In which we are not worried about Bigle X

I have to admit that I’m not particularly wrapped up in Bigle X. I mean, it’s CP’s own tournament, for Pete’s sake. If he can’t figure out tabroom.com, who can? Plus I’m doing PF, which at Lex simply means keeping an eye on Averill as he pushes the paper ballots, and if it’s anything like Newark, holding the hands of the poor non-tech parent judges who need to realize that the 20th Century has come and gone and pretty much everybody nowadays not only has their very own portable personal computer but that many of them even know how to use it. I’ll be working with Matt Hoyle again, so this should be as easy as the proverbial cake. Or a piece of pie. Or something like that.

Instead, I’ve been marveling over the Gem of Harlem, which still wants for confirmed roomage. I’ve probably said this before, but having the rooms set before the tournament is way preferable to waiting till after the awards ceremony. We’re pretty good with judges, though, except maybe in VLD, where we’ve got enough to cover the necessary tab overage but that’s about it. With all the whining about LD judges these days, the idea that people don’t bring their own personally trained army of alums is beyond me. I had someone tell me over the weekend that they don’t bring alums because they can’t afford it, which is interesting insofar as, instead, they hire, at outrageous rates. Something’s wrong with this picture. A big issue with the Gem at the moment is if we can squeeze in 3 single flights of PF on Friday night. The rooms are there, but not the judges. But if we could make it happen, Saturday will be better for everyone. In the words of the prophet, they’re working on it.

I hope you’ve been reading the pieces on tournament management that I’ve been forcing down the NDCA’s throat. I hate to admit it, but I seem to be heading toward something of a complete manual on the subject. For them, the next installment is best practices, maybe, but at the moment I’m a bit intrigued by conflicts, as in, what comprises them. That we often don’t learn about them until the pairings are released is not so much the issue (although it does make one grit one’s grinders) as whether this, that or the other truly qualifies. I’ve always maintained that many conflicts are not so much real as perceived; if someone coached at school X a hundred years ago, are they still biased? For that matter, were they ever? I would suggest that in a potentially biased situation most people bend over backwards to be fair, and if anything, the bias is against their own ex-school. Which would still, of course, count as a conflict, only totally inside out from the expectation. Whatever. The thing is, a standard list of conflicts that everyone could follow would be a good idea for the community at large. That’s what I’d like to come up with.