Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nicolas Hammond
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Motivation:

I've had a couple of emails about my motivation for all of this (my comments/posts), so let me try and explain. “It's complicated.”

The best way I think I can explain is by an analogy.

I remember being in the ACBL offices a couple of years ago and Jay Whipple was releasing his Fast Results. ACBL could not understand his reasons. I'll be honest, it was also a little confusing to me. Jay was giving away software he created, not charging anyone for anything, obviously spending a lot of time on customer support, and ACBL were highly dubious why anyone would do this. ACBL were reluctant to work with Jay. Clearly he had alterior motives. But what were they? I'd given ACBL Fast Results, all they needed to do was to provide an ability for a TD to get a game file to a central server, and to provide a results database but Jay had beaten ACBL to both of those, and had also written the same Fast Results stuff I'd done. I had a personal vested interest in Fast Results, it was part of Phase 1 of the ACBLscore+ contract. Why would anyone/Jay give something away for free? That was what was puzzling to ACBL. And me. Why would anyone do this? This was well before Jay Whipple was on the ACBL BOD. ACBL actually made it harder for Jay to offer Fast Results. Two years later, Jay is now on the ACBL board, still giving away Fast Results, still taking support calls for free irrespective of time zone, still not asking for anything personally. As some people find it very difficult to get something for free, he set a rate a Regionals and Sectionals and asked them to give money to the ACBL Education Foundation. All of a sudden, it became easier for him to “sell” “free”. As with everything, we are suspicious of free, pay something and we are accepting of it. When he starting “charging” (the fee was optional) his “sales” increased.

It turns out that Jay did not have alterior motives and he simply cared about Bridge and wanted to give back. Or pay forward. Whatever charitable method you understand. His motives were pure, but it took some time for the “insiders” to accept an “outsider” giving stuff away.

So, I'm in the same situation. Except I don't ask for a contribution to a foundation. I'm a little behind where Jay was in his marketing.

The ACBLscore+ contract gives my company rights to the software created as part of the ACBLscore+ contract I never, ever expected to be in the situation we are in now, I never had any intentions of doing anything with ACBLscore+ in the bridge space, that's what ACBL were going to do. In April 2014, I pre-paid for a year of hosting/other stuff on the assumption HS may get more work from ACBL. Didn't happen. But we pre-paid. No problem. Not complaining. I wrote this off as part of the cost of doing business. In June/July ACBL decided to throw away ACBLscore+. Well, my company has zero marginal cost for hosting the software; I've made a commitment to Gatlinburg for 2015, so… giving this stuff away. Not sure what we'll do after April 2015, but not going to charge anyone for anything until then. For me, simply not worth the paperwork. At the same time, I'm not going to offer, nor am able to offer, the same type of support that Jay does. Gatlinburg 2015 will be very interesting to see how much money they can save because of the inherent efficiencies of what I have now rebranded as Bridgescore+.

Clearly there's a difference between ACBL saying ACBLscore+ is no good, and me giving it away for free to tournaments and all tournaments I've been to so far been very happy with it, all the feedback from players/TDs/TCs being positive.

After April 2015, I have no idea. Ideally ACBL will restart ACBLscore+. If they don't, we'll see. ACBL management and BOD have made it even more difficult to offer Bridgescore+ to tournaments. I understand that seeing Bridgescore+ is embarrassing to ACBL, but all tournaments so far seem to like it, both players and TDs even if we are only running a small portion of what Bridgescore+ is capable of. I'm expecting the ACBL management and BOD to make it even more difficult to offer Bridgescore+ to tournaments. We'll see.

I actually had an offer from someone (a bridge player, duh) to pay to finish the software. We declined. If ACBLscore+ is to be successful, it needs to have solid software support behind it, with a customer service team working the same hours as ACBL clubs/tournaments (from 9am in Bermuda, to after 11pm in Hawaii); that's not something my company offers. It is something that ACBL is best placed to offer. Also, the work that needs to be done to finish the code, will be done much quicker/easier if there are specs. Trying to reverse engineer the specs is a very difficult task. The biggest spec that was missing is on Masterpoints, specifically the Calculation/Assignment/Eligibility. The MPBOOK is not sufficient. If ACBL can write this spec, it would be helpful for everyone. Am sure as ACBL players, we would all like to know what these rules are.
Dec. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, a quick explanation. I work a lot. I travel a lot. I have to fund my bridge habit somehow…

Someone posts something, I'll write an explanation, often on a plane. By the time I land, there have been other posts making some of what I wrote irrelevant so I will re-write. So sometimes my responses may appear a little disjointed. If I'm at a customer site, or working for a customer, they always take precedence so I don't read bridgewinners.com, or respond to email/FB mail or may not read until that night/nex week, or respond until I travel again.

JoAnn Sprung posted on how to move forward and some scenarios. Let me offer my viewpoint. There are different scenarios. Let me try and map them out from my perspective:

First, is ACBL and ACBLscore+.

ACBL have announced that they have thrown away ACBLscore+.

This decision has caused ACBL some embarrassment. There is also a $1.9M write-off which is not sitting well with anyone.

It's going to be a difficult decision for ACBL management to overturn without causing even more embarrassment. Hopefully people/politics don't get in the away. Even it was the right decision (throw it all away), there's some embarrassment within ACBL for letting things get to this point.

Assuming that it is possible to overturn, let's look at the process:

1. Legal.

Before anything happens, ACBL is going to need to get a different legal opinion on the copyright issue. There have been some lawyers making comments on this thread. Who knew lawyers could be bridge players?

ACBL's in-house counsel signed off on the ACBLscore+ contract. I do not think that the in-house counsel chose to use outside counsel for the ACBLscore+ contract. About a year after the ACBLscore+ contract was signed, ACBL hired outside legal counsel to review all ACBL contracts and told ACBL that they would not be able to protect themselves (see a previous post of mine) thus making all effort on ACBLscore+ worthless unless the original contract terms were changed. You've all heard the story.

HS's lawyer's opinion has not changed. The wording in the contract is sufficient to protect ACBL going forward. But we clearly have a different legal opinion, and frankly our lawyer does not represent ACBL and so has no validity.

Until ACBL gets a different legal opinion, nothing will change with ACBLscore+. So, let's start there.

I'm willing to share the terms of the ACBLscore+ contract, under normal non disclosure agreement (NDA), providing ACBL agrees, with any sufficently competent lawyer that is willing to discuss this with ACBL's in-house/outside counsel. HS is not going to pay for this (why should we?), so either someone is going to act pro-bono, or at some reduced rate with ACBL. This needs to be a lawyer with sufficient credentials to over-rule ACBL's hired outside counsel. Not an easy task. Until/unless this happens, all other discussion is moot.

With all due respect, I didn't see anyone on the ACBL Technology Committee with any business law background or experience.

This is a very specialized technical area. IANAL. It needs to be someone who is very familiar with software, “ownership”, “copyright”, and “licensing” and ultimately protection of software within an organization. Remember, you will be having to negotiate between two other lawyers (ACBL counsel and ACBL's outside counsel). ACBL's counsel thought the original contract was fine, ACBL's outside counsel “one of the best there is” (what I was told…) disagrees. ACBL are currently going with the outside counsel's view. This disagreement between in-house and outside counsel is a $1.9M dispute. Ignore the technical issue(s) for now.

If any of you are a law Professor, it's actually a pretty good scenario for your students. Good way for them to learn about the different aspects of modern computer software law.

Continuing the legal thread:

If you are a lawyer, and sufficently qualified/capable of handling the above, then….

Just a tiny example, HS has 70+ (transferable) licenses with different corporations/vendors/individuals that make up ACBLscore+. HS does not have a NIH mentality. Someone needs to be able to explain to ACBL what an MIT license is, how it applies, how this license applies to ACBL, how this license applies to ACBL's customers etc. in language that they can understand.

Just to warn you, in case you are willing to accept this assignment, we also have the 2 clause BSDL license, Apache 2.0 license, BSD license, GPL license, MIT license, MIT license with reqs, Postgres license, Public license, Ruby license. You need to be familiar with all of these and be able to explain their applicability to ACBL and its software. I'm willing to help… but remember, IANAL. I have all the licenses. If you are a lawyer in this space, then this should just be simple paperwork. I've got all the details you need. ACBL also has all the details you need because we provided all that information to them.

So… step one…. find someone willing to give a legal opinion on the ACBLscore+ contract. Not sure how to proceed, or if I should even be the one to make the effort, probably not, it ought to be an independent person, possibly from someone on the ACBL Technology Committee?

For you lawyers posting on this site, sorry, I can't vouch for your legal credentials so I'm not going to share the contract (I've already been asked by some). We need someone that ACBL will respect and be willing to change their legal position. If ACBL comes forward with a different expert outside legal counsel, that is the first step.

I have not shared stories with problems that we have had with ACBL's legal department regarding modern software licensing and other issues. There were/are a few. But remember, IANAL, so what do I know? Unfortunately, a ridiculously large amount of (our) time and effort was spent trying to explain how modern software is licensed and to educate ACBL. 6+ months of the ACBLscore+ contract was spent trying to get ACBL to write a license so that we could release the software as an alpha release to some clubs. In fact, by the end of the ACBLscore+ contract this wording was still not provided, so we could never release to clubs (tournaments are slightly different). This is one of the many reasons few have seen ACBLscore+. For those that are familiar with software releases, one of the critical path items is feedback from users (e.g. TDs/CDs). You do an alpha/early release, get feedback, incorporate to next release etc. This is a critical time element for software. Should not be rushed. Every day you can't get feedback is a day delayed. Some stuff you can't rush. A baby always takes 9 months.

OK… one example, can't resist …. HS had negotiated with a company, that will remain nameless, for said company (SC) to donate some software to the ACBLscore+ project, with no payment, no licensing fees to HS, ACBL, or when ACBL delivered ACBLscore+ to ACBL's users. Basically an MIT license. If we had to develop that same software, I estimate it would have cost over $100K. Of course, I did not tell SC this. This software was outside the scope of the ACBLscore+ contract, but, business is business, this would be extremely valuable code for a Version 2.0 of ACBLscore+ so we did the deal. Not really much to negotiate when it is free. Couple of hours of work, if that. So HS negotiated a transferable license with SC, we got the software, for free, incorporated it into ACBLscore+. Not exactly function creep as it allowed us to do something else that we were supposed to do using this software. Basically code was a gift from SC. Told ACBL. ACBL now wanted to negotiate with SC. We said no need, SC said no need, we (HS/SC) had a deal/license, transferable to ACBL. No cost to ACBL. Just like the other 70+ licenses we had. Well…. a deal like that isn't acceptable to ACBL. They insisted that they negotiate with SC. Why did they want to treat SC differently than the other 70 companies we had licenses with. SC said huh? what is there to negotiate? why are we different? isn't free good enough? what's wrong with MIT license? we aren't going to spend time/company on having our lawyers reviewing your contracts when we already have a license giving it to your free! What was in it for SC? Good question. Bridge is a surprising sport. Some people like it and are just willing to give software to help support Bridge, and indirectly ACBL. They just wanted to see ACBLscore+ succeed by donating software to it. Either way, SC did it. So, SC, thank you. Your software is in ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+. You know who you are. I've wrapped other (free) code around it. For those that were on the ACBLscore+ status report list, SC is no secret. But SC wanted to do this deal quietly, without any benefit to themselves. I've seen no mention on SC's web site about this, so as they are not seeking credit for it, not appropriate for me to release SC`s name. I'll see if there is some way to effectively release (and support) this software as it is very useful for clubs/tournaments/teachers. As with the 70+ other companies/individuals who have licensed software (for free) to ACBLscore+, they are all listed in Help->License.

ACBL's IT department is getting a lot of criticism for being behind the times, but they are not the only department…

Embarrassment.

We have to worry about embarrassment. No-one is going to make a decision that might embarrass themselves for previous decisions they have made. Let's be mindful of that.

ACBL CEO will happily admit that he INAL and not technical, marketing is his expertise. He has relied on ACBL counsel for legal advice and then outside legal counsel. The legal issues are not something that he can be held responsible for. It's still a difficult decision to override because of the public pronouncements.

ACBL counsel is currently the one with the biggest problem. If he didn't use outside counsel for the original contract, and relied on his own skills, but new outside counsel said the original contract was useless, then there isn't much he can do. Buck stops there. If he did use outside counsel for the original ACBLscore+ contract, then it simply a case of stating that they got bad advice the first time around. No embarrassment by stating that, there are always multiple legal views. Big problem is that the initial opinion on the contract is different from the opinion at the end of the contract. If ACBL used outside counsel for the ACBLscore+ contract, then is something that presumably the board/ACBL management know. If ACBL counsel didn't recommend outside counsel for the original contract, and subsequent legal advice is that the terms were invalid, there's a little problem.

Alternatively, ACBL could state that the problems with the ACBLscore+ project/contract were technical and not legal. So the legal team may get a pass. But someone from the board or the ACBL Technology Committee will review what I've written and may come to the same conclusion regarding the legal issues, irrespective of the technical issues. The emails are all there.

Oops. The board has been threatened by management/counsel of disciplinary action if they review the contract. Never mind. No-one is going to review the legal issues with the contract. Presumably management notified the board in November 2013 about the legal issues as ACBL had stopped paying HS. If no-one from the board was told, then we do have some embarrassment all around. Not my concern.

We do need to get the legal issue resolved.

Put bluntly, does ACBL have sufficient legal protection for itself if they continue with the ACBLscore+ code base?

If the answer is no, stop here.


2. Technical

No point discussing until legal has been addressed.

ACBL have claimed some technical reasons for dropping ACBLscore+.

ACBL formed a committe in April/June 2014 to review ACBLscore+, and based on that technical review, dropped ACBLscore+. 6 of the 10 members of the new ACBL Technology Committee were on that review.

Now we are getting into an area that is complicated.

I've made it more difficult by posting videos contradicting any technical issues posed so far. Sorry.

So…. some of this is probasbly best handled privately to avoid embarrassment.

I've made it quite clear that I'm very happy and proud of the work that HS did for the ACBLscore+ contract. We finished the contract on time, on budget. As I've stated many times, anything with a 3 month or longer delay from ACBL, or something impacted by such a delay we didn't do. I deliberately have stated 3 months because anything less than that we have accomodated (unless that was with less than 3 months of the contract to go).

Adam has stated that he's seen a copy of Gap analysis (what's missing/what's needed to be done). It was a $150K report (how much ACBL spent reviewing ACBLscore+ code base). Amount is from numbers given out at Providence BOG meeting - I'm traveling at the moment, I don't have exact numbers with me. Report would be been done April->June 2014, somewhere in that time frame. I haven't seen the report. (Hey, they could have asked me what missing, or just taken the last status report and information from project Wiki).

Should this interal ACBL report be made public? Probably not. Why? At least, why for now. Let me explain. First, in general ACBL should not expect that any internal report it writes might be made public. It's easier to write something that might be critical with the knowledge that it will remain private. To the extent that there is anything critical about me, or my company, I have no problem with the release. Not trying to hide from anything, it's just the general principle I object to.

Some of the gap analysis may be opinions, rather than facts. “It's too slow”. Well, that's subjective. No-one can ever match the redraw speed of ACBLscore on DOS running on a modern computer (assuming same RAM, same CPU, same disk speed). For a task, ACBLscore+ should be quicker, for a single screen re-draw, no. I've posted videos to that effect. If they ran ACBLscore+ in a developer mode, not a production mode, when doing the comparions then oops, a little bit of embarrassment there, so releasing information won't help. “It doesn't work”. Well, is this one of those 3+ month items (there are lots of them)? It could very well be that ACBL has decided that the cost of implementing all of these 3+ month items are more than then cost of implementing ACBLscore+ features into ACBLscore. That's a valid reason to drop ACBLscore+ and go back to ACBLscore. I would expect this to be given as a real “reason”. “It's too complicated to use”. Again, subjective. Don't use current TDs/CDs for the comparison. Get a newer CD and see what they think. I used new CDs for input on screens. As stated previously it was very hard to get good feedback from TDs as the mind set if ACBLscore based. What ACBLscore+ needs is real life usage by TDs to get honest feedback from them. This can't be done by showing them the software, they need to use it in real world usage. A lot of TD work is interrupt driven. It's not a simple task flow. Any TD that I've trained, and explained _why_ the new software works a certain why has understood it.

I use caddies when running Bridgescore+ (if possible). Ironically I had to grab a caddy to give a demo to some DDs at a tournament. I gave the caddy a 5 second training, “here, enter these numbers here, click edit if you get something wrong”. And, that was all the training she needed, even to fix data entry errors. Of course, there are far more complicated things to do with ACBLscore/Bridgescore+. But I've been doing UI for 25+ years, I'd like to think I know a little about what I'm doing. Absolutely, ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ works differently than ACBLscore, but that was a deliberate design decision to make it much easier to use, particularly for newer users. BTW, usage of caddies is one example of how we can make tournaments run better. Thinking outside the current framework is important.

Having a group of people argue these technical issues in a public forum probably won't help much. Someone may be upset/embarrassed. You want people to give their honest opinions, doing so in public can be difficult. I'm probably the best one that can state how long something will take to develop in ACBLscore+. My estimates have all been good, from estimating how long the RFP would take, to each of the 6 phases of the ACBLscore+ contract. I'd probably like to take a look at the ACBL technical committee report from May/June 2014 and give an honest answer of what it would take to address any technical concerns. But let's do it privately. Also, there is a difference between me saying how long something should take (you typically estimate in terms of man months, elapsed man months, and also have to factor in the person/people available to do the work) for one of the HS developers, and also how long it would take ACBL to develop the same code. This may be at the root of the technical problem in that ACBL would not be able to make a honest assessment of how long it would take for some code to be written in ACBLscore+.

I strongly believe that the committee didn't run ACBLscore+ in production mode when reviewing the software. I wasn't asked to give a demo, wasn't asked to train anyone to give a demo. No-one from ACBL management has ever asked for a full demo of ACBLscore+. However this is addressed, someone is going to be embarrassed, hey - it could even be me. But let's do the initial assessment privately, and not publicly. I'll be the first to admit if I was wrong. I've even published a roll-out plan that addresses how ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ could be rolled out.

What makes little sense for those of you reading this is ACBL would not run ACBLscore+ in March 2014 at the Dallas NABC (average less than 1,000 tables a day). Yet, I ran ACBLscore+ in Gatlinburg in April 2014 (average 1,200 tables per day). In May/June 2014 ACBL announced that there was nothing technically useful in ACBLscore+ and were abandoning the project. That's the big disconnect for everyone. Me incuded. I'm still out there happily running parts of what used to be called ACBLscore+ (now Bridgescore+) which I'm told is technically useless. Yet ACBL are spending $600K to implement the features in ACBLscore+ into ACBLscore.

Embarrassment factor:

Let's minimize it if we can. Without trying to minimize it we will get nowhere. I know I probably am not helping with this post…

As you know, I've been working on some improvements to ACBLscore+, rebranded as Bridgescore+ to avoid any lawsuits (same code, just more features). All because I gave a committment to Gatlinburg from last year…

ACBL could see the new version and say, well, we didn't realize it was going to be capable of all of this. It will avoid some embarrassment. The real reasons for ACBLscore+ being dropped could be forgotten.

Or… well … I could be the most embarrassed of anyone.

The new Technical Committee could make the same decision as the old one (with 6 out of 10 making the original report I think I already know the answer).

I have nothing to gain by sticking my nose into this discussion. We did the work. My company got paid. I'm going to keep running Bridgescore+ at tournament where I'm asked and will continue to do so until ACBLscore's features are at least as good as/better than Bridgescore+.

It could be that the ACBL decides that the ACBLscore+ code base is too complicated to find developers/support for. It is difficult for ACBL to get/keep good developers. That could be a valid reason. I've tried to address that by giving a roll-out plan to allow them to train/develop these programmers.

3. Political.

These are all internal ACBL issues between the ACBL management, BOD and ACBL members. I'll stay away.

The second issue is ACBL/Hammond Software.

ACBL/HS had a contract which ended. There was discussion of future work, but didn't happen. I keep repeating, that it was a business decision by ACBL, there are no hard feelings from our perspective. ACBL's legal position was that we needed to redo the original contract in order for HS to get more work from ACBL.

Being blunt, finishing ACBLscore+ would go quicker if I'm involved or some of the other developers were; but the software was at the point where work could continue without us - that was always the intention - transition the code base to ACBL. ACBL were behind in hiring the developers to replace the HS developers, but that's not our fault. We did a code transition to ACBL in March 2014. From what I heard, they liked the code. It would be no good for us (HS/our developers) to finish the missing code in ACBLscore+ because ACBL are the ones that would need to support it long term. Finishing what is there needs to be done with as much ACBL involvement as possible as the long term support needs to come from ACBL.
Dec. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry to hear about Jeff. He worked incredibly long hours at NABCs making sure everyone had a good time. He was one of the really good guys.
Dec. 31, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Dec. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 of the 10 were involved with/on the committee to drop ACBLscore+ in May/June 2014.
Dec. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We” don't need state-of-the-art. It would be acceptable for ACBL to be a couple of years behind. It's a bit cheaper than being state-of-the-art. Remember ACBL is a big organization, with 3,000 clubs to support and 100-200 TDs. Change isn't cheap. A good roadmap showing the necessary transitions would be a helpful document for all ACBL clubs/TDs.

Easy-to-use, accurate, fast and dependable are all important. Between all of us we may have different agreements on exactly what each of those terms mean.

It's not just scoring software. There is so much more that can be done to help tournaments and clubs. The software is also lagging behind in those areas. For the users, most of them aren't even aware of how things could be done differently because they are so used to there only being one way. I'm only volunteering my time now, but as/when I have time to roll out something that will help tournaments/clubs I will, but obviously I can't provide the same support that ACBL can.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the model in the UK where there are 2-3 competing scoring programs.

The scoring programs output results in an XML format and send this file to the English Bridge Union (EBU).

Clubs pay based on the data in the XML files.

FYI: I did look at this format during the ACBLscore+ work.

Am not sure that the ACBLscore file format is one that should be the required format. It is quite complex, unnecessarily detailed in places, many fields not relevant for results or masterpoints.

ACBL could create an XML format. And require programs to adhere to that format. However, ACBLland have become accustomed to using free software to run clubs/tournaments. Opening up the marketplace may not attract many competitors.

But it would probably attract improvements to what we have.

It is only when you see what is going on around the world that you realize what we have here. There are still some things that ACBL (and ACBLscore) does that are not common in other parts of the world, but technically we are slipping behind.

ACBL could provide free libraries for certain functions, e.g. masterpoints, movements.

Actually, ACBLscore+ had all the masterpoint code in a C library. There's no reason that could not be opened up.

i've tried to attract developers to some open source Bridge code, but there are few takers.
Making your business critical software open source is not the panacea one may think. For example, before any changes from non-employees can be merged in, you need to understand the code that was written and why. We forget that lots of money passes through ACBLscore to ACBL for both tournaments and clubs. There is little business reason to what to open up all of that. Parts of the scoring, masterpoint calculations sure. But the processing of the dollars probably should not be open source.

Creating an XML format is likely to attract the software developers in the English speaking world (and also bridge scoring software from other countries). Being able to provide support is an issue, among many.

It could just start out with ACBL publishing the interfaces for areas that they are willing to have outside vendors.

However, one of the reasons for the success of Bridge in ACBLland is ACBLscore, its consistency. All the TDs/CDs use the same software making support a lot easier/cheaper.

UI is not easy to make shareable. For example, one vendor may use .NET, another HTML, another Java.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a difficult decision to make (asking ACBL if they wanted to run Bridgescore+). On the one hand, I was making the offer to all the other sponsors (Districts) so it did not feel right to exclude ACBL for Nationals.

I didn't know (though strongly suspected) what the answer would be.

I even brought printer/projector to Providence in case they changed their mind. (TSA will always open your case if you carry a laser printer in your bag!).

ACBL have made it clear that they are developing similar software; so it would only be an interim solution until they developed their own equivalent version. But this could be 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, who knows.

I offered to try and do it in such a way to cause least embarrassment to ACBL, i.e. brand it with ACBL logos etc. etc. They could have done a test run, i.e. run in parallel, but not use the projector, to see if it worked before agreeing to let it run the rest of the tournament. But the answer was no. The issue may be too personal.

Note that other companies, e.g. Bridgewinners with their pre-registration were there.
Dec. 28, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. It was never my intention to be permanently tied to ACBL. The contract was to get the work done, transition support/development to internal ACBL staff. I was going to be available for 3rd/4th level customer support after that but only for a limited time. I make my money working on creating this type of complicated systems, simplifying them, but long term maintenance/development of relatively simple code needs to be done by in-house staff, not outside contractors. ACBL should not want itself tied to an outside developer/contractor. It was always my intent to move on, leave a system that was easy to support/maintain, and also easy to use.

Finding an outside developer to re-create ACBLscore made sense. ACBL did not have the in-house resources to do the job. Maintaining that software by an outside contractor does not make sense.

The majority of the coding is done; most “new” features to add to ACBLscore+ are cut/paste type operations. In other words, here is similar code, just cut/paste/edit it. There is little new design work. ACBLscore+ currently needs in-the-field testing/rollout.

My company's last (paid) work for ACBL ended when the ACBLscore+ contract ended. As we could not agree on re-negotiating the original contract, ACBL made it clear there would be no more (paid) work. Fine. I've stated many times, it was a business decision by ACBL and it was their decision to make and we parted amicably, at least from my end. I disagree with their reasons, but their decision to make. Perhaps a little surprising to some of you, ACBL has asked for help after that. I forget what it was, something to do with analysis of masterpoints from two session regional Swiss events. ACBLscore+ has a SQL database and can easily make these queries, and there are lots of tools surrounding ACBLscore+ to make this type of request very easy. Apparently in-house it had taken someone at ACBL two weeks (elapsed) to manually try and re-create the same data and there was still a lot of work to be done. It was less than a couple of (volunteer, un-paid!) hours for me to do this. Automatically created and populated a Excel spreadsheet of all the fields they wanted. Happy to do it. Still happy to handle this type of request for ACBL (and my Unit/District). It's not worth the paperwork to bill a couple of hours. ACBL are well aware of what ACBLscore+ can do, and the types of analysis/requests that are much easier for it to handle than the current internal ACBL tools. But I do have limited volunteer hours! So no requests; already handling a couple of others (not from ACBL)

ACBL has made a (big) investment in ACBLscore+. The problem everyone is having is why throw it all away. I've stated my reason (legal issues); perhaps some of it is personal within ACBL. I don't know.

Clearing house at ACBL won't necessarily help. There are some good things the organization is doing. Finding, and keeping, good people at ACBL is difficult. Particularly in the IT/development area. I've done a lot of software development/consulting with different industries/groups. ACBL did not have the right staff to be able to make this project as successful as it should have been (and in my opinion still could be), but they can only work with the people that they have. There have been changes since I started doing work with them. I've avoided comments on any individuals within ACBL. Any such communication was private with Robert (Hartman, ACBL CEO).

I'm continuing to work on Bridgescore+ because I've made a (volunteer, un-paid) commitment to my District. There are many things that can make a tournament run smoother for players and TDs, and also to reduce costs for the sponsor. Ultimately this should be a win/win situation for all. I'm going to add those features to Bridgescore+, roll them out in D7. But only if D7 wants them. So far they do. My District has seen Bridgescore+ run, and the benefits it brings. By contrast, ACBL have never seen, or asked for a demo of, ACBLscore+ run an event from start to finish.

ACBL are now implementing a lot of the features of ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ into ACBLscore. That's great. We will get the new features (e.g. Fast Results was an ACBLscore+ feature). However ACBL is paying twice for it. Most of the $600K planned for developed in ACBLscore this coming year is to mimic the features available in ACBLscore+. I'd suggest that they also spend some time/money in implementing some of the BOD requirements, e.g. make it easier to run a 5 strat game - something that BOD the passed years ago and management has failed to implement. This is very popular, particularly for the newer players (0-20MP) who can play in an I/N game and not feel threatened playing against the 200-300MP group.
Dec. 28, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it's complicated…..

ACBL was the customer. Contract stated a monthly status report. But not the contents or format or distribution. ACBL wanted a change in how reports were done. You do what customer wants. I did CMA (Cover My) by sending two reports.

Internally within our developers, I wanted a monthly status report; yes, there were other avenues (project Wiki) but everyone likes reading what is going on. Monthly is common; each employee/contractor also had to provide a brief monthly report. Me writing one that tied in everyone's work made sense.

When ACBL asked to remove items that were their responsibility, technically it was correct. I should not be providing status report on what they were doing. That was their responsibility, not mine. I keep referring to the difference between the ACBLscore+ Project and the ACBLscore+ Contract. The Contract required ACBL to do certain work, but providing resources for that work and getting it done was not our responsibility.

The reports I was sending went to a large group. I could see the point that ACBL did not want to share what they were doing with the project with the larger group that I was emailing our monthly status reports to.

So… you can argue that I was fulfilling the contract terms by sending a monthly status report. But some months parts of that report were sent to a restricted group within ACBL as per customer request.

It was clear to ACBL (and me) a few months before the end of the Contract that the Project was having difficulties. How ACBL wanted to handle that was up to them. Per terms of contract, the monthly status report was for ACBL, so at their request, it was only sent to them. I did not send out our status reports to the previous larger group.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the underlying problems with the current location of the ACBL HQ is that it is difficult to attract, and keep, good IT staff. ACBL is a non-profit; the pay is probably less than the commercial market in that area. Horn Lake is not a hot-bed of IT.

There is little career opportunity. Some of the IT folks have been there for many years, therefore the chance of career advancement is low. The IT work is most routine; little new development, little new modern software. It is not likely to attract newer IT staff.

This is not a complaint on the current IT staff. They have kept the engines running for many years.

With all software projects, including those that Kevin mentioned, the on-going support/maintenance is an important factor. Combined with the abilities of in-house staff.

“Best practices” vary. What may be considered best practice in one industry may not be appropriate for ACBL.

As some examples, you don't “need” code control if it is a one person development environment. ACBL is a Microsoft/IBM environment, so the knowledge/tools available in other environments are lacking. But, adding more tools/different environments adds to the IT support costs so there are always trade-offs.

Whenever you look at the IT department of an organization you have to remember that the people there are the ones that have to be able to support anything new.

Not a complaint/criticism of anything Kevin wrote; just a statement that whenever you look at something you have to be practical about the resources available.

ACBL have had a hard time in keeping new IT hires. Some will last a few weeks and then leave because there are better jobs (better paying/more opportunities/more modern computing environments) elsewhere.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The RFP was to implement the same functionality as ACBLscore, but use modern tools/UI. It was not to create the same UI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ufahwQOmbk is my typical example. Most clubs use the same strats each day/week; so Bridgescoreplus lets you create defaults. I don't have a video of the Club pair game set up, but you can set up the defaults for each day. I'll see if I can post one some time.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The decision to drop ACBLscore+ was made on legal reasons. This is my belief.

Current ACBL management and current ACBL league counsel were responsible for the original ACBLscore+ contract.

About a year into the contract, the ACBLscore+ contract was reviewed by outside legal counsel for the ACBL.

The outside legal opinion was that ACBL should own the copyright to the code. This was not in the original ACBLscore+ contract.

ACBL management stopped paying invoices to force my company to re-negotiate the original contract. We said no. As others have posted here, it is extremely normal for contracting companies to be able to reuse code for future projects. In fact, as part of the ACBLscore+ contract, HS was providing code from previous work. It was a requirement for HS to do future work with ACBL that we would have to re-negotiate the copyright terms of the ACBLscore+ contract. We said no.

After the contract was over, ACBL spent even more money with lawyers to determine the legal state of the code. Based on this advice, ACBL senior management and league counsel decided to drop all the ACBLscore+ code.

They now needed to find a good reason for dropping ACBLscore+. Admitting that they had committed all this money, but ACBL did not own the copyright would not look good. ACBL senior management and league counsel were responsible for the original contract. New lawyers told them they could proceed with the code. What could they do?

ACBL senior management and league counsel threatened board members with disciplinary action (and may have followed through with this). No board members were allowed to see the original contract.

I do not know when or if ACBL management/league counsel reported to the board about the copyright issue. But it should have been before the Nov 2013 board meeting.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. The ACBLscore+ code could be a POS.

There is still work to complete ACBLscore+. I've alluded to the missing specs, and therefore the missing code. ACBL could have decided that it was cheaper to put all the functionality of ACBLscore+ into ACBLscore rather than them internally finishing the missing code in ACBLscore+. I will completely disagree. You will probably now hear this as the main reason for getting rid of everything. ACBL have admitted internal problems with providing specs for ACBLscore+, ACBL have taken responsibility for this. What happens going forward is up to them. It's cheaper (IMHO) for them to bring in-house staff and finish ACBLscore+ than it is to try and maintain ACBLscore. That was the purpose of the ACBLscore+ work in the first place - rewrite ACBLscore in a modern programming language, make it much easier/simpler to use, easier to support/debug, easier to add new features. However, ACBL management/league counsel are trying to cover up the copyright issue.

Having me show the software anywhere is not good for management or league counsel. It goes against their stated reason for abandoning ACBLscore+. I've been threatened with a permanent ban from ACBL by management/league counsel if I continue doing what I'm doing.
Dec. 27, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ha! Don't take the over/under.

The ACBLscore+ code is about 200K SLOC (Source Lines of Code). About 3,000 pages if you print it. I've got a long way to go and that's not including the Wiki, design documents, status reports etc.

The contract required a monthly status report. This was something I wrote and was sent all developers, all on the ACBL management team, and also included some board members. There's probably another 1,000 pages in the monthly status reports. And some months there was more than 2 status reports.

I would write the monthly status report, send a preliminary copy to my ACBL contact to make sure I had covered everything, then after review I would send the report to everyone.

About a year into the project is when problems started.

Around then I was asked by my ACBL contact to remove all references in that month's status report to anything that was negative towards ACBL, i.e. anything that we were waiting on them for.

So that month we had two status reports. One that went to everyone, including some board members, that was a sanitized version of affairs and one that went to just ACBL senior management that listed the ACBL-only issues.

Eventually for some months, I would just write two status reports. One for everyone, one for ACBL senior management.

Tracking the ACBL issues that we were waiting on only once per month was not frequent enough, so I moved the list of issues on to the Project Wiki so there was more visibility in tracking the issues.

Towards the end of the contract, I was asked to stop sending status reports to everyone. The status report was only sent to one person at ACBL. ACBL knew at that point that there problems and wanted to control the message.

The ACBLscore+ contract only called for written monthly status report from HS to ACBL. It was up to ACBL to determine who got the report.

I assume that ACBL were also writing their own internal monthly status report to track the various issues. I had asked them to do this, and asked to be on the distribution list, but I never received one.
Dec. 27, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Dec. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had made the previous offer (run Bridgescore+ at the Providence NABC) privately to ACBL. I'm traveling at the moment, but when I get back I will make ACBL the same offer for New Orleans (NO). Only this is now a public offer. I'm only going to be in NO for the second week. My suggestion is that someone do the metrics on the first week morning Regional KOs and then we can compare with the second week.

For metrics, record the time of the last entry, or the event start time, whichever is later. Record the time that the first table assignment is up, record the time that the last table assignment is up. Also record the number of TDs assigned to start the event.

I'm so confident with Bridgescore+, I'm going to handicap myself when we use Bridgescore+ to start the KOs. I only want 1 ACBL TD. This TD will sell the entries. I want to make use of a caddy. Different caddy every day. Will meet 20 minutes before game time. That's enough time for me to train a caddy to do data entry for the event. If no caddy, I will do the data entry. Or, can train an ACBL TD. Purpose of different caddy every day is to demonstrate how easy the system is to learn. Also, this is the best way at tournaments. We usually have caddies with nothing to do until game time. Let's use them. ACBLscore data entry is complicated so only TDs do it; Bridgescore+ data entry is so easy, I use caddies. Will give me time to enjoy the morning beignet.

At least five minutes before game time, I will want the “table inventory” (the list of tables assigned to the event).

The ACBL TD will be the one that determines the bracket sizes, and who is in which bracket. I never get involved with those decisions.

Bridgescore+ is simply automating the tasks of bracketing/matching/tabling. Bridgescore+ can do a lot more (it can run the event from start to finish), but we only need to use a small part of Bridgescore+ for this test. ACBL can still use ACBLscore to “run” the event.

Same offer as before. I don't want to get paid. I'll bring all the equipment (printer/projector/local WiFi). Can brand it as ACBL. ACBL logos etc.

If ACBL want to have some TDs trained on the software while we are running this trial, that's fine. Happy to train them in how to use the software.

It should be a win/win situation for ACBL. If it works, ACBL can take all the credit - it's a small part of what they paid to get developed so they are using it. If it doesn't work, then they can claim that they were right to throw it all away.

If ACBL takes the offer, I will assume that they will be running ACBLscore in parallel as a hot backup. We have a process for this. It takes a little time for DICs/sponsors to become comfortable with change. I have no problem with having a hot backup for the NABC. For the regionals that I go do, and where I have worked with the DICs in the past, the DICs are all now comfortable enough that they do not use a hot backup, or indeed in most cases we don't run a backup at all.

Compare the metrics for starting the KOs with Bridgescore+ and without Bridgescore+. If Bridgescore+ is worse, stop the test.

I will predict that Bridgescore+ will be much, much faster, and only requires the 1 ACBL TD. Players will start playing quicker. It's much less stressful for the TD.

There would be no cost to ACBL for this trial.


Let me extend the offer even more. I really want to use Bridgescore+ for one of the national Swiss events. Once you have seen a Swiss run using projectors, you will never want to go back to the rack on the wall. Bridgescore+ can run in parallel with ACBLscore do to this. No more craning to read table assignments from the rack. The event also needs far fewer TDs. For the NABC Swiss, there is normally 3 TDs at round change - one entering scores into ACBLscore, one writing the team total on the Jeffrey's Chart, one putting up table assignments in the rack. This is replaced with 1 TD entering scores with Bridgescore+. And it is much easier to see who is winning the event etc.

I'd planned on playing in the NABC+ Fast Pairs for the last two days of the New Orleans NABC. However, if ACBL are willing to run ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ for the NABC Jacoby Swiss Teams on the last weekend, I'll skip playing in the Fast Pairs and volunteer to run Bridgescore+ in parallel.

If I were ACBL, I'd want to see Bridgescore+ run a large Swiss event before agreeing to this, so I will be happy to fly to a tournament that has a large Swiss, preferably one being run by the same DIC that will run the NABC+ Swiss. I will pay my own way.

I will bring all the equipment etc. No cost for ACBL.

It's also much easier to get leader boards from Bridgescore+ so that they can be posted on the Internet.

I'm making all these offers (and I will honor them) to make it clear to everyone that the reasons for throwing away ACBLscore+ are not technical.
Dec. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few weeks before Providence, I asked ACBL if they wanted me to run ACBLscore+/Bridgescore+ for some of the events. I was playing in the afternoon/evening sessions so I offered to run Bridgescore+ to help start the Regional KOs in the morning. I made it very clear that I did not want to be paid. I was volunteering my time. I would bring all the equipment needed - printer/projector/WiFi. I would work with whoever to help determine any future hardware needs so they could do this themselves. I was happy to brand Bridgescore+ for this tournament as ACBL software (e.g. display ACBL logo etc.). I was going to be there the entire time. I offered to do this for all the morning KOs (9-10 days). I wanted to do this to help train the TDs in ACBLscore+. Even if ACBL decides to throw all of all ACBLscore+ and rewrite the same code themselves, Bridgescore+ can help in the interim. The start times for KOs with Bridgescore+ is within a minute of game time. This saves a lot of time for the TDs and the players. We also need fewer TDs to start the event.

ACBL league counsel said no.
Dec. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can carve out the current Pascal code, or you can say that an ACBLscore replacement needs to have the following features/functionality. Two ways of looking at the same thing.

Jim had lots of #ifdef win32 because the DOS and Windows versions shared code. From memory, he used different versions of the compiler to generate the DOS and Windows code.

I'm not going to get into a numbers game. 200,000->40,000. ACBLscore+ has about 200K SLOC (Source Lines of Code). It has roughly the same feature set. ACBLscore+ has comments. About 37K lines of the ACBLscore+ code is the “workhorse”, i.e. the code that implements the business logic. So, we are not too different.

Rather than sketching out a design, you can do a data flow diagram. What data needs to go to where, when, how and why.

Note that the biggest cost of club games is customer support. Any changes to the code has an impact on customer support.

Let me answer some specifics:

ACBLscore is the only horse in the ACBL town. There are other software programs out there. I've referred to some previously.

Masterpoint calculations are easy (relatively). Masterpoint assignment/eligibility is not. The current ACBLscore masterpoint code is replicated in 3 different places. I never got the specs on masterpoint assignment/eligibility from ACBL. This was probably a 2 week project, 4 weeks elapsed for them. Trying to reverse engineer all the rules, all the rounding calculations is a lot of work. If ACBL can provide this document (it was in the contract), then we can do testing of Bridgescore+ much easier. The problem is that the specs are not in one place, the ACBLscore implementation does not match the masterpoint calculation specs leaving it very hard to replicate the current code.

There was litte/no scope creep in ACBLscore. If there was something outside the contract, we did not have time to do it, so we would stub it out. At one point, ACBL said “no printers (at tournaments)” (I'm serious!). So we had to find a way to run events at tournaments with no printers. Projectors became the only solution. So ACBLscore+ has a projector output capability. ACBL later changed their minds about printers at tournaments so what looks like scope creep really wasn't. So… projector output was not in the RFP. Printed reports were. As a CR, ACBL took out printed reports, we replaced it with projector output, then ACBL changed its mind and wanted printed output as well. Obviously we still have some printed output. Displaying on a screen, and printing are similar, but different with web pages. We just need a little more CSS. For example, we don't need to print the menus if outputting to a printer. At some point, I'll put up a Youtube video showing some of the screens and how the output is different on a printer than on the screen.

There have been several new features that I have added to Bridgescore+ that are not in ACBLscore+ because I see how TDs work at tournaments and sometimes there are much more efficient ways of doing things. But ACBL hasn't paid for any of this work, so it's not really feature creep. Just code I've written to help run tournaments. My District (I'm in D7) wants to use Bridgescore+, they've seen it in use at their regionals, I've committed to providing it, so I'm going to make our tournaments better. While I have no marginal costs (I've prepaid various Internet hosting sites), I've made versions of this available for other districts (at no cost).

I did talk to the folks from Bridgemates and the other Electronic Scoring Device (ESD) companies. Many times. I went to some WBF events to see how they ran (not on ACBL $$) and met with them there.

I set up a meeting in Atlanta 2013 at the NABC between me, ACBL and Bridgemate to define what we would want for Swiss teams. ACBL didn't show up “too busy”. Without a long term commitment from ACBL, Bridgemate were not going to invest the time/money to provide some add-on features.

I still want to see this project succeed. I met with the Bridgemate folks in Providence, last month. I outlined what we would want to be able to run Swiss events in Bridgescore+. The current implementation of Swiss events in Bridgemates is a little complicated. You have to mimic various pair game movements. It can be done, it's just a horrible way to do it. Bridgemates are coming out with a new firmware release next year that works better. The Bridgemate folks are very receptive. I described why various features would be needed (in ACBL land we have different expectations of a Swiss than other places). Some of these changes are probably trivial for them, but will make running Swiss easier. I think after they met with me (I've been meeting with them for 2+ years), they then had a meeting with ACBL. Our design for Bridgemates (and other ESDs) is simple - we have a simple client that runs on a Windows box that has the ESD server. This client communicates to the scoring machine. This design keeps the code away from the scoring engine. It also allows one scoring machine to handle many servers (in current ACBLscore the practical limit is one server per scoring machine, which works out to typically 6 sections).

I had a prototype of a Swiss solution that I ran in a recent regional in Augusta. Unfortunately the regional was understaffed. When testing new software at any event, the current players should come first. We should not impact them. So I could only do a couple of Bridgemates at two tables. But even then, could not always run them because the TD was struggling to run the event, so I spent most of my time acting as a TA. I always asked players if they would mind running the Bridgemates; during one round a player politely, but firmly, said, “no”. So we didn't run Bridgemates for that round.

I've been paying the developer who worked on the ACBLscore+ Bridgemate code for the last couple of months as it is a feature I'd like to see. We have a good design for it. But I may wait until Bridgemates come out with their new firmware before we spend any more time on it.

There are current solutions to running Swiss on ESD. Bridgepad has one; it has been used at NABCs. There is a software package from the UK that runs Swiss on Bridgemates. Some clubs/tournaments use it.

Before the RFP, I provided ACBL with a “Risks” document. It identified the known risks, how to mitigate and how to mediate. One was that they needed to have a competent project manager working on the project from within ACBL. My role was as the program manager/product manager (call it what you will), but only for the software as it applies to the ACBLscore+ contract. ACBL internally were responsible for ACBLscore+ project. So, I was not the “ACBL ACBLscore+ Project Manager”; I was simply the contractor running the ACBLscore+ software component. ACBL had 4 different ACBLscore+ Project Managers that I reported to during the tenure of the ACBLscore+ contract. Two are no longer with ACBL.

To give one example, ACBL were supposed to provide “1.5 staff personnel equivalents” to work on the ACBLscore+ project. Their role was to provide “information and co-ordination… to assure that ACBL responsibilities under this Agreement are performed.” This didn't happen. So lots of co-ordination work didn't happen. It puts the project about 3 man years behind. To make it worse, when someone was assigned to work on something that was related to ACBLscore+ work, their manager would not let them talk to me (separate topic). Couple of quick examples: I requested a TourneyTrax login ID around Jan/Feb 2013, soon after TourneyTrax launched. By March 2014, end of contract, I still didn't have one. It took several months to find out how they wanted ACBLscore+ to send data to ACBLscore, during this time they were sharing information with other companies, but refused to provide any information to us on what the protocol might be, or the format might be. I was told, we are working on it, got some issues, got some security issues, but we will tell you when we are ready to tell you (this one is not a direct quote, I'm paraphrasing.

Agile means many things. We had software that was ready to be released just over one year into the contract. Contract started April 2, 2012. In April 2013 at the Gatlinburg Regional we showed our ACBL contact ACBLscore+ running a pair game. We took Bridgemates from the I/N area during the break between the afternoon and evening sessions, entered the results from the afternoon I/N game on the Bridgemates (two of us from HS, one from ACBL), rescored it in ACBLscore+ and showed that the results were the same, same printed output (printers allowed at this point!), same masterpoints etc.

We wanted to release this software to 2-3 clubs but under strict control. The software would not be the primary scoring machine (ACBLscore would be). We wanted to get feedback from these clubs in ACBLscore+ usage, make improvements based on real world usage. We had identified the clubs we wanted (bigger clubs, Internet connected, smart club owners/managers, physically close to developers, willing to work with new technology). ACBL said no.
Dec. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe: Not sure what you mean by “buffer underrun”. Let me know and I'll give an answer.

Ed: ‘Selection of movement’ is one of the ‘problems’/'issues' with ACBLscore. Particularly for a new user. “It's complicated”.

With ACBLscore+ I wanted it to be a lot easier to start/run a pairs event, the most common thing with ACBLscore. I asked ACBL for a “best” list of movements for 2-25.5 tables. “Best” is subjective. What is mathematical best is very different from what you may choose. You may run a 6 board, 4 round Mitchell with 7 tables if they are I/N players. Not the best mathematically, but I/N want to play, they take longer to play each board. At the same tournament you may do something different with I/N, gold rush, open pairs even if they have the same number of tables. Your club may not want to run Howell, because everyone gets lost, so you always run a Mitchell. Anyone, don't want to get into a religious argument about ‘best’ movement. But improving selecting a movement was a big part of the new design. The request took about 5 months (I'm traveling, not on my main computer, so this is from memory). I had estimated it as less than 1 week of work from ACBL, probably 2-3 weeks elapsed because the work would need to be reviewed by several TDs and an outside limit of about 4 weeks to allow for some delay. That was my estimate, I asked for this about 6 weeks in advance of when we needed it. And I made sure that ACBL knew it was critical path. Around the same time, ACBL had stopped paying invoices. As I was waiting on movements, and HS was not being paid, we put the developer working on movements on ‘furlough’. Basically all work on movements stopped. The delay on movements code was about 6 months. That was the 5+ month delay in delivery of movement document (and I only got pairs events, never got a BAM or individual movement document, so BAM/Individual never completed). Movements were a critical path item when the contract started (TFR was the other), so a final rollout of the pairs code is delayed by 6 months.

We can run a simple pairs game, we can import a current pairs event from an ACBLscore game file irrespective of how complicated the movement is, we can re-score, re-rank, re-qualify, re-masterpoint the pairs event in Bridgescore+. The part that we don't have is the EDMOV functionality in ACBLscore. So, we can run in parallel, but not take over completely from ACBLscore. When I wrote the roll-out document, this was the work that I would have someone do in parallel. Re-creating the EDMOV functionality is difficulty. ACBLscore uses 5 levels of indirection to go from a section down to a table result. ACBLscore+ uses 3 (board->board_table->board_table_score). For each board, you have a set of board_tables (who plays that board at which table in which round), and for each board_table you have 2 (pairs) or 4 (individual) scores. Most of the time, the EW scores and NS scores are the exact opposite of each other, but not always. Pretty much all Pairs event work stopped around August/September 2013, about 17-18 months into the contract. For testing, we import tournament/club game files into Score+, re-score everything, then compare. For a roll-out, I'd want to run Bridgescore+ in parallel with ACBLscore (we can read the BWS file that ACBLscore is also reading). While we were working on improving the UI for CDs/TDs for pair events, we would finish out the movement code. The developer I had for movements (this was the hardest person to find, you have to really understand the mathematics behind movements, fouled movements etc.) is still available; but it is still quite a bit of work both in the design, the UI, testing and implementation.

On the list of contacts that I had for ACBLscore+ were some new club managers. Smart. Young (let's define that as young enough to grow up around computers). But had no desire to learn the intricacies of ACBLscore. I used them for feedback on how easy it should be to start/run/edit a pairs event. You can see the work in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ufahwQOmbk. This video is from some time ago.

Being able to define your own movement is also important. But this is a very small audience. ACBLscore has this ability. In ACBLscore+ we import the same files.
Dec. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've heard the 5% number as well. ACBL has about 3,000 clubs. I think about 100 still turn in paper sheets.

We were expecting the same with ACBLscore+. It would be some time before everyone transitioned to ACBLscore+ from ACBLscore. What would drive people is that support for ACBLscore would slowly be dropped and as new masterpoint changes were implemented in ACBLscore+ (and not put in the legacy ACBLscore), or new months with “triple masterpoints” became available only in ACBLscore+ then people would migrate.

As ACBLscore+ can import an ACBLscore game file, worse case scenario would be clubs would just email/FTP/upload old game files to the next system. We could automatically process them.

Anyways, that was the plan. Not sure what is going to happen now.
Dec. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably the next large IT project within ACBL will be a DB upgrade and migration from RPG. There is a lot of internal RPG code; but at some point the developers/maintainers will retire. Either they need to be replaced, or an upgrade to a more modern environment. IBM keep supporting RPG so there is no worry about upgrade. But, there is a lot of code in RPG, lot of work to replace it with a different language. There are some legacy “features” within ACBL's environment (see earlier).

But this project may be many years out.
Dec. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBLscore+ contract was not terminated. It finished.

The ACBLscore+ contract was a time-limited and dollar-restricted contract.

ACBL are attempting to portray this as something that it isn't in attempt to shift focus. HS actually terminated the contract early (OK, I'll be nice and say it was a mutual termination) effective March 31, 2014. ACBL agreed. We walked away from money in the contract. But I could not do work where they would not provide specs and it felt wrong to take their money. We had given them the required 60 day notice to fix this material breach in mid January, 2014.

ACBL then came back and wanted to change the contract end date to mid May to include the code that they saw demo-ed in Gatlinburg in April 2014. We said sure. It was the first time a large number of players had seen the code, and the first time a lot of ACBL TDs had seen it. We agreed to change the date. I continued to work on the code through mid May 2014. We billed them the remainder of the money in the contract. We sent the code. At that point the contract was over. Over. Finished. Done.

We had done what we said we would in the contract. ACBL had paid in full. The last item in the contract was to run at a major tournament. ACBL stopped this demonstration at the first event at the Dallas NABC in March 2014. They didn't want to see any more.

ACBL are attempting to claim that they terminated the contract. This is not true.

ACBL/HS could not agree on a new contract. The sticking point being re-negotiating the old contract and ACBL wanting to remove all of HS rights to the code. So we agreed to disagree, and move on.

The good news is that HS has rights to the code. I'm offering it for free to any District that wants it. That's the irony of this situation. ACBL are claiming it is useless. I'm claiming otherwise and running it at tournaments. ACBL are now spending more money to put the features of Bridgescore+ into ACBLscore. That is the disconnect that everyone is finding puzzling. If it is useless, why do I run it? The results speak for themselves. See http://bsp.bridgescoreplus.com/?page_id=145 where I wrote up each event along with the time savings.

Of course, my claims could be a POS (Piece of, well you can figure out the rest). I'm willing to stick my reputation on the line to state otherwise. And have done, see the tournament where the software has been run. See the comments from various TCs. See the comments from the players where Score+ has been run.
Dec. 21, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top