[SBU Board] Club issues with the expanded Regional schedule

Tue Oct 17 15:16:24 PDT 2017

I agree, sounds like a valiant effort. Tim, to a short sight sighted group. No thanks to our other rep. Is Steve expected to represent the Unit/Board or his personal view?

Larry

From: Patti 
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:35 PM
To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board 
Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Club issues with the expanded Regional schedule

Thank you for the effort, Tim and Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John
Sent: ‎10/‎17/‎2017 12:43 AM
To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board; Nick Tipton; Stan Roberts
Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Club issues with the expanded Regional schedule

Very disappointing result – but good effort, Tim.

The problems of our clubs are the problems of our units, and of our districts, and should be recognized as such.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”

The consequence of ignoring the clubs’ problems is not so draconian – but the principle is the same: if the clubs suffer, we all suffer.

John Weinberg

From: Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+judgejohn=msn.com at mailman.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Tim White
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:19 PM
To: Nick Tipton <alkibridgeclub at gmail.com>; Stan Roberts <stan.milliman at gmail.com>
Cc: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
Subject: [SBU Board] Club issues with the expanded Regional schedule

Nick and Stan,

Thank you for including me on distribution of your emails below.  Consideration of your request reached a point of culmination today.  While I wish I had better news, I would like to report back on how your request has been handled.

The U446 board took up your request at its September 11 meeting.  (Note for background:  as part of its effort to better harmonize with the clubs, the unit board had previously undertaken an analysis to better understand the extent of conflicts between various tournaments' sessions and regularly scheduled clubs games within U446 and how these conflicts may cannibalize clubs' business.)  There was much discussion during the unit board meeting.  Your request was viewed very favorably and the following motion carried unanimously:   “Moved that The Unit 446 representatives to the District 19 Board be tasked to convey at the October 16 district board meeting, Unit 446’s concern with adverse impact on club games of the Monday afternoon session at Lynnwood because of the proximity of three club games, and ask that the tournament chairs discontinue that session so as to best serve our bridge community.”

On September 17 I sent a note to Steve Kasner, our other U446 rep to the D19 board, alerting him that he and I had been tasked as above to speak at the Oct 16 (today's) D19 board meeting on behalf of U446 in support of the clubs.

Today in Olympia, D19 held its fall board meeting as scheduled.  Your request was addressed on the agenda under New Business.  The President read your letter aloud.  I then requested time to speak in support of the request.  I reported on the discussion at the Sept 11 U446 board meeting and read aloud the motion adopted (italics above) tasking the U446 reps.  I emphasized Nick's point about acting for the greater good of the bridge community and the importance to the long term health of the game of considering actions' effects on constituencies at district, unit, club and player levels.  I reported that U446 is making an effort to harmonize its activities with the clubs because it sees the health of the clubs as essential to the long term success of tournaments.  I noted the growing financial challenge clubs face as a result of increasing sanction fees, player demographics, and in the case of Alki the emergent parking problem, all of which make clubs that much more vulnerability to cannibalization by conflicting tournament sessions.  I reported that for these and other reasons U446 has decided to cut back to a two-day summer sectional in 2018 so as to deconflict from club games on Friday.

There were no other comments in support of your request.  The gist of the other comments was that this is not D19's problem, that D19 is taking advantage of an opportunity to better leverage its fixed costs at Lynnwood to get more revenue, that it's not D19's job to solve clubs' problems, and that the clubs should solve their problem by getting more C level players out to play.  The other U446 rep spoke in opposition to the request.  I then tried to go after one of the problems underlying the addition of the Friday afternoon session at Lynnwood by making the following motion:  "In setting session schedules, D19 regional tournament chairs shall consult with the local unit."  This motion died for lack of a second.

I regret your request has not produced a change in D19's view of its approach to scheduling at Lynnwood.  I assure you the U446 board is sensitive to the impacts of conflicting events on club attendance and financials and will continue to explore ways to harmonize its activities with the clubs.

Tim White

U446 President

D19 Board Member

On Sep 9, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Stan Roberts <stan.milliman at gmail.com> wrote:

  Nick makes good points about the health of the bridge clubs. We at
  ESBC had a large loss for the month of August. It would help if, we
  could get Monday back. Please consider Nick's request.

  On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Nick Tipton <nick_tipton at yahoo.com> wrote:

    District 19,

    Congratulations on a well run Lynnwood Regional.  I heard many good things
    about it from the hundreds of bridge players that I personally know who took
    part.  The exception to that were some relatively minor complaints about
    hard copies of the bulletin.  I suspect that the number of hits on those
    pages was a bit lower than expected.  There were a number of changes in the
    event scheduling.  Some were good and some not so good.  One player told me
    that the Tues-Wed morning Swiss game was cancelled due to sub-minimal
    attendance, as was the three session morning KO on Thurs-Fri-Sat mornings.
    I also heard many good things about the Gold Rush Pairs, and that making
    those daily would have brought more people in.

    The purpose of this email is to express my concerns for the change to
    Monday's schedule.  Adding an afternoon session Monday allowed the Opening
    KOs to run through Tuesday night without requiring three sessions on
    Tuesday.  This change adversely affected the local clubs.  I firmly believe
    that a healthy tournament schedule is important to the health of the overall
    bridge community.  However, this must be tempered with allowing the local
    bridge clubs to continue to exist.  All bridge clubs run at or near the
    break-even point, some even below it.  Mondays are a historically good day
    for bridge clubs.  Taking at least half of our tables away on the opening
    day of a regional is adding insult to injury when we must remain closed
    Tuesday-Sunday of the rest of the week.  Speaking for Seattle Bridge Center,
    we lost an estimated $1000 in revenue from the week's closure.  Considering
    that a good month is anything over $200 in the black, this guarantees that
    August is a month that requires at least 3-5 months of financial recovery.
    I have spoken with Stan Roberts, the owner of the Eastside Bridge Center,
    and he has indicated that he has very similar concerns

    Of course Puget Sound must have an annual Regional Tournament.  Please keep
    in mind that although this is the only Regional that we must lock up our
    clubs for, we are greatly affected by all of the local regionals, whether
    they are in Olympia, Leavenworth, or farther afield.  Vancouver, Penticton,
    and Seaside take 30%-50% of our club players in spite of their distance.
    Just as damaging are the twelve open sectionals (Olympia north to the
    border) that draw down our attendance.  If you put it all together, owning
    and operating a bridge club is just barely viable.  If the bridge clubs
    begin to fail, then tournament bridge will not be far behind.

    I am asking, indeed pleading, that D19 return to the normal 18 sessions per
    Regional.  It probably seems minor that we are losing one more session with
    this change, but it truly does make a difference to the financial viability
    of a bridge club.  I understand that you cannot control any of the
    Sectionals, and that you are unlikely to curtail the number of Regionals
    each year.  Expanding the number or the length of Regionals is a step in the
    wrong direction.

    I currently distribute fliers for all of the local and neighboring
    tournaments, but I find myself asking why I am working against myself in
    doing this.  Is part of the District's mission statement to work towards the
    benefit of the bridge community as a whole?  I found nothing on the D19.org
    website that suggests that, and yet I am confident that every member of the
    board would personally support that idea.  New players play almost
    exclusively at the club level, sometimes for years, before ever playing a
    tournament.  If all Bridge Clubs revert to non-profit, twice a week games in
    church basements, then the available bridge classes will drop precipitously.
    Within 2-3 years, it will be easily noticeable at the club level, and in 3-4
    years, 199er games at tournaments will no longer get enough players to
    guarantee a game.  If that starts to happen at the Sectional or Regional
    level, then new tournament players will be very few and very far between.

    Thank you for your considerations,

    Nick Tipton
    Seattle Bridge Center
    Alki Bridge Club

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20171017/4af2e0cb/attachment-0001.html>