Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nicolas Hammond
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL's firm no decision came from their lawyers. Backed by management and league counsel.

The original ACBLscore+ contract was negotiated by Peter Rank, ACBL league counsel. During the negotiations, he insisted on a 10% cut in the price. At the same time, my company got a license to the code. I do not think Peter Rank used outside counsel to review the contract. As he put it himself at the time, he was not an expert in technology contracts. The contract was a fairly typical contracting company contract. It was not a work-for-hire contract.

Just over a year into the contract, ACBL hired outside counsel to review all ACBL contracts, including ACBLscore+. Their outside counsel told ACBL management/ACBL league counsel that they needed to have the Copyright in order to protect ACBL. IANAL, but as the software was developed by Hammond Software, Hammond Software has the Copyright.

Starting around the summer of 2013, ACBL management and league counsel put enormous pressure on me and my company to change the original contract and make it a work-for-hire contract so that ACBL would own the copyright. They also wanted to take away my company's license, no compensation offered. ACBL engaged in some rather despicable business practices. They stopped paying invoices to try and force the issue. They went a few months without paying. My company had to borrow a lot of money (into 6 figures) to make sure that all of our employees and contractors were paid on time (they were). When ACBL did start paying, they back-dated some of the checks (or wrote the checks, held on to them before mailing them). The photocopies of the dates on the envelopes did not match the dates on the checks. During this time, I had to put some of the contractors on “furlough”, including some who were working on critical path items, which obviously had a big hit on the completion date. ACBL also stopped providing necessary required documentation and specs. Whether this inability to deliver specs was deliberate or incompetence we may never know. There were some incentives in the contract for early delivery etc. which obviously we were not going to be able to make. It would be naive of me to believe that the board was not aware of what was going on. ACBLscore+ was the most critical strategic technological development for ACBL in the last 30 years.

During what was supposed to be the most critical time for development and integration (last 9-12 months of contract), I was spending way too much time with lawyers trying to get this and other legal matters resolved, and trying to get paid. When we were able to set up a conference call between my company's lawyer, me, ACBL's league counsel, and ACBL outside counsel to resolve these issues, neither the ACBL league counsel nor their outside counsel bothered to show up for the conference call. Trying to get 3 lawyer's schedules together was difficult enough. To have ACBL not even show up for a conference call with no explanation ever offered was ridiculous. It all seemed to be part of the ACBL negotiation strategy. I have previously mentioned that anything with a 3+ month delay, or longer, could not be delivered. Some of the delays in getting simple legal issues with software releases resolved took over 6 months, and were still not resolved when we ended the contract.

We terminated the contract in March 2014. Couldn't deliver without specs. ACBL wouldn't deliver them. Still never received the masterpoint specs at end of contract. Over a 7 month delay with the masterpoint spec, with all work on masterpoints essentially on hold pending the specs. Most important output from the scoring program - scoring, ranking, masterpointing. No specs.

Despite all of this, HS delivered everything we were supposed to do, on-time, on-budget, except anything that had a documented 3 month or longer delay from ACBL.

In March/April 2014, ACBL/HS tried to negotiate a new contract.

ACBL were insistent that any new contract must be accompanied with a re-write of the original contract and making the original contract a work-for-hire contract. ACBL insisted on re-negotiating the original license agreement so that any and all new software that HS may create that was based on any of the code for ACBLscore+ would be owned by ACBL. For example, if a bank paid us to create some code for the banking industry that re-used any of the underlying ACBLscore+ code, then ACBL wanted to own ALL the new code. It was ridiculous and absurd. But they were insistent and intransigent.

Their outside counsel insisted that this had to be way.

Robert made one last attempt in May 2014 to see if ACBL had any leeway regarding re-negotiating the original contract. Their outside counsel said no. So nothing was going to happen with the ACBLscore+ code.

We politely declined to give up all rights to the code. We now use the underlying fundamentals for other projects. I used it to create the tool I described in this post. I think the majority of the code in this tool was done during one long flight around New Year. Going to take ACBL $600K. That's the advantage of using modern tools. ACBLscore+ is a very powerful tool. Took me a little longer to upload as I have been busy with other projects, but you can see from the dates of the YouTube videos that the software has been running for a while.

ACBL management and league counsel were now in a little bit of a pickle around May 2014. In a bit of fury they “terminated the contract”. As HS had now been paid in full, what it meant was that I did not have to make myself available to ACBL for up to 10 hours/month if they wanted to use me. Seemed silly; they didn't have to pay if they didn't use me. Basically they cut off their nose to spite their face because if they had any questions about the software, they had just removed their ability to ask!

Back to March/May 2014. The board were put on a ‘gag’ order. The BOD was told that there was a possible lawsuit, but not told who or why. If ACBL were to sue my company, the board would be involved. There is nothing that my company could sue ACBL for, we were paid in full after canceling the contract. The BOD should find out what this “lawsuit” could have been. Management/league counsel had signed a contract which outside counsel had now reviewed and told them that the software was useless (to ACBL).

So… all the software has been written off. The good news is that my company has rights to it, so it's not a waste. I've been providing it for free to Districts and Units since.

As part of the write-off, ACBL have written off $150K to “review the ACBLscore+ software”. At least this was the line item presented at the BOG meeting. I think they flew in 2 BOD members for 1-2 days in Memphis. Perhaps had someone look at it for a couple of weeks in Horn Lake. I suspect the vast majority of this $150K was in legal fees. You can imagine what my company had to spend.

All of this because ACBL didn't use outside counsel for the original contract.

Once you understand the legal dimension, it really doesn't matter about the technical stuff.

I suspect that ACBL management found a Windows XP machine with 512Mb memory from last century, tried to run ACBLscore+ on it, said it didn't work, convinced the two BOD members. I've not been involved with any demo to ACBL management. I do, however, quite happily run the software at the tournaments I've been at. Any time I hear a false claim about ACBLscore+, I'm happy to post a video on YouTube contradicting the claim.

Merlin Vilhauer (D20 BOD member) posted in his district newsletter (see page 8) that “we're released as much information as possible without going into confidential agreements signed at the time the contract was terminated”. I didn't sign any. Can only be the lawyers. Or maybe someone else. There's a lot of conflicting information coming from ACBL. At least tell us who you've signed confidentiality agreements with.

Since the BW articles, ACBL management and league counsel have now threatened me with a permanent ban from ACBL. Fortunately, everything I have done is covered under the ACBLscore+ contract, and my company has full licenses for all software, but they've threatened me anyway. The ACBL Board have passed resolutions in Phoenix which were specifically designed to stop Bridgescore+ (the wording in some of the resolutions is identical to wording I got in an email threat from ACBL prior to Phoenix). So the board is complicit in the cover-up. I've posted elsewhere the questions that should be answered.

In the mean time, I carry on. My company was paid, and paid in full. I'm not complaining. I will however protect the reputation of the people that worked on the ACBLscore+ contract, and my company. We delivered.

Last week, we had a Sectional in Atlanta. Sunday Swiss had a 14 table AX Swiss, 42 tables BCD Swiss. All assignments/scores/leader boards etc. displayed on projectors. All run from a single server. Two different projectors, one in each room. All run from Bridgescore+. We don't even bother with the Jeffrey's chart or rack as backups any more.

So… the firm ‘no’ comes from the ACBL outside counsel based on his/her opinion on the league using software that ACBL do not have the copyright to.

Blame those at ACBL that created the original ACBLscore+ contract.

They negotiated the original wording, then wanted to change it for no compensation.

Peter Rank/Robert obviously have all the documentation from their outside counsel; I assume the board has been provided with it as well. The board should have been aware of this issue since summer 2013, certainly by the board meeting in November 2013.
I can't believe that the board were not told about the non-payment and the copyright issue. If they were not, then there are bigger issues at stake.

The ACBLscore+ software isn't perfect. It was ready for real live testing by TDs. It's what I've been doing the past year on a part time basis, making steady improvements. I've documented a roll-out plan.
Feb. 10, 2015
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Feb. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for your help.

New software is described at
Feb. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob Hamman asked me to play with him at an NABC. He had left the main event early and was playing in the regional KOs. We were at breakfast and the event started at 1pm. I spent the rest of the morning studying the various system notes I had created over the years.

We met one hour before game time to create a card. I play with a lot of last minute pick up partners at our Sectionals/Regionals and I usually play their card and was expected Bob to say something similar, “show me your card and we will play that”.

But, no.

Bob start to describe what we were going to play, no real discussion allowed and none ventured. Who was I to disagree on the best treatment for a bid? I had spent some of my time in the morning re-studying 4 card majors, but we were going to be playing 5 card. After a few minutes, we had most of the right side of the card filled out and then we got to the 2D section.

“Do you play Flannery?”, he asked.

“Yes”. I had spent some considerable time that morning going over all my Flannery notes. I knew when in the fourth round of bidding if 4H is to play or 4H is a transfer to 4S, so yes, I knew Flannery. I tried to suppress a smile when I said it.

“Good. Here's how we are going to play it.” My smile went away.

Bob proceeded to give a detailed explanation of all the responses he wanted starting with 2NT and higher and all the follow-up bids. I had written Flannery in the small line in the 2D section in the ACBL convention card and started to write all of Bob's responses for 2NT and higher in the “Responses/Rebid” section. Very quickly I was out of room and starting to write smaller and smaller. I started writing into the 2H and 2S Response/Rebid section hoping that when we got to those bids that the responses and follow-up bids would not be as complicated. I quickly filled those up and then started writing in the 2C section. When that filled up, I started writing around the sides of the convention card until I had gone 3/4 of the way round in the tiniest font possible and then back again. Bob covered every different possible bid and rebid and scenario. I had used every possible abbreviation and shorthand I knew, including some I made up as he was giving the Flannery that we were going to play. My convention card was covered in tiny hieroglyphics and looked like the Rosetta Stone. Archaeologists years from now would not be able to understand my notes, and I suspect I may not either.

After I had written down all the 2D bids, we barely had any time left for the left side of the card before the event started.

And no, Flannery did not come up… but if it did, I was prepared!
Feb. 10, 2015
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Feb. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me give an example.

Say Jeff Meckstroth is on a KO team, let's say he has 70,000.0 MPs, he plays with 3 other players, they each have 10,000.0 MPs. So the total is 100,000 MPs.

What is the amount of MPs used for this team for calculating the KO MPs?

Answer: 45,000

This is documented in the MPBook (page 5, max is 45,000).

Now he plays with the same team in a compact KO.

What is the amount of MPs used?

The answer is not 45,000. I have not seen the answer documented anywhere. This is the type of information that is lacking from the MPBook. Given the MPBook, anyone should be able to re-create the MPs for an event. Currently this is not possible for all events.
Feb. 7, 2015
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Feb. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: Not sure why you did not get your results, this would be an ACBL Live issue. You would need to talk to ACBL support.

I introduced Fast Results at the 2012 Memphis Platinum Pairs. I started work on it around November 2011, and first tested it at a Sectional in Atlanta in February 2012. Code took about 2-3 months to develop/test/release. ACBL has had the code since April 2012. It was part of the ACBLscore+ contract; I put it in Phase 1 of the contract so that there would be an easy quick win so ACBL could start to show benefits from the ACBLscore+ work.

Jay Whipple introduced his own version about a year later - known as “Fast Results”. Very popular with Regionals and Sectionals. I think he got frustrated with ACBL not releasing anything.

ACBL introduced their own version in Providence. Took them 2 1/2 years. I think they used their own version. They did not want to use the software previously created :-)

I'll see if I can dig out a backup so that you can compare the results presentation from what is now 3 years ago to what ACBL are offering.
Feb. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

It is fairly simple. Similar to what is done now, but automated.

Have all seeds go to the seeding table. Seeds entered into computer. These seeds are manually seeded, possibly with some computer help, by the seeding committee. Very similar to the current process. Seeds would get a monotonically increasing number, starting at say 501.

All others pairs get a monotonically increasing number, similar to what is done for KOs. Players would enter their MP total, just like as in a KO. Yup, going to use MP for the moment as the simplest seeding method for the anti-seeds.

At game time, TD decides the number of sections and number of pairs in each section.

Computer assigns seeded players across the sections. Computer assigns non-seeded players to fill in remaining seeds.

Just like a KO is started at ACBL, would display your pair number and table assignment.

Only I'd use a projector to display it all. Possibly two projectors - one for seeds, one for non-seeds.

Probably about a week of work to do seeds, a week of work to do the non-seeds. I"ve already got the code for projecting data. Probably about 2 weeks worth of work (this would include testing etc.)

If I thought that ACBL would realistically implement a solution, I would implement it. (They would not own the copyright :-)

If I have time, I'll see if I can get something done for New Orleans.
Feb. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin: You would have to look at each event and decide if they used 3 or 5 as the first seed. Take a look who was sitting in seat 5 for some sections and you can probably determine fairly quickly if this was the 1 seed or the 4 seed.

As best I recall the decision to use 3 or 5 was the DIC. May be different for each pairs event within the same NABC.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Vanderbilt/Spingold have defined seeding procedures.

Each time seeding is done for the pairs events it is the subjective decision of the people on the seeding committee that day. I'm not sure that any records of kept of the seeding information from the National Pairs events.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL use different rules for NABC+ KO events, these are seeded across the entire field suing a published seeding method.

The ACBL NABC+ pairs events are seeded, but the seeding is manual. Only the teams that have requested a seed are seeded.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

The reason for scoring within a group of sections is historical. Only so much data input per terminal per person. With the introduction of Electronic Scoring Devices (Bridgemates etc.), there is a typical limit of 6 sections per Bridgemate.

ACBLscore is non-networked and single-threaded. Each scoring machine can only handle one ESD server. So each scoring machine scores up to 6 sections. Typically a top of 77= ((6*13) - 1).

ACBL could score across all sections. With the current ACBLscore technology, players would have to wait until all scores were in from all sections. Then a TD would sneaker-net the game files from all scoring machines to a single scoring machine, import the data, merge it, score across all sections. Then sneaker-net the data back to the original scoring devices because there is only one printer hooked up per scoring device. The printers take 22-23 seconds to print each page. Each section typically requires 4 pages (2 for NS, 2 for EW). Typically about 90 seconds per section. Then they are manually hung up.

TDs want to find scoring corrections as quickly as possible (you won't believe how many there are).

Using the current technology to score across all sections would add a significant lag time to getting results out to players.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Get them to provide their ACBL number(s) as part of payment/registration process, e.g. the same information that is currently collected in round 1. Use caddies/TDs/volunteers/players to enter the player number(s) to a computer system. For all non-seeded players, rank via masterpoints (or whatever other system you want), then you assign all these non-seeded players to the rest of the field, e.g. top pair to table A2 (or whatever the next ‘seed’ table is), next pair to B2 and so on.

Means a change to the current process of signing up for NABC+ events, but it is a fairly simple system to implement. I currently do this for KO events for Bridgescore+. System works very well. At times I have had everyone assigned to a table within 10 seconds after game time. Not much extra work to convert to a pairs event. Can easily handle large numbers of players - it was used to start Gatlinburg KOs last year, more players in the first round of a Gatlinburg KO event than there are in an NABC+ pairs event.

Fairly simple stuff.

If I thought ACBL would use it, I'd probably write the code. Probably about a week of work for a prototype, then need some testing and real-world use. Probably about the same amount of work to get the seeded players done. Got lots of similar code already written, including all the projector/TV display output so is pretty easy to do.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For ACBLscore+, I spent a lot of time at NABC+ pair events looking at the seeding and also the seeding/assignments for day 2. I probably know as much about the process as any player (not a TD).

The current seeding process is totally manual, not automated. This is prescribed by ACBL BOD. Some of it could be automated, and automated fairly easily while still having humans make the final decisions on seeding. I had a plan/design for it, but it wasn't part of ACBLscore+ Version 1.0 so not implemented.

Having to wait 40+ minutes for the boards to come out at a NABC+ Pairs Event for the first round is a little embarrassing. Usually this isn't the seeding committee's fault, though some assume it is.

The current manual process is actually quite efficient, given it is a paper system.

Obviously a system with pre-registration required for seeded pairs 15 minutes prior to game time would be more efficient. Got to allow for human override of computer assigned seeding (e.g. foreign players).

I have seen yelling matches between players and members of the seeding committee (who typically are playing in the event as well). This is not productive or healthy for either the player or the member of the seeding committee or other players in the event. “How dare you not make me a #1 seed!!”. Just a comment for some of the readers of this site. Instead of yelling and causing a scene, show them up and win the event.

The current ACBL process for determining qualifiers and getting ready for Day 2 screams for automation. Improving the process was not strictly part of the ACBLscore+ project, but the code was designed to significantly make the TDs job much easier. It can typically take 5-6 directors about 1-2 hours after the evening session to get ready for the next day. Sometimes even much longer. I think the longest I saw was 4 hours. Players never see this. Thank the TDs the next time you see them, few have any idea the process they are forced to go through.

Kevin: Typically only the odd numbers are seeded. The seeding committee will get, say 150 seeded entries. The DIC will tell them there are 14 sections. So there are 28 seed 1 (either sitting at table 3 or, more recently, 5), 28 seed 2, 28 seed 3, 28 seed 4, 28 seed 5, and 10 put into seed 6. All other pairs will be randomly assigned so anything below a 6 seed isn't really seeded. There is no way of telling the number of seeds by looking at the event; the information is not recorded anywhere so you cannot determine after the event. If the order is 3, 9, 13, 5, 1, 11 then any even numbered table is not a seed, same with table 7 and some of table 11.

For a long time, ACBL ran a web movement for the last section to be seated, so all the others were 13 table sections. Not sure if that is still the case. The web movement is typically not fully seeded. Small point, probably won't affect the stats too much.

In at least one of the recent day 1, there was a problem with seeding, and most sections did not have an E/W Table 1, causing lots of changes to the movement in rounds 2 and 3. One event would not mess up your stats.

If even you or BridgeWinners get some software to automatically seed with manual override, I've got tools to automatically create the ACBLscore game file so we can get the game started much quicker. ACBL has the same tools as well. Just a question of time/priority. The NABC+ events are the ACBL's showcase to foreign players, but make up a small fraction of overall pair events played in ACBLland.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At some of the recent NABC+ events, the top seed was at table 5, not table 3. With corresponding changes to the other seeds.

You would probably need to look at the event, look at some of the players at tables 3 and 5 and can probably easily determine what the seeding policy was for that event.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Damn those Superbowl ads.

I just poured coke into my laptop.

Nothing changed.
Feb. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

ACBLscore+ has built-in support for web services.

Take the ACBLscore+ that ACBL has, put it on-line (cost was $12/month), TDs/Clubs can upload game files (been supported for 18+ months), then access the game with web services. You can do everything that you described above. I used JSON for web service output, in some places it is XML, but normal web service stuff.

For example, see ./app/views/events/index.json.rabl for an example of code to create a JSON response. Code is trivial. Try http://(url)/clubs/1/events.json?start=1022766800&end=2526392000 to see the output. ACBL has the code, so should be trivial for them to put this up. This will return all the events associated with a club from a start and end time. It is used for the calendar feature for clubs. See last few seconds of for the club calendar feature. Data is fed for each month using the JSON described. I guess I need to post another Youtube video showing how fast it is. The 1 in the URL is the club_id, change for whatever club_id you have defined.This will get you a formatted JSON reply. It is trivial to add more web services. Whenever you need a Web Service, just add

def index
respond_to do |format|

to the controller, cut/paste the aforementioned index.json.rabl to the model. Very easy.

Glad that ACBL are going to move to a model where the data is more accessible.

Previously they have said the opposite.

There are lots of web tools associated with ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+. At some point, I'll put them online so that others can use them. Glad you have ACBL moved in the right direction.

BTW, the first implementation of “fast results” was part of ACBLscore+. Showcased at the Memphis NABC in March 2012. It used a similar approach. Has taken ACBL 2+ years to get the code in place to display results, still not as good as was displayed 2+ years ago but a step in the right direction. I'll see if I can dig out those results so that everyone can see what was showcased so we can compare with what we have now. March 2012 was one month before the ACBLscore+ project started… ACBL have had the code since April 2012.

Please make sure that your use of tense is correct as it is starting to sound like you have become an ACBL management mouthpiece. “similar to what Jay Whipple did” should be “similar to what Jay Whipple is doing”. It sounds like you have killed his project, which I know that ACBL is trying to do, but is not the case. Just stay away from their kool-aid.

ACBL have had this (web services technology) available as part of ACBLscore+ for almost 3 years. Take a look at the ACBLscore+ project Wiki design documentation and GitHub design documents/notes for more details. Much cheaper to pay $12/month, put this stuff on line, let everyone access the data through the web services.
Jan. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even though this is an updated MPBOOK, it is still not what ACBLscore implements. TDs base decisions on events to maximize MPs for players, but the MPBOOK is still wrong.

We really need ACBL to produce an MPBOOK that both describes the actual MP implementation, but also includes all of the MP eligibility and assignment rules. And we need full explanation of how the MPs are really calculated.

We also need a spreadsheet/web site where anyone can double check the MP rules.

The MP rules are v. complicated (I probably no more than anyone else), but I think we have a right to know what they are and how they are implemented.

The MPs was one of the biggest holdups for ACBLscore+. Even at the end of the contract, ACBL still never delivered the specs for masterpoints.
Jan. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you everyone for your help.

The last few got ‘approved’ by Wiki editors today.

Here is the list of 171 players that were added (and approved) over the last 3-4 months:

Adam Wildavsky
Agnes Gordon
Albert Weiss
Alicia Kempner
Allan Siebert
Allan Stauber
Arnie Fisher
Arthur G. Robinson
Arthur S. Goldsmith
B. Jay Becker
Bart Bramley
Ben Fain
Bernie Chazen
Beth Palmer
Betty Ann Kennedy
Billy Seamon
Björn Fallenius
Bobby Nail
Brad Moss
Brian Glubok
Carol Sanders
Charles Coon (bridge)
Charles J. Solomon
Cheri Bjerkan
Chip Martel
Chris Willenken
Christal Henner
Christal Henner-Welland
Chuck Burger
Curtis Cheek
Dan Morse (bridge)
Dan Rotman
Daniela von Arnim
Debbie Rosenberg
Disa Eythorsdottir
Donna Compton
Doris Fuller
Doug Doub
Ed Manfield
Eddie Wold
Edith Freilich
Edward Hymes
Edward O. Taylor
Emma Jean Hawes
Eric Greco
Eric Kokish
Eric R. Murray
Fred Hamilton (bridge)
Fred Stewart (bridge)
Gail Greenberg
Garey Hayden
Gary Cohler
Gavin Wolpert
Gaylor Kasle
Gene Freed
Geoff Hampson
George Jacobs (bridge)
George Rapée
Gerald Caravelli
Grant Baze
Harold Harkavy
Harold Lilie
Harry Fishbein
Helen Utegaard
Hemant Lall
Howard Weinstein
Hugh Ross (bridge)
Ivar Stakgold
Jacqui Mitchell
Jan Martel (bridge)
Janice Seamon-Molson
Jeff Glick
Jenny Wolpert
Jill Levin
Jill Meyers
Jim Krekorian
Jim Mahaffey
Jim Robison
Jo Morse
JoAnna Stansby
John Diamond (bridge)
John Gerber (bridge)
John Mohan
John Schermer
John Sutherlin
John Swanson (bridge)
Josephine Culbertson
Juanita Chambers
Judi Radin
Karen McCallum
Kay Rhodes
Kerri Sanborn
Kitty Cooper
Larry Mori
Larry T. Cohen
Lee Hazen
Lew Mathe
Lisa Berkowitz
Lorenza Lauria
Lou Bluhm
Lynn Baker
Malcolm Brachman
Marc Jacobus
Margaret Wagar
Marilyn Johnson
Marion Michielsen
Mark Lair
Mark Molson
Mary Jane Farell
Matt Granovetter
Meike Wortel
Merwyn Maier
Meyer Schleifer
Michael Seamon
Mike Becker
Mike Kamil
Mike Passell
Mike Smolen
Mildred Breed
Morrie Elis
Nancy Gruver
Nick Nickell
Olive Peterson
Paul Hodge
Paul Swanson
Peggy Solomon
Peggy Sutherlin
Peter Boyd
Peter Leventritt
Peter Pender
Peter Weichsel
Petra Hamman
Phil Feldesman
Pierre Zimmermann (bridge)
Renee Mancuso
Rhoda Walsh
Rich DeMartino
Richard Coren
Richard H. Katz
Richard L. Frey
Rita Shugart
Robert F. Jordan
Robert Lipsitz
Roger Bates
Ron Andersen
Ron Von der Porten
Rose Meltzer
Ross Grabel
Rozanne Pollack
Russ Arnold
Russ Ekeblad
Ruth Sherman
Sabine Auken
Samuel M. Stayman
Seymon Deutsch
Shawn Quinn
Sherman Stearns
Sidney H. Lazard
Sidney Silodor
Sol Mogal
Steve Garner
Steve Landen
Steve Robinson (bridge)
Sue Picus
Sylvie Willard
Theodore Lightner
Thomas K. Sanders
Tobias Stone
Waldemar von Zedtwitz
William Grieve (bridge)
Zeke Jabbour
Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not going to be at the Wilmington Regional so don't know.

If there is someone going, that is interested in running Bridgescore+, has a projector, couple of laptops with Internet connection, printer, let me know.

You'll need permission from the TC and DIC.

KOs and Swiss are the best ones to run.
Jan. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask your DD when they were told about outside counsel's review of the contract. All will become clear then.
Jan. 21, 2015

Bottom Home Top