17)Review of chess activity in Ontario and proposed activity for the next fiscal year

[Rob Clark]

I like your idea and I'l think about it a bit but one thing I have to mention. I'm not sure what happened with the bid last year. We (NOCL) were told that it was our year and I checked with the organizers who said that they were expecting it in 2012 as they had been told in the past. It got kicked back to the OCA with a come again next year note and SWOCL picked it up. I'm sorry to hear that you missed on a bid opportunity.

[Bob Gillanders]

I always thought of the rotation as SWOCL-EOCA-GTCL, and NOCL squeezes in when it works for them.

Yes, keep it nice, simple, and friendly.

[Rob Clark]

Actually Aris, I really like your idea. It certainly sounds fair and I'm all for it!

[Christopher Mallon]

Anyway, how about the following idea? We order the 4 leagues in some starting order (for example, EOCA-GTCL-SWOCL-NOCL, the reverse order of the last 4 years). Then we always default to that rotation. If the next league up does not accept by August 1st, then we just continue along that rotation. The second league up would have until September 1st, the third until October 1st, the fourth until November 1st. If we ever get to this point, we open bid until December 1st, and if nothing, cancel the open that year.

The main issue I see with this idea is that it could preclude an event planned well in advance. Say SWOCL's next turn is in 2015 and I start planning a big event... but then in 2014 GTCL backs out for whatever reason, now SWOCL is told bid for 2014 or lose your turn completely. That's not really fair either, plus it will potentially reduce the quality of events.

[Aris Marghetis]

I am going to agree with Aris. EOCA should be hosting the Ontario Open in 2013.

Way back in 2007, NOCL indicated they did not want to host it again until 2012, even though they were eligible to host in 2011. SWOCL did step forward in 2011 to host it, but in my mind anyway, I considered it as just us taking our next rotation a bit early.

Bob et al, thanks for your support, for my "cook now or get out of the kitchen" idea!

OK, so ignore my procedural ignorance, but when and where do we propose it? I would be happy to help write/review it.

P.S. to Chris: to cover your long-plan-of-big-event point, how about we leave the door open for a special motion. For example, any region could file a motion saying that they would like to reserve year XXXX, and in exchange, skip their next spot in the rotation. I really do not expect this would happen for an Ontario Open, but we are covered anyway.

[Rob Clark]

It seems it would be possible to determine a system in which if a league is planning a large event they make their intention known well in advance at the AGM. Thus taking themselves out of the selection process.

Additionally, I wonder if Aris would mind if we went for the current system (with the locked in leagues) if it started with the EOCA as would seem more appropriate with Bob's comment.

[Aris Marghetis]

It seems it would be possible to determine a system in which if a league is planning a large event they make their intention known well in advance at the AGM. Thus taking themselves out of the selection process.

Additionally, I wonder if Aris would mind if we went for the current system (with the locked in leagues) if it started with the EOCA as would seem more appropriate with Bob's comment.

Rob, I do not disagree, however, we even do not all seem to be in complete sync about what the current system fully is, and I strongly encourage a seamless process where NOCL could occasionally skip their turn, which is kind of what happens (does NOCL find 4 years to soon?) Also, the new process should avoid the trappings of the NOCL-SWOCL scramble that occurred last year, that not everyone (inc. EOCA) was even aware of.

[Rob Clark]

I do like your idea but the more I think about it the more I see a couple potential problems. I don't think NOCL would find 4 years too soon. I'll talk to their president about it. To be honest I'm just a fan of the keep it simple philosophy. I just worry that the order can become confusing after a league has a year locked in, what would the order return to after that? What if two leagues have years locked in and then a league defers. The order could get messy. Additionally I don't want the organizers of a tournament who say work out of town to have to scramble to put the event together or else risk losing it, a month is actually a very short period of time to put together a large event.

I really like the fact that there is a system in place to determine who gets the bid after it is initially turned down by a certain league but am not finding a way to combine the two. Especially with the OCA, where participation can at times be sketchy, I think simple is the best policy. But I think you're right the NOCL-SWOCL scramble should try to be prevented.

[Christopher Mallon]

What about a simple modification to Aris's idea?

We go on the regular rotation. If a bid is not received by a certain date from the league whose turn it is, then it opens up to anyone in the province (including the original league) to bid. That saves potentially months of asking this league and then that league and then that league...

The rotation continues normally no matter what the result of each individual year is.

[Aris Marghetis]

What about a simple modification to Aris's idea?

We go on the regular rotation. If a bid is not received by a certain date from the league whose turn it is, then it opens up to anyone in the province (including the original league) to bid. That saves potentially months of asking this league and then that league and then that league...

The rotation continues normally no matter what the result of each individual year is.

OK, but that brings up 2 concerns for me :

1) If a league declines, with your open bid idea, there would be a 67% chance of the same region holding the Ontario Open 2 years in a row (either with last or next year).

2) We kind of attempted the open bid last year, but the EOCA never heard about it before SWOCL won it. I do not know if GTCL went through anything similar. With our established Regional VPs, it should be pretty straightforward to cycle through the leagues. In any case, the odds will be astronomically low that more than one league (and would it ever be anyone other than NOCL) would decline. Therefore, I am reticent to set up a process that overy emphasizes the lowest-chance-of-occurrence scenario?

P.S. If a league passes on their bid, then I would definitely exclude them from any more bidding that year. Regardless, a bid will be set over 6 MONTHS before the actual event!