Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've only skimmed the thread, so I apologize if someone else has raised this point:

How was the survery conducted? In particular, did the organization use an internet only survey to ask about internet usage?
May 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is moot.

Let's back away from the question of regulations and consider instead the fundamental Laws of the game. In theory, those are supposed to be universal and inviolate. (I am well aware that North American doesn't work and play well with others, but that only involves a couple minor discrepancies).

More specifically, let's consider the question of the right to psyche which is enshrined in said laws. Even so, multiple national organizations ban players from make psyches at all levels of play.

Universal laws or regulations are meaningless unless one has the ability to enforce compliance.

We obviously can't enforce compliance for the laws. Why would we expect to be able to do the same for regulations? Moreover, given that the regulations actually impact players directly and will force them to change their hidebound ways, people are going to be much MORE resistant.


April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not just run your trials online using BBO?

You'd need to have good proctors available to make sure that not one was cheating, but this has to be better than cancelling the event.



April 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's hard to imagine a more important issue.

Please note: The dynamics of a sudden unexpected decrease in membership can be really ugly. Consider the following:

1. The ACBL books its Nationals several years in advance
2. As I understand matters the ACBL promises the host hotels a certain amount of business and is liable if people fail to show up.

The membership loss is going to be a double whammy. Not only are you going to have a sharp decrease in revenue, some of your expenses are going to starting increasing…


April 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm now going to bring up what might be the elephant in the room…

Is it more cost effective for the ACBL to be hiring permanent programs or re-contracting with Hammond to complete ACBLScore+? (I honestly don't know the answer, but I think that it needs to be asked)

Don't get me wrong: I think that the ACBL desperately needs to have better technical staff available. However, I don't know the right way to bootstrap this process. I wonder whether it might not be better to get a storng CTO in place before adding permanent employees.

April 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done. Sounds like a good path forward.
April 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because failures in the system provide as much information as anything else.

Personally, I find it interesting that the ACBL is (allegedly) doing a major mind course correction before the members of the Technical Committee have made an official recommendation.

(Meant to say mid course correction)
April 23, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment April 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recommend reading the following comment from Don Mamula which offers some perspective on why the BoD voted down the motion in question.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/april-3-technology-meeting-minutes-are-out/?cj=180732#c180732
April 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My comments about “rich old white folks” was not meant in jest.

With respect to the DDOS comment, I wasn't suggesting launching an attack against the local PCs, but rather against the ACBL database back at Horn Lake. I'm not in any way experienced with ACBLScore, but I have to believe that there is someway that the local copies of ACBLScore are able to synch with the ACBL database. In turn, this means that other things can do the same…
April 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg, I am probably one of the most vocal public critics of Hartman and even I am not saying that he should be fired. With this said and done, I do have grave reservations regarding actions that he has taken and do believe that an open investigation is necessary.

Please note: I don't believe that this investigation should focus on the original decision to abandon the ACBLScore+ project. Even if this turns out to have been a “bad” decision, I recognize that mistakes happen.

What does concern me is the potential that Hartman is trying to cover up the background behind this decision and prevent open discourse around this topic. People make mistakes. Organizations can and should be able to cope with this. However, organizations can't function when the free flow of information is being curtailed.

It is for this reason that I believe that the next step needs to be a narrow investigation focusing on a few simple factual questions, the first of which should be whether there is indeed a gag order in effect that blocks members of the Board from discussing the copy right question with the ACBL's legal team and between themselves. If this is indeed true, that the organization responsible for oversight is blocked from discovering and exchanging information, then we have a very severe problem.





April 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> A cost benefit analysis would look something like this.
> Projected Cost of new ACBLScore = $2.5 M (I suspect closer
> to $3M when all done). Direct cash benefits to ACBL = $0.
> In the hey day of computers, investments had to pay off in
> 2 to 4 years or they weren't even considered.

This is why a real cost benefit analysis needs to consider issues other than direct cash benefits.

I've been hesitant to discuss issues surrounding security, however, now seems like as good a time as ever to introduce some of these considerations.

I question whether the ACBL wants to be in a position where

1. It is storing personally identifiable information (PII) in a mission critical obsolete database that the organization neither understands, nor has the ability to modify in a timely manner. I know that the ACBL is forcing clubs to be much more conscious with their membership lists and one hope that the organization is conscious of how tempting a target ACBLScore would be to an identity theft ring. (What, there is a data base of rich old white folks with laughable security?)

2. I wonder what would happen if someone decided to launch a DDOS against ACBLScore during the nationals or some such. (Anyone out there willing to speculate what the impact of losing the access to the database for a couple weeks might be?)

Having old, mission critical code that you can't modify isn't a good thing. Its true that this types of considerations don't show up in a typical cash flow analysis. It is something that smart companies pay attention to. (I know that the one I work for does)



April 11, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment April 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I have already contacted Suzi Subeck asking that a secondary investigation be launched to determine whether Hartman should be dismissed. I encourage others to do the same.
April 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dealer has a "predeal option which can be used to assign cards
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record, a good comp sci grad out of MIT, Stanford, or CMU can expect to be making $150K in salary, plus stock. A “superstar” out of one of these places can get offers three times that. (I am defining “good” as capable of being hired at Google or the like)

These are graduates, fresh out of college.

The fully loaded cost (benefits, operating costs, etc) is a lot a higher.
April 6, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment April 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll do so in the future. Tahnsk for the suggestion.
April 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I can do this because I am one person. I don't need to
> write specs, use version control, or come out with GANT
> charts.

I seem to recall that one of the explicit goals for ACBLScore+ was creating a system that could be worked on and maintained by a group of programmers because a single point of failure was deemed to be unacceptable.
April 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am attaching a longish dealer script that I use to generate hands when practicing MOSCITO.

Right now, it will output 1st/second seat 2D opening bids. You may find some useful ideas to codify different typses of openings.

######### Definition - Opening Points

# 11 is the index for c13
# This function allows the user to define valuations for cacluating
# HCP
# Most hand evaluation is performed used a modified version of
# the 4 Aces Point Count.(Ace = 3, King = 2, …)
# All values are multiplied by 100 to avoid fractions

altcount 11 300 200 100 50 20

######### Definition - Opening Points

# 11 is the index for c13
# This function allows the user to define valuations for cacluating
# HCP
# Most hand evaluation is performed used a modified version of
# the 4 Aces Point Count.(Ace = 3, King = 2, …)
# All values are multiplied by 100 to avoid fractions

altcount 11 300 200 100 50 20

############## STRONG OPENINGS

one_club =

(
hcp(north)>=17
or
c13(north) >=1000
or
(hcp(north)>=15 and cccc(north)>=1600 and c13(north)>=900)
or
(hcp(north)==14 and cccc(north)>=1900 and c13(north)>=900)
or
(hcp(north)==13 and cccc(north)>=2000 and c13(north)>=900)
or

(
hcp(north)>=15 and
shape(north, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332 + any
5422)
and
c13(north) >= 900
)

)

#####
#Opening strength defines the minimum strength for a limited #opening bid
#####

opening_strength =
(
(
cccc(north) - 25 * shape(north, any 4441 + any 5440) >= 1050

or hcp(north) >= 11
)

and
c13(north) >= 600
)

and not

one_club

#MOSCITO Opening structure

#################### SINGLE SUITED PREEMPTS

#################### MAJORS

four_diamonds =

(
(
spades(north) >= 8 and
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 2
)

or

(
spades(north) == 7 and
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north,QS) == 3
)
)

and

hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) +
hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) +
hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) <=1

four_spades =

hcp(north) <= 9

and

(
(
spades(north) >= 7 and

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) +
hascard(north,QS) + hascard(north, JS) >= 3
)

or

spades(north) >= 8
)

and not four_diamonds

three_spades =

spades(north) >= 6

and

(
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) +
hascard(north, QS) + hascard(north, JS) >= 2
)

and

(
hearts(north) <=1 or
diamonds(north) <=1 or
clubs(north) <= 1
)

and

hcp(north) <= 9

and not four_diamonds

and not four_spades

four_clubs =

(
(
hearts(north) >= 8 and
hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) == 2
)
or

(
hearts(north) == 7 and
hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) + hascard(north,QH) == 3
)
)

and

hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) +
hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) +
hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) <=1

four_hearts =

hcp(north) <= 9

and

(
(
hearts(north) >= 7 and

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north,QH) + hascard(north, JH) >= 3
)

or

spades(north) >= 8
)

and not four_clubs

three_hearts =

hearts(north) >= 6

and

(
hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, JH) >= 2
)

and

(
spades(north) <=1 or
diamonds(north) <=1 or
clubs(north) <= 1
)

and

hcp(north) <= 9

and not four_clubs

and not four_hearts

############## MINORS

three_nt =

hcp(north) <= 9

and

(
(
clubs(north) >= 8
and
hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) +
hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) +
hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) <= 1
)

or

(
diamonds(north) >= 8
and
hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) +
hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) +
hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) <= 1
)
)

three_clubs =

clubs(north) >= 6

and

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) + hascard(north, QC) == 2 and

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) +
hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

hcp(north) <=9

and not three_nt

three_diamonds =

diamonds(north) >= 6

and

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) + hascard(north, QD) == 2 and

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) +
hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

hcp(north) <=9

and not three_nt

two_nt =

(clubs(north) >=6 and

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) + hascard(north, QC) +
hascard(north, JC) == 2

and

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) +
hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0

and

hascard(north, QD) + hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, QS) <= 1

and

not three_clubs)

or

(diamonds(north) >=6 and

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) + hascard(north, QD) +
hascard(north, JD) == 2

and

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) +
hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

hascard(north, QC) + hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, QS) <= 1 and

not three_diamonds)

and not three_nt

preempts =
four_spades or
four_clubs or
three_spades or
four_hearts or
four_clubs or
three_hearts or
three_diamonds or
three_clubs or
three_nt or
two_nt

###############################
## Weak Opening Bids
###############################

two_diamonds =

not opening_strength and
hcp(north) <= 12 and
c13(north) >= 325 and

shape(north, any 4432, any 54xx, any 55xx, any 65xx) and
clubs(north) <= 3 and
diamonds(north) >=4

two_hearts =

not opening_strength and
hcp(north) <= 12 and
c13(north) >= 325 and

shape(north, any 4432, any 54xx, any 55xx, any 65xx) and
hearts(north) >= 4 and

(
spade(north) >= 4 or
clubs(north) >= 5
)

two_spades =

not opening_strength and
hcp(north) <= 12 and
c13(north) >= 325

and

(
(
shape(north, any 6322, any 6331, any 7222) and
spades(north) >=6
)

or

(
spades(north) >=4 and clubs(north) >=5
and hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north, QS) >= 1
)
)

############## LIMITED OPENINGS

##### Pre-Definitions

bad_spades = hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north,
QS) == 0
bad_hearts = hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) + hascard(north,
QH) == 0
balanced = shape(north, any 4432, any 5332, any 4333)

########

two_clubs =
opening_strength
and not preempts

and

(

(
clubs(north) >= 6 and
spades(north) < 4 and
hearts(north) < 3
)

or

(
clubs(north) >= 6 and
spades(north) == 4 and
bad_spades
)

or

(
clubs(north) >= 6 and
hearts(north) == 4 and
bad_hearts
)

)

one_notrump =

opening_strength and

(

(
balanced and not
shape(north, 5xxx, x5xx, 44xx, 4x4x, 4xx4, x44x, x4x4)
)

or

(
hearts(north) == 4 and
balanced and
(hcp(north) == 11 or hcp(north) == 12)
)

or

(
spades(north) == 4 and
balanced and
hearts(north) <= 3 and
(hcp(north) == 13 or hcp(north) == 14)
)

)

one_spade =
opening_strength
and not preempts
and not one_notrump

and

diamonds(north) >= 4 and
not one_notrump and
hearts(north) <4 and
spades(north) <4

or

(

diamonds(north) >=6 and

(
(spades(north) == 4 and bad_spades) or
(hearts(north) == 4 and bad_hearts)
)

)

one_heart =

opening_strength and
not two_clubs and
not one_notrump and
not one_spade and

(

(
spades(north) == 4 and
spades(north) > hearts(north)
)

or

(
spades(north) >= 5 and
spades(north) >= hearts(north)
)

)

one_diamond =

opening_strength and
not two_clubs and
not one_notrump and
not one_spade and
not one_heart

and

hearts(north) >= 4

and not

(balanced and hcp(north) <= 11)

###########

two_diamonds
April 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that it is absolutely necessary for the Tech Committee to be looking into the state of ACBLScore+

If Nic's claims are true, Hartman's head needs to roll. The best way to determine this is to have folks work with the code.

I've seen a lot of talk about moving forward and avoiding blame. I'm not very comfortable with that, especially if the League is spending yet more money trying to cover up the initial cock up.
April 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin, I suspect that Nic is following the advice of his attorney regarding what is allowed to disclose. I understand that you would like to see more information. (I would as well). However, I don't think that we are going to see anything until someone on the Board makes a request to Nic to provide this data.

If you want more info, the right way to approach this is to contact your local member of the Board and ask them to make a request of Mr Hammond.

I am in the process of doing so. (Already exchanged some emails and will be having a phone call next week

I recommend that you do the same.
April 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One point that concerns me enormously is the allegation that senior management invested significant amounts of resources trying to conceal an earlier mistake.

I understand that people don't want to play the blame game, however, this is looking more and more like ongoing malfeasance.

April 1, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top