Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len, I appreciate the work you are putting into this, but right now task force recommendation are in limbo. Any and all details will be ineffective until the BoD gets enough new members or changes of heart to actually consider the task force work as viable.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Another question is how good and how long have you played with partner?”

Decades, solid A player. And the agreement is that Texas is on if it is a jump.
Likewise Exclusion is on when a jump. So I would not take this as exclusion with this partner.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East announced 4 as xfer shortly after North passed, about 10-12 seconds elapsed following the 4 bid by West.

E/W do play Texas xfers are on if they are a jump to the 4 level.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about a 2 day “Gold Medal” or “Gold Master” pairs? Gold because B is limited to 2500, so all are striving to reach a Gold LM level. Alternately, you could call it a “Ruby Master” since Ruby LMs are eligible to play in it. Unlike a Red Ribbon pairs you wouldn't need a red qualification to enter.

I'll leave it up to others to determine to MP award for 1st.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It could have been worse. The ACBL Articles of Incorporation, created in 1937, say the Board of Directors is to consist of between 15 and 250 members. My last number might be slightly off but is in the vicinity. Imagine what kind of BoD there would be if the actual number was just the average of the high and low!
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your policy is to not promote the ACBL, why would expect the ACBL to help promote your clubs?
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ACBL President Russ Jones will create a Task Force from the Board of Directors to deliver a plan for the reduction in the size of the Board of Directors. This plan must be delivered to the Board of Directors for a meeting in November 2019.” So, this Task Force will apparently report in San Francisco prior to the rehearing of this motion."

This will not happen as an official motion. It passed the BoG vote, which means it will be a motion at the next BoD meeting, in San Francisco. So there is no way an official motion can make Russ create a task force and have it report in Nov. As President he does have the power to create such a task force on his own though. Even if he does, it is doubtful they can accomplish anything significant in the ensuing months, unless they start with what has already been addressed by other task forces.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I talked to Al Levy at the end of the BoG meeting. He explained his position, saying (and I will try to paraphrase as well as I can) that the motion would create a structure of uncertain authority where a subgroup of the BoD could change votes on previous motions, ahd create changes without ever having a majority vote by the full BoD.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that the membership meeting had only a handful of members show up who were neither BoD or BoG or ACBL officials, it seems silly to have presentation for the members meeting and then summarize them for the BoG meeting that followed.

Perhaps we should start with the BoG meeting at 10am, then break around 11:30am to convene the membership meeting with a quorum check. After failing a quorum check, we could have 1/2 hr of comments without repeating the BoG presentations.

If by some improbable chance there is a ever quorum, if the meeting goes beyond noon, it can be reconvened between the afternoon and evening sessions, or Monday morning.
July 28
Stu Goodgold edited this comment July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The new format will make it extremely unlikely that a quorum is achieved. It takes 250 members present (plus some other, minor requirements).

When it was held during the BoG meeting, there were about 125 members of the BoD and BoG already attending. There was just a head count to determine a quorum, so no one needed to register ahead of time. Even so, I cannot recall a membership meeting every having a quorum. Perhpas the voter suppression will be even more pronounced, but it was already self-limiting.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL bylaws state that the membership meeting must be announced in the ACBL Bulletin 30 days in advance, but not more than 60 days in advance. At least the BoG meeting is still at 10am.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL did have a working arranging with AARP a few years ago, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Not sure why.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So far, no candidate has said whether he/she would be in favor of the proposed bylaws change to reduce the BoD to 9 members chosen for their business acumen, and have the BoG restructured to 50 members comprising a ‘Senate’ which would construct committees to address all matters related to bridge.
This would be the most immediate and pressing issue facing anyone elected to the Board of Directors.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am quite confident that many if not most of the BoD read Bridge Winners, even if they seldom post on BW.
They do not have access to this BoG forum however. I am not sure if that is good or bad.
It would be much better if this forum had more participation. THere are BoG members that dislike having the forum on BW, but I can't believe that is the majority opinion.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I find hands with 14 cards to be quite flexible. You can lose a trick and still make a grand slam.”

Or you could have been defending 7X and not set it holding the A, even though no one revoked. See the Tale of the Queen of Hearts in Right Through the Pack by Darvas.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, this is a really nice article and major discussion item.
I too have the feeling that the current BoD is not in favor of the 9 member BoD and 50 member Senate proposal. At least I know our DD voiced that opinion.

You did talk about growth. While that is generally a desirable goal, the demographics point to an aging membership, to the point where the membership will envitably decline if we do not a drastic turnaround. Such a turnaround is very uhlikely given that efforts to improve membership have uniformly been ineffective.

Perhaps that is because most young people would rather not hang around with very old people. Even if we attract retirees, attendance at tournaments will decline rapidly in the next 5-10 years. 85 yr old might still be able to play bridge and still belong to the ACBL, but they definitely do not travel much.

No one has yet accepted another option, however unpopular: let the membership dwindle to the point where the younger or middle-aged players are once again a dominant force. Then perhaps they will be able to attract their peers into the game without the stigma of it being an octogenarian's game.

Perhaps we should be looking to other countries such as the Netherlands and China to see why they have a younger demographic that we do.

Having said that, do we want the ACBL to have a young peron's tilt? THe US Chess Federation does, but it's membership is so young, they drop out quick once they go to college or work.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to have merit, especially for units with more than one club facility of decent size.

Our unit also has a problem in finding a facility for our sectional at a reasonable price. We were kicked out of the community college we used for quite a few years after the college administration decided that the campus facilities were to be used for student activities only. That was 1 1/2 years ago and we have been struggling to find a substitute.

We have only 1 club facility in our unit; it holds 22 tables. We did get 60+ tables in use in our most recent sectional.

There are high schools and Jr. high schools that are sometimes available, but many if not most are rented on Sundays to church groups. Same applies to churches with meeting halls - they are in use on Sundays.

One useful amendment to your proposal would be to delete the requirement in the Codification 10.1.3 that requires sectionals to be 2 to 5 days in duration (with the exception of Limited or Junior sectionals). That way units could run a sectional on two consecutive Saturdays, for example. Or they could run a Flt A on 1 Sat. and a B/C/D on the next Sat.

Make Open sectionals and Limited/Junior sectionals have the same criteria of 1 to 5 days in duration, without changing the “no limit to the number of sectionals per year” (at least for Open). This would allow more flexibility in scheduling facilities that are available only on 1 day of a weekend.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 2nd diagram on page 2 has the clubs wrong between East and West. Made it difficult to follow until I saw the 3rd diagram.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik, even if you are not required to explain your agreements over a natural 1, is there any reason that you should not do so here?
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few years ago I had a similar post on BW. The opps, whom we had never seen before, opened 1, which they promptly alerted. Partner did not ask and bid 2. They asked the meaning of 2 and I had to asked what 1 was. It was strong, artificial and forcing.

The concensus of the BW posters back then was that I should explain my partner's bid based on what it meant over a “strong, artificial and forcing” 1. That would mean 2 should be natural per our agreements.

Also, partner's failure to ask constitutes UI, so I would have to assume he knew what their 1 meant even though it was a near certainty he didn't. And my explanation is UI to partner, so he also has to avoid using my statement that 2 is natural.

There was no concensus as to whether partner is entitled to know the meaning of 1 after the opps explain it. After all, he was woken up to the meaning based on my query of 1.
July 3
.

Bottom Home Top