Bad things happen but the number of times this is the case suggest to me that not enough attention is given to getting it right by the Competitions Department.

--panja

Inclusion in NGS would go a long way towards improving the risk-reward ratio of these events.

would it not be better that the result taken for NGS purposes was from the national result rather than the club result in a sim pairs ?

1) Does anyone know if any other counties are having similar issues around their qualifiers? It might be the size of Yorkshire and the number of qualifiers isn't helping.

2) Is it possible for counties to tweak the qualification method at all, they seem to be set down in the Corwen terms & conditions? Has there been any discussion about the same, which probably isn't a priority?

Secondly, and the main purpose of this discussion, is whether a change to the stratification system is needed. At the Year End Congress, the number of 'B'/'C' strat pairs and teams was very small relative to the size of the field. This in part reflects the rather unique circumstances of the event this year with it both being online but the first time in a while that families have been able to meet in person. However, it also reflects the success of the 'Jack High' and improver events that now attract players that might previously have filled some of those 'B' and 'C' strats.

Currently, all players who have been in congress bridge for a while (i.e. high masterpoint rank) or are relatively strong (Ace and above) are automatically placed in 'A' strat, which accounted for the vast majority of players at this congress (as you would expect for a national event in any other sport I suppose).

I am very much in favour of stratification and, if publicised in the right way, hopefully it gives the lower NGS players a target or a more useful comparison. However, it would be interesting to see how the 'A'/'B'/'C' ratio would differ if e.g. using just NGS (Ace+, King+, Queen-; or perhaps AD+, AC+, King-), using the average of pairs' NGSs instead of the higher of them etc. There won't be a perfect solution and it will always be contentious, but trying to have an equal split might be beneficial.

It would be a straight-forward list of congresses (potentially KOs / lockdown league too), with

• I've previously played in this
• I would / wouldn't play in this in future if it was f2f
• I would / wouldn't play in this in future if it was online
• I would / wouldn't play in this in future if it was hybrid (hybrid events, along with Sims to an extent, may be criticised if the SoF differs too much across sections)
• Given current venue, would you prefer f2f or online (if you've said you'd be willing to participate in either) - The fact that players are willing to play online doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer f2f, and of course vice versa
• Any other suggestions

This sort of process isn't entirely about changes seen by the pandemic, as there were already signs pre-pandemic that some of the focuses were in the wrong place.

(I start rambling again here... obviously just my opinion:)

As it stands, the only 2021 EBU events in person will have been the Premier League and trials, which are designed for the elite and attract a hefty admission fee as a result, along with Eastbourne which on its own can't be viewed as "member caution" (lack of accommodation and notice due to lockdown changes and the dilution of all mid-week events through separate sections elsewhere, let alone the already evident decline in attendance for reasons discussed elsewhere).

In my mind, we need to use the next 6 months, and in particular the YE Congress and the Easter Congress, experimentally. The YE Congress will be online and that will give some indication of likely online turnouts in future (although there may be some bias either through some not attending out of principle, or some attending knowing that future congresses will be in person; It's hard to say). The Easter Congress must then be entirely in person, and consider that turnout on its merit. A hybrid event may, in the short-run, turn out to be more profitable, but that's not the objective here, since f2f congresses come to life when we absolutely maximise the turnout; Having half a hall of people and half the people online leads to the feeling of playing in one lower-tier event that happens to be at the same time as another.

In the lead up to this we are running a number of short, free trial games.

This thread is to give an opportunity to those who have experienced it to give their feedback.

https://bridgewebs.com/cicba/

Briefly the Festival comprises:-
Sat 24 & Sun 25 12 x 8 Board Swiss Pairs
Mon 26 & Tue 27 Multiple Teams Qualifier and final
Wed 28 Championship (open) Pairs
Thu 29 Mixed Pairs
Fri 30 Senior Pairs
Sat 1 & Sun 2 9 x 8 Board Swiss Teams

We look forward to welcoming you in a virtual Jersey.

BBO now offers howell options for TDs who ask, but more importantly you can set a break between rounds if you want so that you could run 2-session events. The possibility of running swiss pairs events with 6 rounds or similar, with a break in the middle, is therefore distinctly more possible than it was and would I'm sure have the demand. We are very aware of the need to protect the EBU given its lower revenue, so offering this sort of event may at least keep players involved in EBU events during this time. Zoom seminars (only for those enrolled in the event) would potentially add to the face-to-face element that so many players are missing, and could be preceded by an open pairs or succeeded by a Speedball as you might have in a congress. The BBO server issues now seem to have been ironed out and the BBO costs would hopefully be lower, or at least not dissimilar, to a normal congress (understandably, the EBU would have to charge a lower fee to normal congresses to attract demand though).

Swiss teams will take longer to work out the logistics as BBO does not offer that as a feature in itself, but the teams league seems to still be gaining interest following the fee introduction.

If longer-round events are feasible, integrating Zoom to introduce a face-to-face aspect becomes more achievable. But having to set up a new meeting every round is still a bit of a barrier there.

I'm sure these suggestions are being made behind the scenes, with more counties running their own fortnightly pairs events and more virtual clubs appearing, but I'm yet to see any longer-format events (excluding perhaps the YC which has longer Howells than most on a Saturday) which might be of interest to some, if not many. I suppose the benefit of online games is that less notice is needed before starting up an event like this, so something perhaps to introduce on a rainy day. :)

The way I imagine it, clubs all over the country would run and promote the event, primarily for their own members but also allowing others to join in. It would be scored across the country, but each pairs' score would be reduced by the average of their NGS grades (we'd add on a constant to everyone's scores so that they are in the familiar range with an average of 50%). Master points and prizes would be awarded based only on the handicapped national result, and we could have a trophy for the overall winners. Obviously anyone playing in it would need to have a public NGS, at least for the period over which the event is played.

My questions are:

• If you are a club player who doesn't regularly play in EBU events, would this appeal to you?
• If you help run a club, would you be interested in running such an event for your members?
• Do you think such an event should be a single session, a double sesssion, or something in between?
• Do you think this would be best on a Sunday (which is when we run our other national one-day multi-venue events), or some other day of the week?

• A mixed pairs/teams congress
• An expansion of the Jack High concept to have higher or lower limits, such as King High or Seven High

When it comes to Seniors congresses, we have three that are close to each other in the summer and a further one in the autumn.

Summer Seniors at the start of July in Eastbourne.
Seniors Congress in the Summer Meeting at the start of August in Eastbourne.
Seniors events at the Scarborough Congress at the end of July.
Summer Seniors at the start of November in Daventry.

Clearly we should reschedule the summer ones in some way. We could:

• Amalgamate the two Eastbourne Seniors congresses so that we just have the one that is part of the Summer Meeting. This would have obvious cost benefits as well as revitalising the mid-week schedule. I intend to consult the players from those events to see whether they think this is a good idea.
• Alternatively we could reschedule the standalone Eastbourne Seniors to a different time of year.
• We could try to move the Scarborough Seniors to a different time of year, though it was introduced fairly recently in response to specific requests for seniors events in the North.

What was not pointed out (I think) was that the Summer Meeting at Brighton had been in decline for a number of years and was not sustainable at the Metropole, we had looked for other venues there but found nothing suitable that was affordable, and so we had the choice of relocating or discontinuing the event. At that time we did an extensive survey of those who had formerly played at Brighton but then stopped, to find out the reasons for this and found the following reasons repeatedly cited:

• Hotels and restaurants too expensive
• Parking and driving difficult
• Unpleasant atmosphere on the seafront at the end of evening sessions

One further request that was made was that even if the Summer Meeting could not return there, perhaps we could consider holding another event there instead. This is now being considered.

I think the way forward for Eastbourne is -

• No Seniors Congress running alongside.
• Midweek events lasting a day or two, not single-session stuff.
• Pairs events at the start of the week, Teams events at the end of the week. That way, it's very easy for a pair to decide to stay for the event after the Harold Poster, or for a team to decide to turn up for the event before the Four Stars.

Something like this:

First Weekend - Harold Poster

Sunday evening+Monday - Three-session IMP pairs with qualifier/semi-final/final (all-play-all). Monday evening consolation final could be IMPs with overtricks not counting, ~6 minutes per board.

Tuesday - Barometered pairs, perhaps.

Wednesday-Friday afternoon - A major teams event (hopefully).

• Day 1 = six groups, seeded, you play a round-robin within your group. Top two qualify from each group.
• Day 2 = Qualifiers play two knockout matches, playing down to three remaining teams. Meanwhile, the non-qualifiers play a swiss; this serves both as a consolation event, and, for the leader at the appropriate point, a way into the semi-finals of the main event. The day finishes with the semi-finals and the conclusion of the consolation swiss.
• Day 3 = Final of the teams (32 boards). Non-qualifiers, and new arrivals, play a BAM.

Second Weekend - Four Stars.

In theory I'd like to find room for a Patton-scored Swiss Teams in there somewhere, but I think it would be better to try this out elsewhere first.

Thoughts?

Proposed times for Eastbourne Summer Meeting 2020
Each weekend:
Friday      7:00pm – 10:30pm    Swiss Pairs/Teams, session 1 (3 matches)
                No staggered start
                11:00pm     Late-night Speedball Pairs 
Saturday    10:00am     Discuss it with an expert (?)
                11:00am – 2:15pm    Swiss Pairs/Teams, session 2 (3 matches) 
                3:15pm  –  7:45pm   Swiss Pairs/Teams, session 3 (4 matches)
                10:00pm             Speedball Teams (first weekend)
Sunday      10:00am     Discuss it with an expert
                11:00am – 7:10pm    Four* Teams final (second weekend, top 16 teams)
                11:00am – 3:30pm    Swiss Pairs/Teams, session 4 (4 matches) 
                7:00pm              Open Pairs and Open Teams (first Sunday)

Midweek evening events to start at 7:00pm, no early bird sessions.

Of those who expressed a view on a feedback form, nearly 80% were in favour of this change.

Another made the point that as our events have become smaller, so too have they become stronger. He said that whereas he would in the past have expected to come in the middle of the field, nowadays that is much harder to achieve. The term "cannon fodder" was used by more than one person from the floor.