Grow the membership? How about nurturing the members we already have who are at the bottom of the MP totem pole. Find out how we can help them better appreciate the game, attend local, regional, and national tournaments. Let's recast the special events, particularly the GNTs so that newer players learn to play imps and enjoy the difference between imps and matchpoints. Reward districts who hold club qualifying events for Flight C players.
Our special events could be driving participation to a much greater extent than they are doing. Live tournament bridge will sputter if we don't engage new club players to enjoy play in a larger venue. It's time for a new grass roots approach: North American Swiss Pairs. Qualify during the Grass Roots Fund month in May and earn the right to play at the fall NABC. The grass roots events, NAP and GNT, should be designed to excite newer players, not just reward those who are already coming to the NABCs
Start the 6K Spingold on Day 2 of the regular Spingold. Structure the NABC+ events in a way that encourages folks to play up.
Lobby your ACBL Board rep to move the 10K event at the start of the Spring NABC to Sat-Sun rather than starting on Day1 of both the Platinum and the IMP Pairs. Bueller? Bueller? Hello? Strive to schedule the start 10K events on day 2 of 3 day NABC+ events whenever possible.
Scheduling a 10K event final that falls on day 1 of a new NABC+ event is WRONG
The ACBL doesn't need a one size fits all policy for team entry fees. If you want 100% of the masterpoints then you pay your 100%. A 6 person team willing to receive proportional overall awards, as we do in Swiss team events, can pay the 4 person team entry fee. We already track the sitouts. This is not rocket science
Read more »In our forcing club system a 2♣ opening can have just 5 clubs if you also hold a 4 card major.
Our opening NT range is 14-16 and 1♦ could be as short as 2pc in a balanced 11-13.
Given that constraint I am interested in the thought process of precision players re. opening this collection:
♠ --
♥ T876
♦ AJ64
♣ AK952
Our unimpeded auction
1♦* 1♥
3♠ 4N
5N 6♣
6♥
3♠ splinter
5N 2KC and ♠void
6♣ was undiscussed but I assumed it to be a trump Q ask.
Our sequence 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ promises a 4 card major. A 2♠ relay will reveal opener's: weakH,weakS,goodH,goodS where weak is lower range opening bid and good is higher range opening.
I can look at the hand and sense that it doesn't feel like a 2♣ opener, but I don't have a body of experience with this shape and our system to have a firm understanding of why. I do think that I would have opened 2♣ if my red suit values were reversed.
I considered that partner's most likely response to 1♦ would be 1♠ and thought that starting lower might offer more room for a constructive auction. I WAS concerned how the auction might proceed if partner bid a constructive NF 2♠ over my 2♣ opener.
http://thecommongame.com/PDF/180911HandRecord.pdf Bd.4
I can't keep you forcing club players who require the 2♣ opener to have six pcs. from injecting your wisdom, but I'm looking for the reasoning in your choice of an opener given OUR constraints.
Thanks
