Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Donald Mamula, could you confirm what Nic said is true. ACBL first hired a non bridge player Steve Bailey to do a POC for upgrade ACBLscore. Then hired Nic as program manager. Eventually award the project to Nic's own company? In all this time, Jim Luposhinsky is on side line?

I'm not aware Jay was also a candidate for CEO in 2011. It looks like ACBL made a lot of mistakes at that time.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could go to ACBLlive and type in anyone's name and find their game results. In commongame at least you need to know someone's player number that is not always available. So this is not anything worse than ACBLlive.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to provide some additional information. Hopefully it could help to turn this thread from accusation to discussion.

I'm also one of the vendors ACBL asked to do a demo on San Diego (see San Diego NABC thread). Besides Nic and me, a third vendor Greg Coles also made demo.

Early this year I got an e-mail from ACBL about the certification program saying any vendor needs to have their program successfully run in three tournaments, San Diego does not count. I started to contact some directors to run my program in regional and sectionals. After I informed ACBL my plan, I was told it needs to be regional or national, sectional does not count. Up to about one month ago I was still told ACBL will arrange us to run test in Philly NABC.

Two weeks ago I received an e-mail from Gary Blevins that ACBL has decided not to run tests in Philly (same message as Nic got). His message also said ACBL has hired Greg Coles to join its IT team to lead the Vendor Certification program. I immediately replied with my displeasure because I'm made all my travel arrangement to Philly. I contacted Jay Whipple to ask what changed. Jay was not aware this at all and asked me to call Gary directly. I called Gary later and was told the plan will change after Greg is on board. The goal is to test and certify programs in regionals and use them in Atlanta NABC. So it sounds like everything (what to do next) is in Greg's hand now.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Don, you were on BOD at that time. What happened to Steve Bailey, who did initial study? His name seems disappeared. Was Jim Luposhinsky ever involved in this project. It is hard to believe with such talent in ACBL, this project failed so miserably.
March 8, 2018
Ping Hu edited this comment March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just follow the money trail.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray and John, I read that investigation by Adam. It raised more questions. Adam said in his report, “The ACBL was unwilling to share a copy of Bailey’s report with me, so my assessment of the committee’s recommendations is based on the recollections of the committee members who spoke with me.” I could find an early report mentioned this committee at
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/1101-exhibits/2011_1_Louisville_Steering.pdf
It has some estimate for cost and optimistically expect it to be fully working by April 2012.

Adam's report also did not explain how Nic's role changed from an ACBL employee (Project Manager for ACBLscore) to a for-profit company owner that got the same project he supposed to manage.

What was also interesting is the Seattle report recognized the importance of technology and recommended hiring of a CTO “with a deep understanding of all theory (technology), application (technical matters), and bridge.” What happened with this recommendation? It is too bad we could not find a person like Jay at that time.
March 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like a lot of people (including me) are not happy about this 2 mil waste. I tried to search over ACBL website to see how we got there. It seemed to start in 2011. The following report indicated Nic was hired as Manager to oversee the project. However any details after that is hard to find.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/1103-exhibits/2011_3_Seattle_Technology_Report.pdf
March 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could only hope there is a clone of Jay. One serves as President. The other gives us all the technology innovations.
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opener is minimum and you don't have a fit, why do you want to go over 1NT? I would think this is “the most glaring problem” in the old system.
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are based on the current rules of ACBL masterpoint calculation. The 40% is usually applied to pair game section awards. The overall awards have different limit at 25%.

The current rules have resulted in disparity by different type of games. For same number of players, team game would pay more masterpoints than pair game. Individual is the worst. Since REACH masterpoint was calculated by individual, it turns out to be a tough game than most anticipated.

Russ Jones had a poll about masterpoint recently and there were some discussions.
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/winning-pair-event-versus-team-event/
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for your compliment. My work with Bridgemate would not be possible without your encouragement.

You answered one of my questions about online rules. My other question is about disclosing partnership agreement. Specifically, alerting requirement for online play. The alert requirement for face to face is well known. For playing with screens it is also well understood for players at that level. Online play is different, BBO requires players to alert their own bids. This has some advantages over screen play since both opponent could get same explanation. On the other hand, online game (especially speedball) is very fast. It is often not possible to ask opponent for full explanation. Most players don't alert very common bids like transfer after NT open. So my question is if there should be a set of special rules for alerting in online game.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jay,

You have been a proponent for online bridge. Online play is different from face to face game. It won't have problems like bid out of turn and revoke. On the other hand, it has some of its own problems like how to disclose partnership agreement and information security. Current bridge laws do not have anything specific for online game. Do you think ACBL should have some special rules for online play?
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that is evaluated at 7 tricks in my model as well. I only count 4 card suit as 1/3 trick. AK is 6.75, converted to 2.25 tricks.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See my comments below.

I would announce my 1NT open as a balanced hand with 5-6 playing tricks.
Feb. 26, 2018
Ping Hu edited this comment Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a problem in ACBL's rule that should be changed.

The last time they changed the rule on 1NT open is to allow hands with singleton honor to be able to open NT. By definition a hand with singleton is an unbalanced hand. If an unbalanced hand could open NT, why shouldn't the HCP count off by one be allowed to open? Which one is more important? I happen to think shape is more important than HCP range.
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also like trick counting, but I convert them to points at
1 trick = 3 points.

Each honor has ability to win a trick by itself or combined with partner to win tricks. For single honor holding
Ax = 3.7
Kx = 2.7
Qxx = 1.65

However when you have combined holding of multiple honors their values changes:
AKx = 6.75

So in above example, hand one has 13.5 points. Hand 2 only has 12.1 points (Qx might need devalue more).

In addition to honors, long suit could also win tricks. A 5 card suit is valued at 3.95 points. So above hand total points are valued at 17.45 (hand 1) and 16.05.

In order to make 3NT, you need 27 points, 4H/S needs 30.
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I could agree SA evolved into 2/1. In analogy to chess opening, SA could be considered as Classical Variation, 2/1 is Modern Variation. As more and more players play it, Modern Variation has become main line.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be the time for bridge world to define what is system. In chess there are openings and variations. What are the equivalent in Bridge? I would think Standard American, Strong Club, Polish Club are definitely a system because each one has its own set of opening bids and response. We might be able to go down one level to distinguish Blue Club, Precision, K-S etc.

Is 2/1 a system or just a “variation” of Standard American? This is not entirely clear.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SAYC is also 5 card major and strong NT. It could be played with additional gadgets and agreements. It could be called a system. In this context, I would consider 2/1 as a patch to SAYC, not a new system by itself.
Feb. 20, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top