[SBU Board] Fwd: cell phone policies and GNTs?

Thu Apr 12 15:44:05 PDT 2018

thanks for this Tim, and for being our advocate in these issues.

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 Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com> wrote:

> At various times during our unit board meeting Monday evening (thanks
> Monty for hosting), we discussed electronic device policy, player memo /
> Zero Tolerance, and loss of the Marketing by Pianola email blast tool.
>
> FYI, please see my email to the CEO (2 emails down this string) and his
> reply immediately below.
>
> Tim
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Bahar Gidwani <bahar at acbl.org>
> *Subject: **RE: cell phone policies and GNTs?*
> *Date: *April 12, 2018 1:31:07 PM PDT
> *To: *Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Marv Norden <marv.norden at gmail.com>, Ralph Wilhelmi <
> ralph.wilhelmi at comcast.net>
>
> Agree with you completely on the first two items.  We're trying to get
> this onto the agenda for Atlanta Board meeting.  Stay tuned.
>
> Re the third one.  Marv can share with you a write up we provided him on
> this issue.  It is not about money but about protecting the quality of our
> email list and ensuring local control of marketing efforts.  We've asked
> for feedback from the Board on the matter.  Let's see what advice they
> decide to give us.
>
> Thanks.  I appreciate the arguments you've marshalled and may "crib" some
> of them as we prepare for Atlanta and a discussion of these issues.
>
> Bahar Gidwani, CFA, FSA
> CEO, ACBL
> 662-253-3175 (o)
> 901-314-5975 (c)
> bahar.gidwani at acbl.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim White [mailto:trkwhite at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 3:13 PM
> To: Bahar Gidwani <bahar at acbl.org>
> Cc: Marv Norden <marv.norden at gmail.com>; Ralph Wilhelmi <
> ralph.wilhelmi at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: cell phone policies and GNTs?
>
> Bahar,
>
> Thank you for your engagement on these matters.  As a D19 board member,
> GNT/NAP Coordinator, and First Alternate Director, I would like to add
> emphasis and focus to some of the items in your email below -- and to raise
> an additional matter I believe warrants ACBLHQ attention.  In addition to
> our Marv, our D19 Director, I am copying our D19 President Ralph Wilhelmi
> on this email as these topics arose during discussion at our D19 Board of
> Directors meeting last week in Burnaby, BC.
>
> 1.  Electronic device policy.  We are in need of a uniform electronic
> device policy for District GNT and NAP Finals.  As you know, these events
> are no less significant than districts' regional tournament pairs or team
> events, as they qualify pairs/teams to play for a national championship at
> the spring (NAPs) and summer (GNTs) NABCs.  Disruption by electronic
> devices could conceivably influence the outcome of these events and
> therefore determine which pairs or teams win/qualify to proceed on the
> national finals.  It's the ACBL BOD's place to address this gap in
> regulations and to provide a uniform electronic device policy for all the
> districts for their GNT and NAP finals (as has apparently already taken
> place for regional tournaments).  In absence of another approach, would it
> not make sense to immediately flow down the same national electronic device
> policy to the districts' GNT and NAP Finals that now applies to the
> districts' regional tournaments?  Implementing a policy here and
> alerting/training TDs to enforce it is needed.
>
> 2.  Zero Tolerance.  Based on my experience planning and chairing events
> at the district and unit levels, I would also like to ask for your and the
> ACBL BOD's intercession to implement a much-needed improvement to bring
> about additional meaning to our ZT policy.  Here's how I'm coming at this
> -- I view the event organizer (normally represented on-site by the event
> chair) and the Director-in-Charge as partners in planning and conducting
> the event.  This partnership should include dealing with alleged ZT
> violations.  If and when an alleged ZT violation arises, under sections A
> and B of Law 91 the DiC is vested with the authority to impose immediate
> disciplinary action in the form of penalties in points (part A) or
> disqualification (part B).  It is proper that only one official (i.e. the
> DiC) be vested with this authority.  HOWEVER, impacts of an alleged ZT
> violation can vary greatly and can be so profound as to have substantial
> adverse consequences for the entire event in-progress and more broadly
> going forward.  I have experienced this as D19 GNT/NAP Coordinator.  I
> encourage -- in the strongest terms -- you and the ACBL BOD to consider and
> adopt a change to the Laws (revision to Law 91 or otherwise) that compels
> the DiC to immediately notify the event organizer of an alleged ZT
> violation and to confer with the event organizer in weighing potential
> real-time disciplinary action.  The event organizer brings the perspective
> of the context of the entire event, its exposure to immediate and long-term
> harm, and its relationships with the venue and associated organizations.
> As presently written, Law 91 section B requires that the DiC obtain the
> approval of the Tournament Organizer to disqualify a player.  One can infer
> from this that the DiC could/should confer with the event organizer when
> weighing how to handle any alleged ZT violation.  Again, the event
> organizer must deal with the immediate, the broader and the long term
> impacts of an alleged ZT violation, and thus I feel very strongly that it
> should be made unequivocally clear that event organizer (or his/her
> designate) is to be (a) immediately notified by the DiC of any alleged ZT
> violation and (b) consulted by the DiC in considering potential real-time
> disciplinary action(s).  As part of such a revision to the Laws, TDs should
> be alerted/trained.
>
> 3.  Loss of email blast tool.  I understand the ACBL is not renewing the
> contract with Pianola that expires on June 30 and under which districts and
> units have had the ability to send email blasts publicizing their events.
> If this decision was taken on the basis of cost, I strongly believe it is
> penny wise and pound foolish.  Leaving aside the loss of this important
> tool for regional and sectional tournaments, I would like to address the
> impact of this decision on GNTs and NAPs.  District 19 has twenty-four
> units that span a vast geographic region from Alaska to the Oregon border.
> Our members are not concentrated within a few units within a one-day's
> drive.  Email blasts using the marketing by Pianola tool have been
> invaluable in promoting the GNT and NAP Finals in D19.  Attendance at our
> Districts Finals has jumped substantially since we've been using this
> tool.  Many more of our players are now involved in these events and the
> events' financials are greatly improved.  As I understand, the Pianola
> commission on email blasts is 1 US cent (US$0.01) per delivered email.  In
> D19 about 3,600 of our members receive district-wide email blasts -- thus
> apparently costing about $36 per blast.  Getting just one more NAP pair or
> one more GNT team to enter the D19 Finals brings in far more revenue that
> the cost of the email blast that publicizes the event.  If the concern that
> led to non-renewal of Pianola is that the ACBL bears the entire cost of
> these email blasts that are employed by (and important to the success of)
> the districts and units, then I plead with you and the ACBL BOD to
> re-examine this decision in light of the overall attendance and net
> financial benefits to the ACBL and its constituent districts and units.  It
> appears impractical for districts and units to work out on their own
> individual recovery plans for the dis-continued contract for email blasts.
> And the ACBL has much greater scale with which to contract Pianola on this
> important capability.  If the issue at HQ is the cost, please consider
> offering the districts and/or units an opportunity to assist by carrying or
> contributing some sort of transfer cost -- we're all part of the same
> enterprise after all.  But in the mean time please do not allow this
> important tool to lapse.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Tim White
> D19 Board Member
> D19 GNT'NAP Coordinator
> D19 1st Alternate Director
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Bahar Gidwani <bahar at acbl.org> wrote:
>
> Official response is that there are no uniform cell phone policies still,
> below the Regional tournament level.  The same is true on Zero Tolerance
> (no uniform policy below the NABC level), fragrance issues, and slow play.
>
> IMHO, this is not good for bridge!  We are working with the Board on this
> subject and plan to propose ideas in Atlanta for how to improve the
> situation.  I'd like to see the cell phone policy extended to all
> tournaments.  I'd also like to clarify ZT (make sure everyone knows exactly
> what it covers and how the penalties work) and then extend it down, as well.
>
> Not sure how best to handle slow play.  There were a lot of "clock nazi"
> concerns the last time we addressed this.  Fragrance (and second hand
> smoke) are a health issue for some of our members.  But, it is hard to ask
> TDs (or tournament organizers) to stand by the front entrance and sniff
> people as they go in and out!
>
> Glad you have Tim and Marv on this thread.  I'd welcome input and advice
> from any of you on how to move things forward in this area.  We will
> probably reach out to the TD involved in the specific incident you mention,
> but that will be an informal customer service "training" thing from our
> side.
>
> Bahar Gidwani, CFA, FSA
> CEO, ACBL
> 662-253-3175 (o)
> 901-314-5975 (c)
> bahar.gidwani at acbl.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Sieg [mailto:easieg at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:10 AM
> To: Marv N <marv.norden at gmail.com>; Bahar Gidwani <bahar at acbl.org>
> Cc: Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com>
> Subject: cell phone policies and GNTs?
>
> Hi Marv/Bahar,
>
> There was a cell phone incident at a recent district GNT final
> (championship flight). In the middle of a match, with boards still to play,
> a competitor in the event pulled out their cell phone and started
> interacting with it for a while before eventually putting it away and
> continuing play.
>
> When the director was called, the opponents of the person who was playing
> with their cell phone informed them that there was no cell phone policy and
> unless they were sure he was trying to cheat in some way there was no
> penalty.
>
> Would it be possible to clarify the status of GNT and NAP finals with
> regards to cell phone policies? In San Diego, my understanding is that
> board voted to extend the NABC cell phone policies to regionals and not to
> sectionals. However, it is unclear if the NABC policies are extended to GNT
> and NAP district final events since they are technically their own
> classification. Is there any chance we could get clarification as to
> whether GNT and NAP events are now covered by the NABC cell phone policy?
> Or is it still up to each district to define their own cell phone policy
> (or lack thereof) for GNTs and NAPs?
>
> I realize you likely don't know yourselves, but hoping you can point me to
> someone who can answer definitely.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180412/e9315539/attachment-0001.html>