The 1981/2 Bridge season is gradually drawing to an end. The A.G.M. is to be held on Friday 7th May. If you can attend, then please come along-: the AGM does not only close the season but also starts the next. The shape of next year's Bridge will be somewhat decided on what is done at the A.G.M. If you have something to say, the A.G.M. is the place to say it.

On behalf of the players I would like to thank the officers of the SCBA for their work this season. This has been my first season and it has given me a chance to see "behind the scenes". It is amazing how much work is done, and I think few people actually appreciate the long hours and effort done by the few to please the many.

Next season, try to do something to help the County: get some friends to join if they are not already members; support as many events as you can; and come along to the A.G.M.

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 1982

Notice is hereby given that the Annual General Meeting will be held at Stafford Bridge Club on Friday 7th May 1982 at 7.00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the 1981 A.G.M.
3. Matters arising
4. Secretary's report
5. Treasurer's report
6. Captain's re-port
7. Chairman's report
8. Presentation of Trophies and. Prizes
9. Election of Officers

   	Chairman
   	Vice-Chairman Secretary
   	Minuting Secretary
   	Treasurer
   	Subs. Treasurer
   	Captain
   	Bulletin Editor
   	Master Points Secretary
   	E.B.U. Representative
   	League Secretary
   	Results Secretary
   	Tournament Secretary
   	Auditor
   Nominations to the Secretary at 9, The Meadows, Salt at least seven days before the A.G.M.

10. Annual Subscriptions It is proposed "That the 1982-83 subscriptions and subsequent subscriptions shall be single £3 E.B.U. Plus £2 County, to total £5. Married Couples £6 E.B.U. plus £3.50 to County, to total £9.50
11. Life Membership It is proposed "That John Hudson shall be elected the first life member of the Staffordshire C.B.A. with full facilities of the County available to him and his wife."
12. Any Other Business

TREASURER'S REPORT (Bob Beech.)

For several years now the financially observant amongst you will have noticed that missing from the annual accounts of the SCBA as been an item in respect of insurance charges. Your County Committee has indicated its wish that the practice insuring its valuable trophies be recommenced without delay. To do this it will be necessary for them to be properly valued and I have been asked to make the necessary arrangements.

1. To avoid delay in the distribution of the trophies at the A.G.M. will ALL PRESENT TROPHY HOLDERS contact me as soon as possible to arrange for the valuation of the trophies.
2. In the interest of saving SCBA funds will any member competent in the valuation of trophies (or who has a friend who is) please contact me.
3. The individual and mixed Pairs Trophies have been missing for three years and the Staffordshire Cup for one year. If anybody knows where they are, please arrange for them to be returned if possible or contact me if not.

Now the good news. The final accounts for the year 1981/2 will show a small surplus, leaving an overall balance in the Building Society and Bank of about £1000 at the year end.

Followed by the bad news. I estimate that next year unless income is increased, we are likely to have a deficit of between £100 and £200. Your Committee's remedy:

1. Increase in registration and table money at the Winter and Summer Pairs by 10p (increase in revenue estimated at £50.)
2. Increase in Championship Event table money by 25p, i.e. 10p to SCBA, 15p to cost of tea (increase in SCBA revenue estimated at £15).
3. Increase in Staffs.Cup 'winning match fee' from £1 to £2 (increase in revenue estimated at £20)
4. Subject to approval at the AGM increase in annual subscription by 50p (increase in revenue estimated at £100).

Final Accounts will be distributed at the AGM on Friday 7th May 1982.

THE LEAGUE ORGANISERS' DILEMMA (Ian Pendlebury)

The problem:
A new team, of good first division standard joins a bridge league. The league organisers would like to include this team in the first division; however, no first division teams have left the league.

The available choices appear to be:

• either Replace an existing first division team with the new team (not recommended)
• or Include the new team in the lowest division (the normal practice).

Is there a better solution? If so, what is it?

Notes on the league organisation:

1. There are currently three divisions with eight teams in each division.
2. Each team plays seven matches on a monthly basis, starting in September and finishing in March.
3. Teams are promoted/relegated on a two-up/two-down basis.

Solution of the League Organisers' Dilemma

The suggested solution is based on observations of the Staffordshire County Teams of Four League, and is as follows:

1. Increase the number of teams in the first division from eight to ten. The two extra teams will be the new team plus another suitable team.
2. The nine matches played by each team will start in September and finish in May.
3. At the end of the season the bottom four teams will be relegated to division two, but only two teams will be promoted from division two. A similar process will occur in the second division in the following season.

This solution will give rise to queries, some of which are dealt with in the following question and answer session.

• (Q1) What is wrong with the current system, which requires such a major change?
• (A1) Two examples should suffice to demonstrate why a change is required. Last season one of the best teams in the County was effectively relegated to the third division. The league championship has thus been devalued for two seasons by the absence of this team from the first division.

The second example comes from this season's third division. In the August Bulletin it was stated that "The third division provides opposition of only modest ability". Unfortunately the reality is somewhat different. The eight teams in the current third division include two teams of first division standard and two teams of good second division standard. As would be expected, far too many of the matches have been one-sided affairs, providing minimal enjoyment for either team. Another by-product of this situation is that two of the better teams will fail to achieve promotion. This type of situation may discourage new inexperienced teams from joining the league or existing teams from rejoining.

• (Q2) Will a ten team division be manageable?
• (A2) Yes. The Manchester league is based on divisions containing ten teams. This league runs very satisfactorily considering only one or two matches are played before Christmas, the league programme normally being completed by the end of May. If the County league is required to finish in April instead of May, then the five matches to he played in May could be re-scheduled for earlier in the season.
• (Q3) Surely it is excessive and unprecedented to relegate four teams out of ten!
• (A3) No. Again using the Manchester league as an example, four teams are relegated from the first division at the end of a season. In the County league, under the current system the top six teams will remain in the first division and the bottom two will be relegated. In the suggested ten team system the top six will remain and the bottom four will be relegated. Thus in either case, the best six teams will remain in the first division.
• (Q4) Why choose ten teams instead of nine?
• (A4) The projected scheme will work equally well with nine teams. However the scheduled matches would still need nine months for completion, with each team having one month without a match. Hence any division could have eight, nine or ten teams depending on the prevailing situation.
• (Q5) Would the new system affect the way the County league advertises for new teams?
• (A5) Yes. New teams would be more likely to join the league, if they were to be included in a division which matched their abilities.

Reply to Ian's article by Les Meredith (League Secretary)

With regard to the topic of introducing a new team of high standard straight into the First Division. Your suggestions for the organisation are very interesting; however the problem is not the organisation but deciding on the selection criteria. The problems are:

1. A team being introduced into the first division would cause disaffection amongst the teams in the second division who had just missed promotion.
2. If the new team is included in the first division and are relegated - the system is in disrepute. This would be probable if one pair have to withdraw - leaving the district, illness.
3. If the team is relegated after a few seasons, they may disband because they consider they are too good for the lower division (supported by the committee's initial decision).
4. A further point is what effect would it have on other teams who have come up through the lower divisions. I know some would consider resignation.
5. A final point is that if a team such as Bob Beech's is willing to start in the lowest division, I cannot see any reason for giving privileged treatment to another team. It would also be an insult to his team.

All these suppositions assume that the committee would be brave enough to say that a team (unproved in the County) is better than several others.

ONCOMING EVENTS

RESULTS

Mixed Pairs:
1. A. Mallett + Mrs S. Anslow    2. A. Bloxham + Mrs M. Rowley    3. R. Stubbs + M. Swale

Staffs. Cup Semi-final:
Beech beat Slyde          Harris beat Riley

CLUB SCENE

Tettenhall Bridge Club

A series of Winter competitions, including championship events, have proved immensely popular. Results are:

THE ADVENTURES OF MUGGINS AND THE IMPRECISION CLUB Natural Versus Scientific - a Muggins Exposé Roy Martin

Fervent Acolists and other adherents of the natural methods of bidding often criticise one club systems because of their complexity. They point to the disasters which occasionally occur, when one partner forgets the meaning of one or more convention bids, as proof that simple is best. Yes! Yes! So perhaps with me 'occasionally' is the wrong adverb; all right! all right! So a better adverb would be 'frequently'. The point these purists miss is that complexity is fun.

So you naturalists play good steady bridge and pick up your prize money each week to prove it; but do you have as much fun as me? W....ll yes, it is fun to win and it is pleasant to be on top all the time, but surely all that success gets boring after a time? It doesn't? Oh! Anyway I like Imprecision so ya boo to you.

Walking along a dimly lit street towards the Bridge Club one night I noticed the moon was shimmering with a particularly peculiar blue haze; 'Must be playing with the Welsh Pedlar tonight" Sure enough at two minutes past starting time he arrived.
'Conglomerate major suit raises' he greeted me.
'Pardon', said I.
'I don't think you're ready for them yet' he replied, and after a quick glance at his cards, 'Two Diamonds'.

I patiently explain to our opponents that that means he hasn't got diamonds and the evening has begun. 28 boards of fun and excitement later the following hand appears.

Opponents have requested that we don't alert, which is perhaps just as well since the interpretation is as follows:

Our opponents had a bemused, glazed look in their eyes. "Have you finished?" one asked.
"Your lead", I replied with a confidence I didn't feel.
She led a small club from J82 and 12 tricks rolled in for a 'well deserved' top.

Would you natural bidders have got to such a good slam in a Moysian fit? One Club systems are very accurate you know, and of them all Imprecision is the most fun to play.

That's all for this season. Next Bulletin is AUGUST. Contributions by July 10th Please. May I take this opportunity to thank all the contributors over the last year and I look forward to your continued contributions next year.

Editor: Les Kendall, Oldbury Street, Wednesbury, West Midlands.