[SBU Board] Fridays at "Daylight" Tournaments - proposal summary

[Ann Romeo]

Thanks for the summary JC.  Very clear.
See you next Monday.

Ann Romeo
Personal email: annromeo at gmail.com
Local home: 206-526-0871
Work email: Ann.Romeo at ORCInternational.com
Work direct dial: 212-463-6331
My cell: 425-615-1413 (text ok)









On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:11 PM, JC Chupack <jc.chupack at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> One of the agenda items for our upcoming Sept board meeting is regarding
> proposals that came up at the August meeting to consider modifying our
> "daylight" tournament schedules.  There were two separate proposals that
> I'll summarize below, both of which had some discussion at the last meeting.
>
> If you won't be at the September meeting and have thoughts to share,
> please send them over in advance so that we can consider before potentially
> taking a vote at the Sept board meeting. Otherwise, this is mainly to
> ensure we're all on the same page for the next meeting.
>
>
> *Proposal 1 - Change the Friday schedule for our "daylight" tournaments
> (Sweetheart & Suntan) to also be on daylight hours (10:30 & 3:30 session
> starts)*
>
>    - Why make this change:  trying to turn over the venue from a late
>    evening session to early morning Saturday is challenging for all involved
>    as well as for player attendance. Creates consistency for these tournaments.
>    - Some arguments against:  eliminates "working" players ability to
>    attend Friday, setup on Friday morning would start very early
>    - To be discussed:  would we keep IMP pairs and BAM teams on the
>    Friday 2nd session schedule if we made this change?
>
>
> *Proposal 2 - For our "daylight" tournaments (Sweetheart & Suntan), change
> the Friday evening event(s) to Fast Pairs only.*  (If proposal 1 is
> accepted, this would be a third session on Friday only.  If proposal 1 is
> not accepted, the goal would be to alleviate the turnover issue without
> shifting the 1pm session start time.)
>
>    - Why make this change:  If proposal 1 is accepted, this would allow
>    us to accommodate working players with a session while getting folks out
>    early enough for a 10:30 Saturday start to be feasible.  Even if proposal 1
>    is not accepted, this would help alleviate the turnover issue for these
>    sectionals.
>    - Some arguments against if Proposal 1 is accepted:  adding a third
>    session increases directorial complexity and noise in venue during the last
>    few rounds of the 3:30 session.  Also, we would expect this to be low
>    attendance. Is it worth the effort?
>    - To be discussed:  fast pairs may be too challenging for limited
>    event players.  So, if we did this, would we eliminate limited events for
>    this session? If we don't, the benefit goes away.
>
>
> Thanks,
> JC
> --
> JC Chupack
> * Find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter: jcchupack
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170906/21d6748c/attachment.html>