worries about Internet speed.

Convincing the local organizers and DIC that it is something worth providing is the tough party; the technology is easy (for me). There is no money in it for them; only more cost and work. Gatlinburg is sometimes bigger than an NABC only without the support staff that ACBL can bring to an NABC.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Click “Like” if you are a regular Vugraph commentator and would be willing to commentate for 2020.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Click “Like” if you would be interesting in volunteering to run a Vugraph station for a session at Gatlinburg in 2020. If you click on “Like”, please PM me how much you would like to get paid; or if you are willing to share the information, put a price per session in the comments. FYI: At NABCs, the going rate is $50 per session (3-4 hours of work). Gatlinburg won't be paying NABC rates!
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Click “Like” if you would be interested in watching Vugraph in Gatlinburg in 2020.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On Facebook, you require access to my friends list in order for me to play.

While that restriction is in place, I won't be playing.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Currently with my lawyer for review. Fortunately I have a very good one. By the time they are done, there may be nothing left in the book :-(
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Greg: Let me show you the Lanzarotti evidence. I'll email you. It is stronger than F/N. I'll make it public at some point; probably in a book.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would appear to be yet another not-so-subtle dig at ACBLscore+. I'll post something separately about ACBLscore+ - getting tired of the constant knock-downs of the project.
April 12
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 127 128 129 130
.

Bottom Home Top