Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Len Fettig
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I looked up the figures for my small unit and the numbers are quite small. We get $4.17 per ACBL member per year from the ACBL and we get $100 to $150 per year for STaC rebates from our District. We make a few dollars on our Tournament.

The money from the ACBL and STaC games is marginally enough to cover our fixed expenses.

Up-thread, someone said that Districts should limit their bank accounts to $100K and give the excess to promote bridge. My District is $60-70K short of that $100K threshold.

In addition, I don't feel that we are being short-changed or that any other entity should be giving us (Clubs and Units) a bigger allowance.

If we perceive a problem, we fix it.

Yes, I agree that the leadership structure of the ACBL is very ineffective and needs to be changed. But that is unrelated to any financial issues that Clubs might have.

I also completely disagree with the premise that Clubs lose money when their players are away at a tournament. Instead, I believe that tournament play helps to create stronger players which in turn results in stronger and larger Club memberships.

So in my view it isn't that the table count is down during tournaments, instead it means that table counts are up for the other 40+ weeks of the year.
My belief is that if you want to grow your Club, heavily promote attendance at tournaments.

While I respect other viewpoints and encourage open discussion and exploration of ideas, I also expect that respect to be a two-way street. Some of the interaction on this site has become personal and we all need to just Chill-Out a bit. We should be able to discuss topics on the basic merits.


Build for Tomorrow
June 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John B.

“…bridge would never be an Olympic sport.”

Then I need help understanding this: http://www.worldbridge.org/2016/09/25/bridge-added-to-the-asian-games/
June 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary,

Districts are on a three year rotation. One year the BoD position is up, then the two alternates and then the three BoG positions follow. Also, the Districts rotate so that only one third of the BoD positions are up for grabs in any one year.

The chart shows the current office holders, then the incumbents and finally the action taken or to be taken.

In the case of the BoG, six Districts had no one file for the positions, so the offices become vacant on Jan. 1st.
June 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg and Steve,

Finally you agree that there is a problem with the table counts from the Gold Rush pair events being added to the Open Pair table counts.

Now the next step by the BoD is to expand upon that problem so that the two events don't even have to be in the same Tournament.

Second reading occurs in Atlanta, but it permits the table counts from a NLM Regional to be added to the table counts from a Sectional's open pair event. The two tournaments are being run at the same time and in the same location.

The BoD believes that the proposed change corrects an oversight.


I say B.S. We need to go back and find a reasonable correction to the current Regional Gold Rush/Open pair MP calculation.


The Motion before the BoD expands the problem.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the BoD Motion:

Item 181-13: Masterpoint awards at Sectionals with Concurrent NLM Regionals SECOND READING REQUIRED

CHAPTER IX – REGIONAL TOURNAMENTS C. EVENTS / SCHEDULES Section 5 – Unrestricted Events at Sectionals be amended as follows:

5.3 An open sectional held concurrently at the same location with a masterpoint restricted regional, shall receive credit for simultaneous tables in the NLM Regional.

CHAPTER X – SECTIONALS C. EVENTS / SCHEDULES Section 3 – Unrestricted Events be amended as follows:

3.1 At regional and sectional tournaments, two session events which are unrestricted in any way (completely open) shall be credited with all tables in play in totally concurrent events (pairs, teams or individual to include tables in play at a concurrent Non-Life Master Regional, but not knockouts or continuous pairs) for the purpose of computing overall awards, up to a maximum total of three times the number of tables in play in the unrestricted event. In the event that a concurrent NLM Regional is held at the same site, the unrestricted event shall be credited with 65% of any pair or Swiss tables in the NLM Regional held during the same session for the purpose of calculating overall awards.

MATERPOINT AWARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS, JANUARY 2018 SETIONAL/REGIONALS TOURNAMENT EVETNS, CALCULATING THE AWARDS

Section B. Sectional Regulations – Unrestricted Events and Section B. Sectional Regulations – Unrestricted Events, Paragraph be amended as follows:
c. The chapter entitled Sectional/Regional Tournament Events, Calculating the Awards, Section B. Sectional Regulations – Unrestricted Events and Section B. Sectional Regulations –
Philadelphia PA Spring 2018 7 | Page

** These minutes are not final. They will be approved by the Board of Directors at the next scheduled meeting. **

Unrestricted Events, Paragraph 1 in the Masterpoint Book Rules and Regulations January 2018, be amended as follows:

B. SECTIONAL REGULATIONS - UNRESTRICTED EVENTS At Sectional tournaments, two-session events which are unrestricted in any way (completely open) shall be credited with all tables in play in totally concurrent events (pairs, teams or individual to include tables in play at a concurrent Non-Life Master Regional, but not knockouts or continuous pairs) for the purpose of computing overall awards, up to a maximum total of three times the number of tables in play in the unrestricted event
At Sectional tournaments, Flighted, Stratified and Stratiflighted events count all tables in all flights/strats to determine the number of tables in the unrestricted event (the A Flight or Strat). Two or more concurrent unrestricted events share equally the available restricted tables as above, but not each other’s tables. An unrestricted event with a lower limit and no upper limit is treated as an open event when there is no concurrent open event. For the purpose of awarding masterpoints, a restricted event that is two sessions morning and afternoon, is deemed to be totally concurrent with a two-session event that is afternoon and evening.

However, if a restricted event is scheduled horizontally (same session on different days), it is not deemed to be totally concurrent with a two-session vertical (same day) event. At Sectional tournaments, one session events which are unrestricted in any way and are not concurrent with either session of a two-session event shall be credited with all tables in play in concurrent events (as above) for the purpose of computing overall awards, up to a maximum total of 3 times the number of tables in play in the unrestricted event. Any two-session unrestricted event at a Sectional receives table credit from all restricted events held either totally concurrent or concurrent with the first session, as above.

1. SECTIONAL STRATIFLIGHTED EVENTS A Stratiflighted event is a combination of Flighted and Stratified, where the A Flight is a separate event. Flight A may be stratified into two strats (A & X) provided that the limit of the X strat is at least 500 points higher than the limit of B strat. Masterpoint awards for Strat A are calculated using the General Formula based on the number of tables in play in each strat plus all tables in lower strats to include tables in play at a concurrent Non-Life Master Regional. Masterpoint awards for Strat X are calculated as follows:
1. If the event meets a threshold of either: a. 20 or more actual tables entered in X b. 40% or more of the A & X field is entered in X; then the first place X award is the greater of 105% of the Flight B awards, or the awards based on X only.

2. If the event does not meet these thresholds, then X receives the greater of: a. 105% of Flight B award*((X /0.4)/(A + X))2 b. 105% of Flight B award*(X /20)2 c. Award based on X tables only.

Effective Pending Second Reading at Atlanta 2018
Carried Nay: 13, 17, 18, 23 Abstain: 10
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When Gold Rush Pair events were created, we basically split the playing field into two events.
There was a concern about the reduction in MP awards for the flight A players.
So the calculation for MP awards in the Open event includes the table counts from the Gold Rush events. This has resulted in very generous MP awards for the Open Pair events.

The result, in my area, is a sharp reduction in KO teams' when the KO team events start opposite the Open/Gold Rush pair events.

The KO teams are primarily the Pro teams and Championship-level players.


One concern is that our NLM players are not being exposed to the joy of KO team play.


What needs to be done?

The ACBL should change the MP calculation for Regional Open events (that run concurrently with Gold Rush events).


Instead, the BoD is considering (second reading in Atlanta) expanding the Open/Gold Rush MP calculation to our NLM Regional/Sectionals. These are newer tournament formats where a NLM Regional and a Sectional are run in the same space. This means that we are taking table counts from a NLM Regional and adding them to the table counts in the Sectional's Open pair event. Yep, two different tournaments and two sanctions.


I love KO team play. I'd like to see changes that will draw our 0-1000 MP players into those events.

One thing we are trying at my Unit's NLM Regional/Sectional tournament is to hold a NLM KO event. We will have a Tips and Techniques session before the event. We hope to provide the KO team experience to our players who have effectively been shut out of those events.

Feel free to contact your BoD member to express your views on any of these topic areas. I think they need our input.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Order copies of the Bridge Life magazine from the ACBL (they are free) and leave a copy in the reception area of:

your Doctor's office
your car service center
and any other place where old, stale magazines can be found.
May 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
not a good video.
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

You made a very nice and thoughtful post. I agree with your major point.

—- We need ACBL Board members with requisite skills. Our current structure is not developing people for governance roles.

I have and continue to advocate for Leadership Development as a very important, but missing, element in our organization.

When it comes to membership growth, I take the view that the ACBL is not, nor has it ever been in the business of adding members. That is a sad observation, but quite true.

The ACBL is staffed to accept and process new member applications. The ACBL does have a loss-control activity; where lapsed members are contacted to solicit renewals.

There is no element in the ACBL that deals with membership growth. We all know that it is our grass-roots volunteers that supply all of the new members.

So before the ACBL can go beyond the Membership Growth platitude, there must be an organizational component designed and built.

So it does not matter how many times our ACBL president-du-jour says Membership Growth, there still is no Home Office organizational unit to work on that activity; nor is there a strategy, plan or measurement of results.

My starting point would be to recognize that we need governance training and begin with training programs for Tournament Chairs and Club Managers.
We can lure those individuals to attend job-specific training and weave governance into the material.
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the OP. A little more variety would be nice. Good ideas.
May 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would teach them to play Spades, but call it Bridge-lite.
April 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see, we are missing the vulnerability and the opponent's NT range. So, I compete because I don't have solid suits. That means a Brozel 2C bid, showing clubs and hearts.
April 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like the results for the Fall 2018 NABC. I may be able to save some money.
April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In OP I provided the three steps to locate the document.
Here is the target document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nt9G_RbouBVtnyEOEJjKE-jGwOCcRZpq/view
March 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North or South may have four hearts. But if they are playing NMF, then they don't both have 4 hearts. Therefore, your partner has 4+ hearts.
March 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few months ago, I explored with Wendy Sullivan, ACBL's NABC Tournament Chair, the requirements needed for a NABC site.

I was trying to lure a major tournament to my neighborhood. Our plusses were: 125,000 sq ft of class A playing space, walk to several great restaurants (in addition to in-house catering), terrific airline connections, free parking and a large rental car fleet, lots of affordable hotel rooms, tons of rental townhouses and condos and many great sightseeing venues.
REJECTED. I was told an NABC would need 140,000 sq ft and shuttle busses are a no-no.

Too bad. Since the local business community, which includes HO of Walmart, Tyson Foods and JB Hunt Trucking, would have been quite generous in supporting an event like this. Shucks, they even provide generous support to our Sectional Tournament.
March 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I witness unusual plays on BBO, I do my own research, just as posters to this thread have done. My search for cheating in ACBL/BBO tournaments has not turned up any supporting evidence.

Based upon this auction, it is fair to conclude that partner holds 4+ hearts and the opening leader has few entries.

The lead of a doubleton in a unbid major vs NT is a fairly typical lead for me. Because it is Kx, somewhat less so, but still a reasonable choice.
March 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Steve. I've bookmarked that page. I don't see a route there using the site menu. Now I know where to find the secret door.
March 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do we get copies of the BoG handouts? Access to the BoD materials that were promised at the BoG meeting?
March 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sending an email to all of the BoG members would boost online attendance. It is tough to find out what is happening. It seems unfair to use lack of attendance to imply lack of interest. I'd say that lack of communications yields lack of attendance.
March 10, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top