Join Bridge Winners
BOD Journal Motions for Atlanta
(Page of 8)


There is a LOT to digest in the way of Atlanta motions

I find it mildly concerning that there are less than 3 weeks for ACBL members who care about BOD decisions to pour(sic!) over the many motions and provide input to their district directors


Of interest to me:

182-21 NAP and GNT district stage MP award bump


Anything that gets more teams playing is good as far as I am concerned.

Maybe the award structure should be based on the number of teams entered in a district's flight.  As much as I hate the BSAF for KOs I can  understand the frustration from large districts that it ought to be worth more when you win a district stage competing against 15 other teams vs. a district with only 8 teams.

The current reduction in awards means that a small district who cannot field 5 teams cannot even pay a 2nd overall place.  Many districts haven't been able to get 5 teams to compete in the Open Flight (including D9 with membership near 20,000).  Given the willingess of the ACBL to preserve 2 day KOs by entertaining the  small bracket KO experiment, I think the award structure for district stage KOs should also relax the stricture for small brackets in the Open and A.

182-23 Regionally rated A/X Pairs at NABCs

Directors are strongly encouraged to use a movement that will ensure that all pairs in regionallyrated flight A (A/X) championship events play the most boards as possible in common.


This motion, forwarded form the BOG, is close to my heart. I don't travel hundreds of miles to a NABC to play in a 3 section A/X piars with 36 boards in play.

The fairest matchpoint contests maximize the number of pairs you play against and minimize the numer of boards in play.


I could be wrong...but my experience attending BOG meetings and watching the BOD response to their input, is not particularly encouraging.

Let your DD know that this motion is empowering to the players and more important  than convenience to the directors.

Yes, running web movements can have complications.  You cannot add a 1/2 table for a late entry without director expertise.  Running crossovers for the second session might have issues.  You have to pay attention to board placement if one of the subsections is playing boards in descending order.  It may take a little extra time to get the game underway.

But A/X players deserve better contest conditions than a random side game.

Item 182-26BR: Spring 0 -10,000 KO

the Conditions of Contest for the Spring 0-10,000 KO be changed to half-day 28 board matches in -place of the current full-day 56 board matches.


The Spring NABC KO has had 24, 24, 16, & 18 teams in the four years that I could find an event.

I don't think the event should be a glorified (in some fashion) 4-session, 2-day KO which is what a 16 team field yields.

More teams would enter if day one was a Swiss qualifying 8 teams for an all day KO.  The current structure is a disincentive for less experienced teams who decide not to compete against teams who average more than 8,000MPs in their first match.  In a Swiss you might reach the KO quarterfinals by playing reasonably well in the day 1 Swiss.  This kind of format is being used in small bracket KO experiments and in the forthcoming Soloway event.

Only the finalists would miss the NABC+ Pairs on Thursday.

Reducing the number of boards cheapens the event.

THIS ONE SHOULD BE TABLED AND RECAST or just defeated.  Without knowing the motivation behind the motion it is hard to understand its existence. 

Item 182-27BR: Expand Zero Tolerance PolicySerious stiffening and broadening of ZT


Seems draconian to me, but if bad behavior is that much of a continuing issue....

Forcing this policy down to units running sectionals could be problematic.

Everyone ought to weigh in on this, no?  Can't a local unit sponsor of a regional or sectional have the authority to administer ZT for themselves?

Item 182-33BR: GNT Special Conditions of Contest

Allowing for districts to send a second team in Flight B and Flight C?  Am all for it.  I believe that less experienced players who win a trip to a NABC can become more regular NABC attendees, particularly Flight C players who may not have ever been to one.

Our district provides more than $13,000 to supplement district champions in the NAP and GNT.  Adding an additional team or two means an additional obligation.  

I fail to understand why the ACBL, with over $200,000 of NAP club qualifying fees in excess of the awards they offer, cannot bump these awards to NAP district champions.  This would free up resources for districts who now supplement NAP awards themselves.

Item 182-28BR: BSAF KO Bracket Changes

Item 182-29BR: Extend KO Experiments

I love the ACBL's willingness to work with districts who want to preserve and keep regional KO structures viable. 

I'm not sure that small brackets with fewer than 8 teams should pay 4 overall places... for sure not brackets of 5 or 6.

Item 182-31BR: Daylong Robot Tournaments

not my thing but robot players ought to weigh in, no?

Item 182-36BR: Simplify Handicap Game

I noticed a scheme for handicaps in a letter to the editor in the July Bulletin.  How many club players choose not to play because they don't get a handicap?


Item 182-39BR: Masterpoint for Regular Club Games

Lots of tweaks here.  The one that most interests me:

Changes to Special Games at Clubs from a % of Sectional rating to a 150% or 200% of standard.  I have no idea how this change will affect MP awards.

It is certainly more understandable than the current award structure:  .636 and .818 of Sectional rating.


Item 182-45: ACBL Temporary Membership from the BOG

another item generated by the BOG.

I wonder how an item from the BOG gets shepherded to the BOD in any kind of successful way.


Item 182-77NA: Baze Senior KO

Why the motion to eliminate the Baze Senior KO?  Small entry field?  Redundant? Being moved to a different slot?  Too easy to confer GLM status?

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top