Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nicolas Hammond
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the longest wait of any WBF page, try http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/sanya.14/microsite/bulletins/Bul_4.pdf

Note the last is _4 and not _04. It goes into an endless loop so delete the tab after you get bored.
Oct. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may want to consider adding a different verb if you can change the title.

Edited for context based on other edits. Gary's original title was “Lynch Team Word Champions!!”. It got changed after my post. The word Word was changed to World. I still think this is a little harsh. Perhaps we should give them a medal instead.
Oct. 13, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Oct. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He was home schooled. He had excellent teachers. Indirect compliment to his parents. I don't know if the school is taking more applications this year. Pretty good success rate.
Oct. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was fortunate enough to play with Adam back in Gatlinburg 2010. Even then he was being added to professional teams. (One pro, one client, us). It was nice to finish ahead of Meckwell/Balicki/Zmudzinski (another Adam!)/Passell in a Swiss. Adam can probably recall every card and all the mistakes I made. All I can remember is was in Tennessee some time ago.

I'm a proud parent of 3. What was, and still is, most amazing is Adam's maturity even back then. Plus, talk to him about anything other than Bridge, and you will very surprised by his overall knowledge. I strongly recommend any parent to consider sending your child to the same school he attended. Also, name your next kid Adam.

Allison is less well known in tournament circles, but certainly very well known around District 7 (we are in the same District). I've played against her, I doubt she remembers.
She is very composed, very aware of what is going on around her. A rare talent. Do not underestimate her when she comes to your table.

Again, what is most impressive about Allison is her maturity. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGU8qwrEzk

Both are very deserving winners. This is the first time that ACBL has awarded a King and Queen of Bridge.

In addition to both being excellent Bridge players, far more importantly is their overall attitude and being great ambassadors to the sport. Both are already over-qualified to be on any Goodwill committee. Two great choices. Both will go far.
Oct. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Non ACBL members do not need to read….


Not sure what clarification you need, but I'll try my best.

For reasons that will be apparent in a couple of months or so, I'll over clarify.

The ACBL Player Information File (PIF) aka “member” database, or portions thereof, is available under MyACBL according to the ACBL rules regarding electronic lists (Go to My ACBL, click on “Member Rosters”, you'll see the following)


“The list or ACBLscore Player Information file requested from ACBL is not to be used for personal or commercial use. It may be used solely for ACBL Districts, Units and Clubs to promote ACBL affiliated bridge activities.

These lists are not to be shared with any third parties. No information from these lists may be published on a web site, bulletin board or on similar resources without the express written permission of the ACBL member whose name is identified.

Violation of these rules may subject the violating party to discipline or sanctions under ACBL Rules and Regulations.”

Typically you have to be a Unit Officer, District Officer, or Club manager to get this option under “My ACBL”. For those of you who are not, disregard now.

For those that are left, it is quite important that you understand this.

For example, if you make use of the PIF, then happen to display my results at your regional or club, including, say, my city/state, then you are violating the terms under which you got the PIF. I have not given you express written permission to display my city/state on a web site. I probably gave you my name, and ACBL #, but that's it. Use anything else and you are violating ACBL's terms of use of the PIF. Publish what strat I'm in violates the agreement because you have made use of my MPs which is in the PIF and I have not given you express written permission to do that. Silly. IANAL. I don't make these rules, but I am aware of at least one district dealing with this issue at the moment.

Kevin, to clarify, it is NOT “any ACBL purpose”, it is “ACBL affiliated bridge activities”. Again, IANAL, but there is a difference. You asked for clarification. More than you wanted :-)

You may think I'm being silly, but trust me, got a reason for this.

At this point, if you host a results site and have posted anyone's city/state without everyone's written permission, you need to be considering your next option.

==

Back to your original comment.

The way ACBL tournaments work is they are incredibly good at allowing last minute entries. Even post-start entries. They will work you in (most of the time). They are trained to do this. Customer service is exemplary. . As ACBL players, we have grown to expect this type of service. Sitting behind the TD table for the last couple of years you would not believe what players expect, and how accommodating nearly all TDs are.

Yes…. ideally, ‘we’ should make use of your team's actual MPs for an event. This presumes that we have ALL the team's information before the event starts. Doesn't happen. Quite often at game time, 3 players of a team may be there, no-one knows the player number of missing player #4, but they were told he has “about 1,000 points”. Could be 800. Could be 1500. Don't know. So, when you ‘bracket’ the events as the TD you go from ‘reported masterpoints’.

Obviously, ideally, actual masterpoints. But reality is most TDs don't have all the information at start time, actually not all teams have all this information at start time.

You will see Bridgescore+ transition from ‘reported masterpoints’ to ‘actual masterpoints’. Got the code in place. First test was in Atlanta in August. But training players to get the TD that information before game time, getting all that information before game time and not affecting the start time is an interesting challenge.

The screen we present for KOs and Swiss has gone through 5 iterations. To see it, you would not know it, but getting proper feedback for everything is crucial to the long term success.

I agree that the long term solution is for everyone to pre-register, for everything to be done before start time, BUT…. ‘we’ have given our customers an expectation that is going to be very hard to change. We all want to show up one minute before game time and play. ‘We’ have taught KO players at this is how ACBL land KOs will work.

If I missed something, give me a specific question, I'll try and answer better….



Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That means getting the player information before the event starts. Er… already tested it live in Atlanta at the last Regional but not going to say any more until something is ready for release. It's surprising how many iterations of testing you have to do to learn how bridge players think. I do have a day job… so we will see when it is ready for release. For me release now means first, I'm there doing it, second it means ready for any TD (with training) to do it. There's a gap from #1 to #2. Each step involves a few iteration steps. More than you'd think.

As with everything, always a little harder than you first think. Got to allow for foreign players who do not have proper credit in the DB.

Swiss is easier to handle.

KOs are harder because of all the things that happen in real life that you would not believe.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roger, you posted, “I find myself wanting more, or better, answers or revelations on the ACBL-project issues, as is my right.”. We disagree on if this “is your right”. Nothing personal. You have made some poignant comments so far on this thread. I'm just another ACBL member when I make that comment. Our “rights” are defined in our Membership agreement. You'll need to ask ACBL about who shot John. Got to be a smoking gun somewhere.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pete was the TC and oversaw the process but doubt he knows the details.

I brought 2 laptops, one projector, one WiFi router, one printer.

Use one laptop (old Macbook Air) to run the ACBLscore+ software. Connected via the WiFi router to a Macbook Pro. The Pro was connected to the Projector.

We did testing on Monday morning; my projector simply wasn't powerful enough, so Pete rented one from the Convention Center.

The Center then built a 7' mount over a power supply in the middle of the playing space. They mounted the projector on top of the mount. Took them 2-3 hours. I have always said that the most important thing about the projector is player safety. We spent a little time in adjusting the colors. The projector was good, powerful, but old. I think we ended up projecting yellow font - it was the most readable from a distance.

As teams entered, the TD entered the information into ACBLscore. I entered the same information into ACBLscore+ and the entry information was displayed on the projector through ACBLscore+. After the last entry was sold, the TD used ACBLscore+ to bracket (decide where the bracket divisions were), to match (randomly assign teams to each other in the bracket), then table (assign teams to brackets). Once that was done, we printed the information on to the cheap, fast laser printer ($125) I brought. We did this so that there was always a hard copy in case anything went wrong.

There was a lot of checking/double checking that information in ACBLscore matched ACBLscore+. Unfortunately, back then, most of this was manual. It's now automatic. The error rate for teams entering information is about 5% (i.e. about 1 in 20 teams comes back and gives a correction for the number of MPs on their team, or adds a player). The TD error rate (how often the TD mistypes a number) is less than 1%. The good news with a projector is that the last error gets fixed quickly because a team comes and complains.

Once we had a hard copy of the brackets, we would then “publish”, i.e. display the information on the wall. We did not “publish” until we had hard copy.

All the projection came through ACBLscore+ (as it was then called).

Once the event started, the TDs used ACBLscore to “run” the event.

Running the ACBLscore+ software was something I did, on a couple of occasions the TD ran the software, but these are ACBL employees. Not sure they are allowed to post. I'd give you my review of the software, but it is likely to be a little biased.

We didn't always run the software. Basically if I was playing, we tried not to run it because if anything goes wrong, I needed to be available just in case. (For example, after everyone is playing a team discovers that they are in the wrong bracket because someone read 8000 as 3000 when adding a player to their team - the fix for this is manual - have to move several teams - in this case 5 brackets were affected. TDs are used to this manually, but the information they were used to seeing was different. Based on that one occurrence, I added a lot more information to the printed bracket sheets so that the TDs can fix something manually a lot quicker). Mistakes to happen, TDs are v. good at fixing most of them, providing they have the right tools.

I've previously posted the metrics. One of the issues with new software is “is it really better”. Having metrics is a very important tools. I took a few metrics in 2013 so that we could test in 2014. For example, lot of testing in 2013 to determine the footprint of a WiFi router.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've posted previously, business ethics prevents me from disclosing too much about the Hammond Software (HS)/ACBL ACBLscore+ contract. My current role is to protect my company's reputation, and to minimize our legal costs - other posts have led to polls on threats to sue my company. If ACBL chooses to release information about the contract and the work, I can't stop them. But at the same time, if there is mis-information I will probably try and correct it. I do not plan on being the first to release some information.

BW probably isn't the place to be having this discussion, but they started this chain. At some point, there's going to be enough information on this one thread for someone to write a book…

Bit of background because there is a lot of very careful linguistics going on.

The ACBLscore+ _contract_ was between Hammond Software and ACBL.

The ACBLscore+ _project_ included the work for the contract AND a lot of work that ACBL was going to do to be able to implement the code from the contract.

Even on some presentations to the BOD there was often confusion between the two words, and thinking that ONLY the work from the _contract_ was necessary to complete the _project_. Absolutely not. Lot more work to do the project than just the contract. That part of the work was outside the scope of the contract and was not HS responsibility.

There has been some very careful use of those two different word with some of the postings.

That being said…

I posted this on another thread:

In the middle of January 2014, I sent an 11 page letter to Robert Hartman (ACBL CEO). It was not a surprise, he had been forewarned it was coming. Basically it was listing “uncured material breach” of the contract which was a reason for Hammond Software (HS) to terminate the contract. It put ACBL on a 30 day notice, and then gave them an additional 30 days to cure. After 60 days, still not cured, so we set a termination date of March 31, 2014. Our final invoice went out at the end of March. There was still money left in the contract.

ACBL may have been worried that HS was going to sue ACBL for the remainder of the money in the contract. Never our intent.

We continued to work on the code, remember we were in negotiations for a new contract, but renegotiating the copyright from the original contract and ACBL now wanting to own and control any derivative work that HS may create from the original code, no matter the industry, no matter the time frame were non-negotiable items. So we agreed that there would be no new contract. We each wished the other well. No hard feelings.

To address the specific comments in Phyllis' email:

“The determination to terminate the contract was made after much study and with the best interests of all our members as the determining factor in the decision to halt the program.The determination to terminate the contract was made after much study and with the best interests of all our members as the determining factor in the decision to halt the program.”

The contract was terminated in March, or May, of this year. The “contract” and the “program” are two different things. The contract was delivered on time, under budget, but we could not deliver anything that had a 3 month of longer documented delay, or anything dependent on a delayed item.

" … an outside consultant …“

It was a company, not a consultant, though I understand most people may not know the difference or care.

”The Agreement provided for six specific milestones to be completed and tested by the consultant within stated time frames and for stated fees.“

There were six separate phases, three separate milestones, to use the wording in the contract. I think Phyllis meant Phase, not milestone. The Phases were to be completed by HS, but tested by ACBL. Really don't think we would be allowed to test our own code do you? The contract also had 4 deliverables but that is going to confuse everyone…

ACBL could fire HS if we failed to meet with the time line or $$ cost of any phase. ACBL were going to get to keep any time or $$ saved, i.e. if we delivered a phase early and under budget, ACBL kept the difference. And we did deliver some under time and under budget. Actually ACBL could have fired HS after the completion of any Phase, even if delivered on time and on budget without cause, 15 days written notice was all it would take.

”During August, 2013, the fourth milestone time frame was missed by the consultant“

100% correct. What Phyllis fails to mention is the reason. Phase 4 had multiple deliverables (10?). ACBL failed to deliver some of the documentation and specs required for HS to meet Phase 4. In fact, some of these were never delivered even by the end of the contract and had impact on other deliverables. Can't write code when we don't have the specs. In other words, be careful where the blame is assigned. I know what the original wording implied.

”Then in February, 2014, it was determined by ACBL management that the project was further behind in completing several of the milestones“

This was after the January 16th letter to ACBL that put them on notice that there were ”material breaches“ that would ”excuse further performance“. At that time I assume that the CEO did the necessary research to investigate and attempt to mitigate the material breaches. Note that the wording is the project, not the contract. It does get confusing. In the ACBL/HS Contract there are ”Phases“, it is certainly possible that the internal ACBLscore+ Project had ”Milestones“. I don't know.

”despite payment of the entire $1.4 million consulting fee to the consultant“.

Not true. As of the first end of the contract (March), we were under budget.

”The advisory group unanimously recommended that the ACBLscore+ Agreement be immediately terminated and the program halted because: (1) the Personal Web Server concept was too difficult to install and ensure functionality; (2) The software did not meet ACBL expectations for responsiveness and usability; (3) the software was largely incomplete and untested; and (4) user interface was completely foreign, and would require a significant investment for user training.“

The Agreement (contract) was first terminated at the end of March. Not by ACBL.

(1)..(4) are subjective. You are welcome to take a look at the Bridgescore+ YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqeXxu-6NajvVDe0D467dhw and judge for yourself. (1) is not shown. For (2), I still have some videos that are in developer mode, at some point I'll re-do them in production mode. I normally make a comment in the audio on the video because developer mode does run slower. Ironically I typically run in developer mode at tournaments because it is easier and fast enough. This is the mode used in Gatlinburg and Atlanta. There are some performance videos on the site. See comparison between starting a 3 start pairs event in ACBLscore and Bridgescore+. You can decide on usability issues. Should be enough information on the videos to judge performance. Gatlinburg has the biggest tournament event on the ACBL calendar. Ran it there.

(4) was deliberately by design. No-one wanted to keep the old interface. ACBL already had one failed attempt to do that. The goal was to design for a club director/TD starting 5 years from now, i.e. someone with no baggage from ACBLscore. Some of the screens are currently designed to be transitional, I've written about some of the interesting things that you only discover when you run live and how we make them transitional. But the goal was to make it more friendly and user for Club Directors to learn. Only thing I can say is find a new Club Director and compare ACBLscore and Bridgescore+.

”In April, 2014, the Agreement was, in fact terminated. terminated.“

It was either March, or May, see prior discussion.

“ownership of the domain shall reside with the ACBL.”

this is a cut/paste from a sentence in the contract that was missing a word, better read as

“ownership of the domain shall reside with the ACBL.“

No big deal. I registered some domains, e.g. acblscoreplus.com. We added that wording to make sure that we did not run off with the domain in hopes that ACBL would make sure they used similar language in future technical contracts. You don't want the developer owning the domain name(s) when it is all done. This was wording we added(!)

” shall be provided with a free license-to-use and free license-to-distribute for all code developed during this project.”

No, we are not going to make it Open Source. Don't ask.

If ACBL and its committee thinks it is no good, fine. Everyone entitled to their own opinion. If ACBL won't use it, fine. Doesn't stop us. We've already committed to some districts to run it at some regionals, I have no problem running it. I obviously have a different opinion than the ACBL committee on the software. Won't be the first time. Doubt it will be the last. We agree to disagree. All we are running at the moment is software to help start a KO. Can also display all results/assignments from a Swiss on the wall. Simple stuff.

So… Bridgescore+. Same price as ACBLscore. Let the market decide. It would really help if ACBL would release the specs needed to complete the project. It is something that would be useful for all members, not just developers - an HTML page that lists all of ACBL's masterpoint eligibility and assignment rules in a single place (not the calculation rules). Sounds simple, but it is the only place the word “complex” is used for a component of a Phase.

“Had the ACBLscore+ program been completed and published, the ACBL would have obtained copyright protection by using the copyright symbol and terms of use language similar to those developed by outside copyright counsel for the recently published “Learn to Play Bridge” program. Since ACBLscore+ was not completed or fully tested or published, the copyright symbol and terms of use language could not be integrated into the final program”.

IANAL, but others have pointed out the legal issues. Complicated, but HS would have been listed at the copyright owner is what I've been told. It turns out this is now a really big deal for ACBL. Since day one, all the code has had a copyright embedded in it. Developer 101 stuff. This Copyright issue has been huge for ACBL since mid last year. Perhaps because of lessons learned from L2PB, I'm speculating. My lawyer is still confused on why.

I think Bridegscore+ uses about 70 different products so the License agreement lists all of those license agreements. Quite a complicated page… All of the other License agreements are MIT-License of similar, i.e. free to use, free to distribute.

The wording of the “terms of use” was requested from ACBL legal department on September 7, 2013 with a ‘need’ date of 4-5 weeks as we planned to release to clubs. As of the end of the contract the “terms of use” document was never delivered so there was no alpha release to clubs.

Roger wrote: “I find myself wanting more, or better, answers or revelations on the ACBL-project issues, as is my right.”

No, it's not. Sorry. Sounds like you are an ACBL member, just like me. We all vote for, and empower the Board, and implicitly the management to run the organization for us. But we are not entitled to every piece of possible information. I've only released something after ACBL has released it. I didn't post on the original ACBLscore thread, I only posted on this thread after some time. The only reason I'm posting is to keep the company's legal bills down. This contract finished six months ago and our lawyer is very happy.

I will repeat again: HS has no intention and never has had any intention to sure ACBL. Not sure how or where that rumor started. No idea what we would sue for.

My “two hats” is sometimes I post for me, sometimes for my company. I think it's obvious when I do each one. The Medieval Fonts for example was personal, same as the Open Source mapping to a bridge hand.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've got some tools that I will probably release in the next version of Bridgescore+ that will help. Can go from hand records to Word etc. Still looking for more templates, but that comment won't make any sense until I release the code so you can see what I'm talking about.

My frustration is still with the on-line hand records (not the PDF). I get a little sea-sick reading them!
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Took some time, but I may have figured out why the ACBL BOD was/is on a gag order.

In the middle of January 2014, I sent an 11 page letter to Robert Hartman (ACBL CEO). It was not a surprise, he had been forewarned it was coming. Basically it was listing "uncured material breach" of the contract which was a reason for Hammond Software (HS) to terminate the contract. It put ACBL on a 30 day notice, and then gave them an additional 30 days to cure. After 60 days, still not cured, so we set a termination date of March 31, 2014. Our final invoice went out at the end of March. There was still money left in the contract.

ACBL may have been worried that HS was going to sue ACBL for the remainder of the money in the contract. Never our intent.

We continued to work on the code, remember we were in negotiations for a new contract, but renegotiating the copyright from the original contract and ACBL's now wanting to own and control any derivative work that HS may create from the original code, no matter the industry, no matter the time frame were non-negotiable items. So we agreed that there would be no new contract. We each wished the other well.

ACBL then wanted the code that was shown in Gatlinburg, so we changed the contract end date, shipped them the code and invoiced them. Now, no money to sue about.


Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was intended to be a one-time contract. Responsibility for the code would transition to ACBL after/during the contract, the plan was they would hire in-house developers to maintain the code and expand it. The original contract called for a few hours per month of my time as a consultant after the contract was over to provide 3rd/4th level support. But it was always supposed to be a one-time contract. Last thing ACBL would/should want is a dependency on a third party company for software that provides the majority of their income.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of people have signed up. Going to take a few days while everyone becomes familiar with a new development environment, GitHub, programming language(s), tests etc.

Had the same experience when programmers first started out on ACBLscore+.

No-one yet willing to give estimates for time (elapsed and actual man-hours), which is understandable. Neither am I!

There a test case already written, very simplistic.

Not asking for comments, we will track on comments the project Wiki, but I will keep you informed of progress.

For all those that wanted to contribute, now is the time!
Oct. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,
There is a difference between me (NH) and Hammond Software (HS).

I'm a long time volunteer, similar to yourself (posters on the list may not realize that we know each, have met in meetings etc. etc.), been Unit President, on District board, involved with junior bridge, including Atlanta Junior Bridge for some time.

HS is a blood-sucking for-profit American corporation.

Like everyone, I want a better experience when I play bridge.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I can't give you the answers you want from ACBL about the ACBLscore+ work. That's protected under fairly standard NDA stuff.

I found myself in the position in July, that ACBL announced that they were discontinuing the ACBLscore+ project. HS has rights to the code. My district wants it used at their regionals, so I repackaged it, and volunteered my time at the Atlanta Regional and ran Bridgescore+.

No big deal, I set up about 20 minutes before game time, laptop/projector/network takes less than 5 minutes to get all powered on. I can then enter the team numbers, MP totals. The TDs are doing their job selling entries. A couple of minutes before game time, the TD indicates what the bracket sizes are likely to be. They give me the “table inventory” (available tables). As soon as selling stops, TD looks at list of teams, decides the brackets, computer randomly assigns matches, TD then decides who sits where (BSP provides defaults but TD can override), project on the wall. Takes < 1 minute with a little practice from entries closing to all brackets up. I can then go play. Much better experience for all, including me. I've given up 10-15 minutes of socializing before game time. But I get to start quicker, so does everyone else. I also volunteer at the hospitality suite later; I don't get paid for that either :-)

I've committed to D7 that we will run the software at its upcoming regionals. I'm on the D7 board. HS had pre-paid for various Internet hosting so marginal cost is $0. I've had requests from other districts so it was trivial to set it up so that other Districts can use. I'm reusing the infrastructure that had been setup for ACBLscore+ development.

I don't see how HS is going to make any money. ACBL has the same code, they can offer it for free. If I get to the point where there are costs, I may have to charge, but for now, it's free. But you get what you pay for.

If you want to use it for your own district, let me know. Happy to set you up. This part of the code is best for KOs that are 30+ teams. Any less and it makes little sense. You would be a perfect candidate to help a district with the setup. What I have found is that it is not the software that is the difficulty, it is the ability to set up a projector, wireless connection, couple of computers. Easy for the technically minded, little harder for the average TD who has not had to learn these skills.

It's interesting to see the learning curve. If you are technical, and a player, but not a TD, you have to learn a new language with starting a KO - e.g. box, ring, stationary etc. These all mean something to a TD, but a player is clueless what they mean. If you are a TD, there's a learning curve because you have spent 30+ years doing everything manually. All of a sudden there is a computer doing everything for you. Bit like the transition from manual scoring to ACBLscore. Try go teach a player what a TD does, and trying to explain to a TD how the software can help, and how to use it, is a little difficult. New language for both. This is where a tech-savvy bridge player can help TDs.

Starting a KO is one of the biggest time savers. It's but a small part of BSP, but big time saver.

One of the unspoken advantages to new software is the time/$$ savings. If BSP only uses 2-3 TDs to start a large KO, whereas before it required 10-13 TDs, you can start to see savings. These TDs are typically only needed at start time, to speed up the process of putting up brackets, tables into the rack. But they still have to charge for their time. You will sometimes see TDs move from a pairs event to help with the KO setup, then move back. Starting a KO is time consuming.

Same applies to a large Swiss. At the moment, there can be 3 directors - one entering the scores, one writing the current scores on the Jeffries chart, one putting matches in the rack. These are 3 TDs who are now not on the floor. Replace this with software so that you only need 1 TD to enter the scores, enter matches, and automatically display assignment through a projector onto the wall. This is the reason that Regionals are looking at the software. Big improvement in player experience.

Gatlinburg's other interest is player safety. The numbers at the start of a KO are huge - 800+ people crowding over director. But, implicitly, there should be savings on cost. Ironically the savings on cost may affect the ACBL bottom line, but that's not the issue for the TC.

I don't see how ACBL could ‘ban’ certain software from tournaments. Certainly if it starts to impact on their core code, e.g. “running” an event, “issuing masterpoints”, then I could see it. However, ACBL can't tell a TC/TD that they can't run Excel. Oops. Bad example. The ACBL can't tell a TC/TD that they can't run Word at a tournament. But we'll see. Certainly my district would be quite upset if ACBL tried to do that.

Perhaps it needs someone to post who has seen BSP, either at Gatlinburg, or the other regionals to comment. I know it's a little hard for a TD to post something. I do know that every Regional I have been to with BSP has asked for it to be used at their next regional.

BSP is ready and able to help run Swiss events. I'm comfortable enough with the code for it to run a National Swiss and put my reputation on the line if the software doesn't work. Results/assignments projected on the wall. We do that at D7 Regionals.

Re: volunteers:

I'm looking for tech volunteers to help set up BSP at Regionals. Experience has shown that the issues tend to be related to network setup. The TDs have all been wonderful, but setting up a network, Internet access, printer is not their forte. Sadly they have had little need to learn new computing skills. I can't travel to every regional and train TDs. But if you want to volunteer your time, I can provide you with access to BSP. You need to be willing to spend some time.

I've also set up some Open Source projects and asked for tech volunteers. My motives are quite simple. Yes, I'd love to have code written that can be incorporated into BSP. However, I've made this quite plain on various posts, this code can be used by other software. For example, I'd love to see a Swiss Pairs event at some Regionals. Until/unless there is code for a Swiss pairs movement, you won't see it in the ACBL land. If this code is developed, and is available for free, then there is some incentive for ACBL to incorporate into ACBLscore. I have already posted some code as Open Source for other Bridge related software so I'm volunteering as well.

May sound a little too altruistic, but the software is there if you want to use it.
Oct. 6, 2014
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Oct. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Fixed.
Oct. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given the flames I'm getting from other articles I may need to jump into one.
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have created a repository for the Swiss code. See https://github.com/njhammond/swiss_matcher

If interested, let me know your GitHub handle and I will add you.
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Put simply, there was a contract between ACBL and Hammond Software (HS). It is not my place to divulge information from that contract.

I never posted anything until after ACBL first posted something and even then only posted something to protect ACBL from some of the various accusations that were being made against them. I've addressed the generalities in other posts.

I can understand your request for #1, and #2, but it is not something I can provide.

I sense everyone's frustration, but I cannot answer these type of specific questions. These are best addressed to ACBL.
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roger: if I post something that just says, “ain't true” then it won't pass the sniff test. Better to err on the side of verbosity. I know enough that the technical people reading this won't let me get away with anything.

For any more details on what “fell short”, please see the 4th paragraph of the article at http://bsp.bridgescoreplus.com/?page_id=183, that starts “I am…”.

The last monthly status report for the ACBLscore+ project delivered to ACBL was 141 pages long. May give you some idea of the complexity of the project. The ACBLscore+ project was planned to have impact across all of ACBL - scoring, club finances, fast results, tournament finances, reporting, club management etc. etc.

Please read the quoted sentence from ACBL very carefully, “A working group consisting of Board members, internal staff and outside experts determined efforts to develop a completely new system ACBLScore+ fell short of what was required to work for the League’s members.” There is an implicit assumption in the wording that leads Roger to go from ”efforts“ to ‘your company’s efforts “fell short”'' but there is carefully no wording in the statement to that effect. Same with the October bulletin article. Have to read this very carefully.

I cannot speak for ACBL under the ”fell short" claim. All I can do is show the software.

Take a look at the proposed roll out plan, http://bsp.bridgescoreplus.com/?page_id=44. This was written some time ago. Still true today. I stand by what is written there. Any proposed roll out needs to be slow. It will take effort to train the TDs in new software that has more capabilities than the existing software.
Oct. 5, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top