[SBU Board] KO Sectional Post Mortem

Fri Jun 2 19:21:05 PDT 2017

Sorry for the slow response on this. On the plus side, I've finally tagged
sbuboard emails as not spam, something I thought I'd done before, so
hopefully I won't continue to miss these threads.

My thoughts:
- Length of the BAM: My inclination when Jenni asked me about the number of
boards to run was to go with 20.  Obviously that would get all of us out
quicker, and I thought it would be more popular.  Then I thought maybe I
should do a quick informal poll of some higher-level players that the BAM
was targeted for.  Turns out that this ended up as a poll of people who
wanted to play the full set of boards.  My bad.  I hope that next time,
we'll anticipate this and decide on parameters in advance.  It would make
sense to me to do a quick show of hands and make a decision on (full)
popular vote.

- I agree with comments about discontinuing the BAM.  Both attendance and
comments suggested this.  And the issue is the format, not just the
length.  I think people are okay with a 1-session event on the Friday
evening of the Sweetheart.  I'd suggest that we run an open Swiss on Monday
next year.

- I agree with comments about the start times on Sat.  While some people
like having plenty of time between sessions, I think 1 and 6:30 would get
people home earlier and would be preferred.

- I agree with comments about the 2nd 199er Swiss.  I believe Jenni said
that there was 1 pair that wanted to come back for the 2nd session.  They
were kinda stuck and had to be shoe-horned into the 2-session game.  Better
to offer a single session.  For people who want to play 2 sessions, they
should enter the other event.

- Help for setup was great as always.  Hospitality was great as always.

David

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, John <judgejohn at msn.com> wrote:

> I recognize Ray’s preferences as a player; but I especially applaud his
> ability to distinguish between those interests and his recognition of his
> responsibility as a board member, and his willingness to defer to the
> latter.
>
>
>
> Idea: might we run a BAM as a Unit event – perhaps two sessions on a
> Sunday?
>
> Given its “draw” last weekend, it would fit comfortably into Nick’s space
> in North Seattle.
>
>
>
> John W.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+judgejohn=msn.com at mailman.
> celestial.com] *On Behalf Of *Raymond Miller
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:24 AM
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> *Cc:* jenni.carmichael at acbl.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SBU Board] KO Sectional Post Mortem
>
>
>
> I am one of the passionate small core group that loves the BAM.  However ,
> as a board member, it is not my job to support an event that is clearly
> losing interest.  Those attendance figures tell a big story, and I can only
> see them dropping further after this weekend.  I have talked with many
> players, some of whom did not attend the event on Monday, specifically
> because it was board-a-match.  The general consensus I have been hearing,
> is "we would have played Swiss".
>
>
>
> So I conclude that this event has run its course.  I can't think of any
> good reasons to continue it for now.  I will support retiring the event and
> putting the Swiss back in place.  To quote one member of the unit "A
> tournament without a 2 session Swiss is unacceptable".
>
>
>
> As for Fast Pairs, as an alternative for people who don't want to play
> Swiss, maybe. but can we really support to events? As a replacement for
> Swiss, I think this would be highly unpopular.  The 2 session Swiss is an
> event that many expect to see on our schedule.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:06 AM, LARRY HOLDREN <larryholdren at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hello All:
>
>
>
> I have little to add beyond what Ann, Tim and Eric have already noted.  I
> heard many of the same questions and complaints, and I am sorry my injury
> and family emergency made me unable to help with set up and teardown.
>
>
>
> I guess I missed the start times for Saturday and Sunday during any
> review;  I should have raised a question.
>
>
> The real hero of the event, as often occurs, was Ann.
>
>
>
> Later in the day Monday I was kicking myself for not making  welcome
> remarks including noting the significance of the Holliday.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 1:56 PM
>
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
>
> *Cc:* jenni.carmichael at acbl.org
>
> *Subject:* [SBU Board] KO Sectional Post Mortem
>
>
>
> Looking to the co-chairs (in this case David and Larry) to lead the post
> mortem.  Grist for the mill from my standpoint…
>
> Heard many negative comments about the 1:30 and 7:00 Saturday & Sunday
> session start times.   In 2015 and 2016 these sessions started at 1:00 and
> 6:30.  I don’t recall that the board addressed changing to the later start
> times nor was this picked up on during flyer review.  Perhaps it was a copy
> & paste artifact that none of us noticed.  Mary Wondra said the later times
> caused her to miss the last ferry of the evening back home to the San Juan
> Islands.
>
> Saturday afternoon this year a 0-750 pairs game was held (drew 16.0
> tables) in lieu of the 0-200 game that had been held in this slot in prior
> years.  Several negative comments about dropping the 0-200 game and
> apparently some 0-200 pairs left the site without playing when they learned
> the 199er game they were hopeful of playing in was not taking place.
> Looking back at data on the ACBL website, the 2015 Saturday afternoon 0-200
> event apparently drew 9.0 tables.  The 2016 Saturday afternoon 0-200 pairs
> game drew 14.0 tables.  It’s never good when people come to play and leave
> disappointed when the event they’d hoped to play isn’t offered.
>
> BAM Teams.  There’s a lot to address with this one.  A small core group is
> passionate about this event.  Some players entering the BAM tried to
> recruit players entering the Swiss to move over to play in the BAM – I
> don’t know if any actually switched to the BAM.  BAM is a relatively
> complex movement – the attempt to recruit Swiss players to switch might
> have been motivated by improving the BAM movement (though I don’t know that
> 12 versus 11 teams would have helped or hurt with this) or perhaps it was
> motivated simply to increase BAM attendance.   BAM attendance has steadily
> and substantially declined in recent years:  11 teams in 2017; 15 teams in
> 2016; 16 teams in 2015; 19 teams in 2014; 19 teams in 2013; 21 teams in
> 2012.  Apparently there was controversy over the number of boards played in
> the BAM event.  With ten rounds, the decision was made to play 3 boards a
> round (30 boards total) in the morning session and then there was the
> possibility of either 2 or 3 boards a round (either 20 or 30 boards) in the
> second session.  The tournament chair and DiC made a reasoned decision to
> have 20 boards in the second session (50 boards total for the event).
> Apparently someone or some number of players vehemently objected to 50
> boards total and as a result the second session was changed to 30 boards
> for a 60-board event.  Typically, the BAM ran 45 or so minutes longer than
> the Swiss and it again caused a significant delay in tear down, as well as
> an additional tear down burden on Swiss players and non-playing volunteers
> who were waiting in the wings for the completion of an extended,
> lightly-attended event.  I understand at least two BAM teams said they will
> not play the event again if there is the possibility it could run to 60
> boards.  I also heard there were players with >2500 points including at
> least one very experienced and high level player (ineligible for the Swiss)
> who would have far preferred to play Swiss than BAM.   I heard suggestions
> that it’s well past time to try a different complimentary event to the
> Swiss teams at the KO sectional and that Fast Pairs would be a fun and
> appropriate format to give a try.  Fast pairs would also offer the benefits
> of allowing players who have a ferry to catch (or a lengthy drive) to
> depart earlier and accelerating tear down rather than delaying it.
>
> Portable sound system.  Again, suggestions were made that the unit
> purchase a portable sound system so beginning-of-session and other
> announcements can be better heard by all.  For reference, Forest Ridge has
> a microphone and speaker system; Bothell has a speaker system but more
> often than not it is non-functional.  Renae and I will try to gather some
> info on some potential systems; if others have experience or ideas on this
> please being them forward.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20170602/ba587250/attachment-0001.html>