Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would start them on EHAA. If / when they start getting frustrated, migrate them over to 2/1 GF.

When you move over to 2/1, make sure to introduce a well integrated system.
Nov. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recommend approaching the problem from a radically different direction.

For better or worse, I think that the F2F game in North America is going the way of the dodo. If I were starting a new marketing program, I’d focus on the online game. More specifically, I’d trying to consciously develop a feeder program that proceeded

Hearts → Spades → MiniBridge → Bridge

Online sites like Bridge Base Online and OKBridge have done yeoman’s work to popularize online bridge. However, I haven’t seen either sight develop conscious programs to try to “upsell” bridge to people who play other card games. Arguably, it might make sense for a site like BBO to develop a spades offering or a hearts offering. Both are examples of simple trick taking games, with significant easier learning curves than bridge. Having large, vibrant hearts and spades communities is a basic necessity if you want to see bridge survive.
Nov. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here’s my take on things: As an organization, the ACBL is incredibly ill equipped to execute on “tech” projects. The organization has never invested in developing a competency in this area and the age of the organizations membership and leadership means that the perspective necessary to deal effectively with these types of issues. I don’t find it at all surprising that third parties are developing key pieces of the online ecosystem such gaming sites (BBO and OKB) and discussion forums. Nor and I surprised to see the ACBL’s attempt to rewrite ACBLScore go down in flames (Just as “ACBL Online” did before this)

I think that the organization’s management knows that they can’t compete with third parties and are responding by trying to assert as much control as possible. This sort of thing happens all the time in business where managers who are completely out of their depth try to lock everything down in a vain attempt to maintain their position and simplify their lives.
Nov. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

In all seriousness, does anyone doubt that we've hit the point where its better to put the ACBL out of its misery and start over?


Nov. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> How can we make transfer responses to 1♣ legal under GCC ?

I'd start by asking the C&C committee. Given that this is a change to the GCC rather than (yet another) fight over the Midchart, you might even some satisfaction.

Might make sense to ask Jade Barrett or one of the other new members.


Nov. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might be incredibly cynical here, but my first thought when I saw that the ACBL intends to re-litigate the Wagnar Cup is that they are trying to distract people away from the ACBLScore+ cluster-fuck.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might be incredibly cynical here, but my first thought when I saw that the ACBL intends to re-litigate the Wagnar Cup is that they are trying to distract people away from the ACBLScore+ cluster-fuck.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gotcha

This sounds similar to some of the treatments that I use.

Assume for the moment that we're in a game forcing auction and Relay Responder made the first bid clarifying shape. For example, they bid 1, showing an unbalanced hand with 4+ Hearts. At this point in time, 1NT would be a relay ask, 2+ would reverse the relay showing a minimum hand with heart shortage.

Where I think we differ is in an auction like

1 - 1
1N - 2

Here, once again, 1 would show Hearts. 1NT is a relay ask, and 2 shows Diamonds.

From the sounds of things, you play that bids from 2 plus show Diamond shortage, but it doesn't sound like you introduce addition restrictions on hand type. In contrast, my relay break would show a two suited hand with Spades and Clubs. The failure to break relays over 1 would deny Heart shortage, therefore suggesting Club shortage unless holding a 5422.

Am I correct in assuming that you could hold any of the following

Single suited with short Diamonds
Three suited with short Diamonds
Two suited with short Diamonds

It would be nice to allow for additional hand types, however, I am a bit concerned about bidding space, especially since there is a high likelihood that we'll end up in 3N.








Oct. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear Mr Hammond:

I have a pair of simple questions.

1. Please describe the requirements document that the ACBL provided to you for this project. (Better yet, provide a copy of the requirements document)

2. Please describe the acceptance criteria that you and the ACBL agreed to. (Once again, if you can provide a copy of these, that would be great)

FWIW, if the ACBL ponied over $1.5M without any kind of real requirements document or acceptance criteria, the CEO's head should roll…

Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer to play

2 = 4+ Diamonds and either (4+ or 4+)
2 = 4+ Hearts and either (4+ or 5+)
2 = 6+ Spades or (4+ Spades and 5+)
2N = Bad three level preempt in either minor
3m = Constructive
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.




Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Geoff, thanks for the comment. Could you provide a practical example. Given that you're showing length in one suit and shortness in another, there are (4X3) = 12 potential combinations to worry about. It feels like here must be some kind of rule set to narrow the set of suits based on the previous auction.

Can you provide any more details or some examples? Thanks!
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Haven't seen this before.
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The following might seem a bit out there, so bear with me for a moment.

I want an interface by which I can specify the following:

1. A bridge hand
2. The state of the hand (a sequences of bids and plays)
3. The number of hands consistent with this state that I want to see

This hand will then get feed to BBO, where will be distributed to the users community and played repeatedly until “foo” hands have been generated. At this point in time, all of the hand records will be sent back to me.

I’m interested in this functionality for a couple reasons…

1. I’d like to be able to develop classification and cluster analysis algorithms that can identify “compatible” players. In an ideal world, I’d like to be able to build a corpus of 20/30 hands that would accurately place players into a small number of discrete clusters

2. I’d like to be able to use BBO to quickly explore logical alternatives
Oct. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does “Speed up the pairing” mean in this case? Is convergence time actually an issue?
Oct. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it be worthwhile to throw an email over to the BLML or some such to ask them about requirements? Not sure how much overlap there is between this thread and that user group.
Oct. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought Ping raised a useful issue. Before we worry about the details of the technical implementation, can anyone provide a simple summary description of the desired behavior?


Oct. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sriram's approach seems reasonable. The ACBL's requirement to generate pairings without information regarding round N-1 shouldn't impact the pairing algorithm. It just changes information available when assigning the weighting.

My concern, such that it is, is whether this allows for replays. I can conceive of situations where a replay might be desirable (or even necessary)
Sept. 30, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top