Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps it might end their partnership, but it should definitely end this discussion!
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it is what I meant when choosing “the director was wrong”.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes the ACBL can ban a player for life if he violates the appropriate section of the CDR. Cheating is one such violation, regardless of what tournament it occurs in. However, the new condition by the BoD is that collusive cheating at an NABC+ event cannot be reviewed for reinstatement. Prior to that, the CDR allowed for reinstatement of anyone by the A&C committee. There have been a few instances where that has happened.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIK, all NABC+ events are video recorded. I personally have seen the cameras in pairs events though I can't vouch that the cameras are at all such events.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the reason is that NABC+ events are video recorded and any cheating charges can be support by permanent visual evidence.
Such is not the case at regionals and sectionals.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like we left out one archetype: the coerced player.
Granted they are not very common at the table, but I do recall one who was so reluctant to be a 4th that he regularly revoked. His idea of fun was leaving the table.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes! I couldn't but help recall Bridge in the Menagerie when starting to read this article.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, the college has decided they will no longer rent space in their cafeteria except for school related activities. So we have lost that site for our sectional and are having trouble finding another.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have also hosted a SiVY group of middle schoolers (and a few younger ones) at our sectionals. 5 or 6 tables are set up in a separate area where adults supervise the kids playing during the break between sessions. SiVY supplies the pizza and snacks for the kids. Afterwards, a number of them stay to play a one session ACBL-rated I/N game.

This is a great way to introduce the younger people to the world of comeptitive bridge. Even if they don't play in the sectional, they get to see others playing in a larger environment.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the advice, although the original bidding problem said it was matchpoints, so ‘imps’ have nothing to do with it.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a great and well-written aritcle. In addition to bridge it looks like you could also have a promising future in journalism.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did propose that district boards elect their reps to the BoD and BoG. As part of a questionaire to the existing BoD, the majority felt the units should elect the reps.

My experience is that the district board knows better than the unit boards (or the general membership) who can best serve as reps. Recently, in our district there was an open position of 2nd alternate because no one submitted a candidacy. That meant our district board had to appoint or elect a 2nd alternate to fill the vacancy.

At the next district board meeting, the president asked for nominations. Four people raise their hands. After each gave a short speech, an election was held. It took about 20-25 minutes.

An ACBL-election for this position requires nomination by end of May; biography statements submitted in June, ballots sent to unit board members in Sept. with 4 weeks to submit ballots, and if no one has a majority, a run-off is held in Oct. Plus each candidate usually sends emails or flyers, and makes personal appearances to unit boards (at least for the DD position).

If the elections were left to the district boards, there would be little or no need for an ACBL-run election. In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the ACBL would save time and effort by having to run these elections. This could apply to the proposed Senate position as well.

Of course, other districts might not have as big an involvement in governance matters because a number of districts just assign regionals to their units and are basically a go-between for the ACBL and the units.

That is one of the problems in ACBL governance - districts, units, and clubs have a great variance in how they perform their jobs. Trying to satisfy all is an extremely difficult task.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do we keep harping on a 5 year plan? It has been explained that the laws governing our Articles of Incorporation are such that 4+ to 5 years is the quickest we can reduce the existing board to 9 members.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having campaigned for 4 competitive ACBL-run elections for district DD and 1st alternate, I have my opinions about the average unit board.

Most unit board members, especially in the small to moderate sized units, are relatively new to serving a governing position in bridge. Many do not attend NABCs and are not interested in national level governance. While they do attend local regionals, they do not care, nor want to know how they are conducted. They do rightly worry about their sectionals and club facilities. On one unit board, upon being informed that the district was holding a regional in their area, a number of board members groused that the regional will mean they would have to close their club for a week.

Thus my opinion is that the unit boards are not the appropriate electors of an ACBL board or senate. A membership-wide vote would have a very small percentage of voters and thus not be all that representative. A district board generally does have more understanding of what is required at the ACBL level. But some district boards are essentially shell organizations that transfer responsibility for regionals to units.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right that there have been many attempts to restructure the BoD and BoG. All have failed to pass muster from the BoD. That doesn't mean we should give up. Perhaps the latest round of financial disasters will be a big impetus for the BoD to vote a change this time.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, the concept is that the senate would be largely done in committees, and committee members would include interested people outside the senate, much as a number of bridge committees do today. Instead of these committees making their recommendations to the BoD as they do today, they would report to the senate, where their work would be ratified or not.

Don, yes I am aware that there cannot be total separation of business and bridge. I didn't want to get into further discussions of the cross over and checks and balances between the proposed BoD and the senate. As for turf wars, they may be hard to avoid, but right now it's turf for the BoD and surf for the BoG.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One point of discussion is how the Nominating Comm. would select candidates. One concept is that the NC would be formed by Senate members, and others outside the Senate and BoD, with some skill and interest in choosing candidates who know about running a non-profit organization. Even an outside professional consultant might be used.

Candidates interested in running for the BoD position would submit resumes and have interviews before the NC makes a choice or choices. If more than the requisite number of candidates are nominated or if someone runs from the floor, the senate would decide which are elected.

Jeff, right now it appears that unit boards would vote for 2 senate members, in the same manner in which the District Director is elected today. Keep in mind, the senate might be meeting just once per year to carry out their business of managing bridge details. How long they meet hasn't been decided but it might be for as little as 2 hrs. That would mean almost all bridge business would be delegated to committees working outside of the regular meeting. The senate would not be handling any actual business decisions; that would be the purview of the new BoD of 9 members.

The senate members might get some minimal compensation for serving on the senate; this is a detail yet to be worked out.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, JoAnn, you are right about the various ways the Bylaws can be changed. But if the BoG proposes a change, it still requires approval by the BoD. If a bylaws changed is proposed at the membership meeting, it would take 2+ years and requires a quorum at each membership meeting. Such a quorum hasn't been achieved in many decades, if ever.

The purpose of the survey is to determine if there is enough support on the BoD to change the bylaws, and if not what changes to the proposal would garner enough support.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a great idea. Now we just need an incentive! But if they all quit, then all the 1st and 2nd alternates will also have to be persuaded to quit. Finally, if that is achieved there will be no one to revise the bylaws, and the ACBL will have to hold elections for new BoD members and alternates once more.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the more serioous side, the term Senate is not a fixed notion. The current proposal is that the Senate (or whatever you want to call it), would be comprised of 2 elected members from each of the 25 districts. They would have autonomy to make decisions regarding all matters related to bridge, with the new BoD dealing with business, finance, and strategy details.

The senate would create committees that would deal with bridge matters. Whether the committees decisions would be final, or be voted on by the whole senate is still up for debate. It is envisioned that the senate would meet in person once per year, instead of 3 times per year, as the current BoG does.

The senate might easily be called the Board of Bridge or BoB, but Heinlein fans like Ed might take exception.
April 19
.

Bottom Home Top