[SBU Board] Thoughts about Kent sectional

[Eng, Kim]

One additional comment that I shared with Mike this weekend was that for the first time I could remember, one of our local clubs (EBC) was open during a sectional weekend. They had 8 tables. That is 32 people in our unit that chose to play at a club instead of our tournament for whatever reason. Looking at the results page, I highlighted people who usually play in our tourneys. Not sure about the others.

[cid:image010.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image012.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image014.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image016.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image018.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image020.png at 01D21328.BE0F50A0][cid:image021.jpg at 01D21328.BE0F50A0]

Are we okay with this? Do we have any right not to be? I mean, EBC is a business and if they think it is profitable for them to be open during a sectional (which clearly it was), isn't it their choice?

Looking ahead, I think it would be in the unit's best interest to try to get more club support. I know in Portland, clubs are required to be closed during local sectionals, but clubs profit from the local tournaments. 50% of the net goes back to the clubs and the amount they receive is a % based on their annual table count.

Not only would this help sectional attendance, but clubs would certainly start promoting the hell out of our tournaments because they would reap the benefits. I can only speak for Mercercrest as a partial club owner, but we make announcements before every game and we promote all unit events 1-2 weeks in advance up until the event. I don't know what other clubs do. My guess is that EBC wasn't encouraging people to play in the sectional on Saturday, but probably promoting that they would be open if people didn't want to make the long drive down south.

Looking forward to the demographic data as we look to see if we should continue going to Kent for future tournaments. Perhaps instead of every year, we could do every other year.

On the bright side...no "real" fires to put out. :)

Kim

From: Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+keng=forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Michael J Ring
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 6:08 PM
To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
Subject: [SBU Board] Thoughts about Kent sectional

Hi all,

I wanted to send the Board a few thoughts and notes about this weekend's sectional while they are fresh in my mind.

As you are by now aware, attendance was disappointing. Total table count was as follows below. I've included the attendance from the 2015 fall sectional in parentheses. It's not a perfect apples to apples comparison given the site (Bothell) and date (3rd weekend in October) were different but it will give an idea about the drop off in attendance:

Friday
 Afternoon
  Open game 30 tables (Bothell October 2015: 36 tables)
  0-200 game 11 tables (16 tables)
  Afternoon total 41 tables (52 tables)

 Evening
  Open game 26 tables (28 tables)
  0-200 game 4 tables (4.5 tables)
  Evening total 30 tables (32.5 tables)

 Daily total 71 tables (84.5 tables)

Saturday
 Afternoon
  Open pairs Qualifying  24.5 tables (30 tables)
  0-750 game 12 tables (18 tables)
  0-200 game 9 tables (12 tables)
  Afternoon total 45.5 tables (60 tables)

  Evening
  Qualifying final 13 tables (13 tables)
  Consolation 12 tables (14 tables)
  0-750 game 9 tables (14 tables)
  0-200 game N/A (6 tables)
  Evening total 34 tables (47 tables)

 Daily total 79.5 tables (107 tables)

Sunday
 A/X Swiss 16 tables (19 tables)
 B/C/D Swiss 17 tables (24 tables)
 Total for day 66 tables (86 tables)

Grand total 216.5 tables (277.5 tables)

Bottom line is attendance was down over 20% compared to Bothell last year. One possible problem is the proximity of this weekend on the calendar to other tournaments, whereas the October dates have fewer overlap. Unfortunately Kent Commons has limited availabilty in the fall. If I recall correctly, this was the only weekend in this time of year that we were able to hold a sectional when Kent Commons was free.

It will be interesting to see the demographic data by city to see if the attendance dropoff was more the result of local players not showing up or North Enders/Eastsiders not coming down.

Other observations:
-As was the case last year, Kent Commons staff were extremely responsive to our needs.
-Personally, I received one positive comment and no negative comments regarding the quality of the venue.
-I received a few negative comments regarding distance from Seattle/Eastside and traffic.
-The day of tournament phone came in handy. I received two calls - one call from a player stuck in traffic and one general inquiry about schedule.
-Lunch break was slightly more than 1 hour (start time was 2:40 and my slow 3rd match ended at 1:30). My team went to the Ram (sit down brew pub) and it was just enough time for us.
-There was a little confusion regarding the number of boards for Sunday. The directing staff was initially setting up for 7 board rounds. I asked for 7 rounds of 8 boards as is the usual procedure for A/X. Since we all needed to break for lunch, I also asked for 7 rounds of 8 in B/C/D so we would be breaking at the same time. However, is this something we should generally leave to the directing staff? Given we were breaking for lunch one movement I definitely did not want was 8 rounds of 7 - I don't know if Jeff's plan was 7x7 or 8x7. One recommendation Jeff had was to run 6 rounds of 9 boards, which is becoming popular in District 20, especially if the flights are fairly small. With 16 & 17 in the flights yesterday that probably would have been a good format but we didn't want to change it on the fly. However it's something to consider for the future.
Thanks, Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1197 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3463 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1566 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5546 bytes
Desc: image012.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1499 bytes
Desc: image013.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5277 bytes
Desc: image014.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0017.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1762 bytes
Desc: image015.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0018.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5804 bytes
Desc: image016.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0019.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image017.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1415 bytes
Desc: image017.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0020.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image018.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5098 bytes
Desc: image018.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0021.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image019.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1949 bytes
Desc: image019.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0022.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image020.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6391 bytes
Desc: image020.png
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0023.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image021.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32450 bytes
Desc: image021.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160920/f6ab0afb/attachment-0001.jpg>