[Mbodell]

I haven't seen the table count in the bulletin, but it seems quite small to me. Then number of pairs/teams in the national events (especially the mini-national events) seems small as well. The online site has listed 65 teams in the spingold, 38 in the 5K spingold, and 27 in the 1.5K spingold.

I think last year in the 1.5K spingold there were around 60 teams, and I was a high 80s seed in the 5K spingold 2 years ago.

In the LM pairs there were 157 tables, which cut to 78 on day 2 (last year 189 tables cut to same number; 2 years ago they cut the first day to 117 tables). In the 5K LM pairs there were 75 tables which cut to 39 on day 2 (97 tables last year cut to 52; 2 years ago they cut to 65 tables after the first day). In the 1.5K LM pairs there were 29 tables that cut to 14 on day 2 (last year 64 tables cut to 36; 2 years ago they cut to 32 tables).

So any special reason for the drop? Is it just location and economy? Does the world championships in Philadelphia mean some folks aren't coming to New Orleans?

[paulg]

In Washington last year there were 83 teams in the Spingold.

My team, one of the few foreign teams that is completely amateur, cannot afford the time (half the team played the European Championships last month) and money to do both New Orleans and Philadelphia so we have chosen the latter.

But looking at the Washington list it is mainly the number of US teams that have dropped. The European professionals are largely the same, but it appears that a number of minor sponsors are not attending.

[H_KARLUK]

Hey y'all,

I have a little bit interesting observations about GNT. First of all i am indeed happy with the ACBL events. On the other hand i am a new guy at the town and most probably don't understand many things with their real reasonings.

For example, in my local club three times GNT teams organised where the attendance counts were satisfactory enough. To the first one we were unable to join because of weather conditions, but the second and third one won by my two different teams. Then i bought several good books when i attended regionals & sectionals to practice as i qualified to play. Surprisingly, many people said several reasons and avoided to play for next steps.

Let me try to clarify that 'several reasons' words :
1- Family & business matters,
2- Convinced each other that no chance to win for next steps,
3- Long distance

Well, for sure i cannot question free will. However, in my mind still don't get it. Personally, i enjoy to play bridge and i believe the amount to be there with present reasonable prices is no big deal.

I defend everything should come voluntarily by heart, anyways hoping to encourage more attendance how about to deduct fifty percent won GNT scores for people who did not run for the next first level?

Best,

Footnote : Just 0.08 silver points needed to raise NABC master level and i cannot wait next events. I know many people already reached 10.000+ GLM, congrats to them. This is my first year in USA and who knows if i can find time and energy i would be one of them. A very friendly atmosphere, i enjoy very much. Worths to each dime paid.

[peachy]

I think weather has something to do with it. Heat, humidity, and chance of tropical storms tend to put a damper to an average player's plans. I am merely guessing.

If New Orleans had nationals in the fall or spring, I am venturing a guess their table count would be relatively bigger. The only hot-weather tournament that always draws big crowds is Las Vegas, perhaps because everything is so cheap there and even if hot, it is not humid.

[awm]

As someone who usually attends the summer NABC and is skipping it this year, for me the important factors were:

(1) Worlds in Philly this fall. With limited money to spend traveling to bridge tournaments, I'd rather pick one of the two. World championships being held in North America is like a once-a-decade event, while there is a summer NABC every year. Not a tough choice.

(2) Location. If summer nationals were local to me, or in a very inexpensive city like Las Vegas or Reno, I'd be able to afford to attend both. If it was at a desirable vacation spot (say Hawaii) then I might burn some savings to go. But New Orleans in mid-summer is an unpleasant place to go (very hot and humid, and the oil spill puts a damp on the cuisine and beaches), and it's not super-cheap like the Nevada cities.

(3) Other Nationals. This year spring nationals were in Reno, and they had an exciting new event (the Platinum Pairs). This combination made the spring tournament hard to pass up (and I did actually go; I don't always go to spring nationals). Fall nationals were in San Diego (drivable for me, living in Los Angeles) and I went to those also. Both of these are pretty desirable locations (nice weather, cheap hotels in Reno). Having been to all of the last three nationals (including last summer in DC), I feel like I've played a lot of bridge and can afford to miss a tournament. If I'd skipped fall and spring nationals (which I often do when the location is less desirable) I'd be almost sure to go to summer.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps a little more thought being put into seasonal conditions would be a good thing.

The west coast seasons don't really matter. But Baltimore in the Winter, New Orleans in the Summer, etc. don't seem very sensible.

Toronto has ugly winters, but who cares? You can get anywhere underground --unless you live in Toronto .

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Jul 26 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Perhaps a little more thought being put into seasonal conditions would be a good thing.

The west coast seasons don't really matter. But Baltimore in the Winter, New Orleans in the Summer, etc. don't seem very sensible.

But, you get better rates in Baltimore in winter and New Orleans in summer.

[barmar]

Exactly. NABC's are almost always held during the less desirable season for a city, because rates are lower.

This is my 3rd NO NABC. One of them was fall (I'll never forget it, because a bunch of us went out together for a Thanksgiving dinner, and the restaurant ran out of turkey), the other was also summer.

[Bbradley62]

Anything has to be better than Winterpeg in November 1986ish.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Jul 26 2010, 11:50 PM, said:

Perhaps a little more thought being put into seasonal conditions would be a good thing.

The west coast seasons don't really matter. But Baltimore in the Winter, New Orleans in the Summer, etc. don't seem very sensible.

But venue and accommodation is cheapest in the least attractive season, I suppose.

[blackshoe]

Sure. I'm not sure though that it matters how cheap things are if people don't attend.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

Sure. I'm not sure though that it matters how cheap things are if people don't attend.

Organizations that are serious about studying these sorts of issues often use a technique known as conjoint analysis.

You generate a bunch of hypothetical examples that differ across multiple dimensions, present individuals with different pairs samples, and then ask them to rank whether they prefer Option 1 or Option Two.

For example, folks might get presented with the following choice

Which of the following Nationals would you prefer to attend?

Option 1
A July Nationals in New Orleans
The average plane ticket costs $X
The average room rate cost $Y
Sessions start at 10:AM and 2:00 PM
The event lasts for 8 days

Option 2
A November Nationals in Hawaii
The average plane ticket costs $X
The average room rate cost $Y
Sessions start at 10:AM and 7:00 PM
The event lasts for 11 days

1. A large number of participant each do a couple dozen paired comparisons
2. <<Something Something>>
3. Profit

I've never heard of the ACBL doing anything this sophisticated

[JoAnneM]

NABC's are scheduled 6-10 years in advance. I have been told that the number of venues available for 10 day commitments is very limited and expensive, hence scheduling in off season. Even the next Boston NABC has been moved to Rhode Island?? On a positive note the 2016 Reno NABC will be moved from the Grand Sierra to the Silver Legacy, which is downtown.

Usually the weather doesn't bother me. I arrive at the hotel, play bridge, then exit the hotel a week or so later to go home. lol

[jchiu]

Reasons

1. Time. There are so many places to visit and so little vacation time. For my 25 business days vacation, Mersin, Yokohama and Biarritz are higher on my list than about two thirds of nationals. This year, I will play USA1 Juniors in Philadelphia (and regret I cannot attend Mersin due to work committments that season).

2. Season. I know that I perform poorly when it is hot and humid outside, or confined in a hotel as a result.

3. Gulf disaster. Perhaps seafood options are limited. I likely cannot enjoy a proper dinner anyways as if the start times were 11.00 and 16.00.

4. Direct flights. I might fly Thursday or Friday around 16.30 and return Monday around 06.00 for both weekends if there were nonstop flights from SFO.

Not Really Reasons

1. Money. A recent short Bordeaux-Sofia-Varna trip probably cost the same as four NABCs. I likely drank one in wine alone. Most of the ACBL is much more affluent than they appear, and committees should notice this.

2. Events. People play against their peers at all three nationals. A new event is unlikely to skew this pattern.

[mycroft]

A common complaint from tournament organizers is "The hall says it can either rent to us for 200 people with minimal bar service for the whole weekend, or to a wedding for 400 with 5,6 times the bar tab for Saturday night only, and not staff the rest of the weekend - and we can charge more for the hall, too. Thanks, another time, maybe."

Face it - a bridge player takes up *much more room* than almost any other event attender (8 foot "centers", the ideal, means that each table takes 64 sq. ft, or one person takes 16 sq. ft. (plus a little bit for the director's tables, the hospitality/partnership desk, caddy positions, clock,...) And that is if every table is playing, which it almost always isn't.

Now remember that an NABC takes up an entire location (sometimes two) for *two* of those lucrative wedding reception weekends...

And yes, bridge players by and large are more affluent than they appear. And they got that way by complaining about every $0.50 raise in session fees...attendance is more inelastic to cost than one would believe without experience.

[TimG]

mycroft, on Jul 29 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

A common complaint from tournament organizers is "The hall says it can either rent to us for 200 people with minimal bar service for the whole weekend, or to a wedding for 400 with 5,6 times the bar tab for Saturday night only, and not staff the rest of the weekend - and we can charge more for the hall, too.  Thanks, another time, maybe."

Face it - a bridge player takes up *much more room* than almost any other event attender (8 foot "centers", the ideal, means that each table takes 64 sq. ft, or one person takes 16 sq. ft. (plus a little bit for the director's tables, the hospitality/partnership desk, caddy positions, clock,...) And that is if every table is playing, which it almost always isn't.

Convention space on the scale needed for an NABC is very different than that needed for a 400 guest wedding reception.

In some places, the fact that the tournament spreads over 3-4 days is a good thing even though the host might make the same amount of money on a single night for a different event. It's easier for them to be able to keep their employees when they can employ them regularly rather just one or two days a week. This also plays into the off-season rates. Host sites are happy to be able to keep their employees year-round rather than dealing with seasonal employees.

I believe that most ACBL regionals use 81 square feet/table as a rule of thumb for playing areas. At NABCs it is even higher, especially when screens are in use (though that is not often).

[JoAnneM]

A lot of this is based on hotel bookings. And talking about Regionals and NABC's is talking apples and oranges. I could write a whole paper about the financing and managing of Regionals, but have participated in only one NABC and that was as finance chair of the host committee. (Reno 2010)

There are two kinds of Regionals, the ones that are the profit makers for your District, that support your newspaper, GNT, education, etc - and then the small Regionals that the players insist on having, that make little or no money, and are actually carried by the larger ones.

If you have never seen an actual financial breakdown of the costs of one of these tournaments you might be surprised at where the money goes.

[Siegmund]

Quote

attendance is more inelastic to cost than one would believe without experience.

For NABCs and entry fees, it's certainly true. (Otherwise they'd never get away with what they charge!) If nothing else, the fees are small in comparison to the travel and lodging bill. For local players, the cost sensitivity can be quite high. NABCs and many regionals rely mostly on out-of-town players, while as tournaments get smaller, the proportion of locals gets larger.

Quote

There are two kinds of Regionals, the ones that are the profit makers for your District, that support your newspaper, GNT, education, etc - and then the small Regionals that the players insist on having, that make little or no money, and are actually carried by the larger ones.

The opposite of my experience. If it is true in District 20 they are blessed with some unusually favorable site rental conditions for their large regionals.

There are lots of small sites to choose from, and only a few larger ones. As a result, the cost of a large site is higher - often much higher - on a per-square-foot basis than a small site.

In District 19, Penticton is blessed with a particularly cheap large playing site (it rents an industrial-convention center, rather than a hotel ballroom) and can turn a profit on that one large tournament. Our next-largest regionals, Victoria and Seattle, struggle to break even because site rental is so expensive. Spokane and Yakima are much smaller events held on much more favorable terms. Anchorage is smaller still, and has unusually high director travel and lodging expense, and still turns a substantial profit every year, as do almost all our sectionals. (Or, putting it another way, we could run regionals in Spokane and Anchorage for $10 a session, but in Seattle we should charge $15. Instead we charge $13 everywhere, and make the small tournaments prop up the big ones.)

I've often questioned the "bigger is better!" attitude behind the planners of the NABCs. I would be a LOT happier to see almost all the regional-rated events dropped from the NABC schedule, and the NABCs shrunk down to fit into a reasonable regional-sized location. I know I am outvoted

[TimG]

Siegmund, on Jul 29 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

Quote

There are two kinds of Regionals, the ones that are the profit makers for your District, that support your newspaper, GNT, education, etc - and then the small Regionals that the players insist on having, that make little or no money, and are actually carried by the larger ones.

The opposite of my experience. If it is true in District 20 they are blessed with some unusually favorable site rental conditions for their large regionals.

There are lots of small sites to choose from, and only a few larger ones. As a result, the cost of a large site is higher - often much higher - on a per-square-foot basis than a small site.

It is the case in District 25 (New England) that the better attended regionals are the money makers and the less well attended regionals tend to lose money. But, no regional has been held in Boston in many years (it's probably been 15-20 years since one was right across the river in Cambridge) -- none of the regionals is held in the big cities.

I do not know how it works in other Districts, but District 25 seldom if ever pays directly for convention space. Contracts are made such that filling a certain room block and/or buying a certain amount of food from the host's food service results in no charge for the convention space.

District 25 is geographically small, even when a regional is held in an out of way spot like Portland, Maine, travel distances are shorter than in many of the geographically very large western districts. It is even smaller if you consider it from a population density standpoint with a large percentage of the membership located in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I do not know how it works in other Districts, but District 25 seldom if ever pays directly for convention space. Contracts are made such that filling a certain room block and/or buying a certain amount of food from the host's food service results in no charge for the convention space.

Congratulations on having much better luck at filling your room block than we seem to have in my corner of the world.

Discussion on improving the financial performance of the D19 regionals has recently turned to trying to get more pro teams to attend, solely because they are more likely than other attendees to stay in the host hotel for the week - with the idea that just a few extra such teams could fill up our room blocks.