Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve

1. Is the $700K of royalty income from Pianola or for any / all licensing of its membership data?

2. The fact that the ACBL has chosen to share its information with a third party does not decrease PII liability risk.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why a Bridge Winner's standard would be any more useful than the “Bridge World” standard that has been around forever and a day.

(Please note: A Bridge Winner's standard might help with communications on this web site, but the issue that I am concerned with is solving the disclosure issue in actual events and that requires action by a regulatory authority to create their own code, to promote it to the populace, and enforce its use)
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes (I've been vacationing in Spain for the past couple weeks)

With this said and done, regardless of how good a chart that you (or anyone) might produce, the real issue is having orgs like the ACBL standardize some kind of definition.
Jan. 13
Richard Willey edited this comment Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes

That the ACBL is grossly incompetent of running its own software development projects and pissed away millions of dollars trying to do what should have been relatively simple stuff.

I'm guessing that an internal ACBL attempt to mirror Pianola's capabilities would have most likely awakened Skynet.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I have been informed that starting Monday,
> tournament info e-mails will cost 1 cent for
> every e-mail up to 5000. The cost will be
> 0.9 cents for more than 5000. What is next?

.8 cents for more than 10,000?
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't help but notice that there are a number of different threads underway that seem to share the same root cause: There appear to be a number of fairly common expressions that individuals use when trying to describe their agreements such as “weak”, “relay”, “constructive”, “invitational”. Unfortunately, folks don't seem to be able to reach an agreement regarding what these expressions actually mean…

For example:

1. Does the word “relay” convey information about strength (I don't think that it should, but others disagree

2. How strong can a “weak” bid be?

3. What is a “mixed” raise?

From my perspective, the new ACBL convention charts represent a significant improvement over what came before. In particular, the charts do a good job defining a number of common terms that previously lack clarity such as “destructive” and “encrypted”. I can't help but believe that it would be useful to create an addition chart that attempted to address some of these issues with respect to disclosure and define some of these ambiguous expressions.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After reading a number of the threads currently floating around , I can't help but think that the ACBL should start attaching definitions to some common expressions that get used whilst disclosing methods (either via a convention call or an alert).

If you use the expression “relay”, here is what you are trying to convey
If you use the word “weak”, he is what you are trying to convey

(Yes, I understand that this event might not have taken place in ACBL land)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> couldn't they have hired someone like you

If the organization understood that this was possible / useful, then certainly.

However, I don't believe that the ACBL understands what it is missing. Half the reason that I post graphics and analysis and the like is to attempt to show BoD and BOG members what is possible.

And, before you ander off onto another conspiracy theory, NO I am not trying to drum up consulting work from the ACBL.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> After you collect data for these companies you release it to a
> person not the whole company.
> Maybe acbl has it all and uses just not shares

Randy, do you actually believe this nonsense or are you just desperately trying to be contrary?

I admit, it is entirely possible that the ACB has some hidden group of data scientists squirreled away in Horn Lake producing all sorts of world class analysis, however, I'm pretty certainly that, in actuality, the ACBL employees are pretty much clueless.

If you look at the issues surrounding the attempts to roll out the new CRM system, the decades long quest to retire the AS400, the ACBLScore debacle, the issues with the hand generators, ….

Well, lets just say that the organization doesn't look like it has the necessary competencies to produce this sort of work product.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> But, knowing this, would you expect that that would
> then affect the way resources are allocated?

Jeff, what I do for a living is analyze data for executives at large tech companies.

I know for a fact that it's not always possible to use data and visualizations to sway decision makers. At the same time, I also strongly believe that an effective presentation of data leads to better decision making than random guesses or trying to manipulate emotions.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I made this same suggestion on an earlier thread:

There have been a lot of enormous advances in data science and visualizations, many of which are designed to allow folks to easily understand social networks. The following is a representative example

http://www.designandanalytics.com/sites/default/files/Philo-final-low-res.png

In theory, the ACBL should have the information required to generate this sort of graph to show what places / events individual members play in. (Yes, I know that the data set is going to be large, but its possible to generate these graphs for gene interactions and the like)

This would provide an easy visualization to understand how many members participate in which types of sanctioned play.
Jan. 6
Richard Willey edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@kevin

The dataset that I am using was posted by Matthew Kidd in the following thread
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/club-table-counts-revisited/

You can download it from https://lajollabridge.com/analysis/Clubs/clubs-2010-2019.zip

It doesn't look quite consistent with the numbers that Jeff is cited which is why I haven't done the calculation that you asked for. Hopefully, the shape of the relevant curves is consistent across the two datasets even if there are some differences in the denominators.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The dataset that I am looking at only has about 2000 clubs in total.

The top 715 clubs comprise 80% of the total table count. Once you hit the bottom quintile, you're looking at clubs that only have 500 or so tables a year.

Its likely that these are clubs that only run a game once a week or so. 10 tables isn't a bad table count, but… (Its entirely possible that some of these clubs are sharing space)
Jan. 6
Richard Willey edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this is a contract that we negotiated a ways back then we might be fine. I seem to recall hearing statements that existing contracts had been re-negotiated after the Hawaii debacle to avoid the large penalty clause.

Can anyone confirm?
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have any information about the specific details of the contract with the Mariott. My primary concern is signing contracts with significant penalty clauses if we fail to meet committed room targets.

I hope that any contracts that we're signing today gives us a reasonable option to back out in, say, six years time. (I thought I heard rumblings about this after the latest Hawaii CF
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that the ACBL is going to go through a painful period during which expenses dramatically outstrip revenue. As I have mentioned before, I expect both membership and revenues to significantly contract over a relatively short period of time. I think that the organization will be exposed based a combination of fixed costs that are too large for the current membership base as well as long term contracts.

I think that the organization will need healthy reserves to avoid getting driven into bankruptcy.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Top 199 clubs make up 50.03% of tables
Top 306 clubs make up 60.03% of tables
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was looking at table counts a couple weeks back, I threw together the following chart

https://ibb.co/R7mh5k6

The top 128 F2F clubs account for about 40% of the tables
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> It lost 480 clubs this decade. At its current rate of
> 86 a year and factoring in acceleration, I'd say if
> not money, some helping hand looks warranted.
> Wouldn't you Richard?

That very much depends on what the money is to be used for and whether or not the plan seems credible.

As a rule, I am skeptical about plans that tax clubs with sanction fees in order to redistribute that same money to clubs in the form of recruitment bonuses. I am even more skeptical about plans that suggest drawing down the ACBL's cash reserves in order to subsidize clubs.

No one is disputing that large numbers of clubs have died this decade, nor that this number is increasing. However, I don't believe that the ACBL should be burning large amounts of money in order to delay the inevitable.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> When is your club opening? Take a real special person
> to run one and you seem real special to me.

When is your club dying?
Seems like no one will miss it…
Jan. 5
.

Bottom Home Top