« Bettendorf Regional - Worth 10,000 Words | Main | NAP 2010 »

Monday, July 12, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sharon, my opinion on two items:

Item 102-30: Preempt Pre-Alert Elimination

While I do not think that 5 card 2 level preempts nor 3 level 6 card preempts are very unusual in today's day and age, I do think that a preempt with less than one queen still is. As opponents of those with such methods might wish to play something different than standard if they are aware of such a light style, an alert when the bid is made won't help. You are not allowed to discuss in the middle of the auction. For this specific item - preempts with less than a queen - I would still recommend a pre-alert.

Item 102-54: GNT Conditions of Contest

Cutting the awards for fields in specific flights with less than 5 teams seems like an undue burden on smaller districts and in districts that don't have many players with high masterpoint levels. For instance, in District 14's super flight, I don't think we have ever had 5 teams!

As our hardworking GNT coordinator, Mike Cassel can attest, it is tough enough to entice players to travel long distances, stay in a hotel and pay not insubstantial entry fees when they at least have the promise of some masterpoints should they do well. To know up front that competitors face tiny masterpoint awards even when they do produce a winning performance seems as if it would both contribute to making fields even smaller than they already are - and deliver unfair compensation to those who do make the effort to attend and succeed.

I would hope that ACBL board members could look for solutions that would encourage more participation - not something that would discourage.

And - thanks for representing our district so ably, Sharon!

Item 102-54: GNT Conditions of Contest

Sharon knows how much time and energy has gone into GNT discussion with the ACBL in the last month.
I've corresponded with Rich deMartino who wrote me that the proposal does not cut the number of overall awards. On it's face this is true. But it would have cut the masterpoints awarded in the Championship Flight in 9 of the 25 districts this year who did not have flight fields of 5 teams. I wonder if Meckwell & co. in Florida and Hamman, Bramley, Morse et. al in Texas will think their efforts over 2 days and over 100 boards are only worth a 67% award.
I agree completely with Peg that any tinkering with the GNT should encourage more, not less participation.

The current arbitrary awards based on sessions played at the District finals may be overly generous to the small-sized flights and smaller districts, but cutting the awards for more than 1/3 of the league's districts isn't going to enhance the event.

Making the super-flight a non-subsidized, open strata mainly for pros and clients, then changing flight A where the top 4 players on a team could have 30,000 to 40,000 total MP's would probably attract bigger numbers. Other than that I heartily agree with Peg and Mike. We (mainly Mike)worked hard to promote the GNT in District 14 and the players supported the event vigorously. Our winners should be awarded accordingly.

Item 102-50: to be eligible for STaC overalls the game must be at least 18 boards. If there is no requirement already, this is a start, but I think for an open flight it should be 24 boards. If this is meant to deal with I/N games then sure I guess so.

Item 102-31: Flight A Life Master. I like the idea, but question whether the name will really stick. I have only one regional open pairs win but it does stand out as one of my best bridge-playing moments.

Item 102-142: Tournament Entry Conditions. Off-topic: I don't know how many new players roam into regionals but I wonder if there is a market for a "Join the ACBL, get a free regional entry today" initiative.

The comments to this entry are closed.