onlne tables

[mike777]

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about...71CEOReport.pdf

 

If I am reading the above report correctly ACBL online club game tables are about 10% of the total number of club tables in play in 2006.

 

It looks like the total number of online club game tables is approaching close to 2/3's the number of tables combined at all offline sectionals and regional tourneys in 2006.

 

See last two exhibits.

[Finch]

Aren't online ACBL games 12 boards?

Aren't offline ACBL games 24-27 boards?

 

So if I wanted to count 'number of hands played' I would have thought it closer to 5% than 10%. But it's still pretty significant - wildly so compared to many other countries, I would have thought.

[hrothgar]

Three (minor) things caught my attention.

 

The first was the graphic showing active membership in attachment 1. Classic example were someone is playing with the scale trying to make a relatively insignificant change in membership look a lot more important than it is. Don't get me wrong, having membership increase from 155,500 to 157,500 over the course of 14 monthes is definitely a good thing. However, its no where near as dramatic as this graph would lead one to believe. (Might not even be a statistically significant change)

 

Second was the announcement that "BBO plans to run a long format sanctioned KO event starting in the Spring of 2007 as an experimental game". This should be interesting to watch. I hope that folks have the where-withall to pull this off.

 

Last was the following announcement:

 

1.04 Develop a “World Open Tournament” with Rubber Bridge and SAYC as the main event. Management has determined that this type of tournament will be dependent on the venue and total number of players in the area. In addition, a great deal of publicity will be necessary to motivate non-members from outside the immediate area to participate. Given the history of money tournaments, we now feel the best course is to attempt to have this as a trial item in Las Vegas during the 2008 Summer NABC. While participation will be diminished due to other events, we feel that promoting this online and in card player magazines, will draw non-ACBL members. We also feel cash prizes are a must and the larger the prize, the better chance for success.

 

Anyone ever hear the following quote: ""Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results"

[jtfanclub]

While participation will be diminished due to other events, we feel that promoting this online and in card player magazines, will draw non-ACBL members. We also feel cash prizes are a must and the larger the prize, the better chance for success.

 

Anyone ever hear the following quote: ""Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results"

How can SAYC possibly attract non-ACBL members? Outside of on-line and ACBL clubs, does anybody know what SAYC is? Hell, including on-line and ACBL clubs, does anybody know what SAYC is?

 

They've got to allow SOME variation, like

 

-Strong 2s

-New minor forcing

-Jordan

-Invitational NT raise over 1m and over 1M.

-All X's of 2 level and higher bids are either points or penalty (usually both).

 

I mean, seriously, half the people who play SAYC think it includes at least one of these things. If you're going to want rubber bridge people to play, you have to include rubber bridge bidding.

 

I think it would be worth doing if....

1) Bidding did have enough flexibility to allow SEF and similar (but not 2/1 if they didn't want it to).

2) At least a $100K first prize. Second prize, something. Third prize, nothing.

3) Televised, dammit. Even if you had to pay part of the price for televising it.

4) Teams, not pairs, and DEFINITELY not individual.

5) Double-elimination KO, or double-elimination KO with resets.

6) No conflicts, dammit. I'd make the elimination rounds the week before the summer nationals, then have the final 8 (or so) teams battle it out during a period where the "A" teams don't have a long-running tourney going on. For example, if I'm reading the schedule correctly

 

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2008/02/tournament_schedule.pdf

 

Sunday is a quiet day for the top flighters, for the most part. Have the finals then.

 

I have no clue as to whether this can be done without losing oodles of cash. If you can't make the reward in fame and money high enough to convince the top players to try it in spite of your silly rules (probably with clients, but still), then I really don't see the point.

[Elianna]

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2008/02/tournament_schedule.pdf

 

Sunday is a quiet day for the top flighters, for the most part. Have the finals then.

Finals of LM Pairs

[jtfanclub]

Finals of LM Pairs

I'm guessing the best of the best will be playing the Grand National Teams, which precludes scheduling for the LM Pairs.

 

Most of the rest of us could play the hypothetical SA Teams and if (and only if) we made the finals skip the LM Pairs.

[awm]

Finals of LM Pairs

I'm guessing the best of the best will be playing the Grand National Teams, which precludes scheduling for the LM Pairs.

Not necessarily. The Grand National Teams are a grassroots event where players represent their local district. In particular this means:

 

(1) International players (non-US/Canadian/Mexican resident) simply cannot play in the Grand National Teams. Those attending the summer nationals (and there are many) will likely be playing LM pairs.

 

(2) In many cases regular teams are not eligible for GNTs (team members live in different districts), so there are many cases where top players are not playing on the best teams. In some cases it can be hard to get a paying sponsor for GNTs, or a regular partnership may be unable to play GNTs together. Some districts have more top players than others, so that some are inevitably unable to participate in GNTs (didn't win district event).

 

(3) Only the "final four" of the GNT open conflicts with LM pairs.