Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The new proposal is to allow 4 teams play a 2 session KO and only award 1st place. Item 193-22.
Nov. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then they won't be NLM any more. Once I played in a regional when I was still eligibile for Gold Rush. Although I like to play in Open pair but my partner preferred Gold Rush and we played in Gold Rush. Once Gold Rush Pair is available, they abandoned KO in favor of it.

Did you check out that KIKO event bracket four? They could win gold point losing all their matches. Why play in Open Pair?
Nov. 22, 2019
Ping Hu edited this comment Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KO was the only event NLM could get gold point, before the introduction of Gold Rush. Now bracketed KO event has ceased to exist in this part of country because of Gold Rush.
Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. If you looked at bracket 4 there was one team who lost all their matches in Day 1, but still advanced to 2nd day to win gold points.
Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chess has been an Olympic event for many years. Do they have drug test before/after each event?
Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve, In this new map three new regions are from single district. These three DD should be automatically change to RR and not be allowed an extra 3 year term.
Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, you could find a list of masterpoint committee members from the following link (look at the bottom).
https://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/board-of-directors/meeting-motions-and-minutes/
I was in their meeting during LV NABC since I did the rating study per their request.

In my observation the committee member are all most knowledgeable person you could find about masterpoint. The SF BOD motion related to masterpoints are all based on this committee's recommendations. Of cource we don't know how BOD would vote and how much time they would spend on it. But I think there is a good reason to believe the new process should work better.
Nov. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. This is true. Live4Club uses a new Masterpoint engine that could be easily reconfigure/updated. The input file is based on USEBIO standard, see following link.
http://usebio.org/
The current implementation is to convert ACBLscore game file into USEBIO format and process it.

By the way, some information are not defined in USEBIO standard, i.e, club director. This is why you don't see director's name. However we could add it in the future.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Matthew, thanks for posting this and thanks for what you have done to improve bridge game.

As you may know, I've worked with ACBL as a part-time consultant for a couple years. The new Live4Club is based on a new database developed on AWS while the tournament Live website is still based on AS400. The new database schema is different from old one and directly resulted in some of the difference/improvement you observed in display.

Currently there were still a number of issues in Live4Club for games like homestyle pair, manually scored game (no board results), some games with phantom pair, game scored across multiple sections and individual game. However these problems are all under control and should be revolved in the next month. Pair/team game mentioned by Peg is an issue more difficult because these game were saved in ACBLscore as separate game, but we should have a solution eventually.

Team game display is another part of development. Since team games are rare in club, it has not been on the priority list. Currently Live4Club could display match result, although there is still a bug with 3-way matches. The eventual goal is to be able to display team games with board level score and hand record. Since this is completely new, the display is not finalized yet. This might be something the Bridgewinners community could help. There are a couple options. First is to start with Jeffrey chart - the wall chart you usually see in Swiss tournament. It listed each team's score by round and you could click the match score to get board results. The second option is to have something like WBF display from the following page that listed results by round.
http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/tourn/wuhan.19/microSite/Asp/RoundTeams.asp?qtournid=1640&qroundno=1
Any one has any better idea could raise it here as well.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It will be but it is not on priority now. You could call ACBL and give it a push.
Nov. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve,

I completely agree with you on #1. Notice the plot of rating vs. masterpoint. There were almost no players landed in the region of low rating but high MP. I speculate those high MP players mainly played in club where they still could get masterpoints, and stopped playing in tournament. Using rating to organize tournament could enable them to come back to tournament.

Single player rating might be able to derive from individual game but we don't have a lot of games of that type. In absence of any direct measure, you have to derive from pair data. I've thought of defining single player rating by selecting his/her most active partnerships and weigh their rating by time. This might be useful in estimate two players (as pair) initial rating.

I'm not quite sure I understand your matrix. When kind of data got feed into the matrix. At first look it seems you try to use it to convert between single player rating and pair rating, but then it does not look that is what you want to do when you talked about 173000x173000 matrix.
Nov. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe this is in response to a District 6 request from the following thread.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/is-this-a-way-to-run-an-organization/
Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The current board members are listed below. Eight of them term ended in 2020. I suppose no new DD will be elected after that.
https://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/board-of-directors/
Nov. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan,

I also use 3 to show the other major, not necessarily . It asks opener to respond if he/she has 3 cards in the other major. Do you think if this is comparable?
Nov. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have the counts for board 8 below. I think this one is clearly favoring EW if you compare with score sheet.

ns_score ew_score counts
NP NP 4
1100 -1100 2
800 -800 4
500 -500 10
430 -430 16
420 -420 22
400 -400 39
300 -300 8
250 -250 2
200 -200 15
180 -180 3
170 -170 25
150 -150 20
140 -140 179
110 -110 122
100 -100 25
50 -50 15
PASS PASS 3
-50 50 408
-90 90 4
-100 100 356
-110 110 2
-150 150 87
-200 200 13
-250 250 6
-470 470 1
Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Howard, here is the board 1 results I pulled from ACBL database. There are 4 no plays.The other scores go from -500 to 530 for NS. I don't have a score sheet and could not compare them.

ns_scr ew_scr counts
NP NP 4
-500 500 8
-490 490 1
-470 470 1
-420 420 2
-400 400 2
-300 300 18
-200 200 2
-180 180 1
-170 170 8
-150 150 22
-140 140 101
-120 120 6
-110 110 8
-100 100 101
-90 90 1
-50 50 217
50 -50 131
90 -90 6
100 -100 70
110 -110 355
120 -120 4
140 -140 245
150 -150 10
170 -170 20
200 -200 11
250 -250 3
280 -280 1
300 -300 22
380 -380 1
420 -420 2
430 -430 1
470 -470 2
500 -500 3
530 -530 2
Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 has a better chance.
Nov. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suggested you to use Power Rating to search for new partner next time and let us know what your experience is.

I have tried it once during NABC. I found a player with 55% power rating thinking he should be reasonably good. When I discussed with him what conventions to use, I found he only knew about the basic ones like Stayman, Transfer and Blackwood. He did not even know Exclusive RKB. It happened that on one board we really need it and I made a wrong guess on what Ace he had.

My experience may not be common but I would like to hear others.

No matter what, I think you agree a rating system is better than current masterpoint.
Oct. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chess players seems to be comfortable with the same complex formulae. I think the issue is about rating itself. Players only want to see something working. No many of them know the details.

Bridge rating needs to have some time to be accepted. The experience of EBU NGS could give us a clue what might happen.
Oct. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John, Clubs running Commongame have their player ratings in Commongame data base. It has beening running for over four years.

When I first developed my system Chris Champion and I had tried to compare results from same set of game files. Our results had some differences. We know they would be different because he only uses the game score and I use board results. I'm not very familiar with his methodology to know if he derives individual rating from pair ratings or vice versa.

If you are intersted in your rating, PM me and I'll send you some files.
Oct. 27, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top