Join Bridge Winners
previewing ACBL Dallas BoD motions


I've omitted many items, but the source document is here


141-35: forbid pairing swiss teams in any round until the results of the previous round are posted

This practice is usually done in the 2nd round to speed up the game. I favor the practice, and would personally like to see swiss pairing driven by a "ratings" algorithm ala chess

141-36: reducing the # of boards in major NABC open and flighted team events. Why? Can we lengthen them instead?


141-90 - A motion initiated by the Phoenix BoG that requests a clarifying rewrite of the convention chart by a qualified technical writer. See also this recent BridgeWinners thread.

141-93: they're trying to loosen the program where they charge $4 more for non-dues paying players, They seem to want organizers to not charge players with <20MPs as long as they're playing in a 299er event. Currently, any event for players over 20MP must charge the fee

Since I oppose the mandate for charging non-members extra fees at tournaments, I certainly favor this move.


141-101: allowing the ACBL to grant free plays to juniors in ways that I frankly can't understand from the description

141-110: masterpoint changes: changing the M factor

[Edited: ]The chief effect seems to be reducing masterpoint payouts. The proposed M for a 100 UL is 0.4 while M for a 100 UL is currently 0.5102.

141-111: change to the X strat payouts
Not clear what the overall plan is here, but the new formula would have reduced the X strat masterpoint payouts at my sectional stratiflighted pairs from 7.15 to 4.6


As I stated in the masterpoint post, I favor a consistent table-subordination policy.


141-142: proposing the ACBL control the grass roots money (instead of passing it through to the districts) and give $1K to each team that qualifies for the national GNT

Now, this proposal is essentially what has long since been requested: the GNT should be funded somewhat similarly to the NAP.

The trouble is three-fold: 1) why didn't the ACBL just enact it in the first place, 2) why does the ACBL need to take ownership of the money instead of just stipulating how the districts spend the money, 3) why doesn't the ACBL just fund the GNT themselves instead of creating the Grass Roots fund. The ACBL could use, say, the $1M profit from 2012.


141-143: a board member proposes dispensing with all the special club fundraiser games. Evidently, someone is listening to the rank and file players and the club owners! I'd like to hear the backstory on this proposal.


141-145: International Fund transparency!!!

What a pleasant surprise. This motion proposes to make the ACBL's financial contributions to the international fund more transparent. Currently, fees collected at NABC's include an unpublicized portion of money that goes to the international fund. As near as I can tell this money is collected by the ACBL but does not appear anywhere in their books ; the money passes through to the USBF. This motion proposes to clarify this murky 3-way financial transaction. Hoorah.

The motion also proposes to increase certain fees for NABC+ events played in by potential beneficiaries of the international fund and likewise reduce certain fees in events tangential to international bridge. Again, the rank and file will like it, but not the powers that be. I emphasize that my promotion of transparency doesn't mean I want to de-fund the USBF.

49 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top