High Quality Standard for ACBL Regional Tournaments - DRAFT 7 OCT 2017

Transcription

1 High Quality Standard for ACBL Regional Tournaments - DRAFT 7 OCT 2017 Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion that does not reflect my volunteer work or responsibilities with the ACBL in any way. My hope is to promote an in depth discernment about how to improve tournament quality without diluting the ACBL brand equity. This focuses on Regional Tournaments. ACBL Regional Tournaments are the jewels of the ACBL s distributed tournament system. Regionals are allocated by District. Districts or Units own and run these tournaments. About half the Districts run their own regionals assuming the business risk and accruing the income. About half delegate their regionals to Units who assume the work and risk to earn profits for their Unit. District-run regionals may hire professional tournament managers. Unit-run Regionals have Tournament chairs who rarely earn a salary. Here are the number of regional tournaments per District for 2017: D: Tot* *-not include regionals at sea. In 2016, there were 135 regionals across the NABC (ignoring the few regionals at sea). That s 2.6 every week of the year. Table counts range from several hundred to over 7,900. In some cases Split Regionals are run in two distant cities simultaneously under one District sanction. This allows Districts with low population density to enjoy some Gold/Red MP competition without exhausting the Districts Regional allotment. Matthew Kidd (La Jolla Bridge Club) published an analysis of ACBL tournaments focused on Two graphs from Matt s work follow below. Some detail pertinent to this proposal is not available and not easily gotten from the data as presented (event size, #events per session). You can see his work at: 2015 Tournament Table Counts 2015 Tournament Travel 2010 Where are the Bridge Players in the Patchwork Nation? We observe: 1) D1, D9, D2, D22, D17, D23 Lead all districts in Average # club sessions played per year per player (at or about 60 sessions/person/year). 2) D20, D7, D17, D16, D6, D19, D22 play averagely about 9 or more tournament sessions (Regionals or Sectionals) per year. 3) D24, D3, D25, D13, D4 play under 53 club sessions and 5.5 tournament sessions per year per person. 4) D20 wins the tournament session crown at above 12 /person/year and D1 wins the Club award at close to 90 sessions per person per year. High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 1

2 5) Ignoring Split Regionals, there were 4 regionals under 500 tables in The mode is 750 to 1000 tables, and the Mean (w/o split regionals) is There are 36 regionals above 1500 tables. Hidden Costs When a Regional occurs, clubs lose players to varying degrees. While they may stay open for a regular club game, many close. This impacts the owner negatively lost income covering rent (if applicable) and profit (always applicable). Some directors prefer to play in the Regional. This issue about reimbursement is complex. No reimbursement is required today because Districts, Units and Clubs are independent business entities and clubs are expected by regulation to support regional tournaments in their area. Some do reimburse clubs. From the Bottom Up What Should the Standards Be? Were we to construct a perfect pair game, we would choose a 13 table section with a 2 board Mitchell movement. Everyone plays every board, there are no skips, and there are only 2 boards per table. (Let s ignore the benefits of a Howell movement for now). So let s call a target pairs section 13 tables. Yes, 12 tables with a by-stand is a viable option. Additionally, a perfect head to head KO would be 16 tables. However 12 Tables is a manageable bracket size offering the benefit of keeping more of the field in the game. Let s assume we have 3 brackets of 16. On day one a 3 bracket 16 Team configuration plays 48 teams round 1 and 24 play round two. By introducing 3-way play in round 1, 4- brackets of twelve play 48 teams round 1, and 4 brackets of 8 (32) the next. In both cases the next day, there are 4 teams in session one and 2 teams in session two however the extra bracket creates additional play. Summarizing: Teams/Bkt Session 16 (3 Bkt) H2H 12 (4 Bkt) Rnd 1 RR 9 (5 Bkt) Rnd 1 & 2 RR Total For the sake of simplicity we choose 12 teams to be a target bracket size for KOs. High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 2

3 Swiss Teams An ideal Swiss team field would allow halving the field at each round until the top two (unbeaten) teams meet in the final round. Of the three well know formats (#rounds x #Boards per round), 8x6 s, 7x7 s and 6x8 s are most common (we ignore bracketed team competition). 4x6 s are used for single session events. For win-loss, a pure Swiss field is 2 n teams where n is the number of rounds to play. So 8x6 s would have 256 Teams, 7x7s would have 128, and 6x8 s would have 64. Thank goodness we play victory points and not win-loss. A 48 team field should support an A/X, BCD flighted (Or AXY, Gold Rush) format using 6x8s. 64 teams could use 7x7s. Swiss Team experts can weigh in here about the appropriate standard field size. Let s choose 48 teams as a minimum acceptable target (this is an arbitrary choice Swiss events with fewer tables can be successful, but at some point, perhaps 24 teams, the option to run 3 8-table round robin brackets based on team strength is probably best). Our Benchmarks: Pairs 26 tables (52 Pairs) or two 13 table sections or the equivalent. KOs 36 Tables (36 teams 72 pairs) or three 12 team brackets or the equivalent. Swiss 48 Tables (48 teams 96 pairs) (we ignore 5 or 6 person teams for simplicity). Now let s look at the number of regional sessions and their relative attendance. Note that regionals typically run 3 sessions per day and depending on format (10 & 2:30 or 1 and 7:30P) either the evening session or the morning session will be under-attended sessions. Please recognize this is an approximation for estimate purposes and varies tournament to tournament. One pattern might be: Session Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 10A or 1P 25% 50% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 2:30/7:30 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 7P/9a N/A 0 25% 25% 25% 25% N/A Summing the sessions we have 12 ½ full sessions (of the 19 time slots) for our prototype regional. How many tables per full session do we need on average for the following table counts: Count Tables per session (Count/12.5) Pairs 26 Tables # playable KOs 36 Tables # Playable Swiss (2-Session) Playable # events same time (2-12 tables) 0 (2-12 team Bkt) Bracketed only Yes, Bracket 1 bottom Yes Pair-KO Only 1 or Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Many Subjectively we see that tournaments routinely drawing more than 1500 tables can readily support best size versions of the three events shown, and can afford to have multiple events on the same day. High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 3

4 From Matthew Kidd s data (2015), 56 or more than half of the regionals fell below 1500 tables. Importantly 15 fell below 750 tables. And 18 between 750 and 1000 tables. It s these 33 regionals below 750 that should refine their programs so they don t dilute their regional game offerings. (Add in split regional table counts please just be sure game size is adequate). Much less than 500 tables and even holding two different game types in the same session will not meet appropriate event sizes. Since 2015 all regional tournaments have declined in table count. Indeed Gatlinburg failed to break 8000 tables for the first time in decades. There were 4 regionals with table count less than 500 in These four should be considered for elimination or severe reduction in frequency. They are simply not attracting the support necessary to achieve a regional level competition. For the 10 split sites, we should consider the table counts as additive to the owning city with limitations based on session size based on the table above). 11 Regionals between 500 and 750 tables need to grow above 750 tables or face restrictions on the sanction frequency. These regional in particular must avoid diluting main events by holding too many events in one session. No tournament should be allowed to schedule so many events in one session that the desired experience by game type is grossly missed. Tracking these statistics should be easy given the new ACBL Live Data base. ACBL can provide guidance to Districts and Units regarding how well they are meeting minimum expectations. The Gold Rush Phenomenon From personal experience, I recall that many regionals had healthy KO events with many brackets (5-7 brackets were not uncommon at a 1200 table tournament). Two things changed since the year The ACBL began offering Gold Rush Pairs and Gold Rush Swiss Teams (<750 MPs), and the MP awards for pairs were increased to where now winning an open pair event is worth as much as winning a depleted KO Team flight A event. We will never put the I don t want to play against experts genie back into the bottle. Gold Rush events have become so popular the in the Midwest, we offer 5 days of Gold Rush just to keep year on year table counts constant. (We would see declining counts without this device ). Here I think the simple solution is to join em because we can t lick em. KO Teams are arguably the pinnacle of world and NABC competition. Regionals are the first best place for all players to experience KO Teams. So why don t we allow a KO Team bracketing with any bracket under 750 MPs to win fractional gold and red consistent with what s available from pairs and Swiss? Why don t we promote the bottom bracket(s) as Gold Rush KOs. Let s require that Regionals allow one each of Pairs Swiss and KO Team Gold Rush events. Let s also require that to add one more Gold Rush pair or swiss, the regional must offer a second Gold Rush KO event. This way we bring parity back to the team events that are (uniquely) part of regionals. Failing to enable a rebalancing toward KO teams, I would support eliminating KOs if the tournament cannot field 24 teams (2 12 Team Brackets). Handicapped KOs are poor events. High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 4

5 Balancing Master Point Awards Eliminate Bias On the matter of master point awards, what should be clear is that size and strength of field as well as event duration must factor into the overall awards. The awards must also pass a smell test. This might be more about managing perception than reality. Assume a Pairs field and a KO Field are of equal strength for the sake of discussion. Then it would appear fair that the Awards for the pairs event and the awards for a team event should not be materially different. If you are the overall winner in the pair event you should earn slightly more than the team winner the team winner should win the average of first and second place for 4 sessions pairs. Some may try to match awards for a 4-sessions KO to two 2-session open pairs. This is flawed because the proper comparison is to a 4-session open pairs with consolation final format. Both fields are reduced in size for the second day. One other smell test is that the number of players winning master points in the pairs event may differ from the number winning in the KO team event, but the sum total of master points awarded should not be different between the two events. pairs i = teams j when i=j x 2 (takes 2 pairs to make one team). So for regionals above 1000 table 1) We recommend adopting a Gold Rush KO Offering (pending approval by the ACBL) to balance the demand between pairs and teams. 2) Design your schedules and events so that no regionally rated event falls below the target size. 3) Cut side pairs and single session events where necessary to maintain event size. 4) Experiment liberally with unique/attractive competitions, focusing on avoiding cannibalization of existing events. 5) Help all NLMs minimize or eliminate their fear of playing with better opponents. Consider training in tournament games in addition to free lecture for NLMs. Make being there attractive in addition to the game itself. For regionals below 500 tables: 1) Aggressively pare your session offerings to one or two games. If you cannot grow to above 500 tables, respectfully surrender your sanction, or 2) Join another city in your district for a split site regional. This will limit your options but also reduce your costs. 3) Focus your schedule on one Regional event and one side game per day. Don t dilute. 4) The DIC should adjust the schedule to best meet the wishes of the players while maintaining the minimum table targets on the core event(s) where possible. Eliminate orphan events. 5) Do not limit 0-20 or 0-49er games. They are our future. For regionals in between: 1) Pare your schedule to grow core events. 2) Adopt the Gold Rush KO event. 3) Encourage your NLM Players to play in more than just Gold Rush events. Isn t this an anti-customer approach? So why should we prune weak events from regionals and weak regionals from the schedule? Doesn t that mean we fail to give our customers what they want? Sounds like we are ignoring our customers. High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 5

6 What we are trying to do is to correct the proliferation of tournaments and of events within tournaments. This proliferation has watered down the events to the point where the Regional experience degrades to nothing more than a glorified sectional at best. While our membership headcount is flat thanks to aggressive recruiting of retirees, we are aging. Older players play less frequently. Just because the Zonal membership is flat doesn t mean each District is flat far from it. There are clear winners and losers. While we have to fix the membership age demographic, that will take time. In the interim we can improve the quality of the Regional events (meet field size standards) and eliminate proliferation where the size of the tournament does not support it. This can be accomplished simply. Use the past 3 year attendance history to determine the number of regional events that can be scheduled per day, and have the tournament committee abide those requirements. The committee chooses the schedule but must meet standards for tables per event per session. Set performance standards for Regional Events and enforce them. What about my favorite events? Board-a-Match, Compact KO, Single Session Swiss, 8 is enough Swiss, individuals, Speed-Ball Pairs, Midnight teams and more are all possibilities, but cannot dilute attendance form the core regional events. If you are not large enough to support these unique events, keep things simple. Grow your base then add new events. But don t we need to add new events to grow a tournament? The attendance at regionals has declined steadily for a few years even though the number of regionals and the number of events per regional have grown. Just the opposite has occurred as the diluted events discourage players from playing more sessions. The way to grow your tournament is 1) attract more players, and 2) Help attendees play more sessions by making events worth their while. What if we have 200 more tables than last year? Can t we expand our schedule? If you can maintain your core events at or above the performance standard you should be able to do whatever pleases you and your customers, as long as what regional events you add do not dilute the core events and meet their own standard. Reimbursing Clubs that Close On the economic impact on clubs this is complex. However for solvent regionals, any club holding games in the 25 mile radius of the regional site should be able to receive some remuneration for proven lost business. Full compensation is impossible and unfair. Partial compensation should be negotiated between the District/Unit and the affected clubs. Some compensation thoughts If the club runs a game (stays open), no compensation is necessary unless table count is severely depressed. If the director closes the club to play at the tournament, then no compensation paid. A fair compensation would be to split the regional profit per club player-session with the club. So if the Regional charges $13 per person per session, and makes say a $6 profit, $3 from that session would go to the club for a session held at the same time (as the club game that player missed but played in at least twice in the past month). The club gets no benefit if the player doesn t routinely play in that session, nor does it get credit for club players playing in sessions when club games are not scheduled. There should be a maximum cap to the compensation. The number of tables one week ago at the club times $3 per person would be a reasonable ceiling. It is theoretically possible for a given club to have more past one month players play at the regional than at the club (Think in terms of a 12 table game High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 6

7 with new players each week, all playing once a month). The bookkeeping requirements need a computer solution (matching regional attendance to past month club attendance), but such a system should be available through the ACBL soon. Clubs might see this level of compensation a mere pittance. Indeed in some cases regional entries can be (much) less expensive than club fees. Overheads are similarly upside down. The economic reality is that both have a right to succeed at their business. Clubs do not own their players. Both the Regional and the Clubs lose when the Regional causes club players not to play that week. Those players might have useful information for growing the regional attendance. Recommendations: 1) Define common standards (minimum event size) for core regional events and require regionals to meet or exceed them as first priority. 2) Empower the DIC to alter the schedule to accomplish minimum event size standards without negatively affecting table count. 3) Balance attendance among core events so they are equally attractive. Ensure events serve BOTH the large NLM population and the more experienced heavy user population (playing the major share of the regional sessions). 4) If the tournament has been too small to host more than one or two core event per session, restrict the schedule to what their attendance allows. 5) If the Tournament cannot achieve 750 tables year-on-year, reduce the sanction frequency. 6) Work to eliminate any Regional under 500 tables. Have them partner with a sister city in their District as a split regional, subject to event restrictions. 7) Support open honest reimbursement discussions based on ACBL data. If a tournament is insolvent, then no club compensation, and no sanction renewal. Respectfully submitted, Steve Moese K High Quality Standard for ACBL Regionals S. A. Moese K Page 7