A few things about ACF Fall-- First, kudos to Chicago -- they trounced us twice (and our B team even worse). I thought the questions were, in fact, more readily accessible to less experienced players, and therefore achieved that goal, so kudos to Kelly and his staff for that. Now that I've gotten the obligatory congrats out of the way, here are my complaints: 1. The reading (with the exception of Brent, who did a very nice job and was even animated and fun to listen to) was awful. People read like their tongues were too large, and stumbled over every other word, all the while taking WAAYYYYYY too long to read the questions and often not caring at all about timing. 2. What was with the same things coming up 2-3 times in one tourney?! For ACF, this seems an indiscretion caused by the hasty putting together of the Fall Tourneys. I hope that this is a problem cleared up in later years, as 1 question about Sucre is enough per tourney, let alone 2,3, 47 or how many ever I heard yesterday. 3. Lastly, this tournament further confirms my feeling that ACF is overdue in having a couple divisions, and not just one. This tournament was supposed to be accessible to younger players, and it was. However, it was MORE accessible to more experienced players, whose trouncings now get even worse, and perhaps harder to handle. I got to see how my newbies would handle competition on questions better for them and so it was beneficial in the end, but a 2-26 record between the teams (the only 2 wins over THE OTHER DPU TEAM) still says something -- both about our team and about the tournament. Indifferent to ACF in Indiana, Stan Jastrzebski
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST