BB versus VC versus SB

[mrdct]

In a recent posting to a different thread I made what turned out to be quite an infamatory comment that "ladies ... events are an embarrassment for a mind-sport such as bridge". This was misinterpreted by some and serious offence was taken by a few for which I regret.

 

As some may now have worked out, I have a very similar perspective to Patapon on this matter that in essence the existence of female-only events is not good for the improvment in skill of female players or partnerships.

 

Fluffy also makes some telling observations of the real-life adverse effects of running female-only events.

 

I also believe holding female-only events is not good for the image of the game as it conveys a message that females aren't able to effectively compete with males in a mind-sport where gender ought not make any difference to a person's capacity to be a good bridge player.

 

As far as I know there was only one female player in the Bermuda Bowl this year, Pauline Gumby from Australia. In her partnership with Warren Lazer she played a key role in getting Australia into the quarter-finals, finishing a credible 13th in the datums. Whilst I haven't been keeping close tabs on Pauline's bridge career, she was fixture on Australian ladies teams throughout the early 80s and, indeed, had a win and few placings in the PABF Championships. Pauline more-or-less stopped playing in ladies events in the mid-80s and concentrated on open bridge and along the way has collected plenty of national titles and earned selection to the Australian open team twice.

 

As the feminist I am, I encourage my sisters all over the world to break the bondage of stagnant female partnerships and contest open events. But if some still prefer to play in female-only events for whatever reason, that's OK too.

[muggle]

I also believe holding female-only events is not good for the image of the game as it conveys a message that females aren't able to effectively compete with males in a mind-sport where gender ought not make any difference to a person's capacity to be a good bridge player.

 

Except it is the harsh truth for every mind-event in the world, from poker, to math, to video games. It is a hard fact that goes way beyond cultural sexism or expectations. If anyone, male or female, is naturally talented at an activity they will naturally strive to excel.

 

I've heard 2 biological explanations that make sense to me:

 

1) Men focus, women multitask (I know someone quoted this from Auken/Armin book). I saw this demonstrated a science documentary many years ago. They had test subjects listen to multiple voices at the same time. Men could pick out a single voice, whereas women could not. This was attributed to back during our hunter/gatherer days, where men had to focus and ignore all distractions to hunt, while women did work around the 'homestead' but were also always subconsciously listening for their children.

 

2) Women's intelligence profile are more centered around the norm (higher and narrow peak), men's are flatter and more spread. I read this as the explanation of why girls do better in school than boys, even after correcting for girls being better behaved. Boys having a flatter and wider IQ profile means more boys are at both the extreme high end and extreme low.

 

 

 

I'm not expert on this, or bridge, so maybe I'm repeating nonsense. Feel free to correct me.

[Mbodell]

I've heard 2 biological explanations that make sense to me:

 

...

 

2) Women's intelligence profile are more centered around the norm (higher and narrow peak), men's are flatter and more spread. I read this as the explanation of why girls do better in school than boys, even after correcting for girls being better behaved. Boys having a flatter and wider IQ profile means more boys are at both the extreme high end and extreme low.

 

I'm not expert on this, or bridge too, so maybe I'm repeating nonsense. Feel free to correct me.

That is the expected biological explanation from evolutionary biology for just about anything M/F. Since F pay more cost for young and since F have a closer to constant number of children (largely due to duration of time of pregnancy and child raising between pregnancies) while M in many species have a very wide variety of number of young (usually the alpha M gets many, many while most M get none) it means that your best "strategy" for off spring is that if you can have an exceptional young, have a M. If you can't, have a F. Therefore managing to correlate high variance (both +ve and -ve) with M-ness is a good successful strategy (no matter how you pull it off).

 

I like evolutionary biology. I think it explains far more than most people are aware. But IMO when applied to humans in an activity like bridge I'm far from convinced that the explanation I've outlined above is correct.

[Radrag]

Here is how I think about it:

 

There is a small (less than 10) group of elite pairs in the world. If these pairs play their best then the only pairs that will normally beat them are other elite pairs.

...

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Who are these half dozens pairs?

 

Meckwell

Helgemo-Helness

Balicki-Zmudzinski

Laria-Versace

Duboin-Bocchi

Zia-Rosenberg

 

Are Martelsby still there?

Will Hamway recover?

[helene_t]

I've heard 2 biological explanations that make sense to me:

 

1) Men focus, women multitask (I know someone quoted this from Auken/Armin book). I saw this demonstrated a science documentary many years ago. They had test subjects listen to multiple voices at the same time. Men could pick out a single voice, whereas women could not. [....]

2) Women's intelligence profile are more centered around the norm (higher and narrow peak), men's are flatter and more spread. [...]

2) is a well-known fact. Mbodell explains why it must be true. Btw the evolutionary explanation might account for part of the "nurture" component as well. Baboo mothers have been observed to devote more resources to male young than to female young. More specifically, it would make sense if parents encouraged risk-taking in boys and risk-aversion in girls. I don't know if such a difference has been documented but it would surpise me if it has not.

 

1) may be relevant as well but I'm not sure. Bridge strikes me as an extremly multi-diciplinary activity. Suppose that women tend to be better at counting and at empatising with partner, while men tend to be better at creating mental images of possible card layouts and plays. Those factors might cancel out. They might not. I would expect men to be inherently better at chess, though, where the creation and analysis of mental images of future layouts is a key ability.

[hotShot]

I don't think that there is a biological reason and I wonder why females suggest that it is that way.

 

I think it's more of an educational and statistical thing.

Boys are educated to search for competition and participate in it. Girls are usually not educated that way.

If you look at the male/female ration in your local club you will probably have a balanced ration. Then take a look at the subset who plays at regional events, you will probably find that the ratio changes. May women are not interested in playing outside of the club, even if they are competitive.

 

As a result the pool of players that are interested in competitions contains much more men than women. Usually the number of top players grows with the pool from which they are selected.

To form a strong pair you need two good player and they have to build up a lot of partnership experience. But the pool of female players is smaller. It's much harder for them to find a good female partner or if they don't live in the same area, they won't be able to play enough.