[SBU Board] Vasa schdule--quick vote

[JC Chupack]

Revised flyer based on the voting. Comments welcome!

--
JC Chupack
Seattle ACBL Unit 446 <http://bridgeinseattle.org> Secretary, Electronic
Contact, & Publicity Chair

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:14 PM, JC Chupack <jc.chupack at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep, based on the description of choice pairs, I'm now against that.  So,
> my vote is 1. No third session, 2. If we do a third session, just regular
> open pairs single session (no BAM or FP).
>
> --
> JC Chupack
> Seattle ACBL Unit 446 <http://bridgeinseattle.org> Secretary, Electronic
> Contact, & Publicity Chair
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Patti McCallum <pattimcbridge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> After reading Rays description of choice pairs and with the short time
>> between sessions it sounds like it is best to do only 2 sessions
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Eric Sieg <easieg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm a yes vote for 3 sessions regardless of choice pairs. I think fast
>> pairs is fine too. A big part of that is part of the discussion last year
>> was that we should try it for two years before making any permanent
>> decisions. I think that holds true for both the daytime pairs and the fast
>> pairs (imo). I didn't actually think of the "not single sessions" aspect of
>> choice pairs, just remembered doing it and people liking it elsewhere. I
>> would be amenable to Friday now needing 2 sessions though since
>> Morning/Afternoon isn't particularly great for worker bees anyway so the
>> benefit (can just play the evening session) becomes a lot less relevant.
>>
>> That said, while I think its right to try 3 sessions with a fast for one
>> more year, I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as some other things.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> p.s. I'm a no vote on holding a BAM in the 3rd session regardless of
>> everything else. I think its a fast pairs or choice pairs or no bridge.
>>
>> Ann Romeo wrote:
>>
>> There are some issues with Choice Pairs from what I understand.
>>
>>    - There will be three completely different set of boards, so comps
>>    are a bit wonky.
>>    - Participants must play in two of the three sessions--if you are
>>    working, you cannot play in one session and place in the overalls.
>>    - It still means very short meal breaks if you play in two back to
>>    back sessions
>>    - and it means that those who do play in the evening have a short
>>    night before coming back and playing on Saturday...
>>
>> The votes I've counted to date are as follows, BUT some have not been in
>> the loop re Choice Pairs (Mike, Tim, John), and should send me a new
>> vote--or if you want tochange your vote, send it to me
>>
>> Ann:  Yes for third session
>> Bill: Yes for third session, IF a Choice pairs
>> Eric: Yes for third session, IF a Choice pairs
>> JC: No, but would be amenable to Choice pairs.
>> Monty: No, but would be amenable to Choice pairs
>> Patti: Yes for third session
>> Larry: No
>> Ray: No
>> Mike: No
>> Tim: No
>> John: No
>>
>> Do I have your pov right?  let me know.  And look at Ray's comments...he
>> really hates this idea....
>>
>> Ann
>>
>> 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 Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Monty Gray <mlgrayjr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I vote for no third session.  I’m not familiar with choice pairs, but if
>>> it works the way it sounds, I’d favor that if we’re going to have a third
>>> session.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since some Unit members prefer morning-afternoon and some prefer
>>> afternoon-evening, and some (but not all) feel strongly about it,  I think
>>> it’s appropriate to have one schedule at some sectionals and the other
>>> schedule at other sectionals.   We can’t please everyone all the time, and
>>> we shouldn’t knock ourselves out trying to figure out how to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m fine with putting a BAM event into the program for the KO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Monty Gray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *William Campbell via Sbuboard <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
>>> *Sent: *Monday, September 10, 2018 2:54 PM
>>> *To: *Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
>>> *Cc: *William Campbell <jwccsllc at me.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [SBU Board] Vasa schdule--quick vote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer 2 session unless the third session were choice pairs allowing
>>> people to select 2 of the three sessions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer Fast Pairs to BAM, but probably wouldn't play either as I'm not
>>> up for three sessions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Ann Romeo <annromeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I vote yes on a third session
>>>
>>> 2) I vote no on BAM and yes on Fast Pairs as third session
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:27 PM, JC Chupack <jc.chupack at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry...let me be more explicit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I vote no on a third session.
>>>
>>> 2) I vote no on BAM and FP for the third session, if it were to be run.
>>> (If we run a third session, I like Eric's choice pairs idea, although we
>>> can only run that for the open.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> JC Chupack
>>>
>>> Seattle ACBL Unit 446 <http://bridgeinseattle.org/> Secretary,
>>> Electronic Contact, & Publicity Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:25 PM, JC Chupack <jc.chupack at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I vote no on a third session.
>>>
>>> 2) If we run a third session, I like Eric's choice pairs idea, although
>>> we can only run that for the open.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> JC Chupack
>>>
>>> Seattle ACBL Unit 446 <http://bridgeinseattle.org/> Secretary,
>>> Electronic Contact, & Publicity Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Eric Sieg <easieg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I vote yes on a 3rd session, at least this year. Then re-evaluate as
>>> to whether we want to have a 3rd session and whether we want to stick with
>>> Morning/Afternoon on Friday of the Sweetheart in the PM.
>>> 2) My primary thought is not a BAM.
>>>
>>> One possibility is a fast pairs that is run correctly. Alternatively, we
>>> could run Friday as a choice pairs where people pick 2 sessions to play.
>>> That way daytime people can play Morning/afternoon and working people could
>>> play afternoon/evening. I'm fine with either of these solutions and am not
>>> sure if choice pairs was brought up as an option during the meeting.
>>>
>>> For choice pairs, see section I at: https://www.acbl.org/about-acb
>>> l/administration/acbl-handbook/ii-kinds-of-event/
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> Ann Romeo wrote:
>>>
>>> Reviewing the comments of the people who have weighed in (I believe we
>>> have not heard from Patti, Mike or Eric at this point), it seems that the
>>> majority are leaning toward not having a third session at Vasa  at our
>>> Sweetheart sectional.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to get a yea or nay from each of you, on the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, *should we have a third session at Vasa on Friday at our
>>> February sectional?  *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, *if yes, should we have Fast Pairs?*
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> *Should we have single session BAM?*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, if we do not have a single session BAM, I will propose at our
>>> next meeting that we hold a single session BAM on the second session of the
>>> Friday of our KO tournament in May.
>>>
>>> ( we don't have to vote on that right now).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for participating.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 listSbuboard at mailman.celestial.comhttp://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/20180910/1af5e525/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2019_SweetheartSectional_DRAFTv3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 229172 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20180910/1af5e525/attachment-0001.pdf>